Trump Is RIGHT, Twitter Is Interfering In The Election With FAKE NEWS "Fact Check" On Voter Fraud
Trump Is RIGHT, Twitter Is Interfering In The Election With FAKE NEWS "Fact Check" On Voter Fraud. Voter fraud is real and the DOJ just caught a mail carrier trying to alter mail in ballot applications.Worse is Paterson NJ where nearly 3 thousand ballots were disqualified due to signatures not matching previous election ballots for the same people. Democrats are adamant that everything is fine and now Twitter has "fact checked" Trump's tweet by directing people to the opinions of journalists, its not even fact based.While Trump expresses concern over voter fraud real instances are happening right in front of us.#Democrats#Trump#Republican
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Close results in Patterson vote plagued by fraud claims.
Over 3,000 ballots seemingly set aside.
A county spokesman said 16,747 vote-by-mail ballots were received, but the county's official
result page shows 13,557 votes were counted, with uncounted ballots representing 19% of
all votes cast.
And do you know why these 3,000 ballots were disqualified?
The signatures on the ballots did not match the signatures of the same individuals from previous elections.
Nearly 20% of the election was deemed to be... Let's just be light and say the ballots were completely disqualified.
But this kind of thing doesn't happen, we're told.
There's no mail fraud, we're told.
What's this?
Department of Justice says letter carrier charged with attempted election fraud Oh, this guy was changing party affiliations on absentee ballot requests?
I thought this thing never happened.
Which brings us to the lead story.
Donald Trump says that Twitter is interfering in the 2020 presidential election.
They're saying my statement on mail-in ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud, is incorrect, based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post.
The main issue here is, first and foremost, mail fraud is happening right now.
These stories are right now.
I live in New Jersey.
Patterson is up north, and people are very angry.
One woman said that one of her relatives had been in Florida for weeks, yet somehow was counted as having voted.
It happens.
Does it mean it's guaranteed to happen?
No.
But Donald Trump didn't tweet that it is a fact, it is shown.
Donald Trump tweeted his opinion about what may happen if we implement nationwide mail-in voting.
Trump basically said, if we have nationwide mail-in voting, there will be fraud.
It's an opinion.
Twitter placed a fact check on his tweet, but it wasn't actually a fact check as reported by so many outlets.
It was actually just a link to the opinions of left-wing journalists working for CNN and the Washington Post, stating as a matter of fact, without evidence, that voter fraud doesn't happen.
Except I literally just showed you evidence that it does.
If Donald Trump saw these stories and in his opinion concluded widespread national mail-in voting would lead to more fraud, I would argue that he is likely correct.
But it is just an opinion.
How do you fact check an opinion?
And why would Twitter take this action?
Well, it would seem that Trump is right.
Twitter, whether intentionally or for whatever reason, is interfering in this election by linking a Trump tweet to the opinions of people who don't like Trump.
Yet when Joe Biden launched his campaign with a lie, and this shouldn't be shocking to anybody, many people, many politicians, they lie in all their videos.
They embellish, they lie.
Well, Joe Biden actually edited a clip out of context.
They didn't fact check that at all.
Yet when Trump gives his opinion, they redirect to the opinion of somebody else claiming it's a fact check.
Now that is bias.
And that is interference.
And Twitter just made a very, very serious mistake.
Let's be real.
Twitter is comprised of two factions of the culture war.
You've got the right culture war, the left culture war, whatever the subcategories are, but are there very many active, middle-ground people who haven't already decided or don't already dislike one of the other factions?
I think it's ridiculous.
Even I, the enlightened centrist milquetoast fence-sitter, have typical disdain for the Democrats, so who are they trying to win over by doing this?
Certainly not me, right?
All they've actually done is proven that they are biased beyond a reasonable doubt, because they aren't issuing these fact checks, for the most part, to the rivals of Donald Trump.
Let's read through the story, and I want to show you exactly what's going on, what they claim, who they're linking to, and I want to show you evidence.
There actually is evidence of voter fraud, and it's happening.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
I'm competing with the mainstream media, and many of these companies will tell you there's no evidence of voter fraud.
When you actually look to the affiliates, credible local news agencies, we can see it's actually happening.
But CNN and the Washington Post would counter that.
Now, these platforms have massive marketing budgets and they're competing with me, and it's a lot harder for me to get traction, especially with YouTube's algorithm pushing down my content and propping theirs up.
If you really want to help share this content, but if you just want to watch, hit the like button, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
Let's read the news.
From CBS, Twitter flags Trump tweet with fact-checking label for first time.
That's the headline, but it's not true.
It's not a fact-checking headline.
What do they call it?
Fact-checking label.
Sorry.
It is not a fact-checking label.
It is a redirect to someone else's opinion, which is weird.
Twitter on Tuesday added a fact-checking label to a tweet by President Trump.
The first time the social media platform has used such a label for the president's tweets.
The tweet now includes a link directing users to information debunking the president's false claims about mail-in voting.
No, it doesn't!
It literally doesn't!
Trump didn't make a false claim.
He gave his opinion on what will happen.
This is ridiculous.
This is amazing.
Twitter added the label to two tweets Mr. Trump posted Tuesday morning, in which he alleged that mail-in ballots will be substantially fraudulent and result in a rigged election.
There was no evidence of widespread fraud in voting by mail, but Mr. Trump had been spreading his unfounded claims for weeks as more states expand mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic.
How strange that CBS would say something.
That's not true.
Well, it's not strange, right?
This is why I opened this segment with two stories.
One about voter fraud in Patterson, New Jersey, and another about a mail carrier who is now being accused of trying to alter absentee ballot requests.
There are many other stories.
Absentee ballots and mail-in ballots appearing in other states, appearing in bundles in locations where they're not allowed to be bundled.
Yeah, it's happening.
Now, a lot of the people arguing for mail-in voting are acting like there's no difference between absentee ballots and what Trump is talking about.
But we'll get to that.
Let me show you Trump's tweet.
Trump said, there is no way, zero, that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
Mailboxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged, and even illegally printed out and fraudulently signed.
The governor of California is sending ballots to millions of people.
Here's my question.
How do you fact-check a future event?
Can you answer that for me, Twitter?
CBS?
Anybody?
How do you fact-check someone's prediction of a future event that didn't happen yet?
If someone came out and said, I guarantee X will happen, you still can't fact-check that because, well, we know no one really knows it's gonna happen.
And even if, you know when I said in 2018 I think Republicans will win, they didn't.
Fact check, Tim Pool was wrong.
Right, but it wasn't wrong in that context.
What they're saying makes literally no sense and it's very weird.
These claims are unsubstantiated according to CNN and Washington Post and others, the page says.
Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.
Is that what Trump said?
Did Trump say they weren't rarely linked to voter fraud?
No.
Twitter just intervened to share this page.
When you go to Trump's tweet, you are greeted with a link that says, learn about voter fraud.
You get this message.
Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.
How is it unsubstantiated when we have this story from NBC New York?
There's a couple things that we're going to get to in this.
First and foremost, is Trump right about voter fraud?
Well, he gave his opinion.
How do you say someone's opinion on what will happen is wrong?
I don't know.
But there is evidence to suggest that voter fraud has occurred with such small-scale mail-in voting.
This is where the duplicitous nature of the argument comes from and why Twitter has actually intervened or interfered in the election.
When it comes to absentee ballots, we're talking about an exemption for certain people to mail in their vote, and it's done in a secure way, and there are still problems with this, and there are still concerns.
We're talking about taking our entire voting system nationwide and implementing straight mail-in voting.
It's what Nancy Pelosi wants.
California, Michigan, these states are doing this as well.
We're talking about taking something that is a tiny fraction of the total vote and expanding it to literally everyone.
What percentage of elections use mail-in ballots?
Take that, divide it by the amount of times we've seen, you know, or do the math, to put it simply.
How many times have we seen mail-in voter fraud?
It might not be widespread, and that's an argument.
That's an opinion about what constitutes widespread or not.
But take a look at what Twitter did.
First, They show this story from The Hill.
Trump blasts California over mail-in voting following a Republican lawsuit.
The Hill tends to be okay.
But then we have this post from Jennifer Jacobs.
She is senior White House reporter for Bloomberg who says Trump says mail-in voting system in California will be substantially fraudulent, raising more questions about whether this is a voter suppression effort.
Who raised the question?
You?
Why is this the second tweet?
Your opinion?
That Trump may be trying to suppress the vote?
Analysis from the Washington Post.
A review of Trump's many unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud.
Here's the real reason Donald Trump is attacking mail-in ballots.
Analysis by Chris Eliza.
What?
None of these are fact-based claims.
They're just opinions of people who don't like Trump.
Grace Segers, mail-in voting fraud is extremely rare and some experts consider it to be safer than in-person voting because paper ballots can't be hacked.
Except, what we've already seen in certain locations is that people can take your ballot and throw it in the trash.
Here's what I explained the other day when I talked about voter fraud.
What happens if you get a mail carrier working at the post office and a box of ballots comes in, or a bunch of ballots come in, from a Republican or Democrat district?
And so this person just kicks the box under a desk and those ballots are gone.
Now some people would argue that's absurd.
Why would a post office carrier do something like this?
Tell me.
I don't know.
Why would a letter carrier try to attempt election fraud?
This story from The Hill.
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday said a West Virginia letter carrier committed attempted election fraud by altering party affiliations from Democrat to Republican on requests for absentee ballots.
The clerk of Pendleton County in April received seemingly altered requests from eight voters, five of which had been changed from Democrat to Republican.
The request was altered, but the party was unchanged on the other three, according to the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of West Virginia.
The alterations appeared to have been made with a black pen, according to the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
The man, Thomas Cooper of Pendleton County, admitted to altering requests and said it was intended as a joke.
Cooper was responsible for mail delivery for the three towns from which the doctored requests were mailed, Onego, Franklin, and Riverton.
Now, many of you may say, Tim, it was only eight votes.
Sure, this guy should be arrested, but what could eight votes really do?
I don't know.
Let's take a look at what happened in Paterson, New Jersey.
Amid widespread vote-by-mail fraud allegations in the Paterson City Council election, one race was apparently decided by just eight votes.
Now you see why these stories, I thought these stories were the ones to pick, to give you an example of why voter fraud is possible, serious, and why it should be considered.
Apparently this DOJ, this DOJ claim, DOJ allegation is that the man was changing people from Democrat to Republicans!
To Republicans.
So tell me this.
We have evidence of voter fraud.
And there was another case where a guy was actually a Republican who was trying to cheat.
Why would the Democrats be for this?
Why would the Republicans be against it?
Well, let's be real.
Republicans may not be condoning that some Republicans have done this.
In fact, they're saying, end the loophole, right?
Why would Democrats be in favor of something that's hurt them in the past?
Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
So whether or not you would like to believe the issue, I think it's fair to point out, Twitter intervened in an opinion by the President and nobody else.
So what does that mean?
Honestly, I don't know, because to be honest, I really don't think they're going to sway anyone's opinion.
