Democrats Are STRANGLING Small Business On Purpose, Ignoring Science, Birx SHOCKED Lockdown Failing
Democrats Are STRANGLING Small Business On Purpose, Ignoring Science, Birx SHOCKED Lockdown Failing. Fauci has said its time to reopen and every state has begun to do so yet still many Democrats insist on extended citywide or even statewide lockdowns.Now Dr Birx is asking the CDC to investigate why it is that cities still under lockdown are seeing covid cases remain steady. It seems that not only is the lockdown not helping it may have even backfired.In spite of all this new data and new studies many Democratic governors resort to targeting small businesses.There is a clear divide between Democrats insistence on remaining closed and Republicans calls for reopening the economy. Perhaps its an instinctive reaction to Trump because he called for a reopening but come November I can guess who will take the blame.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday, we heard from Dr. Anthony Fauci of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, who said he is totally in favor of reopening the country if done in an appropriate way.
Going on to say that an extended lockdown could result in irreparable damage and unintended consequences, putting public health at risk.
Many people have felt this way for quite some time, but to see Dr. Fauci come out and say it is reassuring to many.
But we're also getting new data from a variety of sources.
One study suggests that ending lockdowns has actually improved the coronavirus pandemic in certain areas, resulting in a lower infection rate.
In fact, a study says that the lockdowns may have actually backfired.
But we're also seeing something interesting from Dr. Birx of the Coronavirus White House Task Force, when she asked the CDC to investigate key cities that have remained locked down, but have not seen the coronavirus infection rate go down.
It stands to reason the lockdowns may have been a mistake.
And at the very least, we can stop right now, stop the arguments and say, Dr. Fauci is in favor.
Let's all just agree to trust the experts on this one.
With that being said, the question I have is why are so many democratic states and cities adamant on locking down?
Even though we've seen the irreparable damage, we've seen the unintended consequences.
People have been fleeing certain cities, notably New York.
We have seen people truly suffer.
Hospital staff are losing their jobs.
Over a million healthcare workers.
Why then is there this dramatic and adamant push to make sure everything remains locked down in the face of everything that's happening?
I can only say that many of these Democrats, obviously not all, and yes, even some Republicans, but it's these high-profile Democrats that are purposefully strangling small business.
At the very least, I can give you some specific examples.
Notably, Atlas Gym, near where I live in New Jersey, where the governor actually threatened the business straight up.
You're not reopening, no matter what, even though we have all of this data, even though we have Dr. Fauci, none of it matters.
They say no.
And I don't get why.
Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York said, don't worry, these businesses can hang on, they'll be fine, even though many of them have already permanently closed.
They have to understand what's going on with the data, right?
So maybe it's fair to say they're completely inept.
They're ignorant.
They have no idea what's going on.
Okay, fine.
Bad leadership, right?
But then why target these businesses directly?
One instance, notably in Michigan, where Governor Whitmer, the state went after this barber and tried to shut him down.
Well, a court has ruled in his favor.
I'll stop here.
I want to go through this data and show you all of these stories and break down for you what shows me that there is a strange tribalism taking place, where the data doesn't matter, where honest conversations don't matter.
YouTube has been censoring videos like this one, censoring other doctors.
I wonder if they might censor this.
With that being said, the best thing you can do to support this video before we get started is to go to TimCast.com slash donate.
Then you can find multiple ways to support my work.
However, in the wake of potential censorship, I ask, share this video.
It really is the best way to get around algorithmic manipulation and how YouTube props up mainstream media.
If you just want to watch, that's fine too.
Just hit the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell.
Hopefully that's enough for YouTube to actually Send you my videos.
But with that being said, I do think there's a very real possibility that YouTube doesn't like this, and I don't know why.
The culture war seems to be split right now between those who want the lockdown to remain and those who want to reopen.
Unfortunately, for those who are demanding the lockdown remain, like some of these Democratic states who have extended their lockdowns, the data isn't on their side, nor is Dr. Fauci.
So why are they doing it?
When we look at specific examples in Michigan and New Jersey, it seems to me like it's just on purpose.
I can't think of any other reason.
You know the Democratic governors have heard what Fauci said, right?
Certainly they can then release the pressure and attention on these desperate small businesses, right?
No.
They're doing it on purpose.
In New Jersey, a woman was doing a live stream showing products in her store and the police were sent to shut her down.
That has to be on purpose, right?
None of it makes sense.
Well, let's get started and read.
Just very quickly, I'll go through some stories, give you key examples.
Fauci said the other day that he's totally in favor of reopening.
This is the source, just to prove it to you.
The Hill reports that Fauci said on CNBC, the nation can't stay locked down, adding that irreparable damage and unintended consequences could ensue if lockdowns are prolonged, including risk to the public health.
It is for that reason why the guidelines are being put forth, so the states and the cities can start to re-enter and reopen.
Perfect.
Let's take a look at some of these stories.
Notably in New Jersey, this man actually got arrested.
He was leaving a gym.
They were told that the patrons and the owners were in violation of an executive order, and this was only a couple days ago.
This man apparently refused to identify himself.
Many other people were cited.
The governor of New Jersey addressed the Jims, specifically saying something to the effect of, it's not a game, you can't do this.
Targeting the small business, specifically with the weight of the governorship of New Jersey, with the state power.
I'm sorry, man.
It just feels a little bit over the top, if you ask me.
But in Michigan, we saw something similar.
In this instance, a 77-year-old barber refused to stay shut down.
I mean, people have to pay their bills.
You know, we saw what happened in Texas, too.
So there are some Republicans who have gone pretty far.
Texas, for instance.
The salon owner got arrested, ultimately got released by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Now, in Michigan, judge rules Michigan Barber 77 can stay open days after his license was suspended for defying Governor Whitmer's coronavirus lockdown.
I don't really understand why it is that these specific states are so, again, adamant on maintaining this.
But take a look at what's going on now.
Sales soar at Walmart and Home Depot during the pandemic.
Billionaires are making massive amounts of money.
And the CDC is being asked to investigate why it is that these states, these cities that remain locked down are still having these cases.
Could it be that the lockdown isn't working?
Could it be that it's actually making things worse?
It could be.
And I actually have some more stories to back that up.
I'm not saying I know definitively, but it looks like that may be the case.
So again, I ask the question of why it is these Democratic governors and mayors are so adamant on locking things down when we have reason to believe it's not going to help.
Small businesses, they're being shuttered.
They've been shuttered.
Many will never reopen.
But the big corporate chains are doing just fine.
Walmart's profits are up.
And in turn, the billionaires who control these companies and own these stocks are seeing major and massive profits.
Something's not right here.
Now, let's take a look at what's going on with the coronavirus pandemic, and then we can come back to the politics in a second.
Dr. Birx asks the CDC to investigate coronavirus hotspots L.A., Chicago, and Washington, D.C., as new daily cases fail to fall.
The CDC has been asked to investigate new coronavirus cases in those cities.
New daily coronavirus cases are refusing to drop in the cities despite ongoing shutdowns causing concern, Task Force Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx revealed Friday.
Even though Washington has remained closed, L.A.
has remained closed, Chicago has remained closed, we still see these ongoing cases, she told reporters during a White House news briefing.
And I've asked the CDC, and the CDC is working with the local area in Chicago and this area, D.C.
and L.A., to really understand where all these new cases are coming from and what we need to do to prevent them in the future.
It could be, as one study suggested, staying in your home and being locked up actually increases the likelihood that you get sick, for a variety of reasons.
There's more surface area to touch.
If someone goes out and gets sick and brings that sickness back, everyone in the house will get it.
As opposed to people who are going out because the lockdowns have been lifted, thus they're less likely to come in direct contact with exposed surfaces.
And we actually have the data for that.
Many U.S.
states have seen lower infection rates after ending lockdowns that are now destroying millions of livelihoods worldwide, JPMorgan study claims.
It's just that simple.
Here, say this.
Alabama, Wisconsin, and Colorado are among those that saw lower infection rates after lockdown measures were lifted, according to the report.
Take that into consideration and look at the other story from Dr. Birx.
They're confused as to why the cases aren't going down.
We have these states, not every state, but many, where we've seen the cases go down once the lockdowns were lifted.
Could it be that being outside is actually beneficial?
As I've stated in many videos, based on the studies and stories that have come out, it seems like social distancing is the correct move, ending large gatherings is the correct move, but quarantining and staying at home was the wrong move.
Shutting down businesses was also the wrong move.
We need to be out, we need to be working, we need to be doing things, but we need to be conscious and socially distant.
We're not doing that.
Many states have begun to, all 50 states have now slowly started to reopen, but for some reason, The press is trying to make it seem like the lockdowns are, you know, mandatory, no matter what.
Now, I don't know why, as I've stated before, some people speculate that the Democratic governors and the media are, you know, working, not necessarily in a conspiracy, but knowing this crisis is bad for Trump, they want to exploit it by extending it because it's destroying businesses.
Perhaps.
I don't necessarily want to even play that game.
I don't think it really even matters.
We can simply just say that there are small businesses that have been strangled purposefully by these governors, and we can certainly say that it's failing to work.
So, at the very least, these Democratic governors are completely inept.
But why would the media?
Why would the media play this game?
Take a look at this story.
Quote, they threw us into chaos.
Wisconsin lockdown ruling is latest in partisan war.
Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling striking down Democratic governor's stay at home order underscores division in the state.
Hold on a second.
What hold at the Wisconsin chaos, huh?
According to the study from JP Morgan, Wisconsin is one of the states that saw lower infection rates after the lockdowns were lifted.
The Democratic governor failed.
His stay-at-home order was overruled by the Supreme Court, and the state has been better off because of it.
Why did this governor want that to maintain?
So I'll tell you this, man.
If you're concerned about your health and safety, it looks like we have a lot of data to suggest these are bad moves and these Democrats are putting people's lives at risk.
It's also true of some Republican governors, too.
But the best assessment I can give is that there are these high-profile Democratic politicians who are enforcing this stuff.
It's Murphy of New Jersey.
It's Cuomo.
It's Mayor de Blasio.
It's Evers.
There's many.
There is some concern over, you know, perhaps Texas.
Maybe North... Actually, I don't know if North Dakota is a Democrat or Republican.
But there are concerns over this.
Uh, we can see that there are many states that are Democrat-controlled that are enforcing much more strict lockdowns.
The map you're looking at right now shows that the lighter the sh- it's a map- folks are listening.
There's a map of the U.S.
The dark blue states have the harshest lockdowns, and the light blue have the lightest lockdowns.
We can see to varying degrees everybody's kind of locked down a little bit, but of course it's very obviously the blue states that are for the most part locked down.
Now, following Wisconsin shutting down, ending the lockdown and things improving, at least that's what we see.
On May 20th, Newsweek reported, Wisconsin sees highest single-day rise in coronavirus cases days after Supreme Court struck down lockdown extension.
These are the stories that have been popping up across the board.
And there's some questions you need to ask immediately.
First of all, Newsweek is framing the story to make it seem like ending the lockdown has made things worse.
That's the assumption most people would make when they read the story.
But really look at it.
First of all, what do we know?
Well, the incubation period is a couple days to 14 days.
