Media Goes Full PANIC MODE As New Evidence Emerges Against Joe Biden, Democrats CANT Defend Him
Media Goes Full PANIC MODE As New Evidence Emerges Against Joe Biden, Democrats CANT Defend Him. New Evidence emerged against Joe Biden corroborating the claims made by tara Reade and the establishment media is desperately trying to hold them back.While CNN and other Democrat allies have stated this story is mostly in conservative circles they ignore all the progressives who oppose Biden as well calling him out over this story.But it might not be all bad, Democrats need a reason to can Biden at a moments notice. With this they could easily swap him out and cite the allegations as their reason for choosing a candidate who was not elected in the primary process.What will happen in November's 2020 election is anyone's guess. The allegations may cause serious harm to the Democrats but so long as Joe Biden is kept hidden away perhaps they will benefit from not being seen. So long as Biden is hidden he can't gaffe
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I think any rational person can look at Joe Biden and realize his mental health is declining to the point where he probably can't be president.
Of course, there are people that are desperate and hate Trump so much they'll do anything in their power to defend the guy.
But come on, any honest person knows Joe Biden is just getting worse and worse every day.
This is an old article, but I want to show as an example.
Democrats and their media allies impugned Biden's cognitive fitness.
Now they feign outrage.
I think Joe Biden was a placeholder.
A lot of people have said something like this.
They wanted to stop Bernie Sanders.
They needed someone with moderate mainstream appeal, and Joe Biden brings back memories of Obama, and it worked.
They beat Bernie Sanders.
But Joe Biden can't win.
The guy can't actually go up against Donald Trump, so what do they do?
Well, right now, Joe Biden is facing some pretty serious allegations from a woman named Tara Reid, and new evidence has emerged that corroborates her claims more so than many stories we've heard in the past.
Many of these media personalities and activists, people like Alyssa Milano, railed hard against Brett Kavanaugh.
People demanded an investigation, a full investigation, and Senate hearings about what Brett Kavanaugh may have done 30 years ago.
Today with Joe Biden, the media has done everything in their power to protect him.
And the only thing I can really say is, you reap what you have sown.
These are the rules you wanted that you will be held to.
I mean, Joe Biden himself made statements about believing women.
Now here you go.
This is what you get.
A bunch of weird things have happened.
The New York Times wrote a story where ultimately they turned it on Trump and said, yeah, but what about Trump?
They even apparently removed a section of the story at the behest or because of the Biden campaign.
In a follow-up story, apparently they said something to the effect of, the Biden campaign thought our language was confusing, so we removed some portions of it.
Why would they do that for the campaign?
I don't know.
But it really does seem like now, with new evidence emerging, there's nothing they can do.
These stories, these desperate attempts are falling apart and even Alyssa Milano is changing her tune.
You can't protect the guy.
The evidence against him is mounting.
A neighbor of this woman remembers talking to her about it and has corroborated the story.
Now, that's not enough for me.
I'll be honest.
I don't like 30-year-old allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
I don't like them against Joe Biden.
But if Joe Biden wants this to be the standard, I have no problem saying, well, then, hey, live by the sword, die by the sword, right?
I think it's fair to say we shouldn't actually hold these allegations against Joe Biden.
Now, I know a lot of people are going to get mad, particularly on the left, saying we should.
It's 30 years ago, man.
We have no hard evidence, and this is a person who previously supported Bernie Sanders, who's now coming out against Biden at an opportune moment.
While I'm not trying to impugn the integrity of Tara Reach, he certainly has corroborating evidence, I just think we play dangerous games in politics, and we can't... What are we supposed to do with this?
But let's be real.
They set the double standard.
So the real issue right now is the desperate attempt by media and Democrats to protect Joe Biden and how it's falling apart.
Now, I got to point out, this may actually be a really, really good thing for the Democrats.
Of course, there are a lot of people who feel a certain catharsis seeing the facade shatter.
Melissa Milano has no choice but to come out now and say, I support, you know, Tara Reid.
She should be heard.
But the reality is the Democrats are in desperate need of an out.
They need someone else to come into the race to beat Trump.
And it ain't Biden.
But how can they get rid of him?
They need an excuse.
Well, I think this is rather opportune for them.
I don't know if they'll actually switch the guy out, but some people are speculating that because of the allegations and the mounting evidence, they may actually have no choice.
But not necessarily no choice.
They might have the opportunity to say, Oh, no.
Oh, well, you know, we tried to defend the guy.
We got criticized for defending him.
Guess we got to get somebody different.
And that's how they can choose a nominee bypassing the entire democratic process.
Is there perhaps a nominee that couldn't have beaten Bernie Sanders or any of the other more progressive candidates?
I don't know.
Maybe it was Joe Biden.
Maybe there's somebody they really want to run or wants to run that knows they wouldn't win the primary process or didn't want to even bother with it.
Now they can swap out Biden and put in whoever they want.
I'm not saying it's going to happen.
I don't know for sure.
Well, let's take a look at some of these stories.
I want to show you how the media is desperately attempting to protect Biden and how the defense is completely collapsing.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is just share this video.
Now I'm not going to act like I'm perfect.
I know a lot of people consider me biased and all that stuff, and you are allowed to.
Please critique me.
I only ask that you watch my opinion, understand these are my true feelings, I don't write scripts about this, this is literally what I think, and if you disagree with me and you don't like what I do, then please watch other people too, but watch as much as you can.
If you hate my guts, watch it, and then tell me you hate me, that's fine.
I just hope that you actually take into consideration what I'm telling you.
And by sharing this video, not only do you help my channel grow, if you hate me then you don't have to do it, but you help other people get a different perspective.
Now if you want to get more videos like this, hit the like button, the subscribe button, the notification bell.
Hopefully that's enough for YouTube, but we'll see how things play out.
Take a look at this story from the Washington Post.
They say Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden.
I gotta say, this was bold of the Washington Post because it's not their original title.
The original title was, developments in allegations against Biden amplify efforts to question his behavior.
Now, even that title was kind of weak, in my opinion.
What do you mean, amplify efforts to question his behavior?
We've questioned his behavior for a long time.
Not only have we challenged his mental ability, but even people from progressive left-wing outlets have called out the fact that he's really creepy when he's, like, rubbing women and sniffing their hair and things like that, and he had to apologize for it.
When you then tell me that a woman is accusing him, I say, yeah, well, I believe it.
There is a pattern of behavior here.
So how about the Washington Post write a story where they say new evidence emerges impugning the integrity of Joe Biden or corroborating the allegations against him?
Instead, they make it seem like it's just Trump allies who are doing this.
Well, of course, if you live in a world where only conservatives will challenge Joe Biden, then fine, you can go ahead and believe that.
But the facade is cracking.
I'm going to come back to the story, but I'll show it real quick.
Why Joe Biden needs to personally address Tariq's allegation.
Chris Saliza of CNN.
Now, he says that the allegations have been circulating in mostly conservative circles.
I got to stop you right there.
I'm done playing this game.
The media does this all the time.
They say, conservatives do X, right-wing media does X. They never write about left-wing media.
They don't say, liberal media did X. No, it's because they view themselves as a part of that group.
So naturally, they're defending Joe Biden.
I find it kind of strange, but there is a fracturing on the left, progressives versus moderates.
I think most of us recognize this, especially if you find yourself to be progressive, you don't like Joe Biden.
Here, here, we're all here with you, except for the creepy establishment people.
But come on, let's be real about this.
Mother Jones is anything but a conservative outlet.
A new account bolsters Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden.
I remember she was devastated.
They say, according to the Business Insider Report, written by Rich McHugh, a former NBC News producer who worked with Ronan Farrow on his investigation of Harvey Weinstein, Linda LaCasse says Reade told her about the alleged assault one night while they were talking.
More corroborating evidence being published by Business Insider.
Not Trump allies, not conservatives, Business Insider!
If anything, they're critical of Trump.
And now we have Mother Jones, a progressive outlet, calling out Biden.
I gotta tell you, you've got the entirety of the populists mounting against you.
Regular people don't like what you're doing with these crony establishment elites.
Trying to prop up Biden seems silly, and we can see it now.
How obvious is it In this story from the New York Times, do they take Tara Reade's allegations seriously?
No, they call it examining her allegations against Joe Biden.
They mention filing a false police report could get you in trouble.
Why would they mention the false police report thing?
I don't know.
At the end of the story, they go on to mention all of the bad things Donald Trump has done.
Talk about deflecting and trying to defend Joe Biden.
Tell me, I'll tell you this.
If you don't like Donald Trump, hear here.
You're allowed to hate him and criticize him and call him out for all of the accusations against him.
Do so with my blessing.
Joe Biden has also been accused, and I'd only ask you hold the same standard for him.
And guess what?
A lot of progressives are coming out and saying, yup.
I've seen some people who are actually Biden supporters saying, I can't do it.
You can't.
It's cognitive dissonance to have come out so hard against Kavanaugh and now desperately try to defend Biden.
Even Alyssa Milano has had to backtrack, and I'll get to that.
But take a look at this.
This is a more shocking story.
New York Times executive editor appears to admit edit on the Biden New York Times story came after pressure from the Biden campaign saying that in one in one section they said they found no pattern of No pattern of misconduct by Biden beyond some, well, rather inappropriate behavior.
They removed this portion and stated that the campaign thought the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused.
He has.
There are.
We have videos of it.
He apologized for it.
Why would they remove this and why do they care what the campaign thinks?
Look, man, I gotta tell you, if you don't believe the media is in the bag for the establishment Democrats, I don't know where you're living.
I really, really don't.
Now, look, I have my disagreements with the Bernie Sanders supporters, and a lot of them, but I think it's fair to point out the media didn't like the guy, the establishment Democrats didn't like the guy, and they're certainly doing everything in their power to protect Joe Biden, so I'm glad to see progressives calling out Joe Biden.
Now, do I agree with their standard of due process, which is lack thereof?
Not really.
I don't think we can prove anything against Joe Biden 30 years after the fact.
It's well beyond the statute of limitations, so what can we do?
But at least I see people who are progressive who are challenging Joe Biden.
Now, I must admit, I think some of these people are just going after him because they want Bernie to be the nominee and there's still a potential, there's still an opportunity.
But, look, I'm not gonna make accusations.
If you called out Kavanaugh, I disagree with you.
But if you now at the same time call out Joe Biden, at least you're following a standard I can understand.
It doesn't necessarily mean I trust you.
You don't gotta trust me.
Call me a grifter, call me whichever, whatever you want, but I can appreciate the consistency at least.
Now, for those progressives, I don't know what's going to happen with the primary because I think New York just outright cancelled theirs and we're in a pandemic.
Joe Biden's being greatly benefited by hiding in his basement.
Everybody kind of knows.
But let's move on.
I want to show you some of the more, uh, the reaping what they have sown aspects of what's happening in media.
This from Fox News.
Tom Perez of the DNC is haunted by past call for officials who engaged in misconduct to step aside amid Biden claims.
Is he really, though?
Is he really haunted?
Now, look, I think it's fair to point out they're desperately trying to protect Biden.
But if we all recognize that Joe Biden isn't all there, then is he being haunted or is he being given the opportunity?
Could he at some point come out and say, well, We got no choice but to remove the guy.
Hey, I said it, right?
You called me out?
Well, I better stick to my principles.
And then they can put in someone who they think could actually go up against Donald Trump, who didn't have to campaign at all.
I don't know who that might be.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people are gonna scream Hillary or something.
I don't know about that.
Maybe Michelle Obama?
I don't know.
I think Michelle Obama would have absolutely won a primary if she ran, so I don't know why they would need to do this.
But maybe they were desperate.
Maybe they had nobody.
