Democrats FAIL To Notice Polls Make NO SENSE, Trump Crushing Early Vote In Major Battleground States
Democrats FAIL To Notice Polls Make NO SENSE, Trump Crushing Early Vote In Major Battleground States. Polls show weird numbers in states like Montana where Trump is down 13 points from 2016.Current polls show that Texas is the closest race in the nation in terms of Trump's lead but early voting data suggests that he is going to crush it there.Could it be that the polls are substantially worse now than in 2016?One thing Democrats and the Joe Biden campaign have missed is that Republicans and Trump have been registering new voters like crazy suggesting a larger turnout than the polls are tracking.Or perhaps voter habits and COVID altered the landscape to such a degree no one really knows what will happen.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I'm going to make a prediction right now based on the information before me.
This prediction may be absolutely incorrect.
Many people may agree, may disagree.
And after the election, people might say, see, Tim was wrong.
But based on the information I have in front of me, I will say the polls are wrong.
And they are way wrong, much more wrong than they were in 2016.
The forecasters are wrong.
And I believe right now, based on what I'm seeing, Trump is going to win, not by a whole lot, but perhaps a narrow victory.
Now, already Democrats are fighting to change rules in key battleground states.
Donald Trump is suing back to stop some of these changes.
And so there's a lot of fighting going on.
And I don't know what the results of these legal battles will be and how this will affect the election.
It may be that the polls are actually very wrong, but Democrats get some rule changes that result in a Joe Biden win.
Or it could be that the polls are right, but Donald Trump wins some legal victories and he ends up becoming president.
There are a lot of scenarios to factor in.
But right now, the electoral map is very weird, and that comes from the Washington Post.
You see, The forecasters, the pollsters, I believe, are missing a crucial voter block.
Trump's newly registered voters.
I don't think they're accounting for this.
And many people are starting to take notice.
Hey, wait a minute.
If these polls are based off of assumptions about how the Democrat and Republican Party have typically handled things, then maybe you're missing the fact that Republicans have been particularly active in this election cycle.
When was the last time you saw a right-wing protest?
You might actually say, well, I mean, technically there have been massive Trump rallies and Blue Lives Matter rallies across the country.
Yes.
And in my long career, about a decade actually, maybe that's not really that long, covering civil unrest, I never see the right get out and get active.
The right is not known for holding rallies, staging voter registration drives or things like that, but they are now.
And now we're seeing in many key battlegrounds, the Republicans are closing the gap in voter registration, particularly in Pennsylvania, where it's like two to one.
If the pollsters aren't factoring this in, And the polls are off.
And their predictions are off.
And let me ask you, have you ever thought how weird it is that the forecasters are giving Biden better odds than Vegas?
I mean betting odds in general.
Like if you go to some of these betting websites, they don't give Trump that good of a chance to win.
They give Trump around a 40%.
Yet when you look at FiveThirtyEight, they're like 13%.
Maybe it's because the betting odds are based off of more anecdotal and emotional Decision making.
How are people acting?
What is the news showing us?
What are we seeing in terms of Halloween mask sales?
As opposed to, we called a thousand people and tried to figure out what made the most sense.
No, I think the polls are wrong.
The Democrats are underrating Trump's secret weapon, which is not the shy Trump voter.
It's voter registration.
They didn't see this coming, how?
I think they're wrong.
I think they're wrong.
But I gotta be fair.
I do think that the shy Trump voter, the secret Trump voter, plays a serious role in this.
And this election cycle's secret Trump voter, in fact, will be newly registered individuals, not people scared to speak up.
Now let me preface that.
I believe Trump voters, many of them, are scared to speak up.
I can tell you this right now.
There are people close to me in my life who have flipped from lifelong Democrat to Republican for a variety of reasons, notably Nancy Pelosi, and the riots.
And they are terrified to speak out about this.
And there are people in my life who are typically apolitical who are going to vote for Biden.
But seeing people I know say straight up, Not a Democrat anymore?
I think there's going to be a wave of secret Trump voters who will never tell anyone.
And thus, the polls are wrong, and Trump will win.
But let me show you the data that I have to back this up.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
There's a P.O.
box if you want to send me stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video!
Maybe informative to people on either side of the aisle to maybe give them perspective on what may happen come election night.
If you are a Democrat and you're following this mainstream media, you're probably being fed bad information and bad polls, and I'm going to show you the research.
And if you're a Republican, you probably want to know that you are not on a path to crushing defeat.
Now, to be fair, most Trump supporters are very confident they're going to win.
But to be fair, Democrats are also very confident they're going to win as well.
We won't know for sure.
And let me just say, I can show you this data, which in my opinion shows why Trump is going to win.
But then I'll show you some of the things that may result in Trump losing.
The rule changes.
They're going to be counting ballots well after Election Day.
So anyway, I digress.
If you think I do a good job and you think this information is important, please share this video and also hit the like button, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
Let's get into this story from The Washington Post.
The electoral map is very weird right now.
Is South Carolina really closer than Michigan?
The reason why I'm showing you this story is because the polls are currently confusing many people when they're like, how is it that Trump is doing— like, South Carolina is a closer race than Michigan, as these things are very strange.
Could it be that the polls are wrong?
Or it could be that the polls are right, I suppose, but either way, people are confused.
Check this out.
From the Washington Post, Philip Bump writes, You'll be unsurprised to learn that according to a poll released Friday by the New York Times, that Trump is leading in Montana.
You might be surprised though to learn the margin of Trump's lead is only 7 points, which if that margin were to hold until Election Day, would represent a 13 point swing away from Trump relative to his 2016 support.
I gotta stop right there!
Do you expect me to believe that Montana is swinging Biden by 13 points?
Think about it for two seconds.
Use your rational mind.
I tell you this.
It is entirely possible.
Trump is the worst candidate we've ever seen, and thus Montana might turn blue.
Or okay, I mean a 7 point lead still suggests that Trump wins Montana, but a 13 point swing towards the Democrats?
Is Trump really that bad?
I'm sorry, I don't believe it.
No amount of negative press would convince me that Trump has lost 13 points in Montana.
They say, more remarkably, that's as narrow a race as the pollsters measured in both Michigan and Wisconsin, states Trump won by tiny margins four years ago.
In Michigan, the Time-Santa poll had Biden up 8 points.
In Wisconsin, he was up 10.
You're trying to tell me that in a Rust Belt swing state, the race is as close as Montana.
I'm sorry, man.
I just don't buy it.
I think this is strong evidence that the polls are completely out of whack.
And I don't know who the Democrats are polling, but I'll tell you this, the conspiracy theory from the Trump supporters is that the media is lying to us to try to demoralize Trump supporters and convince them not to vote.
I don't know if that's true, but I'll tell you this.
There's no real metric there to judge on whether or not things will be different in terms of demoralization.
Some say that Hillary Clinton's voters didn't come out because they were convinced she was going to win.
And thus, this time around, when they're actually scared Trump will win, they'll come out and vote and Trump will be crushed.
Maybe.
Or maybe it's true that Trump voters were demoralized by bad polls, thinking they'd never win, and some didn't go out and vote.
Maybe that's true as well.
So it seems like a moot point.
But let's take a look at the data.
He goes on to say this is one poll, of course.
By now you're likely savvy enough to know that it's generally more useful to consider polling averages than individual polls.
We took the most recent, averages in each state as compiled by FiveThirtyEight, and ordered the states by current polling margin.
The results are striking.
The closest race in the averages is Texas.
Are you out of your mind?
Look, I'll tell you this.
Maybe the world has gone nuts and everything's changing and Trump has changed the face of this country and Texas, for the first time in 44 years, will swing Democrat.
Maybe.
They've been talking about it for a long time.
I mean, Ted Cruz, Beto O'Rourke, that was a close race.
I just... I'm gonna bet on the simple solution.
I mean, Texas is gonna go red.
Already.
In early voting, we can look at Target Early from Target Smart.
Republicans have a strong lead of about 12.4 points in terms of early voting and absentee.
Democrats are predicted to lead in early voting.
But again, in Texas, early voting favors Republicans.
Why would I believe a poll telling me Texas is in play?
Listen, maybe things have changed dramatically.
Or maybe the polls are completely broken.
You know why?
Viewership habits have changed.
Media habits have changed.
Are the pollsters accurately tracking how people consume information?
Who is likely to vote?
Do they even know who a likely voter is at this point?
Maybe not.
Looking at this, it's kind of hilarious to see that Iowa is a closer race than Michigan or Ohio, even.
I think that's absurd.
He says, the state that's closest at the moment is Texas.
If Joe Biden wins Texas, it's over.
But it doesn't get less weird.
Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio, which Trump won in 2016 by 5, 9, and 8 points respectively, are the next three closest states.
What's more, Biden leads in the first two.
Notice where Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin land.
In 2016, Trump's narrow wins in those three states earned him the presidency.
Now Biden leads by at least 6 points in each.
Arizona is closer than any of those three states.
Alaska is closer.
Stop yourself.
One poll change, and I would consider it.
