Trump's Low Rally Turnout Is Pulling Democrats Into A TRAP, They're So Arrogant It May Be 2016 AGAIN
Trump boasted nearly one million tickets RSVP'd but only 6,200 people made it inside.While this certainly looks bad for Trump there is not much we can learn from this rally. While physical turnout was low online viewership was in the millions.From this Democrats seem to be lulling themselves into a false sense of security. Just like in 2016 Democrats are convinced they are on track to win regardless of all the data points. The Polls favor Joe Biden, Trump turnout was low!But how many people are scared of COVID?How many are scared of Antifa?How Many backed down after they declared an emergency in Tulsa?We just don't know what to expect. But Trump supporters are cautious and warning he may lose reelection. They are starting to accept they will have to fight harder than ever to win.At the same time the far left and Democrats are laughing about his failing campaign and how they will absolutely win in November.#Trump#Democrats#Republicans
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Recently, I've seen a lot of conservative personalities warning that Donald Trump may in fact lose.
I've also talked to some personalities that I know who supported Trump in 2016 saying they may not actually support him this time.
And I've been fairly bullish on a Trump landslide victory.
But you know what?
I could be completely wrong about this.
I got to admit, I just don't know what's going to happen.
Last night, Donald Trump held a rally.
They had bragged that nearly 1 million tickets had been RSVP'd, but then only 6,200 people showed up.
They had this big outdoor viewing area that had to be broken down, and now the left is mocking them.
But you know what?
Here we go again.
The left may be falling into a false sense of security.
This might be a trap.
Now, there's a lot going on.
One big story is that TikTok teens scammed the Donald Trump campaign.
They pranked him by signing up for tickets they never wanted to use, thus causing Trump to expect a massive turnout and no one really wanted to be there.
This story seemingly makes very little sense.
Tickets are RSVPs.
I mean, there's infinite tickets.
Anybody can show up if they want to.
The reality is people just didn't want to show up.
So all you really get in the end is the Trump campaign disputing the TikTok story, resting on a press release of a million RSVPs, and then just creating an excuse as to why people didn't show up.
Now, we don't know why people didn't show up.
But online, the numbers were absolutely massive.
They're now reporting, I believe, 5.3, maybe even 8 million online viewers.
Never mind that, there were also television viewers, so it could have been way, way more.
Perhaps the campaign is correct.
People were scared of the coronavirus, and they were scared of a potential for violence.
The Trump campaign said that some of the protesters blocked one of the entrances, and people couldn't get in.
That's partially true, but they did also open it up shortly after, according to a journalist who was on the ground.
So who knows for sure?
What I can say is that right now, Trump supporters are concerned they could lose.
And they are warning all of the Trump supporters, you better be prepared to fight for this, because they're going to use every dirty trick.
At the same time, what am I seeing from the left?
Mockery.
Hubris.
They're convinced they're gonna win.
In fact, I tried responding to Kyle Kalinske, a progressive personality, and I just got smacked down by all of these progressives so sure of themselves that Biden absolutely could not lose.
And think about that attitude, and think about where we were in 2016.
I've said it over and over again, hubris will be your downfall.
Now, I've been bullish on Trump landsliding, of just him sweeping through.
But with this low turnout, I just don't know anymore.
And I think it would be stupid to make a prediction, especially when I was wrong about 2016 and I was wrong about 2018.
So whatever it is, you know what?
I just don't know.
I'm gonna back out of making the prediction game here and just say, Trump supporters are trying to ensure people show up.
They didn't show up for this rally.
Now they're getting more fired up and worried they could actually lose this.
At the same time, we are seeing the same mistakes of 2016 from the Democrats just laughing all the way to the bank.
Joe Biden's lead is too big!
It's too big!
It's so much bigger than Hillary Clinton's!
And maybe that's true, but you should absolutely not be telling everyone you got it in the bag.
Michael Moore right now is warning them, saying, no, The enthusiasm gap is huge.
Stop mocking this rally because these people live for Trump.
And how many people are scared to show up because of cancel culture?
There are a lot of reasons people may not have come to physically attend this rally.
One progressive made a very, very great point.
A high-profile progressive.
I'm not going to say who this is, but they said, listen, Trump was telling his supporters, signing up for this campaign was a show of support.
How many people just signed up to attend that didn't actually plan on attending the event?
They said they'd come, but they never really wanted to.
Trump just wanted that press release.
One million people.
And they got it.
And now they can blame Black Lives Matter and the far left as to why people didn't come.
They can use that to their advantage.
Let's be real.
It may just be that Trump's enthusiasm isn't there.
It's all in the polls.
It's all fake.
I gotta say, personally, I don't believe that.
Especially with all of the statues being torn down and the anecdotal evidence I've heard.
Anecdotal evidence isn't data.
But to these progressives who think they've won this, You might be in for a rude awakening if that's the attitude you maintain just like you did in 2016.
So let's get started on the story.
I want to show you a direct conversation I had with progressive Kyle Kalinske and how he responded to me.
And I think, man, these people are overconfident.
I'll tell you this.
They are laughing at me.
They are mocking me, saying, you're so dumb.
You're an embarrassment.
We're going to win.
The polls are on our side.
OK, OK.
You can have it.
I'm not going to make that prediction.
I'm just trying to tell you, those of you who are progressives, you may be falling into a trap here.
But if you do so, be it.
You get what you deserve on this one.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a, uh, there's several different ways you can give.
There's a P.O.
box, but the best thing you can do is actually share this video.
I'm competing with a bunch of mainstream media organizations and, well, they get propped up by YouTube.
Plus, they've got massive marketing budgets.
I don't have that.
I just have you guys.
But if you just want to watch, then share the video, hit the like button, uh, Then hit the subscribe button, hit the like button, the notification bell, and let's read the news.
Just very briefly, I want to show you this from CNBC.
Trump stokes culture wars, but low turnout mars Tulsa campaign rally.
President Donald Trump's first campaign rally in three months drew far fewer attendees than had been anticipated.
An embarrassing blunder for a candidate who places an unusually high value on crowd sizes.
Speaking for almost two hours, Trump fanned the flames of culture war issues currently roiling the nation, including racial justice and law enforcement.
Trump deployed several new attack lines against Joe Biden, but none of them seemed to animate his supporters like his attacks on Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
And that may be it.
Some people have brought up that Joe Biden is a dotard.
He's just a bumbling old man who can't talk straight.
He's not very threatening.
He's just sleepy creepy Joe.
Hillary Clinton was said, a lot of people mocked her specifically as a cackling fiend.
I'm not making this up or trying to directly insult either of these people.
This is how people view them.
Hillary Clinton was an evil villain and people despised her and they rose up to the challenge to defeat her.
Joe Biden, fumbling, bumbling Joe.
He is not threatening anybody and he's very, very hard to actually go after.
They're betting on this.
They're hiding Joe Biden.
But let me jump over to one of these tweets here.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in all her hubris, says, To Brad Parscale.
Now, Brad was saying that radical protesters fueled by a week of apocalyptic media coverage interfere with Trump supporters at the rally.
They even blocked access to metal detectors, preventing people from entering.
And this is what AOC had to say.
Actually, you just got rocked by teens on TikTok who flooded the Trump campaign with fake ticket reservations and tricked you into believing a million people wanted your white supremacist open mic enough to pack an arena during COVID.
Shout out to Zoomers!
Y'all make me proud.
She then said, K-pop allies, we see and appreciate your contributions in the fight for justice too.
113,000 retweets.
And here's what we see.
J. Smith Cameron tweets, I don't know this person, is a HBO writer or something.
Okay, you beautiful TikTok teens, see you in November.
Really?
Is that what you think is gonna happen?
That a lot of these kids who aren't even old enough to vote, who engaged in an online meme prank, You think they're actually going to turn out to vote?
Even the ones who are older 18?
And most of them aren't.
We're talking about Zoomers, right?
So most of them maybe are probably under 18.
A large portion maybe under 24.
How many of these people are actually going to vote?
They never do.
But maybe, maybe.
Look, I'm going to get out of the prediction game.
I'll tell you this.
Maybe this is the one.
Now if they do mail-in voting, perhaps.
Because now it's a meme, right?
They're all gonna be like, ooh, I'm gonna vote, it'll be so funny when Trump loses.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Maybe they learn how to engage in the culture wars and actually rile people up to play the game.
I'm not confident.
I'm really not.
But let's jump forward to the hubris.
Trump is pressing culture war issues.
He's talking about the protests, the riots, and things like this.
I think these matter.
Kyle Kalinske of Secular Talk, I believe his show is, tweeted, Trump's rally made clear that his strategy now for 2020 is lean into culture war and try to tie Joe Biden to the far left.
This is the worst strategy possible for him.
It won't work.
I humbly disagreed.
But let's read a little bit more of what he says.
When you still have a pandemic, 20% real unemployment, and tumultuous uprisings, you're complaining about statues, and the fake news media being mean to you rings hollow.
It's also obviously untrue that Biden is like pro-Antifa or some S. Embarrassing strategy.
Trump hammered Hillary on corruption, NAFTA, the Iraq war, and he postured as being anti-establishment.
That was so much more potent than leaning into culture war symbolism and pretending Biden is Antifa.
The right-wing bubble has dulled his instincts.
These are good points.
These are very, very good points.
I humbly disagree.
It may be true, and my disagreement is only slightly, you know, I only slightly disagree.
The reason is, the culture war issues have to do with our founding fathers being torn down and the real fear people start to feel when they see Thomas Jefferson ripped from a statue base.
Or the fear they feel when their buildings are being lit up and destroyed.
Scientific analysis shows us When riots happen, and it's in the news, people vote law and order.
Even with unemployment, even with COVID, people want law and order.
So yes, they may not have shown up to Trump's rally because they're scared of the mass riots.
Not only that, everyone is getting cancelled.
Movies are being banned, books are being banned, art is being banned.
And how many of these people are scared that if they show up to this rally, someone will see their face and they will get fired?
It was recently announced that an artist for the card game, a fantasy card game called Magic the Gathering, would no longer produce art because she simply followed some of these people on social media.
If you are not paying attention to how this impacts people, then hubris will get the best of you.
I absolutely recognize Trump on NAFTA and the Iraq War and all of these issues.
And maybe Trump isn't focused enough on them.
That's that's absolutely fair.
And guess what?
I see Trump supporters warning about this.
But what do you think happened when I brought up the riots and a personal anecdote?
Did they respond to me?
That's a good point.
We'll consider it.
But here's why we think Trump will lose.
No.
They moved the goalposts because they are adamant they will win by any means.
Trump is always doing the worst things.
No matter what.
No matter what.
Trump is always wrong.
Trump is always wrong.
Here's the response I got.
In a tweet, I said, responding to that other tweet, based on the riots and some anecdotal encounters with friends from Chicago, I disagree.
Four months ago, a friend of mine was diehard anti-Trump.
Then the Black Lives Matter protests happened, and Dems supported it while demanding lockdowns.
The same person now says Trump and Republicans must win.
This is a true story.
I have more than one friend who said, what is even going on anymore?
I had conversations four months ago where I had friends from Chicago arguing with me that I was too biased, that I was constantly coming down on Democrats and I needed to start coming down on Republicans.
And I explained, Republicans don't do anything.
They really don't!
Obstruct, I guess.
And the Democrats are obsessed with Trump.
Now where are we?
Riots swept the country.
And now what am I hearing?
The same person saying, like, this is insane.
What's happening?
People are buying guns like crazy, dude.
Kyle, listen to me.
I know you may be right.
I'm just saying I disagree.
I'm not saying Trump is going to win.
In fact, I'm not sure.
The response I got Was staggering, to say the least.
The hubris from the progressive left and from the Democrats is shocking.
I gotta say it is.