They say days after the lockdown was lifted, they've seen the single highest day rise.
That would mean So you have the lockdown end.
Everybody goes out, gets infected.
At least two days later, they start getting sick.
So they all go and get tested.
And then you see the numbers spike.
That seems to make very little sense.
I mean, if it's only days after, they should still be in the incubation period on average.
And why would they all rush out to get coronavirus tests?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
You know, it does make sense.
They got sick during the lockdown.
And actually, we have data to back this up.
Check this out.
Taking Newsweek at face value.
Ignore the lockdown extension.
Ignore the Supreme Court.
Before the lockdown was even lifted, people were getting sick, and there was a massive increase.
Because, of course, the increase couldn't have come after the fact, right?
Incubation period.
We then go back to a couple days later, May 22nd, and see that Wisconsin actually sees a decline.
That stands to reason, then.
It stands to reason.
That these people, these record numbers, this biggest increase we saw was during the lockdown.
And then after they ended it, people were still getting sick because of the lag effect due to incubation period.
And now that it's over, things are actually getting better.
But of course, it actually goes a little bit beyond this.
In fact, according to that same study about these states, Daily Mail reports Lockdowns failed to alter the course of pandemic and are now destroying millions of livelihoods worldwide.
You'd think once we knew all of this, changes would come.
But no.
Mayor Bill de Blasio says shuttered businesses will be able to hang on for months.
That's not true at all.
And it flies in the face of what Fauci is saying, of what the CDC is saying, of what everyone and every study is saying right now.
So I don't know if their goal is just to be the odd person out to be the king of Karens in extending the lockdown orders.
Whitmer extends Michigan's stay-at-home order until June 12th.
Why?
The study came out the other day suggesting this is a mistake.
Anthony Fauci came out the other day suggesting it was a mistake.
Perhaps now, because again, this story, you know, she extended the lockdown, you know, before or around the same time that Anthony Fauci was talking about reopening.
Maybe now she'll reconsider.
Maybe now they will change their tune and things will actually start to improve.
But I want to show you how the media has responded to this.
It's the weirdest thing to me.
Why South Dakota has become a hotspot.
April 14th, 2020.
Wow.
South Dakota became a hotspot for the coronavirus.
That's amazing.
Here's another story from the New York Times.
South Dakota meat plant is now country's biggest coronavirus hotspot.
Refugees from around the world worked at the Smithfield Pork Factory in Sioux Falls.
Now they face mounting illness and the sudden loss of their jobs.
Here's one from NBC News.
It was never a hotspot.
It never got that bad.
stay home order now faces coronavirus hotspot. The Republican under fire for not taking bolder
action insists things are under control. It was never a hotspot. It never got that bad.
Sure, there were some issues with the meat processing plant for sure, but South Dakota
never locked down, nor did many other Republican controlled states and everything was fine.
And as the data now suggests, it may have actually been worse to lock down.
And now you've got Berks asking the CDC, why is it that cities that are locked down are actually still seeing coronavirus cases. They're not
going down. The lockdown seems to have been a mistake. So all of these media outlets that
attacked every Republican.
There was one story in the I believe it was in the DC Examiner.
Where does Ron DeSantis go for his apology? Why is Andrew Cuomo's approval rating so high?
I think my takeaway from many of these news reports is that Democratic politicians just do whatever it is the press says they should do, or they react in the inverse to what it is the media is criticizing.
If NBC and Newsweek and all these stories come out attacking Republicans, as they often do for tribal reasons, Democrats don't want to face the brunt of the same negative press, maybe worry about re-election, so they just act in the inverse.
They attack small businesses, they demand extended lockdowns, and maybe they're scared.
It's what I've been saying for the past week or so.
They're scared that if things do get bad, they'll take the blame.
But they're also scared of the press.
How many hit pieces came out about these Republican states because of the decisions they made that turned out to be the correct decisions?
A ton.
Now, the Dallas salon owner in Michigan is calling Governor Whitmer a tyrant.
And I think this will absolutely resonate with the American people.
It's funny for me to see these economic forecast models blame Trump for the fallout and argue that the election is going to swing Joe Biden in a major way.
That's an Oxford economic model saying that Joe Biden's going to win a historical victory.
Trump's going to lose in a historical landslide defeat because of the economy.
And again, some people want to believe the Democrats are doing this on purpose to hurt the economy.
These jobs will never come back.
People won't have jobs to return to and unemployment will remain in a very, very awful position.
So maybe that will hurt Trump.
Maybe unemployment will be bad.
But I don't think that theory makes sense for one reason.
I mean, you can argue the Democrats are really dumb if they were doing that on purpose, but in the end, I think people are going to see what's happening, and they're going to blame the Democrats for it.
Look, it's not every single Democrat, not every single state is run by Democrats, not every single heavy-handed action has been done by Democrats, but it does tend to be, at least for now, the Democrats that are pushing for this, as Republicans and Republican voters are demanding things to be reopened.
If someone, a Dallas salon owner, calling Governor Whitmer a tyrant, I think people across the country are going to recognize who had the heaviest hand in shutting down the economy.
When you combine that information with stories like this, that the lockdowns may have backfired, lockdowns failed to alter the course, who's going to get the blame for this?
Why would Donald Trump get the blame for this?
To me, it doesn't seem to make sense.
And lastly, did Japan just beat the virus without lockdowns or mass testing?
Yeah, looks like they did.
Now I guess Bloomberg is just asking the question.
Japan could end its state of emergency as early as Monday.
Success against the pathogen comes despite loose lockdown.
That's amazing.
They say Japan's state of emergency is nearing its end, with new cases of the coronavirus dwindling to mere dozens.
It got there despite largely ignoring the default playbook.
I think now we can conclude what needs to be concluded.
J.P.
Morgan's study, the lockdowns didn't do anything.
Cities, according to Dr. Birx, that remain locked down are still seeing cases.
In one study that I covered many, many times, 66% of those who are getting sick are staying home.
Japan has now beat this without locking down.
What more needs to be said?
What do you need to say to Governor Murphy of New Jersey to get him to lay off this small business or Governor Whitmer to not extend this lockdown?
Well, I can't tell you.
But they are definitely using this to push for mail-in voting.
And there are a lot of questions and concerns, particularly in New Jersey.
So I'll throw it to this as I wrap up.
In North New Jersey, there are many people who are angry that their mail-in ballots never came to their homes, and then they were still listed as having voted.
Who took their ballots?
Where did they go?
Governor Murphy was asked about this.
He did not give an answer.
Two days later, he said the Democratic primary will be held by mail-in vote.
Without answering for the questions of the alleged fraud occurring in Patterson, New Jersey, you're just gonna say, go for it?
Now look, you can argue they're doing it on purpose.
I certainly think they're taking advantage of this.
I certainly think they're strangling out many of these businesses on purpose.
Now what their end goal is, I don't know.
But when the governor of New Jersey targets a small business specifically and says, no, Well, that's on purpose, okay?
There's certainly things you can do to help these businesses survive.
One story I was told, and I don't know if it's true, was a woman selling gift cards, so that when she reopened, she could provide services, but for the time being, could still make money.
They shut her down.
And the woman who was doing the livestream shut her down.
That is on purpose.
That has nothing to do with COVID.
So let me end by saying this.
I know, I said I was wrapping up three times now.
Let me end by saying this.
All that really matters.
None of this matters.
The political arguments don't matter.
It's done.
We don't need mail-in voting anymore.
You know why?
Because Fauci says it's time to reopen, and we can be safe.
Because the studies have shown the lockdowns didn't work.
It's time to reopen.
And that's not my opinion.
That's from Dr. Fauci.
Otherwise, we face serious damage.
You can— Look, I don't know.
I see this stuff, and it's really frustrating.
Maybe it's because I live in a Democrat state.
You know, Governor, this is the blue states of New Jersey, and I've seen what they've done with these small businesses and how they've targeted them.
So maybe it's my bias.
But when I look at the map of state closures, it's very obviously blue states that are, for the most part, locking everything down and being really restrictive.
Not all of them.
Not every blue state, mind you.
It just tends to be these Democrats doing this.
Can you comment and tell me why?
I guess we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Tim Castor News, and I will see you all then.
Rachel Maddow has defeated One America News in their defamation lawsuit after she said they were literally paid Russian propaganda.
I'm actually surprised that Rachel Maddow won this one, and I think we've got very serious problems with defamation law in this country, but there are some really good arguments for why it exists the way it does.
The argument comes from something called Times v. Sullivan, I believe it was the New York Times.
I actually have it pulled up.
It's this ruling that basically states if someone is a public official, a person running for public office, I think it's actually become now, if you're like a public figure, You not only must prove the normal elements of defamation, publication of false defamatory statement to a third party, but you also must prove the statement was made with actual malice, meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.
This is what's so strange about this case with Rachel Maddow.
She has been lying for years, and I say lying because you'd think by now she would know that being wrong about Russiagate would be—it's time to stop.
But she just keeps saying the same fake news over and over and over again, and it's her audience, right?
She knows where the money's at.
And so, you know, I often question Do these people ever get tired of being wrong?
Apparently not.
While she said they were literally paid Russian propaganda, one of the first defenses they used was that it's just opinion, saying that the show is just entertainment, it's not fact.
And somehow, her saying literally paid Russian propaganda was deemed by a judge to be just an opinion.
If that's just an opinion to say it is literally paid Russian propaganda, which is a statement of fact, Well, therein lies a big challenge.
Because Rachel Maddow gets massive viewership.
She got 3 million views.
Look at this from TV Newser.
In the key demo, she got 429 key demo viewers.
429 key demo viewers, 429,000 I'm sorry.
And she got 2.928 million total viewers.
So she's getting a lot of old people, I guess.
But she's getting a lot of young people.
Tucker Carlson, side note, absolutely dominating everything, which is nuts.
In the key demo, Tucker got 689,000.
And for his primetime show, it ate 4.04 million.
That's huge.
Tucker dominates.
But anyway, back to the point.
How are we supposed to hold people to certain standards and make sure we're not getting fake news?
Now, we have a First Amendment.
And I like the First Amendment.
Very much so.
And that's what's actually protecting Rachel Maddow as she lies.
But you'd think there would be some remedy for someone like Rachel Maddow lying to this massive audience of millions of people.
Under the First Amendment, there are things you're allowed to say, and in fact, I believe lying is protected.
But you can be sued for defamation.
The problem we're facing now is that the courts just keep allowing them to say things that are not opinion, and they're using really weird arguments to do it.
Let's read the story, and then I want to talk to you a bit about Rachel Maddow's history.
We've got some stories.
She was dragged recently for doing fake news.
Deadline reports.
Judge dismisses One American News Network defamation suit against Rachel Maddow, MSNBC.
A federal judge in San Diego dismissed One American News Network's defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow, MSNBC and Comcast, concluding that Maddow was stating her opinion when she said that the right-leaning channel, quote, really literally is paid Russian propaganda.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the general context of the statements, the specific context of the statements, and the statement's susceptibility of being proven true or false, a reasonable fact-finder could only conclude that the statement was one of opinion, not fact.
U.S.