This was a big mistake by Twitter.
Donald Trump has been tweeting about Joe Scarborough, and I called it Joe Derangement Syndrome.
I really don't care for these tweets.
But some people responded that Trump is basically goading Twitter to keep taking these actions, because Trump has now called out Twitter for their censorship.
In a tweet, Donald Trump says, We saw what they attempted to do and failed in 2016.
We can't let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.
voices.
We will strongly regulate or close them down before we can ever allow this to happen.
We saw what they attempted to do and failed in 2016.
We can't let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.
Just like we can't let large-scale mail-in ballots take root in our country.
It would be a free-for-all on cheating, forgery, and the theft of ballots.
Whoever cheated the most would win.
Likewise, social media, clean up your act now.
Scott Adams made the point.
You may be familiar.
He's the creator of Dilbert.
He said, when you ask someone to take your ballot to the mailbox, you have not voted.
That person has now voted twice.
The first, when they filled out their mail-in ballot and then mailed it.
The second, when they decided whether or not to put your ballot in the mailbox.
But think about it.
This is another problem we see with ballot harvesting, people collecting ballots on behalf of a certain group or whatever.
But if we have mail-in ballots, someone could go around collecting, or with ballot harvesting, and say, we'll bring your ballots in, go to an all-Democrat district, and then just dump them in the river.
This is why we have serious problems with voter fraud.
Or I should say, this is why there are serious concerns about voter fraud.
Look, I've just given you several examples.
So yes, Twitter is taking a bold action, and they probably shouldn't.
But following questions about this fact check, it turns out that one of the people at Twitter who runs this is overtly biased against the president.
So listen, man.
They like to say there's no bias against conservatives on social media.
Well, we now have Hard proof!
In this story from Fox News, Twitter exec in charge of efforts to fact-check Trump has history of anti-Trump posts, called McConnell a, quote, bag of farts.
Well then, Fox says, Twitter's head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, boasts on his LinkedIn that he is in charge of developing and enforcing Twitter's rules, like the one that led Twitter to slap a new misleading warning label on two of President Trump's tweets concerning mail-in ballots, uh, mail-in votes on Tuesday.
However, Roth's own barrage of anti-Trump politically charged tweets seemingly calls into question whether he should be creating guidelines for the president and other Twitter users, especially when Twitter is under Firefort's alleged left-wing bias.
Commentators have argued that Trump's tweets on the risks of mail-in voting were not misleading, and the president accused Twitter of seeking to interfere in the upcoming election under the guise of supposedly neutral fact-checking policy.
Roth had previously referred to Trump and his team as, let's just call them actual Nazis.
He mocked Trump supporters by saying that we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason, and called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a personality-free bag of farts.
Last August, Twitter suspended McConnell's Twitter account, prompting the GOP to threaten to cut off advertising on the site until Twitter relented.
In September 2016, Roth tweeted, I've never donated to a presidential campaign before,
but I just gave $100 to Hillary for America.
We can't F around anymore.
When Trump won the November 2016 election, Roth dejectedly chalked the development up to Bernie
Sanders' protest voters and racism before sounding more optimistic notes.
Okay, you get the point.
I don't need to read everything he's ever tweeted.
We get it.
He's a Hillary Clinton donor.
He hates Donald Trump.
He's insulted Trump's family.
He's insulted Kellyanne Conway.
And Twitter is absolutely biased.
And we know Twitter is biased.
So when Twitter makes a move like this to fact check the president, and it results in you being directed to mainstream media that lie, they lie.
But you know what?
Let's not even play that game.
When you get directed to the opinions of people who don't like the president, the people who claim there are questions about voter suppression, you have to wonder what their intent really is.
Joe Biden actually launched his campaign with a lie.
It's called the very fine people hoax.
Donald Trump had condemned a group of fairly nasty people but defended other people who were in Charlottesville.
It's a big event, I'm not going to get into the full context, but he defended the people there who weren't there with malintent, for the most part.
The media lied about it, and they continue to do so.
And Joe Biden lied about it.
Joe Biden actually took comments from Trump and mashed them together.
Why wasn't that fact-checked?
Well, you can argue that Twitter didn't have the policy in place, but Joe Biden continues to lie.
He's done numerous interviews where he's continued to lie, and even progressives have called him out for lying.
Why is it then that Trump is the one who faces the brunt?
We know for a fact the people who work at Twitter And that brings me to the last story.
nasty things about the president and the people who work for him. And that brings
me to the last story. Well actually I got a couple more but we'll go through this
one first. Podcast host unverified after interviewing controversial GOP candidate.
I mean that's the story.
A guy has a show called Wrong Opinion.
He interviewed a very controversial figure, Laura Loomer.
I believe it was Laura Loomer.
And what happened?
His verification badge was removed.
Now, I'm gonna be very careful on this one, because I try to make sure I can verify everything.
It's possible he removed his verification badge on his own.
You can do that.
I don't think that's likely.
I think Twitter actually removed his verification badge.
It's hard to know for sure.
But with all the evidence we've seen, Why would I doubt what he's saying?
I wouldn't.
It actually stands to reason he's telling the truth.
For the longest time, social media has been biased not just against conservatives, but anybody who dare oppose their weird social justice religion-type orthodoxy, the dogma, whatever.
There have been anti-war activists who have been suspended as well.
Occupy Wall Street activists who have been suspended as well.
So it's not just about conservatives, but it tends to be.
And because of this, I think the conservatives are going to In a sense, reap what they have sown.
I know people like Ted Cruz and, you know, I believe Matt Gaetz and Josh Hawley have brought up the issue of social media censorship in the past.
But right now, The Republicans haven't really done anything.
And Donald Trump coming out saying that they're going to shut things down, it's empty words.
Empty words.
I warned years ago that if Republicans did not take this seriously, they wouldn't get re-elected.
Because social media is the way in which we communicate for the most part.
The stories that dominate the news bubble up on social media.
Not just Twitter, but Facebook and YouTube and other places as well.
Videos go viral.
We don't go to the town center anymore.
We're not going to the water cooler.
Many people aren't going to church.
And because of this, we are not getting our speech and our discourse and discussions in public settings.
And especially with the coronavirus pandemic, we are now mostly doing things remotely or virtual.
In the end.
It's worse than I could have even predicted.
Basically the pandemic.
Now it's possible the pandemic restrictions get lifted and things get better.
But it doesn't seem like we're going to be having, you know, mass gatherings without protest for at least till the next year.
So think about my warning early on that Republicans needed to get serious about social media censorship.
I'm talking about the politicians.
Otherwise, they'd never win again.
And then look what happened this year.
A pandemic hit, and now the only way to actually have these conversations is through social media.
Well, unfortunately for the conservatives, many of their biggest supporters, many of the biggest conservative accounts have been purged.
And was anyone done about it?
Now, it's fair to say perhaps there's nothing that can be done about it in the sense of regulation or laws.
It would be very, very difficult to actually get something on the books to protect speech on social media without lawsuits going through the courts.
Until we have that, I don't know where we go.
And many of these lawsuits are being struck down, so we need a lawsuit that's going to make its way to the Supreme Court until a precedent is set.
The issue with social media is that they're allowed to be biased because they're companies.
How do you change this fact?
I don't know, especially when the Democrats are benefiting from it, so they refuse to actually adhere to any kind of principle.
I have always been a center-lefty kind of person.
I believe in regulation.
I think it's important when businesses get out of control and start stealing the commons, for instance, that we say, hey, you can't do that.
But for some reason, these people that normally would be supporting regulation oppose it and respond that private businesses can do what they want, which is so strange because it's something the Republicans would have said 10, 20 years ago.
That's where their opinion goes.
It's all about power.
So here I am, same position I've always been in.
We need to defend free speech.
How do you do that?
I honestly don't know because the reason Twitter can be biased is because of the First Amendment.
The government can't make a law about what they're allowed to do.
But the courts can rule, and there will have to be legislation, and there will have to be some kind of Supreme Court ruling, I suppose.
But there will have to be a case and a lawsuit.
For the time being, I don't think anyone can do anything.
They really don't.
There's one thing that can be done outside of legislation.
So let me clarify that last statement.
There's nothing anyone can do for now in terms of legislation.
Donald Trump could just leave the platform.
If Trump left Twitter and started posting things on, say, Mines, for instance, M-I-N-D-S, then the media would be forced to cover it, and people would flock to a different site, and that would completely disrupt Twitter.
Yet, for some reason, Trump doesn't do it.
Instead, he just goes on Twitter and says, we're gonna do something, we're gonna do something, and then never does.
Never does.
So what's the point in saying it?
I honestly don't know.
But I will tell you, I do have serious concerns about Twitter's bias and their interference in an election.
In the end, I think it'll ultimately benefit Trump.
Why?
Because if they ignored what Trump was saying, nobody would care.
By adding this tag, they're not convincing anyone on the left that Trump is wrong.
They're convincing everyone that the media platform is biased against Trump for not fact-checking other people.
And now there's hard evidence of it.
So you can argue, but Twitter is just fact-checking Trump, and it's like, well, it was an opinion, linking to an opinion.
Those aren't fact-checks.
And besides, why apply it to no one else?
Well, because Trump is wrong.
Certainly other people have been wrong.
Many high-profile personalities have been wrong.
Well, he's the president.
What about presidential candidates who have been wrong?
What about, say, Kamala Harris?
Do you like her?
No.
It's about power, and they don't want to give up their power.
And so long as that's the case, they're not going to act on principle.
I guess we'll see how things play out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, and I'll see you all then.
This morning, the hashtag All Lives Matter started trending on Twitter, and I think it's an example of the left just completely misunderstanding the right, having no idea what people really think about what's going on.
And there's a bunch of memes going around showing Colin Kaepernick kneeling, as well as the officer in the Minnesota case who was kneeling on George Floyd's neck.
For those that aren't familiar, George Floyd was a man who the police claim was engaged, or there was a reported forgery in progress.
They say that they tried to arrest him, but he resisted, so they put him on the ground.
One officer kneeled on his neck for around eight minutes.
Ultimately, Floyd lost his life.
There's a lot of news here.
First, foremost, riots have broken out in Minneapolis.
We'll read this story, but I think it's mostly self-explanatory.
Like, people were gonna riot over this.
What I've seemed to notice, particularly from this story, everybody basically agrees, like, man, this was a bad case.
Now, there's a disagreement on whether or not the cop has murdered this guy, or whether or not it was negligent homicide, or to what degree, but everyone agrees.
Look, man, If you don't know the story, there's a lot we didn't get in the videos, okay?
A video goes viral, it shows this man on the ground saying, please, please, please, I can't breathe.
My stomach hurts, my neck hurts.
Please, they're going to kill me.
And everybody's standing around yelling and complaining.
And that's all we get.
There's a lot missing.
You know, who knows what happened before this video?
Who knows what happened after?
We really don't.
There's potentially some corroborating witnesses saying this guy never resisted, but regardless of that, most people look at this video and they're like, dude, you got the guy subdued.