After everything that's happened in this country, with all the polls being wrong, you are still convinced that when the polls come out, you're guaranteed to win?
I turn to these Trump supporters who are saying he might not, and I'm like, there we go again.
The fear from the Trump supporters who feel that this is the death of democracy.
Were you watching the comments on his livestream?
How many millions of viewers did they get?
I saw at least a million live concurrent viewers, or around that number, maybe just shy of, saying this is the fight for democracy and the fight for freedom.
They're taking this very seriously and they're scared they're going to lose.
They are going to come out in massive numbers.
Maybe they don't.
They didn't show up to your rally.
Maybe they don't show up to polling places because they're scared.
Now take into consideration mail-in voting.
How many young people who were willing to engage in this manipulation?
We'll actually mail their vote in.
I don't believe they will.
We saw it in CA25.
In California, their special election, the young people did not vote in larger numbers than the older generation, even though there's more young people.
The hard number was down and the percentage was down.
Young people don't vote.
Maybe it will change this time, okay?
But looking at past data, I don't know.
Now think about all of the people who watched online, but did not attend.
The millions.
And extrapolate that, make some assumptions that could be wrong.
But when it comes to mail-in voting, I'd be willing to bet people will be scared to show up in person.
And mail-in voting may greatly benefit Donald Trump.
Because now older people who are scared of COVID can vote.
When I pointed out the culture war may be a good strategy for Trump, I disagreed.
I didn't say it was the best strategy.
I simply said I disagree that it was the worst strategy.
Here's what Kyle said to me.
With all due respect, your anecdote means dick.
The polls are stunningly pro-Biden, way more than they were pro-Hillary.
It can change, but as of right now, Biden's giant lead is undeniable.
We can objectively analyze why that is, or pretend it's fake news, the latter is embarrassing.
Now, I'm shocked at the hostility from Kyle on this one, but I didn't say anything about polls or Trump winning, simply that Trump has embraced the culture war for a reason.
In case you haven't been paying attention, in the month of May, a record number of guns were sold.
For those of you that follow my content, you will know that I recently just said straight up, I'm going 2A, baby.
I'm going to get some guns.
And guess what?
I did.
I went and got my fingerprints done, I got my ID, and that's something I never thought I would do.
It was only four months ago.
I kid you not, I was adamantly saying there will not be a gun in my home.
I am not kidding, I am serious about that.
And then things changed.
The coronavirus happened, food was being pulled off the shelves, and then we saw nationwide riots.
And I said, okay.
It's better.
You have to do something.
You have to do something.
And I said, I gotta go out and I gotta take care of this.
And you know what?
I did.
I absolutely did and my story is true.
Friends of mine are freaking out and they're buying weapons in massive numbers.
I am not saying Trump will win because of this.
I am saying something is happening.
It's freaking people out and Trump at this is not the worst strategy to highlight the chaos and the statues being torn down.
This is what I said in a previous video that there are people in this country who remember waking up in the suburbs.
To a nice bowl of cereal, some hot pancakes.
Mom was putting butter on those on that French toast or whatever.
Dad was sipping his coffee and reading the paper.
That was them growing up.
And what do they see today?
Everything is different.
So Trump comes out and says, make America great again.
And yeah, maybe he's pandering to an overwhelmingly white majority because the country is.
Criticize it all you want.
But these people now miss the days of warm apple pie and a scoop of ice cream.
That's what they remember.
They remember waking up on Christmas morning.
Now everything's changing, words are changing, meaning is changing.
And then they see massive protests go out, destroying everything.
And these people get scared.
You have to recognize, there are hard bases in this country of Democrats and Republicans.
Depending on which data you use, they could be fairly even.
the people in the middle you're trying to convince.
Progressives. Responding to me, when I talk about the riots and the culture war with poll
numbers, amazing. Have the poll numbers started to take into consideration the violence sweeping
this nation? Not necessarily. Many of them have. I agree.
It's a really good point.
Trump's turnout was very, very low.
It's bad news for him.
I agree.
The polls are very much so favoring Joe Biden, but that doesn't mean Trump's strategy is off.
It doesn't mean he's going to win.
Here was my response.
Polls have nothing to do with whether culture war is a good strategy.
You misunderstand my point.
Trump may still lose, but this may be his only conceivable strategy.
You said it was the worst.
It may in fact be the best, and he still may in fact lose.
The main reason I'm showing you this with Kyle is to bring up the hubris, the assuredness, the we know.
I bring you now to the story of TikTok, like AOC mentioned.
Here's the story from the New York Times.
They just know everything, don't they?
TikTok teens in K-pop stance say they sank Trump's rally.
Did a successful prank inflate attendance expectations for President Trump's rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, question mark?
This is called Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
They say, Betteridge's Law of Headlines is an adage that states, any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word, no.
Did they sink Trump's rally?
No.
We don't know why.
But it may be that you are so insanely wrong about what's going on.
I go back to that anecdote, the story about my buying of guns.
I want to stress this point to all of you.
Two years ago, look at my TimCast news channel.
I argued in favor of reasonable gun controls.
I supported Andrew Yang in these past few years because he was moderate on gun control.
And I'm off that train now.
I went to the gun store and I bought what I could buy.
That was a dramatic change for me very, very quickly.
These riots mean something.
They showed up to a conservative journalist's house with guns and fireworks, firing at her house, screaming and banging on her windows.
Did you hear about that one?
These things matter to people.
This is the culture war.
Now here's where your hubris may be getting the best of you.
Trump's campaign rally sabotaged by TikTok.
Could it be that the fears Of the racial violence and the protesters who are showing up, and they were warned by the Tulsa mayor a civil emergency was declared over a fear of violence.
And now you have all these people who RSVP'd sitting there watching cities get ransacked.
They turn on Fox News every night.
What do they see?
Burning buildings, men with guns, CHAZ.
A shooting just happened in CHAZ.
A shooting happened in Atlanta.
You think these people are going to be like, everything's great, while they go out and buy more guns than they've ever bought?
This could be my confirmation bias, and I will recognize that 100%.
I don't know what will happen.
But you sit back laughing about Donald Trump's attendance.
You sit back laughing about Joe Biden's polling numbers, and there are explanations for these.
You don't know.
You know what?
You'll reap what you have sown.
When you sit there all day laughing about how you won, about how you got owned by the TikTok teens, haha Donald Trump!
About how Trump got owned.
And the reality is, maybe a million people did want to show up to Trump's rally.
And maybe many of them, being older voters, were scared.
Because you know there's videos from 2015 of elderly people being knocked to the ground and their hats are set on fire?
I witnessed this personally.
So here's what I see.
I see in 2016 the polls were wrong.
I see now Trump signs, or I'm told by my friends in my neighborhood, which is overwhelmingly blue in the Philadelphia area, Trump signs in people's lawns.
I went to get my ID for gun purchasing, and I went to a gun store, and you know what they told me?
We've been swamped.
I am in a very, very heavy blue area.
You can't ignore the signs around you.
Now, I understand the anecdotes I have.
Feel free to dismiss them, Kyle, or anybody else.
But I'm telling you what I'm seeing, and it doesn't mesh with what we're seeing in the news.
Michael Moore is warning you.
Biden does not have this enthusiasm.
But fear drives voters, too.
There's some very important and powerful points made by conservatives warning that Trump will lose.
And I factor these things in, and I wonder if the left is just so obsessed with themselves and thinking how great they are.
If they're so obsessed with the Orange Man bad narrative, they don't try to actually assess what's happening.
Let's break it down.
Is Donald Trump's support down?
Yes.
Is it worse than it's ever been?
No.
In the aggregate, Donald Trump is actually not doing that bad relative to the rest of his presidency.
He's slightly down from where he was when he first got elected.
Now, COVID may have played a role in this.
It absolutely may have.
Will people blame Trump for the fact that Democratic governors shut down their businesses?
Maybe.
One of the better points I've heard from some conservatives is that people vote for change.
That's it.
If things are really bad around election time, they'll just say, let's try something else.
That's it.
They'll forget the three years of prosperity Trump brought them.
And that's a fair point.
It could be that people didn't show up to Trump's rally because they don't want to.
But what the Trump campaign responded with, they responded with, we know what fake signups look like.
So I give you this, the statement from the Trump rally on the TikTok things.
They say leftists and online trolls are doing a victory lap, thinking they somehow impacted rally attendance, don't know what they're talking about, or how our rallies work.
Reporters who wrote gleefully about TikTok and K-pop fans, without contacting the campaign for comment, behaved unprofessionally, and were willing dupes to the charade.
Registering for a rally means you've RSVP'd with a cell phone number, and we constantly weed out bogus numbers, as we did with tens of thousands at the Tulsa Rally, in calculating our possible attendee pool.
These phony ticket requests never factor into our thinking.
What makes this lame attempt at hacking our events even more foolish is the fact that every rally is general admission.
Entry is on a first-come, first-served basis, and prior registration is not required.
The fact is that a week's worth of the fake news media warning people away from the rally because of COVID and protesters, coupled with recent images of American cities on fire, had a real impact on people bringing their families and children to the rally.
MSNBC was among the outlets reporting that protesters even blocked entrances to the rally at times.
For the media to now celebrate the fear that they helped create is disgusting, but typical.
And it makes us wonder why we bother credentialing media for events when they don't do their full jobs as professionals.
Brad Parscale.
There's a really good point here, and I'm sorry, man.
I'll tell you my personal opinion and my bias.
I think they are correct, for the most part.
For the most part.
TikTok would have no impact.
How many of these people really engaged in this, and did it matter?
I don't think so.
Trump supporters RSVP'd, and this is, again, according to our progressive pundit.
They were told that signing up for this event was a sign of your support, and then they got to announce 1 million people RSVP'd.
Now they get to announce that people are really scared and don't want to show up.
I think the data point that Kyle and others are ignoring is 100% gun sales.
Forty percent, according to the Washington Free Beacon, I believe it was the Free Beacon, are first-time buyers.
I'm one of them.
I supported Andrew Yang.
I was very, very, like, I'm like, Yang's the guy, man.
He's the moderate guy.
He's charismatic.
He's not too far left on a lot of issues.
I'm pretty much off the Yang gang train, mostly because he's out, and he's done some things I'm not super happy with, but I'm nowhere near that position anymore about reasonable gun controls.
Just absolutely not.
I went through the process of trying to buy weapons, and it changed my view.
How many of these people, who normally didn't think they needed a gun, and went out and bought them, are now not going to vote for gun control?
Do you think they're going to vote for gun control?
With Beto O'Rourke saying, yes, we're coming for your guns, working with Biden?
I don't know, man.
But that's at least what I see.
Now, I understand Kyle Kulinski sees something different, and maybe he's right.
That's the big difference between the two of us.
I don't know if I'm right or wrong.
I simply offer you a counterpoint.
I think it may work well.
This may be going in Trump's direction.
I think low turnout may absolutely have been caused by the massive violence and COVID.
How many of these people went and bought guns?
You think the people who are scared of the rioters are gonna go enter the fray where they're told a civil emergency has been declared because of the violence?
They're gonna be like, no dice.
I'm not doing it.
These are not young, aggressive far leftists.
These are middle-aged and older folks who want to go and wave their little American flags.
Now they'll buy weapons for protection, but how many of them are gonna show up to confront the far left?
So bring on the mail-in voting, man.
I think it's going to help out a lot of these older people.
And let me tell you something.
In the face of massive rioting throughout the country, our statues being torn down, Ulysses S. Grant, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, my friends are telling me stories about their liberal buddies going out and buying guns, freaked out once they see the riots.
In the face of all of this, Trump was still able to get 6,200 people inside that building.
Joe Biden can't get in the dozens.
Now here's their bet.
Hide Joe Biden.
A neutral candidate who is dopey and non-threatening.