District Judge Cynthia Beshant wrote in a 17-page ruling.
Wait, wait.
Hold on a second there.
What did they say?
Considering the context, the specific context of the statements, and the statement's susceptibility of being proven true or false, what does that matter?
What matters is whether or not you tell your audience this is true about someone else that damages their reputation, harms their business, or their personal life.
I'm not gonna assume the average person's gonna be like, well now that Rachel Maddow said it, I better go fact check that.
No.
She said it.
It's damaging.
She didn't say, in my opinion, I think, it really does seem.
She said, here's the evidence, they really are literally, or I'll defer to the quote.
They go on.
She also said the defendants could seek attorneys' fees and costs, which means now OAN might be on the hook for money.
The lawsuit filed last fall in U.S.
District Court in San Diego centered on one of Maddow's segments from July 22nd of last year.
Maddow opened her show by referencing a Daily Beast story and telling her audience that it reported that OANN, quote, has a full-time on-air reporter who covers U.S.
politics who is also simultaneously on the payroll of the Kremlin.
Statement of fact, again, that just doesn't appear to be true, at least according to the defense.
Which is supri- I'm not- How she won this one.
One America took particular issue when Maddow, in her segment, also said, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really, literally is paid Russian propaganda.
Maddow made the statement after the Daily Beast ran a story by Kevin Poulsen reporting that one of One America's on-air reporters, Christian Brunovich Rose, also was on the payroll of Sputnik, for Sputnik, the Kremlin news outlet.
One America then demanded a retraction in their lawsuit.
One America said that Rose has never been a staff employee of Sputnik News.
He worked as a freelancer for Sputnik News and his work there had no relation to his work for OAN.
Rose submitted articles to Sputnik on his own and would receive approximately $40 if the articles were accepted.
In her ruling, Beshant wrote that even though Meadow used the word literally, she had inserted her own colorful commentary into And throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay, saying, quote, I mean, what?
And calling the segment a sparkly story and one we must take in stride.
For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context.
What?
Rachel Maddow has been peddling fake news for years and people believe it every single day.
Not only that, but simply because she said, I mean, what?
What is that supposed to mean?
I don't know what that means.
Why would you make an assumption about what someone's going to think?
She's not expressing dismay or shock that the story is fake.
She's expressing shock that the story is true.
She's like, I mean, what?
Wow.
The implication she's saying is that I can't believe we're learning these facts about One America News.
It's funny, isn't it?
They go on to say, the context of Maddow's statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion.
No, they wouldn't!
That's so strange to me.
The determination of what a reasonable person would conclude.
I don't think that matters.
To me, I guess, you know, it doesn't matter.
To the courts, I suppose it does.
To me, it matters whether or not you made a false statement.
That's it.
Did you?
Now, there are certain qualifiers I add to a lot of my statements to make sure I'm clear when I say, allegedly, appears to be, in my opinion.
I very carefully say things like, I feel this way, or it's my opinion, specifically to avoid defaming somebody if I can't prove it.
The lawsuit also claimed that Maddow's remarks were retaliation against One America because its president, Charles Herring, had called out parent company Comcast for their anti-competitive censorship in refusing to carry the conservative channel.
The lawsuit sought more than $10 million in damages.
Herring Networks, the owner of One America, said that it would appeal.
Now, we have a statement here from, uh, the attorney for, I believe, uh, I think it's for One America.
It's a, it's a, uh, yes, okay, it would appeal.
Its attorney, Amnon Siegel, of Miller-Barrandess, in Los Angeles, said in a statement, the court did not squarely address the fact that Maddow prefaced her false statement with, really, literally, which is used to emphasize the truth of a statement.
The court's decision recognizes that Maddow's statement that One America News is paid Russian propaganda is capable
of being proven false.
And it is, in fact, false.
That should have been enough for the court to deny the motion and allow a jury to decide the issue.
Well, they're going now to appeal.
This is very, very surprising to me, to be honest.
No, I take that back.
I take that back.
It's not surprising.
They never win.
I mean, it was interesting to see that Covington, Catholic, beat CNN.
CNN ultimately agreed to settle.
But if you can come on the TV and say that a network is really, literally paid Russian propaganda, wow, what, and that is not considered a statement of fact, then I don't know what is.
And we've seen similar things like this before.
The courts are extremely reticent to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in many of these cases.
There's something called SLAPP, and I believe that's what Rachel Maddow used to win strategic lawsuits against public participation.
The general idea is that if you have a bunch of people in the public space, and they're all arguing and saying things about each other and how they feel, you have people who use their power in the courts to try and silence their opponent.
I think, you know, to a certain degree, the core concept of this, I like.
But come on, man, there's got to be some standard.
If you come out and say, this network really is literally X, I mean, I don't know how you get more of a statement of fact.
Like, so the idea for Slap is, if Rachel Maddow has an opinion, you can't sue her for an opinion.
If my opinion is that she's lying, well, that's just, there you go.
It's my opinion.
I think she's a liar.
I really do think she's a liar.
She lies all the time.
Take a look at this story.
MSNBC star Rachel Maddow is slammed for peddling fake news after she claimed 10 days ago the hospital ship's mercy and comfort would not be in L.A.
and New York for weeks and called Trump's promise they would arrive nonsense.
Are these people ever tired of being wrong?
It's absolutely incredible.
You know who's not wrong?
Tucker Carlson.
It's the weirdest thing.
And this is what is killing the left and destroying the Democratic Party, their obsession with never conceding anything.
I remember watching one episode from Tucker recently, and I say recently as in the past few months, where he mentioned he opened with a correction and apology because he had said something about, you know, elderly or something like that, and then he went over why his previous assessment was incorrect and stuff.
It was interesting to say the least.
But Tucker was very early on with the coronavirus pandemic.
What's funny is we're now learning the lockdown may have been actually a bad idea, maybe have backfired.
But there were Fox News personalities that were calling this out very early on, notably members of The Five and Tucker Carlson.
This is why I think, this is why I think you will see, there's two things I think, check this out.
TV News' ratings for Tucker Carlson, 4.041 million, and Rachel Maddow, who comes on an hour later, is 2.928 million.
Now, Sean Hannity comes on after Tucker with 3.5 million, followed by Ingram with 3.1, so they're still crushing MSNBC.
But Tucker Carlson's ratings have been skyrocketing, and I think I know why.
It could be because we're in lockdown, so everybody's watching the news, I suppose.
But I think it's because Tucker's been reasonable, he's called out Republicans when he has to, and he's been correct.
That's all it takes.
I think I know why Rachel Maddow's ratings are up, too.
Because she lies.
That's it.
Now, interestingly, CNN appears to have some pretty good ratings increases right now, too.
And I think this may have a lot to do with the pandemic.
But also, let's be real.
CNN has embraced reality TV 100%.
We just saw Cuomo Brothers do prop comedy.
There you go, man.
People don't care about the news, so CNN's gonna give them what they ask for.
Look, I did a segment before talking about MTV, I think it was on the IRL podcast, about how MTV used to do music videos and then it changed to reality TV and everyone got mad.
And they argued, you know, it's because you gotta get with the times, man.
It's like MTV, nobody wants to watch its music videos anymore, so CNN is just adapting to the market.
The problem is we're not talking about entertainment.
We're talking about people who are supposed to be telling the truth and explaining what's happening in our world so we can make calm, rational decisions about what to do with our vote and what to do with our lives.
Instead of getting that, what do we get?
Rachel Maddow lies all the time.
She lies, exaggerates, embellishes.
Her whole show is left-wing info wars.
And you know what's funny is I get a lot of people that are like, hey man, that's not fair to Alex Jones.
I'm like, to an extent, for sure.
I get the point.
Rachel Maddow pedals in... I think she does one of the worst possible things you can do.
Pretending to be overtly truthful.
While lying.
Sophistry.
You know, manipulating people by making arguments where you specifically omit facts to trick people into believing something.
It is the worst thing you can do.
Now look, Tucker Carlson has said on his show he doesn't drag her for the most part because it is her opinion, she's allowed to have it.
And that's fair.
The problem I have with this is when she says things like literally patriotic propaganda and there's no recourse for this.
I have had numerous news outlets lie about me because it's political ideology.
They didn't like the fact that I got invited to the White House.
Couldn't have this, you know, moderate centrist type going to Trump's rally.
It's got to be only, you know, MAGA conspiracy people.
So they lied like crazy.
They made stuff up.
And I talked to some lawyers.
I'm like, what's the recourse for this?
And they're like, nothing.
They use selective language.
They use clever, clever wording.
Clever wording so that you can't do anything about how they lie.
Framing devices.
There is no recourse.
If somebody wants to lie about you, they can.
Take a look at the Ronan Farrow story.
Matt Lauer highlights a specific... I don't know if you saw the op-ed from Matt Lauer.
It's really interesting.
He highlights this key phrase that Ronan Farrow used in his reporting where he said that he came across seven other women who had reported harassment claims who had worked with Lauer to the average person when they read that.
It sounds like he's saying Matt Lauer had harassed these women.
In reality, what Farrah was saying was that these women made claims over 25 years against other men, not Matt Lauer, but he omits that.
It is a clever tactic you know will make people think the wrong thing and you can get away with it.
There is no way to prove because you use interpretive language that manipulates and you can't sue for it.
So if Rachel Maddow wanted to be really clever, she could use better selective language.
I mean, the fact that it even came to this, When she said what she said shows her reckless disregard for their own fake news reporting techniques.
They all do it.
They really do.
Okay, hold on, let me stop.
When I say they all do it, what I mean is at every outlet you will find some journalists who do this.
And it's funny because there are so many naive, goody-two-shoes, you know, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts who work in media who are like, but why would journalists lie?
What do you mean, why would they lie?
Because Rachel Maddow wants to get 3 million viewers per night.
Because she likes being a millionaire.
Because she wants to go to lavish parties with infinity pools and get drunk with her friends.
What do you mean, why would she do it?
Why do people do anything?
Because people want.
They want more.
They never stop.
It's never enough.
It's not everybody.
Some people recognize that at some point, you know, enough is enough.
And they're happy, you know, making a certain amount of money and doing their thing.
But what we're talking about with media are the people who are willing to crawl and claw their way to the top and do anything to get it.
No scruples.
For me, I think about what the impact will be, where humanity will go, and I think you need a little bit of idealism and, yeah, idealism, I guess.
A vision.
It's good to believe in some kind of utopian future.
It's good to believe that humanity will strive and succeed and do better.
Now, if you get too much of that, you go nuts and you end up with a bunch of, you know, far-lefty weirdo idealists who believe in things that aren't possible.
If you lose it, if you have none of it, you end up with Rachel Maddow.
She knows she's full of it.
That's all she does.
That's her shtick.
She says, oh, the ship's not going to come.
And look, I think this story is a little silly because she was just giving her opinion.
I don't think Trump's really going to pull it off.
The ship won't come.
That can't happen.
And then it does.
So, you know, that's just her doing what she does.
But I view someone like Rachel Maddow as someone who has zero idealism.
Zero ideology.
The only thing that matters to her is power.
And she'll get it however she can.
I don't think she really cares about any of these causes.