You need to get off his neck.
You are responsible for their well-being.
And the easiest way I can explain it, I think one of the easiest ways, if we want to avoid the contentious culture war issue pertaining to this story, this guy's Fifth Amendment right, at the very least, is something up for consideration.
As an individual, his due process rights were stripped from him and his life was taken over what was, Arguably a forgery case.
Now, for me personally, innocent until proven guilty.
So if the police want to take someone into custody, they have to be responsible for this person's safety, well-being, and to an extent, their life, depending on how much force they apply to the individual.
In some circumstances, you could argue there is justifiable death, for sure.
If, you know, there's a real reason that a fight is gonna break out, someone's armed.
If it's a guy on the ground just begging, please, I can't breathe, and you don't do anything, you don't... Ah, look, man.
These are the moves you made.
Now, all these cops got fired.
And the interesting thing about this is I actually had some people point out that if there was a question of, you know, reasonable use of force or justification, they would have put these guys on leave and there would have been an investigation first.
Notably, in instances like this, the unions usually get involved.
Not this time.
Four cops, I believe, just got terminated because everybody was like, nope, not this one.
You messed this up.
This is on you.
And now the FBI is involved.
So I want to be very, very careful.
And, you know, when it comes to stories like this, I always, always stress, we don't know what happened outside of a viral clip.
Alright?
But like so many cases, man, somebody lost their life.
So we're going to figure this one out.
Now, let's read about what's going on with the riots.
But I really want to go after these false arguments that are emerging.
That are kind of misrepresenting at least my perception of what people are saying from the right.
I'm sure conservatives would just know better than I would.
But take a look at this picture.
What kneeling offends you more?
It's like, everyone very obviously is more offended by the cop kneeling on the dude who died.
Like, what are you thinking?
There's a bunch of memes of this going around.
It's like, nah, man.
You can't compare someone like Colin Kaepernick, who turned this into his schtick, into his career, to someone having their rights violated to the point where they lost their life.
Sorry, man.
It's just wrong.
Well, let's see what's going on in Minneapolis.
I think, again, the story's rather obvious, like riots broke out.
Metro.co reports, four police officers were sacked following Floyd's death a short time after the brutal arrest in Minneapolis.
Hours after the dismissals were announced, protesters filled the streets around the scene of the killing to take part in a peaceful rally.
Many in the crowd wore facial coverings to protect against the spread of the coronavirus.
I'm sorry, I'm going to stop right there.
People wear masks when they go to these things because they don't want to get arrested, and they don't want people to identify them, so come on.
That's reaching.
But the gathering took an unruly turn as police in riot gear fired tear gas and non-lethal beanbag rounds into the crowds, while protesters hurled water bottles, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.
I've been in a ton of these situations, and everybody wants to know who started it.
Did the protesters throw something first?
Did the police engage first?
I don't think that matters in this regard, right?
Look, I get it if a protester threw a water bottle, like, you've gotta do something to stop the crowd, especially if they're throwing stuff.
How about this?
This is what I never understood.
Don't send out the riot cops when they're protesting.
Actually, don't send out cops with riot gear and tear gas in this situation.
You gotta have a gradual escalation of the use of force.
If your cop just was seen on video in this viral clip ending a man's life, regardless of the investigation or who did what, I think there's a presumption of innocence all around because I don't know.
Then maybe you shouldn't send out more cops to engage with the people who are angry at the cops.
A friend of mine who covers this stuff once told me that the stupidest thing the police do is they send out a bunch of riot cops when protesters show up angry because the protesters are looking for cops to protest against.
And this creates the tension almost on purpose.
Now, I get it.
It's like, what do you do?
Do you just let the crowd romp around and destroy things?
Well, no.
But if people are mad about the police, maybe there's some other group that needs to come out to protect buildings or to keep things, you know, calm and reasonable.
But what happens is, almost immediately, many of these jurisdictions send out fully armored riot cops with tear gas and beanbags.
It's like, is that the appropriate response to what just happened?
Like, maybe even if you were going to send out police, you don't send out the dudes with the tear gas launchers and the rubber bullets and the beanbags.
I'll be honest, man, look, I can't pretend to know how these situations need to be run.
I can point out, they typically go this way, because when- imagine you had somebody who was protesting, like, I don't know, factory farms, or a vegan, you know, or vegetarian animal rights activist was protesting, so you immediately walk up to them with animals and start, like, Like, butchering the animals for food.
Like, why would you do that?
It's antagonistic.
I understand the difference here is that the police come out because there's concerns about, you know, what the crowd might end up doing.
But you have to realize they're protesting you.
So if you come out, it's... There's... I don't... Look, I don't know what the solution is.
I'll tell you this, though.
It makes everything look substantially worse if the cops end someone's life.
And then when people say we're angry, they show up and say, I got a solution for that.
Here's my, you know, 40 millimeter.
Here's my beanbag.
Here's my rubber bullet.
It's like, bro, man, like you're not making yourself look good right now.
Maybe they don't want to look good.
Maybe that's the point.
I don't know.
Let's read.
I think the mayor even spoke about it.
They say local news footage showed some demonstrators vandalizing the outside of a police precinct station and a squad car.
The unrest appeared to have dissipated after dark as rain fell.
Minneapolis Police Chief Madaria Arredondo earlier confirmed that Floyd's death is under investigation by the FBI and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
I'm gonna stop here too and throw some shade in the other direction.
I understand the anger from the protesters, but like, this is a quick administrative win.
The FBI is involved, and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.
These guys lost their jobs immediately.
There's no paid vacation.
These guys are in serious trouble.
It's like...
You're actually already winning this one.
So don't come out and smash stuff and like you're actually hurting your cause by doing it.
Look, I get it, man.
Everybody's angry.
Everybody's heated.
Everybody thinks they know the right answers.
I'm not gonna pretend I do.
But I will say, man, because I've talked to activists about a lot of this stuff relatively often.
Bro, if you're winning, don't mess it up by losing support of the public.
I understand you want to talk about justice, you want to talk about the demands you want, everything like that.
You want to go out and you want to straight up just say, like, hey, we're mad about this, we're tired of this.
I get it, I get it, I get it.
They got the FBI called in almost immediately.
So rioting hurts you a lot, okay?
Most of us agree this dude should not have lost his life.
These things happen and they shouldn't happen.
And they happen to people, good people across this country.
A lot of people are making the argument that I saw a tweet from somebody saying forgery does not warrant a death sentence.
And I'm like, bro, I'm gonna stop you right there.
I don't believe in the death penalty at all, first and foremost, but even in the capacity where you could make arguments about the need to end someone's life, like self-defense, war, conflict, things of this nature, we're talking about a dude who's innocent until proven guilty, who will never get his due process.
That, to me, is like... I want to approach these stories, these instances, in a way that I think can reach everybody and try and solve the problem, and I think it comes down to the individual level.
This is what I said the other day several times.
If you want to talk about the racial issues here 100%, I'm down to hear you out.
We can talk about it.
But one way we can all unite around this is just calling out the violation of our civil rights by a state enforcer.
Straight up.
This guy's Fifth Amendment.
At the very least, I'm not saying it's like, that's the core issue.
I'm just saying straight up, this guy has lost the right to due process.
They just ended him.
That is a violation of everything we as Americans would stand for.
Like, I don't know what this guy did.
Maybe he did something, maybe he didn't.
And that's the problem.
So we gotta take this seriously.
Now, how you solve for this, I don't know.
Because one of the things I did mention the other day was bail reform in New York.
Like, I don't like the idea that someone can be accused of a crime and then locked up because they can't pay for it.
Like, that's the presumption of guilt, bro.
We can't have that.
But then you end up with them releasing actual criminals who are arrested for a reason and they go around committing more crimes.
I think the big problem is the scale of cities.
So, Mayor Jacob Frey said at the same news briefing that regardless of the investigation's outcome, it was clear that Floyd's death while in custody was unjustified and that race was a factor.
Alright, I want to read this All Lives Matter stuff to you.
I don't know if race is a factor, and I really don't like that people jump the gun on that stuff.
If he knew, he knows more than me, he's the mayor, I can respect that.
My other concern is that people are just going to jump to the racial issue because people are of different races.
I don't like that, man.
I understand, like, you know, especially going around the south side of Chicago, how these, you know, racial injustices play out.
Like, Chicago has, like, created redlining and blockbusting.
These are huge deals.
But what I don't like about it is maybe the cop is just a bad guy.
You know what I mean?
Like, maybe he's just a bad person and he hates everybody.
I don't want people to feel separated based off of these superficial functions, and I don't want this to overlook the core fundamental civil rights that every American is due, and that includes due process.
You can't do this to somebody in violation of their rights, for so many of their rights.
I mean, first and foremost, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, period.
We can start from there, and I think we can all agree.
It's like, okay, I'll agree with that, right?
Like, who would disagree with that?
You can't kill somebody.
You know, we could argue it's accidental or whatever.
This dude was kneeling on the guy.
He could have asked for help.
He could have moved.
And that's on him.
And that is on him.
But check it out.
We end up seeing the hashtag All Lives Matter trending.
And this one really frustrates me.
You know why?
All Lives Matter is not trending because some conservatives, some All Lives Matter supporters started to complain about what's going on.
I don't think there's very few people who are looking at what happened to that dude and happy about it.
I think everybody's questioning to what degree this guy is culpable.
Is it murder?
Is it negligent?
Whatever.
But All Lives Matter is trending because people are complaining about All Lives Matter.
It's like, whoa, bro, bro, bro, you can't start the trend, or at least, I don't know who started it, but you can't start pushing the hashtag and then being like, why is it trending?
And I see people do this all the time.
There'll be some trend, but typically, I'll be, like, I gotta say it, man, I gotta be fair.
When conservatives will use a hashtag like Dump Trump or something, they'll do it critically, knowing that it contributes, and they talk about it.
I'll tell you what, man.
I want to show you this meme from Colin Kaepernick, and then I want to talk to you about another viral meme that's going around about All Lives Matter.
So, I think the easiest way to explain how these people do not understand the sentiment of the American people is this.
Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the National Anthem.
He was protesting what he thought was police brutality.
And people protested back.
I don't... I don't care.
I mean, it's... it's... it's... that's just... I don't care.
I really don't.
If Colin Kaepernick wants to protest, I would argue it's like, I roll my eyes at that, that's fine.
If other people then burn their Nike gear and say they don't like him, like, that's also fine.
Why are you mad that someone else doesn't like that he kneeled during the National Anthem?
And that is completely different from what this dude did by kneeling on the neck of George Floyd.
I don't, I just, there's no overlap here.
I go on Facebook, and what do I see?
Everyone complaining about this man losing his life, but the left, many leftists, arguing that conservatives are more offended by one over the other, and it's like, why are you trying to make this a dig at somebody who agrees with you, or for the most part does?
How come we can't just come together and be like, yo, we all agree that was wrong?