It sounds like it might work.
Trump can't really go after him the same way.
Now he can go after the corruption, he can.
And maybe Trump leaning into culture war issues is a bad idea simply because corruption is what worked last time.
But as we've seen from the data, okay?
This is after MLK's assassination.
There were riots.
And there was a researcher, actually got fired, supposedly for showing off the data from the scientists who made it.
A scientist got fired, apparently, for tweeting this out, saying, Peaceful protests generate positive coverage.
Violent riots generate negative coverage.
Violent riots result in a two-point swing for Republicans.
Peaceful protests, a two-point swing for Democrats.
Based on that, and based on the polls being wrong, I think the Democrats are insane to have this much hubris.
And I know Kyle's not really a Democrat, he's a progressive, but man, the message you should be putting out right now is we don't know.
This could be bad news for Biden, it could be bad news for Trump, we just don't know.
I'll wrap it up with this.
Low turnout is meaningless.
100% meaningless.
The left is dancing around laughing about TikTok and about how nobody wants to come see Trump, and they have no idea why this is happening.
They really don't.
I can point to the millions of people who watched online and say they don't want to come outside, but I really just don't know.
Maybe people don't like Trump anymore.
His approval rating's gone down, his support's supposedly down.
Maybe those polls are wrong.
With so many people losing their jobs simply for following other people, and it's happened for years, I have to imagine a lot of people refuse, refuse to say they would vote for Trump.
100%.
But the gun sales don't lie.
The sentiment of the average person right now is on full display.
Fear and panic in the air.
So we will see.
And you know what, man?
To all of those who think Trump's gonna win, and they know it, I will laugh when he loses.
And to all of those who would mock me simply because I said pay attention to the riots, I will laugh extra hard when Biden loses.
But I just don't know.
And neither do you.
So I'll say it one more time for those in the back.
Hubris will guarantee your defeat.
What else can I say?
We're gonna be tracking this.
We're less than five- we're- yeah, less than five months out now.
I think people will be surprised either way.
Some people will claim they weren't surprised, but I'll tell you what.
I'll be surprised by either side winning at this point.
And the best thing you can do is cautious optimism for whether your side is going to win.
But the only person I've seen on the left issue this warning is Michael Moore.
How absolutely insane.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews and I will see you then.
Last night, Donald Trump returned to the campaign trail With a massive rally.
Now, if you were to look to the mainstream media, they will tell you that Trump's rally fizzled.
They say it was awful, he made racist jokes, and he encouraged violence, and nobody even showed up.
I love that they're sending out these photos and videos showing this outdoor area being taken down.
Now, why could this- what happened yesterday?
If you're not familiar, Trump said- the campaign said they sold nearly- or they signed up nearly 1 million tickets.
But at the event, they only had around 6,000 to 7,000 people inside the actual arena and had to take down their outdoor overflow area.
This is considered a major victory for the Democrats.
They're cheering.
They're also reporting now that Joe Biden has outraised Donald Trump for the first time.
Dare I say, things are looking very, very bad for Donald Trump.
But over on the Trump side, they're pointing to massive live stream numbers.
And this is real.
When I was watching a stream last night, I believe Fox News had like 230,000 live viewers, and that was just Fox News, and that was not including their actual television broadcast.
When I looked at all the live streams, I counted easily over a million live viewers.
I believe.
So I went on YouTube, searched for Trump, searched for Rally, saw all these different streams.
I think Fox was the biggest I saw with 240.
Then I saw a bunch of like 100, 150, some with a little bit more.
Then I saw a bunch that were 50 to 80.
And it looked like it was easily over a million.
Some Trump supporters have said it was easily 2 to 4 million, not even including television broadcasts.
And now we're getting the clash of narratives.
What really happened?
Well, I believe the Democrats may be making a very serious mistake here.
Not because I think Trump won or that Trump is secretly playing 4D chess.
But the narrative I'm hearing from conservatives and modern personalities is kind of tempered.
They're not screaming and cheering, haha Trump did it.
They're saying, well, you know, it is kind of bad that Trump didn't have that many people, but we're cautiously optimistic.
The Democrats are cheering they've defeated Trump.
This is it.
And I wonder if they're lulling themselves into a false sense of security.
Take a look at these two stories.
From the Washington Post, Trump rallies in red state America and faces a sea of empty blue seats.
How many times have I said hubris will be your downfall?
I've said it over and over again.
Trump supporters, if you think you've won, especially after seeing this, you're gonna lose.
Hands down, you will lose.
But Trump supporters aren't saying this.
I mean, some of them are, for sure.
They're like, well, you know, Antifa was blocking the gate to get in, and then, you know, people were scared of COVID and all these other things.
Those are actually reasonable points.
So just make sure you don't let your hubris get away, you know.
Don't get carried away.
You'll have to go out and make sure you actually stand up for what you believe in.
The problem here the Democrats are facing is that with Joe Biden now raising more money than Trump, and with these articles all popping up claiming that Trump was soundly defeated by K-pop stans and TikTok teens, they are creating a false sense of security.
And that's the big risk.
And to be fair, yes, there are Trump supporters who are arguing Oh no, you know, we've got two million plus live viewers.
It's going to be great.
The Democrats are insane.
Let's be real here.
Trump did not have the turnout he expected.
It was very low.
There's probably reasons for this.
I was listening to Sticks, Hex, and Hammer's commentary on it.
He said that it's, you know, probably COVID probably played a role in this.
You've got a lot of older people who don't want to show up, but you also did have, you know, the threats of racial tensions and violence.
So let me throw it to Reuters, who I think actually gave us the nice little blurb.
Reuters reported President Donald Trump addressed a smaller-than-expected rally in Tulsa amid a still-strong coronavirus pandemic and racial unrest.
Well, they just gave us some proper context, right?
And I think Reuters is doing the best job, to be fair.
My personal opinion, before I show you what the media is saying, and then we get into the conspiracy theory about TikTok, and this is hilarious and stupid at the same time.
My opinion is that I definitely think Trump and his campaign expected a massive, massive rally, and they may have been taken for a ride.
It is true, MSNBC reported this, that there were three entrances, and because of some protests, they shut one of the entrances down.
But I do not believe that could have made up for the empty space.
So Trump may have well been played by TikTok teens.
Many of the people who signed up for the rally very well may have been just dumb kids on this Chinese app.
Haha, I added that one on.
Trying to make it seem like there were more people than there really were, but all of this can be perceived as net benefits for Trump.
Notably, that the live viewership was massive.
Now, some people have brought up some interesting points.
Think about this in the context of mail-in voting.
And they say, consider this two ways.
If TikTok teens and K-pop stans can easily fluff up the numbers and create a false perception, what would happen if you do mail-in voting?
No people coming in and physically representing this idea and voting.
It can easily be manipulated.
I look at it another way.
Think about this in terms of mail-in voting and how that actually might benefit Trump.
If it's true the reason people didn't show up and they watched online is because of fears of violence and the coronavirus, then Trump supporters are going to vote by mail and they're going to vote in huge numbers.
In California's 25th district they had a special election and it was mostly by mail-in vote.
A lot of Democrats thought they were going to win easily because it was held by a Democrat previously.
Even with mail-in voting, the Republicans still dominated, and it was a 21-point swing.
Here's my assessment, then.
A lot of the live viewership can be chalked up to hate viewers.
Not everyone who watched is gonna support Trump.
But I gotta be honest, man, even I wasn't initially watching until I got word that it was huge.
And so, if someone like me, who actually, you know, usually does listen to see what Trump has to say, I gotta be honest, I was watching reruns of, you know, I was watching old, not reruns, I was watching old movies.
And then someone was like, whoa, you gotta see this, these numbers are huge, and I pulled it up right away.
I wonder how many other people Who aren't super political did not watch that either.
The online numbers show the support around the country and those numbers were massive.
I don't necessarily know what that means, but I do think there is a net positive in all of this.
It is fair to point out, however, if the argument from conservatives and Trump supporters is that COVID and Antifa stopped people from attending this rally they normally would have, that's not a good sign.
Not at all.
I saw people in, I think I was watching the Fox News chat, I saw a couple comments, and look, this is out of hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million people, but someone said something like, this is the last hope of democracy.
Where is everybody?
Someone else said, whoa, this looks really bad.
The seats are empty.
Certainly, that could have a demoralizing effect on a lot of people.
And one of the goals of the left, and the reason I think that they're saying, haha, Trump's failing, is because it's true.
There's a lot of people who will simply vote for whoever they think is going to win.
And there are a lot of people who will get scared because we're in a culture war.
And maybe jump ship, or maybe choose the other side if they think they're gonna lose.
But I think Trump fans are rather zealous.
I believe a lot of these people are older, will probably show up to vote, but won't show up to rally.
And you gotta understand that we had 65 million votes for Hillary, 63 for Trump.
Most of these people are apolitical.
100% apolitical.
A lot of these people probably aren't paying attention to anything at all right now.
I'll tell you what they'll pay attention to though.
Rioting.
That's the important factor in all of this.
Someone might not care whether or not Trump has a rally.
They do care if someone shows up and burns down the store next, you know, where they go to get their groceries.
They'll care if a brick is thrown through the window of their local bank.
These aren't political issues.
This is what is happening to my town.
In South Philly, a bunch of people showed up to defend a Christopher Columbus statue.
I doubt these guys were overtly political.
In fact, Philly is 82% Democrat based on 2016 results.
How many of these guys just don't really know or care and just heard a bunch of crazy lefties were showing up to destroy stuff and so they came out?
The violence over the past couple of weeks that has continued.
It's not over.
It's not stopped.
Okay?
The media isn't covering it.
It's not as bad as it was.
But in Portland, there's reports now that riot police have, every night for the past month, been clearing out protesters who are desperately trying to set up one of their own autonomous zones.
We've seen protests in many other parts of the country.
Regular people are seeing this.
They're seeing statues torn down.
This is not politics, okay?
So when they come out and try and say things like, Trump has a small crowd, it was xenophobic, and thousands of empty chairs, and he failed, and they're all laughing, and they come out with stories like this, they pranked Trump, they're just patting themselves on the back and not really paying attention to the real risks going on.
I've never been one to be a hardcore Trump 4D chess person.
A lot of people like to say, you know, oh, Trump's always got an ace up his sleeve.
It's always 4D chess.
Nah, look, maybe Trump is playing chess and they're playing checkers.
The 4D chess goes a little bit far for my tastes.
All that really means is that Trump has multiple pieces on the board that do different things and he's considering what they do.
Trump and his campaign.
And the other side is just orange man bad or not.
So when they see this rally gets really low numbers and they see this story about TikTok teens, they all start laughing and hooting, thinking that no one supports Trump.
In fact, Ocasio-Cortez, I don't know if they have the tweet from her in here, But she actually tweeted out that, in response, I think, to Brad Parscale, who said... I don't know if they have the tweet from AOC in here.
Brad Parscale said something like, Antifa blocked the entrance.
She said, no, you just overestimated how many people wanted to hear, you know, a white supremacist rally or something like that.
Apparently AOC isn't familiar with live streams.
Because apparently millions, over a million at least, plus TV, it's in the millions for sure.
Millions of people wanted to see this.
Other people, lefty journalists I saw said, hey man, calm down.
You got to be fair.
We've seen large political rallies and RNC and DNC with similar numbers to what Trump pulled in.
So this is huge considering there's a pandemic going on.
But I think when they've convinced themselves that Trump has no support, it's the same thing that happened in 2016.
Nobody thought he would win.
How many people didn't show up because of it?
Now the report is that I think Joe Biden raised a few million dollars more than Trump in the month of May, and they're all hooting and cheering and laughing.
They're saying Trump's campaign is collapsing.
They're saying his support is dwindling.
He's being abandoned by his base.