Maybe Biden was the best they could do, and then once they saw, of the moderates, who was doing well, they said, everyone get behind Joe Biden, and they did.
They all fell in line.
And that way, Joe Biden was able to stop Bernie Sanders.
There is one interesting thing I want to address, though.
Give some credit to CNN.
There's a Larry King episode that provided more evidence to the allegations against Joe Biden.
It's important to bring up and to clarify this point for those that have seen it.
An episode of Larry King Live was missing from the Google Play listings.
August 11th, 1993 didn't appear.
And a lot of people were saying that CNN may have removed it.
I believe it may have come off that way in the way I was phrasing it.
If I said it directly, I apologize because that was wrong.
All we know is the listing wasn't there, and we don't know why.
I looked through the listing, saw other episodes that weren't there either, and I don't know why.
But this was the one that I found, the only one I found, that was a Wednesday.
It was in the middle of the week.
The other ones were like Mondays, so I assume that could be a three-day weekend.
But as it turns out, someone from CNN said, CNN didn't remove anything.
They don't have a distribution deal for Larry King Live on Google Play.
So they didn't remove anything.
The question then remains, who did remove this episode from Google Play?
And many people then wonder if it was Google to try and protect Joe Biden.
We can see they're desperate.
They're doing everything they can.
I mean, look, you can argue it was a coincidence, but come on, man.
This woman comes out with a claim against Biden.
They're hoping that Joe Biden wins just because he's not Trump.
They're hoping that people who hate Trump just vote blue no matter who.
But these allegations against Joe Biden are really, really bad for them.
I know I'm entertaining the possibility they could swap him out.
Maybe they don't really want to.
They're hoping that whoever they have could just beat Trump.
But these allegations are serious.
You set these rules.
Listen.
I know a lot of people argue, but what about the accusations against Trump?
Trump's been accused by a dozen plus women.
You're right, he has.
And Trump supporters, for the most part, don't care or don't believe it.
The issue is that you care and you believe it.
I'm speaking now to those who may be on the left.
If you are concerned by these allegations, if you don't like Brett Kavanaugh for the allegations against him, now you are the one who's concerned about this.
It is the Democratic voter base that is more susceptible to these allegations, not the Trump supporter base.
So, by all means, criticize Trump.
I'm not going to defend the guy, but you've got to recognize it's not going to hurt him the way it will hurt you.
So, naturally, there is apparently some kind of desperate attempt to save the guy.
Now, of course, we have hypocrisy from politicians and high, you know, prominent endorsements.
Amber Athey for The Spectator compiled a list of 35 individuals, endorsers, who made statements about believing all women and then went on to endorse Joe Biden.
I love it.
I love it.
But let's get to the real meat and potatoes here.
The facade is cracking.
Tara Reade slammed Alyssa Milano, saying it was the complete opposite of how she approached Brett Kavanaugh.
And guess what?
Alessa Milano has no choice.
The hypocrisy is too thick.
We can see through everything right now.
You know what, man?
Call me biased.
It's fine.
I get it.
I'm always ragging on the Democrats.
People get mad I don't talk about Republicans all that often.
But it's because I just...
I don't see it as important.
You know, it's just me.
It's my opinion.
It's my perspective.
I'm not perfect.
You can disagree with me.
But I'm telling you, this is how I actually feel.
These are the things I see that I think are important.
And it's what I focus on.
That's really it.
Alyssa Milano called out Brett Kavanaugh.
I said the standard was bad.
She then defended Joe Biden.
I said, that's hypocrisy.
But I agree with what she's saying.
Joe Biden deserves due process.
Joe Biden supporter Alyssa Milano changes tune on his accuser, Tara Reid, amid new developments.
Look, you call me biased, and it's okay.
I get it.
A lot of people think I am.
Some people think I'm not biased because we happen to agree on how we view the world.
Some people think I am.
But listen, can't you see the New York Times defending Joe Biden here?
Even Alyssa Milano has been forced to change her tune.
The media bias is in our faces.
We can't ignore it.
Now, I work for these companies, I know this is happening, but is this not enough evidence for you?
Come on, man, we know Joe Biden's brain doesn't work.
You got problems with Donald Trump's mental acuity and his mental health?
Fine, fine, again, criticize the guy.
But look, Donald Trump saying bombastic and ridiculous things is different from not being able to speak at all.
I've never been a cheerleader for Trump.
I think when you see the media claim that everything Trump has done has been wrong every single time, you gotta recognize they're lying to you.
It certainly can't be the case.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But what they're doing for Joe Biden is patently absurd.
He was accused.
Ignore it or whatever, but stop deflecting to Trump.
Stop setting a different standard for your people.
All you've done is expose Washington Post, is that you don't view yourself as a neutral arbiter of facts, you view yourselves as left-leaning.
And you think anybody who would dare challenge Biden is a Trump supporter or a Trump ally?
Tell me again how Mother Jones and Bernie Sanders are Trump allies.
Oh, they'll try!
That's what they say.
They mention the Bernier bust people.
Russia!
They say Tara Reade is all about Russia.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
CNN.
It's happening.
Joe Biden needs to personally address Tara Reade's allegations.
While he does say it's mostly conservative circles, he's wrong about that.
He at least is now coming around.
CNN has no choice now but to admit it.
The evidence is mounting.
The corroborating witnesses are mounting.
And while it doesn't prove anything about Joe Biden, it's showing that this woman, Tara Reade, made a claim.
Her mother called in and spoke about it in 1993.
That's some of the most damning evidence.
It doesn't prove what Tara Reade said happened, happened.
But it shows there may be actual credibility to her accusation.
They said that Christine Blasey Ford credibly accused Brett Kavanaugh.
But what does that mean?
She had no corroborating witnesses and couldn't even remember how she got to the place she went to.
Certainly, this is credible.
And that's why there's no choice but to finally come out and say, you know what?
Joe Biden, we can't protect you anymore.
It's failed.
Interestingly, Bernie Sanders' former spokeswoman, I believe, her former press secretary, I'm sorry, hints that Biden may be replaced as the nominee at the convention because of Tara Reid allegations.
If anyone looks at this closely, they will see reason for concern.
It's a really, really good point, I gotta admit.
I know I've been mentioning it throughout the video, but now we'll hit this one in the head.
Look, Joe Biden can't speak, and who knows where he will be in the next six months.
If the pandemic restrictions are lifted, and we expect a debate, the dude can't debate Donald Trump.
You gotta be nuts.
You can argue Trump said really dumb things about bleach or whatever, that's fine, but he can still make a sentence.
And it will be WWE.
He will smack down Joe Biden.
It will be a verbal massacre.
Joe Biden will stutter and stammer and sputter and spin out.
If we remain under lockdown, I believe they will just ignore this.
As much as the facade is cracking, they're being forced now to address the allegations against Joe Biden.
I think they don't got to replace anybody.
If Joe Biden can just stay hidden in the basement, don't take my word for it.
This is from ABC6, on your side.
Biden benefits from staying out of spotlight amid coronavirus outbreak, experts say.
And I agree.
They talked about this during the actual primary campaign, when it was Biden up against everyone else.
The less Joe Biden is in the press, the better, because he struggles to speak.
They've tried protecting him, saying, oh, but Joe Biden just has a stutter.
Nah, man.
Saying wrong words and exponentially over and over again, the dude is clearly losing it.
He engages in what's called a word salad, where he says words that don't string together.
He'll be talking, he'll say, well, you know, the thing is with the, you know, we got the policy, but when, when, when, you know, afternoon comes in the, in the evening and, you know, we've seen Trump with the, with his policy, you're like, yes, those are English words.
They don't come together.
He recently did an interview on CNN where for like 21 seconds he was out of it.
And Anderson Cooper looked like, what do we do?
This guy can't do this.
So right now, because of the pandemic, Joe Biden is hidden away in a basement where he makes very few press appearances.
When he does, he's got note cards.
I believe it was Glenn Greenwald who pointed out I've never seen anybody have to use cue cards to appear on a remote broadcast interview on a cable channel, saying I've done cable for years.
You know what, Glenn?
I have as well.
I've done tons of cable shows.
What I'm talking to you right now about, all this?
No script.
None whatsoever.
You'd think someone like Joe Biden would need to do that.
Now compare this to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump sometimes is a prompter and sometimes he doesn't.
He just rambles.
And even when he has a prompter, he breaks from the prompter and then starts rambling.
And he gets criticized for it.
But hey, the man can ramble, right?
And what I mean by ramble is different from Joe Biden.
Joe Biden sputters out incoherently.
Right now.
So long as the restrictions remain in place, there are two really big advantages for Democrats.
The first is that Joe Biden is nowhere to be seen.
So it really does become a referendum on Donald Trump and how things are handled.
They just need Joe Biden to stay alive.
That's what they said in the Atlantic.
Stay alive, Joe Biden.
So the best thing they can do is just keep him hidden away and have him do no appearances.
And because of this, check this out, a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll found that more than 40% of registered voters are unaware or unsure of what Biden has said about the coronavirus, and only about half of those who have heard Biden's comments trust what he was saying.
However, other polling suggests not being heard right now might be the best thing for the former vice president.
Right, exactly.
Donald Trump's problem is that he has no filter.
So what happens?
He's at a press conference.
They mention isopropyl alcohol and bleach for disinfecting coronavirus.
And he says, I wonder if you can do a cleaning, maybe some kind of injection.
And the media takes that sound bite and they go nuts with it.
Congratulations.
You got one.
Trump's got no filter.
I don't think it's fair to say it's the stupidest question in the world.
I think it's marginally on the surface a stupid question.
But many Trump supporters have pointed out there are actually internal disinfectant therapies using UV light as well as H2O2 and ozone.
So okay, I'll give him that one.
But speaking off the cuff with no filter, you gotta understand it's not necessarily about whether the question was good or not, it's about how it comes off to the public.
And if the public's initial reaction was like, that sounds crazy, whether it's crazy or not, Trump looks bad.
So Biden is being told to shut up and stay hidden, and they're telling everyone, let Trump sputter out of control and say these things.
That's their strategy.
If the pandemic is lifted, they may need to swap out Biden because they'll need someone who can actually speak.
So I'm not saying they will swap him out.
I honestly have no idea.
But I think it's a it's a fair point to be made.
Potentially, the opportunity exists for Tom Perez to say, You know what?
I said it.
I'm gonna have to stand by my word.
And then people will give them respect for it.
Look, I've tweeted out progressives, former Clinton staff, who are saying we must challenge Joe Biden on this.
We can't have a double standard.
And I've given them praise.
And that's a good thing for them, because now they have an opportunity, against the wishes of the primary voters, to put in whoever they want.
Think about it.
We go to the convention.
We do a digital convention.
You get all the delegates, half of whom, you know, the Bernie ones, don't like Joe Biden, and the other half who support Biden, who just want to beat Trump, and they can put in anyone they want.
And the delegates will say, we're going to choose Michelle Obama.
I don't know if she'll really run for it, though.
I really don't know.
A lot of people have said she doesn't want to do it.
They're not convinced she wants to do it.
And I don't know anything about it.
I'm not going to pretend like I know whether she wants to or not, but I will tell you this.
I don't see any Democrat who can beat Trump, except for Michelle Obama.
And she's not really a Democrat politician.
She was the first lady.
But I do believe she is young enough, considering the age of many of the politicians, she brings back memories of that Obama era.
You've got the first, you know, female president of color, potentially.
I think that would attract a lot of the progressives.
I think all of the Democrats would immediately, like the establishment Democrat types, would be like, here, here, they love the Obamas.
And you get a lot of moderates saying a return to normalcy.