You could easily argue from the constitutional perspective, the Fifth Amendment, and then from the social justice perspective, this guy, you know, a racial component or whatever.
The reason I don't want to go the racial route to start with is because I want to make sure we can all look at this and look at it in a way that we can agree with and figure out how to solve this problem.
Because the way I explained it the other day is, if we get to the core of the violation of civil rights, we solve this problem, and if it is true that police disproportionately target minorities, then guaranteeing the civil rights of all persons will disproportionately help those minorities.
You see what I'm saying?
But I want to show you this All Lives Matter meme that's going around right now, and it's just wrong, and it's so, so stupid.
The saying is that conservatives think liberals are misguided, but liberals think conservatives are evil.
They really don't know anything about what conservatives are arguing or what they think, and that's true to me to a certain degree.
I have people correct me all the time, and I'm like, I'm not a conservative, you know what I mean?
It's funny then when leftists say that I am, and I'm not, and I don't understand exactly how they see the world and all this stuff.
I'm a moderate.
I'm an enlightened centrist.
Come on.
This is a famous comic having to do with All Lives Matter.
I'm going to read it for you because a lot of people are listening and they can't see it.
It's nine panels.
The first one is a guy who says, Well, I think that all lives matter.
Panel two.
We should care exactly equally at all times about everything.
Then it shows one house burning down and one house not burning down, and he says, All houses matter.
The other person chimes in, I agree, all houses do matter, but at the moment, the one on fire should get more attention.
The other guy is spraying a hose on the house that's not on fire and says, but by saying that a burning house needs attention, aren't you saying all other houses don't matter?
To which the other man says, no.
The hose guy says, my house isn't on fire, but I have dry rot.
Are you saying it shouldn't be fixed?
The other guy says, it should, but the fire is very pressing.
Let's say I put that house fire out, but my house catches on fire.
Aren't I then entitled to water?
Of course, but it's not the one on fire right now.
My house is near the one on fire.
If I wet it down, embers won't catch.
Sensible.
That is completely outside the analogy.
Where's that house's owner anyway?
Why do I gotta hose down his house for him?
And the other guy says, he died in the fire.
I can see the point that they try and make with this, or the point they think they're making with this.
First and foremost, it's a straw man of the all lives matter argument.
100%, that should be obvious.
But there's other things that are just so inherently wrong about this.
The analogy they use in this comic, which I bring up because it goes around every single time something like this happens, We're talking about individual houses, but the argument they're making is for the collective.
If an individual house was burning down, everyone would agree to spray the individual house with water.
And guess what?
If you target each house individually with water, you would make sure the fires don't spread, and everybody would be happy.
You would also make sure that if eight out of the ten houses were owned by minority families, you would still make sure to put out the fires of the two houses that are owned by white families.
The problem that's being ignored by this comic is that you can have police brutality, unjustified, you know, murders, unarmed deaths of any other race, they don't get the news coverage.
So you can argue it's because one house is burning down, but now you're arguing on a collective level, and that's where it breaks down.
So let's change this analogy and say, you have one neighborhood with small house with some fires, and then you have another neighborhood with a lot more fires, and people are arguing the fire department shouldn't go and put out the other fires until these ones are all out, and you're like, But each house deserves to have the fire put out.
So why don't we allocate resources to just putting out individual fires?
Now you could argue a triage-like system.
We'll go where there are more fires first, and then rush over.
And that's fine too, but the point is, if you are going to try and compare this to individualism, Then no one's— I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you.
If a white person, a Latino person, an Asian person, or a black person was unjustifiably killed, and we made sure that we targeted these cases based on civil rights and due process, then you would clean everything from the root up to the core of the plant.
If you just look at it this way, like, yeah, I know your neighborhood has big fires, but, you know, our neighborhood needs to have our fire put out before yours.
Or, more importantly, Another way to look at this would be that there actually are substantially more fires in other neighborhoods, but the media only ever points the camera at one neighborhood, so the fire department only ever goes there.
And sometimes it wasn't even a fire.
That's the issue.
So I get it, I get it.
My main point is that you need to look beyond the superficial characteristics.
There's a viral tweet going around, it's like 7,000 retweets, where a guy says something like, y'all are asking us not to make this about race, but race is such a huge component of it, and I'm like, I agree it is.
But it's very, very simple.
You will actually get more support from everyone in this country if you target this on a civil rights issue.
When you make it about racial issues, then you're gonna get a whole bunch of racial arguments and things that are completely irrelevant.
The way I see it is, I watched a guy have his constitutional rights violated, and we fought, this country, the United States, fought a war saying, this is what we get to do, you can't do this to us.
The same goes for 2A as well.
1A, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc, etc.
This guy deserved his day in court.
And the same goes for bail reform and all these other issues that need to be worked out because I'm a big fan of the Constitution.
I'm a big fan of individualism and individual liberties.
And ultimately the problems we see tend to be in big cities.
This is where it comes down to.
We don't need to fight each other on this one, man.
We don't.
There are some stories where we argue and it's annoying that the left just refuses.
It's unfortunate.
It's true.
They refuse to actually have a fair argument because of stories like this.
And then finally when a story like this happens and everyone's in agreement, they still attack the right and accuse them of disparaging or ignoring.
And it's like, bro, There was a dude in St.
Louis.
It was an armed robbery or something.
He was armed and the cops killed him.
And people rioted over this.
You can't expect to get support from regular people across this country when you're like, the dude had a weapon and the cops got into a, you know, a shootout with him and he died.
That's not an issue of injustice.
You can still argue that people don't deserve to lose their lives, but there's got to be a line somewhere, right?
In this instance, when you on the left now have support from conservatives who are clearly pointing out, like, this dude was just calmly lying there saying, please help me and not resisting at all.
They agree with you.
Don't sour that goodwill.
Here's an opportunity to actually solve these problems, so...
I don't like the riots, man.
I don't.
And I don't like the riot cops.
I'm not gonna pretend I can give you a better solution.
That's why I'm not gonna be in politics.
If you don't have the cops come out, people riot, smash up windows, innocent people get hurt.
You send the police out, now you've got an escalation of force and people start throwing things and it can make the riot worse.
We've seen jurisdictions try to play this game of don't send the police out.
That didn't work either.
It really depends on the circumstances of the protest.
So, in that regard, I honestly don't know what we do.
Even when you have the FBI come in and they're like, these guys are fired and we're now investigating, people still riot.
I don't know what the solution is, I really don't.
So don't expect me to run for office because maybe you guys have a better answer to it than I do, but I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Proving once again that these weirdo resistance leftists don't learn from their past mistakes, Kathy Griffin once again has crossed the line into potentially, I'm saying potentially, I'm being very, very careful here, Almost threatening the life of the president, and I gotta be very careful because of language use.
I'll tell you what, some of these things that she says absolutely cross a line, especially on YouTube, and some of them are potentially downright illegal.
Kathy Griffin in the past did a photo shoot where she was holding Donald Trump's head.
And there was blood, and it was really, really bad.
She basically lost her career over this.
She was having, like, panic attacks, and she was doing interviews.
She was like, everything was ruined.
And then she even accused Trump of personally instructing the Secret Service to investigate her.
No.
Everybody who makes a threat against the president is gonna get a knock on their door.
Don't do it.
But they live in a paranoid, delusional state where they justify this insanity.
So I don't want to bury the lead.
Kathy Griffin tweeted, Something to the effect of taking a syringe with nothing but air to, quote, do the trick.
You know what that means.
You know what the intent there is.
And she's saying it straight up.
Now, it could be that this doesn't cross the line.
Don't ask me.
I'm not the Secret Service.
And I've got a story from a few years ago about the seriousness of how people keep doing this online.
And they do it a lot.
But Kathy Griffin seems to just not be able to learn.
They think, people like her think, she's justified in saying this because of their perceived insane reality.
Case in point.
There was this MS- I believe it was MSNBC where this woman said that Trump was talking about exterminating a particular group of people.
I'm, again, being very careful.
They make this up!
Trump never talked about exterminating anybody!
But they literally make it up.
What do you think happens then when someone like Kathy Griffin hears this, and she's sitting in the corner of the room shaking and twitching, like confused, believing in this fictitious reality?
They watch nothing but fake news, they read nothing but fake news, and then they believe such insane, terrifying, paranoid reality that they say things like this.
She actually responded to this story, I kid you not.
Alright, let's read what happened.
The Washington Examiner says...
Cathy Griffin advocated plunging an air-filled syringe into President Trump, reacting to a tweet from CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, which said Trump pondered whether or not he should be given an insulin regimen at a White House diabetes event on Tuesday.
The comedian said, Now, first of all, I think Trump is very obviously joking.
He jokes all the time.
And I can imagine, based on seeing him speak, he was talking and then off the cup was like, yeah, you got a lot of people with insulin.
I wonder if I would need that, huh?
Yeah, anyway.
And he says something, I don't, I don't, I don't use insulin.
Should I be?
You know.
He's making a joke.
He clearly isn't diabetic.
Maybe he's making a self-deprecating joke at the fact that he eats a lot of fast food and he's overweight.
Because the president, he makes, he takes the jokes away from them.
He makes them about himself.
He does.
In medical procedures, air accidentally injected into the body's bloodstream through syringes or IVs can cause air embolisms, which can be fatal.
Within moments, Twitter users were remarking how Griffin can expect another visit from the Secret Service.
Griffin stirred controversy in 2017 when she held up a bloody prop of Trump's severed head in a photo shoot,
a move which disrupted her career and prompted a visit from the Secret Service according to her lawyers.
Quote, I don't think I will have a career after this, Griffin told
reporters, in tears.
After the photo became public, I'm going to be honest, he broke me.
What? He didn't break you.
The media and your delusional friends and the weird paranoid state you live in broke you.
Something else broke you and put you in this broken world.
Trump Derangement Syndrome didn't come from Trump.
Sure, Trump can say nasty things.
Sure, he can be a mean guy.
But how many of these people have been pressed into this by the media?
I'm gonna tell you something.
A story has just come out from the Wall Street Journal.
Facebook knows they're dividing people and their algorithm creates a hyper-partisan divide.
And they swept it under the rug.
So you know what?
I'm going to give some sympathy a bit to Kathy Griffin.
She lives in a psychotic realm of insane nonsense because she's probably being fed trash from, like, Occupy Democrats on Facebook.
I mean, she's in the Facebook demographic, right?
Facebook knows they're doing this.
What do you think happens when someone sits on their Facebook page and they only ever see insane Orange Man bad content?
They go nuts!
That's it.
And that's extremism, okay?
Alright, let's read a little bit more.
In response to the Examiner tweet for this report, which noted that stabbing someone with a syringe filled with air could be fatal, Griffin said she sure did advocate for the president to be— Okay, I gotta be careful here, but look at this.
She doubles down.
The Washington Examiner tweeted, Kathy Griffin advocates for someone to, I'm not gonna say it, take a syringe full of air.
Right, you know where it's going.
Air embolisms caused by air getting into the bloodstream can be fatal.