And I got to admit, you know, look, if you take that stuff at face value, we've got to be rational and reasonable about what this means.
Possibly true.
It's possible that Trump is losing his base.
Why, I look at people like Mike Cernovich, for instance.
Ann Coulter.
Ann's really hard on Trump.
Always is ragging on him.
And Mike Cernovich has repeatedly said that Trump is not guaranteed to win and what's he doing and things like this.
I don't want to misquote any of these people.
But I've also talked to some higher-profile Trump supporters I know who are telling me they won't support him this year.
And they're concerned, but ultimately, they're out.
They're not playing this game anymore.
So it's possible.
It really, really is.
Now, there's another possibility.
You have to take into consideration that, yes, racial tensions and violence played a huge role in this.
It's possible that the reason that Trump sold so many tickets—I say sold, but signed up—is because of a viral meme among, you know, this Chinese app, which, you know, gives Trump an excuse.
Trump can easily come out and say, you know, we had threats of Antifa, and we had the coronavirus, and then we had these people who jammed up the whole process and made it so that our supporters couldn't even get in.
And that was the Chinese app, and you give them an excuse.
But none of that matters.
None of that matters.
I hate to do this, but I have to do it.
That's why I want to mention the surface-level stuff first.
Very well, maybe Trump is losing.
Let's just be honest about this.
You can't go out there and think you're always going to win, because there were a lot of people who knew Trump was going to win in 2016.
They were confident.
They were hardcore supporters.
But come on, everybody thought he was going to lose.
If you think now that he's got this in the bag, I'm sorry, man.
Trump won a few states by only a few thousand votes.
I could be wrong about this, but I believe Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in Michigan in the primary in 2016.
Joe Biden crushed Bernie Sanders in Michigan, and the Bernie supporters were shocked.
They didn't realize that one of the reasons that Hillary Clinton lost was because of how much people hated her.
Now, Joe Biden, why did they choose him?
It could be they chose Joe Biden literally because he's nothing.
That's it.
We've talked about it.
Joe Biden's a pathetic candidate.
He's suffering from early onset dementia, whatever people say.
They say things like that, right?
He can't speak properly.
And it makes you wonder, why would they do this?
Well, there's some reasons.
One, Joe Biden is hiding in a basement.
He's not having rallies.
And maybe that's the point.
They don't want a candidate like Hillary Clinton, who is very easy to hate.
That's an important factor.
Trump is very easy to hate.
I know a lot of people like him.
I think Trump's very funny.
But you gotta understand that, you know, the other day, Trump said, what did he say?
He said something about Somalia and he denigrated the country and said, you know, Ilhan Omar, things like this.
And I was like, I tell you what, man.
People don't like that stuff.
Some people do, a lot of people don't.
Trump said a lot of things at that rally that I thought, I can't believe he would say that, when he mentioned he was purposefully slowing down coronavirus testing.
Maybe it's out of context, but I heard him say, I've seen the clip, and again, maybe it's out of context, but I'll tell you what, people might run with that, we always see them do this.
They'll take all these clips out of context, and they'll smear him.
It's entirely possible that Trump is in trouble because Joe Biden, as a neutral candidate that no one really knows and has kept hidden, won't have the hatred Hillary Clinton had.
And they're just hoping that Biden gets a few thousand more votes than Trump in some states.
But now let's be fair and throw to the other side.
I really had to do that because this next one I actually lean towards.
Somebody sent me this.
The art of war.
Sun Tzu.
How did Donald Trump win in 2016?
I don't know.
I know that he was anti-PC.
I know that he was a populist.
But everyone said he was going to lose.
They said he was incompetent.
He was a braggart.
And he had every reason to fail.
He was gaffing after gaff, and it was all a mistake.
Yet all of those mistakes got him massive press attention.
And all of those mistakes saved him billions in what a normal candidate would have spent in campaign finance.
And it brings me now to this passage someone sent to me on Twitter.
Sun Tzu's Art of War.
This person writes, I recently re-read Sun Tzu's Art of War.
Most of us don't have that much use for instructions on the five ways to attack an enemy encampment with fire,
proper placement of chariots, or the nitty-gritty of river warfare.
But the book's advice on strategy is so famous, it's become a cliche.
Here are my notes organized by what I felt to be the biggest takeaway principles, subjects, and is the first line here, which may suggest that Trump's campaign has been strategic this whole time.
Not that they're playing 40 chess, but they're at least playing chess.
Check this out.
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable.
When using our forces, we must seem inactive.
When we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away.
When far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy, feign disorder, and crush him.
Interesting.
Does Sun Tzu's strategy and ideas, does that relate to modern politicking?
I don't know.
But it's an interesting idea and I'm seeing this spread around.
Trump's, the perception of Trump's disarray is potentially an advantage.
I don't believe that Trump is actually floundering or confused or flopping around like a lunatic.
I think that there are certain things that he's failed on because he's not perfect and he's fighting a political battle.
But you look at this, and you look at the rally, and now they're all laughing.
Could you imagine what's going to happen if Trump successfully convinces them again that he's pathetic, feeble, unable to win?
Disorder, chaos.
How many times have they said in the media that Trump's administration is in chaos, his campaign is collapsing, he's freaking out.
Wouldn't that be a great way to bait the enemy to feign disorder and then crush them?
Certainly Sun Tzu says so.
Attack him where he is unprepared.
Appear where you are not expected.
Again, all about deception.
Let's read more of this.
And it is the first passage I mostly want to highlight.
It is through the dispositions of an army that its conditions may be discovered.
Conceal your dispositions and your condition will remain secret, which leads to victory.
Show your dispositions and your condition will become a patent, which leads to defeat.
So Trump supporters don't show up.
And no one knows for sure why.
You've got Trump supporters asserting their position and the left arguing it's, you know, they're winning, leaving everyone confused.
I gotta admit, I think it's silly that some people are saying Trump's secretly winning.
It's guaranteed.
And I think it's silly that people are laughing that Trump won.
We don't know.
People didn't show up for this rally.
It's easy to dismiss it and say, aha, Trump has no support anymore.
But then you got the live stream numbers.
You can't dismiss those.
Then you've got the TikTok excuse.
I honestly can't tell you, man.
I really don't.
I want to say I think Trump will win because of the riots, and I've said this over and over again, but I really just don't know.
And I think anybody who claims they do know is wrong.
Many are probably lying.
And as I mentioned, both sides, man, you will fall prey to hubris.
Put your bets down now, man.
Vegas has got the betting odds on Biden, mind you.
Trump is down again.
There's more.
The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.
This all makes sense.
The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known, for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at different points.
If our force happens to be superior to the enemy's, weakness may be simulated in order to lure him on, but if inferior, he must be led to believe that we are strong.
Think about this.
I'm not saying Sun Tzu does correlate one-to-one with how a political strategy would work, but if they really are studying, looking at the advice from the Art of War, as some people might suggest, which I think is interesting, again, I don't know if it matters politically, make them think we are weak, so that they rush in and then we win.
Could that be what Trump did?
Maybe, but the livestream numbers say otherwise.
How about just keep them confused, I guess?
Here's what they say.
In fact, all the enemy's movements should be determined by the signs that we choose to give him.
Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat.
Cheng Yu says this is done by concealing the disposition of his troops, covering up his tracks,
and taking unremitting precautions, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.
Four.
Hence the saying, one may know how to conquer without being able to do it.
Security against defeat implies defensive tactics.
Ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.
In playing chess, I've been playing chess my whole life, you want to force your opponent to make moves you've already predicted.
Because when they do, then you know how to counter them.
You're thinking ahead.
Maybe Trump is a buffoon, but he won in 2016.
Maybe it was accidental, but he had a great three, you know, three plus years of this excellent economy.
I'm not going to pretend that Trump is this mastermind 4D chess player, but I will point out he has been very strategic in many other instances.
When he calls out the squad, when he tweets ridiculous things that distract from other issues.
Most famously, Trump issued, I believe it was an executive order, a new rule from the administration about migrants coming through the southern border, and at the same time, he tweeted about the squad, and he said something about them going back to their home countries.
The news cycle was dominated by Trump's tweet, and they ignored the asylum rule change.
Journalists have been warning about this for a long time, but it seems like the partisan left falls into that trap every single time.
I think the people who are running the show on the left see what Trump does and think they can weaponize it.
Meanwhile, Trump is trying to get things done and actually implement things.
So, you know, I'll wrap it up there.
There's your battlefield assessment of what really happened with Trump having a very small turnout.
The simple solution.
The obvious, single-layer solution.
People aren't enthusiastic about Trump.
The more in-depth solution, taking into account the online numbers, a lot more people are really interested in Trump, massively, and his ratings were spectacular during the coronavirus press briefings, and perhaps people just didn't want to fly to Tulsa because of coronavirus.
You're gonna have to make your bets, because there's no real way to know.
It's all of our assumptions.
I don't know what's gonna happen come November, but I can tell you one thing.
If you don't like Trump, if you like Trump, whichever one, if you think you've won, you will lose.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m., and I'll see you all then.
The kids playing Make Believe in Seattle's Autonomous Zone just got splashed in the face with some cold water for a pretty harsh wake-up call.
The other day we heard that there were two shootings.
One person died.
I don't know what the update is on the other person, but they were reported to have life-threatening injuries and were in critical condition.
A video has now surfaced after being posted by Raz Simone.
You may know him because this is the guy they were calling the Warlord.
Now, to give him some credit, apparently he gave an interview where he actually said some non-super far-left things.
However, he tweeted this.
Medics refused to help, even after people in the chop begged.
They let our bro bleed out for 30 minutes till he died.
F politics.
F your corrupt system.
What did you think was going to happen, you idiots?
You're running around with guns?
Go watch Fight Club.
What did you think was going to happen?
You think these people are gonna come in to your autonomous zone, where there's no police, where you've taken over the department, they can't get in, you have armed ideological guards, and somebody just got shot and killed, and you say, I want you coming inside now.
They're gonna be like, no.
And guess what happens?
Your bro's gonna bleed out.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, man.
I don't like that this guy lost his life.
This is horrifying, man.
But these kids didn't realize that the stupid game they were playing was for keeps.
And it's only getting worse.
The wake-up call to a lot of these kids is starting to happen.
In Atlanta, near the Wendy's, a young woman took a shot through the leg.
Because these people don't know what they're doing.
And there's nothing that makes me angrier than people who do not respect the real danger of this world.
Perhaps it's because, as you know, I grew up on the South Side of Chicago.
But for the past decade, I have covered civil unrest, and I would consider it as, like, low-level conflict and crisis.
The reason I say low-level is I definitely don't want to make the claim that I'm a war reporter or anything like that.
You know, there are some legit journalists who have gone into some really insane areas.
Active gunfire with actual combatants.
No, I've done civil unrest, right?
I was in Egypt during the revolution.
I was in Venezuela.
So I've been in very dangerous places, but this is all...
More so the preliminary steps that lead to things that could be a civil war, but, you know, for the most part, the closest I think I've ever been was Ukraine at the start of their separatist kind of movement.
But I've been, I think, you know, for me, what helped me in that career, because for the most part, I don't do that anymore, as you know, I now just, you know, basically complain on the internet, as it were.
But I grew up in Chirac, man.
Not the worst part of Chicago, but on the south side where it was fairly dangerous.
A lot of gang activity and a lot of people died.
Drugs, guns.
I know exactly what this video is.
These kids, they don't know what they're doing, man.
They are children of privilege.
And I mean it.
I love that word, privilege, right?
I don't know a whole lot about Raz Simone, but I heard he's privileged.
I don't know, and I mean wealth, okay?
I'm not talking about race.
I don't know his history or whatever, but I gotta say, man, from where I grew up and what I see, this video, you know, There's like a twisted laugh of just like the absurdity and the ignorance and the hubris of these people.
