Democrats FINALLY ADMIT Joe Biden Likely Did It But So What, They Will Vote For Him Anyway
Democrats FINALLY ADMIT Joe Biden Likely Did It But So What, They Will Vote For Him Anyway. Media and Democrats have tried to ignore the allegations against Joe Biden, they have tried to deny them, they tried in the past to justify his awful behavior.But now Democrats and many leftists are backed into a corner and they have decided to just come out and admit it.They don't care about the allegations against Biden enough to stop them from voting for him.Trump is worse they say so best to vote for the lesser of two evils.But this still doesn't absolve them of the accusations they made against Brett Kavanaugh and how they argued to believe all women.Democrats are facing the full wrath of their own demands and its backfiring on them horribly.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joe Biden was credibly accused just around a month ago.
And by all accounts, the accusation was substantially more credible than any accusations made against Brett Kavanaugh.
The media ignored it.
Many people on the left and the Democrats ignored it.
Conservative outlets, right-wing sites started talking about it.
And it was only 19 or so days later, the New York Times finally addressed the accusations, running a very strange defense piece for Joe Biden, arguing there was no pattern of bad behavior and then criticizing Donald Trump.
But things have changed.
Corroborating evidence has emerged, and you cannot deny it.
The people who tried playing this game, where they're like, oh, you can't compare this to Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh was so much worse when he wasn't.
Well, they're backed into a corner.
And now they are finally admitting it.
They don't care about the accusations.
They're going to vote for Joe Biden anyway.
In an absolutely astounding op-ed from the New York Times, I believe Tara Reid.
I'm voting for Joe Biden anyway.
And it's not just the mainstream left.
It's also progressives like The Nation.
I believe Tara Reid and you should too.
Both articles concluding That yes, the corroborating evidence suggests Joe Biden actually did the horrifying thing he's accused of, but come on, you gotta vote for him anyway.
What I absolutely love about this story is the media hypocrisy, the fact that we can see the bias in the press, the defense of Joe Biden, and the final, the final admission, fine, you've gotten us.
We're going to vote for him anyway.
I love the failed defenses arguing, well, you're making excuses for Donald Trump.
He's been accused as well.
Yeah, well, you know what?
It wasn't conservatives who asked for this standard.
It wasn't conservatives who said you should throw out due process.
And in fact, most conservatives don't believe the accusations.
In fact, Tucker Carlson Trump is calling this out, saying we need to keep up our guard.
He questions the timing.
Dare I say, conservatives are remaining consistent on their principle.
And you see the problem for me?
I'm not here to advocate for a policy position.
You want to argue progressive or flat taxes, immigration and naturalization?
That has nothing to do with any of this.
This has to do with how the media runs defense for Democrats, how the Democrats pretend to have morals when they don't.
They pretend to be principled, fighting for truth and justice, and then the moment their own rules come back to haunt them, they totally ignore it.
And only when they're forced to finally come out do they say, fine, you got us.
We're voting for him anyway.
Now, I'll give some credit to this article.
It's horribly honest.
Owning it.
The importance of owning an ugly moral choice.
In fact, it may actually be somewhat consistent for many of these people.
Think about it.
Donald Trump has been accused by many women of impropriety.
I try to keep things family friendly here.
And Trump supporters just don't believe it.
So it's not that they're giving Trump a pass.
They just don't believe it.
And like I showed you with Tucker Carlson, I also don't believe this woman necessarily either.
Though she does have substantially more corroborating evidence, and we've seen the videos of Joe Biden, for the most part, conservatives are only calling out the hypocrisy.
The Democrats, on the other hand, did call out Trump, did call out Kavanaugh.
And the argument here, and to be fair, is that, well, Donald Trump has substantially more accusations against him, so when it comes down to it, your only real option, I guess, is to vote for Biden.
There is one real option.
Don't vote for either of them.
I mean, unless you think Biden could actually win, which I really doubt anyone believes.
Why would you give your voice to someone you think is despicable?
I would never do it.
That's why I've said it over and over again.
I do not like the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Well, let's read some of these stories.
And I want to show you some really interesting data.
A poll from Axios.
Or it's a poll posted by Axios.
Biden leads Trump as most voters know about the Reid allegation.
There it is.
The Democrats don't care.
Or are they pretending?
I mean, they argued for the most part that with Brett Kavanaugh, it's a job interview.
Should someone really be allowed to have this position?
We're just doing a job interview, right?
That's what they said.
Okay, now you know about this?
You believe this?
Oh, now you think he should have the job?
Oh, because the other guy's potentially worse?
Have you considered voting for someone else?
Ye have little faith.
Well, let's actually read through some of these stories and see their arguments.
I actually have a graph from FiveThirtyEight showing the media coverage of this and what conservatives had been saying.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
You know why?
This video's getting suppressed.
Hands down, no question about it.
It'll be demonetized, deranked, suppressed, and I'm gonna tell the story, I'm not gonna ignore it.
But yeah, this is YouTube, man.
They don't like the fact that I'm talking about this, and there's a good argument.
I mean, what advertiser wants to be associated with this kind of stuff?
Yeah, that's fair, I suppose.
But that does mean YouTube is less likely to recommend it, so people won't hear the story.
If you think this story is important, You think I do a good job?
Sharing this video really, really does help.
Or if you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, hit the like button, hit the notification bell, and maybe that's enough to get YouTube to actually recommend my videos to you, but whatever.
Let's read some of the New York Times story.
I believe, Tara Reid, I'm voting for Joe Biden anyway.
Here, here!
I'm glad you're owning up to it, though.
I can respect it.
I mean that sincerely.
The importance of owning an ugly moral choice.
I completely disagree with it.
I would rather vote for... I would rather vote for a dude sleeping in the alley if I thought he was a good person.
It's not about whether or not they think they can win.
Your vote is you saying this person, I believe, is the best choice I can make.
Okay, it's not about winning, is it?
Well, apparently it is.
That's all it's about.
It's about winning, right?
You know, some of these people don't seem to understand that if Trump was really that bad, let him have it.
You know why?
Vote for who you think is right.
If you stand on principle, then you've never wasted your vote.
And if you think Trump really is that bad, well then perhaps it will reflect poorly on him and he won't get re-elected.
But when you do this, YOU look bad.
Trump doesn't look bad.
YOU do.
This is from Linda Hirschman, who writes, What's the constant here?
Joe Biden, then the bumbling head of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
She goes on to make several points, saying, What's a girl to do?
Discounting Mrs. Reed's accusation, and one after another denigrating her corroborating
witnesses, calling for endless new evidence,
avowing that you hear her is nonsense.
We are now up to four corroborating witnesses, including one contemporary corroborating witness,
unearthed by Rich McHugh, who was Ronan Farrow's producer at NBC News during the
Harvey Weinstein MeToo reporting and won Larry King live tape.
So stop playing gotcha with female supporters of Mr. Biden or the MeToo movement, making
them lie to the camera or perhaps to themselves and doubting her to justify their votes.
I'll take one for the team.
I believe Ms. Reid and I'll vote for Biden this fall.
Well, it's not just establishment mainstream Democrats.
It's the nation.
Progressives.
I believe Tariq and you should too.
We already knew Biden is the type.
Had we as voters and had the Democratic Party taken this seriously, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
From Kate, man, Again, respectable, pointing out that they're placed between a rock and a hard place, and they might not want to vote for this guy, but they do view Trump as worse.
Congratulations, you're participating in a system that you view as fundamentally broken, and you're willing to vote for someone you think is a disgusting monster because you're worried about someone who's slightly more of a disgusting monster.
Okay, I'll be fair.
Substantially more of a disgusting monster from your point of view.
You know what I do?
I have one secret to getting past all of this stuff.
I don't vote.
If I see two people, Democrat, Republican, and let's go to 2016, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, I said, I laughed.
I put my feet up, put my hands on my head, and I didn't vote.
I said, I don't want that guy, I don't want that lady.
Boom.
Is it that difficult?
And I sat in a room full of mostly Democrats, laughing as they thought they were going to win, and one Trump supporter who thought they were going to lose.
And then when Trump started winning, I just laughed.
You know what people gotta realize, man?
You gotta sometimes just go with the flow.
That means bad things happen.
It does.
But you can't keep trying to change the wind.
You can't.
But you can adjust your sails.
You're fighting a current you can't defeat.
Don't support what you hate about it.
Just stop playing.
Get out of the river.
Just leave.
Vote for someone else you think is better, even if you don't think they're gonna win.
Otherwise, you're wasting your vote supporting someone you don't like.
And of course, in this article, the woman says, I advocate for voting for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.
I guess.
For me?
I'm not gonna vote for either.
Now, it wasn't just these articles, because we saw this tweet on May 1st.
Lisa Bloom says, I believe you, Tara Reid.
You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
We know he is handsy.
You're not asking for money.
You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe.
But I believe you, and I'm sorry.
No, you don't!
You don't have to support this system.
So long as you contribute to a system that you believe is broken, the system will always exist.
And they'll make sure.
And it will only get worse.
Well, that brings us to the polls.
Who's going to win come November?
Donald Trump or Joe Biden?
Well, not that I think it really means much.
I don't know.
It's hard to say.
I mean, Hillary Clinton was leading in the polls as well.
Joe Biden very well may be ahead of Trump.
I'd be really surprised because, look, I'll tell you what, man.
I have lifelong Democrat friends who are hitting me up about my videos criticizing the Democrats being like, I completely agree with you.
Like, I'm watching this, I'm watching the news.
I'll tell you what, man, there are regular Americans who can't even stand watching mainstream news anymore because of the defense of Joe Biden.
They open the paper and they see, vote for Biden anyway, and they're confused.
Like, what is this?
Not only is Joe Biden now credibly accused, something you stood up against, the dude can't form a sentence.
Why would you vote for this?
It's insane.
I'm not saying to go vote for Trump.
I'm saying, why would you put your voice behind this?
Well, the polls show that even knowing about it, I don't care.
I love it, man.
You know what?
I love the honesty.
I really do.
You know why I'm laughing and I'm happy?
The one thing I hate more than anything is deception, dishonesty, the misleading nonsense.
Now, I understand there's some things that have to be kept secret.
Not everything will be completely transparent all the time.
And for security reasons and to protect people and things like that.
But I love it when you finally see the curtain lifted, the masks slipping.
We can now see the man behind the curtain.
We get it.
Ah, I so appreciate this.
Thank you, Democrats, for coming out and admitting you don't care.
No, no, no, I understand you care about the accusations and you care that you don't like people who do this, but you don't care enough to actually go and vote for someone else.
Because I assure you, there are other people running for president.
You don't got to vote for any of these two people.
Oh, but you're worried one will win?
You know what, man?
I'm sorry.
I'm not buying it.
Axios says, Joe Biden leads President Trump among registered voters by 9 points, 50% to 41%.
Even as most voters, 86% say they're aware of the allegations by former Senate staffer Tara Reid.
By the numbers, 37% of those surveyed said they believed that Reid's allegation against Biden was probably true.
Well, 32% said it probably isn't true, though those feelings split largely along partisan lines.
50% of Republicans believe the allegation is probably true, while 17% don't.
I'll be straight up with y'all.
A lot of Trump supporters and a lot of conservatives are less likely to believe the accusations against Trump and Kavanaugh and more likely to believe the accusations against Joe Biden.
Many for partisan reasons.
My guy can do no wrong, they would say.
Donald Trump's being falsely accused.
They just don't like the orange man.
Well, I think there is a good reason to call out some of the accusations against Trump and especially Kavanaugh.
I mean, the Kavanaugh accusations, many were proven to be false.