And she responded, I sure did eff her.
Wow.
She's straight up saying she's advocating for it.
Now I think she will get a visit from the Secret Service.
Because look, the initial tweet could have been seen as hyperbolic, a joke, or not directing anybody.
But now she's basically confirmed she's straight up advocating for it.
Griffin ended her quote tweet with, Trump lied, people died.
A common social media hashtag used by the president's critics blaming him for COVID.
The Washington Examiner reached out to the Secret Service about Griffin's tweets.
The Washington Examiner also asked Twitter if she breached the platform's violent threats policy.
A representative said the company will look into the tweets.
I'm not a big fan of the tattle game with journalism.
I can understand why in this regard they may reach out to the Secret Service.
However, I'm curious as to the way in which they reach out.
I think the appropriate thing to do if you're a journalist is to reach out to the Secret Service and say, not the person's name, but, would this phrase be considered, you know, illegal or a violation?
Journalists like to play this game, and I'm not trying to drag the examiner here because I don't know what they said, where, like, I've called out journalists for this in the past.
They will contact some organization and use it as a way to tattle.
They'll, like, they'll email you saying, your employee did an awful thing.
Do you, like, do you condone this behavior?
I'm just a journalist asking for questions, for comments.
No, obviously you're calling out the individual to get them hurt.
So I'm not saying the examiner does that, but I'm quick to point it out if I think I see it.
Kathy Griffin had the Secret Service come to her before because she's totally lost her mind.
She's gone.
Look, man, this is sad.
It really is sad.
The media is essentially unaccountable.
That's why so many people like Donald Trump and like when he calls out the press.
If you're someone like Kathy Griffin, you're doing these red carpet things, you live in this celebrity-liberal bubble, you're not getting real news.
And so when all this news comes out, you feel like you are saying something popular, and you are not.
What's happening with her is exactly what's happening with Democratic politicians.
They're not crossing this line, but they're saying things close enough to insanity because they're not getting real news.
And Kathy Griffin, She actually blamed Trump personally.
Like, just stop, okay?
It's not personal.
Citing a vendetta against her.
In the wake of a controversial photo last year, comedian Kathy Griffin accused President Trump of personally ordering federal agents to make her life miserable.
No, please don't.
You know how he works.
They've gone insane.
Trump didn't think twice about you.
Maybe he tweeted about you.
Okay.
Maybe someone's family did.
But I really don't think he's dedicating a lot of time to you.
I just don't.
I don't think you matter that much.
But they think they do.
And so think about the level of ego and conspiratorial thinking that exists in the mind of Kathy Griffin.
Not only does she think that these horrible things about the president that just are not based in reality, she thinks the president's out to get her.
What did we used to do to people who would mutter and ramble, saying violent things, and then go, the president's coming for me.
The president did it to me on purpose.
It's like, okay, okay, calm down.
The president isn't coming for you.
Please stop.
You're losing your mind.
Those people would be institutionalized.
Kathy Griffin, on the other hand, gets cleared, continues doing her thing, and then does it again.
She's clearly unwell, man.
Take a look at this from ABC News.
Recently, a man got 18 months in prison for threatening the life of Donald Trump.
I really want to be careful.
A 36-year-old Texas man has been sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for threatening the president's life.
Now what this guy said was substantially more direct and overt, and I'm curious if Kathy Griffin has crossed the line in this regard.
The photograph of her holding Trump's head, okay, you can argue it's art, it's sensationalist, it's hyperbolic, but it wasn't a direct call to action.
Different people would interpret it different ways.
What she's saying now is that, she's straight up saying she did advocate for someone to This guy straight up said that he was waiting for the president and he was going to make an attempt on his life.
That alone was enough to give the guy a year and a half in prison.
What Kathy Griffin did went beyond what this guy said, in my opinion.
Straight up advocating for direct action to be taken against the president.
So maybe it doesn't.
This guy said he was gonna do it.
She's advocating for others.
I don't know how this plays out.
They say this in the story.
According to plea documents, Gedlew admitted he threatened Trump's life on social media.
During court proceedings, prosecutors said that on May 31, 2018, Gedlew was observed across the street from Dallas Adolphus Hotel just 30 minutes before Trump arrived there for a fundraiser.
Dallas police officers noticed Gedlew holding a sign threatening his life and detained him as he screamed things.
Okay, so I'll tell you what.
That's a bit beyond just social media.
My initial understanding was that he was just on social media.
Well, if you show up to the President's Hotel, that is a bit different from what Kathy Griffin did.
But take a look at this story from 2017.
It's from Mashable.
Over 12,000 tweets are calling for Trump's... are threatening the life of the President.
Here's how the Secret Service handles it.
This article could perhaps give us some insight into what may come now for Kathy Griffin.
They say in the 12 days since Donald Trump took the oath of office, granted this is February of 2017 mind you, a steady stream of social media posts have called for violence against the man.
They've threatened his life.
The posts are pretty basic and many are jokes or sarcastic or hyperbolic.
But there are a lot of them.
In a data miner search of Twitter posts since Inauguration Day containing the phrase, I'm not going to read that phrase, more than 12,000 tweets came up.
The US Secret Service, however, or even Twitter and Facebook themselves, doesn't seem to be jumping onto many of these posts.
When we asked several users about their recent posts, all of them said they hadn't been contacted by anyone about their posts, and they all remain up.
But there have been some reports of agents knocking on the doors of social media users.
A Kentucky woman who tweeted, if someone was cruel enough to go after Martin Luther King, again, I'm paraphrasing here, maybe someone will be kind enough to, and then she calls out Trump.
I'm not going to read these things.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to read it, but you get the point.
She was currently being investigated by the Secret Service, according to the AP.
Now, keep in mind, Kathy Griffin was investigated for two months.
An Ohio man tweeted several messages about threatening Trump on election night, according to NBC News.
The Secret Service questioned him the next day, and he was charged with making threats to then-president-elect.
Listen, man, there is something wrong with you if you are going to come out and say these things.
I blame the media.
I really do.
And I don't know what the solution is.
But I want to show you this story from Facebook, which gives us some insight.
And I think I'm going to go over this in a longer video in the next segment, which comes up at 4 p.m.
If you're not familiar, go to timcast.net is another channel.
But check this out.
Facebook executives shut down efforts to make the site less divisive.
The social media giant internally studied how it polarizes users, then largely shelved the research.
That's amazing.
I'm going to tell you exactly what happens.
On Facebook, people are more likely to see content they engage with.
It's similar to how they've described the YouTube rabbit hole.
But with Facebook, the problem is several orders of magnitude worse than what YouTube is.
So they've talked about on YouTube there's a rabbit hole, like you'll click my video and then you'll just go down a rabbit hole of a bunch of videos.
It doesn't work that way.
For one, on YouTube you have to actively choose what you're gonna watch.
Which video you're gonna watch or listen to.
Whereas on Facebook, they put things in front of you, other people choose what you will watch.
YouTube does have a small algorithmic impact on people's viewing consumption, for sure.
But it can go any direction.
If someone's talking about immigration, it could be positive or negative.
Now certainly if you only look at negative videos, you might be more likely to get fed negative videos.
But I've received numerous messages from people saying that my content de-radicalized them because I approach issues they're concerned about, but present a more nuanced opinion.
So the issue isn't so much on YouTube that if you click a video, you'll be pushed in a rabbit hole.
The issue is that the left on YouTube doesn't talk about the same things as the right on YouTube.
So what happens is, if you're concerned about issues like immigration, you're not going to get left-wing content about immigration.
You're going to get right-wing content for the most part.
Now with Facebook, something's different.
Because the content is fed to you in a very short thread.
You're only going to get a small handful of posts on Facebook.
So if you go on Facebook one day, you will see like two posts.
One of those posts will be like, you know, Donald Trump is evil, the orange man is bad.
You might be curious, and you might click it.
And then, now Facebook has learned, this is how you react.
This is what you react to.
And so now, you're more likely to see these.
More importantly, however, you're more likely to directly share it, sending it to your immediate friends and family.
YouTube does not do this.
Facebook does.
If you subscribe to my channel, you can share my content.
It's greatly appreciated if you do.
It helps.
So, consider that.
However, YouTube isn't sending you content based on what another subscriber that you know thinks, because you don't friend other subscribers.
So it is possible if you choose to follow 10 channels, Tim Pool, Kyle Kalinske, Steven
Crowder, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin, and so it skews a little bit towards, you know,
anti-left or slightly to the right in some regards, you might get fed more similar videos
to that, but you made the choices of who you wanted to follow based on who you liked to
listen to.
On Facebook, your gammy, your friend from high school might share an article because
they have TDS.
Then you see it.
Fake news.
Occupy Democrats.
Whatever.
And you go, whoa, is that true?
And you click it.
Boom.
Now you have TDS.
Then you share it.
YouTube doesn't work that way.
And Facebook knows.
So why is it that Kathy Griffin is shrieking and spinning in circles?
Because TDS is contagious.
And it's through Facebook.
And we know it.
And I've said this over and over again.
Twitter operates in a different way.
Twitter gives you a point system rewards for your polarizing shock content.
YouTube does not.
YouTube incentivizes creators to go down certain paths for the most part, but a broader market share on YouTube is centrism.
Sort of.
What you need to understand is that if you want to make money on YouTube, you need to go vlog and skateboard and hang out on the beach, not do politics, because that dramatically reduces your ability to get views.
So all these people are like, the YouTube grifters are lying and trying to make money.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Full stop, buddy.
Not true.
Certainly there are some that have fake opinions for money, but the fastest path to YouTube success is like prank videos.
I mean, not so much anymore.
They've gone after them.
But do a vlog about your dog or whatever.
You want to make money on YouTube?
You sing nursery rhymes.
I'm not kidding.
They get hundreds of millions of views.
The people on YouTube who do politics take a hit on their maximum market share by doing so.
But on Facebook, things are different.
Because individuals share within their own base.
So therefore, triggering and shocking them is what generates traffic.
Now you may be saying, but Tim, what if someone shares the YouTube video on Facebook?
YouTube de-ranks these.
To the best of my knowledge, this is true.
They may not, but I'm pretty sure.
When Facebook was trying to prop up their video platform, they would make sure YouTube links got less preferential posting visibility than their own native videos because they didn't want people to leave the platform.
YouTube absolutely is a direct radicalization engine, and even they know it, according to this story.
So I do kind of feel bad.
Now, ultimately, the responsibility falls on you.
If Kathy Griffin wants to post this psychotic, insane psychobabble, she's made a choice.
Maybe she should have made a choice to read other news, because guess what?
Just because you're dumb, it's not an excuse.
You have a responsibility to know what you're talking about.
But all of these people like her, they're trapped in this cyclone of fake news.
And the smartest thing the fake news could have done is claim they were the real news.
And that's what's happening.
Donald Trump being fact-checked on Twitter.
You see this story?
He tweeted an opinion about mail-in ballots.