In this video, it's just some ambulances.
They're just chilling.
They're not gonna come in.
Let me tell you, man.
I talked about this before.
I think even a couple days ago.
When you call 9-1-1, and you say, somebody got shot, the police have to secure the area.
Now I suppose the EMTs, the fire service, firefighters, because they do ambulance assist, could come out, but they won't.
I grew up in a household, my dad was a firefighter.
My general understanding is, there are a bunch of stories I heard, where they pull up, Some gangbangers shot on the ground.
And they'd say, please, save him, save him, come here, and they'd... Nope.
We're not getting out.
We will not exit the vehicle.
We don't know what you want.
We don't know if this guy's even hurt.
We can see a guy on the ground, maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
But you guys are standing around with weapons, not gonna happen.
Cops gotta come and secure the area.
One story I heard, they ended up running away, and then the EMTs came out, turns out the guy was hurt, and they saved his life.
But these kids, man, they seem to think that they can slam and smear the police because they've seen YouTube videos, because they've seen Facebook videos.
And now they think all the cops are bad, so they lock them out.
Not once did they stop to think about what these people think.
F your corrupt system.
They refuse to help.
Bro, they refuse to help because two people just got shot and you have locked down the area.
It is lawless.
There have been reports of extortion, of women being assaulted in their tents, and you think these guys are going to come out without protection?
You are insane.
They see these Facebook videos.
Mind you, there are a lot of news stories about bad cops.
I say it.
We can talk about it all the time.
Yeah, we got to deal with this, man.
But to act like the whole system is broken is insane.
These people are insane.
They're addicted to social media.
They watch insane things, believe insane things, and then guess what?
Time to grow up.
Children, because this is what really happens.
Yeah, your bro bled out for 30 minutes because you guys took guns, surrounded this area, and told the police to get out, and people don't want to be there.
You were playing a game.
You thought it was real life.
I'll tell you about real life, man.
Why don't you go spend some time in another country where the cops are all corrupt?
Where when you call for help, they say no.
Or they say, how much you gonna gimme?
Or they pull you over and lie.
Go to one of these countries where you get militarized police storming poor neighborhoods, randomly grabbing and arresting people, and they never come back.
Go to Chicago.
Man, I'll tell you what.
I've got friends that preach all this progressive stuff.
And I'll talk to them on Facebook and we'll have a discussion.
I'm not a debater.
It's not really what I do.
But we'll have a discussion.
And it always ends at one point.
When they talk about police brutality and all this stuff, I say, okay, tell you what.
How about I fly down to Chicago and you and me, we'll go take a walk down my old neighborhood.
Gone.
They just don't respond.
You know why?
Because they want a virtue signal, but they know how bad these neighborhoods can actually get, and they know what it would be like if they went to an area with high crime and no cops.
So they don't want to come down to where I grew up, see what I saw.
It's changed, to be honest.
The area I grew up in is very gentrified.
Or I shouldn't say very gentrified, but it's changed, for sure.
And it may have something to do with the city going and raising low-income housing.
It's gone.
This happened like nine years ago, I guess?
I had no idea.
I left.
I left a long time ago, man.
For obvious reasons.
It's not a pretty place.
To be.
And all these rich suburbanite kids who play these games, who go down to these protests, who talk all big and say, it's time for justice, and say, okay, I'll tell you what, let me give you a lesson in racism.
Why don't you come down with me to where I grew up and we'll talk to some people, boom, gone.
They don't want to do it.
They want to keep playing their little games.
They want to pretend like they're heroes, but they're not.
Look, man, there's real activism that needs to get done.
There's real things that need to be changed in this country.
But this video right here, I'll just say it triggered me in so many ways.
You know why?
I mentioned the conflict and crisis thing.
The reason I brought that up is that I've been in so many circumstances with active gunfire and what do you see?
People don't respect.
They don't respect the danger of this world.
They think everything is candy canes and rainbows.
It's all for fun until the bullets start flying.
And then we see that video from Atlanta.
A woman gets shot in the leg.
Guess what?
Another guy got shot just the other day.
Now we're hearing stories.
NPR.
Let's do it.
NPR.
Vehicle attacks are on the rise.
No, man.
Regular people are just not letting you play games anymore.
Look, I brought it up too many times, but I gotta do it.
The guys down in South Philly.
Far left wanted to show up and smash a Christopher Columbus statue.
Locals weren't having it.
They showed up and said no.
The reason I bring up the conflict thing I've been sent out to conflict.
Ferguson, for instance.
Civil unrest.
Active gunfire.
And a lot of it.
And I can't tell you how many times you start hearing those gunshots.
And what do I see?
These journalists standing around like morons with their thumbs up their bums.
And I'm on the ground.
And so is everyone else who lives there.
Maybe it's because of where you grow up, you learn how to act.
And I say respect, because it's not about liking, it's not about thinking it's a good thing, it's about recognizing the power you don't have.
When you go into these situations, and you say, nah, we're gonna get rid of all the cops, yeah.
Like, that was a lot of fun.
Man, I tell you what, these people, they make me... They get me really angry.
In Ferguson, I love this story.
Are those fireworks?
Do you see anybody with fireworks walking around?
No.
Do you see anybody with guns walking around?
Yeah.
Why would you assume it was fireworks?
And then what happens in the Atlanta video?
I don't know if you saw the livestream.
You got these people walking by the Wendy's.
You hear gunshots go off, and nobody does anything!
And this woman's just standing there in the middle of the street.
Now, I'll give her some respect, because she took it like a champ.
She screams, then she goes down, and then she's not freaking out or anything, so that's impressive.
It is, it is.
She got shot.
Come on, man.
But the ignorance.
Now look at this.
Vehicle attacks rise as extremists target protesters.
It's absolutely not true.
The clip you see is just protesters in the street doing their thing like you normally see.
They block the streets.
They complain.
They say, you know, you can't go.
They don't realize, man.
1993, I think it was, LA riots.
That man who got pulled out of his truck and beaten and stomped and he's lying on the ground covered in blood.
That guy was lucky to survive.
My understanding is he survived.
So what do you think happens when in New York City, one of these dumb kids chucks a Molotov at a police vehicle with people inside of it?
You think the cops are gonna sit around and wait to find out whether or not you're the same as them?
These people don't understand what's actually going on in a conflict.
When I go down and cover conflict and crisis, when I used to, you don't stand with the protesters, you don't stand with the police.
Basic training, okay, in this stuff?
You gotta find an area, I don't know, perpendicular to the firing line.
You know why?
You stand with the protesters, get shot with riot weapons.
You stand with the cops, get hit with a bottle.
Alright?
If you want to be safe, you've got to recognize and you've got to respect the danger of the situation and what that means, no matter where you are.
But these people, man, they don't get it.
They think that they can show up to these protests, block the road, and they don't realize that they become the same as the other circumstances, right?
They don't understand that when a protest is happening, and one bottle goes flying, the police aren't going to be like, I wonder who threw that bottle?
Everyone else must be okay.
No, they're going, people are throwing bottles, we don't know who it is.
Protect yourselves.
These protesters seem to think, If one person throws a rock, I'm okay.
When you enter that group of people, no matter what you are, a journalist or otherwise, you are a part of that group.
That doesn't mean you should be held criminally responsible or anything, but it means if you gather the group of people, you block the street, you take over a part of Seattle, no one's gonna think you didn't do anything.
They're gonna say, you're part of the avalanche, man.
So when the cops see a couple bottles go flying, all they know is the crowd has gone too far.
And yeah, it's unfortunate that one person can set that off, and they do.
They take advantage of this.
I've seen it.
You get these Antifa types, wearing all black, they'll go into the middle of a peaceful protest, they'll crouch down, they'll throw a rock.
The cops, what are they supposed to do?
Well, this crowd just threw a rock, but I'm sure most of the people here are not the ones who want to hurt us.
Take a look at what's going on with these vehicles now.
These kids are getting a cold, cold wake-up call.
Somebody's in their car.
You surround their car, banging on it, yelling.
We've seen the videos, man.
They start punching people, they flip the vehicle, they torch it.
It doesn't matter if you think you're right or not.
It matters if the person is scared and they're driving a car and they will hit you.
So then what does the media do?
No, they love it.
The media loves doing this.
Extremists target protesters.
Shut up, man.
This is insane.
The media is... You know what?
I think the meme is fair.
They say, ban the media and watch all these problems just go away.
And they're right.
The Democrats wouldn't need to grandstand so often because they would just maintain their power.
The crazy people, the media wouldn't be, you know, well the media does this to get clicks so they'd be gone.
And the activists wouldn't see the rapid radicalization through the media and they'd probably just chill out.
Things are moving at such a rapid speed because of the rate at which we absorb information and the incentives of the entire internet communications ecosystem.
It encourages people to be the most extreme possible.
And when these media companies are going to ban conservatives, you end up with only a few moderate conservatives, but when they don't ban the left, you get all the leftist extremists.
So now NPR can write extremist content.
Let's be real.
Vehicle tax rises, extremists target protesters.
This is going to shock the left, convince them they're at war, and that the right, the counter protesters, are all evil, and it's just not true.
The reality is, vehicle attacks are not on the rise, man.
I mean, maybe, maybe.
But what I mean to say is, a lot of these things they're showing are just regular people trying to mind their own business.
These aren't political people.
There was one video from Portland.
Check this out.
Portland downtown protests end with officers firing munitions.
Apparent foam-tipped projectiles shot to the back of a person's head.
Not, not, not, not nice.
A few days ago there was a video from Portland.
And there was a bunch of protesters in the street.
And a car drove, drove past them.
And, like, pushed them out of the way.
And everyone's screaming.
And they're like, ahh!
And they're freaking out, acting like it's, you know, like it's an actual attack against them, when really it's just some random dude trying to drive.
The dude pulls over, gets out of his car, and yells something.
Man, this guy clearly isn't politically active.
It's just a regular guy in a car.
He's probably trying to go to the club and get a drink with some girls or something.
But these people, they believe.
They see everything through the lens of the culture war.
They don't realize they're regular people.
Now, it's fair if you want to criticize me for something similar.
Somebody recently posted that I have a confirmation bias.
I talk about civil war, and because I believe it's going to happen, everything I see plays into that.
I don't think that's... I don't agree.
I don't think it's fair.
The reason for it is that...
I didn't make it up.
And I've said this before, but bear with me.
I didn't one day say, there will be a civil war.
No, I saw an article from a major mainstream publication, I think it was New York Mag, saying we're dangerously close to civil war.
I said, wow, that's crazy.
Check this out.
They're saying civil war.
I then see, you know, Bill Maher, Dave Chappelle, and many other high-profile personalities say the same thing.
It's not me coming out and saying it's gonna happen.
It's a cultural issue from high-profile individuals.
Now, of course, I contribute to it when I bring it up and talk about my opinions.
That's fair.
Criticize me 100%.
But I think it's, I think, you know, we're on the precipice, man.
Bill Barr just fired the Southern District of New York U.S.
Attorney.
They're accusing him of trying to, you know, there's another investigation being launched from the highest levels that's happening.
I'm not here to talk about all that stuff, though.
I'm here to talk about the protesters and the hard lessons they're learning.
And what I'm trying to get at Is that these people, everything they see contributes to their view that they are under attack.
And NPR writes it up.
The police are not hunting you down.
The police are coming out because protesters just ransacked a bunch of buildings over the past few weeks and the protests haven't stopped.
They say they're targeting us!
They don't know.
They're suppressing our speech.
They don't like us.
They're racist.
No, they're just cops following protocol.
You can criticize that.
I think that's fair.
When you talk about reform, that's fair too.
But then you look at the car thing, and that's the perfect storm.
Some regular people are driving home from work.