I mean, literally, some of these people recanted.
And there's videos of Joe Biden, you know, being inappropriate and creepy, okay?
But there's more corroborating evidence against Joe Biden than there is against many of the accusations having to do with Trump.
But let's be real.
Of course partisanship plays a role in this.
Of course there are going to be Democrats who say, I don't believe this.
But the problem is, it's not about whether you believe it or not.
It's about what you advocate for.
Even though Trump supporters might believe this about Joe Biden and might not believe it about Trump, they didn't advocate for removal of due process.
In fact, consistently in the Me Too movement with all these college stories about young men being accused, it has been the right and conservatives arguing for due process.
So now we are here and we do have Tucker Carlson of Fox News questioning this.
Their principles, for the most part, especially among leadership on the conservative side, has remained consistent.
The problem is the Democrats saying they don't believe it against Joe Biden and changing the rules.
They said believe women.
It was the left.
It was the Democrats.
You can't just erase all of that.
They say 50% of Republicans believe the allegation was true.
55% of Democrats believe it's not true.
32% of those who believe the allegation is probably true still back Biden, compared to 59% who support Trump.
Biden has firmly denied the allegations.
Why it matters.
Biden's lead over Trump, despite wide knowledge of the Reid allegation.
plus his big net favorability among Democrats, plus 66%, indicates that his position as the
presumptive Democratic nominee remains solid. It's also noteworthy that he retains a higher
net favorability with women than men, despite the allegation I absolutely love it.
But I'm just, you know, PR, right?
Public relations, press statements from corporations or politicians.
It's always just so fake.
And we know they're lies, right?
It's like there'll be some environmental disaster and they'll come out and be like, we were completely unaware of this.
We're so sorry.
And you're like, no, you weren't.
We know you're lying, man.
But you're just going through the motions saying what needs to be said.
To see these people come out and just say, you know what?
We get it.
We're going to do it anyway.
I'm like, thank you for just being honest.
That's how I feel, right?
Check this out.
FiveThirtyEight has this really cool graph breaking down how everything, you know, started with the story.
And we can see ain't nobody's covering this.
Fox News, a little blip on like April 4th.
Just like one story maybe.
Here's what they say.
Of the three major cable news outlets, Fox News has devoted the most attention to Reed so far.
Through Friday, May 1st, Fox News mentioned Reed in 371 clips collected by the TV News Archive, 344 of them on or after April 24th.
Many of these mentions were by the channel's conservative commentators criticizing Democrats and the media for not giving Reid's allegations more airtime.
You know what that means?
The conservatives weren't highlighting the story out of some hypocritical stance where they would ignore Trump and call out Biden for partisan reasons.
It was them calling out the hypocritical stance by the media for ignoring the allegations.
That's mostly what I've seen.
Of course, you're still going to get Democrats saying they proudly support Joe Biden and Eric Holder endorsing Joe Biden.
You're going to get stories like this from April 13th.
Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times.
Bravo.
I love this.
This is amazing.
What to do with Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden?
They say that the assault accusation is being used against the presumptive Democratic nominee to troll the MeToo movement.
Is that what it is?
I seem to recall the same woman saying, pigs all the way down, Kavanaugh, in a rotten ruling class.
And then she had to address this hypocrisy.
Democrats, Tara Reid, and the MeToo trap.
Don't compare the case against Joe Biden to the one against Brett Kavanaugh.
I'm sorry.
You don't get to play these games.
We're holding you to your own standards.
What's really funny about this story is that initially they really tried to deflect and deny this.
They said, you know, in the New York Times piece, there's no pattern of abuse and Donald Trump is worse.
But the New York Times was then forced to come out because the tides have changed.
Everybody's now in agreement, like, yeah, the guy probably did it.
The Associated Press apparently had an interview with Tara Reid a year ago and deleted it.
They got rid of it.
Why didn't they air it?
Why didn't they try to dig into the story and corroborate the allegations against Joe Biden?
I really wonder why.
What we get from this and why it's so refreshing is because we can now see the bias inherent in the media.
100%.
You can't deny it.
The New York Times was forced to come out and say there should be a DNC investigation into Joe Biden.
Journalists mock New York Times call for unbiased DNC panel to investigate Biden.
Is this satire?
It's almost.
It's laughable.
Because the New York Times had no choice but to backpedal.
Because public opinion, 86% of people, they know about this.
And you can't, what are you gonna do?
You know, I've been asked by people, how do you convince them that the news is fake?
Or at least that the news is not that good.
I actually think many of these sources tend to be okay.
It's just you gotta find, you gotta sort through the buys and figure out what's true and what isn't.
But I use the same sources, I just fact check them against each other and try to investigate myself, look up what was said and find the source.
The problem with this story is that it destroyed the credibility of so many news outlets, like CNN, for instance, or the Washington Post, or the New York Times, because they were ignoring it.
In CNN's case, they had the Larry King show from 93, where you can hear them call in corroborating the story, and they were scooped on it.
The Washington Post blamed this on Trump allies, even though the story was broken by progressives, and the New York Times actually defended Joe Biden.
But the public wasn't having it.
The hypocrisy, you could see it.
The Kavanaugh stories.
Everyone was asking the question, why is it that with Brett Kavanaugh, 900 articles?
With Tara Reid?
Zero.
And they couldn't do anything about it, and eventually, progressives were the one putting pressure on them.
Yeah, they tried to blame conservatives, but it didn't work, because it wasn't.
It was Bernie supporters, it was leftists, it was progressives.
So now they're flip-flopping, and boy, do they look silly.
Take a look at this story.
Time's Up, this is the Me Too organization, said it could not fund a Me Too allegation against Joe Biden, citing its non-profit status and his presidential run.
Now what do we get from the rap?
Just a few days ago, Time's Up says assault claims like Tara Reid can't go ignored.
Well, well, well.
What a remarkable flip-flop.
So they can't pretend anymore, but at least they're being honest and saying straight up, you know what, we're gonna vote for the guy anyway, we don't care.
Right?
Tucker Carlson, unsurprisingly, maintains his principles.
And even I've said something similar.
I've said it in almost every video.
I don't care for these old allegations.
I don't think it should be held against Joe Biden.
How is Joe Biden supposed to prove this or disprove it?
You can't.
The court of public opinion is unforgiving.
I don't care for this stuff.
But I will give you what you asked for.
The standards you wanted.
So my biggest criticism, very much like many of these conservative sites, is the hypocrisy and the double standard.
Tucker Carlson says, why we need to keep our guard up as the Tara Reid Joe Biden story progresses.
He says, one thing we have not yet addressed in any detail is Reid's story itself.
What exactly does she say happened between herself and Joe Biden?
Is there any evidence to back it up?
It's a good point.
I just want to grab his conclusion where he basically, well, I'll give you if the Fox News website will load.
He says, now as we learned so bitterly during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, Political imperative sometimes influences claims like this.
That does not mean that Tara Reid is some kind of liar or is a devious partisan.
We don't know that is true.
And we're not saying it now.
To be clear, we're not asserting that.
But the timing does mean, and this is our duty, that we ought to keep our guard up as the story progresses.
Those of us who cover it going forward should be very wary of being used.
Again, this is a presidential year.
Weigh everything against the facts.
Take nothing for granted.
The one thing you can be certain of this year is you're being lied to.
So that's what we know so far about the Tara Reid story.
Those are the facts.
Decide for yourself and what you make of them.
We'll be updating it regularly.
I've said something similar.
She was a Bernie Sanders supporter.
Her story's coming at an opportune time.
I'm not a fan.
I am not a fan of this strategy, of these tactics.
And what you gotta be careful of is that if you jump on this, wagging the finger and laughing and saying, ha ha, what happens in three months when it turns out she was wrong?
They will lord this over you forever, and you will regret it.
We have another story from Yahoo.
Tucker Carlson questions the timing of Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden.
That's basically the gist of what we saw here.
Completely, completely fair.
This is what I'll say to everybody.
You know, if you are concerned about these accusations and you're a progressive, then by all means, call them out.
And you have my respect for being honest if you're going to vote for the guy anyway.
And if you want to be consistent, you have to, right?
If you're someone who doesn't believe this, then be careful about how you are going to be used.
Regular people don't know for sure.
Many of them seem to want to vote for Joe Biden no matter what anyway.
These aren't necessarily the same people coming out and demanding a removal of due process.
So it's important to point out there are high-profile personalities, people like Alyssa Milano, who are lying to you, right?
And the reason I say she's specifically lying is that she was all about Me Too and believing women up until it was someone she endorsed, Joe Biden, and she refused to back down.
Only later on did she say, okay, Tara must be heard because they're being forced to.
But you are being exploited.
As Tucker said, you are being lied to.
The one thing you need to focus on for this is not the allegation itself.
We can dismiss that outright.
And I mean that 100%.
No disrespect to Tara Reid.
No disrespect to any other victims or anything like that.
But it's a 30-year-old allegation.
It's hard to prove.
I understand there's corroborating evidence.
But you know what?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it's something you can't prove.
It's 30 years ago.
What you can prove is that the media is biased, that the Democrats don't care for these principles themselves, for the most part.
They'll vote for it anyway.
They have the opportunity to remove Joe Biden at a convention.
They can swap him out for someone else.
In fact, I think they very well may, because Biden can't win.
This is their opportunity to get in someone like Andrew Cuomo.
Whether they will or not, I don't know.
But if they're willing to ignore the serious claims against them, it shows you that they never really cared that much.
They're still willing to vote for someone, put them in office, give them the job, as it were, even if they're this really awful person.
And they say it's because they're scared of Trump.
So again, you know what?
I can respect that.
They think Trump is worse.
I think it's a bit of Trump derangement syndrome.
And ultimately, if your principles would suggest you cannot support someone who's done this, then you can't vote for either of them.
That to me shows hypocrisy, 100%.
In the end, the main takeaway, not even that, because look, they're being honest in this op-ed.
She's straight up saying, I'll vote for him anyway, call out the media.
That's what we need to do.
Point out the New York Times defended this man.
Call out the press for their support of the Democrats for the lies and they're dragging Biden along.
Let's admit it, man.
I mean, it is obvious to all of us watching.
I mean, not everybody that the only reason Joe Biden still here is because the media has been propping him up, scared to actually challenge him.
You know why?
There was an event that the ACLU defended.
And boy, was everybody mad.
And all of a sudden, they started losing subscribers like crazy.
They were losing donors, monthly donors, so they flip-flopped, no longer wanting to defend outright free speech, now condemning hate speech.
The same is true for these media outlets.
They know that even if there's evidence to suggest Joe Biden did this, by publishing the story, they will lose subscribers.
Look at what happened to Chris Hayes, MSNBC.
He covered the story, and they demanded he be fired.
I don't know why any sane person would want to be associated with that tribe.
And this is what I've noticed when it comes to politics.
Typically, you hear stories of people who have drifted to the right because people on the right gave them praise.
Yeah, absolutely, you hear a lot of those stories.
And you also hear stories of people on the left who drifted to the left because they were threatened and beaten down and their careers were in jeopardy.
Who would you rather associate with?
They call it the love bomb.
The right wing will praise you and cheer for you until they convince you to join their ranks.
What's the alternative?
A left that will tell you we will destroy you and end you and take away your career?
Yeah, sorry, that's not a winning recipe.
That's what we get.
So, look, in the end, you get someone like me.
I have no interest in anyone's tribe.
I have no interest in defending anybody.
Donald Trump's been accused by substantially more women than Joe Biden has.
The reality?
The Republicans didn't ask for a no due process standard.
So what am I supposed to say to that?
Haha, your president's been accused?
They're gonna be like, well, we don't believe it.