But showing me all of these states Trump won by respectable amounts, have just flipped magically, and Texas, of all places, is going blue?
And I'm gonna say, alright, you know what?
I just don't believe anymore.
Forgive me if I don't believe you.
Maybe you're right.
Maybe the data is true.
The simple solution is, the pollsters made mistakes, by a point or two, last time around, and those mistakes have only gotten worse.
When they failed last time, they probably said, we gotta make some changes to figure out what we got wrong, and they've only broken everything.
If your predictions were completely broken last time around, you're probably gonna need a couple of goes at it, in order to figure out what you got wrong.
But I'll tell you this, there's a really funny article that came out of Columbia, I don't have it pulled up, Check it out, someone sent it to me, where they mention that in FiveThirtyEight's polling statistics, their forecasts, there's a model they have where Trump wins California.
They include that in their modeling as to why Trump might, like, win or lose.
Okay, I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.
Trump is not gonna win California.
I know a lot of people are probably saying, Tim, California's gonna— No, no, Trump's not winning California.
California will be blue.
Illinois will be blue.
Now to be fair, on the FiveThirtyEight website, their interactive, they don't give you an option to make California red.
But apparently they included that because they wanted to have like a wide margin of error.
But anyway, the point is, how could it be that all of these states that should be red are really close?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
He goes on to say, we highlighted a particularly odd stretch of margins.
South Carolina is closer than Michigan.
Michigan is closer than Montana?
Nebraska is closer than Minnesota?
What is happening here?
We must of course note that polling a bit over a week before 2016 showed Trump trailing in key states by fairly wide margins.
All of those states that are narrower than Arizona are within about three points.
He goes on to say we made a tool allowing readers to see how errors in the polls
underestimating the number of Trump voters who turn out would affect the national results.
Important point.
At the moment, if the polls in every state were wrong in the exact same way as they were in 2016, Biden still wins the presidency with over 300 electoral votes.
If the polls are off to the same degree as 2016 but in the other direction, Biden's margin is far bigger.
Please, keep patting yourselves on the back thinking that you're going to win.
And let me show you this map.
They say, if the poll shift is the same as 2016, then Joe Biden will win the presidency with 357 electoral votes to Trump's 181.
Oh no!
If the polls are underestimating to the same degree, it's over.
That suggests it's all over, doesn't it?
Let me do a little math for you.
See, they got a slider bar.
I love how they only say it could go in Biden's favor.
All right, sure.
If we go into a reverse of 2016, Joe Biden wins with 407 votes.
But how about we do this?
How about we say there is an underestimated, Trump is underestimated by just 7.5 points.
That's a big, that's a big polling error to mind you.
But let's say.
The polls underestimate Trump by 7.5 points.
If the polls reflect the pattern above, Donald Trump would be re-elected with 295 electoral votes
to Joe Biden's 243. 7.5 is the bare minimum they say in a polling shift that would result in a
Trump re-election.
We could theoretically go higher and say they underestimate Trump by 10 points and then Trump wins 321 electoral votes.
I'd like to bring you now to a story.
Trafalgar chief pollster predicts Trump victory.
Polls predominantly missing the hidden vote.
As many of you may be aware, Trafalgar Group predicted Trump's win.
Well, sort of.
Trafalgar Group's polling in 2016 showed Trump leading in key battleground states, including Pennsylvania and Michigan, when almost all other pollsters had Trump trailing Hillary Clinton.
Trump ended up winning both of those states and Wisconsin, becoming the first GOP presidential nominee to do so in decades.
I see the president winning, with a minimum high 270s and possibly going up significantly higher based on just how big the undercurrent is.
Kahaley said, referring to electoral college votes, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the White House.
What we've noticed is that these polls are predominantly missing the hidden Trump vote.
There is a clear feeling among conservatives and people that are for the president, they're not interested in sharing their opinions readily.
These people are more hesitant to participate in polls, so if you're not compensating for this, you're not going to get honest answers.
You may say, Tim, that's just one guy's opinion.
But these are things I've already shown you.
And I want to highlight it now because I'm going to counter.
Well, I'm going to show you.
What did I just say?
Washington Post says if they underestimate Trump by 7.5 percent, then, uh, well, then that's it.
Trump wins, right?
According to cloud research, several PhDs who did a bunch of this, we've got, let's see, one, two, three, four PhDs and an MS have done research where they found 10.1% of Trump voters, Trump supporters, said they were likely to be untruthful on phone surveys, double the number of Biden supporters, which at 5.1.
Perhaps they negate each other.
So let's put it this way.
Let's say, in these polls, there is a 10-point swing in favor of Donald Trump.
10% of the people polled say they would rather vote for Biden when they really would want to vote for Trump.
Well then, that's well above 7, isn't it?
To be fair, I guess for some reason half of Biden supporters would claim they're going to vote for Trump for some reason, but that doesn't seem to make sense to me.
But it could be.
In which case, Trump is just shy of that victory.
So maybe Trump does lose.
But I gotta be honest.
I think it's bigger than that.
And I think Trafalgar is right.
That part is just my personal opinion.
The rest is my analysis, which also could be absolutely wrong.
The polls could be spot on.
Trump might get crushed.
I don't know for sure.
But I kind of feel like there are secret Trump voters.
This research seems to suggest it.
And even if Trump only gets 7%, 7.5%, he still wins.
But this is not the absolute secret weapon I've been talking about.
In the end, it doesn't matter if there are secret Trump voters or not.
The reality is, Trump sees reason for hope in voter signups that polls may miss.
My friends, the polls aren't wrong because of secret Trump voters who are lying.
Let me show you this first.
We have this from FiveThirtyEight.
Biden is favored to win 87 in 100.
Sure.
FiveThirtyEight also wrote, Trump supporters aren't shy, but polls could still be missing some of them.
They go on to say it's a theory that won't die.
It goes something like this.
Some unknown segment of President Trump's support is too shy to admit they back him.
Usually offered as an explanation for why Trump's poll numbers weren't better in 2016 or why they're not better now.
The idea hinges on Trump being such a controversial candidate that it's not socially desirable to say you support him.
And as such, there's a lot of hidden Trump support not captured by the polls.
Only, there's scant evidence of this.
In fact, there's some evidence against the shy Trump theory.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight once tweeted, Okay, maybe he's right.
Biden supporters are the shy ones.
They're not running around with flags, having parades and screaming, go, go Biden.
In which case the real silent majority is the Democrats.
Okay, maybe he's right.
Maybe there are no shy Trump voters.
I mean, the research says there is, another pollster says there is, and FiveThirtyEight says there isn't, so ultimately you decide.
But here's the real issue.
Registrations.
If the pollsters are thinking it's the same game as 2016, they are wrong.
Now I know many of them may say that we understand there will be shifts in the dynamics of this election cycle, but can they accurately predict them?
Bloomberg reports President Trump and his campaign have cited increased Republican voter registrations as a sign he still has a viable path to re-election, despite public polls showing him headed for a loss.
As of this week, across eight battleground states, Republicans have registered about 179,000 more voters than Democrats since 2016.
Including big net gains in two states that could decide the election, Florida and Pennsylvania.
After the 2016 election famously decided by about 88,000 votes in three Midwestern states, the margin could prove significant on election night.
Democrat Joe Biden holds a lead of roughly 8 points on average in national polls.
But Trump and his allies consider voter registration one of the indications that public opinion surveys are once again failing to fully capture the president's support, what Trump has called a silent majority, and what some pollsters call shy Trump voters.
These are not shy Trump voters.
This is a guy sitting in his house, normally doesn't vote, doesn't care all that much.
Someone knocked on his door for once and said, hey, let's have a conversation.
How would you like to register to vote?
And the guy said okay.
This is Republicans holding voter registration drives saying go register and targeting key areas that will result in more Republicans registering than Democrats.
We also have party affiliation changing.
Many people who once said they were Democrat now say they're independent.
Some say they're Republicans.
Walk away is a serious issue.
If the pollsters are calling up suburban Chicago that is historically Democrat and saying, you know, the mid-40s suburban housewife with kids who are about to go to college or whatever or graduating high school is typically, you know, our Democrat voter.
And they call her and they ask her and she says, oh, Democrat for sure.
And they use that as the basis for everything around them in these key areas, they'd probably get things wrong.
They're going to be underestimating people.
They're going to be estimating those... Look, they're underestimating those who are scared of the riots.
They're underestimating those who are scared of cancel culture.
And they're underestimating the new registrations.
Also, they're underestimating, probably, the black voter.
For this...
I think the polls are wrong, and I gotta be honest.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking.
For real.
It's gonna be funny come, you know, a month after Election Day or whatever, whenever they decide, and Joe Biden wins, and then people are like, look what Tim thought, he was wrong.
Sure.
I'm making my case based on incomplete information.
Here's what I have before me.
I have a view that I think the polls are wrong, but to be honest, these organizations would be displaying historic ineptitude if it turned out these polls were broken to this degree.
Stranger things have happened, and we're looking at a dramatic shift in all of our expectations.