Look, if they ran Michelle Obama, I believe it would be a landslide for her, regardless of what Trump has done or can do.
And I'm not saying that because I'm saying Trump has done something wrong, necessarily.
I'm saying There's a power in a popularity contest, and that's what we have.
And Donald Trump is an entertainer.
He's a funny guy, and everyone knows it.
He's had a bunch of successes.
You can't deny it.
He's made several mistakes.
A lot of presidents have mistakes under their belts.
In fact, they all do, right?
But Michelle Obama has that mainstream celebrity appeal that I think would really beat Trump.
I don't know if they would run her, but here's an idea.
I don't like making predictions, but let's just say this.
The convention comes up, Joe Biden is facing more evidence against him, and so he says, I'm going to stand by my word and Tom Perez and step down, and that he's going to hold up Michelle Obama's hand.
I think it's a possibility.
I don't know for sure.
I think it'd be a very, very savvy strategy if she really wanted to be the president.
I guess we'll see.
Maybe all my speculation is wrong, it's fair to say, but the one thing I can leave you with... Joe Biden's mental health.
Not there.
And the media's desperate attempts to defend him has failed.
From there on out, everything else is speculation, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It's a different channel from this one, and I will see you all then.
The other day, I was on the Joe Rogan podcast, and on the podcast we discussed CNN fairly often.
CNN is not nearly the biggest cable channel, but they are one of the most prominent, and I saw this story last night.
Brian Stelter quotes Breaking Bad actor to back his theory that Trump is mentally insane.
I saw this, especially after coming off of the Rogan podcast and being very critical of Stelter, CNN, Chris Cuomo, thinking to myself, Who's the crazy person?
Am I the crazy person for talking about Joe Biden's mental health?
Or is Brian Stelter the crazy person for talking about Donald Trump's mental health?
Naturally, my perspective is that I think Brian Stelter is hyper-focused on Fox News and Donald Trump because it's where he gets his ratings, even though they're substantially less relevant to the bigger picture.
I mean, look, you can talk about Trump.
That's fair.
I'm not gonna drag Stelter, CNN, or anyone else for talking about the President.
That's the President.
But why is he- why are there- look, the people at CNN, they're like tweeting about Hannity releasing a new book.
Why are you- I don't care!
They're writing newsletters about Diamond and Silk being pulled from Fox News or something.
I also don't care!
Diamond and Silk are high-profile personalities, but does it warrant CNN covering this?
I really don't think so.
So I wanted to, you know, I was looking at the story.
I thought it was patently absurd that CNN would quote a Hollywood actor saying that Donald Trump was not sane as though that's a news story.
It's not.
We know that everyone in Hollywood thinks Donald Trump is insane.
How is that news?
Right now, you've got the presumptive nominee, Joe Biden, sputtering and mumbling, unable to talk, and news articles actually coming out saying that the less people see Joe Biden, the better he does.
To me, that's news.
We gotta talk about this, man.
We talk about Trump all day, every day.
That's why I'm not interested in talking about the guy.
And I still end up doing it.
But Donald Trump is the president.
You can see what he says.
They cover what he says.
Everybody knows what he says.
But what about Joe Biden?
Why doesn't CNN go much harder on the Tara Reid allegations?
Why doesn't CNN question Joe Biden's mental health when everyone is asking these questions, from progressives to conservatives?
And this brings me to the big, you know, the answer to the big question.
Who's really crazy?
Now, I look at my content, and you can see that, you know, I very often point to the Democrats in the media, very much like many Trump supporters, conservatives, and independents do online.
You look to CNN and all they do is talk about Fox News.
Now, they justify it because they're like, oh this is Trump and his cronies and his network, but admittedly a lot of these personalities aren't that big and they write about people who just don't have that much influence.
I find it, when you see this article and you're trying this hard to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try and claim that Trump is insane, it says to me that you don't really care about what's influencing society.
You really don't.
He says that the Trump supporters don't offer up a real defense for Donald Trump's mental state, saying they just deflect and say, oh, but what about the Democrats?
But that's just not true.
So here's the question I often have.
You know, when I make content and I say the Democrats are doing this and I don't like them, and it's very obviously pointed in one direction, I think I'm right.
I think I'm talking about things that are important.
I wonder if Brian Stelter and CNN think they're doing the same thing.
So let me just say one more thing, and we'll read the story and I'll go through the weirdness that is CNN trying to just give us a review of Fox News.
I don't want to talk about this.
I'm getting sick and tired of even talking about CNN, because I don't want to do the same thing they do and just be a CNN review channel.
So that's kind of the reason why I was like, you know what, I should actually talk about this.
I should break down the difference in why it is I'll be critical of them, they'll be critical of Fox, and what is this weird media perspective.
Ultimately, my conclusion is, I think they are disingenuous, I think they are liars, I think we know for a fact that CNN are liars, and I think they're just feeding their base red meat.
Now, of course, people have said the same thing about me, but let me read through this and I'll break down why I think I'm actually correct.
And maybe you'll agree with me, maybe you won't.
But first, let's take a look at this story.
Brian Stelter quotes Breaking Bad actor to back his theory that Trump is mentally insane.
The first question I had, why is Daily Caller writing about this?
It's for a very similar reason.
They're criticizing him saying, who cares if, you know, Brian Cranston says anything about Trump.
I don't like this story from the Daily Caller.
I think it's stupid.
I think this is a stretch.
And when I first saw it, I was like, I'm not going to talk about that.
I don't care.
Why would a conservative outlet do this?
And I think they do it for similar reasons that Brian writes about Fox.
Now, I do think it's silly to quote Bryan Stelter.
I'm sorry, to quote Bryan Cranston.
But does it really warrant a conversation?
Not really.
The bigger conversation is how we're all playing this media game.
So, bear with me as we read what the context is.
And then I want to show you how Bryan Stelter approaches his newsletter and how he feeds his base anti-Trump, anti-Fox News rhetoric that doesn't necessarily have the biggest influence on the world.
It's just for ratings.
So, here's what they write.
Brian Seltzer quoted an actor from Breaking Bad's television show.
Right, we get it.
Here's what he said.
Quote, When a grandparent is not well, the entire family feels it.
Quoting himself on Sunday.
The entire family shares the pain.
Thousands of families are going through that right now.
And the American family is experiencing it too.
When a leader is not well, everyone feels it.
The CNN host then noted that others are bringing up the same concern and went ahead to include a concern from actor Brian Cranston.
Quote, I've stopped worrying about the president's sanity.
Cranston tweeted, he's not sane.
And the realization of his illness doesn't fill me with anger, but profound sadness.
What I now worry about is the sanity of anyone who can still support this deeply troubled man to lead our country.
Well, that's just not true.
Now, here's the thing.
When I've talked about Joe Biden, I've said very similar things.
And I'm sure there are people who like Biden for some reason who see what I say and then say, oh, harumph, and then write this.
that are deflections, not defenses. Well, that's just not true. Now, here's the thing.
When I've talked about Joe Biden, I've said very similar things. And I'm sure there are people who
like Biden for some reason, who see what I say and then say, oh, harumph, and then write this.
What I've said about Joe Biden, he's not well.
He is mentally not well.
And I'm not angry about it.
I'm actually disappointed.
I'm sad.
Actually, no, I'm angry at the networks for propping this guy up.
But listen, man.
Donald Trump is sane.
Is he arrogant?
Yes.
Is he narcissistic?
You betcha.
Does he have no filter?
He has none!
But the dude clearly is sane.
You just don't like him.
Joe Biden can't speak straight.
He forgets where he is all the time.
He can't remember a name on a TV show.
He's constantly looking at cards he can't read.
I see this and I see a president with personality defects that we can absolutely criticize.
But they take it one step further and argue that he's insane.
He's not.
You just don't like him.
You don't like his attitude.
You don't like his ideas.
There's a big difference between Trump, you know, throwing a question with no filter that seems absurd to most people about injecting disinfectant.
That's not insanity.
That's Trump just muttering off the cuff and not paying attention at all.
Now you can argue a president should be better than that.
I'm fine with it, but there's a big difference between who Joe Biden is and why... The question I have is, why doesn't CNN talk about this?
Recently, a big story went viral all across Reddit and Twitter.
An episode of Larry King Live, August 11th, 1993, disappeared from the Google Play Store.
We don't know if it was ever there.
We don't know why it's missing.
It was in the middle of a week.
On Wednesday, the episode does exist.
We've seen the footage, but for some reason, on Google Play, it was gone.
When I see stories like that, when I see CNN refusing to cover Joe Biden's mental state, refusing to talk about the allegations against him, for the most part, they did eventually cover the story, it feels like they are defending Joe Biden.
When you look at how the New York Times literally defended Joe Biden, you can now I hope you can understand why I point in the direction I do, and why I don't understand why Brian Stelter points in the direction he does.
This is why I feel Brian Stelter is a bad faith actor.
I really hate the term because that's what they call me, that's what they call you.
They say you're arguing in bad faith.
No, I'll argue in good faith.
I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump's personality.
He's done some good things policy-wise.
You can't ignore that.
You're lying if you ignore that.
But the dude clearly has no filter, and he says things that just sound absurd.
There's a lot of things wrong with Trump.
I'm willing to have that conversation.
But how is anyone ignoring Joe Biden?
Why is it that they say it's only in conservative outlets they're talking about these things?
Why is it that when a story comes out, so Chris Saliza of CNN wrote about Joe Biden's allegations and the mounting evidence that Joe Biden might actually have legitimate A legitimate argument against him for assaulting this woman.
They say it's mostly in pro-Trump media.
That's because you guys refuse to acknowledge reality.
It's because you're in the bag for Joe Biden.
It's because all you want to do is symbolically appease your base with this absurd nonsense.
It makes you money.
It puffs your ratings up.
I get it.
Take a look at the newsletter.
So this is what Brian Stelter writes about Brian Cranston.
He says, on Sunday's Reliable Sources telecast, I said this, when a grandparent does not well, the entire family feels it.
So I read that already.
Actor Brian Cranston asked, I stopped worrying about the President or stated, so that we read.
So what's the counter argument?
Well, most of the pro-Trump arguments I came across this weekend weren't about Trump at all.
They were about evil Democrats, an enemy of the people journalists.
Those are deflections, not defenses.
This is why I think Brian Stelter is a bad faith actor.
I can tell you what the arguments are from many Trump supporters.
That Donald Trump is a tough guy, or he tries to be.
That he's arrogant.
That he's headstrong.
That he's tired of being lied about.
And that he's pushing back on the press that just smears him and goads him and berates him in an effort to generate ratings.
That's what many Trump supporters would say.
Some would actually argue that he's perfectly, you know, coherent and he knows what he's doing.
They argue that when he mentioned injecting disinfectant, there actually are treatments like H2O2 nebulization.
It's where they vaporize a disinfectant into your lungs.
Actually, it was written about in April 10th.
And they talk about UV light therapy.
I mean, those are real things.
That's what the Trump people will say to defend Trump.
They won't just deflect, for the most part, and say, evil Democrats.
But you can see what he's actually doing here is he's doing exactly what he's accusing them of doing, and I think it's just fake news.
Look, I can tell you what people will say about Donald Trump.
They'll say he's not sane.
They don't think he's sane.
And then I'll go and talk to a Trump supporter and say, what's your response to this?
And they'll say, well, clearly they're deflecting and defending Joe Biden, but the reality about Donald Trump, X, Y, and Z, one, two, three.
There are real arguments in favor of Donald Trump.
CNN won't tell you those arguments because the goal, in my opinion, is to talk about absurd right-wing things.
And what I mean by absurd is like, they're just not relevant.
I don't understand why it matters to anybody that Bryan Cranston said this.