Well, what about Joe Biden?
Well, we also don't really believe that either, as noted by Tucker Carlson.
But they're going to hold the Democrats to their own standard.
That's what you need to pay attention to.
Politics flowing in one direction, as I've described it.
The left seeks to push people out.
But I think I want to revise that.
It's not so much that it flows in one direction.
It does, right?
You see how news media is biased.
But it's also how the strategies of the left and the right are very different.
Ultimately, I believe if the left tries to maintain a, we will destroy you, we will lie about you, we will come for you, we will cancel you, they'll just keep losing until they recognize you gotta be nice to people and argue a real policy idea.
But when it comes to Joe Biden, when I've tweeted about this, they don't defend Joe Biden.
They just immediately say Trump.
Here's my challenge to you.
Advocate for Joe Biden without saying the words Trump.
Defend Joe Biden without saying the words Trump.
Because I'll agree with you if you want to say something bad about the president, I'm not here to defend him.
If you can't do that, then I don't see you as a viable option when it comes to election time.
I have heard nothing but defense of Donald Trump.
All the good things about the economy, the things he's done, the foreign policy, the border, illegal immigration, all these things are arguments for him.
And I say, okay, what about Biden?
Nothing.
I'll leave it there.
We'll see how things play out.
You can check out more segments coming up later today at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Young Turk's founder and, like, main dude, Cenk Uygur, is being dragged by the left, actually.
This is kind of weird, but, well, no, and not really that surprising, because Cenk Uygur, in my opinion, isn't really a progressive, and we can go through this, but basically what happens is The dude tweeted that a Democratic president with balls should cut off funding from red states to make them beg for a handout.
And I'll say rather unsurprisingly, the people who got mad were progressives.
And I think it's because many of the actual progressives understand you can't just say we're going to force poor people to beg for handouts.
And you don't win elections by dragging the middle of the country And by dragging poor people, but not only that, there are some people who are dragging Cenk for using the With Balls reference, because apparently now he's a bigot.
Racist, sexist, yeah, all of those things.
But I think if you look at the Young Turks history, you can see that this is unsurprising.
I mean, the dude tried to bust up a union at his own organization.
So let's read what's going on.
And we'll read some of these criticisms, but I'll be fair, man.
Look, it's progressives who are dragging this guy.
He's a fake progressive, if you were to ask me.
I'm not saying this to, like, try and dig at Cenk Uygur, man.
By all means, do your thing.
I just personally don't believe he actually cares about these causes.
And again, I'm not saying that as, like, an emotional dig, like, haha, I got you.
No, I think Jank's a businessman.
I think he runs a business.
I think he found a way to make money.
And he's trying to court this base.
And he says things that he thinks will be like red meat for his base.
unidentified
Like, how about we cut off funding for these red states?
And he just comes off sounding like he's out of touch and doesn't really understand what people need or want.
Let's read the story.
The Examiner says, a left-wing media personality said he wished a Democrat was running the country so Republicans would be forced to, quote, beg for their handouts.
Young Turk's host, Cenk Uygur, lashed out in a reply to a tweet by President Trump, stating that Republican-run states are miserable failures and that he wished a Democrat were president so U.S.
citizens in GOP-controlled states would be forced to beg for economic relief.
Here's what he said, quote, If we had a Democrat with balls when we take over, they'd cut off funding to red states and make them beg for their handout.
Almost all of them are welfare queens who live off the blue states.
Republican-run states are, on average, miserable failures who take more from the federal government.
This is not how you win elections.
Everybody gets that, except apparently you.
But again, like I said, I think Cenk Uygur is just trying to, ha ha, hey look guys, I'm on your side, wink wink, nudge nudge.
In his original tweet, Trump admonished states who had adopted high taxes and sanctuary cities, suggesting they look within instead of to the federal government to address expanding fiscal issues.
Trump has been critical of states such as California, which borrowed $348 million from the federal government on Monday, to address spiraling unemployment backlogs.
Uyghur's family has a history of making controversial statements about elected officials.
In August 2019, Uyghur's nephew said Texas Rep.
Dan Crenshaw— I'm not even gonna read this.
Yeah, he just said really messed up stuff.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Last year, Uyghur ran for Congress in the district of disgraced former Democratic Rep.
Katie Hill.
He won only 6.6% of the vote, finishing in fourth place out of 12.
Now, here's why I want to talk about this.
I definitely want to highlight the progressives who are calling him out and, you know, show you what people think.
Take away the horrifying sentiment, and I gotta admit, I honestly don't care if the government were to take away funding from many red states or blue states or whatever.
I think it's really a question of what kind of funding, what's the funding for?
And that's the thing that Cenk Uygur doesn't bring up.
Are these red states?
Let me see if I have something here.
Yeah, so I have this, the top 10 donor states.
And this image is a little small.
Maybe I can zoom in.
Here's a picture, a map of the U.S., and you can see the states that receive the most funding versus the states that actually give back.
And we can see that, you know, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, and North Dakota, it appears, are all giving more.
Now, some states are giving way more, like New York, it appears, percentage-wise.
But the question is, what are the states getting and why are they getting funding?
I think what Cenk Uygur is leaving out is that a lot of what these states are probably getting money for would be like defense.
In which case, yeah, that makes sense for the federal government to be paying for defense.
But of course, there's money for other programs.
What Cenk Uygur doesn't include is that there are still many blue states that are taking money from the federal government.
The bigger problem here is that Cenk Uygur is racist, sexist, classist, and he's getting dragged for it.
So I'll show you this first.
Here's a story from just about a month ago.
Inside the union campaign that roiled left-wing networks the Young Turks, progressive firebrand Cenk Uygur, the CEO, put intense pressure on staffers not to unionize.
Surprise, surprise, the dude's not really a progressive.
I don't know what his deal is.
I've been on his show a couple times, and it seems like, in recent history, because of, you know, Trump derangement syndrome, and because of the weird tribalism, he's abandoned his principles.
And one of the challenges is that Trump's base is populist, meaning there's a decent overlap on key issues between the left-wing populists and the right-wing populists.
And because of this, because of Cenk having to oppose everything that is Trump all the time, He ends up actually sounding like an elitist half the time.
Because if you're opposing things like, you know, Donald Trump wanted to increase wages for union workers, and he's concerned about unchecked illegal immigration, Janker comes out and criticizes that, and takes the side of the, I'm doing air quotes, progressives, he comes off looking like an elitist.
Bernie Sanders said, I think this was 2015, that Open Borders was a Koch Brothers proposal.
The general idea for the longest time from actual progressives was that by opening the borders, these big corporations could bring in low-cost, unskilled labor where they don't have to legally pay for benefits.
They don't want to pay for healthcare, they don't want to pay for paid family leave, childcare, things like that.
So they said, I'll tell you what.
We open up the border, we bring in these people that can work for us for dirt, we don't gotta do anything for them.
When that didn't work, they said, how about we send our factories overseas so we get the same benefit?
Fine.
You can keep your border protections, you can keep your workers' rights, we'll just put the companies, the factories, in Mexico and China.
Trump opposed that.
Initially, Bernie Sanders did too.
But for whatever reason, and I think it's because of the Orange Man bad narrative, people like Cenk Uygur and other progressives all of a sudden started going like, it's time for open borders!
And it's like, when did y'all start defending what Bernie Sanders called a right-wing proposal?
Now, I'm not gonna pretend it's actually right-wing, I think it's just a buzzword, but of course Bernie Sanders flip-flopped as well, and they ended up coming out against the workers.
Bernie had to admit, I think it was just, I think it was this year actually, or maybe just late last year, in a New York Times interview, that yes, unchecked illegal immigration will depress wages for the working class.
And he was forced to admit it.
It was a long, it was a position he long held.
So what ends up happening is that Trump comes out and actually says things progressives like, but because the media and because of the mainstream narrative from the left has always been that everything that Trump does is bad, they had to oppose him.
Well, here's the reality.
When a union actually comes to Cenk Uygur's workplace, what does he do?
He shuts it down.
Because the dude is a businessman.
And again, more power to him, you know?
Like, hey, no beef?
Congratulations on running your business.
You don't want to have a union?
Sure, fine, whatever.
I mean, it's illegal in certain respects.
Okay, fine, you do your thing.
But if this is supposed to be about principle, and they're supposed to be the progressives championing Bernie Sanders and the working class, fighting for workers and all that good democratic socialist stuff, Why would he oppose a union?
This is the weirdest thing to me.
They call me a conservative, and I would never do anything like this.
If I had a company where people came and said they wanted to unionize, I'd be like, do it to it, buddy.
Like, let's figure it out.
Let's make it all work.
Even Vice.
There's another funny thing I brought up.
Vice CEO Shane Smith.
You'd think of all companies, you know, Vice.
Well, Vice has certainly adapted the more feminist stance as of late.
But when the Vice news team went to unionize, the CEO Shane was like, More power to you, man.
Awesome.
Let's get it done.
What did Cenk Uygur do?
He screamed at somebody, he slammed papers on the ground, and apparently he fired a dude.
So, look.
If you want to do news media like Vice and you're biased, okay, fine.
But if you want to claim to be a progressive and you're going to go on your show and you're going to be like, here's all the things we got to do.
Here's what I'm fighting for.
And then behind the scenes, you're a cutthroat capitalist kicking out the union people.
Sorry, man.
I'm not going to buy it.
So, Cenk Uygur, he tweeted this and I was actually shocked to see I mean, no, I take that back.
I'm not actually shocked to see it.
I think there's a lot of principled leftists.
I think there's a lot of progressives.
I disagree on policy, but I think there are a decent amount who are principled, and I'm glad to see this because people like Cenk Uygur are the grifters.
Alright, they want to argue that, you know, I'm a grifter or you're a grifter or whatever, all the stupid stuff.
Nah, man.
The grifters are the people like Jennifer Rubin.
Do you know who she is?
She's the conservative blogger at the Washington Post, where she'll tweet something like, in 2018 during the Kavanaugh hearing, she said something like, We must, you know, believe all women and give them a chance to be heard and we must take this very seriously.
And then when it came to Biden, she says, you know, the onus is on the accuser.
It's like, we get it.
You have no principles.
You're just saying what needs to be said because you want to get clicks and retweets.
So the only way I can really define what makes someone not a grifter is consistency.
Do you actually believe what you're saying?
Now, I'm not going to sit here and toot my own horn.
I certainly think that the accusations against Joe Biden are a waste of time.
I don't necessarily believe them, and I don't think it should be used against him for a presidential run.
But the only issue I take, and I think many other people who are calling out Biden, including the progressives who pushed the story in the first place, is that these are the rules you asked for.
So if the Democrats, like Pelosi and Biden and all that, said, these are the standard by which we operate, then I'll say, hey man, all right, there you go, use your standard.
Now a bunch of other progressives, actual Bernie supporters, well, they literally believe in that standard.
That's why they broke the story.
So the people who broke the story were progressives.
They called out Brett Kavanaugh and had this wacky no due process standard.
They call out Joe Biden for the exact same thing.
And I'm like, hey man, they're being consistent.
Here we can see Cody Johnston responds to Cenk Uygur.
Man, what?
Again, people who I would probably disagree with, but they're being consistent.
Hey man, that's all I can ask for.
I might not get along, we might have fierce debates, we might just yell at each other online all the time, but calling out the grifters and the liars, I respect, I appreciate.
Of course, they'll accuse me of the same thing, which I don't think is fair.
Somebody responded, and we can see it's a democratic socialist with a little rose in their name.
Well, his is a capitalist, so honestly, not surprised.
Just help all workers instead.