They get stopped by a bunch of protesters, they honk, they have no idea what it is, and so they idle.
They just, you know, creep at like a mile an hour and slowly move for the crowd.
The crowd starts banging on the doors, shattering glass and, you know, the windows.
So what do the people in the car do?
They freak out and they hit the gas and boom!
People go flying.
What is the media right?
Right-wing extremists plows through crowds.
Because everything they see is from that perspective.
Not realizing most people just don't know.
Don't know or don't care.
There's the cold wake-up call for these people, man.
So I grew up in a household with... My dad was a firefighter.
And I want you to think about something for a second, Raz.
And the people at the Chaz.
When you're mad that these people won't come into your occupation.
Whatever you want to call it.
You know these guys probably got kids.
There's probably people who depend on them more than you do.
So these guys are sitting in their truck and they make a choice.
I wanna save lives.
That's why I do this job, right?
That's what they're thinking.
But guess what?
First of all, these people aren't going to take unnecessary risks.
If they can't get in safely to help, why would they bother?
When the cops showed up, protesters blocked them.
And then people started yelling, they're gone, they're gone, the guys are gone already.
Alright.
Well, if you're not gonna let the cops in, these guys were right.
More importantly, I'll tell you what.
You place an injured man lying on that ground, and then you place this guy, this EMT, you place his son, 20 feet in the other direction, in a chaotic situation.
I can guarantee you which way that man's gonna run.
To the dying man?
You'd be insane.
They're gonna run to their kid.
Obviously.
I mean, you gotta protect- you gotta put your own face mask on before you put the mask on of somebody else.
And that's predictable.
So I'll tell you what you can see here.
First of all, these guys don't want to get hurt.
They don't know what you're doing, why you're doing it.
All they know is the cops were kicked out, and you got guys walking around with guns, and two people just got shot.
What sane person would walk into that?
But they also know there's a danger.
Even if they think they can get in there safely and help this guy, they're thinking about, what if I do get hurt?
Will I be able to go home to my kids and make sure they have someone to take care of them?
No?
Well, then they're not going to come out and help you.
I'm sorry, man.
It's just the way it is.
Maybe this should be some... You know, I like to imagine things like this will be a smack in the face of these people, figuratively, to realize the importance of police.
Police are accountable.
Period.
Do bad cops get away with things?
Yes.
Are there a lot of bad cops?
There's a lot of bad cops.
Are most of them bad?
No, obviously not.
Many of them just go by the book.
Do we have problems with police training and procedure?
I definitely think so.
But I don't think all cops are bad.
I think some are bad.
I think some don't care about the rules, and it's particularly in big cities.
But I also think that if a cop does something wrong, guess what?
They get arrested.
Look at the guy in Minneapolis.
That guy's arrested.
Look at the guy in Atlanta.
That guy didn't even do anything wrong.
And he's potentially facing death row.
These people don't get it.
There are a lot of circumstances where cops aren't held accountable.
I would agree with that statement.
But do you think gangs are accountable?
They're not.
I know.
And again, maybe it's because I grew up in Chicago.
But when a gang does something, what do they do?
They won't give anybody up.
They're not gonna say anything.
There's no accountability.
It's a too bad.
When the cops do it?
Hey look, when the cops get away with it, at least they have to try to get away with it.
You know what that means?
It means the system is designed to try and stop them from doing it.
That's why I think reform makes sense.
The cops can't just go out and kill somebody.
They can't.
They can do what most people do, premeditated murder, and get away with it, but anybody could do that.
When the police, in their official duties, do something wrong, there is an inquiry, there is outrage, there are protests, there is some accountability.
And sometimes it's not perfect.
But in your jurisdiction, there's none.
There's no accountability.
There was a video apparently where Raz was trying to stop somebody accused of theft, and he told, you know, some other guy started beating the crap out of the dude who was accused, and Raz was trying to stop him, and the guy wouldn't listen.
If it was a cop who did that, you filmed it, guess what?
People would, the cop would get in trouble, get a write-up, get fired, get arrested, whatever.
The cop in New York who pushed that woman, I don't know if you saw that video, he got in trouble.
Do you think if a gang pushed someone on camera, anyone would do anything about it?
Cops might try and find the guy.
Probably not, because you got shoved.
Now what if you replace the police with your own community group?
You think anybody will be held accountable?
No.
And then, when you do that and you disband the police, Do you think the emergency services will show up?
So there it is, man.
Your little experiment, as far as I'm concerned, has failed.
I think a lot of people overhype what the chop is.
It's fun.
It's hippie dancing.
They're growing flowers.
They're racially segregating their gardens.
There's a lot of problems with it.
It's a bit more extreme than Occupy Wall Street.
I wouldn't call it a block party or summer of love, but I would say the most of it is very obviously a bunch of dumb hippies doing dumb hippie stuff.
But you get lawlessness when you kick the police out.
Occupy was surrounded by cops, man.
Occupy Wall Street was surrounded by cops and there were still crimes committed in that park.
Now what do you think's gonna happen when you do this?
That's the problem the mayor and the governor ignored.
unidentified
They said it's a summer of love, it's gonna be a big ol' festival.
Big ol' festival where these guys know no cops are there.
Now's your chance.
So apparently some guys came and took it.
This is what you're gonna get when you disband the police.
You're gonna be like, why won't our social workers come into these places?
Think about it.
You get a phone call for your social worker, because, you know, some guy's sick.
Some guy's acting crazy.
Social worker pulls up, says, nah, I'm not getting out of my car right here, sorry, bye, leaves.
So that's what's gonna happen.
Yeah, you'll call your social worker, and then the police will have to come to assist secure the area.
Otherwise, you're gonna be like, we got rid of the cops, there's no cops on patrol, cops can't come in here unless they respond specifically.
Someone's gonna call 911, say my friend is injured, and they're gonna be like, we're on our way, they're gonna pull up and be like, nope, not getting out.
They don't get it, man, they really, really don't.
I'd like to think this is a wake-up call, and you can say it is to an extent, but will they learn from it?
Probably not.
They're still blaming the medics, refusing to understand why they wouldn't get out of their vehicle.
Welcome to the real world, friends.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at TimCast.net.
Check it out, and I will see you all then.
It looks like conservatives have raised the white flag and have joined in the culture revolution, now calling for cancel Yale.
Led by Ann Coulter and Jesse Kelly, two conservative personalities, they demand that Yale change its name.
Because in fact, and this is true, Yale is named after a very, very brutal slave trader.
I looked this up.
It's kind of bad.
But I'll tell you what, man.
I think it's a silly troll.
I think it's funny.
But I think it's bad.
I don't think you're really trolling anybody.
I get the idea.
Like, go after universities.
These universities that entertain this woke insanity and push a lot of this weird academia.
But I'll tell you what, man.
These woke people, these weird leftists, they love it.
And not just our country, but the legacy of Europe.
They don't like colonization.
So I'll tell you what.
If you come out and jokingly say cancel Yale because you want to own the people at Yale for doing this, fine, I'll tell you what's going to happen.
The leftists will agree.
Then they'll change the name.
And that's it.
Now, I guess the idea is that the ultra-elites in government refuse to give away that prestigious name.
But I think the woke left is taking over.
I think, you know, these elites like Nancy Pelosi and these other top-level Democrats, they've already bent the knee to these people.
Why wouldn't they do it again?
Some people have argued, maybe it'll force the school to, you know, I don't know, shut down or something, it's never gonna happen.
But there is one argument, that as long as you can maintain this campaign, you can hold it against people.
So, an example would be, someone applies for a job at your company, you say, oof, mmm, Yale, ooh, that's the name of a slave trader, I'm not gonna hire you!
And thus reduce the value of going to Yale.
I ultimately don't think anything will really happen other than it's a funny troll, but
let's read the news.
BizPakReview says, Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire.
And so conservatives, annoyed by the left's movement to topple historical statues, have
decided to temporarily adopt the same strategy but aim their grievances at the left's beloved
institutions instead.
Take Yale University, a 319-year-old left-wing Ivy League institution that, according to
renowned conservative commentator Ann Coulter, deserves to be cancelled pronto.
In a column published last Wednesday, she argued in favor of a bill withholding all federal funds from Yale University until it changed its name because the school's namesake, Elihu Yale, was not only a slave owner but a slave trader.
I gotta stop.
She said she's not kidding.
They really should change their name.
This dude, I read about him, like, he was, like, he was brutal.
He actually had mandatory slave trading laws, I kid you not.
Like, literally arguing that any ship that leaves port must be trafficking in slaves.
This dude is a bit over the top.
Listen, man, we can have arguments about the founding fathers, and I can condemn a lot of what they do, but this guy, wow!
Like, could you imagine the Founding Fathers passing a law?
Maybe they did, I don't know, but it sounds crazy.
Where you're like, no, no, no, any ship that leaves port must be trading slaves.
Wow.
Thomas Jefferson sought to end the international slave trade, and even he had slaves.
Not a perfect guy.
No excuse for the behavior they did.
Even if you want to argue, I guess that slavery's been around for a long time, I get it.
It's condemned, 100%.
But at least we can praise them for the world they did create.
That's how I have to put it.
This guy, Yale.
So he was made president, I guess, of like Madras, an area in India.
And he was like, this is lucrative.
We should mandate that all ships leaving port for Europe must carry at least 10 slaves.
At least that's what I read.
Like, that's hardcore, man.
So maybe they should ban this guy.
Quite a dilemma for the little snots who attend and teach there.
It will be tremendously damaging to their brand, after all.
True sublimity for a social justice warrior is virtue signaling and advertising their high SAT scores at the same time.
She sarcastically added.
Now, there is something here.
They're targeting the elites, not the woke left.
The woke left, I kid you not, actually agrees.
And they like the campaign.
So, the conservatives are just kind of supporting a left-wing move.
But take a look at the Young Turks.
The Young Turks are named after the group that carried out the Armenian Genocide.
And, colloquially, the Young Turks came to represent this idea of young rabble-rousers coming to make a change.
Yes, quite literally named after the group who committed the Armenian Genocide.
Why?
Because they were young rabble-rousers who made a change.
It doesn't justify why you're saying it.
Take a look at what... You may remember this.
Greta Thunberg, bless her sweet little heart, said she wanted to put politicians against the wall.
In English, putting someone against the wall is a reference to executing them.
She didn't know that.
In Sweden, pushing them against the wall is a reference to holding them accountable.
It may come from the same root, but the general idea is, like, someone does something wrong, you push them up against the wall and you wag your finger at them.
For us, it's a reference to, like, the Soviet era, era where you put them against the wall and kill them.
So when she said this, everybody was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, yo, you can't say that, you can't say that.
Which brings me back to the Young Turks.
It may mean something to you, but it means something different to other people that is inappropriate.
Now, here's the reason I bring up the Young Turks.
They would rather be named after the group who carried out a genocide than to change their brand because it could hurt their brand.
Their views would go down, they'd lose money, they won't change their name now, I tell you what.
They can't do it!
The TYT brand is too powerful!
Well, look, I got no beef to them.
They can produce content, they can say what they want.
But listen, you can't maintain this argument in support of culture evolution unless you yourself will back this.
Which is why I think the campaign is interesting.
It's not showing leftist hypocrisy because they actually support this.
It's showing elitist hypocrisy.
Those at Yale, the cream of the crop, the top of the top, with all that good, sweet, juicy money, They don't want to change their name.
They want to walk around with a little name tag saying Yale alumni.
Same reason the Young Turks wouldn't do it.
They want to walk around, you know, with their power.
It's a brand.
They built it.
I get it.
But listen, if you both want to support this, I'm sorry.
The bell tolls for thee.
The Young Turks should have changed their name a long time ago.
Yale, on the other hand, this one I don't like.
I think it's stupid.