I mean, TV viewership is actually up!
Kind of crazy, right?
Viewership across the board, COVID, we don't know how this is affecting everything.
COVID may seriously change the game.
The pollsters could not predict it.
So you want to tell me why the polls might be wrong?
They failed to predict COVID.
They have no idea how COVID impacts anybody.
And maybe there are now a lot of Democrats who knew the economy was good but hated Trump and are now like, I just want it back.
Because Trump's approval rating on the economy is very, very high.
But let me show you some stuff.
Let me show you.
It might not be about anything having to do with polls.
In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court says ballots can't be rejected based on signature comparisons.
The court ruling backed up a policy issued by the state election office earlier this year.
That means if a mail-in ballot comes in and they look at it and say that signature does not match that signature, you're good!
That means someone could take a ballot, forge it, and you're good.
They can't reject it based on signature comparisons.
They have just ended, the Democrats did.
Let me read a little bit.
They ruled Friday.
The ruling is a defeat for President Trump's campaign and Republicans, who challenged the decision by Pennsylvania's election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots, on voter rolls, were necessary to prevent fraud.
There it is.
Out the window.
So will Trump's voter registration, a fair play move, be enough to Democrats removing voter integrity?
Maybe not.
Maybe it won't be enough.
And maybe that's why, in the end, Biden may win Pennsylvania.
But take a look at the Hill.
Pennsylvania says half of requested mail-in ballots have already been cast.
What this says to me is that perhaps we are not going to see as historic a voter turnout as many people expect.
Gallup said, Gallup research, that enthusiasm for this election is normal.
That was surprising to me.
And with this massive early voting turnout, it looks like it's going to be historic.
Or it could just be early voter turnout.
Like, put it this way.
Traditionally, people go out and vote on election day, right?
You want to take one day off work, it's kind of easy, you know when you're going to vote.
60, you know, 65 million Democrats go and vote.
Mostly on the same day.
Many early, many by mail.
Now with COVID, they're saying go vote early.
The same 65 million go and vote, but many of them vote early.
That's it?
Okay.
Then the numbers may be the same.
In which case, that is seriously bad news for Democrats.
Half of requested mail-in ballots have already been cast.
That's a lot of ballots.
I mean, they're talking about 100 million across the country, I guess, so we're looking at more than half.
of Pennsylvania's actual votes.
As of right now, that actually looks kind of bad for Republicans because early voter and absentee voter returns outnumber Republicans by like 40 points.
But the point I'm trying to make is that Democrats need massive voter turnout in order to win.
It may actually not be massive.
And the other thing is, how many Democrats are actually going to vote for Trump this time around?
Seriously.
Last time around, about 9 million Obama voters voted for Donald Trump.
Perhaps there are people who are independent, left-leaning, Democrat-leaning, have decided to vote for Donald Trump.
Just because they're voting in larger numbers does not mean the Democrats are going to win.
And I'll tell you why I think Pennsylvania is going to Trump.
Because, oh, let me show you this.
Over on Google.
Take a look.
Can I change my vote?
Search term.
And on October 24th, it peaked to 100, with Pennsylvania being the fourth highest interested subregion.
I wonder.
What could Joe Biden have said that would make people of Pennsylvania search this?
Well, maybe people in Pennsylvania searched it because of something Trump said, sure.
But Joe Biden said he was going to end the oil industry.
And of course, I'm pretty sure people in Pennsylvania, if they want to change their vote, it's because they don't want to vote for Joe Biden.
Because he's going to take their jobs away.
Let me tell you this.
We can all make predictions every day, and I'm gonna.
I think Trump is gonna win as of right now, but man, it's hard to know for sure.
Youth vote seems to be turning out.
We don't know for sure.
We don't.
So by all means, you know, in a month or two, take this video and say, haha, look, Tim made a prediction, he got it wrong.
Of course I did.
You know?
Here's what I see.
Here's what I think is going to happen, based on the information before me.
I am but one person looking through a keyhole at all of this information, and I can't see everything.
That's my assessment.
Perhaps it's my bias.
I'm going to be voting for Trump, so of course I want him to win.
Consider that as well.
And then come, I don't know what, November 10th?
We'll figure out who's suing who, and then come January 20th, we probably still won't even know who our president is.
So, I guess, we'll just hang out and see what happens.
But, uh, I don't know.
Let me know what you think in the comments, and I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is my main channel, and I will—I'm sorry, it is—it is not my—it is a different channel, and I will see you all then.
Now I gotta admit, this one made me laugh.
Pierce Morgan, he is not a Trump-supporting staunch conservative by any means, had his CNN appearance canceled because he criticized the media for not talking about the Biden laptop scandal.
And surprise, surprise, whose show was it?
Why, it was Brian Stelter of Reliable Sources.
Very reliable, indeed, when they cancel people because they get criticized.
Now, okay, okay, I gotta slow down.
We don't know exactly why Piers Morgan was canceled, but Piers Morgan is outraged.
They had been pursuing him for weeks to get him to come on and talk about his book, and as soon as he says, You guys are hyper-partisan and you need to cover this.
They went, bye-bye, you can't come on the show anymore.
That's what you get when you watch CNN.
Brian Stelter is not a journalist.
He's a political commentator.
His show is not about reliable sources, it's about echo chamber sources.
And I'll tell you what, you can criticize me all day and night, there seems to be this partisan media thing happening.
I don't know what else to tell you, but I'm trying to bring on many left-wing personalities.
The only problem is they don't want to do it.
You know, the IRL podcast, we want to bring on people like Piers Morgan.
I mean, I gotta be honest, he's agreeing.
I agree with him about the media being partisan, but I'm more than happy to entertain anybody who despises Trump to come on the show and we'll talk about it.
You don't get that on CNN.
On CNN, you get the same regurgitated garbage.
I'll tell you this.
I'll tell you why.
It's not just this one story, but we'll read it.
You may remember Piers Morgan from that interview with Alex Jones where Alex Jones was like, 1776 will rise or whatever.
Okay, so Piers Morgan, my understanding is not particularly pro-Trump, right?
He's mad, but check this out.
It's the audience.
Furious liberals demand CNN fire Obama adviser Van Jones for saying Trump doesn't get credit for the good things he has done for the black community.
How dare Van Jones give Trump credit because Trump has done good things for the black community?
Fire him, they say.
Think about that.
Think about what CNN is.
Why would they cancel Piers Morgan?
Because Brian Stelter's show is an echo chamber, and his ratings are based upon just soothing the egos of those who scream, I hate Trump.
At least here, and in my shows, I can be critical.
You're not going to get die-hard MAGA flag-waving with my content.
And so I often have people say, like, well, I disagree with you on some of these things, but I respect, you know, your integrity.
Because I'll tell you this, I think it's absolutely astounding that I would be considered right simply because the Democrats have lost their minds.
That, to me, is nuts.
And I'm curious as to what happens when this all ends.
Assuming it does, I guess.
Like, if Joe Biden loses and the Democrats face a reckoning where they realize the American people really do not like whatever it is they're doing, do liberals like me become left again?
I have no idea.
But I'll tell you this, liberals are now right-wing.
No joke.
So when they say, furious liberals demand, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, you are wrong.
Liberals are supporting Trump right now.
Progressives and tribalist resistance types are not liberals.
I'm a social liberal.
I love it when people are like, you know, I tweeted something to someone on Twitter and someone responded, that's something a liberal would post.
You're not a liberal.
You guys hate liberals.
What are you talking about?
The progressives hate liberals.
Liberals have become right wing.
And so now liberals and conservatives who don't agree on a lot of policy issues agree on this country have banded together.
How weird is that?
The media has made this fringe lunatic faction the left.
Congratulations, America, your left wing is now a bunch of psychopaths.
Well, here's the story, Piers Morgan getting cancelled from CNN because CNN is trash.
They say, Piers Morgan has slammed CNN for cancelling his interview with the network after he said they and other American news outlets were being biased for not covering a story about a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden.
During an appearance on Fox & Friends on Friday morning, Morgan was played clips of journalists, including CNN's Jake Tapper, dismissing the allegations as false.
Fox News had him on instead.
I remember, you know, Tulsi Gabbard when she was running, and the main reason that I was
just adamant about Tulsi was that her principal position was ending foreign intervention.
And a lot of other things I don't completely agree with.
You know, I was more on board with gun control for a while, but after all the riots and stuff,
absolutely not.
And there were things I didn't agree with her on.
I'm pretty sure she was against nuclear power, had a lot of progressive policies.
But I'm like, look man, major in the National Guard, core position, we're gonna end these wars.
And I'm like, I'll take it.
And guess what?
The only networks that really gave her a fair chance, the only network, was Fox News.
And now they're putting up Piers Morgan.
So I'll tell you this.
They used to say Fox News is faux news, it's fake news, blah blah, whatever.
Actually, you know, Bill Hemmer, Brett Baier, I think Martha McCallum, is that her name?
They do a pretty good job.
Like the Daily News on Fox.
Throughout the day, I mean, you know.
They do a good job.