This person says, yeah, that would rock Democrats' rule.
He's so good at reminding folks that he's a capitalist.
I love how he's getting dragged by socialists.
What a horrifically racist and classist take your garbage.
Not to mention sexist.
If he wants to play that game, then one could argue that it's because everyone before had balls that we're in the position.
This person says, some people fantasize about killing their neighbors and making their skins into coats.
Does it make it good or sane?
Well, that's a little bit much.
I don't think Jen Guga's saying that.
Look, I gotta be honest, man.
Why are we giving federal funding to any states?
Seriously, I mean, look, I do find it interesting that there are many red states that receive a lot in funding from the federal government.
Now, of course, of course, like I said, one thing you got to consider is that some of this is probably defense.
You know, the federal government providing for the common defense, that's actually what they're supposed to do.
So, yes, blue states are going to pay.
The really, you know, the funniest thing about this tweet from Cenk Uygur is he's making a conservative argument.
Think about it.
Why should we have to pay for them?
They're welfare queens!
Is that a joke, Cenk Uygur?
You think the Democrats should take the conservative stance of getting rid of the progressive tax system?
That's basically what you're saying, right?
Think about it.
New York is very wealthy, so they pay a premium on top of all the money they make to the federal government, and the federal government uses that to subsidize the poorer states.
What does that sound like?
So I actually have no problem with how that system works.
I've actually talked a great deal about the idea, say like, using New York City as an example, the Upper West Side of Manhattan, very wealthy.
They pay a lot in taxes.
That money should be used for fixing the streets and the infrastructure and the hospitals and the schools.
of poorer areas because there's excess, because there's wealth.
But you don't even necessarily need a progressive tax to get that done.
If somebody's got a million bucks and they pay ten percent, you take a hundred thousand dollars, right?
If someone's got a hundred bucks, you take ten percent, you take ten dollars.
So you can clearly, like, you don't have to change the percentage to do it.
I'm still in favor of a progressive tax, however.
So Cenk Uygur is actually taking this weird I don't know.
It's like he's trying to make the right angry by insulting them, but insulting the left by making a point about how taxes work that the left literally does not agree with?
What did he think was going to happen?
I think what we're seeing here is grifter breakdown.
You know, I really do hate using the word grifter.
I'll just put it this way.
Cenk is a businessman.
He's trying to pander to his base.
But this doesn't work.
You can't just be anti-the-other-guy, because some people do believe in a system.
There are a lot of progressives, good people I respect and appreciate, that believe in universal healthcare, UBI, and other things.
I disagree.
I don't think these things are possible.
I'm fairly moderate.
I do like the idea, as of right now, of a public option in healthcare, and I'd love to get to the point where we could make universal healthcare.
I don't know if we can.
I don't know if it's sustainable in even other countries.
So it's an issue of, can we work out the kinks?
And UBI as well.
I think at the core, universal basic income sounds fantastic.
Is it possible?
I honestly don't think so.
So we can have a conversation in good faith about how we make a system work and what's the best compromise.
But what Cenk is doing is just trying to be like, look, look at me, everybody.
I'm just like you.
Haha, I'm going to say something about those nasty Republicans.
And then people are like, bro, nah, this ain't it.
So let's see what else.
And now I want to show you some maps, actually.
Someone said, man, I think this tweet is really going to jank your reputation in the eyes of socialists.
To be fair, I don't think he had a good reputation, especially after the union busting that happened at the Young Turks.
Joey Salat says, I'm only here for the ratio.
And then someone posted that silly photo of Joey.
Emma Vigilant says, punish the state's Republican leaders by publicly shaming them.
Don't cut off funds to poor people in red states who need government assistance.
Their social safety net is already threadbare, as it is.
And even strategically, this would be weaponized mercilessly by the right.
Joey Salas says, unionize before he fires you.
So let me show you this right here.
Let me show you why Cenk Uygur is a racist.
Well, no, no, I'll take that back.
I'm just kind of exaggerating.
I think he doesn't know what he's talking about and he's just trying to, like, you know, wave a flag for the progressives to convince them he's just like them.
And this is a website called 270ToWin.
You can see the electoral map of 2016.
Look at all these red states down here.
What's up with this?
How come all these southern states are red?
At the same time, how come these southern states have the highest concentration of the black community?
I don't know what that means.
You can argue that their votes are suppressed.
You can argue that it means they're being, you know, suppressed by slightly majority white voters.
I don't necessarily think that's the case.
I think many of these people are actually fairly conservative on many, many issues.
And thus, you end up with red states in the South.
Maybe Cenk Uygur doesn't realize this, but he's talking about taking money away from poor states, not poor white people.
It's like you're literally targeting vulnerable people because you don't want to pay.
That's like as capitalist as they come.
It's such a...
Such a conservative argument.
I know it's not really a conservative argument, because I don't think conservatives are talking about necessarily, you know, defunding states.
Actually, no, maybe they are.
I don't know.
I'd have to actually talk to someone.
Maybe you guys know better.
But, like, thinking about it in terms of taxes.
Thinking about it in terms of, should I pay for the healthcare of someone who doesn't have money, right?
It's kind of an argument he's making.
Make them beg for their handouts.
Also, super elitist.
Kind of gross.
But of course, as we know, Cenk Uygur is a union buster.
Politico reported production and post-production crews at the left-wing news network The Young Turks voted Thursday night to unionize with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, capping a surprisingly brutal campaign marked by intense opposition from founder and CEO Cenk Uygur, a popular voice on the left.
Man, how much is too much, I would ask you, Mr. Uygur?
Uygur?
Uygur?
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to mispronounce your name.
This is a question often asked by many leftists.
How much is enough?
How much is too much?
I honestly think there is having enough.
I really do.
Now, I'm not saying I think people should stop working and stop earning, but man, I'll tell you what, when it comes to wealth and resources, I think at a certain point, it's like, what do you do with it all?
Now, I think a lot of people on the left misunderstand how economics works, and they simply think that, like, taxing the money of people will somehow grant you access to something.
It doesn't make sense.
What money is, is essentially like power, access, and freedom.
It gives you the ability to make decisions and to command the managerial power, right?
So, the amount of money in the money supply isn't necessarily the most important thing.
It does have a major effect, so we're printing money like crazy.
It's a really, really bad thing.
If we just took all the money from the billionaires, all you do is take their power away, it won't increase the... necessarily... it won't change the inherent value of an individual's labor.
It won't increase access for the average person to another person's labor.
That's determined by you doing trade with them, right?
This is why I tend to lean left on a lot of issues.
I do think it's dangerous to have oligarchs.
You know, ultra billionaires that control speech and stuff like that.
Zuckerbergs and Dorseys.
I think Jack Dorsey is more of an alright guy.
He's given a lot of his money away.
But when you have these ultra wealthy oligarchs, people like Michael Bloomberg, It's a very, very serious problem because they can use their disproportionate power to heavily influence things.
So, for me, it comes down to how do we make sure that we have a more... I don't want to say necessarily completely equal society, but look, man, I lean left.
I think there's got to be some kind of restrictions, some kind of capacity.
Otherwise, you end up with a San Francisco.
And I think nobody wants the country to be like that.
But we may be headed in that direction.
San Francisco is a place where you've got ultra-wealthy billionaires in their, you know, fancy lofts.
They're major companies.
And then you've got people taking dumps all over the street.
You get people like Nancy Pelosi, your representative, who's supposed to be fighting for you.
She's worth, collective with her husband, like a couple hundred million dollars or whatever.
And what is she really doing for the people of her district?
I get it.
She represents them to the federal government, so she has a role in more federal decision-making.
But do you really want to live like San Francisco?
But I think there's a question about how much is too much.
And that's why I look back at what Cenk Uygur has done with talking about getting a Democrat to come in and cut funding.
Why?
Why would you do that?
You know, maybe we should cut funding to the blue states, who apparently, you know, don't need it.
And we should still tax them or something like that.
That's the more progressive argument, right?
But when it comes to the union busting, my question is, why?
What are you worried about?
What do you think you're doing?
Do you think you're going to be CNN?
No, I really don't think so.
I get it, man.
You want to keep growing.
You want to make money.
But how much is enough for you, dude?
The dude is already a multi-millionaire, and he's stressing over people who want to unionize?
That, to me, makes no sense.
I get it, man.
Unions can cause problems in certain respects.
I'm not a big fan of, admittedly, being in unions.
And I've talked about this a lot.
I love collective bargaining.
I love the idea that people will stand up and make demands and say, together we have a stronger voice and all that stuff.
I don't like the weird laws and rules that restrict what unions can do and how they operate.
It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.
But I'll tell you what.
I don't get it.
I just really don't.
I don't understand that perspective of someone like Cenk Uygur, who's going to have a very successful, very well-off company, taking in a bunch of investor money, making millions of dollars.
Someone from Young Turks told me how much money they make, and they make a lot, a lot of money.
They're making, well, I don't know for sure, so I'm not going to say any hard numbers.
I know they have a lot of people to pay, and I guess the concern is will they be able to pay everybody if they have to increase wages or whatever, and it's like, what's the worst that's going to happen?
Do you think you're going to go out of business?
Like, bro, you're super rich, your company is successful, what are you freaking out about?
Well, I think it really comes down to this.
The dude wants for himself, not for anyone else.
He doesn't actually care about these causes, doesn't care about these principles or values, And that's what it's really all about.
And so you know what?
Maybe it's a good thing he lost his congressional race.
He was called out for all of these things.
He was called out for union busting.
Yeah, this guy is a fake progressive.
I really don't think he cares about anything he's saying.
And that's just me.
But of course, you can see he's getting annihilated by actual progressives.
Because this dude does this weird thing.
The Young Turks does this weird thing where they try and prop up the establishment while arguing they're for the progressives.
Yeah, they're trying to cast a wide net over the left.
Probably for viewership, for ratings, for subscribers.
It ain't gonna work, man.
Your base is fractured.
You can either choose to pony up to the establishments like Joe Biden, which he apparently isn't doing, but then you're gonna make everybody on the progressive side mad when you say these stupid red meat things where I'm like, huh, let's take money away from the poor people.
Yeah, nah, sorry.
Doesn't work that way.
Try having principles.
Maybe that'll actually work out for you.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
The next segment is coming up on this channel at 1 p.m., and I will see you all then.
James O'Keefe and Project Veritas have just caught CBS airing a staged COVID testing event.
Now, this story is a little complicated, but CBS has acknowledged that the event in question that was aired on their network did in fact have Fake individuals not really getting tested in the video and they are pulling the segment and we have confirmation from another source now.
So Project Veritas has published CBS News this morning aired fake COVID-19 drive-through testing site line of cars.
A lot of people do not understand How common this is.
Now, this is one of the more egregious stories I've ever heard.
But just to give you the gist, before we get into all the nitty-gritty, CBS is claiming they had no idea that the Cherry Health Hospital instructed one of their staffers to get in line so it made the line look bigger.
Now, according to insiders and undercover footage from Project Veritas, it sounds like the whole line, except for one or two people, was actually fake.
What the undercover footage shows is that there are people saying that the news crew basically wanted the line to look really big, so they faked it, but there was actually one or two real patients, which made everything go slower, so they were kind of upset about it.
If you were to trust the undercover footage, what the people there are actually saying, it sounds like CBS, the news crew, set the whole thing up because they wanted the testing site to look like it was more robust.
I was just in Los Angeles, or I was in the L.A.
area, right?
It's pretty big.
It's not necessarily just L.A.
as the city, but there's a bunch of, like, small cities in L.A.
County.
And there was a testing site I had seen over the course of, like, four days.
Never did I see a single car at that testing facility.