Look, the left wants to erase legacy, and they'll erase anyone's.
I don't think Yale should change their name, but I get the troll, I get the campaign.
You give them Yale, my prediction is, they'll change the name.
They will.
And a lot of older people will be begrudgingly, they'll begrudgingly accept it.
But these older people don't care about you, they don't care about history, they don't care about their own legacy.
They care about themselves.
So they'll gladly bend the knee, like we saw them literally do.
Nancy Pelosi and Schumer and them, they went and bent the knee in the Capitol building or whatever, or in one of the Senate, one of the House, you know, Capitol buildings, I don't know which building they were in.
They bent the knee to the woke outrage.
So yeah, they will.
Yeah, we'll change their name.
All the Ivy Leagues will change their name.
Whatever.
They don't care.
Or they'll add something to it.
You know?
I really do think they won't change the name, however.
And I really do think that nothing will ever... Get them... You're not gonna win.
They cheat.
We know they cheat.
They cheat.
You're not gonna win.
I get the joke.
So they say, while clearly meant as a joke to highlight the irrationality and idiocy of modern illiberal left, the idea of canceling Yale quickly picked up steam Saturday thanks to former Arizona congressional candidate Jesse Kelly.
He said Yale University was named for Elihu Yale, not just a man who had a slaves, an actual slave trader.
I call on Yale to change its name immediately and strip the name of Yale from every building, piece of paper, and merchandise.
Otherwise, they hate black people.
Well, I'll be fair.
You want to tear down Ulysses S. Grant, I'm gonna question your motives.
If you don't tear down Yale, now I'm really confused.
Like, I get it, tearing down Grant proves you don't really care about slavery, but why would you leave up the traitor?
Like, the guy who actually trafficked.
So I kid you not, let me show you this.
They say...
What did it say?
The records of his period mentioned a flourishing slave trade in Madras, a trade in which Yale participated and from which he profited.
He enforced a law that at least 10 slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe.
In his capacity as a judge, he also on several occasions sentenced so-called black criminals to whipping and enslavement.
He literally judged people, convicted people, and then said, your punishment is to be a slave.
This dude was the worst of the worst, man.
Kidnapping young children?
Come on.
And I gotta say, very much against their will.
Yes, we understand what kidnapping and enslaving children means.
At a time when profits from the slave trade were dwindling and pressure from the Mughal government to stop the enslavement was mounting, the administration of Fort St.
George eventually stepped in and introduced laws to curb enslavement.
This guy didn't want to back down, man.
This guy, for which this university is named, was legit, like worst of the worst, you know?
So they go on to mention, and there's actually leftists who agree, right?
They say, there are hundreds if not thousands more just like this, but as noted earlier, some left-wingers actually agreed with the call to cancel Yale, thus proving that at least they're consistent in their irrational beliefs.
No, no, no, no, no, hold on.
They're not consistent, not at all, okay?
Some of these people are consistent, somewhat.
They tore down Grant.
Not consistent at all.
That's the guy who defeated the Confederates.
They're only calling for this to be taken down because conservatives did?
I'm sorry.
Not consistent at all.
However, this guy says there's a very strong case to cancel Yale.
George H.W.
Bush, George W. Bush, Prescott Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Clinton, Ford, Alito, Kavanaugh, Ashcroft, Danforth, Klobuchar, Lieberman, Sass, Calhoun, you get the point.
So I'll tell you what.
Let me throw some shade right in the face of John Oliver, who in 2017 mocked Trump for predicting the removal of Washington and Jefferson statues.
That happened.
Man, do these people ever get tired of being wrong?
I think the answer is no.
They're wrong all the time.
That's just what they are.
They're wrong.
They were wrong then, they're wrong now.
And no one will take down Yale's name.
The cultural elites, they're in control.
It's never gonna happen.
I really doubt you will ever see far leftists show up to Yale.
Why?
For one, they don't care.
For two, they're too stupid.
And three, the elitists won't let it happen.
I got one more, I got two more segments coming up, so stick around.
The next one will be in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Black YouTubers have filed a lawsuit against Google claiming racial discrimination.
And I gotta admit, when I first saw the headline, I thought to myself, oh, that's silly.
YouTube's algorithm doesn't work that way.
If anything, it's going to benefit them.
YouTube's dumped in a ton of money to prop up certain creators.
They're all about social justice.
Their rules are very, very in favor of social justice.
So how could it be that they discriminate?
And then I actually thought about it.
I thought about the discrimination against LGBT creators, and I realized... YouTube does.
And this lawsuit's actually... It could be fairly important.
It can go two different ways, though.
It could actually make YouTube more discriminatory, which I kind of doubt.
But this could actually be very, very good for all of us.
For real.
I won't bury this one, I'll just tell you straight up.
Basically what's happening is that YouTube will give preferential treatment to certain creators.
But then if you want to talk about sensitive issues, they'll demonetize, derank, and they'll shut you down.
The same was true for LGBTQ creators.
So notably, you may know Ariel Scarcella.
I interviewed her on the TimCast IRL podcast.
She got removed from the partner program.
Why?
She talks about LGBTQ issues.
Well, they say it's because of, you know, well, I don't know.
I don't know.
Controversial or hateful.
I don't know exactly what they say.
But there are many creators who have noticed.
Cobra Kai, a show on YouTube, a YouTube original, makes, you know, transphobic, anti-LGBTQ statements.
They're jokes, so I think they're fine.
But that's the character in the show.
He, like, makes these passive jokes, and it's offensive.
If I made those same jokes, if any of these people did, they would be banned.
So I actually think there's a legitimate argument for discrimination against creators for being black.
I really do think so.
I think about it this way.
If a black YouTuber made content and said a bunch of things about the black community and about their culture, things they believe, YouTube would very likely deem that to be problematic content, they would derank it, demonetize it, and then YouTube would prop up their own version of that content when they feel like it, thus showing there are certain people who are above this, and specifically based on the content they produce, you can see there's a bias.
Now, I think it really comes down to an elitism bias.
Like, the reason why, you know, certain news creators are allowed to say things I'm not, it's nothing to do with my race, but they have an argument, in my opinion, because they'll say, why is it that these high-profile white creators can talk about these issues and get propped up?
And they have been.
Yet if we do it, we get knocked down.
I don't think it's necessarily because they're black, because I think YouTube's all about social justice, but I think they can present their argument.
We'll see how it plays out.
Let's read the story.
From CNET, they say a group of black creators accuses YouTube and parent company Google of racist practices that pervade the YouTube platform.
They say.
A group of black YouTubers is suing YouTube and Google, alleging the companies discriminate against their videos based on race.
The suit claims that YouTube uses its automated tools to restrict, censor, and denigrate black creators, hurting their subscribers and revenue, while videos with racist hate speech are hosted and allowed to make money on the site, even after being flagged for violating YouTube's rules.
Their complaint comes in the middle of a national reckoning with racism in the U.S.
Triggered by the killing of George Floyd, the 46-year-old black man who died, we know the story.
YouTube is among the tech giants making large donations to social justice initiatives alongside public statements of support for the Black Lives Matter movement.
Now, I don't think they'll win.
I think YouTube can easily point to the reasons why certain things happen.
And I do think there's a real risk here for expanding hate speech provisions, because that's potentially what they're trying to argue.
If YouTube goes the wrong way with this, they can say, then don't worry, we will restrict and censor everyone, not just you.
Problem solved, right?
That's what we got to pay attention to.
They say, plaintiffs in the latest complaint include YouTubers associated with Lisa Cabrera, with more than 20 million views.
They say the channel leases views.
The channel True Royal Family and True Royal, which combined have 3.4 million views.
Now, these are very, very small channels.
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful, but they are very, very small.
So, for reference, I think this channel of mine has something like, I don't know, 6 or 700 thousand?
I mean, 6 or 700 million.
I think all in all, my channels combined have like 900 or so million, and I am not one of the bigger channels.
In terms of news content, I do get a lot of views, but I don't even have a... My main channel I think is like 819,000 subs, which is pretty big, but I'm not even in a million.
Some of the bigger channels have 5, 10, 20, even 100 million, so... There are way bigger channels than mine.
But these are very, very small.
A better example would be...
Um, we launched the Timcast IRL podcast in January, and I think it has something like 40 to 50 million views?
Maybe?
Maybe 35, I don't know.
But way more than 20.
And we just started it.
So these are really, really small channels.
YouTube said Thursday that it's reviewing the complaint it added that it allows anyone to post videos that abide by the site's policies and guidelines, which it says it enforces in a neutral and consistent way.
That's a lie.
YouTube wants the service to include a variety of voices and perspective.
I think that's true, and I think they're trying to play this equity game.
Well, let's read on.
Asked about the lawsuit later, during a virtual event with the Washington Post, YouTube's CEO said the company is going to look at the complaint and try to understand what concerns are there.
She listed off a few successful black creators, including Jackie Aina, a beauty creator who focuses on issues for people of color, Marques Brownlee, a gadget YouTuber, and Marques Brownlee.
Brownlee posted a video reflecting on the color of my skin, where he shares his own experiences on race.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California accuses YouTube of overt, intentional, and systematic racial discrimination, saying the companies rigged the game by restricting and blocking these black YouTubers based on their racial identity, but not subjecting YouTube's own produced videos to the same scrutiny.
And there it is.
Boom.
That's the point.
YouTube has produced a ton of content that gets away with breaking their own rules, and then they hold everyone to different standards.
Now, I think the reason they might lose this one is that the real issue is elitism.
YouTube is holding back everyone, even me.
Many creators.
It's not just about people based on race.
LGBT creators have been targeted, black creators, Latinos, Asians, etc.
So the real issue is YouTube's double standards.
They say the YouTubers also complain of YouTube profiting off of videos with hate speech, which remain up with advertising on the site.
Now there's the big problem.
Going after, you know, trying to create another adpocalypse.
The suit also accuses YouTube of bugging the creator's videos with metadata and other signals that let its automated systems filter words based on race, identity, or the viewpoint of the creator.
The channel's subscribers and even its viewers, videos by the YouTubers filing the suit, have been restricted, removed, limited in how much advertising revenue they earn or demonetized completely.
This is a good thing.
Okay?
This is good news!
Let me explain this to you.
If they prove that YouTube's algorithm... So something was uncovered by Nerd City, it's another YouTuber, where YouTube was putting codes in YouTube videos that related to the demonetization.
If they can show that there's a tendency of those codes to appear in their videos based on their race or racial identity or the content they're making, Then it shows that YouTube does have a broken and racist system.
It may not be intentionally racist.
It may be accidentally.
That's all that matters.
YouTube will then have to uniformly enforce policy.
This could be a good thing.
YouTube might then not be able to determine which race-based words are bannable.
Think about what that means for people who have been banned in the past.
Moving forward, YouTube won't be able to implement race-specific restrictions.
Now, YouTube may be doing all of this with good intentions.
These good-willed individuals say, you know, most of these videos that come out that have these words are bad.
But what if there are people who make videos about those words opposing those words?
For instance, I did a series of videos on Blackface, I think like four or five, maybe a week ago.
They were all flagged as hate speech by YouTube's system.
I was talking about why Blackface was bad.
I was talking about Instagram influencers who were doing it and why it was bad.
But YouTube's algorithm can't tell the difference between what is good or bad.
Simply, they don't like these words.
Now think about what happens.
If a bunch of people make content, and YouTube says it's fine, and then some black creators address this, and they have to use certain words to address how they feel.
YouTube then slaps labels on their content, their content gets restricted, same for LGBTQ creators, and YouTube then is, through the algorithm, shutting down people who are oppressed peoples, right?
In the end, the result may be, if YouTube settles or loses this, it doesn't matter if there's precedent or not, YouTube might then have to actually uniformly enforce rules because the algorithm can't.