She doesn't.
Otherwise she'd be much calmer.
Right, so you look at Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson recently did a segment where he went after Republicans for assisting in the Russiagate fiasco, even though we now have evidence proving it was all BS.
Why were they doing it?
And why weren't they resisting the lies?
Tucker Carlson has no problem calling out the Republicans because he's focused on, in my opinion, principle and what he thinks is the right thing to do.
Which is interesting then, when you look at Tucker's debate with Cenk Uygur at Politicon a couple years ago, they agreed on a lot of issues.
A lot of issues.
Notably, like protecting the working class, and populist causes.
Maybe, some people argue, Tucker is just pretending because he knows it's the best path to making money, and maybe that's true.
Maybe that's true.
But my question then becomes, why is one side of this always wrong, and why is one side of this... Or I should say, why does one side have a tendency to be wrong, and one side have a tendency to be correct?
I can't tell you, other than I think what happens is that Rachel Maddow targets stupid people.
Now, they'll tell you that Fox News does the same thing, and I think, yeah, to be fair, a little bit, but they do have Bill Hemmer, they do have Brett Baier, they do have, you know, good, straight-up news reporting, and for a long time they had Shep Smith, which, you know, a lot of conservatives didn't like.
I'm not a big fan of Hannity or Ingram, but Tucker Carlson's dominating for a reason.
Because he is being honest, he does tend to be correct, and you have to ask yourself why that is.
Perhaps when you're honest about what's going on, it's easier to be consistent, it's easier to be right.
When you lie all the time, it's hard to keep track of what lies you were pushing out, and you eventually are just a fake news channel.
So that's what's funny about Rachel Maddow's show, and even Chris Hayes and the rest of MSNBC.
It's shocking to me that they've been wrong for so long, and people still insist on following them.
And that shows you who their audience is.
Now, for the longest time when I was growing up, they said Fox News was the fake news channel.
They made it up, they pandered, and they were very biased.
You know what?
They still are.
Very biased.
And it's kind of sad we've come to this point now where you have the choice between biased news, and actually, I'll tell you this, Brett Baier and, you know, Bill Hammer and the rest of the standard news reporting for Fox News is spot on.
It's actually just really good, rather boring news reporting.
But when it comes to their opinion, people in their primetime shows, yeah, they're biased 100%.
But I can take biased.
When you know what the bias is, then you know what to look for and to be careful for.
You know, if someone comes out on Fox News and says something about Trump being the best and Obama being the worst, you say, okay, okay, all right, let me hear what you have to say.
I'll look into it, I'll see what's going on.
When you turn on MSNBC, you have to think everything they're saying is fake.
I mean, for years they've peddled Russiagate conspiracy BS.
They've propped it up.
And we even have Washington Post called them out.
Eric Wempel, who is a media critic for the Washington Post, did a series on all of the Russiagate fake news, calling out tons of reporters.
Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true, and then it fell apart.
That's right.
Because she didn't care about the truth.
She didn't care about questioning the sources.
She didn't care about looking at the information.
She cared about pandering and lying to do it.
And that's where we are today.
Millions of people watch Rachel Maddow every night.
It's funny.
I would have said this exact same thing.
I could have done this exact same screed, this rant, about Fox News 10 years ago.
But things have changed.
Even now, Trump is criticizing Fox News, saying, what's happened to them?
They've changed, blah, blah, blah.
And I can't speak for MSNBC for the most part, because I didn't watch them 10 years ago, but maybe they were always this bad.
I don't know.
Maybe they were.
Well, now something's changed.
And while Fox News is a biased network, the fake news network is MSNBC.
They lied to you.
They brought on guests who said they've seen the evidence about Russiagate, and then the transcripts came out.
We learned at the exact same time they were saying they had no evidence they had lied.
Why would MSNBC keep putting these people on the air, and CNN for that matter?
Because they don't care.
Look, the news industry is in serious trouble.
Fox News is growing, and they're doing well.
They have Fox Nation, so they're moving to that online subscription-based service.
They're bringing a lot of new hosts.
And Tucker Carlson is dominating the airwaves.
Ratings are actually going up.
It's surprising.
I mean, there's a downward trend, but they're still seeing some improvements in key areas.
Now he's getting 4 million views.
There's a reason for it.
Because Tucker owns up his mistakes.
He's not perfect.
He does get things wrong.
Rachel Maddow gets substantially... So it's a tendency.
MSNBC tends to be wrong.
Fox tends to be right.
And now here we are with these people who just keep lying.
At a certain point, they know they're lying, right?
But they keep doing it.
And that should tell you everything you need to know about what the information is they present.
Now, when I get things wrong, I just come out and say, wow, I was wrong.
I've been ragging on myself for 2018 forever.
I thought the Republicans were going to win.
I was wrong.
It's OK.
I don't think I do necessarily the same thing as Rachel Maddow, for instance, because I typically just comment on existing stories, whereas she speculates heavily into Russian paid propaganda, manipulating you and the Kremlin and all the weird nonsense about... My favorite is when she claimed That Russians would turn off the electricity in Fargo or whatever and you'd freeze to death.
Something like that.
Yeah, okay.
Chill out, dude.
But you know what?
How we solve these problems, I don't know.
I've seen conservative pundits say, overturn Times v. Sullivan.
Get rid of the standard.
If someone lies, they lie.
And what's shocking to me is, shouldn't they at least have to issue a correction?
That's what's crazy to me.
In the cases I've been involved in where they've lied about me, I've asked, like, can I get them to just admit it was wrong?
If we can prove it's wrong, will the court say, issue a retraction?
That's all I need.
I don't care about money or punitive or anything like that.
The answer is no.
The answer is no.
If they lie, and they mislead their audience about you, and it's argued opinion, then even if you can prove it's false, like they're saying in the suit, doesn't matter.
The judge said it could be proven false.
Okay, then if it is, and it's corrected, should Rachel Maddow then have to say on air, no.
You can't do it.
Well, that's a problem, man.
That's a serious problem.
You want to talk about fighting fake news, and we got all these journalists that talk about what Facebook should do, what Twitter should do, who YouTube should ban.
Instead, why don't we talk about the underlying problems here?
I'll leave it there.
I don't want to rant too long.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Well, I'm sure most of you saw the news the other day.
Joe Biden said, if you're having trouble figuring out whether to vote for him or Trump, then you ain't black.
And then the internet erupted, basically triggering everybody except for Biden sycophants.
Donald Trump started selling t-shirts.
Man, what a cycle.
But you know what?
From this, I think there's a lot to talk about.
We can definitely talk about Joe Biden.
But I'm sitting here looking at these stories.
Joe Biden now apologizes.
Charlemagne Tha God, from the Breakfast Club show, has criticized Joe Biden's history.
Or did he defend him?
And therein lies the big problem.
We've got the story saying that Charlamagne Tha God defends Biden's support for black community.
But then we have this one saying Charlamagne Tha God slams Joe Biden.
And I thought to myself, you know, this is a weird crack in the foundation you rarely ever see, where there's a split between whether or not people should be angry at Joe Biden or not.
I think it has to do with the fracturing of the left for the most part.
But the question I have is, let me ask you guys something.
Why was everything so predictable?
Completely predictable.
I mean, this is a little funny seeing the media kind of flub this.
It really does look like Charlamagne Tha God didn't actually defend Joe Biden.
And now apparently, you know, P. Diddy is stepping in saying, I already told you the black phone ain't free.
So why would the media say something like this?
It's the very rare desperate attempt at defending Joe Biden.
Now, Joe Biden's got his fans, and they're coming out saying, it's no big deal, it's no big deal.
And it's so predictable, it's so obvious.
We knew who was going to criticize him.
Of course, if Joe Biden does it, you're going to see criticism come out from conservatives and Trump supporters.
Of course, you're going to see establishment Democrats defend him.
And of course, you're going to see progressive leftists criticize him.
It almost has nothing to do with anything.
It's almost like everyone's playing a disingenuous game to try and convince people who aren't even watching that they're right and, you know, this is why you can't support Joe Biden and I just don't care.
I can't seem to figure out how do you get through this, right?
One of the biggest things that makes me angry with everything, and you'll probably understand this if you watch a lot of my videos, is the deception.
It's the lies.
It's the plastic veil that exists over our reality.
Where every corporate statement, of course it's a lie.
Every politician's statement, of course it's a lie.
And obviously I'm not saying literally every, I'm just, you know, exaggerating.
It's like 90%, 99%.
People are just going on Twitter and they're saying what they think they need to say to justify why it is they're part of whatever tribe they are.
And then you've got the people who support Biden.
They don't actually care about this man.
They just have an emotional reaction about how much they hate Trump.
So I find myself sitting here questioning, how many people just hate the Democrats?
I mean, I certainly am biased against them, right?
But I don't say the things I say simply because I'm like, ooh, this is my opportunity to prove, right?
But that's what people will claim.
When I look at a lot of the conservatives who are criticizing Joe Biden, I really did feel like, do you really care about this?
Like, dude, you're tweeting.
You're mad Joe Biden said this.
Most of these people I saw on Twitter, not even black, okay?
I think there is a real reason to be upset about it, for sure.
And I've got a tweet here from Zuby, if you're familiar with Zuby.
He's a cool dude.
And I'll read through it and he explains why it was wrong for Joe Biden to say that.
And that's why Joe Biden is getting slammed.
So of course, I'm not saying that all of these conservatives shouldn't have called it out.
I'm just saying it was so predictable, right?
So you can see if someone would say something, whether or not one tribe would react or another tribe wouldn't.
But I will say, the worst part about it right now is that Joe Biden was clearly in the wrong, right?
Even Charlemagne the God is coming out, slamming his record.
Joe Biden's apologized for it, so fine, we can all move on.
But you can see the sycophants.
You know, people who work for Biden, obviously, they have to defend him.
And many establishment types saying ridiculous things like, even if Joe Biden boiled babies and ate them, they'd still vote for the guy.
It's just, you know exactly what's going to happen.
A natural, you know, an oil spill happens.
Then the company comes out and they're going to give you their canned press statement.
They're not going to tell you what really happened.
We have no idea what really happened.
So we live in this world.
Where we all secretly know, deep down, who's lying, why they're lying, you know when they lie, you know what doesn't make sense, but there is this sheet of plastic in between us and them when they speak, and it muffles what's really being said, so you don't quite hear exactly what the truth is.
I can't stand it.
So, interestingly, Charlemagne Tha God and many other people are actually coming out and criticizing Joe Biden, and I have to wonder, I don't even know whose opinion to trust for the most part.
There's a few people I trust, right?
So I tweeted about this and some people asked, does it apply to me?
And I'm like, probably a little bit, because I'm not going to pretend to be perfect, but for the most part, no.
I have no problem saying what I need to say, criticizing what I need to criticize.
The Ahmaud Arbery case certainly got a bunch of people mad at me, many conservatives, and I got accused by one conservative outlet of pushing misinformation.
And I'm like, dude, just stop.
Okay, these people, they want to take stances that, you know, it's a virtue signal for the most part, to varying degrees.
I don't care.
I really, I'm just so sick of it.