To me, it seems like this is just another way for Brian Stelter to inject a story.
He's like, I want to do a story about, you know, Trump being insane.
Let me find something.
Ooh, got it.
Brian Cranston said this.
Yes.
And then Carl Bernstein said this.
Ooh, I got it.
And so I'm going to write this up.
Let me find this quote.
He knew what the story he wanted was.
He's going to write about it.
When you look at his other, like, the newsletters he puts out, Trump can't help himself, alright, that's fine.
If he wants to write about the president, I think that's absolutely fair.
I do find it strange that it's all Trump all the time, which says to me that they're just trying to drum up ratings using what they call the Trump bump.
But look, man, Trump is the president, you gotta admit that, right?
But why talk about Fox News personalities?
Why talk about Diamond and Silk?
Why talk about- look at this, Fox cuts ties with Diamond and Silk, so what?
Is this relevant to the majority of people?
Is it relevant to the people who watch CNN?
I guess technically it is.
Look, man, Diamond and Silk are not the most prominent personalities in media.
They are not the most powerful, wealthy individuals.
Seeing them taken down a notch, in my opinion, means literally nothing.
We talk about punching up and punching down, right?
The left likes to say, don't punch down, punch up, because the people above you can withstand it or whatever, and you're criticizing, you know, speaking truth to power.
Is it speaking truth to power when CNN just writes about Diamond and Silk?
What does this do for anyone's understanding of politics right now and reality?
Very little.
While Diamond and Silk are prominent, and do have influence over many Trump supporters, they're certainly not the most influential Trump supporters, nor are they the most influential political individuals in the country.
I don't understand why you'd write about them.
Now, my criticisms of CNN are because CNN is in every airport.
They pay millions of dollars because they're in every hotel lobby.
Because YouTube puts them on the front page, that's why I criticize CNN.
Because they have institutional power over me and every other person when they put out narratives like this, but then talk about people who get their Facebook pages censored.
Why does it make sense to talk about people who are fighting to push back on a mainstream, powerful, establishment narrative?
It doesn't make sense to me.
But it's because the people who watch CNN don't like Trump, and they want to see symbols of Trump knocked down.
Now, here's where I can exemplify my point much, much, much better.
Oliver Darcy, he says, we reported at Sean Hannity had this book deal back in December.
When I asked him about it at an event that month, he played coy and told me the notion he was writing a book was news to him.
Why are you telling me about Sean Hannity's book?
I don't care.
This is not relevant to me, but you know what?
Okay, okay, fine.
Oliver Darcy is a media reporter, so he's reporting on the media, and this to me, okay, okay, I'll be fair.
If you're going to report on the media, Sean Hannity is a very prominent television personality opinion guy, then fine, talk about his book.
But when you look at this in the context of how Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter handled media reporting, it seems very strange to me that they would just constantly be writing about Fox News to the point where they're actually just promoting Sean Hannity's book.
How does this make sense?
Fox News gets great ratings.
Let me see if I have the ratings pulled up.
Okay, we do.
Fox News.
Friday, April 24th scoreboard.
Tucker Carlson lifted Fox News to number one.
CNN and MSNBC split first place at 4.11pm.
This is actually really interesting.
Trump likes to say that CNN's ratings are down.
They're not.
They're actually doing great right now.
I mean, this is some of the highest ratings I've seen for CNN in a while.
While we can see that Fox News does way better, CNN and MSNBC are anti-Trump, and when you combine them, they rival Fox News.
So, there are very few conservative channels.
You got basically Fox News and One American News.
One American News is very, very small, relative to Fox.
But it's not just CNN and MSNBC, it's all the peripheral networks as well.
It's ABC, it's CBS, and all of these big, massive networks.
And it's how they kind of get away with things.
So I look at Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson's been attacked, berated, he's had his advertisers stripped, and for what?
For giving his opinion on things that aren't even that crazy?
Now you might argue, Tim, you know, if you're on the left or something, you go, but Tucker Carlson doesn't have crazy opinions!
He really doesn't!
There was a poll put out by Ipsos, I believe it was USA Today Ipsos, showing that 80% of people in this country, actually 79, wanted a suspension on immigration.
Tucker Carlson's opinion on that is in line with the popular view.
You can disagree with it, but it's certainly not fringe.
Why would Fox News have their advertisers polled?
Why would Tucker have his advertisers polled by activists?
But Rachel Maddow's insane conspiracy mongering is just fine.
Why is it that YouTube will tell us we can't talk about certain things, but what CNN and MSNBC do is fine?
This is the issue.
CNN and networks like them are pointing down at independent individuals, at what they call right-wing media.
You never see CNN say left-wing media, do you?
You never see the New York Times say left-wing media.
They are the establishment.
But they'll often write about conservative media.
Like I mentioned, Chris Eliza talking about the allegations against Joe Biden.
Now, he did address it saying Joe Biden should address the allegations.
I can respect that.
But he says, mostly in right-wing or pro-Trump media.
Just because you're ignoring a story doesn't mean it's only popping up in pro-Trump media or conservative media.
Left-wing and progressives have been writing about this too.
Why won't they bring that up?
It's all pointing in one direction.
It always is.
So, look.
You could argue that CNN's ratings are low, so they're targeting Fox News.
It could be because Fox News is their competition.
But Fox News is one channel of dozens, and they're the only one that actually has an anti-establishment or more conservative viewpoint.
So, to me, it's strange.
Now, for me, the reason I'm talking about CNN, as I mentioned, their institutional power.
Airports everywhere.
They get, you know, 1.9 million.
Anderson Cooper is getting 1.9 million in the ratings.
But, look.
When Brian Seltzer puts out a newsletter criticizing Fox News, claiming that, you know, Fox is pro-Trump with no real defense, what did he say about the thing about Brian Cranston, that there's no real defense, just enemy of the people press and evil Democrats?
He's not telling you the truth.
But he's simultaneously telling you that he is the truth, and I think that's dangerous.
I'm not going to tell you I'm the truth.
I'm going to argue for my position on why I think the things I do, and then I'm going to tell you you should go and actually read what they have to say and watch other people's content.
You can't just watch me.
It's not healthy, because I'm just one person with one perspective.
But you go to CNN, and they try to convince you to only watch them.
Meanwhile, Chris Cuomo is lying to you.
Meanwhile, they're just promoting Sean Hannity's book, I guess?
Meanwhile, while they're writing things like Trump... Let me see if I can pull this up.
Trump can't help himself.
President Donald Trump dodged questions from reporters.
He went to hiding over the weekend, opting against holding a briefing.
So they're ragging on Trump now because he's coming back and doing press briefings, while the media was screeching to stop airing his briefings.
This is just... it's absurdity.
There's no editorial stance these companies have.
They're publishing contradictory stances and information, things that make literally no sense, and I call this out.
There's no cohesive message coming from these companies other than, what's going to get me traffic?
I don't like talking about CNN.
I've done several videos about them because people like Jim Acosta and Brian Stelter do have a decent amount of reach.
I think it's fair to point out I probably have substantial more reach than Brian Stelter.
I'm not looking to punch down at his show.
I don't think he gets that much in the ratings.
I'm not entirely sure.
It's a Sunday morning show.
I don't know how many followers he has.
Maybe he gets more than me.
I don't know.
But I get a lot of viewers.
I'm not trying to be brag or anything.
But I just, I look at other YouTubers, progressives, I look at the anti-Trump press, and I see a massive establishment that Joe Biden can do all these things and get away with it, and the New York Times will defend him for it.
And when you see that, I think it should be obvious to everybody the establishment is in the bag for, for the most part, Democrats and a leftist perspective.
Now, they could argue that Trump and his allies, and Trump and his cronies in media and all that stuff, and the pro-Trump media, but it's still substantially smaller than the entirety of the Democratic establishment and their allies in media.
I'm not interested in complaining about President Trump and just being another face in a crowd of people screeching about the President.
It's no secret that I've been critical of the guy, but you don't need me coming out and going, oh, harumph, I say, at a guy who struggles to get honest press.
What I don't like is how the media lies to everybody.
How they pretend to do the right thing, and they don't.
And all they really want to do is throw red meat to their followers.
Now, of course, people argue the same thing about me.
And that's the big and final question.
That's the point of me doing this segment.
Who's really crazy?
Am I the one who's grifting and throwing red meat?
Am I the crazy person because Trump is really crazy and I'm not seeing it?
I've never been a Trump supporter.
I've never said enthusiastically, you know, supporting him for anything.
I've mentioned I think he's done a good job here and there, because you'd be insane not to recognize when people do good things.
You'd be lying.
But when I look at the media and how they misframe, misquote, misrepresent, and lie, it's got to be called out because it's causing damage to our discourse and to our democratic institutions.
Meanwhile, they claim we're the crazy ones.
Joe Biden is out of his mind.
He's got a credible accusation against him, one I'm not a fan of and have already said we should not entertain because it's 30 years old.
But nonetheless, they went nuts over Brett Kavanaugh.
I demand a similar standard.
If you're going to hold someone to this standard, why would you stop now?
My criticism for them is not so much about they should hold Joe Biden and question these allegations, because I don't like them, like I mentioned, 30 years old, but that you can see the bias, the manipulation, and how they're trying to beat down anybody who would oppose the establishment narrative.
That's why I criticize CNN.
Maybe you agree, maybe you don't, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The latest play against Donald Trump, the China collusion hoax, something I reported on a couple days ago, has completely fallen apart.
Politico, around midnight last night, finally admitting they didn't do any journalism.
My jaw dropped when I saw this editor's note published by Politico.
Politico's reporting on President Trump and the Bank of China.
4-27-11-53 PM.
Wonderful!
That way nobody sees it.
The lie can travel halfway around the world, and you make sure the truth straps on his boots in the middle of the night when no one knows what's going on.
The story being pushed by many anti-Trump personalities and Democrats was that Donald Trump owed China tens of millions of dollars, therefore, he was going soft on them or working at their behest.
Once again, completely fake news.
Not only did Politico have to correct the story when they got a statement from the Bank of China, they had to correct it a second time and issue this statement.
Let me tell you something.
We're not crazy.
I'm not crazy.
My earlier segment this morning, I talked about whether or not it's us or them.
Is CNN correct?
Are we correct?
Who really knows what's going on?
Because we're all biased, right?
Look, I often rag on the Democrats in the media, and I gave you my reasons for doing so.
They're a powerful establishment.
And Trump was not expected to win.
He certainly is the president.
You can criticize him, and I believe he deserves it.
But you look at the massive media conglomerates that all work together with the same narrative, and run the same lies, and regurgitate those lies, and then once the news is called out as fake, they don't drop it.
That's why I call them out.
But I think it's fair to self-reflect and say, who's really being manipulated here?
Because they will tell you that you're crazy.
See, Donald Trump is lying to you all the time.
The Trump conservative media is lying to you all the time.
You can't trust them.
Blah, blah, blah.
I think it's fair to point out everybody plays the game to a certain extent.
We're all biased.
But I look at stories like this and I'm like, no.
Let me tell you something.
I'm going to read you this story, but it's not just this story.
Take a look at this from the Daily Mail.
Donald Trump refuses to take responsibility for spike in people ingesting disinfectant and says he can't imagine why there was an increase after he spoke about using it as a coronavirus treatment.
This frames the narrative as though there was an increase in ingesting.
There wasn't!
It's fake news, but the Daily Mail runs it as though the premise is correct.
This is how I know I'm not crazy.
Or at least, I hope I'm not.
But see, after Donald Trump made this comments during a press briefing about whether or not there could be some kind of cleaning, if you could inject some kind of disinfectant, the media ran wild with hyperbolic exaggerated statements.