Now, they're based in California.
This may fall under the Civil Rights Act that they're not providing equal public accommodation.
You can't discriminate in public accommodation based on certain characteristics of which one is race.
If you can argue that because of the words they use, it relates to their race, they might actually win this.
It could ultimately be kind of a good thing.
I don't think the intention here is necessarily to get more censorship.
It might, though.
Because YouTube could go the other way and say, you know what, fine, then we're banning every single word, no matter what.
We don't want to be racist, therefore all of this word are gone.
Period.
They say, YouTube said Thursday that its automated systems are not designed to identify the race, ethnicity, or orientation of its creators or viewers.
However, you can accidentally do it.
And there's a big problem.
I'll put it this way.
Let's say you create a business and you have no handicap entrance.
Well, I believe there are laws in certain jurisdictions that say you must have a handicapped entrance.
Are you discriminating directly?
No.
It's just that handicapped people can't get up the stairs, so some states, particularly California, I believe, make it so that you have to accommodate them.
You have to accommodate people so they can use your business.
Let's say YouTube accidentally is targeting minority creators.
Well, the law says you can't do that, whether it's on purpose or otherwise.
So this may result in something positive in the long run, I don't know for sure.
They say, during Thursday's interview with The Post, Wojcicki reflected on the past few months, including the chaos of the pandemic and the protests all over the world.
She said she understands people will look back on this period, whatever.
They say Tuesday's suit by the Black YouTuber cites proceedings in the LGBTQ YouTuber's case as support for its argument, adding the two cases could be coordinated.
So we'll see how this plays out.
I highlight it and bring it up simply because we're all on YouTube and I think it's important.
So I got one more segment in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
In just a couple of days, the most important election in the country will take place.
Okay, maybe just for now.
I think maybe second most important election this year.
Obviously, the presidential election is very, very important, and all the down-ballot stuff and the congressional candidates.
But I really do believe, right now, this may be one of the most important events taking place in our country, the primary election between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Michelle Caruso Cabrera.
Now, full disclosure, I have donated to Michelle Caruso Cabrera.
And I think you should read some of the things she's written, and you might actually like her.
She's very moderate.
In fact, she's supported some stuff that conservatives have praised and Democrats got really angry about.
She seems to be a centrist, for the most part, and I respect that.
Now, I don't know if she's gonna win.
AOC is a mega celebrity.
Michelle Caruso Cabrera, for those that aren't familiar, was a former CNBC anchor, I believe, or reporter.
She has around 90,000 or so Twitter followers.
AOC has 7.3 million.
But it doesn't guarantee anything.
There's not 7.3 million people in her district.
The real question we're seeing right now Will AOC's celebrity get her a victory?
Some other data points.
Do the American people want an end to the absurdity of politics and a return to normalcy?
Michelle Caruso Cabrera is very similar to AOC in many ways.
I believe they're both the children of immigrants.
I could be wrong about that.
But they both have the three-letter acronym name.
They're both Latina.
They live in the same area.
Now there are complaints about, you know, of course, of course, they both got their dicks against each other.
But ultimately what we have is you have your choice right now in New York's 14th district between celebrity, youth, far leftist, and moderate, centrist, non-celebrity.
What will the people of the Bronx want?
I believe the celebrity status plays a huge role in this.
Do people even know who Michelle Caruso Cabrera is?
That may be a big challenge.
But if MCC does this right, and focuses her attention on supporting her district, she might actually win.
You see, AOC, her followers are across the country.
The donations she gets come from across the country.
I wonder if there's actually a very large progressive coalition in any one place.
Think about it this way.
If you have one progressive, you know, per a square 10-mile radius, then online it'll look like you got a ton of supporters.
But if you go into New York City, it's like two or three, right?
You don't have that many.
Well, maybe more than that.
How many people in her district actually like her?
She won last time with like 15,000 or 16,000 votes in a district of 750,000.
So perhaps, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, spending all of her time running this campaign, while AOC's been doing other stuff, perhaps that's enough to get MCC 18,000?
CNN reports, a former television news anchor, a retired New York City police officer,
and a high school civics teacher, an attorney who runs a mediation practice
and serves as a volunteer minister.
These are just a few of the candidates, Democrats and Republicans, who have lined up to challenge three of the most high-profile freshman House Democrats, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib.
It's not easy to unseat a sitting member of Congress, and the three members of the so-called Progressive Squad have a number of built-in advantages as they run for re-election.
All three have unusually high name recognition for freshman members of Congress and devoted national followings.
They have the ability to raise significant amounts of money, with Ocasio-Cortez and Omar ranking among the top fundraisers in Congress.
But they have become high-profile targets of criticism.
All three have faced controversy over outside the mainstream political positions, frequently facing attacks from Trump and Congressional Republicans.
On a national level, Republicans have worked to turn their outspoken support for progressive politics into a liability for the Democratic Party.
At times.
They have also frustrated or even been rebuked by members of their own party.
They go on to say, quote, the fame and notoriety of these members can be a double-edged sword.
It helps their fundraising, but also draws attention and competition, said Kyle Kondik, an election analyst for the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
He noted, however, incumbents hardly ever lose House primaries, and the congresswomen don't appear to have the kind of obvious liabilities seen in rare instances where a sitting House member ends up losing a primary, such as in recent times with Steve King.
However, I must add, These are new candidates.
They are new.
People knew Joe Crowley, right?
He was the one that AOC defeated.
They saw his name.
Oh yeah, that's my guy.
AOC is divisive, she is bombastic, and she is celebrity-obsessed.
She might very well inspire loathe.
like loathes anger and resentment in her own community.
Many of them may look at her as somebody who's more obsessed
with getting Twitter likes than actually helping them.
And Michelle Kruse Cabrera has absolutely capitalized on it, noting that during the COVID pandemic,
AOC stayed for a week in her luxury DC apartment, doing live streams with celebrities instead of coming back.
AOC said, but I was just sick and not feeling well.
Not buying it.
MCC clearly called you out for hosting your stupid little social media events.
Perhaps that's enough.
But you can't discount the fact that AOC is just a celebrity.
That's all that matters.
She's a celebrity.
People are gonna follow her.
They're gonna show up and be all excited.
This is why I say it's the most important election as of right now.
I don't think it's necessarily going to prove anything, but it's interesting to see how this will play out, to give us an idea.
Populist, far-left, radical policies versus regular America.
Michelle Cruz Aguilera, in terms of her policy, the things she's written about in the past, much, much closer to Trump than AOC is, though very much at odds with Trump.
That's what I'm curious about.
Are voters gonna say, we want things to be normal again?
And AOC is a mini-Trump?
She drove away all these jobs?
Or are they gonna be like, the party is fun, let's keep it running?
I don't know what that'll mean for Trump, but it may spell something for the House Democrats moving forward.
Now, if Michelle Crusoe Cabrera wins, she's probably going to just fall in line with Nancy Pelosi and vote party line.
That's typically what House members will do.
AOC has been more defiant in that regard.
So it's not necessarily going to suggest whether or not the House Democrats will win and maintain the majority in the House or take the Senate or anything like that or even beat Trump.
It says a lot about the attitudes of local districts, though.
Now I gotta say, Nancy Pelosi raises tons of money.
I'm leaning towards AOC winning this one, but I just don't know.
Part of me wants to believe that regular Americans are sick and tired of the BS, and they want someone to bring things back to normal.
Could be wrong.
That's the argument made about Trump and Biden, that Joe Biden is the return-to-normalcy candidate that might work.
If that's true, then Michelle Caruso Cabrera is the normalcy candidate for AOC's district.
They say there are major ideological differences between AOC and Caruso Cabrera.
The congresswoman is an outspoken advocate for the Green New Deal, Medicare for All.
In contrast, Caruso Cabrera describes herself as a centrist and moderate.
She has said Medicare for All is not the answer.
During her campaign and dismissed the Green New Deal as divisive policy, I gotta say, It's why I donated to her.
I like Michelle Crusoe-Cabrera.
Crusoe-Cabrera has argued that AOC is MIA and cares more about building a national profile than her constituents.
In an interview with CNN, she said the congresswoman wants to be a national star, adding, I want to be a congresswoman for the people of the Bronx and Queens.
Asked to respond to accusations she isn't focused on her district, AOC told CNN, Quote, really, it just makes the person sound tone-deaf because you think I'm not around.
The person who's not around is you, because you don't see us, and we're everywhere.
But if they want to go around and say things that are not true, and run a Trump-ian style campaign, that's on them.
I'm sorry, AOC, that's you.
You're mini-Trump, not MCC.
You're the Twitter personality who's always saying Twitter nonsense.
You're the one who said, thanks to the teens who interfered in Trump's rally, that's very much Trumpian.
I called AOC Lil Trump all the time.
Now, she's not as high profile as Trump, but she is very much this... Man, what's the right word?
Brash?
Arrogant?
There's a lot of words to describe both Trump and AOC.
Now, of course, their policies are very, very different, but they're both insurgency candidates, upstarts, who are trying to take over their party.
Trump did take over.
Trump said something really funny, I gotta hand it to him, at the rally, he said, I laughed a lot, and you gotta admit, Trump knows how to be funny.
And AOC has also had her bombastic, you-go-girl moments, where all these people on Twitter are like, ooh, tss, you know, they love it.
They love the spicy tweets from AOC.
But do the American people.
Now, to Trump's benefit, he's going for a national coalition.
He wants every vote from every inch of this country.
So, it helps him out.
AOC is going for national votes, but she's a congressman from the Bronx.
She needs the Bronx to vote for her.
So while she's spitting out spicy hot takes, how many people in the Bronx care specifically about this?
And how many are saying, you're making us look like fools?
65 million people did not want Donald Trump, but Trump won the Electoral College because a national coalition works when you're running for president, not for a local district.
They say Ocasio-Cortez has gone after her primary opponent for once being registered Republican and living in a Trump Tower apartment in Manhattan before moving to the district.
Caruso-Cabrera argued she is more committed to the district than AOC is, and has said she is a true Democrat, while calling AOC a democratic socialist.
A label the Congresswoman has embraced.
I'm a real Democrat, Caruso-Cabrera told CNN.
Adding the residents of the district don't want a revolution.
She's right, man.
She really is.
I do not believe people want a revolution.
They want reform.
So if AOC is this Bernie Sanders revolutionary, we will see how things play out.
But I'll remind you.
In a district of 750,000, AOC needs only a few thousand votes to win.
If there are, let's say out of the 750,000, I don't know.
10%?
75,000 people are far left.
AOC's won.
Because they're gonna come out and they're gonna smash that AOC button.
They're gonna be bashing on the machine, screaming, hooting, and hollering.
MCC will not likely be able to invigorate the normies, as it were.
That's why I lean towards AOC winning.
However!
However.
NY14 is 20%, a little bit more than 20%, Republican.
What if every single Republican comes out in the primary and votes for Michelle Cruz Cabrera?
That's 150,000 votes.
In which case, I think she'll win.
But it depends.
They say progressives make up 8% of this country.
In a heavy Democratic district, then I would say that it's fair to actually roll that number up.
Maybe it's 15, 16, 17, maybe it's 20%.
There are a lot of progressives in New York City, mind you.
I don't think Michelle Cruz Cabrera will win, unfortunately.
But if the Republicans and the moderates come together, who normally don't vote Democrat, with some regular mainstream Democrats, I actually think she could win.
And that's the important factor.
I don't know.
I really don't.
There's a lot of reasons why AOC will lose.
Just because she's famous doesn't mean anything.
That could backfire on her.
How many people follow her because they hate her?
Michelle Cruz Cabrera might be kind of a Biden-esque personality in that she's more neutral.
Harder to attack.
Nobody really has any beef against her.
Seems like a nice person with experience, and she's here for everybody.