I cannot stand watching the politicians just get up there and just say the stupid trash.
Do I think Joe Biden actually cares?
Look at this.
Joe Biden apologizes.
Let's actually read this.
No, I don't think Joe Biden cares.
I think he went back and the reason it took him so long to actually apologize is the first thing he did was he went to his consultant and said, How many people actually care about this?
And they're like, well, it is a lot of conservatives calling you out, and it is the progressives.
It's not really your base.
Your base will defend you no matter what.
How many people do we have to win over?
And you see how the game is played.
All right, but let's read this, and we'll keep that framing in mind as we go through what people are now saying.
Because I do think some of the opinions, you know, obviously, like P. Diddy coming out and saying something, I'm sure he really means it, because he's not in the political game.
I should not have been so cavalier.
Joe Biden apologizes for suggesting black Trump voters ain't black.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden apologized.
We get it.
Saying I'm not so cavalier.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
During his exchange, we know this.
I mean, yeah.
Whatever, man.
I'm not going to read Joe Biden's apology.
Let's see what Charlemagne Tha God had to say about this.
Radio host Charlemagne Tha God issued a scathing rebuke to former Vice President Joe Biden following the presidential candidate's gaffe about black voters.
Charlemagne condemned Biden's track record with black voters, stating that the former vice president was a very intricate part of the systemic racism that needs to be dismantled.
My overall takeaway from the conversation is that I heard him talk about things he did for black people back in the day.
But what have you done for me lately is my motto, the radio host explained to CNN on Friday.
I see black communities catching hell no matter who is in the White House.
I definitely agree with that.
Charlemagne was angered that people talked about how the coronavirus was devastating the black community, but failed to talk about how health issues stemming from systemic racism that has never been fixed.
The radio host then turned his critique directly to Biden.
Like I said before, If you have created legislation that is hurt, then you have to create legislation that helps.
It's just that simple," Charlemagne continued.
The whole system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, and he has been a very intricate part of that system.
Whether you're talking about 84 with the mandatory minimum sentence for drug dealers, when you talk about 86 with crack laws that gave you more time for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, if you talk about the 94 crime bill, Interesting.
He really was one of the people on the front lines when it came to the war on drugs and mass incarceration.
If he wants to be president, he needs to fix that.
So I'll say right here, look.
I think those were really bad things.
100% really, really bad things.
Especially in Illinois, they have mandatory minimums.
It's not the way I think things should be run.
But what's interesting to me is, and I mean no disrespect, but Charlemagne clearly views this through a racial lens.
I can respect that he sees the damages it affects his community, and then he speaks out wanting that to be fixed.
I can respect that.
But I think for the most part, this is still an inherent part of the problem of politics, in going back to what I explained with everybody lying and virtue signaling.
There are a lot of people that realize, you've got your market share, you've got your base, that's who you need to speak for.
Charlemagne the God speaks for, you know, him.
I don't think he, I don't think, you know, when he's making these statements, it's, it's deceptive or anything like that, that's not what I mean to say.
I think it's that he looks at his community and the damage and he wants it fixed, and I can respect that.
What I try to do is, you know, I'll look at, we have to say I agree with it, and then I think about how these laws have affected everybody, and can we do right by everybody?
So again, no disrespect.
I actually, you know, agree with what he's saying.
I'm just saying maybe we need to have a broader view of things.
But when you take that, you know, I think there's some honor in what Charlemagne is pointing to, saying, I'm here for, you know, for my people, and this needs to be fixed, and Biden isn't doing that.
It's the gist of the conversation.
I think you take that to a dark place where it goes further and then you find people won't call out when their side does something wrong.
So it's like positive and negatives to every story.
But here's what I want to do.
I want to show you, well, first I showed you Diddy's response to Joe Biden.
I want to show you this story from the Washington Post.
White liberals dumb themselves down when they speak to black people, a new study contends.
I've covered this story several times.
I believe it was, was it Yale?
I'm not entirely sure.
Is that what they say?
They do a narrative, ridiculous nonsense.
A new study suggests that the words you use may depend on whether the club secretary's name is Emily, a stereotypical white name, Or Lakeisha, a stereotypically black name.
If you're a white liberal writing to Emily, you might use words like melancholy or euphoric to describe the mood of the book, whereas you might trade these terms for simpler sad or happy if you're corresponding with Lakeisha.
But if you're a white conservative, your diction won't depend on the presumed race of your interlocutor.
This is a story I've covered quite a bit.
And I think this shows exactly why, whatever the shift has been in politics, why I'm where I am, isn't it profoundly more honest to just talk to people?
Not try and change who you are because you make assumptions about the other person?
It's true.
I don't know if this is true back then, but it's true now.
We see this study.
White liberals view minorities as stupider.
They change the way they speak to sound stupider.
There's a couple things there as it pertains to the dishonesty that I've been speaking about.
The reason why people change the way they speak is they're trying to convince you that you are like them.
And they want to make sure you don't view them as separate from you.
It's an old sales technique.
It's like one of the basic sales techniques.
So when I used to do non-profit fundraising, you know, they tell you straight up, adopt the mannerisms of the person you're pitching.
That's true for sales.
It's true for fundraising or whatever.
So the way I explain it to people, if I'm standing outside and I'm wearing clothes like this, it's fairly neutral.
Jeans, you know, open button up, rolled up sleeves.
If I see a guy in a suit, And I walk up to him and go, what up, bro?
Come here, man.
You know, we're saving the environment, whatever.
He's going to be like, I have no time for this.
But if I approach him and go, excuse me, sir, a minute of your time, reach out my hand to shake it and say, we've got a serious problem.
You adopt the mannerisms that you assume about the other person.
It is a manipulation technique.
It's one of the reasons why I hated nonprofit fundraising.
It was the opposite of what I, you know, I entered this industry thinking we were going to do good and help people.
And eventually it just turns into, can you trick people into handing over their cash for a cause you claim you're fighting for?
And then half the time, they're not even doing that.
So here's what we end up seeing right now.
The reason why you'll find, you know, me where I am politically is not because I think I have to pander to someone that's actually quite the opposite.
Maybe this is my personal bias, but I think it's reflective of the greater atmosphere in politics right now.
Conservatives don't change who they are in an attempt to speak, you know, to minorities.
They don't talk down They don't make assumptions.
They just talk.
I guess what that says to me is they're not trying to adopt any mannerisms to convince you of anything.
But if a liberal consciously changes their behavior to speak to you, Well, that shows you they don't know about you, they don't care about you, and they're not approaching you honestly with real ideas.
They're coming at you from, honestly, an emotional point of view to trigger something subconscious within you.
I actually think that's what Joe Biden was trying to do when he said, you ain't black.
He thought it was funny.
He thought it would resonate with his community.
We see this also with, like, Ocasio-Cortez putting on a fake accent with Hillary Clinton putting on a fake accent, something apparently you're likely to see conservatives do less, at least as of today.
I don't know if that was true back in the day, but probably considering conservatives were often, you know, hated by the media and dragged by the media.
But now, you know, there's some things like the Ahmaud Arbery case.
Every, in my opinion, every conservative who came out and took this hard virtue signal stance is no better than any one of these liberals doing the exact same thing, pandering without evidence.
Like, I don't care.
I'm not playing that game.
So I think it's fair to point this out, 100%, even though it probably does just exacerbate the problems of bias.
You will find there are a lot of conservatives who are grifters, right?
That's the word they use.
They're just saying what they gotta say to get the attention, to get the money, to get the big house, to whatever.
But it's a tendency.
What I find is the tendency on the left is sophistry.
And the tendency, for now, on the culture war right, is free inquiry, debate, and honesty.
Again, tendency.
I don't know to which degree, but there are many progressive personalities that I have tremendous respect for because I think they're being honest.
I disagree with their opinions.
That's cool.
I disagree with conservative opinions, too, on a lot of things.
But there are many, many more left-wing personalities who engage in simple sophistry.
I mean, you look at someone like Jennifer Rubin, the conservative blogger for the Washington Post.
I think it's funny that there have been attempts from people to compare me to her.
Her opinions are entirely predictable.
And if you took each and every one of her tweets and laid them out and actually graphed them, you know, like, numbered them and sorted them by topic, you'd be like, this woman clearly has no real principles or moral structure.
Her opinion flips back and forth left and right just depending on whatever's happening in the media.
It is entirely predictable.
The opposite of, say, someone like, I don't know, Matt Gaetz.
Off the top of my head.
Because he actually pushed back against, I think it was the Iran War Powers Resolution, and he got attacked for it.
There are many Republicans without principles, but I believe, again, it's a tendency.
Now to go back to the Joe Biden thing, and I really want to highlight this tweet from Zuby.
Because he breaks down why it is fair to be upset about this.
The first thing I'll say is to a lot of the conservatives that were talking about how outraged they were, I kind of roll my eyes like, listen, I don't think any of you have a right to be offended on behalf of anybody else.
You know what I mean?
They're like, I can't believe Joe Biden would say this.
Like, yeah, you know, I'm not going to pretend to be upset.
From my point of view, I can't speak for the black community.
I can tell you how I would feel if someone used my race against me because I've seen it, you know, back and forth.
So that's my feeling.
And I'm not saying white people shouldn't have an opinion on that.
No, of course they should.
I'm just like, you know, I kind of roll my eyes.
I get it.
Joe Biden said something.
Here comes, you know, the outrage machine.
It happens on both sides.
But as it turns out, I think it's fair to say there's a real reason to be upset.
And I defer to Zuby.
I'm not going to read through every single tweet, but I want to point out something the left does that relates to the dishonesty and it relates to white people dumbing things down.
And Zuby kind of nails it.
I see this and I actually understand what he's saying because there's other communities that are affected by this.
But what he basically says is that well let me read a little bit he says every black person is aware of the power and pain of being considered an outsider within one's own race this happens everywhere but it is a common phenomenon particularly amongst black americans due to history and culture he mentions a bunch of phrases i can't say on youtube but their words use like i'll give you one example race traitor they i've seen this all the time i've actually seen antifa white people yell that at conservative black people they target you based on your race it's very very racist
And basically what you see now is Joe Biden trying to use an emotional attack on community when he said, if you haven't figured out, then you ain't black, targeting the one thing that they feel kind of unites them as a community.
What Zuby says is that, I'm hoping I'm getting the gist of this right.
Let me read this.
Zuby says, this form of ostracization is particularly painful for black Americans who are largely disconnected from their African roots due to the horrors of slavery.
As a substitute, many cling to a fuzzy concept of blackness for the sake of identity and community.
So to be considered not black is like being an outcast of a community that often already feels alienated.
He goes on to mention that he's not American.
He says, I do not speak on behalf of anybody but myself, but these are my own thoughts.
I don't know if people feel that way.
I really, really don't.
It's Zuby.
I think Zuby is British.
He's of Nigerian descent.
And I'm sure there are a lot of people in America from the black community who don't agree, and many of you do.
But I see this, and it resonates with me.
One point that I've often brought up, like when it comes to Occupy Wall Street, is that as somebody who comes from a mixed family, I have the unfortunate privilege of always being wrong.
So here, I'll put it this way.
If I go to... Here's the privilege of being wrong.