Donald Trump recommends ingesting bleach and things like that.
Not true.
From there, we saw fake news.
People calling poison control spikes after Donald Trump makes the statement.
It was fake.
The spike had increased due to the mass purchasing of cleaning and disinfectant cleaning supplies due to the pandemic.
Had nothing to do with Trump.
The spike in calls was happening for the previous month.
But they added the after Trump's comments to make it seem like it was his fault.
Now they're asking him if he will take responsibility for it when it never happened in the first place.
This is how mainstream news is operating.
Not every journalist, not every organization, but too much of it.
Too much of the information we're getting about politics is fake upon fake upon fake.
Now I'll show you this, the main story.
Politico's reporting on President Trump and the Bank of China.
This is going to blow your mind because they basically break down.
They've had to now correct the story twice.
They didn't even get sources.
They didn't even get a comment.
This to me is nuts.
You're supposed to have three sources.
That was the ethical way to do things.
You get three sources on the record independently verifying your story before you run with it.
Politico didn't even get one.
They saw a statement like, boom, run with it.
Then when they got corrected, oops!
But here's the main point.
Right now, Joe Biden, the Democratic establishment, and people in media who are apparently supporting and defending Biden are using this story about Trump owing China money as a pretext for a grand scheme, a hoax, that Donald Trump is working or colluding with China.
There is a huge threat.
The story I did on it showed a tweet.
20, around 20,000 retweets saying, please retweet this.
Look at all the thing Trump owes China.
They're actually trying to make it seem like Trump and China are working together.
Check this out.
Politico notes on the last night at midnight.
Politico published an article Friday morning on President Donald Trump's business dealings with China, quote, Trump owes tens of millions to the Bank of China and the loan is due soon.
Since then, new reporting and information have led us to update and correct the article after publication.
The article cited a nearly $1 billion refinancing deal from several banks, including the Bank of China, struck in 2012 with a New York City real estate venture in which the Trump Organization has a substantial minority interest.
We reported that President Trump, through the Trump Organization, owes the Chinese state-owed bank tens of millions of dollars on a loan that comes due in 2020.
This assertion, which was referenced in the headline as well as the story, was based on public documents related to the deal as well as property records.
We sought comment from the Vorondo Realty Trust, the primary investor, which didn't respond to our request before publication.
The White House and the Trump Organization declined to comment on the record after being told what we intended to report.
So why did you report it without confirmation?
That's my question.
On Friday evening, Politico received a statement from a representative for Bank of China USA, which had not been contacted beforehand.
You'd think if you're going to claim Trump owes them money, you'd ask them about it, right?
No.
That the bank had sold off or securitized its debt shortly after the 2012 deal.
A spokeswoman said the bank has no current financial interest in any Trump Organization Properties.
We updated the body of the article to take account of the bank's statement.
The original headline was changed to Trump owed tens of millions to the Bank of China.
There remained an unresolved discrepancy.
A 2017 document filed by loan servicer Wells Fargo with the New York Department of Finance listed Bank of China as having a financial interest in the building.
1290 Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan.
That record, known as UCC3, indicated that Bank of China had a secured interest in the building's fixtures in case of default on the loan.
The 2017 document is valid until 2022, when the loan comes due.
Politico attempted to reach other parties to the refinancing throughout the weekend and Monday.
Wells Fargo on Monday confirmed the Bank of China statement that it had been listed as a creditor on the building was in error.
Bank of China said Wells Fargo is taking steps to correct the record with an updated filing.
Consequently, the story was updated a second time on Monday evening to take account of the apparent mistake in the public record.
Our commitment at Politico is to journalism that gets its facts straight.
But The Intercept did a wonderful piece I love to cite.
The top... I believe it's the top 20 times?
Maybe it's the top 10.
The top 10 or 20 times that the media has run stories like this and then had to retract it later.
This is what they do.
Why didn't Politico reach out to the Bank of China?
You want to claim that Trump owes China money?
Shouldn't you ask them if he owes you money?
No.
They saw a document.
They didn't get any context on it.
Turns out some of it was in error.
You shouldn't have been there.
Did they contact any of the banks?
No.
Trump didn't get a comment?
Good enough for them, we're gonna run it anyway.
This is fake news.
When you publish this, look, they're probably thinking, well, Trump's not gonna respond, we should just run it anyway.
But shouldn't they have at least gotten comments from the other parties involved?
How could they determine this was true and worthy of publication?
I think it's because they know it's gonna get clicks.
That's really what I think.
I think they know they're gonna get clicks, so they run with it.
And I'll tell you what, When they publish the correction, the editor's note, at midnight, they don't want you to see it.
They published fake news, and now they're trying their hardest to make sure nobody knows they did.
It's disgusting behavior.
Why couldn't they come out?
You know, I often... Like the other...
Last week, several days ago, I did a 10 a.m.
segment, and then when I saw that my take was probably bad, like, not perfect, I did a new segment for my 1 p.m.
slot.
Like, I have no problem with slapping a big ol' correction on the video, putting a link to someone's criticisms.
You want to say I'm wrong, I would be like, dude, absolutely, please, here, you know, contradictory opinion, maybe I don't got this one right.
Why is it so hard for them to do it, to admit they did wrong?
That brings me to the next story.
The one I mentioned earlier.
Trump refuses to take responsibility for something that never happened.
You know what, man?
People, you know, I just went on the Joe Rogan podcast.
And I can see that overwhelmingly it's getting a positive reaction.
Whatever, you know, that's cool.
I'm glad that people really like it.
Some of you probably just finished watching it or are watching it now.
Maybe you switched over to this.
I have no idea.
But I do look at a lot of comments because I try to make sure that I'm doing my best and I try to take a look at the criticism to see if maybe there's something worthy of criticizing and maybe I'm not perfect, right?
And I think it's fair to point out that a lot of people don't like me.
Absolutely don't.
They call me a grifter and a liar and stuff like that.
The strangest thing to me Is that I try my hardest to point out we all play the same game.
That's what I say.
We all play the same game.
What does that mean?
It means, look dude, I use clickbaity titles the same as anybody else.
It's literally the function of how YouTube works.
There is no perfect system in which you can be a perfect person.
Someone will always be critical.
There are certain things that work on YouTube and don't.
And I'm not saying it's a good thing.
I'm not saying I should be proud of it.
No, I'm saying absolutely criticize me for doing it the same as you would anybody else.
I am worthy of criticism.
The president is worthy of criticism.
I am not perfect and I am wrong all the time.
Apparently saying that isn't enough for people.
And I think that is what these news outlets have realized.
You know, when I go on Reddit, and I see people talking about me, and they say things like, this dude's lying, he's full of it, he's just a grifter throwing red meat to Republicans to make money, I'm like, you know what, man?
I get it.
Like, that's how you see me, and there's nothing I can do about it, and I can try as hard as I can.
And I'll never give that up.
But you look at an outlet like Politico, you look at the New York Times, you look at CNN, and you know what they thought?
You know what?
We're never gonna win.
Let's stop trying.
That's what's happening now.
People refuse to acknowledge people make mistakes, and so then you see CNN become rage bait reality TV.
I think CNN and these other outlets realized Why bother trying to win over people who hate you?
They seem to think that if they report negatively on Trump, they will never win over our Trump supporter.
That's not true.
You can report negatively on him all the time, so long as you're honest in what your criticism is.
But they don't get that.
Ultimately, I think they realize there's money to be made.
Going back to the Politico story, and they're choosing to put it up at midnight, they don't want anyone to know they're putting up fake news.
Because they make money on that fake news, and they don't have to give that money back, and they don't want people to call them out, and they don't want the criticism.
That to me is insane.
I think you do well to take criticism.
Take a look at this.
Dr. Birx, in response to the disinfectant and light comments.
Now from Politico.
She said, You know what I can't stand about all of this, man?
I go on Reddit, and what do I see?
There are these viral videos showing people making faces behind Trump.
And it's like, you're just looking for something to pretend like people agree with you.
That's what it is.
I'll tell you what, man.
My opinions are my opinions.
You can tell I get excited and agitated with the stories I talk about.
That explains exactly why I talk about them.
I'm not going like, ooh, here's a juicy story that will get me clicks.
I never do that.
Sometimes I put up stories, they get almost no traffic.
Sometimes I get criticized for being too fear-mongering because I'm concerned about the prospects of war.
People think that I, and some others like me, literally just do this for the same reason the media does, and that's not entirely fair.
There are certain things that we all do that we should be criticized for, 100%.
Let's see how the Daily Mail frames this.
Donald Trump has said he won't take responsibility for an increase in people ingesting disinfectant after he dubbed it a possible coronavirus treatment at a recent briefing.
He didn't.
It just never happened.
Now, hold on.
Before you leave saying, Tim, you're lying.
I heard him say it.
No.
You heard him say injection and not ingestion.
Trump can be criticized for talking about, in the context of bleach and alcohol, some kind of injection or cleaning.
For sure.
Some people have brought up there are some kind of internal disinfectants with UV light and H2O2 as well as ozone therapy.
That's fine too.
Trump never said ingest.
He never said drink anything.
But we see the intercept, which surprised me, saying Trump suggests tanning and ingesting bleach.
No, no he didn't!
Please.
He didn't say ingest.
He asked the medical experts if these were possible.
You can say it was a stupid question.
I got no problem with that.
But he never dubbed it a possible treatment.
Not only that, nobody ingested this.
There was no increase.
I mean, maybe somebody does.
We don't know about.
But there was no increase.
It was fake news.
They took something that had already happened.
Not only that, They claimed that there was an increase in people ingesting cleaner, but there were no hospitalizations.
It was just people making phone calls concerned they may have done so.
People have been buying cleaner because of the pandemic, so naturally you'll see an increase in these calls.
It's fake news stacked upon fake news.
Now you're going to see people later on saying Trump wouldn't take responsibility for telling people to drink bleach.
It never, never happened.
Why would he?
And this is the world we live in.
It's the world we deserve, I guess, until we can solve for this problem.
But maybe we can't.
Maybe humans just want to exploit and berate and make cold hard cash by manipulation.
They know that influence is the key.
People are unethical, I guess.
There's a lot of bad people.
See, this is why I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist.
I had this conversation with some Trump supporters a couple years ago, and I was talking about, my opinion is you shouldn't be allowed to manipulate someone into handing over their cash, in reference to, like, fraud and deception, snake oil salesmen.
And so these Trump supporter guys said, no, that's not, they disagreed.
They said, if you freely give up your resources in trade, that's your own fault.
If someone can convince you, hey, I'll give you this magic rock in exchange for the money, you chose to do that.
And I said, with that logic, then you'd support the fake news lying to people to get ads, to get ad dollars.
I do not agree with that.
I don't think you should be able, you should be allowed to defraud people to make money.
And this is what it is.
Why are these news outlets allowed to get away with this?
I guess it's a First Amendment issue.
I gotta respect that one.
I think the First Amendment comes with pros and cons.
But when Politico writes fake news saying Trump owes this money without doing due diligence, and they chalk it up to, oopsie, we made a mistake.
It's almost like if you sold someone a food product that ended up causing serious medical harm to someone and said, oopsie, we made a mistake.
I get it.
It is the First Amendment, and I gotta respect that.
But I guess it's interesting to see that when it comes to issuing medicines or food or something that's necessary to your life, you've gotta have things approved and regulated, and we can't do that for information.
I understand it.
We can't.
And that means we will face this exploitation.
Fraud.
I consider it very similar to fraud.
Think about how easy it is to write a shock story.
How easy it is to insult, berate, to make a false claim.
Oh, but we got a source who said it, therefore it's true.
People get tricked into clicking that, saying, oh, shocking content, and they read it.