The pundits, you know, you can talk about the pundits and not liking them.
I'll tell you this, man.
There's no point in watching CNN because I know they do this.
And this is what I call, I refer to as the CNN challenge.
You may have heard me talk about it.
Turn on CNN at any point.
Turn on Fox News at any point.
See what they're talking about.
And then switch to CNN.
And you will find that if Fox News is talking about storms, you know, weather patterns, disasters, conflict, crisis, CNN will be talking about Donald Trump.
And that's why they can't have someone like Piers Morgan on, because he might splash cold water in the face of these people, you know?
And they might wake up like, whoa, wait, Piers Morgan is criticizing the Bidens?
The only way they keep voters for Biden is keeping them in the dark, right?
You know, so they're like mushrooms.
That's how CNN treats their viewers, like mushrooms.
You keep them in the dark and you feed them human waste.
Anyway, they say, in turn, the Daily Mail editor-at-large, Piers Morgan, said journalists in the U.S.
were being hyper-partisan for failing to report on or investigate the story.
Hours later Morgan confirmed that his promoting appearance for his new book Wake Up on CNN's Reliable Sources, which was set to air on Sunday, would no longer occur.
Last time I appeared on the show, I appeared after I wrote a series of negative Trump columns, he told the Daily Mail.
They were prepared to take me when I was negative, but not so much when I would be slightly more positive.
He added that he believes most media outlets have likely not investigated the story because if they do, it could lead to revelations that would cause the Democrats to lose the presidential election.
Bravo, Piers Morgan!
I never thought I'd be saying that.
Piers Morgan, coming out and saying what we all know.
Did you know that the company that owns CNN was a huge contributor to Hillary Clinton's campaign?
I don't know about her campaign specifically, what a lot of people don't understand is When you say, like, a corporation donates to Joe Biden or whatever, usually what's happening is that there are individuals who work for that company who are donating, you know, a certain amount to the individual.
Or it could be that the people who run the company are donating money to super PACs.
So not the campaign, but basically the campaign.
And I'm not a fan of how that stuff works, right?
Morgan told DailyMail.com that CNN spent at least a month asking him to appear on the show.
on CNN's reliable sources this Sunday, which they had pursued me four weeks to do, was
abruptly cancelled.
That's right.
There it is.
Morgan told DailyMail.com that CNN spent at least a month asking him to appear on the
show.
He said he had a weird feeling his appearance might be cancelled, but he was still very
surprised by the move.
Maybe they were worried I wouldn't bash Trump as they wanted.
And that's what my book itself is all about.
Illiberal liberals who want to cancel anybody who doesn't suit their agenda.
Morgan said producers at CNN also told him that he was cancelled because they reportedly were able to book someone else.
Whoa!
The executive editor of the Associated Press.
I just made the point.
That doesn't matter if you're pro-Trump or anti-Trump.
A major newspaper has published serious allegations, none of which have been denied by Joe Biden or Hunter Biden.
Bravo!
Oh, Piers Morgan.
Wow, I'm loving this.
They deserve to be investigated.
The liberal skewed media seems to have taken a view that if they investigated, the Democrats may lose the election.
That's a political calculation, not a journalistic calculation.
If a story like that breaks, they've got to investigate.
Here, here, the laptop in question, which contains damning emails and compromising photos, damning emails, and they said twice, okay, of Joe Biden's son, were provided to the New York Post by President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
So we know all this.
I think we get to the point.
Many reporters have questioned the validity of the story because the emails have not been independently verified, but Morgan said this is simply due to partisan politics.
The fact they're not investigating is a hyper-partisan approach by the U.S.
media, he said.
He also argued that many more news outlets would be covering the story if the laptop was reported to belong to Donald Trump Jr.
rather than Hunter Biden.
If you were to substitute Biden's name for Donald Trump Jr., the very liberal skewed media would be all over it like a rash.
Standing ovation, good sir.
He's right.
He's right.
And I'm glad he's saying it.
But we all know it.
So what is... What changes?
Apparently nothing.
That's the problem.
Maybe Donald Trump will win, and we'll finally get some kind of wake-up call, but I'll tell you this, man.
CNN is not news.
If you know people who only ever watch CNN, please consider sharing this video with them.
We are 10 days out from Election Day, with more than 50 million votes already cast, and my friends, let me tell you, youth voter turnout in many states has skyrocketed.
Now, it's early voter turnout.
That's the important thing.
A lot of people are trying to say, like, look, the young people are turning out.
Wow, look how big this number is.
Five, six times what it was in 2016.
For early vote, we don't have the full vote yet.
I'll tell you this.
Voter turnout's supposed to be historic, they're saying, based on early vote.
It's possible it's not.
You know what's interesting is that Gallup released a poll saying voter enthusiasm is normal.
Totally normal.
Not special.
Now that was crazy to me.
Voter enthusiasm now?
What about everybody for Donald Trump?
Oh yeah, that's good, for sure.
People are really enthusiastic.
But from a historical perspective, Gallup said they thought it was going to be a typical voter turnout year.
In which case, we may be seeing massive early voter turnout simply because Democrats pushed for it.
And mail-in voting.
It may turn out to be quite typical.
And if it does, Trump is going to win.
Now, I'm not going to get into full Trump stuff because I got a bunch of other stories for you later in the day on that stuff.
I want to keep this one focused on the media because check this out.
When, when Van, Van Jones is not the first time he said something good or fair about Donald Trump.
But this is exactly the problem that CNN has.
Furious liberals demand CNN fire Obama advisor Van Jones for saying Trump doesn't get credit for the good things he has done for the black community.
This is a problem that everybody faces in media right now.
And the problem is the system.
I'll tell you this.
If CNN has on Piers Morgan or allows people like Van Jones to say good things about Trump, they will lose viewers.
And they should lose viewers.
They need to lose these viewers.
And let these viewers go to MSNBC or anywhere else.
But it's the fact that these companies like CNN and these people like Brian Stelter only have on their circle of jerks If you know what I mean.
To talk about how Orange Man is bad, that makes people get wrapped up in this human centipede vortex where they're eating their own refuse.
I know, sorry, probably a little gross.
The point I'm trying to make is, if Brian Stelter has on somebody who says, Donald Trump is bad because he's corrupt, One of, you know, the people who watch that show hear that and they say, wow, Donald Trump is corrupt.
Then they come on the show and say, you know, he's extremely corrupt.
Then somebody is extremely corrupt.
It's like a game of telephone that keeps getting crazier and crazier and crazier.
I tell you, man, CNN, MSNBC are probably some of the worst problems we face in this country, and I really mean it.
Fox News, yeah, to a certain degree, but they're not as bad.
And I'll tell you how I view these things, right?
So Van Jones wants to give Trump credit for what he's done for the black community, and
the audience revolts.
Here's what I see.
There is a massive journalism apparatus.
I shouldn't even call it journalism at this point.
All of these news outlets walk in lockstep with the Democratic Party because they're pandering for tribalist votes.
There is a tiny actual resistance, channels like mine.
I do not make content specifically because I want Trump to win or, you know, Republicans are good for it or anything like that.
I actually really don't like Republicans at all.
I don't agree with much of their policies.
And so left and right in this country means almost nothing at this point.
It's basically a tribal identifier.
I guess.
What I see is you have all of these news outlets lying all the time.
Just lying all day every day.
And I tell you this, there is an endless amount of content in terms of criticizing the media's duplicitousness, deception, and manipulation.
And so, what bothers me?
If you've been following my career and the things I've talked about with, you know, in these videos, and how I got started doing these videos, it was strong media criticism.
You know why?
Early on, I got started with Occupy Wall Street.
I was on the ground, I was livestreaming, having a good old time, filming Conflict and Crisis.
And at a certain point, I joined Vice.
And Vice was okay.
We launched Vice News, I was their founding member, first person.
Basically, as far as I know, they had no intention of launching it until I came and pitched them, and then we created this thing.
And it was fantastic.
But it started to become more corporate, more desperate to pander, and there were a lot of issues, so I ended up leaving.
I went and worked for an ABC News joint venture with Univision called Fusion, and that was when they said, we are going to lie, basically.
That's what they told me.
I was told that I looked too white to participate in their presidential forums and things like that, and that it was racist and it was too bad for me.
And I started saying, like, what is going on?
Why is this media company no longer interested in reporting news?
Because when I got there, they said, we're not going to be partisan.
And so, uh, I got angry.
I tried to break my contract less than, uh, just over a year into it.
I tried breaking my contract and they didn't want to.
They actually paid me more.
And then finally, my contract ended and I left.
And I'm particularly angry with how the media is manipulating people.
They've always kind of been, but this is worse.
It's getting worse and worse every day.
So I'll tell you my motivations and what I see.
My videos are often targeting the mainstream media.
Praising someone like Tucker Carlson, for instance.
But criticizing someone like Brian Stelter.
Why?
Tucker Carlson is a counter-narrative.
My content is a counter-narrative.
Because the media is lying and not telling you what's actually going on.