If these lefty people, these social justice people, come out and make a bunch of bold statements as, you know, they're upper-class, white, college-educated, you know, young people, and they're wrong when they say things about race and class, if I challenge them, they attack me, and they call me white, and they insult me.
So, to them, I'm wrong.
If I agree with them blindly, because I don't want to be wrong, then they'll say that I'm a minority, right?
So they use that against me, and that's what I kind of understand.
But the point I'm trying to bring up is, no matter what you do, you will be in a negative position with these people.
Either you're just going to lie to yourself and push falsehoods, and then they'll pat you on the back, like putting you in your place, or you challenge them and say you're wrong, but then they accuse you of being all of these awful things.
So for me, if I disagree with them, they say, you're white.
If I agree with them, they'll say, yes, you understand, you're mixed, and you're from a poor community and all that stuff, you can't win.
What Zuby is saying, I kind of feel like I can understand, because they'll tell you, you're not black, when quite literally, you clearly are.
And at the same time, there are high-profile personalities writing for major publications.
We've seen some photos circulating.
And there have been people like Rachel Dolezal, who are clearly not black, claiming to be.
And there are some high-profile people who are questionable.
I'm not gonna name the guy, but you know who I'm talking about.
Clearly a white dude, but for some reason gets propped up by the media.
That's the absurdity of the deceit and the deception.
So that's what I mean, you know, that's what I've been thinking about.
I don't know, man.
I was originally just gonna talk about Charlemagne and all that stuff, but I was looking at everything that happened, and I feel like, you know, you can really see what's going on.
So let me wrap this up and try and condense this into a simple point.
There are many conservatives who are predictable.
There are many conservatives who I feel are lying.
But I think, for the most part, the predictability for many of these conservatives comes from you understanding their principles.
Democrats are predictable in another way.
They tend to react on emotion.
They have many more grifters, in my opinion, because of this, and they have a tendency to target people at their core in an emotional way, like what we saw with Joe Biden.
And, you know, for now, it's backfiring because the progressive left is fractured from the left, and their reaction is predictable.
To see these people come out and go after Biden, it's hard to know what people really think and what's really, truly honest.
All I can really say is, from what I've seen in media for the most part, there is a tendency on the right to be more honest, a tendency on the left to be less honest.
And the best example of, in my opinion, the right being dishonest is the Ahmed Arbery case.
And I don't mean everybody, because the people who follow me, who have identified as libertarian or conservative, have mostly agreed.
I mean, it's mostly thumbs up.
And my point on that case is that we need to wait for the evidence, because the narrative that was pushed out was obviously not correct.
But to see all these conservatives jump on board and go for it, well, I'll be honest, that wasn't predictable, but it was dishonest.
And maybe that's why it wasn't predictable.
I don't know.
Maybe what I'm saying hasn't been cohesive enough, but...
Hopefully you get the idea.
I just feel like everything we see is just layered in dishonesty.
And you're more likely to get an honest approach from the culture war right, whatever that might mean.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
You can go to TimCast.net and it will link you there and you'll see it.
It is a different channel.
So go to TimCast.net, check it out, and I will see you then.
Bill Maher is just so late to the party.
And I love this story so much.
Bill Maher says he now regrets Trump's impeachment.
It just emboldened him.
Sweet, sweet vindication.
Now, look, I get it.
Bill Maher isn't the most far leftist personality the left has.
He does have Trump derangement syndrome, but he often does find himself on the correct side of the free speech culture war issue, right?
So I do like Bill Maher, but I think his Trump derangement syndrome blinds him.
He's saying this now, what, three and a half, four months later?
We all knew impeachment was emboldening Trump.
We were watching his poll numbers go up.
We saw this rally his base, and he raised a ton of money.
But Bill Maher, apparently in a conversation with Michael Moore, says it was a mistake.
Really?
And I get called biased when I say exactly that.
Don't do it.
They say, you're biased, Tim.
And here we are, Trump reaping all the rewards.
Now, we have a funny story on the back end of this.
Hillary Clinton raising money for Joe Biden.
Trump still winning.
Even when Hillary tries stepping in and you get that Hillary versus Trump fight, Trump still wins.
Hey, but let's see exactly what happened.
Here's Fox News.
Bill Maher says he now regrets Trump's impeachment.
The Real Time host looked back with apparent regret Friday night on the Democratic-led impeachment of President Trump, saying it turned out to be a horrible thing.
During a conversation with liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, Maher pointed to Trump's recent firings of Inspectors General, most recently the ousting of State Department watchdog Steve Linick, and complained the firings got very little media attention amid the coronavirus pandemic.
More than pivoted the conversation to the Russia investigation claiming Trump bullied former special counsel Robert Mueller and insisting Mueller got scared and refused to interrogate the president.
I care so little about these lunatics at this point.
Let me ask you a question, right?
Have you seen the stories?
Trump apparently is firing the inspectors general.
Hold on.
Hold on a second.
Why would he have the power to do so?
And if he did, should I care?
That's the question I have.
I hear a story.
Trump fires someone who works for him.
And I say, I don't care.
I don't care.
I get it.
But I'm just so sick of this.
You know, I was looking at some story, and Trump did something, I can't remember what, and I was thinking, like, maybe that was kinda bad, but then I stopped and thought about it, like, am I gonna fall for another trap again?
Remember when Trump said the disinfecting thing?
And I pounced.
I was like, wow, Trump's so dumb.
And then I ended up looking at articles, and I was like, oh, okay, it was only kinda dumb, but not really.
It was ignorant, you know what I mean?
But Trump, the questions weren't that bad.
And so I think to myself, now, whenever I see these stories, I pause.
Trump did a bad thing.
I'm like, did he really?
Did he really?
And look, there are a lot of people who become full-on conspiracy theorists because they don't trust the press anymore, but I think for us, right, you know, if you like what I have to say, most of us are looking at this stuff and just being like, man, if that was true, that'd be scary, but I just cannot believe the mainstream press on half the stuff they say.
You know, Michael Moore saying Trump bullied Mueller and Mueller got scared?
Shut up!
There was nothing there!
They released the transcripts, Mr. Moore!
We've heard from all of these people saying, I've never seen evidence of this.
So no, Trump didn't bully anybody.
There was nothing there.
Man, Amar, however, brought the conversation back to the Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's impeachment because the president was accused of withholding foreign aid in hopes of persuading Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Quote, just the impeachment, you know, I mean, if I could do it over again, I wouldn't because it just emboldened him.
I warned you.
Oh, I said it.
Sweet, sweet vindication.
How many times did I say it?
You heard me say it.
It was going to backfire in your faces.
And it did.
And it took you this long to figure it out and say, maybe we shouldn't have done that.
Oh, you know what?
If your hindsight only corrects itself, if your vision only corrects itself, after three months, man.
You know, the key to success is predicting the moves of your enemies in certain regards, right?
If you're going to battle and you can predict what someone's going to do, you're going to win.
If you're playing a game of chess and you can make the predictions about your opponent, you're likely to win.
Not always, but you know, it's important to think ahead, plan ahead, and prepare for what may happen.
These people are three months behind the rest of us.
Before they impeached Trump, I was like, don't do it.
Don't do it.
You're going to regret it.
Then they were like, we're moving forward with impeachment.
It's a bad idea.
Then Trump's polls started to skyrocket.
I'm like, here it comes.
Then he raised record millions of dollars or whatever.
Now we can conduct this war on accountability and nobody even, it barely made the papers.
I bet you people are watching this and going, wow, I've never heard of that because the news is all COVID.
Moore agreed, saying that the removals of the government watchdogs make the president very dangerous.
Why does Trump have the ability to fire?
You know what, man?
I get it.
I get it.
They're watchdogs.
But if Trump can fire them, they weren't very good watchdogs, now were they?
All right.
You know, you drop it.
And that's the gist of this.
But look at this.
On, what is this, February 3rd?
Thanks to their impeachment meltdown, Democrats have made Trump stronger.
Bill, why is it taking you now three and a half, almost four months to figure out what the Courier-Journal wrote in February?
Oh, and I love how they mention they're a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Pulitzer Prize winner, Courier-Journal!
Could have told you this a long time ago.
Sears CNN.
Why Democrats made a big mistake by impeaching Trump, February 6th.
Get with the program, buddy.
It was a mistake from the beginning, and everyone knew it.
Even CNN knew it.
But you know why CNN didn't?
This is an opinion piece.
You know why, for the most part, CNN didn't say anything?
Because they love the ratings!
They knew a presidential impeachment would be a ratings goldmine.
The last thing I want to do is say, don't do it.
That's why I think CNN secretly wants Trump to get re-elected.
Because they love to oppose him.
And if he goes away, what are they gonna do?
Sleepy Joe?
They're gonna put a live stream on Joe Biden while he sleeps?
Ah, sorry, no one wants to watch that.
But Donald Trump, man, he says naughty words, and you can put those naughty words on TV, you can feign outrage, and that Trump bump is sweet!
And juicy.
And they love it.
When Trump was doing his press briefings, man, it was amazing.
The ratings were through the roof.
But, of course, it was too much for the resistance, and they eventually pulled Trump's press briefings.
I think this has to do with they weighed the benefit versus the audience, you know, negatives, the risk.
And too many people in their audience, the resistance people, were like, stop doing it, stop doing it, you're emboldening Trump.
And so I think CNN would have loved to keep it going.
They kept it going for a while.
Trump's polls were skyrocketing.
He was raising all this money.
CNN's ratings were through the roof.
But then they were going to lose their core resistance base.
And that was dangerous to them.
They said, oh no, we can't tell the truth.
I think CNN wanted to avoid what they were accused of back in 2016 by propping up Trump over and over again.
So they panicked.
Well, here we go.
Hillary rakes in millions for Biden, but he's still far behind Trump.
The 2016 nominee broke a record for a single event without Biden in attendance.
The Democrat faces a big cash gap with Trump.
Let me just ask you a question.
Why is Hillary Clinton fundraising without Joe Biden?
First of all, it could be due to the fact that Joe Biden is not all there, and thus Joe Biden is unable to fundraise.
Oh no, I'm gonna say it.
Or it's possible Hillary Clinton is going to replace him.
A lot of people have speculated thinking Hillary Clinton will be the real nominee.
But we did see that clip from the DNC where they may have accidentally slipped up saying that Joe Biden wasn't going to be the nominee.
I don't know if you saw this.
I did a segment on it.
And this woman basically says, we have to have the DNC because we are not officially nominating Joe Biden to take down Donald Trump.
And everybody immediately went, uh, what does that mean?
Does that mean you're saying you're not just nominating him?
Like you're nominating him for other reasons?
Or, I think what she was trying to say, to be fair, is that the convention is about a bunch of other things, not just Joe Biden.
And, uh, I don't know though.
I don't know because then, you know what, like a week later, what is this?
Hillary Clinton goes and does this record-breaking fundraiser Hmm.
Hmm, I say.
Let's see what Politico has to say.
Hillary Clinton collected $2 million for Joe Biden's new joint fundraising committee.
With the Democratic National Committee this week, an enormous one-night haul for the once cash-strapped campaign.