Don't ask me what that means.
I don't know.
But I bring this up because when I saw this story initially, that the news crew wanted to stage this according to the undercover—the insiders, I believed it.
Because there have been a bunch of videos in the past, and a lot of people don't understand how common it is, for journalists to ask someone to do something.
Say, hey, will you do this for me?
I want to get a photo.
I need it to look like this.
Not only that, but even Snopes has acknowledged that in the past, CBS did air fake footage.
Look at this.
A CBS News program used a brief clip from an Italian hospital in a segment about the coronavirus crisis in New York City.
True!
Even Snopes coming out, calling out the fake news.
Now look, CBS is basically saying we had no idea, our news crew didn't do this, but there's been a bunch of famous videos exposing, or I should say clips, like being released, showing a journalist asking someone at a protest, hey could you like hold this thing up so I can get a photo of you?
They ask the protesters to do something.
I have seen this over and over again.
And most people don't realize they do this, and most journalists don't care.
They think nothing of it.
They're like, oh, but the protester was there and he had the sign.
I just asked him to hold his sign up.
Yeah, you asked them to pose for your news shot!
That's fake news!
You're supposed to be going there and just filming what's going on.
Now, I get it.
Journalists, in many instances, can't remove themselves completely, but it is a whole other ballgame to show up and be like, yo, make the line look bigger.
Now, to make CBS, you know, their best argument is they had no idea, but they are.
So this is the big slam dunk for Veritas.
CBS has announced they are removing the clip.
That's huge.
So let's read a little bit from Project Veritas, but we also have the Washington Times that made some phone calls, verified some of this apparently, but let's see the story.
Project Veritas reports, a CBS news crew pulled medical professionals off the floor at the Cherry Medical Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan, to line up in their vehicles so a CBS film crew would have a long line for their COVID-19 coverage.
Now, that statement comes from insiders, multiple people who have said this.
CBS, again, they deny it, saying, we had no idea.
We had no idea.
But they are pulling it, so it's like, it's legit.
It's a confirmed staged event.
Here's a quote.
Our insider witnessed the whole thing and came to Project Veritas because he knew we would protect him, said James O'Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas.
The insider told us that medical personnel were taken away from treating patients and making the line longer for actual patients to wait for the COVID-19 tests.
In an interview with the Insider, O'Keefe asked the Insider, you're telling me you're 100% certain that CBS News, CBS
News Corporation, National, staged a fake event, they faked the news, they faked the
reality and broadcasted that to all of their audience last Friday on CBS This Morning. The Insider
said to him, 100% absolutely.
Now here's what I want to see from CBS.
Will they go on TV and apologize for this and make a statement?
I believe they would have to do this.
So I don't know when the next airing of their show is.
They should issue an on-air retraction, correction, and apology.
Even if they're claiming they didn't set it up, like the insiders are.
The event was staged, they're pulling it, I want to see an apology.
Nick Ross, a corporate cleaning site supervisor at the Cherry Health Facility, said he was there when the CBS News crew arrived and set up the video shoot at the COVID-19 testing site in the parking lot.
Quote, apparently the news crew wanted more people in the line because they knew it was scheduled.
Maria Hernandez Vazquez, a professional registration specialist, told the Insider that Cherry Health Director of Quality and Informatics, Glenda Walker, helped to organize the facility's workers into the COVID-19 testing line.
Apparently, this, to a certain degree, has also been confirmed.
They're definitely trying to downplay it.
But apparently, according to the Washington Times, they got it.
Well, I'll say that.
I'll say that.
I'll read it.
But yes, there was someone at this hospital who was coordinating this.
Quote, it's just annoying because we could have done other stuff, said one registered nurse there, recorded with a hidden camera by a Project Veritas insider.
The nurse said personnel at the medical center were given the heads up to expect the CBS News crew.
We knew they were coming.
We had no clue that we were going to have to, like, do fake patients.
Another registered nurse, Allison Morrow, recorded on hidden camera, said she and other medical professionals working the drive-thru testing site did not administer the actual swab swipe as CBS News was filming, but the actual patients were made to wait longer because of the manufactured line.
We pretended there were a couple of real patients which made it worse.
The footage was used to accompany CBS News reporter Andriana Diaz's narration and interview with Tasha Blackman, the president and CEO of Cherry Health.
In the CBS News report, Blackman told her facility needed gowns and N95 masks, which filter incoming breath to protect the medical professional.
Cherry Health President and CEO Tasha Blackman told Project Veritas in a phone conversation, quote, We and CBS News had nothing to do with that line.
Blackman said she had not viewed the preview of the Project Veritas report that had been emailed to her, and that after reviewing the matter with her team, she would give Project Veritas a statement.
Project Veritas followed up with phone calls and emails, but there was no further response before the deadline.
Project Veritas also spoke to CBS News President Susan Zirinsky, who agreed to review the preview of the report and send a statement in.
Now hold on a second.
It sounds like based off of Veritas' own reporting, CBS may not have actually had anything to do with this.
What were they saying?
The hospital was saying they needed more equipment.
Stands to reason CBS may be telling the truth, that they didn't know this was going on, and someone from the hospital wanted the line to look bigger.
It might actually be the hospital exploiting CBS News as an opportunity to make it look worse, so they then could say, hey look, that's us, we need supplies.
I'm not saying I know for sure, but if CBS is coming out saying they had no idea, my question then is, why would the hospital fake this?
Well, as Veritas even notes, in the CBS report, they said they need more materials.
I can only speculate.
We don't know for sure.
Let's read the statement.
CBS News said, quote, CBS News did not stage anything at the Cherry Health facility.
Any suggestion of the contrary is 100% false.
These allegations are alarming.
We reached out to Cherry Health to address them immediately.
They informed us for the first time that one of their chief officers told at least one staffer to get in the testing line along with real patients.
No one from CBS News had any knowledge of this before tonight.
They also said that their actions did not prevent any actual patients from being tested.
We take the accuracy of our reporting very seriously, and we are removing the Cherry Health portion from the piece.
Whoa!
That is huge.
Bravo, Project Veritas.
I mean, this is big.
You actually got CBS to pull the clip.
Now, will they apologize?
We'll see.
But again, I want to stress, CBS, they may be the victims in all this.
Let's be fair.
For all we know, apparently it's the executives at the hospital who are telling the staff to do these things.
They may have been lying.
Look, we don't know who did what.
What we can say definitively is Veritas just exposed a staged clip.
And it's being pulled.
That's massive.
CBS This Morning executive producer Diana Miller gave an interview to her parent company's website Viacom.com, where she said the morning TV news show was making its coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic a priority.
Quote, There are threads that emerge.
Focusing on first responders has been important for us because they are on the front lines and it's important we're showing the reality of the situations they are in every day.
We've always been driven by the news and want to provide context and clarity on the important stories today.
So the Washington Times actually did some digging as well and they got similar statements.
Here's what I'd like to see from you, CBS.
First of all, retraction, correction, apology.
But if you really were unaware of this, I'd like to see you perhaps team up with Veritas or actually dig into how you were misled and why.
So CBS says, the medical staff said something to the effect of, you know, one staffer was told to get in line.
Why?
Why would they do that?
Why did the hospital want the line to look longer, even if it was just one person?
No, seriously, I would like that question answered.
If they're simultaneously asking for supplies, I mean, we got a problem here.
You can't be doing that.
So the Washington Times says that CBS has denied faking a scene of novel coronavirus testing in Michigan by padding the drive-thru line with clinic workers to make the health center look busier than it was, as alleged in a Project Veritas expose.
Employees of Cherry Health in Grand Rapids said they lined up their vehicles outside the COVID-19 testing tent for a May 1st segment on CBS Morning News, according to an interview with an unidentified clinic insider.
Quote, apparently the news crew wanted more people.
We read this stuff.
In a statement to the Washington Times, CBS News denied that the crew staged such a scene, which would be a clear breach of journalistic ethics.
Quote, CBS News did not stage anything at the Cherry Health facility.
Any suggestion to the contrary is 100% false, said the statement, which was also posted on the Project Veritas website.
These allegations are alarming.
My question is, how would CBS know?
If you send a news crew of like two or three people down, and one person in that crew goes and asks for a special request, those other crew members wouldn't know, and CBS as a parent company wouldn't know, and they would deny it.
Oh, we have no idea, we didn't do any of this.
Yeah, the dude or the person in this crew may have actually done this.
They say we reached out immediately, you know, so here's what they admitted, they informed us for the first time one of their chief officers told at least one staffer.
Here's what I think when I see that.
That to me sounds like they know they're busted and so they're like, oh, but we did, yeah, but it's one person, right?
It's how you like can...
Tell the truth, but then also, like, omit and lie.
So, if it comes out, someone said, yeah, we were told to get in line, they can say, it was just one person, right?
So they're kind of admitting it, but trying to downplay it like it wasn't a big deal?
Nah, I don't buy it.
Why would the hospital instruct one person to get in line?
That serves no purpose.
Unless the line was just the one person, in which case you still staged the line.
Why would you ask even one staffer to do this?
Yeah, you're busted, man.
The network added that they said it didn't prevent any actual people from being tested.
Well, that's what the insiders in the undercover footage shows.
Faking such a scene would be beneficial to both CBS and the health center, according to the unidentified insider who said he contacted Veritas about the incident.
He says, I think it's a little bit of a benefit to both parties.
I do know Cherry Health is struggling a little bit financially.
They're a non-profit, so they get a lot of their money from donors or grants.
So it just makes them look productive.
And on the other side of the news, they want the line to appear bigger than it is just for reporting purposes to show that this is a big deal, that people are getting tested in massive numbers.
The media does this all the time in various ways.
They'll go to a protest, and they'll wait for the protest to dwindle, take a photo, and say, hmm, there was nobody here.
They'll show up to an event where it's a very tiny protest and they'll get a really tight shot of a bunch of people, you know, kind of out of focus with the person at the rally and make it look like there's a ton of people there.
They do this for political rallies.
If it's a Trump rally, they'll go all the way in back so you see a big empty stadium and a small group of people.
If it's, you know, Hillary, they'll get really close and a really tight shot so it looks like there's a massive crowd.
That's how they manipulate to give you a sense of what's going on.
There's a ton of ways that the media frames things to manipulate you.
Now, I'm not going to accuse anybody of anything right here, right?
I think you've got the insiders making their point, you've got the hospital staff's admission, so we'll leave it at that, right?
And now, the question as to who benefits Yeah, I mean they both do.
CBS is pulling the footage.
The Washington Times has reached out to the clinic for comment.
Cherry Health President and CEO Tasha Blackman told Veritas in a phone conversation,
we and CBS News had nothing to do with that line, according to the undercover journalism outfit.
That wasn't the impression left by the hidden camera footage,
which indicated that staffers worked with the news crews to fake the scene.
I really doubt the news crews were scripted for Veritas.
They're speaking off-the-cuff, candid undercover, and said this is what we were told to do.
So, you know, I think we know the rest of it.
The segment called Michigan Ramps Up Testing, and introduced by CBS Morning News, focused on the importance of expanding testing as the state seeks to reopen after shutting down vast swaths of the economy from the coronavirus.
But if there was no one lining up for testing, things are really strange.
And I've seen, like I mentioned, I saw that in Los Angeles.
If you're trying to argue you need to ramp up testing, but no one's showing up for testing, I mean, what do you do?
Like, I don't know, there's a political angle to this too.
They go on to mention that Veritas has been accused of deceptively editing footage.
I don't think, I disagree with that, because I've seen other major news outlets do similarly edited investigations.
As James often says, you only see people's mouths moving and things like that.