If we were getting a fair shake from the likes of the New York Times and ABC and CBS and NBC, etc., then I wouldn't have to criticize them all the time, and I would be more likely to point criticisms at Fox News or any other channel.
But I'll tell you this.
The left likes to talk about One American News, right?
Or Breitbart.
And they say they're fake news and they're creating a rabbit hole and blah blah blah.
But they're not.
The fake news is coming from the mainstream media.
So it's kind of like this.
If the mainstream news, CNN, were doing their jobs and everything was fine, I'd absolutely defend them.
I'd say they're doing a great job.
They're not.
They cancelled Piers Morgan because he was criticizing news outlets for not covering Hunter Biden's laptop.
They're clearly not doing a good job.
Why would I dedicate my time to small, conservative websites when the entire journalism apparatus has become corrupt?
Can I criticize the likes of Breitbart and Fox News?
Sure!
But it's nowhere near the magnitude of danger that we're getting from a mainstream media that is lying all day, every day.
Think about this.
Are you going to turn on Fox News and hear great things about Joe Biden?
Actually, yes, sometimes you will.
Seriously.
Just the other day, they had someone from some Democrat campaign defending Joe Biden and the Democrat position.
But their pundits, they're mostly going to frame things beneficial to Trump, not completely.
That's why I say Fox News isn't nearly that bad.
If you go to Breitbart.com, are you going to get a bunch of, here's why Joe Biden's actually good?
No!
You're going to get, Joe Biden is bad.
And if you come to my channel, are you going to see that as well?
No.
You are not likely going to see a video dedicated to why Trump is evil or corrupt, or why Joe Biden is great.
Why?
First of all, it is extremely difficult to just pile on to the corrupt narrative.
I mean, look, there's a lot of things to criticize Trump over.
But the way I view Trump, the way I view Trump and his business practices and the things he's done as some of it, yeah, absolutely worthy of criticism.
And so I try to make sure I do point these things out and I'm fair.
But it's kind of like you're looking at this little tiny shark in the water and you're like, that thing might be a problem.
And then there's the entire Democrat establishment infrastructure, a great white.
Do I care that Breitbart is not going to criticize Trump for the most part?
Yeah, I mean, I think they should, but am I more worried that NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.
are lying to tens of millions to hundreds of millions of people?
Substantially worse.
You cannot compare the viewership of Breitbart or me to the likes of CNN.
So I'll tell you what motivates me.
Never been a big Trump fan.
Never been a MAGA-wearing whatever.
I didn't vote in 2016.
I'm voting now for a variety of reasons.
Most of you know.
Foreign policy, riots, etc.
And I'm not going to pretend like I'm going to be the most excited person about doing it, but I think the Democrats have gone nuts.
What I see is a corrupt establishment that needs to be called out and challenged.
And so I will do that.
My personal politics?
I'm an independent who leans left.
And many people like me have decided they're going to be voting for Donald Trump.
Why?
Because I don't think Republicans are evil.
Well, apparently that makes me right, because the left has gone nuts.
But I'll tell you what's going to happen.
In the next cycle or whatever...
When the shift flips back or whatever, maybe Republicans win everything and the Democrats are out, then it will start to change, I guess.
I'll start covering content where I'm like, this is not true, that's not true, and the right will be upset about it.
Perhaps.
Because I'm gonna call it out where it needs to be called out.
But I'll tell you my opinion right now.
The left has gone insane.
CNN is not even trying to hide it anymore.
They're canceling people who would dare say a positive word of Trump.
I could sit down with Brian Stelter, and he can talk about lies coming out of right-wing media or whatever, and I can say, you know, give me some examples for sure.
Oh yeah, definitely, we should criticize them.
You betcha.
We can talk about Trump's resorts and him putting people up, government, using, you know, government contracts, military staying at his resorts and things like that, and I've criticized those.
By all means, have a conversation.
But the mainstream media in this country overwhelmingly is deceptive and is lying to us.
And I've experienced it firsthand when they lie about me because they don't like having their power challenged.
But I'm not going to keep this one.
I'll wrap it up.
Listen, the general point is these companies want to make money.
So when their audience says, how dare you?
You praise Trump.
CNN sees it and they say, OK, stop praising Trump.
I'll tell you this.
I think I'm worthy of criticism for having content that's almost exclusively critical of Democrats.
an audience. That is corruption that needs to be called out.
I'll tell you this. I think I'm worthy of criticism for having content that's almost
exclusively critical of Democrats.
Sure. Okay. Bring it up.
I'm one person.
You know, if you've got left-wing individuals who are almost exclusively critical of Republicans, that's great.
They're one person.
If you go on YouTube and you can find Kyle Kalinske and Tim Pool and Jimmy Dore and Steven Crowder, we can point our criticism to the Democrats periodically, Republicans periodically, some with a focus particularly in one direction more so than others, but you are going to a platform that gives you a mixed bag.
When you go to the mainstream media, what do you get?
They walk in lockstep with the Democratic Party.
That's the problem we face as a country.
People need to break out of that.
I'll tell you what, we'd be better off without... I would much prefer that all of the viewers, every single one of them, was following Kyle Kalinske.
That's it.
Imagine if NBC, ABC, CNN, and all of their viewers left, and Kyle Kalinske, who was a progressive, all of a sudden saw himself getting 500 million views per month.
I would much prefer that to the establishment mainstream media.
Kyle is progressive, but he's honest.
That's the thing.
By all means, go and watch the progressives on YouTube, and you can also watch the moderates, the independents, the conservatives, whatever you want to call them.
People who point left, people who point right.
You don't get that with mainstream media.
I would rather progressive YouTubers get all of the views.
Not all of them.
Some of them are bad.
But I think, particularly, you know, Kyle does a pretty good job, and I see he tweets things that are fairly honest.
He gives credit to Trump when he thinks he needs to, he's defended right-wing individuals, but he is a progressive, and I respect that.
You take a look at mainstream media, they won't even have on Piers Morgan, because he dared criticize them.
The system is broken.
Happy Saturday, everybody!
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
If there is any group of people too stupid to realize that when you demand censorship, you get censored, it must be the mainstream left.
Because now we have the infamous Sacha Baron Cohen outraged that Facebook is censoring his article.
After he asked for it?
I kid you not.
The man tweeted, Facebook, I criticize you for not blocking false info about COVID.
Now your AI is blocking my article because the photo has false info about COVID.
Instead of just AI, use the money you made during COVID to hire more humans to moderate and fact check.
I'm not sure Facebook is one of these big box stores that saw a stock price surge because they were the only ones allowed to be open.
But I'm sure Sacha Baron Cohen lacks the ability to use Google because his computer must be broken.
Certainly it's not because he's just too stupid.
I don't like being mean, but I'll tell you what.
You may be familiar with what's going on with Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen's character, and Rudy Giuliani.
Why, it is Sacha Baron Cohen who is putting out fake news to manipulate the election.
That's right.
A video emerged of Rudy Giuliani appearing to take off a microphone and tuck his shirt in, and they used an editing technique, and I can break this down for you, and multiple angles to make it seem like Rudy Giuliani was trying to do something inappropriate with a young woman.
Borat then jumps out in, I guess, drag?
Yelling, my 15-year-old daughter is too old for you, take me instead.
I gotta be honest, listen.
I got no problem with pranking somebody.
I think Rudy Giuliani got sort of pranked, but they didn't really get... Look, if they actually got someone to say something dumb or offensive and shocked them, I'd be into it.
This is just Rudy Giuliani doing an interview and then tucking his shirt in.
More importantly...
What's the controversy here?
Two adults were in a room, and even if it was Rudy Giuliani trying to hook up with this chick, hey, more power to him!
The old guy's still got it, huh?
There's nothing really here.
But now Sacha Baron Cohen is putting out fake news, and he's pushing into it.
It's fake news meant to smear and discredit Rudy Giuliani.
I'm not saying you gotta like the guy or you gotta believe everything he says, but Sacha Baron Cohen is dropping this just before an election.
And I think the name of his film is like the trial of the Chicago 7.
He is actively calling for people to campaign and vote against Donald Trump.
I have no problem if the man says, I don't like Trump, please vote Biden.
I respect that, in fact.
But what he's doing is manipulating people with lies to trick them into voting, then calling for censorship of those he doesn't like, and then complaining because he actually got censored.
It takes a special kind of stupid.
I remember Borat when I was a lot younger.
That was a long time ago.
What was this, like 15 years ago or something?
That was a really long time ago.
And it was funny, but the original Borat, my understanding, and maybe I'm just misremembering, kind of just screwed around with regular people.
He would go around and he would pretend to be this foreigner and do weird things.
And the joke was mostly about people didn't understand foreign customs and cultures, so trying to be respectful to this guy would often find themselves in compromising positions.
Now, what Sacha Baron Cohen is doing is trying to put out smears, lies, and fake news in an effort to trick people into voting for Joe Biden or to discredit, insult, or just, you know, make Trump supporters and Trump's allies look bad.
I hate that.
I despise fake news and manipulation.