And you make thousands of dollars doing it.
And then the next day, at midnight, you publish this retraction.
You claim that Trump needs to take responsibility.
You see how the fake news becomes a chain of rage bait to generate money.
It's like It's fraud on a grand level.
Maybe... I don't know how you solve for this problem.
I really don't.
Because they argue that... Many people do.
The solution to bad speech is more speech.
The solution to hate speech is more speech.
What about fraudulent speech?
I guess the challenge is who determines what is or isn't fraudulent.
It's very difficult.
And that's why we protect all speech.
But it does become increasingly difficult when powerful, billion-dollar institutions and very wealthy institutions are running overt fake news.
Look, Joe Rogan is great.
I'm grateful to have been able to go on his show because I think we're able to talk about a lot of the things, a lot of problems we see in media.
I think I take a much harder stance on things.
But one of the points he brought up on the show, and you should definitely check it out, YouTube censorship, for instance, right?
They got to get rid of all these wack nuts who are talking about 5G and all these crazy theories that just run wild and are not true.
And the best thing they can do is choose some kind of authoritative source.
But the problem then we have, as I pointed out, is the mainstream media adopting the same tactics of fraudulent information.
Something to trick you into giving up your eyeballs for the advertiser so they make money.
If I took a rock and told you it could keep tigers away, I'm tricking you into giving your money.
I don't like that.
That is wrong.
If I write a fake story to trick you into clicking, that is wrong as well.
Now, I guess the challenge is, people will often be wrong in media.
And we can accept that.
We understand that.
Maybe Politico just made a mistake.
But why do these mistakes keep happening?
I don't know, man.
I make mistakes too.
I guess they just don't have standards anymore.
It's almost like if you didn't have...
I don't know.
I don't know how you solve for this, man.
I really, really don't.
I don't think the solution... You know, Andrew Yang, for instance, said something about a media ombudsman for the government who would look at news to see if, like, to make sure it was fact-checked and stuff like that.
I don't know if that's a solution because we have a First Amendment.
You don't get to choose what's true, and I respect that.
There's also a serious problem with news outlets exploiting that, getting no sources, writing fake news, and getting away with it.
You could write anything you want.
Sources say.
This is the joke I always make.
I could say something like, Donald Trump did a backflip, sources say.
And you'll say, who's your source?
They do not want anyone to know who they are.
Trust me.
And it turns out the source is some lunatic living in an alley going, Donald Trump did a backflip!
I saw him do it!
And I'm like, well, he said so.
Let me write that down and publish it.
We've lost standards for several reasons.
The money is drying up for a lot of these companies.
They're becoming desperate.
They must survive.
And they're finding the easiest way to do so is shock content.
Now, let me tell you something.
I'm fully aware that my titles and headlines are, you know, flamboyant or sensational, whatever.
It's true.
I think what matters is How far do you go with things?
I think sometimes my content will have like a destroys with like a capitalized word, but I won't say something that's not true.
When you write a fake story with a fake headline, that's the line, man.
Look, I want to have a big shining flashing neon sign saying, click me, click me, but I'm not going to write fake news on it.
That's what they're doing.
They've crossed the line that no one should have crossed and they get away with it every day.
I'm gonna stop ranting.
I gotta clear my throat.
I will see you all at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is my main channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
Yes, I know this segment is silly, but I want to talk about it anyway, and I want to get serious in the end.
I think they're doing, if you watch my main channel segment, you know the media and the establishment, they're doing a lot to protect Joe Biden, so let's call out one of his more sillier gaffes, and then in that context, talk about how they outright cancelled their presidential primary, because look, We get it.
They say he's the presumptive nominee.
He's the one moving forward.
So they're not going to have it.
I guess you could argue it's fair.
Why should they bother having it?
But there were objections from the Sanders campaign.
So yes, it would seem like they're protecting Joe Biden as he says patently absurd things like that we need more economic intercourse.
Yes, that's the story.
In an interview, he said, when you have travel bans and shutdowns, you lose economic intercourse.
Now, I think it's fair to point out that good ol' Grampy Joe is using a literal definition of the word intercourse that most of us don't use anymore, because it is almost It's almost archaic, right?
Look, you can use the word intercourse... Look, I'm probably gonna get demonetized by YouTube for saying the word intercourse.
That's how you know this word doesn't mean what Joe Biden thinks it means.
But Joe Biden also uses words like malarkey.
I don't know what malarkey means.
I'm 34.
I am an adult working in this country.
I'm not a child, and I don't know what that word means.
I really doubt any younger person knows what that means, but I guess if he's trying to court older voters, fine.
But in this interview, he says, economic intercourse.
So let's read into this.
And I'm going to show you the definition of the word intercourse to prove Joe Biden should not have said this thing.
I hope this is fun and funny.
We're trying not to be super serious right now.
Former Vice President Joe Biden ripped Donald Trump's policies Monday night, saying the U.S.
needs to engage in more economic intercourse across the world.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told CBS 4 in Miami on Tuesday night that the Trump administration has reduced America's standing in the world.
Quote, I would get much more engaged in the world.
We can't step back.
The former vice president lamented the possibility of long term travel bans being imposed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
If in fact, for example, we solve the problem in the United States and you don't solve it in other parts of the world, you know what's going to happen?
You're going to have travel bans.
You're going to not be able to have economic intercourse around the world.
Oh yeah!
Notably, Biden was not talking about assault allegations levied at him by staffer Tara Reid during the course of the interview.
But let me just point out that in all of the interviews he's done, apparently nobody's ever asked him about the allegations against him.
How's that for the media protecting Joe Biden?
Any one of these journalists could ask Joe Biden, hey, a new story came out.
Well, look, maybe by now they've brought up the allegations.
I don't know.
But come on, they love to protect the guy.
Of course, conservative media pounced at the opportunity to slam Joe Biden over the phrase economic intercourse.
While I certainly don't think it's the most important story because it's just another gaffe for Joe Biden, you know, ultimately I decided to actually put the definition.
And it is true.
A definition of the word intercourse is communication between different groups or people.
At least, that's what Google would tell you.
But any regular young-ish person, like, I don't know, I'm 34, I don't consider myself young necessarily, I guess, I'm an adult.
Okay?
But check this out.
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of the word intercourse.
Oh man, I got in trouble for this already.
Whatever.
I'm going for it.
Fine.
I'm getting demonetized.
I'm gonna have to be demonetized on this one.
Definition of intercourse is physical contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person.
I'm going to now move away from this because I'm already in enough trouble.
But look, you know what?
I should be allowed to, in an educational context, explain to you what Joe Biden accidentally said.
I don't know what he means by economic intercourse, but I think he accidentally said something that kind of makes sense.
Like, if you think about it out of the context of human procreation, intercourse between two groups sharing money and then, you know, doing things to make new things.
Like, here's the thing.
If you Google search intercourse, it tells you the definition of the word is communication between an individual or groups.
Okay, well, economic intercourse, like monetary communication?
No, I think what he was saying was like, US is over here, you know, Russia's over here, Russia looks over at the US like, yo, bro, that oil looks pretty good, and the US is like, yo, that wheat looks pretty good, mmm, let's put this stuff together and let's get some economic intercourse.
Bam!
Listen, man.
I know it's silly.
Hopefully you had a laugh.
I don't think it's the funniest thing in the world.
But I think we've got the story, and it's kind of an addendum to the main segment I did.
New York outright cancels presidential primary despite objections from Sanders' campaign.
I'm just kind of over pretending like this guy's got a brain.
And I know you've probably heard it from me a million times, but seeing this story about another gaffe after gaffe after gaffe... You know when he gaffed in that interview saying economic intercourse, he actually stuttered and stammered, too.
It wasn't just his clean quote.
And I think Daily Caller, you gotta put in that when you're writing it down, you can't just gloss over him going blah blah blah and muttering.
You gotta include that.
But I view this story, that they're canceling the primary, as another effort to just protect Joe Biden.
Perhaps because New York is a very progressive place, That would give Bernie Sanders a lot of delegates.
Bernie Sanders wants these delegates because he needs that leverage to force Biden to adopt more progressive policies.
By canceling this, they're stripping the progressives of their power.
Please, I get it.
You don't like Sanders.
You want to stop him in his tracks.
I disagree with this policy, but the voters certainly have a right to be heard.
I think I'm right, man.
I think these UBI Yang-Bernie people... I'm just messing with you guys.
But I disagree with these policies, and I'll talk about it in an upcoming segment.
But I absolutely 100% agree that you should be able to vote for what you want, and that should influence your party's decision-making.
This is just another manipulation by the establishment to protect a guy who says stupid things like economic intercourse.
The Daily Caller reports, The New York State Board of Elections canceled the state's June 23rd Democratic presidential primary scheduled on Monday, despite receiving a request from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign urging the primary to take place as planned.
Officials on the board acknowledged At the move to cancel the presidential primary, outright will anger some of Sanders supporters, but said they couldn't justify holding the election amid the coronavirus crisis.
Quote, is essentially a beauty contest that, given the situation with the public health emergency, seems to be unnecessary and indeed frivolous, said the state's election board's Democratic co-chairman, Douglas Kellner, who said he received thousands of emails from Sanders supporters urging the primary to move forward.
A Sanders campaign lawyer, Malcolm Seymour, sent a letter to the state's election board on Sunday asking them not to cancel the primary.
Senator Sanders has collaborated with state primaries, the National Party, and the Biden campaign to strengthen the Democrats by aligning the party's progressive and moderate wings, Seymour wrote, according to the Wall Street Journal.
His removal from the ballot would hamper those efforts to the detriment of the party in the general election.
We can see exactly what Bernie wants to do, and I commend him for it.
There are a lot of progressives in New York.
A lot of them.
They want to have their voices heard.
They deserve to have their voices heard.
All we learn from this is that Joe Biden is out of his gourd, and that the Democrats will do everything in their power to shut down anyone who dare oppose them.
It's why I am not a fan of them, after what they did to Yang and Tulsi, and yes, even Bernie.
Disagree with Bernie.
Wasn't gonna vote for the guy.
But come on, man.
You see how they play the game.
You see what they do.
You can throw everything you want at Donald Trump for being all of these bad things, but the Republicans didn't Cheat.
In the primary.
You can argue voter roll purges and all that stuff.
I get it.
I'm listening.
I'm talking about in the Democratic process.
The Republicans hated Trump in the primary process.
I'm sorry, the Democratic process of which the primary... Okay, you get the point.
In the primary, Trump was able to win.
And he said things people didn't like and a bunch of Republicans became never-Trumpers.
And when it comes to the Democrats, the establishment will not back down.
Maybe they saw what was happening with Republicans, and they played a better hand.
Maybe Bernie Sanders wasn't strong enough to win.
I think that's the reality.
Donald Trump is a bully.
He's a tall, aggressive individual who's going to push you around.
Bernie Sanders bends the knee every time.
They smear, they slander, and they do this.
And where is Bernie to say enough?
To call his supporters and say, we won't stand for this.
Voters in about 20 New York counties that were slated to vote for only the Democratic nominee for president will no longer have a reason to vote in the June 23rd primary, but some 42 counties that have down-ballot races for congressional and state-level positions will keep their polling places open.
Notably, AOC, I believe, is having her primary at a similar point, so we'll see how this plays out.
Sanders dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Biden.
Well, you know what, man?
Maybe that's why they're saying, too bad.
You played ball.
You endorsed Biden.
You're out of the race.
If you stayed in the race, then they wouldn't have canceled this.
So now you lose more power by doing so.
You should have stayed in the race, man, if that's what you really wanted.
In the absence of an active Bernie campaign, we are pushing folks to vote for the delegates.