Obviously, in some of these videos, you don't, because it's like, you know, undercover footage.
But I will say my one critique, It's possible, and it's not necessarily a critique, it's kind of just my opinion, it's possible that these people caught on undercover footage don't really know what happened and were told it was CBS, but CBS really didn't do it.
Now, I'm not one to typically defend the press, But I do have standards and ethics, and I believe Veritas does as well.
So I would just add my perspective to the mix.
It's possible that, you know, just because these people are saying CBS wanted it, doesn't make it true.
It could be the executive trying to make an excuse.
Because if the executive went to their nurses and staff and said, we want you to pad this line, make everything look worse, then they could, they might get mad and be like, whoa, we can't do that.
But if they come and say, oh, don't just, it's the news crew, you know, oh, okay, the news crew wants it.
Well, that's silly.
That way they don't get mad at the executives for wasting their time.
But I will tell you a couple more things.
I was actually surprised that Snopes fact-checked this story.
CBS News, in the past, has used fake footage.
Now, I don't know if they've ever apologized for this or pulled the footage.
They say, after CBS News was called out for airing footage from a hospital in Italy and saying it was New York, they apologized and said it was an error.
So there we go.
Less than a week later, they aired the same footage, this time when talking about Pennsylvania.
I'm sorry, man.
As much as I can entertain my opinion and perspective, if we know that CBS has done this multiple times, and Project Veritas is saying the insiders have said CBS staged it, why should I trust CBS at all?
Look at this, they did it twice, and even Snopes is calling this out!
Of all places, the left-leaning Snopes.
Things like this have happened.
They happen all the time.
Now, what I mean by all the time is not literally every segment, every minute of the day.
I'm saying that it happens very, very frequently.
You remember this story?
ABC apologizes for showing video from U.S.
gun range in a report on Syria.
They do this.
Man, if you have seen the things I've seen, the news industry, in my opinion, is corrupt!
It's bad, man.
It really is.
You know, I brought this up on the Rogan podcast when it comes to, like, CNN and Jim Acosta and how they're always arguing with Trump.
I'm like, listen, man.
I've been in these environments where there's, like, a press conference and these news organizations are like, ask a question.
And you're like, I don't have a question.
And they're like, think of something.
Ask something.
Like, we have to do something.
I was once in a meeting where they were like, we want to cover the elections.
You know, it was like some primary election or something or congressional election.
And I was told to go cover a polling location.
And I said, sure.
And when I showed up, there was nothing there and no one.
And they told me, do it anyway.
And I said, do what?
And they were like, film something.
And I'm like, there's nothing to film.
And they were like, film anything.
And I said, what do you want me to film?
It's an empty sidewalk.
There's nothing in the building.
There's nothing here.
And I refuse to do it.
This is one of the reasons I don't want to work for these companies.
I'm standing here on the sidewalk in an empty side street.
Nothing's happening.
Thanks for hanging out.
Yeah.
They said, just do it.
You know what it was?
Is that they want you to just get with the program, but they don't want to say it.
That's in my experience.
Because if they had to tell you, we need you to stage something, well then they're in trouble.
If they say, wink wink, nudge nudge, just do it, go film, then you're like, okay, and then you start filming, and they want you to make it up.
Now, it's not all the time.
That happened to me one time at one of the companies I worked for.
One time.
But I was told by one of the companies to just side with the audience on factual news.
I'm doing air quotes here.
Which basically means, just say things the way they want to hear it.
That's not news, man.
I've seen situations where photographers have asked protesters to, like, hey, can you crouch down and hold up your sign?
Hey, can you lay down with your sign and your friends?
Can you do this?
Can you do that?
That's staging, man.
That's literally posing for a photo, asking a protester to do something.
And you know what, man?
It infects every level.
Like I mentioned with press conferences, you will hear questions that sometimes you'll ask, like, makes no sense.
Remember that woman who asked Trump something about the Kung Flu?
She was like, someone said that, you know, someone in your administration said Kung Flu, and Trump was like, who?
Who said it?
And she goes, oh, I don't know.
He's like, then why are you asking?
Like, it's just a stupid rumor.
Because she had nothing to ask!
Because she's trying to justify her job.
This is the problem, man.
There's no fixing it because independent media isn't immune either.
Like, everybody is trying to find something to do or say or talk about or appear useful.
And then you end up with fake news.
Granted, I'm pretty confident that most of the higher profile political commentators aren't lying to you.
Now some of them can be a bit disingenuous or wrong.
I think it's difficult to assume someone's lying, because you really need to read their mind to know that they were intentionally trying to mislead you.
People are just wrong sometimes.
Now, what we're seeing with CBS airing this fake footage?
Nah, that's intentional.
That's lying to you.
What we see with ABC and this stuff?
I don't trust this stuff, man.
I'm pretty sure they're just lying to you.
Because I know, I've worked for these companies.
The company I worked at, where they were telling me to do those things, that was an ABC News company, and here we have this story.
Yeah.
It was owned partially by ABC News.
So, do I trust them?
No.
I worked in the ABC building in New York.
I don't trust them at all, man.
I will say this, though.
That ABC News building's got an excellent cafeteria, man.
Next segment's coming up on my main channel, which is YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Type that in your URL bar right now, and you'll be surprised to find it is not this channel.
I don't know how to explain it to people, because they're often like, You always tell me to check out your other channel, YouTube.com slash TimCast, but I'm on TimCast.
No, no, no, no, no.
The URL and the name are very different.
Perhaps I should just buy, like, a dot-com.
I should just... I'll do that.
I'm gonna do that.
I'll see you then.
4 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
Superstar Adele just posted this photo to her Instagram celebrating those frontline workers who are keeping us safe.
And as many of you know, Adele is a music superstar with Grammy Awards and 100 plus million albums sold.
She is, well, she's great.
She's a really good job.
She has really, really great music.
I think she does a wonderful job and she lost a lot of weight.
So good for her!
I'm happy to hear it, she's taking her health seriously.
But of course, as most of you are aware, in the era of the internet, everything is offensive.
So simply by posting a photo of herself, which is something everybody does, people are now outraged!
at fatphobia. How dare Adele lose weight? Okay, they're not mad at Adele. What people are saying
is like, celebrating her smaller body is fatphobic. She worked really hard to lose weight because she
was pretty big. Now she's really small and she looks great.
It's not fatphobic to compliment someone for being healthy.
It's not fatphobic to congratulate someone for, you know, overcoming whatever it is that was holding them back.
And it's not just about being fat or being skinny.
It's she decided to make a change.
Sometimes these changes are very difficult for people.
She did a good job and everybody's got to be mad about it.
Yeah, well, you know what?
It's not the first time we've heard this.
Insider Reports.
Adele has caused a stir on social media after posting photos of her 32nd birthday celebration in isolation and thanking first responders and essential workers for their service during the pandemic.
Oh, she caused the stir.
Could you imagine not being allowed to post a selfie because you lost weight?
Well, yeah, she apparently offended some people.
Fans and fellow celebrities complimented her perceived glow up in the photo, in which she looks particularly slender.
The British singer has apparently been on a weight loss journey since her divorce in September, and credits a special diet and a lot of pilates.
There was a buzz around photos of the singer looking slender after Drake's birthday party in October at a Christmas party, and then again on a beach in January.
Through the process, many have commented that the singer looks gorgeous and unrecognizable by way of compliment.
But the photo also sparked a new controversy over what it means to celebrate a person's weight loss.
Fans have voiced concerns about whether it's appropriate to comment at all, and whether there's a healthy way to do so.
Speaking to Insider, an expert said, the answer to all the questions raised depends on context.
Well, we'll read the context.
We'll read what you think, but let me just tell you.
Listen, some people find fat women attractive.
Some people are attracted to medium-sized women, and some people are attracted to slender women.
So if somebody is losing weight, and then they post a photo of themselves and they're slender, And someone says you look gorgeous.
That is just one person who prefers how she looks.
The people who prefer her being, you know, heavier or overweight aren't going to comment, you look terrible now that you've lost weight.
I mean, some people probably did.
I'm sure, because there's some people who think that.
The point is, just because one person compliments her, doesn't mean they're making this profound statement that only thin people can be beautiful.
I think it's fair to point out, typically as a society, we do view thinner people as more desirable for whatever reason.
But that's the point, right?
Stop ragging on people for being nice to her.
It's mostly about no matter what she does, they call her beautiful.
But of course, Of course, it's the internet, so, you know, you're not allowed to say things that are true or how you feel.
Because no matter what you say, like the joke is on Twitter, if you tweet something like, I like pancakes, people will be like, dude, why do you hate waffles?
Someone's... Fans voiced concerns that complimenting someone's weight loss sent a dangerous message.
Oh, cringe.
Fans on social media were quick to create memes about Adele's photo, but some also voiced concerns that the emphasis on weight loss could be unhealthy and harmful to people.
Writer Roisin Ingle pointed out that weight loss isn't an indicator of worth, and that Adele should be celebrated for her talent.
I'm gonna celebrate Adele because she clearly worked really hard at this, eating a special diet and doing Pilates.
Good on you for being healthy.
Everyone else can shut up.
Adele is the same person she was.
Kind of.
But she's also accomplished something.
Not a better person.
I disagree, actually.
I would say she is a better person.
Not about the weight loss.
About setting a goal and succeeding.
Not a more acceptable person.
That's fair.
The same.
The growth is on the inside.
She is a strong, brilliant, talented woman.
She always was.
And that's why I think she was able to succeed in this endeavor.
I mean, she is seriously successful.
She makes great music.
So naturally, someone as strong and as talented as her could make a decision to better their life and get healthy, and did so.
And yes, you're allowed to compliment it.
Writer Sharonda Brown has written about the problems of complementing weight loss, in part because it assumes thinner bodies are more valuable.
No, it's just you complaining because you're jealous.
Like I said early on, if someone comes out and says, hey man, I really like black t-shirts, I'd be like, thank you.
They're not saying they hate white t-shirts, they're just saying they like this one.
What we're really hearing is that you don't want her to be complimented because you're jealous that you are overweight.
Or you're pretending, you're virtue signaling, and trying to make up some reason why you should be outraged.
Because of course, on the internet, everybody needs to be outraged.
She says, but also it can put commentators' own insecurities on the person they're ostensibly celebrating.
Shut up.
Quote, my body is not better now than it was six months ago, just because it happens to take up less space.
And I need people to stop trying to make me carry the weight of their own fat hatred.
No, it's because it causes cancer, it's a strain on your heart and your breathing, and all around you are risking your life, and when you advocate for bad behavior, you risk other people's lives.
In response to previous posts about Adele's body, Toronto-based writer Audra Williams pointed out in a viral Twitter post that weight loss can be a sign of serious physical or mental health issues, and complimenting it out of context could send a dangerous message that how you look is more important than whether you are healthy.
Celebrating Adele's weight loss is a garbage thing to do for a million reasons.
It tells your fat friends you think their bodies are a problem to be solved.
No, it doesn't.
That's just you with your hang-ups.
The weight loss could be the result of physical or mental health struggles.
Weird to cheer about.
You're making assumptions that Adele is suffering mental problems.
I'm not.
I'm positively assuming, I'm assuming in the positive, that she decided to make a bold positive change for her life to exercise and eat right and good for her.
Research shows appearance is not a good indication of health.
Now that's a fair point, right?
Perhaps she's losing weight because she went through a divorce and she's dealing with anxiety and other issues and she's not eating.
That's true.
But why would you always assume the worst of someone?
More importantly, stop making it about you.
If someone compliments someone else, mind your own business.