And I'm glad Facebook is censoring Sacha Baron Cohen.
At least emotionally.
Deep down, I actually think you should hear his argument.
But when I say I'm glad about it, what I mean is...
He is getting his comeuppance.
He has called for censorship, and then faced the brunt of his own... uh, the brunt?
Uh, the blade.
He swung his bat, and it whooped around and whacked him in the face.
And so, I gotta be honest.
Yeah, it feels good, right?
Ultimately, I oppose censorship.
I think it's a bad thing, and I think you should read his article to understand where he's coming from.
I think it shows that he is a moral authoritarian, he is duplicitous, and he thinks he's better than you.
And that's why it's extremely important you read what he has to say, so you get a better understanding of why he's lying to everybody right now about Rudy Giuliani.
Because he doesn't think you're smart enough to vote on what your actual interests are, and so he wants to trick people he thinks are stupid.
So here's what happens.
Sasha Baron Cohen, your own article gets censored by your own blade, and so be it.
Well, here's what he wrote.
I'm not going to read too much into it.
I'm going to break down and show you the hypocrisy of people like Cohen.
He says, we must save democracy from conspiracies.
And this was the article that was censored on Facebook because he called for it.
Talk about stupid.
He says, A few times in my career I have genuinely feared for my life.
In Arkansas, I posed as an ultimate fighter at a cage match and challenged anyone in the audience to take me on.
When my fake ex-boyfriend volunteered, we engaged in some heavy petting, triggering a near-riot.
The crowd, including some recently paroled prisoners with swastika tattoos, erupted in homophobic slurs and started hurling metal chairs at us.
Had I not ducked into a trap door and out an escape tunnel, I think the crowd would have beaten me senseless.
I think.
Sure.
I mean, I personally think it's wrong when someone goes into an area where they know violence is possible because there are bad people there, and then try and trigger that violence.
That's why I criticized the Proud Boys for going to Portland, and it's why I think Sacha Baron Cohen is just as bad.
Moments like that are frightening.
Today, though, I'm truly terrified for the survival of democracy itself.
He says, A year ago I spoke out publicly, for the first time in my own voice, because I feared that our pluralistic democracies were at risk of being destroyed by a flood of hate, lies, and conspiracies spewed by demagogues and spread by social media.
Since then, this toxic brew has exploded into the open, and with just weeks until the election, these conspiracies threaten to kill democracy as we know it.
For most of my career, I've been reluctant to take a public stance on the issues of the day.
I felt more comfortable in character or in a mankini.
Yes, a lot of my comedy is uncomfortably pubescent, but when it works, satire can humble the powerful and expose the ills of society.
As Abby Hoffman, who helped lead the 1968 protests against the Vietnam War during the Democratic Convention in Chicago, would like to say, Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger.
By getting people to reveal what they really believe, I have at times exposed the ignorance, bigotry, and conspiratorial delusions that often lurk just below the surface of our modern lives.
The reason I read this to you.
It's important to hear the hypocrite in his own words.
That conspiracies, lies, and demagogues.
And then he comes out and pumps out this fake Rudy Giuliani garbage.
So, who are you criticizing?
Have you ever looked in a mirror?
Think about it.
You called for censorship, Cohen, and then you got censored.
Oh no, but not me, I said!
Well, too bad.
You got what you wanted.
I'm glad you did.
I'm happy you get what you fought so hard for.
You say, but people are pushing lies and conspiracies.
And then you put out manipulated video to make Rudy Giuliani look bad.
You are doing you are you are.
This is either, in my opinion, extreme ignorance.
Or evil?
Does he know that he's projecting?
Does he know what he's really doing to the fabric of our society?
And does he enjoy it?
Probably.
He thinks he's better than you.
He thinks he's smarter than you.
And even though he's the exact problem that he claims to be fighting, he's actually just making all of it worse.
Look at this story from Daily Mail.
Trump supporter makes a white power symbol behind the president during his rally in Florida.
Yes, it was a guy giving the OK hand gesture, and that was it.
You want to talk about lies and smears and deception and conspiracies?
How about this one peddled by mainstream news outlets, including the Daily Mail?
How about calling out the media and the lies they put out every single day?
Are there crazy loons on social media that pump out crazy conspiracies?
Yes.
Has Donald Trump amplified crazy conspiracies?
You betcha!
I recently retweeted something about, you know, SEAL Team 6 being secretly taken out or whatever, and the guy who literally killed Osama Bin Laden was like, I know who I killed!
Listen, sometimes conspiracies are true.
And that's why I think it's, for a lot of people, easy to believe.
But Occam's razor.
If you want to go on one of these stories, show me the evidence.
Donald Trump didn't put out the evidence, he just retweeted the story, fine, whatever.
I prefer to err on the simple solution, right?
Occam's razor would suggest.
And although there have been things in history that have been proven conspiracies, I think it's problematic when anybody jumps on these ridiculous conspiracies.
Left, right, up, down, whatever.
The white power hand gesture, which doesn't mean anything.
Donald Trump likes to make the OK sign when he talks.
So Trump supporters started making the OK sign as like a symbol of supporting Trump.
And then 4chan did a hoax.
The media liked the hoax because it benefited them and it made Trump supporters look bad.
And they rolled with it.
And the likes of Sacha Baron Cohen and others are engaged in the exact same thing he claims to be fighting against.
Have you noticed?
The projection from the left.
The right is not perfect, but I'll tell you what.
When I can sit down with a Trump supporter and they will admit to me the faults of Donald Trump and then say exactly why it is they lean towards Joe Biden, I can respect that.
When there are people who say Trump is perfect and scream MAGA and refuse to admit Trump's ever done anything wrong, I don't.
Because any sane, rational person can look at things and say, oh come on, nobody's perfect.
I don't like the idea that Trump is always right or Trump is always wrong, but I'll tell you this.
The people who believe Trump is always right are few and far between, and they are not in mainstream media.
But the multi-billion dollar multinational corporations and celebrities like Cohen are repeatedly pumping out duplicitous lies and hypocrisy, and they have massive institutional power.
They are the great manipulators, and he has the nerve to complain about this.
Maybe what he's really doing is projecting.
You see, it was the Democrats that actually took money from the Russians.
It was the Democrats that actually had some nefarious ties with Ukraine.
It was the Democrats that were trying to sabotage Donald Trump's campaign as he was being inaugurated, as he was entering the presidency.
And they accused Trump and the Republicans of doing all of those things.
Of course you can criticize the wingnuts on social media for having, you know, crazy conspiracy opinions.
But that's just the wingnuts.
That's just the crazy people.
What am I supposed to do about the massive corporations?
And because of this, they will say I'm biased.
Should I criticize the small fringe outlets with crazy ideas?
Sure.
Should I dedicate entire segments to these small channels?
Why would I?
They're irrelevant.
More importantly, it's like you've got a bunch of these small outlets.
that are gaining prominence, that are a bit more conspiratorial, and they're gaining prominence because no one trusts the media anymore.
Why?
Because of you, Sacha Baron Cohen.
Because you are the one who put out the complete BS on Rudy Giuliani as he was tucking his shirt in.
It's very obvious he's tucking his shirt in.
And then lied, rolled with the lie, and tried to use that for political power.
You see?
You are a celebrity.
You are very wealthy.
And you are lying to people.
And to many, it's obvious.
How is it that we've ended up with many people who are liberal voting for Donald Trump?
How did you get Johnny Rotten, a punk rock legend, who voted for Clinton in 2016, to switch for Trump?
It's partly things like this.
You know, Earlier today, Schuonhead, who you may be familiar with,
tweeted, where's our disaffected conservative to agree with
everything we say?
And some people responded, we need a leftist Tim Pool, something like that.
And so my response was, have you not realized that there is no great movement from right to left?
In fact, everything these people do, be it Antifa, Black Lives Matter, General Progressives, Resistance Democrats, and their celebrity cronies, that these people are pushing regular people away?
How do you get an independent left-leaning individual who worked for Vice to announce now in 2020 that he'd be voting for Donald Trump?
I'll tell you, you keep doing things like this.
If only Sacha Baron Cohen was honest about it.
If only he actually poked fun at both the Democrats and the Republicans.
I encourage you all to actually go to, like, see Jonathan Pai.
I don't know if he's still doing a comedy tour.
I mean, COVID kind of slowed everything, shut everything down.
And Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan, I went to his show a couple years ago, I think it was a couple years ago, maybe a year and a half ago, and he poked fun at Democrats and Republicans.
It was fantastic.
He knew how to say nobody's perfect, and I think that's why so many people really like his show, and it's why he's the biggest podcast in the world, partly.
He's a regular guy, and he's like, some of you, y'all are crazy.
He'll rag on Trump all day, and he'll rag on Joe Biden all day too, and he'll point out what we all think, that even if you don't like Donald Trump, Joe Biden ain't all with it.
And that's just what we've all been seeing.
We've all been thinking.
It's honesty.
I'll tell you what makes me angry.
Every day, I go on Twitter, and there's the What's Happening section right there, and it's some ridiculously pro-Joe Biden lie.