Paco Fabian, the director of Campaigns for Our Revolution, a dark money group founded by Sanders in 2016, told CNBC on Wednesday.
Our Revolution chairman Larry Cohen suggested Monday he would challenge the New York delegation at the Democratic National Convention, according to the New York Times.
Suppressing the Sanders vote in New York will again lead to attacks on the party across the nation and harm the volunteer effort that our group and others are building for Joe Biden.
I gotta say, the Democrats are getting a lot of great benefits out of this crisis.
They're shutting out the DNC, possibly even going to do it remote, which really hurts the progressives and Bernie Sanders.
And so long as Joe Biden is hidden, the onus is on Donald Trump.
People are watching him, not Biden, so Biden can stay hidden.
And if people don't like Trump, they'll just check the box for other guy.
They're getting a lot of benefits out of this.
So, we'll see how Sanders plays this one.
I think he's gonna lose.
I think one of the problems with Bernie Sanders was that he had a bunch of good policy ideas.
He did.
Not all of them.
I'm saying he had some good ones.
Talking about national security?
That was Bernie Sanders.
Ending these free trade agreements like TPP opposing them?
He had some good positions.
But he backed away from them to court a progressive youth activist base.
It didn't work for him.
Grow a spine, Bernie.
And you may have actually won because people did believe in you.
But this is what you get when you bend the knee.
I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
We're facing a very serious food shortage, notably meat plants, which are being forced to shut down amid this economic lockdown, and some plants were forced to close due to many of their staff getting sick.
Many people on the left I've seen argue that these frontline workers at these meat plants need to be protected.
That means the plants must shut down, otherwise we'll only make the problem worse.
The reality is, if we don't have food, you will see it get worse.
You don't know the definition of worse, I'll put it that way.
You will see things get so bad, you will beg for these plants to reopen.
People without food are scared, and they're hungry.
Donald Trump is going to order meat processing plants to remain open, declaring them critical infrastructure, a news report says.
And you know what?
I gotta say, I think it's the right move.
I don't know necessarily if they're being shut down of their own volition, if they're being shut down because of illness, But we are in serious trouble, man.
And you can pretend like we're not, people can pretend like we're not, but we keep hearing these lockdowns are being extended.
First they said, you know, Trump was saying, April 12th, April 12th, then April 30th, then May 15th, now June 1st.
Some health guy in California said, maybe until we have a vaccine.
When will it stop?
I don't know.
But when we run out of food, you will see things get really bad.
Take a look at this story.
I'll read the main one.
9 in 10 concerned about economic collapse.
Almost every single person, around 90% of people, fear an economic collapse.
I'm sick of the tribalism.
This is nuts.
If we don't have food, there's no one to save.
No food means you die.
Let's read this story.
Bloomberg reported, citing a person familiar with the matter.
I don't like single-source stories, mind you.
open, declaring them critical infrastructure as the coronavirus outbreak forces the plants
to close and potentially jeopardize the U.S. food supply, a news report said Tuesday.
Trump intends to use the Defense Production Act to order the companies to stay open, and
the government will provide additional protective gear for employees as well as guidance.
Bloomberg reported, citing a person familiar with the matter.
I don't like single source stories, mind you.
Let that be said.
On Tuesday, Trump said he would issue an executive order that addresses Tyson Foods were a lot
worse.
Get liability as the meatpacking company contends with coronavirus outbreaks at its facilities.
There's plenty of supply, Trump said when asked about the food supply.
Trump's order, however, will not be limited to Tyson, Bloomberg said, and will instead affect all processing plants supplying beef, chicken, eggs, and pork.
Coronavirus Market Update.
Oh, I'm sorry.
That's just a weird ad thing.
The White House decided to make the move amid estimates that as much as 80% of the U.S.
production capacity could shut down.
Outbreaks in the meat processing industry and disappearance of demand as restaurants have closed have disrupted the food supply chain.
Tyson food chairman, John Tyson, said that millions of pigs, chickens, and cattle will be euthanized because of slaughterhouse closures which hurt supplies at grocers.
Tyson said in a blog post and full-page advertisement published Sunday in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, the food supply chain is breaking and vulnerable.
In small communities around the world where we employ over 100,000 hardworking men and women, we are being forced to shutter our doors.
This means one thing.
The food supply chain is vulnerable.
As pork, beef, and chicken plants are being forced to close, even for short periods of time, millions of pounds of meat will disappear from the supply chain.
Tyson Foods recently closed a meat processing plant in Pasco, Washington, which the company said produces enough beef in one day to feed 4 million people.
The company also closed two pork processing plants, one in Iowa and one in Indiana, and a chicken processing plant in Tennessee due to the coronavirus.
The U.S.
Department of Agriculture said late Friday it is establishing a National Incident Coordination Center to help farmers find markets for their livestock or euthanize and dispose of animals if necessary.
The economy is not a rich person putting dollar bills in their pocket.
The economy is the machine by which you eat.
The machine by which electricity is delivered to your home.
The machine by which you get clean running water.
And by which you eat!
You need this.
The economy is the machine by which you can go to the hospital.
When you give currency to the hospital, you are getting money to doctors, and yes, there are high-powerful pharmaceuticals and companies that extract those resources, because they want to be wealthy.
And there are problems with crony capitalism.
Yeah, for sure.
But there are too many people who view this from a tribal lens.
The people on the left who are arguing, keep everything closed down forever, just have the government pay for everything, doesn't solve the problem of there not being food.
When the government shuts down the meat processing plant saying y'all can't work, then where does the food come from?
They argue.
The supply chain isn't broken.
There's still food, it just needs to be delivered.
Delivered where?
The farmers can't send the food to the processing plants because the processing plants can't buy the materials they need because no one's buying from the processing plants.
You get the point.
What is the government going to do?
Mandate at gunpoint?
I guess some people would love the full-on communism of a command economy mandating the production of certain goods.
But ultimately, that fails.
We've seen it fail time and time again, and it doesn't necessarily solve all of these problems.
You would still need to reopen those plants, and there's still a pandemic happening.
So if you really want to force a plant to produce, which is what Trump is now going to be doing... Well, I mean, Trump is forcing them to reopen, I guess, which is what the companies really want.
Trump's not going to force them at gunpoint.
You still have to contend with the pandemic.
That's a fact.
People are going to get sick.
But what do you do?
Do you let people starve?
The American people, they see it.
The Hill reports, Concerns were reported by both Republicans and Democrats, according to the Axios-Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
The survey found 89% of both Republicans and Democrats surveyed said they're concerned about the economy collapsing during the pandemic.
But views regarding the pandemic and subsequent government responses are still highly partisan, pollsters noted.
For example, 88% of Democrats said they are concerned about their community reopening too soon.
Well, 56% of Republicans agreed.
Democrats at 15% are also almost twice as likely as Republicans at 8% to say they know someone who died of coronavirus.
Yes, because Democrats tend to live in cities.
Several states, including Georgia, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, have reopened some non-essential businesses this week, with some additional social distancing and sanitation measures in place.
Other states have started to announce plans to begin a gradual phased reopening of their economies.
The Axios-Ipsos poll was conducted April 24th to 27th.
Results are based on a sample of 1,021 people.
There is a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.
So it's not absolute.
Small poll.
But listen, man.
Look at this.
The Moscow Times.
Nurses quit en masse from Russia's top coronavirus hospital, according to reports.
These are people who thought the conditions were bad.
These are people who, let me show you.
They were told, a former nurse who said during the quit, who said she quit the Kamanarka Hospital after almost two months, told the outlet that more than a dozen nursing staff have left in that period.
They reportedly quit because they were denied clean protective gear, food, and adequate accommodations, and were not paid bonuses, promised by Vladimir Putin.
Look, I can understand first and foremost it comes down to gear, food, and accommodation.
But they also wanted bonuses and they weren't getting them.
It's not even about getting paid your salary.
It's about some people wanting more than their salary.
But let's just stop right there.
Let's say the economy breaks down and there's no food.
Do you think any doctor or nurse is going to work in a hospital to save anyone's life if they thought they wouldn't be eating afterwards?
No, I think they'd eventually say, I want to save your life, it's my passion, but I need food and I have to go find it.
In order for humans to do a job that doesn't involve hunting and gathering, they need a supply of food to them, and water and shelter.
So let me put it this way, let's use a regional example.
There are some parts of this world.
The United States.
The frack fields.
You know there are frack cities?
They are whole cities that emerged specifically to house employees of fracking companies.
These cities don't produce food.
They produce... Well, they frack.
And they produce, I believe, you know, shale natural gas.
I'm not a big, you know, expert on what they produce, so forgive me.
But the point is, they produce a fossil fuel of some sort, trade that, and the food comes in.
If you got rid of the ability to buy that food, there would be no city.
The people would leave because they can't frack anymore, because they need to eat first and foremost.
A human being must be provided with their base resources before they can do anything else.
And when the economy collapses, you are no longer bringing in those supplies to support a doctor.
Take a doctor.
Put them in the middle of the woods.
What are they going to do?
Are they going to be doctors?
No, they're going to start hunting.
They're going to become hunters, because they need to eat.
And they're going to become gatherers, because they need to eat.
And they're going to look for water and shelter.
Put them in a place surrounded by food, and they can be doctors again, when they don't have to worry about where their food is coming from.
When the economy collapses, and the people working at these plants are forced to shut their doors, and the stores no longer have meat or grains or dairy, then the doctors are going to say, okay, my store is out of food, your paycheck means nothing to me, I need to go find my own.
That's, look, I don't know when and how that would ever happen.
I mean, I should say, it's possible, and we're getting closer than ever.
But so long as you have people advocating we just keep things locked down indefinitely, well then we're facing a true collapse.
And the funny thing is, you know people who live in cities?
They're in the worst positions possible.
People who live in the countryside can start growing food.
I've already started growing food in my garden.
What about you?
Do you have one?
Do you live in a city?
Are you in a cubicle living on top of somebody else in Manhattan?
Yeah, you can't really grow food, can you?
Not sure you can put little garden pots on your fire escape.
Is that gonna be enough?
Is it secure?
Will someone take it from you?
Or can you even grow enough?
Does it matter?
What happens when the people who run the water system leave to go find food and your water stops running in your house?
This to me is absolutely nonsensical that we're seeing people argue against the reopening of the economy.
I'm not saying that we want people to die.
I'm saying if we don't get things going again, more people will die and you will regret it.
Trump is going to use this order.
We'll see how things play out.
I think it's the right thing to do.
I think desperate times.
Now, the companies seem to want to be open.
There's a difference between someone shutting down and the government forcing it to reopen, but we're already in dangerous territory.
I don't like the idea of the government telling them you gotta do this.
I don't like the idea of the government shutting it down in the first place.
I guess we'll see how things play out.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Nancy Pelosi says it's perhaps time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang during his failed presidential campaign.
A very, very interesting story.
Nancy Pelosi expressed a willingness to look into instituting a universal basic income for the American people, which was the centerpiece of Democrat Andrew Yang's presidential campaign.
Pelosi pointed out Monday on MSNBC that others have suggested a minimum income, a guaranteed income for people.
Is that worthy of attention now?
Perhaps so.
Congress already passed one bill to combat the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic.
That included cash payments to Americans.
I am a UBI skeptic.
What I should say in that regard is that I don't completely discredit universal basic income.
I actually love the idea.
When I was younger, I was very, very much into the idea of UBI.
As I've gotten older, and I've learned more about economics, I've become much, much more of a skeptic.
You may have seen recently I appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, and we brought this up.
Well, over on a subreddit for Andrew Yang, they mentioned this, and they're having a discussion about what I got wrong and how they view UBI, And I would actually like to take the opportunity to address some of their comments and have a legitimate conversation about UBI.