And Twitter issues a fact-check where they link to the opinions of Washington Post and CNN.
That doesn't make sense.
It's not a fact-check.
That's an opinion war.
You're polarizing people.
Why?
Don't ask me, man.
But they're absolutely making things worse.
These journalists claim to be real news.
They're not.
I mean the cable TV stuff.
There's some great journalists out there, man.
They work for local papers.
But these New York Times people, they're not so bad, but they can be kind of bad.
You have the Washington Post, they're pretty bad.
CNN is just awful.
It really is just awful.
So what happens when you have someone like, you know, you have Jim Acosta, you have Brian Stelter, Oliver Darcy.
These are principal reporters and personalities at CNN.
Oliver and Brian are the media reporters, and they're like, their whole shtick is not to report the news, but give a play-by-play on Fox News.
When I see these media reporters and all they do is talk about Fox and Trump, I'm like, you're not talking about the media.
Like, what about this story?
I'm sure they'll talk about this, you know, to varying degrees.
I'm not gonna, you know, pretend that they wouldn't.
They probably will.
But then they default to like 80% content that just rags on Fox News.
I kid you not.
I don't need TV Guide for Fox News.
Now when CNN appears on Facebook and they say Facebook is good to go, it's factual news, yes, but they're driving you down a rabbit hole.
And they blame me on YouTube.
Not true.
It's Facebook.
It's Facebook and Twitter.
Facebook is how you spread the contagion.
You get a TDS article, you press share because people are infected like a zombie bite, it appears in your feed, and now you see this and you're more likely to be dragged into Trump derangement syndrome.
Trump has got his problems, man, but he's not that bad that you need to make these threats against him.
Dude, chill.
Seriously.
On Twitter, people like dragging the opposing faction.
Everybody does.
And so, when you make tweets calling out your rival in the culture war, you get a bunch of traffic.
What we end up seeing then is the Trump reply guy phenomenon.
People who've realized you'll get a ton of followers, low-quality, stupid followers, by waiting for Trump to tweet and instantly replying as fast as you can.
You will get a ton of followers.
And they tweeted things to Trump like, you're dumb, and I can't believe how dumb you are.
Like, you're so stupid you didn't even know this or that.
And it's like, none of these things are arguments, but it works.
They get followers from it.
That's Twitter's problem.
YouTube is the least problematic.
In fact, YouTube allows you an opportunity to see alternative, contradictory information.
So when the mainstream media puts out their garbled lies, you can go somewhere else and see a different opinion.
You can see me, for instance.
I used to work for these companies.
I left because of what's going on there.
So this turned into a media rant because I'm just thinking about why it is that Kathy Griffin has gone insane.
What made her insane?
And that's it.
And it's not just her, it's so many other people, but some people are more susceptible.
I'll leave it there, but at 4 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCast, we're gonna do a deep dive into Twitter censorship, their interference in the election, Donald Trump calling them out, and how the left is reacting, so it's similar.
There'll be an overlap here.
Check it out.
It's my main channel over at TimCast.net.
You click that, it'll redirect you.
Subscribe if you haven't, and stick around, it'll be at 4.
For those of you listening on the podcast, you've already heard this segment, so stick around, because there's more to come.
I will see you all in the next segment.
My main channel segment today dealt with Donald Trump calling out Twitter for election interference by putting a fact check on his tweet.
If you didn't see it, head over to TimCast.net, check out that video, went up at 4pm.
Donald Trump was right.
Twitter was interfering in the election because they're selectively editing his posts.
But more importantly, This fact check—I'm doing air quotes—was actually just calling out Trump's opinion, which isn't wrong.
He was making a prediction about the future of what might happen with mail-in voting.
But it was linking to the opinions of, like, Chris Saliza of CNN and the analysis of The Washington Post.
That's not a fact check.
That's just arguing Trump's opinion.
Now we can see, with an update, how nefarious this actually is.
In a story from Breitbart, Twitter's Trump fact check does not disclose company partnered with groups pushing mail-in ballots.
And wow, I don't know how I missed this one, maybe it came out after I recorded, but this basically means Twitter had partnered with companies that were pushing mail-in ballots, Twitter as a company was in favor of this, and only put the fact check on Trump.
Because they support mail-in ballots?
Well, their bias is obvious.
The people working at Twitter have tweeted things that are overly biased.
But this is something else.
Twitter is being accused by the president of election interference, and you can argue that, like I did, based on the fact that they're only going after Trump and not, say, Joe Biden.
But this is a whole other level.
Why are they in favor of mail-in ballots, and why didn't they disclose the conflict of interest by interfering with the president's tweets?
Does it say in the Twitter terms of service and conditions that Twitter may add things to your tweets?
That seems like, I don't know, kind of messed up.
Let's read the story from Breitbart.
Twitter, for the first time, put a fact-check label on tweets from President Trump using the controversial tactic on messages in which the president complained there is no way that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
So there's no way he's basically predicting the future.
Opinion, you can't fact-check the future, I'm sorry.
It may be instructive that Twitter seized on the mail-in balloting tweets as the first issue for Trump's rapid-fire social media feed to slap with a fact-check label.
Twitter did not disclose.
In its so-called fact-check, it is partners with two groups financed by leftist donors that engage in voter participation efforts, including drives pushing mail-in balloting.
Twitter sits on the, quote, premier partner list of one of those groups alongside ViacomCBS, the merger of Viacom and CBS.
Twitter's so-called fact check about Trump's mail-in balloting cited CBS political reporter Grace Seger's vouching for mail-in voting.
Twitter calls out Trump, of ViacomCBS, on the board of a company that's in favor of mail-in ballots, and then they link to a reporter from CBS.
Now look.
I think when you have all of these companies owning all these other companies and having these close ties, it looks more conspiratorial than it is.
At the very least, Twitter should have disclosed a conflict of interest.
But let's be real, Twitter shouldn't be doing this in the first place on Trump's opinions about whether or not mail-in ballots are safe.
Analysts have posited such proposals help the Democratic Party.
Republicans specifically fear the prospect of voter fraud, since mail-in voting would be harder to authenticate.
Yesterday, Trump tweeted the following, earning him a badge reading, get the facts about mail-in ballots.
So we did cover this.
I'll go over the context, but I want to point something out.
I do not believe the Republicans or the Democrats on mail-in ballots.
I don't.
Republicans are saying, oh, it's voter fraud, it's voter fraud.
Is that assuming Republicans won't engage in voter fraud?
Right, the argument I think has something to do with... I think it has to do with something else.
I do think it's fair to point out voter fraud, though.
Anyone can engage in it, and in fact, the story I covered earlier on the Department of Justice accusing a mail carrier was switching Democrats to Republicans, and the primary- there's like a story going around, the primary bit of evidence on political interference with mail-in ballots has to do with Republicans doing it.
So when the Republicans come out and they say there could be voter fraud, Yeah, there could be.
But I'm not convinced that's the reason they're really scared about this.
But before we move on with the story, I've got to give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, VirtualShield.
VirtualShield is a virtual private network service.
It's basically a program you can download that provides your internet browsing with a basic layer of security.
There are hackers, there are government agencies, there are general nefarious actors who want to break into your system, steal your data, and a VPN is one simple way to protect yourself.
Now I always tell people, Look, you have locks on your doors and windows, but you don't expect people to break in, but you still do it.
And to be honest, if somebody really wanted to, they could break the lock on your door.
But you still have that lock, right?
Because it makes sense to have basic security.
Right now, if you go to hidewithtim.com, you can get 50% off your Virtual Private Network service.
It's just $2.50 per month.
I'm eternally grateful to Virtual Shield for sponsoring my channel.
They're one of the few sponsors I actually have, and I think it's a great service.
So if you want to take your internet security seriously, check out hidewithtim.com.
The link will be in the description below.
But let's get back to the main story.
The Democrats ignore the fact that we do have evidence of Republicans actually engaging in voter fraud, but say, no, no, it's fine.
Something doesn't add up.
Now earlier, before I believe it was the 11th or maybe it was the 12th or 13th of May, there was a special election in California.
Before that, my opinion was a lot of Republican consultants and, you know, campaigners were concerned that mail-in ballots will get more young people to vote and maybe even more older people.
The idea is, as I saw it, young people don't want to vote.
So you put the ballot in front of their faces and you can, and you'll get them to vote.
Basically someone's, you know, let's say you're 18 living at home and your parent says, vote for Biden, vote for Biden.
And then the kid goes, sure, fine, whatever.
And they check the box, hand the ballot off.
And now you got the young person to vote.
Actually, it wasn't the case.
In CA 25, where they did mail-in ballots, young people still didn't really turn out to vote and older people dominated.
Therefore, there may be a lot of older people who can't vote, who get to vote thanks to mail-in ballots.
What I can say, though, is voter fraud is extremely likely.
And it's weird, right?
Because the insinuation is just that, I'm going to say it, the Democrats are evil, I guess?
Look, if the Democrats are going to cheat, wouldn't the response be to just cheat too?
Unless one side actually were bad.
Like, if the Republicans don't want to cheat, and the Democrats do, otherwise I don't necessarily know what the plan is.
People are expected to what, go out and snatch ballots?
Couldn't the Republicans do that?
I mean, they have.
The only explanation here is the Republicans are saying, voter fraud happens, we don't like it, we don't want to do it, and the Democrats are saying, nope, nothing to see here, there's no voter fraud.
You see why I'm biased in the way I am?
So Donald Trump tweeted, There is no way zero that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
Mailboxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged, and even illegally printed out and fraudulently signed.
The governor of California is sending ballots to millions of people.
Anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one.
That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom
have never thought of voting before, how and whom to vote.
This will be a rigged election no way.
Perhaps the real issue is illegal immigrants.
That actually explains everything perfectly.
Republicans aren't concerned about Democrats forging ballots.
I mean, Trump says he is, but think about it this way.
If there are people who shouldn't be voting, but have gotten a driver's license through
California or New York's programs that gives licenses to non-citizens.
You then give them a ballot and they vote, and they likely vote Democrat.
That is still voter fraud.
But it's not the fraud we're thinking of.
It's not someone going to a ballot box or to a mailbox, taking the ballot, filling it out, and then running away with it.
It's just giving ballots to those who are in the DMV registration.
So think about what they're doing in California, and I'm curious as to why Trump and other Republicans don't bring this up.
California, I believe, I could be wrong with this, so fact-check me on this one.
I believe they did a big license thing where, like, illegal immigrants were granted driver's licenses.
New York did something like this.
Now think about how they do who's eligible for voter registration.
They're sending out mail-in ballot applications.
Are they going to send mail-in ballot applications to people from the DMV list?
In which case, illegal immigrants.
In which case, they may fraudulently vote by accident.
And then who's gonna run the rolls to figure out who's a citizen when they look at the- We got a secret ballot.
That, to me, seems like the real issue with voter fraud.
I'm surprised they're not bringing it up.
Twitter did not disclose it is an active, premier partner of Vote Early Day 2020, an election advocacy group seeking to educate voters that they can cast their ballots prior to Election Day, including via the vote-by-mail option.