Snopes reveals that Joe Biden won't raise your taxes.
Joe Biden said he's gonna remove Donald Trump's tax cuts.
That means everybody's taxes go up!
But of course, ugh!
So you get 50 Cent saying that he doesn't want to pay 62% in taxes because under Joe Biden's plan, when you combine all of the existing taxes, it puts your effective tax rate effective to around 62.
And what do we get?
Joe Biden will not raise your tax to 62%.
It's a lie, says fact checker.
And it's not true!
Think about it this way.
When you see a story, Joe Biden will end the Trump tax cuts, but promises to only raise taxes on those who make more than $400,000 a year.
If you're not a moron, you're like, but if the tax cuts go away, won't my taxes go up?
But you can see what these journalists really think.
Maybe that's one of the biggest problems.
You know, Twitter has exposed how these people really feel.
We call them flyovers for a reason.
Because these people They're just not smart enough to understand what's going on around them.
I'll tell you what.
The next segment I'm working on for Four is gonna be about, like, the election and polls and votes and early ballots and all that stuff.
And I was watching this video from FiveThirtyEight.
For those that aren't familiar, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver.
They do predictions and forecasting.
And they said, Donald Trump has only a 13 in 100 chance of winning.
In our simulations, that's what came up.
In it.
This guy is like, take a look at our new interactive.
And he says, it's going to be really hard to know who wins on election night because some states have are not going to give the results on election night.
Notably, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin and Michigan.
And I was like, wait, wait, you mean the states Trump needs to win to win the presidency are the states that changed their rules?
You know what it reminds me of?
You ever watch Family Guy?
And they have this, there was this episode a long time ago, it was really old, where this British dude buys the bar
in Kohag, where they all live, and then like a couple days later it burns to the ground.
And the insurance guy is like, you know, the place burns down, and Lois Griffin says,
so you mean this guy took out, he bought the place, took out an insurance policy
specifically covering fire damage, and then a day later the place burned down?
Don't you find that strange?
And the insurance guy goes, actually no, it happens all the time.
And that was the joke.
It happens all the time.
Not being able to connect the dots.
Let me connect the dots for you.
Don't you all find it a little strange That the states that gave Trump the win in 2016 that weren't supposed to flip Republican are the ones where they've changed the rules so that they won't be counting the votes on election day?
A little curiosity could go a long way, but these journalists don't have any of this.
They're just like, well, you know, these states just decided to change all the rules last minute and won't be giving us the results on election day.
It's like, So you know what happens?
Without those states, they are going to call it for Joe Biden on election day.
And then when Trump tries fighting for those results, they're going to say Trump lost and refuses to accept the results of the election.
Get it?
Trump's going to win a bunch of states.
Joe Biden's going to win a bunch of states.
Of course, he's going to get California, Illinois, New York.
Fine.
However, because we won't have the results from these Rust Belt states, it will look like Joe Biden won.
The forecasters will then say there's no way Trump pulls ahead in the Rust Belt states because polling shows this.
Therefore, we think it's safe to say Joe Biden has definitely won this.
Then they're going to say Trump needs to accept the results he's lost before the results are called in.
That's my prediction, at least.
Now, I'm getting off on a tangent.
What we see, and I shouldn't just be ragging on Borat and Sacha Baron Cohen, because it's all of them.
But I see this perfect storm.
This dude who puts out unhinged conspiracies and lies to gain power.
So he says, using unhinged lies and conspiracies to gain power and subjugate others is of course nothing new.
What do you think it is you are doing?
We can see it, man!
We know you're doing it!
Unfortunately, as George Carlin said, think about how stupid the average person is.
Now realize, half of them are stupider than that.
I don't think the average person is stupid.
In fact, I think a person is smart.
I think people are stupid.
I think the average person is not required to know everything, and I think the average person Doesn't understand a lot of the news because it's not their job.
If your job is to be a school teacher or a doctor or a plumber, you're not reading the news all day every day like I am.
And thus, there are many people who don't read the news, who just trust what they're seeing, and are being fed lies by the likes of Sacha Baron Cohen and mainstream media.
Well, Trump tries to cut through that.
He calls him the enemy of the people, he calls him fake news.
And then what do we get?
Did you guys watch my earlier segment from this morning?
CNN cancelled Piers Morgan because he criticized the press for not covering the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
The media in this country is manipulating every single person.
And when you get a bunch of people who don't know the facts, and they're not required to read the news all day every day, but we're getting to that point where you might have to, What do these regular people see?
They see a wave of news, Orange Man is bad, Orange Man is cheating, Trump supporters are dumb, and they don't investigate further because, well, they got jobs, right?
They end up believing this stuff.
They end up believing the lies of Sacha Baron Cohen, who gets his op-ed published in Time, where he projects onto you that which he is actually doing.
And they vote for Biden, against their own interests.
Now, Donald Trump isn't perfect, and I can say that 800,000 times all day every day.
But a booming economy is in your interests.
Under Joe Biden, he got us entangled in foreign excursions and war, and then passed all that war off to Donald Trump.
They built the cages, then they blamed Trump for it.
They let our economy stagnate, and then Obama had the nerve to say, you can't bring the GDP back up to 4%.
It's not possible.
I think it was 4%.
You need a magic wand, and then Trump did it.
If Trump gets elected, I think we will see booming prosperity.
A continuation of the golden age that we've lived in for some time now.
And it is a golden age.
Think about the prosperity and wealth, and how good these times have been, and how they have created, unfortunately, some bad times.
If Donald Trump wins, it is good times ahead.
If Joe Biden wins, this is interesting, actually.
I'm not entirely convinced it'll be bad times immediately, but I believe it will be bad times eventually.
If Donald Trump wins, he will get rid of the racism, the critical race theory, he will end these foreign wars, and he will give the American people much of what they ask for.
The economy will be booming for everyone.
If Joe Biden wins, he will carry out the world police foreign policy of his previous administration.
Things will probably get worse.
The economy will probably stagnate.
He'll blame COVID for it, or Trump.
And then what will happen is one of two things.
If people get angry enough, realizing they've been sold another bag of lies, the recoil in 2024 will be historic.
Beyond, beyond historic.
Or maybe the Democrats will keep people placated just enough so that they can slowly erode our manufacturing base, take our jobs away, and watch the middle class crumble.
And then no one will be angry enough, fast enough to do anything about it.
You see, if they slowly give away our jobs, sell out our manufacturing, there won't be enough power within the people to finance another Donald Trump.
Not only that, but Donald Trump's a billionaire himself, and he had a lot of celebrity press power.
Imagine somebody who doesn't have that and can't break through.
There will never be another Donald Trump unless Trump wins.
And perhaps, I should say, there will never be a populist unless Donald Trump wins, and that includes the left.
And this is why I can't believe the progressives are on board with Biden.
Because if Biden wins, they will lock the doors and never allow a Bernie Sanders to get in, ever, because he made life so miserable for them.
But anyway.
Look, I didn't really want to talk about Cohen because I don't want to give him any air, but I'm sick and tired of the elites, the ivory towers, telling us what to think and then calling us the morons.
It's not us that's stupid, dude.
Everybody is ignorant in their own right.
There are many things that individuals don't know, but a person is smart.
A person can tell you things you've never known, but a person doesn't know everything.
And you, such a barren Cohen, are a duplicitous hypocrite.
Who are pumping out lies and disinformation, and then complaining about it.
Calling for active censorship, and then complaining about it.
And as we can see now, you've gotten your karmic justice.
The next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast, my main channel.
Check it out, it's a different channel from this one, and I will see you then.
If there's one thing that we can be certain of this November 3rd, is that we will be completely uncertain of what is going on.
And there's a real fear that these mass protests that are being planned may break out into violence.
And I think that's extremely likely.
Now I know, I know, it's another video of Tim Pool talking civil war.
political violence, whatever happens on Election Day.
Two researchers claim that a single number they call the political stress indicator can warn when societies are at risk of erupting into violence.
It's spiking in the U.S., just like it did before the Civil War.
Great.
They even mention that one of the researchers refers to the American Civil War as the first Civil War.
Great.
Hey, don't look at me.
BuzzFeed's talking about it.
Let's see what they're going on about.
Many Americans are clinging to the idea that if Joe Biden wins the presidential election, calm can return to a nation riven by protests and rattled by President Donald Trump's authoritarian rhetoric.
They love projecting, don't they?
Not so fast.
Caution to academics who claim they have devised a measure of political instability that shows that the nation will still be a powder keg that is waiting to blow, even if a Biden landslide means that Trump has little choice but to step aside.
Quote.
The tendency is to blame Trump, but I don't really agree with that.
Peter Turchin, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Connecticut who studies the forces that drive political instability, told BuzzFeed News.
Trump is really not the deep structural cause.
Thank you.
I've been saying this for a long time.
Whatever has been going on in this country has been going on long before Donald Trump.
And they say it may be wealth inequality.
I don't completely disagree.
It's one of the reasons why I'm for a progressive tax policy.