Of course, these people, they like to shove their mouth, their hand, I'm sorry, they like to shove their hand over the mouths of other people and then say, let me be offended on your behalf.
I'm not interested in that.
You can shut up.
They say research does indeed show that while weight can be a component of health, it can be.
I love this stuff.
Alright, look, check this out.
It was back in October.
Celebrating Adele's weight loss isn't a compliment.
It's fatphobia.
Shut up, man.
I am so sick of this.
Let me just... Let me do the libertarian shtick for you.
Look, I don't care what you do, man.
This is America.
You want to eat Twinkies, Ho-Hos all day?
You go ahead and do it.
I don't care.
If you want to be overweight, that's fine.
Just don't expect me to pay for your health care if you do.
See, here's the thing, man.
I'm all about universal healthcare.
I love the idea.
I just don't know if it's possible.
And this is one of the contributing factors to why I don't believe it's possible.
Because people who are overweight tend to have health issues relative to people who are smaller.
This is a fact.
We know this.
Now, if you want to be overweight, I got no beef, man.
You go do your thing.
Me, personally, I like skateboarding.
I like running around and jumping up and getting all sweaty and doing that.
That's my thing.
If it's not your thing, then by all means, sit around playing video games.
Do what makes you happy.
I got no beef.
Just don't expect other people to celebrate what we know to be bad.
Right?
I've heard it from a lot of people when I brought up this subject before.
They say, I choose to be overweight.
I choose to live my life.
And I'm like, Rad, do your thing.
Don't care.
Right?
But if you're going to come out and be like, don't compliment Adele for losing weight.
And if someone wants to stand up for themselves and defend their rights and their liberties to be overweight, that's a good thing too.
Go, by all means.
But it's typically these people Who are arguing about fatphobia, who also tend to be for universal healthcare.
And see, you know, that's the problem I have.
Listen, man.
If you want to do this, just don't put the burden on me.
Now, Adele's been losing weight for some time, so this story goes back to October.
They're talking about Drake's birthday party.
Yeah, she lost weight.
And good for her.
And you know what?
I really don't care all that much.
And I think, honestly, most people don't care all that much.
But she really does look fantastic.
She's lost a ton of weight.
Good for her.
She's gonna live longer.
She'll be healthier.
Better for her knees.
All that stuff.
There are a lot of really good posts, actually.
A lot of people... Here's a Twitter thread saying, Adele's birthday picture sparks a debate on the links between, you know, body positivity, blah, blah, blah.
A lot of the posts are actually positive, saying things like, even if you're overweight, you can be beautiful.
You know, don't be self-conscious.
That says something very important.
I agree, first and foremost.
Like I mentioned, there are a lot of people who actually prefer larger women.
It's true.
I don't know if most men would.
I'm not going to play any games.
I don't know.
I'm not a scientist in that capacity.
I can't tell you.
But I think There is a positive way to view this.
But the fact that you would even tell someone, don't worry, don't worry, you're beautiful too, shows that you don't really think so.
You know what I mean?
Like, if it was true that you thought they were beautiful, you wouldn't need to say it.
You wouldn't need to reassure them simply because someone else is being complimented.
The fact is, mainstream society views people who are thinner as more attractive.
So you can desperately try to convince people that they're beautiful too, But everybody knows.
Come on, man.
If you are overweight, you are not viewed as attractive as someone else.
There is someone for you.
There are people who appreciate that more than being thin.
But you don't see people going around saying to Adele, I'm so sorry you're thin.
Just remember, you're beautiful too.
No, they're being like, wow!
Congratulations!
Because we know what the gut reaction is to the average person.
We know what the average person thinks is attractive.
Well, this is just, um, I don't know.
This is the world we get because everyone's opinion is elevated.
And all of these people, I guess, we can just chalk it up to virtue signaling.
But as long as it's an opportunity to get clicks and to pander to people, we're gonna see more of this kind of stuff.
But there you go, whatever.
This is a stupid, nonsensical story that I think ultimately doesn't matter that I'm actually quite bored talking about.
Congratulations, Adele lost weight.
Why is anyone bothering with this?
Whatever.
I got a couple more stories coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Well, as predicted by many of the scientific reports, it seems at least according to one
study that lockdown may actually be making the coronavirus worse.
Listen, we can be wrong.
Science is often wrong.
It doesn't mean we get mad about it.
It means we adapt to the new information and we change.
In a story from the Daily Mail, they say 66% of New York State coronavirus hospitalizations are people staying at home.
We knew this to be the case, or I'm sorry, we knew this was likely because of reports we got earlier that you are more likely to contract this indoors than outdoors.
The life of the virus is very, very short outside, and it lasts longer inside.
So by having people stay indoors, we were increasing the likelihood they would contract the coronavirus.
Now that we know this, can we please reassess the situation with new data?
You know what the problem is?
We're arguing on tribal lines.
The people who are claiming they want to keep everything locked down aren't paying attention to the data, so here we go!
There's also a funny side story in this.
Apparently the dude in the UK, the architect of the COVID-19 lockdowns, has resigned after flouting social distancing rules.
He makes you wonder.
You know, it's not confidence-building when the dude who said, hey, everybody, there's gonna be a million people, you know, 2.2 million people are gonna die, and then he goes and just doesn't care, and he wanted to apparently see his mistress, his married mistress or whatever.
You know...
You're trying to convince me to believe in you, and to do this thing, and we got these studies coming out, and then you go and do this?
Yeah, I don't know if I believe you actually care anymore.
Sounds like this guy doesn't believe his own, you know, assessment, right?
Well, I don't care too much about what this one individual did.
Because, you know, people do people stuff, right?
This guy, whether he believes it or not, whether the data is right or wrong, can be dumb.
But we have new data that's more important.
The Daily Mail says, The majority of people who are being hospitalized with coronavirus across the state of New York are staying at home and are not essential workers, new data has revealed.
In a study of some 1,000 new patients admitted to New York hospitals over the last week, 66% were staying at home and 18% had come from nursing homes, meaning they either became infected by going out to get groceries or other essential items, or from seeing people outside of work.
Governor Cuomo said, they were clearly becoming infected as a result of personal behavior, something that can't be controlled by his lockdown, but that it stands because generally the numbers in New York are decreasing, whereas cases everywhere else in America are on the rise.
So perhaps there is an argument that it's when they go out, they do something that contracts the virus, or it could, well actually no, these are people not staying, are they staying at home or not?
Are they going out and buying groceries or are they staying home?
There are now 19,877 deaths in New York State, and more than 321,000 cases of the virus.
Across America, there have been more than 1 million cases and 72,000 deaths.
Recent data shows that while New York's numbers are decreasing, the rest of America are on the rise.
More than 80% of the new New York hospitalizations had not taken any public transport since the stay-at-home order began in March.
And that number rose to 90% in New York City, but only 55% of study respondents answered the question on the transport.
So, of all new hospitalizations, 73% were over the age of 51.
The worst affected group were people aged 61 to 70 who accounted for 20% of hospitalizations.
Almost all of them had underlying conditions.
That's 96%.
So, look, we know a lot about all of this other data stuff.
I don't think we need to read through everything we already do know.
I'm interested... Actually, let's do this.
Let's talk about this dude.
Elon Musk has apparently chimed in.
He's upset because of lockdowns.
We can see now.
It looks like we're getting a handle on things.
These are the total hospitalizations.
They're going down as of May 5th.
New hospitalizations are way down, so it looks like we hit that peak.
I think it's fair to say social distancing worked.
But does it mean we should keep doing it?
I think the answer to that is no.
I think now we need to slowly start reopening things, but we're still seeing a lot of people argue that we shouldn't.
You know, man, far be it from me to tell you what we should and shouldn't do.
You decide for yourself.
And what we've seen across the board, from New York to Texas, is that people don't care.
They're coming out of their homes, they're opening their businesses.
I think at a certain point, people just, they're not interested anymore, you know?
They've decided they're bored and they're gonna come out.
Well, when you hear stories about this hypocritical British professor who demanded that we must lock down, violating these orders, you'll see people like Elon Musk tweeting, what a tool.
And Elon Musk is very influential with 33.8 million followers.
When you're already seeing people come out and breaking lockdown because they don't think it's, you know, because they don't care.
Many people who think it doesn't work.
And then you see data suggesting it may actually make things worse.
Then you take a very influential person, what do you get?
You've failed.
Your lockdown is broken.
Facebook is still deleting people for advocating the removal, I'm sorry, the defiance of local ordinances and orders and stuff.
But let me just tell you something, let me remind you.
Let me remind you, YouTube, and you, Facebook, governor decree is not law.
There is statutory law passed by legislature, and there is the governor just saying you can't do something.
The governor doesn't have the authority to do that.
The governor can, as my understanding, can tell law enforcement not to enforce something, but they can't enforce something that isn't on the books.
There's apparently some contentious debate right now with Michigan, arguing the governor had no authority to extend the lockdown.
She's actually acting against the law.
In which case, will the police go arrest the criminals, please?
They tell you on Facebook and YouTube that if you advocate for breaking the law, they'll delete you.
Okay, well, I would certainly never do that.
In which case, I think we have to actually have these governors who broke the law held accountable to whatever capacity they need to be held accountable.
Now, I wonder if YouTube and Facebook actually means it, or if they're really saying, support the lockdown or else.
I don't know.
I guess we'll find out if this video gets deleted.
Daily Mail says, The billionaire SpaceX and Tesla tycoon is among many Americans who oppose strict social distancing measures and are voicing their anger at Professor Neil Ferguson for his hypocrisy.
Musk also rubbished Professor Ferguson's fake science, which on the 17th of March forecast apocalyptic death tolls in the UK and US if both governments did not enforce social distancing.
The Imperial College London scientist's worst-case scenario of 2.2 million victims in the U.S.
is credited with spurring President Trump and the White House into action.
The CDC issued social distancing guidelines days after Ferguson's report reached American experts.
But the 51-year-old last night quit Britain's top scientific body.
After it was revealed, his left-leaning lover, Antonia Statz, 38, left her $2.5 million home and traveled across London to spend the night with him.
Ms.
Statz has an open marriage with her husband.
She also has kids and is risking infection of her family and Ferguson by doing so.
That's why people are calling him out.
But, I do think it's important to point out that we can't argue if his projections were right or wrong because we did lock things down.
What I want to stress, a point I've made before, Several times.
Please understand this.
When they forecasted that a hurricane was gonna hit Florida, everybody went out, locked things down, boarded up their windows, bought a bunch of supplies, and nobody complained when the hurri- Well, some people did.
But for the most part, people didn't complain when the hurricane turned.
They were relieved.
So now to come out and argue this guy's forecast was wrong because it wasn't that bad, I think it's silly.
I think the social lockdown, social distancing should be maintained 100%.
I think we need to slowly start reopening things for economic reasons, for health reasons, for mental health reasons, for food reasons, but we need to maintain social distancing.
I got no problem with that, man.
If you want to hand sanitize, wash your hands, man, you should have been washing your hands in the first place.
They say, Musk has now waded into the outcry echoing across both sides of the Atlantic after the hypocrisy was exposed.
Responding to a tweet about Ferguson's resignation, the billionaire founder said, what a tool.
He then said, thanks, something more should be done.
This guy has caused massive strife to the world with his absurdly fake science.
I actually think Musk might be wrong, but you know what, I gotta stop and say, Elon Musk is the tech billionaire, not me.
I'm the news guy.
I can tell you about what the news is reporting, what's being reported across the board, and potentially what's happening on the ground in certain parts of the world, but I can't tell you about whose science is right or wrong.
I'd actually defer to Elon Musk, though I would actually defer to Niall Ferguson.