The front page of the group's website promotes mail-in balloting, telling voters that more states are adopting additional vote-early options, such as vote-by-mail, and we are expecting these changes to increase voter turnout.
We want everyone to know their options.
The organization suggests voters throw a party or parade so friends can come to fill in their mail-in ballots.
Now, the bare minimum that I think Republicans may be concerned about, they're expecting voter turnout to increase with mail-in ballots.
This we have seen.
We've also seen analytics that if the voter turnout is really, really high, Trump loses.
The Democrats can squeak by with maximum turnout.
Donald Trump with minimum turnout wins in a massive landslide.
That's according to Moody's analytics.
I don't think this plan makes sense and would work, to be honest, though, because Trump is still expected to win.
I understand the Democrats are looking for any edge they can get.
All that really matters to me in the long run is why are we changing the rules for an election at the last minute after the crisis?
I mean, the crisis, the COVID thing may be subsiding, in which case, don't change the rules and don't do mail-in ballots.
Everybody's slowly reopening.
Except for these Democrat-controlled states, but they're gonna give their electoral votes to Joe Biden anyway, right?
I guess it matters for states that aren't winner-take-all.
They can swing as many delegates as possible away from Trump and try and stop him from winning.
I'll tell you this, man.
There's one reason why the Democrats want mail-in voting.
There's no other reason to push for this other than it gives Democrats an edge.
Period.
And Republicans scream voter fraud, but none of that matters either.
Just say it like this, man.
The Democrats shouldn't... No.
Nobody should be changing the rules for an election six months out from an election, no matter what.
If you want to argue about COVID, fine, I agree.
We should have something in place to protect an election in the event of an emergency where we can't go outside.
Now is not the time.
You can't change the rules at the last minute.
You should have had the rules in place.
How about this?
We carry on like normal, and now that we know, and hindsight is 20-20, we'll change the rules after 2020.
How does that sound?
No, they don't want to do it.
They want to change the rules now.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
It's unsurprising that Twitter is biased and Twitter isn't disclosing that they're actually partnering with an organization and that's why they're targeting Trump.
This should be some kind of... Look, man, I don't know if the FEC can step in, but you got a clear conflict of interest with this.
Things aren't being done properly.
They're not being done fairly.
And at the very least, we can call that out.
I may be biased against the Democrats, but this is why.
Because Twitter and the left and these leftists, they don't...
They don't play by the rules, man.
Now, Republicans play by the rules, and they may— Look, here's the way I see it.
I look at Republicans as using the rules to their greatest advantage, right?
They'll use every loophole possible, but the rules are still there.
The Democrats just change the rules when they lose, and they break them.
But it is what it is, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
And now we know what they really fear.
This may be one of the stupidest things.
I'm surprised a former Obama economist is warning about this.
The Democrats want the economy to tank.
We heard it from Bill Maher.
The mask is off.
They're scared that if the economy recovers, Trump will win.
Trump should win if the economy recovers because he's the president, right?
Well, not to them.
They just want power.
Bill Maher said it, well, it was a couple of years ago.
He said, if a recession gets Trump out, bring on the recession.
So we know how they feel.
Bill, I think you do great things on a lot of issues, but that is not one of them.
If Trump deserves to win because he helped people and he made the economy better, so be it.
I'm not going to cry about it.
And if Trump gets to appoint Supreme Court justices and judges, guess what?
That's how our system works.
You don't get to change the rules, change how the election works, change to a popular vote because you keep losing.
And if the economy is doing well, you should not be coming out advocating for its destruction.
Fox News reports.
If American voters interpret economic growth as states continue to slowly reopen as a win for President Trump, it could potentially boost his re-election chances come November, said a former Obama economic advisor.
Appearing Wednesday on America's Newsroom with host Sandra Smith, Jason Furman said that there is nowhere to go but up for the nation's economy amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The economy went incredibly far down, he explained.
In April, it was at a very low point.
Over the next six months, it will move itself from very, very bad, which is where it was in April, to very bad or, if we are lucky, just bad towards the end of the year.
Although Furman added that he is not that optimistic about what the overall state of the country's finances will be at the end of the year, he told Smith there will be a lot of jobs created every month.
To start digging out of the deep hole, the nation was chucked down as the COVID-19 virus hostilely took over the U.S.
Yeah, I mean, there will be two ways to look at it, he remarked.
President Trump will be saying that we created one or two million jobs last month.
That's the most jobs in a month.
And others will point out very correctly, I think arguably more correctly, that we're still 15 million jobs short of where we were before the coronavirus attack.
Let me stop you right there, buddy.
No, Trump's not going to go, we made a million jobs.
It's fantastic.
Trump's going to go, earlier this year, we had a record economy, the best economy.
We had lowest unemployment.
The pandemic hit, excuse me, the pandemic hit, and it took these jobs away.
We worked very, very hard and brought these jobs back.
Not all, but many, and we will continue to do the right thing.
You can trust us.
If Donald Trump brings back a million jobs, Did anyone expect him to bring back 15 million?
He's not gonna just come out and say, look, we made jobs, so you can come out and say, yeah, but you lost more.
He's gonna come out and say the pandemic cost us these jobs.
The Democratic governors cost us these jobs.
I think people in these states, look, I live in New Jersey.
I've seen what the governor has done.
I'm leaving.
100% leaving.
Look, man, when you live in Jersey, you're close to Pennsylvania and you're close to New York.
Well, I'm close to Pennsylvania.
I'm done.
I'm out.
I'll take my business elsewhere.
And I'm sure a lot of people who live here aren't going to vote for this guy again because he destroyed the economy, not Donald Trump.
Now, let's be honest.
The coronavirus did, okay?
My problem is with how these Democratic governors are enforcing this.
Trump will work to bring back jobs at a federal level, 100%.
And am I going to blame him for what China did with lying?
The people who hate him will, of course they will, but regular people are going to be like, hey man, the money's good.
He continued, And so we will be in a situation that is like the financial crisis that we were in a decade ago, only that will be an improvement on where we were a couple of months before it, as opposed to the financial crisis where we never saw even a period of rapid improvement.
The president has long championed his economic success as the hallmark of his campaign, refuting any claims that there was sustained growth carried over from the previous administration's work.
I think Obama deserves some credit.
You know, we were seeing growth, not nearly as good as the growth under Trump, and Obama said you need a magic wand or whatever.
But look, I got no problem with saying Barack Obama inherited the crash from George W. Bush.
He then worked, he brought back jobs.
It wasn't the biggest growth, but there was growth, okay?
Donald Trump came in, and it was a windfall for so many families.
I mean, people were celebrating.
What you need to consider now, though, okay, regardless of Obama, regardless of Trump, is that many of these jobs that were lost will not come back.
That's it.
There were some studies 100,000 businesses have already permanently shuttered.
They're gone.
Even when the lockdowns are lifted completely, there's no job.
The food's spoiled at many of these places.
But this may actually be really good news for Trump.
Think about it.
People need jobs.
And people need products, and people need food, and people need services.
A lot of these small businesses that shuttered, we're going to see new businesses start up.
Unfortunately for a lot of people, they lost their livelihoods.
One of the reasons I'm mad.
They lost their dream.
The company they started, they lost it.
Yeah, I'm not happy about that.
But I think we are going to see a rapid and explosive demand for goods and services, which will result in all of these empty storefronts being bought up at low rates, new businesses emerging, a lot new competition.
I think it'll actually be After we recover from this completely, and we get unemployment back down to where it was, I think everyone's gonna be a lot better off than before the crisis.
New jobs, new competition, new rivalries, that will lead to new innovations and new products, and people will find new lines of work, people have moved around the country, people have lowered their costs in doing so.
And I think it can ultimately be really great.
I'm not saying that what happened was good by... No, just quite the opposite.
It was horrifying.
It was a golden age, man.
I can't tell you how many people I talked to said things were going really, really well, then this happened.
Well, now we can see exactly what they're worried about.
If it's true that we're going to see a rapid explosion and things will be better than ever, I mean, this is just great news for the president.
The lockdowns are lifting now, all right?
So that means in a month or two months, people could be experiencing Good things.
And the president's going to be coming out and saying good things and working towards fixing the economic problems.
I think people are going to point the blame on the lockdowns with the governors.
And I think, at the very least, you can argue, why would anyone blame Trump for a virus?
And why would anyone blame Trump when he didn't have the authority to shut down these states anyway?
Some people will.
I get it.
I get it.
Most people, I just don't see it.
Furman gives most of the credit to American businesses and workers.
Quote, The most important thing is what we do to strengthen the economy going forward, and just pretending everything is perfect, I don't think is a good strategy to make everything as perfect as we would like it to be.
But returning to a sense of normalcy will certainly not be easy for companies, employees, and presidents alike.
Financial crises are of long, grinding, slow recoveries.
Natural disasters.
The economy snaps back very quickly.
This is a combination of the two, Fuhrman pointed out.
It's a little bit like a natural disaster.
So you'll see some of the snapback.
It's a little bit like a financial crisis.
Long and grinding.
And by the way, how well we do depends on what we do.
I mean, if we don't do any more policy, we're going to be in a bunch of trouble, he urged.
We need to pass aid to states.
We need to help people who have been most impacted.
We need to stay at it and not assume everything would be fine.
Well, I can't tell you what exactly will happen, but there's a lot of factors that play into how this election will turn out come November.
of the hole we're in. A lot more is needed from policymakers than what we've seen to date.
Well, I can't tell you what exactly will happen, but there's a lot of factors that play into how
this election will turn out come November. I've talked quite a bit about mail-in ballots,
the potential for fraud. Look, the president's calling it out, and I gotta say a fair assessment
is there is a real potential for voter fraud.
And perhaps then, the economy doesn't matter.
But the Dems are worried that a snapback would be very, very beneficial to Trump.
Which makes me question, if they're gonna come out and just say it, yeah, Democrats are worried the economy improves, then what does that say about Newsom, Cuomo, and Murphy in New Jersey?
Think about this.
On May 6th, Andrew Cuomo showed us a slide that said 66% of new hospitalizations are people who are staying home.
If he knew this, why does he insist on keeping all of us locked down into June?
Like they want to keep us locked down forever.
Why did Phil Murphy of New Jersey and Garcetti of Los Angeles say, we won't be able to reopen completely until we have a vaccine?
Makes you wonder the advantages they get if they force mail-in voting.
At the very least, if we ignore fraud, they're hoping for a larger voter turnout to boost their chances of winning.
So is it fair to say that Cuomo, Murphy, Newsom, other Democrats, and Whitmer are locking down to try and force voter turnout in their states?
No.
You know why?
Because that would be speculation without evidence.
However, in my opinion, is it more likely than not?
In my opinion, I would say it's greater than chance.
That's exactly what they're doing.
But I don't know, man.
I think it's silly that they want to change the rules at the last minute.
I think it's completely absurd they're ignoring the science.