Clinton raised the money during a Zoom fundraiser Tuesday.
It was more than any Biden surrogate has collected at a single event without the candidate present, according to campaign and party officials.
Unlike at prior Biden campaign events, though, donors were allowed to give far more money because their checks were going to a new joint committee between the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
The campaign and DNC last week began working fully in unison, which President Trump and the GOP have been doing for years.
But Biden's campaign, which once had trouble raising money, has begun raking in serious money lately.
He almost matched Trump's fundraising last month, even as the candidate remains sequestered at home during the coronavirus pandemic, and his campaign holds virtual fundraisers.
Disasters, though.
I'll tell you what, man.
You got a really bad economy.
Even after things open up, which they may be now, these jobs aren't coming back.
There's serious considerations for Trump supporters that whatever's going on, the Democrats got some plan and it's working.
Joe Biden is raising a lot of money, rivaling Trump, not winning.
And Trump still has a major cash lead.
But I'm curious about what's going to happen.
I don't think Joe Biden is the nominee.
First of all, Joe Biden is raising a lot of money because they don't want Trump.
That's it.
What happens if Joe Biden becomes incapacitated?
I'm looking at all the news, and Joe Biden makes mistake after mistake after mistake, and the Democrats keep defending him.
They don't want to give him up just yet.
But what happens, say, two, three months, Joe Biden becomes physically incapacitated, like literally can't campaign or, you know, something worse.
Then all of a sudden, the Democrats will probably come around and be like, you know, we have to admit it and everyone's called us out.
But now is the time to just fess up.
We got to get a different candidate.
And they bypassed the entire Democratic primary process.
Preventing Bernie Sanders' involvement.
And there it is.
If Cuomo or Hillary steps in in November, or not November, in like, you know, September, October, they will have dodged the entire negative presidential press run.
They will have slipped past every opportunity for negative stories, investigations, whatever.
They'll pop up at the last minute.
No one will have any chance for anything.
And then they will ride into the election hoping to beat Donald Trump.
I don't know what's going to happen.
I don't.
But we'll see.
I find this interesting that Hillary did this fundraiser.
We'll see what happens.
The lockdown seems to be coming to a close.
Good.
A little sooner than I thought it would, to be honest.
We'll see how things play out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
This story has got everything you could ever ask for.
We've got big tech censorship, political bias from big tech, and we've got fake news and fake news media bias.
That's four things.
Four for the price of one video.
You watch this one video, I am jamming all these great stories in there.
Check this out.
Google Drive takes down user's personal copy of Judy Mikovits' Plandemic after it was flagged by the Washington Post.
But wait, there's more!
I wouldn't just leave it there.
Apparently, the Washington Post got a bunch of other videos taken down, too.
Don't you love it?
Shouldn't these journalists be asking serious questions, not flagging videos to be reported to be removed?
Friends, let me tell you about a very important journalistic ethic called minimize harm.
Minimizing harm means you would avoid causing direct consequences with the questions you ask.
The goal of a journalist is not to be an activist to force a company to take action.
A journalist should ask, if you really want to ask Google a question, you can say right now.
There are people hosting the Plandemic documentary, of which I'm not a big fan, to be honest.
They're hosting it on Google Drive.
It's a violation of policies, and do you plan to take action against this?
And then they would say, yes, no, maybe so, whatever.
But they give the link to Google, like, here it is!
And then Google goes, okay, delete.
Just like that.
It's because these journalists aren't journalists.
They're activists.
They've infiltrated the entirety of media.
And because of the power they hold now, with public influence, Google gets scared.
Now, I think Google has its political bias too, but I really do think the media is where this stems from.
They say, at Reclaim the Net, Google is now applying its controversial coronavirus misinformation policies to users' personal files.
That's amazing.
That's a step beyond.
They say ever since big tech platforms started cracking down on what they deem to be coronavirus misinformation, the media has been willfully flagging alleged violations to social media companies and getting content taken down.
And now the file storage and sharing service Google Drive has started to take down users' files in response to media complaints about them containing coronavirus misinformation.
In an article reporting on the takedown, the Washington Post's Silicon Valley correspondent, Elizabeth Dwoskin, complains that after the coronavirus documentary, Plandemic, was censored on social media, some YouTube clips were telling users how to access banned footage from the documentary via Google Drive.
She then notes that after the Washington Post contacted Google, Google Drive took down the file featuring the trailer for the Plandemic documentary.
Dwoskin frames users sharing files containing the Plandemic trailer with each other as, quote, A wave of seemingly countless workarounds employed by people motivated to spread misinformation about the virus.
Efforts that continue to thwart social media companies' attempts at preventing hoaxes and conspiracy theories from spreading amid the greatest public health crisis in decades.
Dwoskin also writes the Washington Post reported 12 videos to YouTube, 61 Facebook posts, and Instagram links to Facebook, and 24 videos to TikTok for featuring the plandemic trailer.
In response, YouTube removed five of the videos, Facebook removed nine of the posts, and TikTok said it removed most of the videos.
The Plandemic trailer isn't the only file that's been censored on Google Drive in recent months.
After SpaceX and Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk linked to what Dwoskin describes as a questionable study about the efficacy of the drug hydroxychloroquine in March, Google blocked access to the document.
For many Google Drive users, the service is their only file storage solution, and they use it to save copies of videos and posts that have been deleted or censored on other platforms.
Maybe you all watched the Joe Rogan podcast with David Pakman.
In it, they have an interesting conversation about censorship.
I want to directly address one of the points brought up.
Joe Rogan asks, why is it that YouTube will allow flat earth videos, but they'll ban this stuff?
You know, so what David Pakman responds with is, people aren't going to take action on flat earth videos.
You might believe something silly.
However, when it comes to this stuff, they might do something dangerous.
But Joe's response basically is that, listen, we're not talking about someone making something up.
We're talking about doctors giving their professional doctor opinion being deleted from Google.
I'm not a big fan of Plendemic.
Because I think it's really easy to take... Look, it's not just about Plendemic, it's about documentaries in general.
I used to make them all the time.
I know how framing works.
And documentaries are the easiest tools for manipulating information.
They really, really are.
Plandemic, I think, is kind of bad for, you know, I watched it, I roll my eyes at some of these things.
You get one person to make some claims, like it's an interview, and to an extent, it's okay.
It shouldn't be deleted, but I think there's a lot of context that's required there if you're gonna do these things.
I think what they should have done is just put up the doctor's statements from within the video and avoid the more controversial subjects, but it doesn't matter what my opinion is, because in the end, the video shouldn't be taken down.
YouTube, if it's a doctor, well, so be it.
And you know what they've done before?
They've put little things at the bottom where it's like, here's the truth about whatever, like global warming.
Which brings me to the main point.
When Joe mentioned Flat Earth videos, David's response was in the one, you know, the one analogy.
Flat Earth versus doctors.
And he said people won't react.
Well, that argument doesn't actually get to what Joe Rogan was trying to say.
So I'll give you one up.
Joe's right to question why YouTube bans this stuff.
Because YouTube does allow anti-global warming videos.
Now, if you want to make an argument that people won't act upon flat earth videos, when it comes to global warming videos, if you put out videos saying it's not real, that will change behavior.
That will result in people burning more gas or not caring or not, you know, being in favor of certain technologies to benefit global warming.
I'm not here to have an argument about global warming with anybody.
I'm here to point out that there are conflicts on YouTube in terms of what people believe to be true and what people believe to be fake news.
YouTube has chosen to allow some controversial political subjects that will result in direct action to remain up, but this specifically it's taken down.
Sorry, it doesn't fly.
It doesn't make sense.
Well, this is not surprising that Google is going to go into someone's personal files.
But what is kind of surprising is this.
Trump considers forming panel to review complaints of online bias.
Move is likely to draw pushback from tech companies.
ACLU raises free speech concerns.
You want to know why this is surprising?
I don't think the Trump administration and his people really care about this stuff.
I'm sorry.
I just don't think they do.
Trump made some social media website where he can go and say I've been censored and they don't care.
You know why?
They're focused with the on-the-ground people, and I think they're making a huge mistake.
Now, of course, they should be focused on, you know, these communities and directly targeting with commercials and magazines or whatever they're doing.
But what you've got to understand is that when it comes to the Internet, there is a powerful influencing force where, although these individuals don't represent their own districts, right?
Like AOC is a good example.
AOC is the Twitter representative.
Her followers are sprinkled out across the nation and the world, not her district.
She can plant seeds with that power that can grow in certain areas if done properly.
That's what Trump needs to focus on.
Trump considers forming a panel to review complaints of online bias is the most amazing non-statement I have ever seen.
First of all, he considers it, okay?
So that means we're not even anywhere near it happening.
To review complaints Review complaints, is that it?
So you're not even going to do anything.
So here's the news.
Trump might form a panel that will look at stuff.
Congratulations.
I don't think Trump and the Republicans care.
And I think it's to their major, major detriment.
There are certain things that I think are fake news that it's a struggle.
Should Plandemic and should other, you know, documentaries that have controversial viewpoints be allowed to remain?
The answer is a resounding yes.
And there are certainly some that I find completely detestable.
And there are a lot of YouTubers who have horrible opinions that I think are just downright wrong and extremely moronic.
I got into an argument with race realists once, and it was just like, I tell you what, it was like talking to a child.
Now maybe it was just them, but they did not have good arguments.
And I think that's what you need.
When confronted with the information, we had an argument, and they didn't have the answers.
The only thing they ended up throwing back at me was, you just don't understand.
No, no, no, hold on.
You just don't understand is not an argument.
I said, okay, if you think this, then what about this?
Okay, well, that creates a problem here.
You see, the logic doesn't flow properly.
I don't want to get into the full argument I have with him, but the point is, when someone sees bad information, the best way to counter it is with good information.
That's why, as much as I'm kind of critical of YouTube putting the things under the videos, I don't care.
I've done videos about COVID, and they put a little box underneath that says, here's the latest from the CDC.
I'm like, great, do it!
I don't care.
I'd cite the CDC.
And if some people disagree, great!
Then the people who disagree can say, click the link to the CDC, see what they're saying, and I'll rebut it, and you could do that, right?
Then everyone gets their say, and you'll have the weight of the government behind the CDC and their authority.
What's the fear?
I think the fear is they want control.
Donald Trump hasn't done anything.
And now it's probably too late.
His highest profile supporters have been purged.
But you know what?
I'll say this.
I think they might be happy about it, to be honest.
I really, really do mean it.
I think they may be happy about it.
When you look at everything these social media companies have done, the way I've explained it is they've gotten rid of the worst people associated with Trump's movement, with the right.
I'm not saying the worst people are bad.
I'm saying in terms of PR and controversy, the highest profile controversial figures have been purged.
Trump probably likes that.
Look, Alex Jones is a bombastic, controversial figure.
He was propping up Trump.
Trump wrote a lot of that with Infowars.
Then Alex Jones gets banned.
And that's a huge, huge business making millions of dollars, I think like every month.
I don't know how much money they made.
They get banned.
And what happens?
Nothing.
I mean, there were some hearings.
But think about it.
To the average person, Jones talking about eating his neighbors and the frogs being gay is weird.