Because there isn't one set defined universal basic income, and there are so many different aspects to it, there are a lot of really great points they bring up countering things I said that I think would be fair to consider.
The first thing, though, is let's talk about what is Nancy Pelosi doing here?
Does she really want to implement this?
Because I don't think we're at that point where it's necessarily going to work.
Now listen, Andrew Yang is a smart feller.
I'm a big fan.
He's got a ton of really, really smart policy positions.
I was impressed.
I went through his website.
I don't play games.
I don't like supporting people.
I really don't.
Because you never know, he's got like ten positions.
Yang had like 80 or 100, some ridiculous number of all these things he's written down.
I'm like, dude's basically written a manifesto talking about the things he supports.
And so I looked through a lot of his policy positions and I found them to be fairly moderate and rational positions.
Not all correct.
You know, he wanted like a news ombudsman.
I don't think the government can do that.
But, you know, interesting ideas nonetheless.
And so that's why I became a big fan of the guy, because I thought he was genuine and really wanted to solve problems.
One of his proposals is a freedom dividend.
Many of you, you probably already know this.
The idea is that these big companies pay, there's a VAT tax placed on certain goods, and then through these big companies paying this tax, or through the tax through their purchased goods, that funds the bulk of a $1,000 a month universal basic income, sort of.
He calls it the freedom dividend.
It's kind of different.
Let's read this.
On the campaign trail, Yang called it a freedom dividend, saying, there's nothing stopping us from making it happen.
There's nothing stopping a majority of citizens, excuse me, of a democracy from passing ourselves a dividend.
Companies do it all the time, every day, and when companies do it, what do we say?
Great job, good management, Yang pointed out.
We are the owners of this country.
We can return some of it to ourselves, and that's the only way we're going to get it back.
Yang responded positively to Pelosi's comments.
I applaud Speaker Pelosi for publicly endorsing the consideration of a guaranteed income for all Americans.
This pandemic has unfortunately exposed serious weaknesses in our economy, with alarming unemployment rates and crippling impact on every professional industry.
So listen.
Right now, we are seeing a conflation of the Paycheck Protection Program and Universal Basic Income.
And that's one of the criticisms people had for me.
I didn't mean to conflate them as the same thing.
My point I was trying to make is, you get a glimpse of some of the problems of Universal Basic Income when you look at situations like this.
And perhaps, look, I'm wrong on a lot of things.
I'm absolutely willing to To argue.
Like, if you want to debate me and tell me that I'm not right about UBI, 100%.
Totally would love to have a conversation about this.
And all I want to do is do my best to get to the truth.
You tell me something about UBI, okay.
I'm not a big fan.
I'm not completely opposed.
Again, I love the idea.
This idea that every American gets enough money to pay for their housing, for their food, and for their healthcare.
And after that, everything is the privilege, the premium.
You earn, you build, you grow.
I like the idea.
I'd love to live in this world.
I don't know if it's possible because we live in a scarcity society.
Resources are not infinite.
I don't like the idea of homeless people, but you gotta understand, you can't just give a homeless person a check and then he go rents a building.
It doesn't work that way.
There are specific reasons why people don't have homes.
There will always be poverty.
Now again, that doesn't necessarily discredit UBI outright, but it does mean that the idea of guaranteeing someone's basic, you know, living conditions or dignity Doesn't necessarily work.
You will still have homeless people.
You will still have lazy people.
You will still have exploitation and all of that.
Now, there is the argument that it will provide everybody with a set level of income, but one of the challenges I have for people is... What's the... You know, we need to talk about incentives, right?
What will incentivize someone to actually work, to go out, to strive, to do better?
Why would someone want to work a low-skill, boring, tedious job instead of using the opportunity to not have to work to go and do things that they think are more fun?
Now, I get it.
Andrew Yang is talking about automation.
That's why I like the dude, okay?
Because a blanket UBI is like... I think this idea of post-scarcity can only exist when you're post-scarcity, but you see communists try to implement things that don't make sense.
And then when resources run dry, they collapse.
Right now there are a lot of jobs being erased.
Like, do we really need someone working the register at a fast food restaurant when we're getting kiosks to replace them?
We don't.
So then what do we do to make sure that when these jobs are lost and nobody really wants to do them, people get support?
One of the ideas is a kiosk task.
I'm sorry, a kiosk tax.
There you go.
The idea being that companies that employ kiosks will pay a premium that tax will be used to pay for some kind of UBI.
That, in concert with many other taxes, might actually be then distributed to people, and they will have access to food and stuff.
I think it's fair to point out That big companies extract dollars very, very well.
They make billions of dollars, they pay it out, and then their shareholders have all of this money to buy things with.
But the money isn't the product.
That's the problem.
The value of the currency is relative to what you can buy for it.
And if you get a bunch of people who are incentivized to do art instead of some kind of product creation or service, then you'll have less to buy with your money.
So, let me do this.
I think it's interesting that Pelosi's dancing around this idea.
We'll see if it actually becomes popular.
In this subreddit for Yang 2020, they mention that I was debating Joe Rogan.
Sort of debating.
I guess we kind of were.
I think we were having a discussion.
I don't think I know all the answers.
I hate the idea of debating, to be honest.
Like, I'll have a discussion with you about it because I don't think I know all the answers.
I'm not going to try and win.
I'm going to ask you some questions and try and better understand your position.
So the first comment was... I think that's what UI stands for.
They are different programs.
I think that's what UI stands for.
They are different programs.
PPP seeks to tie you to your job whether you, I'm fighting a sneeze, sorry, whether you
like it or not.
Universal income rewards you for getting fired with a pandemic structuring, assuming you
can successfully apply.
assuming you can successfully apply.
And UBI seeks to give you the freedom to live your life however you want, including the ability to tell bad employers to go F themselves, thus forcing them to either become good employers or go out of business.
He also seems to think that people who have jobs won't get UBI, which is just fundamentally wrong, and that no one will work at undesirable jobs, even if they're offered decent pay, which is also wrong.
Alright, first, I understand people who get UBI, people who work will also get UBI, right?
I totally understand that.
I was talking about a world where some jobs are essential and most jobs are not.
So, I will point out, it's actually a really, really good point, something I didn't consider, that when people have an opportunity not to work, they will not want to work for you and you will have to do more to be a better employer.
I also think it's fair to point out, as a skateboarder, I know hundreds of people that would do anything in their power to never have to be productive at all.
And this is where my perspective comes from on me being a UBI skeptic.
He says, no one will work at undesirable jobs even if they're offered decent pay, which is also wrong.
No, I do think people will work on undesirable jobs.
I think companies that have them will have to dramatically increase the amount they pay to overcome the money you get from the government or from the freedom dividend or whatever it is.
So, I don't know if I have enough time to tackle this whole thing, but the point is, My skateboarder friends, my musician friends, would absolutely eat ramen every day if it meant they could just sit on the balcony playing their guitar and working on their art.
They have no real plan for how to do the art better, how to make money off of it, or what they're going to do with it.
But given the opportunity, they will leave their undesirable job.
That means jobs like McDonald's.
And I'm not saying it's necessarily undesirable, but low skill.
We'll have to say to all of these people, We pay $2,000 a month for you to work here.
Those people then say, you know, I used to need the money for food and shelter and stuff.
I don't anymore.
I'd rather forego the luxuries and just smell the flowers.
Hey, that's respectable.
I totally agree.
That's my mentality.
I would rather get rid of everything tying me down and just smell the flowers.
That means these companies will have to start paying more.
They'll say, OK, some people want a new iPhone.
OK, how about $3,000?
The problem is there's an exponential diminishing return on this.
People consider, look, if I'm going to work 40 hours a week and only get another $2,000, what am I really going to do with that?
I worked jobs where I was getting like 300 bucks a month, like these really crappy, low-tier jobs.
I didn't need that much, so I did the least amount possible to focus on my thing.
Now, granted, it worked for me because I was looking for a path, and I think there is a big benefit to UBI, but I think too many people don't have the right value system and would walk away.
This would result in undesirable jobs jacking up the price, which causes the base cost for certain goods to go up around them, thus negating the value of the UBI itself.
The purchasing power of the dollar would start to diminish dramatically, unless the money we get for the UBI comes from international sources.
That would work much better.
If we're talking about a tax on international sales, like if Amazon sells some kind of widget to Russia, Russia pays a tax, that tax goes to the American people, that might make more sense.
But you will still be faced with the problem That the value of currency isn't necessarily based on someone just writing a number down.
It's based on what you can get with that money.
And if people have the option not to work, and they choose to, you will not be able to buy as much.
It's not about producing something or working at McDonald's.
It's about being a plumber, even.
It's about doing a service.
The prices will have to go up, and it will diminish the buying power.
Okay?
But there is a really, really... There's a really, really fascinating point that someone brought up near the bottom, I believe.
Tim Pool, in my estimation, doesn't see that UBI can be tweaked to fit his concerns.
We want incentives.
People will want to work.
People will want to put their lives on the line.
World of Warcraft and Magic the Gathering are going to be jobs.
The currency that you earn in games like WoW already have value.
It is going to be a matter of everyone playing fair.
Amazing!
An excellent point I did not consider.
I fully know the value of World of Warcraft currency, but you can't use it in real life.
What if cryptocurrency is this path towards something we never expected?
That what we consider hobbies actually can have some kind of value created?
That's a really important possibility.
I don't necessarily have the time or energy to break down right now, but I can point out that's something I hadn't considered and is a very, very smart point to be made.
We'll see how things are played out.
I gave you my concerns.
I know I didn't go through all of the conversations.
There's one, I think, pointless thread where people call me a fake liberal and a Trump supporter, which doesn't actually get to the point of arguing for or against UBI.
I'll leave it with this.
I like UBI.
I like the idea.
Let's figure out how to make it work and you got me on board already.
I see a bunch of problems that I don't see addressed.
That's what we need to overcome.
Because listen, I will absolutely 100% work with you on creating a system that would make UBI a thing.
I don't see a path to building that structure.
If you believe I'm wrong, talk to me about it, like these threads, which are awesome, by the way, and if I then agree with you and I can see the structure, I will do my best to figure out how we can support it better.
At current, I lean negatively on UBI, thinking it's not entirely possible for the reasons I lay out, and many, many more.
There are a lot of really good points to be made that weren't necessarily made.
Joe, I think, made some really good points.
But ultimately, he did tell a story about a comedian, you know, who had his life paid for and just didn't make it.
I don't know how you overcome some of these fundamental issues.
Maybe we can solve them, and maybe we can make a post-scarcity world where everyone gets access.
But let me just end by saying one thing.
There will never be a way to house everyone.
There will never be a way to feed everyone.
Perhaps if we come to a point where... Listen, we have more than enough food for everyone in the world.
That's a fact.
But you gotta understand that when people eat food, they have kids.
And then there are more people.
These are just weird realities that I don't know how you necessarily address without being callous or called inhuman or something, but the solution isn't just to give everyone food, it's to teach them to make their own food so they can support and sustain themselves.
Giving money to someone doesn't create the food.
We'll have to build a new system of economic trade, and that's possible, perhaps.
I'm willing to have that conversation.
But for now, I just don't see it.
Though I think some great points were made.
Let's keep the conversation going.
To the Yang Gang subreddit, look, I'm a big fan of Yang, man.
I was an early skeptic, became a convert, Still skeptical on UBI, but I think Yang's a great dude, and I think there's a lot of conversations we can have.
So to the people who want to have this weird, you know, F Tim and whatever, like, go ahead and do it, man.
I'm trying to have a real conversation with people who might disagree with me, and I'd be willing to hear your input.