But what else could a regular person conclude?
If study after study says that the lockdown has actually hurt, and we have them now, If the CDC is being asked to investigate why locked down cities are still getting infections and Cuomo knows it's because of the home, what are they doing?
What are they doing other than making the problem worse while simultaneously their party advocates for mail-in ballots, which conveniently would only be viable if there was a pandemic going on.
Based on what we see here from this former Obama economist.
If we lift things, what happens?
No mail-in ballots, massive economic recovery, and then in all likelihood, Trump wins re-election.
That's crazy to me.
It's a crazy thought that they would do this.
But I don't think it's a conspiracy.
I really, really don't.
I think it's a tendency.
I don't think you need Whitmer to call up Cuomo and say, don't open up.
I think they all know what they're doing.
No, no, no, we gotta remain locked down.
I do think it's fair to point out a lot of them are scared.
They don't want to take the blame for this because it'll look bad on the Democrats.
But guess what?
The economic damage will always be your fault.
And it won't be Trump's.
And the virus won't be Trump's either.
So whatever it is they're doing, it's going to backfire in their faces.
So unless they cheat or whatever, I don't know.
The economy's on track to see a big recovery.
The market's going up very, very quickly.
I'm seeing my revenues return.
I'm happy.
I'm seeing things do well.
And I think it's going to play out well for Trump in November.
We'll see.
As for the rest of the Republicans, though, we'll also see.
I think the Democrats have lost too much goodwill.
The people are mad.
We'll see how it plays out.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
The fake news media love to slam Mike Pence and Donald Trump for not wearing masks.
They'd show us photos and say the president refuses to wear a mask at this auto plant, and Mike Pence, he was actually visiting victims and refused to wear a mask.
And now we have this story.
CNN, MSNBC staffers spotted without masks after networks preach coronavirus mask use, but it's better than that.
In the MSNBC story, I kid you not, the on-camera reporter is wearing a mask saying, look at all of these people who aren't wearing masks, what do we do?
And some dude walks up and he goes, and your cameraman?
And then the on-air reporter goes, yeah, and the cameraman.
Yeah, and the cameraman.
And then in this clip, we actually get that dude's cell phone footage showing the MSNBC crew while they were filming the segment were not wearing masks.
You love to see it, don't you?
Then we have another tweet where this, not this one, the CNN host is on camera wearing a mask.
They turn the camera off, he pulls the mask right off.
Guess what?
It's happened before.
What's this lady?
Caitlin Collins is her name.
She's in the White House press briefing room.
She's wearing a mask while she does her on-camera whatever.
And then as soon as the press briefing is over, she takes the mask off.
These people are liars and they are hypocrites.
They are manipulating you to insult the president while they do the exact same thing.
They are playing a game.
They are not reporting facts.
They are lying.
It's reality television.
And it's been for a long time.
Journalism in this country is long since dead.
And I'll tell you what.
Journalism is dead, and spinning in its grave so fast, it would be an excellent source of perpetual energy if we could hook some cables up to it.
That's how bad things have gotten.
That these people at CNN like Brian Stouter would say like, we're the real news, don't trust those other networks, and they're reporters fake wearing masks.
While they shame Donald Trump for doing the same thing.
Talk about the stupidest, most disgusting unethical behavior.
It's the stupidest because we have the internet, dude.
We can share videos.
We know that you're lying.
Think about how stupid you have to be to do an MSNBC segment where a guy is openly talking about how nobody's wearing masks and his own crew isn't wearing masks.
You'd think someone's gonna hear you and be like, what are you talking about, dude?
You're not wearing masks either.
It's all for show.
How stupid do you have to be to do an on-air beach segment with all of these people standing around you, watching you do it, and the camera goes off, you pull the mask off?
People can see, man, and they can share these things.
But I will tell you this, man.
Back in the day, They got away with it.
That's why they still do it.
They don't realize times they are a changing man.
It reminds me of Hillary Clinton's fake southern drawl.
You remember that one?
Where she was doing some campaign rally and then the videos went viral?
It's like AOC even did it.
Do you not know what the internet is?
When you do these things, we can see you doing it.
I should probably read a little bit of these stories.
Let's read a little bit because I want to show you something else.
Check out this story.
Woman browbeats reporter for wearing a mask at Ohio lockdown protest from May 1st.
This is hilarious because this video goes viral where it's a woman, but there's also other videos of a bunch of a crowd of people yelling at journalists, take the masks off.
It's a whole new context now, isn't it?
You see this and they said, you know, the woman was bullying the reporter saying, take the mask off, take the mask off.
Maybe it's because the journalists do.
Maybe that's the point.
Now, I think she was yelling at him to take the mask off because she thinks it's fake news.
That's not the issue.
The issue is the journalists agree with her.
They don't want to wear the masks.
They take them off as soon as they can.
In fact, in the MSNBC story, they weren't even wearing them.
Fox reports mainstream media hypocrisy over coronavirus pandemic era masks is becoming a trend as CNN and MSNBC both failed to practice what they preach in recent viral images.
MSNBC was lampooned on social media on Tuesday when a passerby pointed out the network's cameraman was not wearing a mask during a segment about Wisconsinites opting to not wear masks.
Correspondent Cal Perry was reporting live from a sidewalk The masks aren't designed to protect you.
Asked are the people they're just not worried about it Cal are they not worried about their personal safety
I'm gonna stop you right there lady The masks aren't designed to protect you
The masks are designed to stop you from getting other people sick with your spit you ever you may be familiar
with this They tell you to cover your face when you cough and sneeze.
That's why.
To stop the potential infection.
You don't want to get snot and stuff on other people.
The masks are so that when you're talking, the spit flies out of your mouth.
It stays within the mask region more so than if you didn't have it.
It's to protect other people and limit the spread of from what you're saying.
So no, not about protecting their personal safety.
Quote, I haven't met anybody who is, Perry said.
He then added, nobody is wearing masks.
When a man on the street chimed in, including your cameraman, half your crew is not wearing masks.
Bravo, good sir, whoever you are, mystery man who called out MSNBC while they were live.
And now we are gifted with this glorious video exposing the sheer hypocrisy of the fake news reality TV trash.
Katie Turr is one of the worst, I'll tell you what.
The video taken by the man was eventually posted to social media, clearly showing the cameraman and another member of the crew not wearing a mask.
I love it.
I love it.
Let's try and play this video and see if we can do it.
So, here's the guy.
You can see him talking.
They're all filming.
And there's the crew.
You got one guy holding the camera, not wearing a mask, and there's another dude who's, like, holding a tripod off to the side, also not wearing a mask.
These people are the worst hypocrites.
You know why?
Because they're stupid hypocrites.
Because people are standing all around them, hearing what they're saying, and anyone could have filmed them.
unidentified
Bro, if you're gonna fake the news, at least fake it right!
I'm watching these guys and be like, bro, bro, you're doing it wrong.
You're just doing it, you know.
Here's what they say.
Meanwhile, 4th Watch editor Steve Krakauer, a former CNN Digital producer, tweeted images on Tuesday of a CNN reporter who was photographed removing his mask after the camera was turned off.
And it's happened more than once!
Why?
Okay, okay, we get the context here, okay?
Let's read this old story with this new context in mind.
A woman protesting the Ohio stay-at-home order on Friday berated a local news reporter who was wearing a mask for terrifying the general public in a video shared on social media.
Adrienne Robbins, a reporter at Ohio station NBC4, was at the Ohio Statehouse on Friday during a protest of the state's lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
I asked this woman to respect my space after she was yelling and spitting in my face, Robbins tweeted.
She said I had no right to social distancing in public and continued to follow me, complaining about my mask that is meant to protect her and those around me.
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine on Thursday extended the state's stay-at-home order until May 29, although he relaxed some previous restrictions, according to NBC4.
Protesters, some of them armed, according to local reports, gathered Friday outside the statehouse to protest the extended order.
You are terrifying the general public, you realize that?
The unidentified protester says in a video taken by Laura Hancock, a reporter for Cleveland.com.
That's interesting, though.
At the time, you may have said, whoa, why is she coming after this reporter?
Now consider what these other journalists are doing when they wear the masks only on camera.
Yeah, they're scaring the general public.
Think about it.
The journalist's wearing a mask who thinks they don't need it, and then the camera turns off and they take it off.
What do you think people at home think when they see those masks?
They think, oh, this must be really bad.
These guys are wearing masks too.
They're not.
They're lying to you.
So maybe this protester was right.
Quote, you know that the company that you work for is lying to the American people and you know that what you're doing is wrong at the end of the day.
She says in the video.
That's actually really amazing this lady.
I guess she's right.
I'm not going to so so I think her argument.
The protestor, if I was going to make an assumption, is that she doesn't think coronavirus is nearly as bad as it really is.
I'm not sure what her point was, but the reality is for now, these journalists doing these videos absolutely are faking it.
They are lying.
And they are scaring the public.
It may not be for the exact same reason that these protesters think so, but they are.
The Hill has reached out to NBC4 for comment.
Hancock reported the woman was bullying Robbins.
Colleen Marshall, an anchor at NBC4, weighed in with support in another tweet.
This is not okay. One of our reporters trying to do her job and maintain social distancing
confronted by a protester at the statehouse. She tweeted praising Robins for staying calm.
Could it be that the reason this woman feels this way is because
she had seen journalists pretending to wear masks and taking them off?
Or could it be that journalism in this country died a long, long time ago?
Nobody believes them anymore.
So now people are just going to do the opposite of what the journalists say or think.
It reminds me of that Seinfeld episode, I don't know if you've ever seen it, where George Costanza is like, I'll just do everything the opposite and be successful.
Because when, so the general idea is he always does the wrong thing, so if he does the opposite, it must be the right thing, right?
And it ends up working out for him.
How do you think people feel if every day they turn on the news, and the news insults them, lies about them, and lies about their protests?
They're not gonna believe you.
They're gonna think you're lying.
And now what's funny is this lady was like calling them out for being liars, and now we have these videos popping up, they're liars!
I think it's hilarious.
I can't blame people, man.
If you go out to a protest, and the people around you are calm, compassionate, and reasonable Americans defending their constitutional rights, and then the media claims they're far-right, racist, or whatever, like Gretchen Whitmer did, why would you believe the governor?
The government?
Why would you believe any of these people in the media?
There's a video going viral right now from Fleca's Talks.
I saw a clip where he asks a doctor about hydroxychloroquine, and the doctor says that they've been prescribing this stuff for decades and it's never been an issue until Trump said it.
Then all of a sudden they're getting letters saying, don't prescribe this, the media saying it's dangerous, and the doctor was like, this is nuts!
She's like, we prescribe it all the time!
People are getting their videos banned from YouTube for talking about this stuff.
Why?
I can't tell you why, man.
But I can tell you the lies are obvious now.
And we can see it.
My respect to that man who called that MSNBC.
It was a glorious thing to see.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
The next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on this channel.
You can also check out my main channel, which is TimCast.net.