By allowing them and sitting back and watching this, all that's left of the conservative movement online are suit-wearing lawyers, which are everywhere!
All these lawyers looking all fancy, professional, saying, well, you know, I have a good argument to that, check this out, points A, B, and, you know, A, B, C, 1, 2, 3, and you read it and you're like, that is a great point.
The left remains.
The Antifa people are screeching with their purple hair and, you know, half-shaved heads throwing bricks, and that looks insane to people.
That's why I think They ultimately don't care and they're not going to do anything about it.
Listen, I think it's important to point out, first of all, that's my opinion, but I think it's true.
You know, I could be wrong.
Also, what could Trump really even do?
This is a problem for the courts, to be honest.
So, that's why I think it's silly.
It's the panel, whatever.
Fart noises.
We'll see how things play out.
It could be good in the long run.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In perfect Democrat fashion, Governor Andrew Cuomo refuses to take the blame for something he did, blaming Donald Trump for the fact that he put COVID patients in nursing homes, resulting in 5,800 New York residents dying.
All right, man, listen, this is a tragedy.
And I still think even amid this, I blame China.
I just do.
You know, I can look locally and say if we want to talk about our response to this, understanding China lied, then yes, Cuomo did things very, very wrong.
And the media still propped him up and they blamed Republicans.
On a grand scale, I feel kind of bad for Cuomo because he seems to be kind of, this was a moronic move.
But look, we were all caught off guard.
The last thing you should be doing is blaming Donald Trump for it.
But of course, we're talking tribal partisan politics.
They don't care about what's true.
They care about November.
Well, here's the story.
Governor Cuomo blames Trump administration for sending more than 4,300 recovering coronavirus patients from hospital to nursing homes, where 5,800 New York residents died, saying he was just following CDC guidance.
I love how he blames the president for the CDC.
Oh, if it's Dr. Anthony Fauci, his word is law.
But if it's a problem you caused, well then it's Trump!
Alright, alright, let's read the news.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has defended sending more than, uh, we read that, okay.
The governor hit out at the criticism during his Saturday press briefing, placing the blame with President Donald Trump by saying, don't criticize the state for following the president's policy.
Cuomo has come under fire since it was revealed on Thursday that the 4,300 recovering coronavirus patients were sent to New York's already vulnerable nursing homes.
In total, there have been more than 5,800 nursing and adult care facility deaths in the state.
He was pushed to comment on the policy during his Saturday briefing and said that, quote, New York followed the president's agency's guidance.
And there it is.
Bravo, you duplicitous fool.
The president's agency's guidance.
You mean the CDC?
Come on, man.
Conservatives don't like Fauci.
They've been ragging on the guy non-stop because he's been flip-flopping.
Oh, but you want to attack presidents in front of the agency.
Alright, alright.
We get it.
We get it.
You're playing politics.
You could have simply said we were following CDC guidelines, but you wanted to make sure everybody pointed the finger at Trump, right?
It makes you look stupid.
At least to people who have an IQ above 80.
Okay, that was a low dig.
I'm sorry.
Normally, I don't like to mock people in that way.
But what I mean to say is someone's got two brain cells to rub together understands you're trying to manipulate.
The state directive, which said nursing homes could not refuse to accept patients from hospitals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, was issued on March 25th.
It was ultimately scrapped amid widespread criticism that it was accelerating the nation's deadliest outbreak as patients went into the homes and infected more residents, ultimately leading to more than 5,800 nursing and adult care facility deaths in New York.
Cuomo has denied that the directive contributed to any of those deaths.
Are you kidding, dude?
That makes no sense.
Because they didn't have this problem in Florida.
Quote, I have no political agenda.
I have no political aspirations.
There's no politics here.
Cuomo said Saturday when asked about the policy.
I can say, I can say that, but we're still in an election year and people are playing politics.
And this is a hyper-partisan environment to the extent that people want to politicize this issue.
And Republicans are saying, well, New York did this.
They did.
They did.
New York followed the president's agency's guidance.
That depoliticizes it, he added.
What New York did was follow what the Republican administration said to do.
That's not my attempt to politicize.
It's my attempt to depoliticize.
You are lying because Ron DeSantis did the opposite.
So was he defying the president then?
Amazing.
So don't criticize the state for following the president's policy.
Cuomo also turned to his top aide, Melissa DeRosa, who reiterated that the state had only followed
guidance from the Centers for Disease Control. Quote, the policy that the New York Department
of Health put out was directly in line with the March 13th directive put out by the CDC and CMS
that read, and I quote, nursing homes should admit any patients from hospitals where COVID is present.
Not could, should, DeRosa said.
The is President Trump's CMS and CDC.
The is?
What is that supposed to mean?
They're going to say, quote, So I know that there has been a lot of discussion on this topic.
There were over a dozen states that did the exact same thing who were concerned about hospital capacity.
Cuomo's response to the backlash over the nursing home admissions came after a Fox News senior meteorologist revealed she blames the New York governor for her parents-in-law dying of COVID-19 in a nursing home.
Janice Dean told Fox News on Thursday that she felt compelled to speak out after the governor appeared on CNN, where Chris Cuomo teased his older sibling for having a large nose, that's right, while people were dying, and bipartisan support emerged for an investigation into what Cuomo did.
I'm sorry, Andrew Cuomo did.
Chris Cuomo held up an oversized novelty cotton swab because CNN, hey, the most trusted name in news, right?
That's what you can expect when you watch that trash.
Dean said that her mother and father-in-law, Michael and Dolores Newman, both died of COVID-19 after they were exposed to the virus in nursing homes.
Her father-in-law, Michael, an Air Force veteran and former New York City firefighter, was placed in a nursing home after it became apparent he was suffering from dementia.
Dean said that she and her husband were notified a week before Michael's death that the nursing home was moving him to another floor.
I believe that floor was used for recovering COVID patients, Dean said.
I can't prove that.
We can't get any confirmation on any of this.
Cuomo, a Democrat, on May 10th reversed the directive, which had been intended to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients as cases surged.
Okay, it was Trump's policy you were following.
Why is his approval rating in the 80s?
Why is Trump's in the 40s?
Why do people ignore what he did?
Just because Trump or the CDC or anybody says something doesn't mean you don't have responsibility in doing it.
I was just following orders, says Cuomo as he marched your grandparents to their deaths.
Excuse me?
That doesn't make any sense.
I'm sorry, man.
If somebody comes out and says, jump off a bridge, would you do it?
Man, I feel like I'm talking to two-year-olds.
No, of course you wouldn't do it.
Everybody heard that from one of their parents.
Well, if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?
Just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean you should do it.
You gotta question these things.
So what Cuomo is revealing here...
Is that the Republican states that didn't do this had some brain cells to rub together.
But apparently he didn't.
So does he deserve to be re-elected if that's the case?
If you're not going to lead and take responsibility for the decisions you make regardless of where the guidance came from, you shouldn't be in charge.
A good leader should say, ultimately the decision was mine and the decision was wrong.
It's that simple.
Cuomo gets handed a piece of paper.
Put sick people in nursing homes.
Put it down.
Come out with a statement.
Take some responsibility.
from the CDC has stated that recovering COVID patients should be placed in nursing homes
due to fears about capacity issues.
However, I fear this could result in more elderly patients, the most vulnerable being
infected, of which it seems the most obvious.
For that reason, I will not do this.
Take some responsibility.
It's what a good leader would do.
Let's say they go on to say he continued to defend it this week, saying he didn't believe
it contributed to the more than 5,800 nursing and adult care facility deaths in New York,
more than in any other state, and that homes should have spoken up if it was a problem.
Are you kidding me dude?
That is disgusting.
Let me tell you something man.
There's got to be a Trump campaign operative infiltrating the Democratic Party.
I know I'm kidding, right?
Like, I know it's not the case, okay?
I am kidding.
I think you get that.
But I love this op-ed right here.
It says, if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process.
More than that, dude!
It's almost like the Democrats are working for Trump.
Now, in my opinion, I think they're just completely inept, and they give us all the reason not to vote for them.
This op-ed is hilarious.
It talks about how you have all of these young, vibrant, aspirational Democrats running for president, but somehow, when the smoke clears, what's left standing?
Hayden Joe Biden.
Sleepy, creepy Uncle Joe.
It's the best possible thing for Trump.
I mean, Trump talked about, you know, his concerns about Bernie Sanders.
I'm not, I don't want to get into too much about the primary process because I'm talking about, you know, Cuomo.
But when Cuomo comes out and says, don't look at me, that's Trump's fault.
That was all on Trump.
Which is it?
Trump didn't do enough?
Or Trump did have the policies and they were bad policies?
Which is it?
Which is it?
You were following his guidance?
I thought he reacted too slowly.
Wait, wait, that means you reacted after Trump reacted.
You see the point?
There's so many holes to poke through with what Cuomo is saying.
Let me just line this up.
Donald Trump issues a travel ban.
Donald Trump forms a task force.
Donald Trump CDC issues task force guidance.
THEN Andrew Cuomo reacts.
So who was really slow?
The Democrats or Trump?
They're gonna have to pick one.
If they want to claim that they were slow, fine, they can point the finger and say Trump's policies failed.
Probably a better move.
Too late, they already said Trump was too slow about this, and shouldn't react soon enough.
Alright, then you reacted slower, dude, so sorry.
All you gotta do is have some common sense.
To me, I think it's simple, but maybe I give them too much credit.
Maybe when you have a political party comprised of people who manipulate emotions in order to get elected, you end up with people who don't have the skills to accurately navigate these situations.
Cuomo apparently- I think Cuomo's a smart guy.
But look at this.
Is that the best you could've done?
Are you planning on getting re-elected, dude?
You could've said something like, listen, it was a terrible mistake, and my heart goes out to these families, I don't think it played a role, it may have, and if that's the case, then no, that, you know, we have done the best we could, and I apologize.
And to be fair, some of these guidances, they came from the CDC.
Now maybe it was wrong of us to do this, And if this is the case, then I am truly sorry.
And I'll tell you what, more than that, drop all the pretense.
If I was in charge and I got a piece of paper that said, here's what you got to do.
Send the COVID patients to the nursing homes.
And I did.
And it turns out we got data back that that cost lives.
I would resign.
I would get up and say, I am unfit to lead.
This is a mistake, too egregious for me.
And that's it.
Or you can ask people.
I followed these guidelines, and they turned out to be bad.
But the buck stops with me.
I'm the one in charge of this jurisdiction.
If you would have me, you know, let me know.
Otherwise, I would resign.
Cuomo doesn't want to.
He says it's not about politics, but it is.
He wants to get re-elected governor.
That's probably it.
We'll see.
Maybe he'll run for president.
But just own it.
I mean, what's the worst case scenario?
If you came out and said, we made a terrible mistake.
And that's it.
Nah, nobody wants to admit it.
Nobody wants to just tell the truth.
That's why I can't stand all of it.
You know, it doesn't matter if it's merchandising, marketing, corporate malfeasance, politics, whatever.
It's all just fake.
I'm sick of it.
But I'll leave it there, and I'll be back tomorrow because I'm a glutton for punishment.