But if this guy Ferguson is breaking his own, you know, advice, I don't trust him.
Makes it really hard to figure out what to do, right?
I gotta be honest.
I guess you can err on the side of safety.
Labeling him a moron.
Musk wrote something more should be done.
In a sweary conference call with investors last week, he even branded the United States social distancing measures fascist.
I actually agree.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson also seized on Ferguson's hypocrisy, saying he was obviously an appalling hypocrite.
And many Americans back in easing of the lockdown, especially in central states, where the virus is not widespread yet, despite the total U.S.
death toll passing 71,000.
While Ferguson has quit his role on the Prime Minister's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, S.A.G.E., Imperial appears to be standing by him and said today that he continues to focus on his important research.
Nah, this guy should probably be out.
You know why?
He may be right.
But he's certainly breaking confidence in the system.
I think there are a lot of problems with the lockdown.
But I do think we made the right move.
Better safe than sorry.
Perhaps we've gone too far, however.
For the time being, I don't know what to tell you.
Donald Trump has a plan.
He's actually advised Georgia to slow down.
So I'm going to defer to Look, there's a lot of people who want things to reopen, right?
And I agree we probably should.
I looked at the president, who is certainly not a Democrat.
They really don't like him.
And there's kind of a tacit agreement on how and when we should open.
And it's not necessarily that Trump is saying stay closed, but he is saying go slow.
I'll defer to him.
Look, the Democrats will say Orange Man bad no matter what he does.
Other protesters are saying open up now.
Trump is saying do it in phases and do it slowly.
That's actually the moderate, reasonable approach.
If we're locked down for good, bad things happen.
If we open up too fast, bad things happen.
Let's play it slow.
I'm not the scientist to tell you what we should or shouldn't do, though.
Perhaps no matter what we do, people are going to lose their lives.
But in the end, hey, it looks like the lockdown and quarantine at home may potentially be worse.
Take that home with you, alright?
66% of the people getting sick in New York are staying at home.
What does that mean?
Man, you can extrapolate a lot from that data, but I'll leave it there.
You figure it out.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
Facebook, ever tired of being blamed for every single piece of content that appears on this platform, is now giving away the task to a third-party body that I will personally be referring to, based on my opinion, their censorship board.
These are the people Facebook put in charge of deciding whether to delete controversial posts.
The problem was, no matter what happens on Facebook, someone's going to get mad, right?
And when the cultural right has very little power relative to the cultural left, Facebook bends the knee for the left.
That's what tends to be happening.
And this story was broken by Gizmodo, a more left-wing publication.
Yes, Facebook is biased.
Now, to avoid accusations of bias because they're concerned about the endless controversy, they're going to appoint other people to deal with it.
Facebook announced the first 20 members of its oversight board.
The board is an independent body that can overturn the company's own content moderation decisions.
Facebook said the board will begin hearing cases in the coming months.
This way, when something negative appears on Facebook, they can say, hey, don't look at us, look at them.
And then that governing body will just bend the knee as well.
Now, ultimately, I do think the idea, it's actually not that bad, right?
I'm being a bit facetious, calling it their censorship board.
I mean, they really will be removing stuff, and they're probably gonna be biased.
But Facebook's decision-making is based on their corporate interest, which means they're always gonna favor the dominant cultural establishment, which is left-wing and Democrat.
It just is.
You know, Donald Trump may be the president, but cultural establishment certainly is on the left.
By passing this off to a third party, who isn't dependent on ad revenue and makes the decisions on their own, there's a potential risk of bias.
Could potentially make things worse.
It really could maybe make things better.
I think Twitter actually has a more fun idea.
It's kind of stupid.
Twitter tests telling users their tweet replies may be offensive.
I actually kind of like the idea.
Twitter is a cesspit.
Everyone's just yelling at everybody else.
Everyone's always mean and angry all the time.
It's not so much about being offensive, but maybe it would be nice if Twitter was like, yo, why are you being such a mean person?
Maybe people won't care.
And let's be real, you're allowed to be a mean person.
I got no issue with that.
I'm just saying, like, I'm always shocked by You know, for instance, when I went on the Rogan podcast, a lot of responses to my appearance were just so awful.
Just like saying, Tim Pool is so dumb, blah blah blah.
And I'm like, if I'm wrong, just let me know, man.
Why are you so mad at me?
Like, did I go on there and insult your mother or something?
That's Twitter.
It's like everybody's acting as though you personally spat on their mom's face.
It's like, no dude, if someone's got a bad idea, just talk to them.
Like, I try to do good on Twitter.
I try to be better.
You know, I've tweeted some stuff and people have, like, I've quote tweeted people and then people go after them and I apologize for it.
I'm not trying to spread that kind of nastiness.
It depends.
Some people.
Sometimes.
But I have a limit.
I try to do better.
Let's read about Facebook's censorship board.
CNBC says Facebook on Wednesday announced the first 20 members of its oversight board, an independent body that can overturn the company's own content moderation decisions.
The oversight board will govern appeals from Facebook and Instagram users and questions from Facebook itself, although it admitted it will have to pick and choose which content moderation cases to take due to the sheer volume of them.
So, okay, it's not really they're going to be choosing what to censor.
They're going to be handling appeals.
I actually kind of like the idea.
The problem, I suppose, is trust.
Who are they appointing, and can we trust these people to actually handle this, or is this them trying to placate the people who feel like they're unjustly getting banned?
The board will receive cases through a content management system that is linked to Facebook's own platforms.
They will then discuss the case as a group before issuing a final decision on whether the content should be allowed to stay up or not.
Facebook announced it was creating an independent board in November 2018, just after a report was published in the New York Times that detailed how the company avoided and deflected blame in the public conversation around its handling of Russian interference and other social network misuses.
The members are a globally diverse group with lawyers, journalists, human rights advocates, and other academics.
Between them, they are said to have expertise in areas such as digital rights, religious freedoms, conflicts between rights, content moderation, internet censorship, and civil rights.
And I'm gonna go ahead and go- I'm just gonna assume it's gonna be a bunch of lefties.
Notable members include Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian newspaper.
Okay, not promising to start.
Andres Sajo, a former judge and VP of the European Court of Human Rights, and already off to a really bad start.
Now, of course, I know you may say, hey, it's a journalist editor-in-chief.
The Guardian is overtly biased, and Europe overwhelmingly is leftist.
So I'm not saying they're bad people.
I'm saying, well, they're biased, and that's going to be a problem.
The board will begin hearing cases in the coming months.
It will eventually have around 40 members, which Facebook will help pick.
It's one thing to complain about content moderation and challenges involved.
It's another thing to actually do something about it, said Jamal Green, co-chair of the board.
These problems of content moderation really have been with us since the dawn of social media, and this is really a novel approach.
The move could help Facebook avoid accusations of bias, as it removes content deemed problematic.
Some lawmakers and conservative speakers have said that Facebook censors politically conservative points of view, a claim the company rejects, but was first published by left-wing news outlet Gizmodo.
So you can reject it all you want, Facebook.
We know you're full of it.
And that's why they're taking action, because they know it.
Michael McConnell, another co-chair of the board, told Reporters Wednesday.
elections not be a force for one point of view over another but the same rules
will apply to people of left right and center. Michael McConnell another co-chair
of the board told reporters Wednesday sure I'd like to believe that
I don't know if I do.
Facebook pledged to give the board $130 million in funding last December, with the money expected to cover operational costs for at least six years.
The board will be compensated an undisclosed amount for their time.
Facebook in January outlined the board's bylaws, making it clear the social media giant is still in control.
The board's decisions do not necessarily set any precedents that Facebook has to follow in the future, and the board is limited when it comes to content it can't address.
The board said it will publish transparency reports each year and monitor what Facebook has done with its recommendations.
It will be very embarrassing to Facebook if they don't live up to their end of this, Thorning-Schmidt, a co-chair, said.
Brent Harris, Facebook directors of global affairs, said Facebook will implement the board's decisions unless they violate the law.
All right, let's see who we got here.
Do we have to worry about Facebook censorship?
Before I even read it, of course you do.
Academics tend to lean left, especially when it deals with, you know, social psychology issues like that.
And it's Facebook.
I think Facebook, you know, like Mark Zuckerberg himself, probably is a bit more conservative, but they don't care.
They want to make money.
What do we got?
Afia Asantewa.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to pronounce you wrong.
I'm sorry for pronouncing your name wrong.
Human Rights Advocate at the Open Society Initiative for West Africa.
Not super familiar.
We have this person who's from University of Oklahoma College, a law professor who formerly served as a senior U.S.
Dean of the Universidad de los Andres Faculty of Law, wherever that is.
Catherine Chen, Communication from... So these are, you know, honestly, I can't say too much about these organizations.
We've got a Columbia Law professor, a U.S.
Supreme Court advocate.
We've got... Who's this?
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, named as one of history's most rebellious women by Time.
I'm not sure this person should be on the board.
I don't understand how that qualifies you to be on the board, but sure.
What else we got?
Human Rights Watch's Global Alliances and Partnerships Program.
Oh, you better believe that's going to be biased.
Vice Chancellor of the National Law School of India University.
What?
India?
Rio de Janeiro University.
Stanford Law Professor.
Who's that?
Michael McConnell.
Facebook Oversight Board Co-Chair.
Previously served as a Federal Circuit Judge.
I think it's Internet Sans Frontiers, Internet Without Borders, Israeli Ministry of Justice, Editor-in-Chief of The Guardian, wonderful, European Court of Human Rights.
Let's see, who's this?
John Samples helps lead a libertarian think tank and writes extensively on social media and speech regulation.
Well, libertarian, that sounds pretty good.
You know what, man?
I don't know what we can expect from this.
Former Prime Minister of Denmark, wow, that's impressive.
But we know that many of these, look, The United States upholds freedom of speech more so than most other places and therein lies the big problem.
Why are we, as Americans, going to be held to a standard set by many people who aren't Americans?
That's one of the problems brought up with their board.
I fully believe that this is going to result in more censorship.
Now, it's supposed to be an appeals process, but I think the battle's for the most part lost.
Too many Republicans in government were too pathetic to actually deal with this, and now they will reap what they have sown, and so be it.
Many of these people who are now expected to lose their Senate seats You know, in the near future.
I don't know when, but potentially.
We'll have nothing but themselves to blame.
And to all the conservative voters, I know many of you have demanded and screeched that this needs to be addressed.
Some people have addressed some of it, but they haven't done enough.
No bills drafted, no protections, no lawsuits.
So you know what?
I understand there are people fighting.
I'm not saying no one's fighting.
But here's my prediction.
Over time, Like, staunch conservatives will be erased.
We're going to see a potential future where the Republican Party becomes substantially more left-leaning, and the Democrats move even further left, because you look at certain states, Texas turning blue and things like that, and the only opportunity then is for Republicans to adopt more moderate or leftist policy ideas.
Because that's what's happening because of social media, partly.
Now, I don't know for sure.
There's a good argument to say that because things have gotten so insane outside of social media, especially with the lockdown, that the lockdown is going to drive people to become more conservative.
I can't say I know for sure.
I can't make predictions.
There are way too many variables.
But I do think, and I've said this before, that Republicans face a serious threat because they are being erased from social media.
You can call me biased, you can say I'm lying, you can say I'm pushing their talking point, but the fact is, the story has been repeatedly covered, there have been insiders who have come forward, we have documentation, and you're lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
Far be it from me to tell you what to believe, you go do what you want, but the reality is the reality.
If you don't want to address this, and you don't want to call up the potential censorship that's coming, don't be surprised when your ideas get erased.
But whatever, man.
I don't know what else to tell you.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