We'll get into that in a second.
Let me read.
The most dangerous elements in the mix, argue Turchin and George Mason University sociologist Jack Goldstone, is the corrosive effect of inequality on society.
They believe they have a model that explains how inequality escalates and leads to political instability.
Worsened by elites who monopolize economic gains, narrow the path to social mobility, and resist taxation, inequality ends up undermining state institutions while fomenting distrust and resentment And I agree.
I agree that wealth inequality does it.
This leftist idea of privilege, I do not believe, hits the nail on the head at all.
I think it misses entirely.
What I think happens is that you've got ultra-wealthy elites who basically dictate policy because they're the people who can provide the resources for someone's re-election.
Not completely, but I'll tell you this.
The funniest thing about it is that the left is on the side of the massive, multinational, billion-dollar corporations.
So, um, why am I going to assume that a Joe Biden victory would do anything to solve this problem?
I think Donald Trump is the better bet in this capacity.
Now, Trump has only lightly tapped on the idea of wealth inequality, but he mentioned it was a problem.
Donald Trump himself being a billionaire, but not one of these big corporate crony elites, at least as far as, I guess, reality dictates.
Trump has his issues.
Trump is a billionaire, but he's not Mark Zuckerberg, and he's not a big oil tech or anything like that.
Regardless, I think it is fair to say that no matter who wins, there will be mass civil unrest.
However, I just think Joe Biden's gonna be worse, so that's just me, right?
Let's read.
Building on Goldstone's work, showing that revolutions tend to follow periods of population growth and urbanization, Churchin has developed a statistic called the Political Stress Indicator, or PSI.
It incorporates measures of wage stagnation, national debt, competition between elites, distrust in government, urbanization, and the age structure of the population.
Turchin raised warning signs of a coming storm a decade ago, predicting that instability would peak in the years around 2020.
In the United States, we have stagnating or declining real wages, a growing gap between rich and poor, overproduction of young graduates with advanced degrees, and exploding public debt, he wrote in a letter to the journal Nature.
Historically, such developments have served as leading indicators of looming political instability.
I don't disagree.
And I don't think Trump is doing everything to solve these problems.
I mean, Trump is racking up massive national debt.
He is, of course, before COVID, helping with unemployment and
America was doing better.
That's why I think Trump's the better bet than Joe Biden, but I
don't think, I don't think there's a solution to this problem.
There is a serious problem with inequality.
I'll tell you this.
I'm in favor of college loan forgiveness because I think we've got a massive population of people who feel trapped and their only solution is Communism!
For real!
You go to school, you learn about all this communism stuff, you might not care, then you graduate, you can't get a job, and sure enough, your only opportunity is some crap- crummy or crappy or whatever low-paying job, your degree, you can't pay it off.
Sure, we can argue.
That these people made these choices, but you got young people who were told to do it by our society and now they're stuck.
My opinion is that we should forgive interest rates.
People should pay back the principal of what they owe, but no more racking up more and more debt.
Just pay back what you spent and we'll call it square.
Otherwise, you get a bunch of people who feel like no matter what they do, they can't get out of this hole, so they get violent.
He goes on to say, Today, with the nation in turmoil, Turchin's prediction seems remarkably prescient.
We live in a pandemic hellscape that has disproportionately harmed black and brown Americans and those living in poverty.
We have widespread civil unrest over racial injustice, and we are hurtling toward an election in which Trump is stoking unfounded fears of voter fraud.
Thanks, BuzzFeed!
That's like a video that went viral of some dude, like, changing someone's vote, and the camera quickly pans away.
But I don't even care about the voter fraud argument.
You know, I'm hearing from people that they don't know where their mail-in ballots are or they're getting a whole bunch.
It's, you know, Trump says fraud.
He shouldn't.
It's impropriety.
It's error.
That's what it's all about.
So, sure, Trump is stoking the flames and refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power.
These people are such lemmings!
We've gone through how many years of the Russiagate bunk BS?
Spare me this, dude!
I do think we are headed towards massive strife, and they keep saying civil war, but come on!
In August, Turchin gave himself a pat on the back for his predictive ability with an analysis showing a significant rise in political demonstrations and violent riots over the last ten years.
But he and Goldstone fear that much worse is to come.
Look at this, civil war buildup.
I like how it's just some arbitrary number that we can't decipher, and they say, look, it's getting bad here, too.
It's actually worse than before the first civil war, he says.
I love it.
When Goldstone talks about America's darkest days, he provocatively calls it the first civil war.
He fears that we may be on way to a second one with a 2020 election serving as a potential firestarter event.
Am I wrong?
I love how a lot of these leftists don't Google anything.
unidentified
And they're like, Gimple keeps talking about Civil War, haha, we're so smart.
Come on, you could at least make fun of my appearance.
When we have BuzzFeed News saying these things, isn't that you guys?
Like, don't you like BuzzFeed?
Okay, maybe they don't, whatever, fine.
They say Goldstone has some credentials in predicting conflict.
In 1994, shortly after the U.S.
military's ill-fated efforts to support U.N.
intervention in Somalia, which led to the downing of two Black Hawk helicopters and the gruesome spectacle of a dead U.S.
soldier being dragged to the streets, Goldstone was tapped by the CIA to help lead the state failure task force.
This group of academic social scientists was asked to identify factors that predict when a nation is likely to spiral into chaos.
The initial report published in 1995 identified three risk factors that seemed to predict whether a state would fail within the next two years in about two-thirds of cases.
High infant mortality, low openness to international trade, and level of democracy.
On the last measure, partial democracies were more vulnerable to collapse than fully democratic states or autocratic regimes.
Let me tell you some.
One of the reasons I'm in favor of a progressive tax policy and high brackets for the highest income earners is to prevent instability.
I think it's fair and obvious that if you have oligarchs, people kind of revolt.
Imagine this.
We do have a progressive tax policy, by the way.
It's exactly how our country functions.
There have just been Republicans that have said they want a flat tax.
I disagree with that.
Think about it this way.
Look at San Francisco.
They have poop littered through their streets.
Nancy Pelosi keeps winning, and there's no change in sight.
What is a regular person going to do?
Well, right now, people are fleeing San Francisco.
I know.
Many of my friends who live there have left a long time ago.
I mean, a long time ago, like this past year.
What do you think happens if voting changes nothing, and people are upset that you've got billionaires while they're walking through poop-laden streets?
At a certain point, things destabilize.
People feel like there's no chance to close that gap, and these individuals with tremendous power get away with everything while doing nothing.
What does it look like we're at right now?
Now, Trump was a reaction, partly to this.
Trump is a symptom of the growing instability.
I remember when it, like, I think Occupy Wall Street may be the start of this.
We may talk culture war and all that stuff, but really...
Take a look at Occupy Wall Street.
When people were upset about Wall Street bailouts, you had the financial collapse, you had all these banks getting bailed out.
What about regular people?
I'll tell you this, man, you want to talk about student loan debt forgiveness, I'm not in favor of forgiving the entirety of their debt.
I just think, get rid of the interest rates, pay back what you owed, and we're square.
Some people have said, you want to bail out the big banks and these energy companies or whatever, but you won't bail out regular people?
I don't want to bail them out either!
I don't want to bail the big banks, let them collapse for all I care, but the economy would collapse too.
Yeah, well, I know how to start a fire with two sticks, okay?
So, so I don't care.
I know, I know, a lot of people will suffer at the economy tanks, and that's why they chose that evil, I suppose you could call it.
Bailing out the big banks.
Okay.
We got a bunch of young people, laden with debt, that are freaking out.
Many of them are going and riding.
Not all of them have student loan debt.
But we gotta figure out this problem, man.
Instability is heading our way.
Trump is a symptom.
People were tired of the crony elites who would never do anything for anyone.
And they felt they had no voice, so they turned to a strong man.
It's not going to solve the problem, but things are just continuing to destabilize.
I think Trump actually held it off for a while.
Could you imagine if Hillary Clinton won?
I think this place would be way worse off.
I really do mean it.
Like, we'd crumble.
I don't know though, man.
I think violence is coming.
I don't think anyone can stop it.
I'm not saying that everyone's at risk.
I just think the instability is heading our way.
So whatever.
There's a lot more to break down here.
I probably don't have enough time because I keep these segments short, but I got a couple more segments coming up.
Stick around and I will bring you some more on this in the coming segment.
I don't know how this will impact the election, but I have to assume this is going to benefit Republicans or, at the very least, force Democrats to move closer to the Second Amendment than they currently are.
First-time buyers fuel pandemic-related surge in gun sales.
Please, CNN, spare us.
I'm sure the riots had something to do with it.
What they tell us in this.
And I gotta say, most of us know this is happening.
But you know what's really amazing?
They break down the data.
Do you know who the gun buyers are?
First time buyers.
But do you know where they are?
They're in blue areas.
And who they are?
Black Americans and women.
These people now are probably not gonna be too happy when they hear that Joe Biden gonna take your guns away.
I just spent all this money on these guns.
And now you wanna take them from me?
No.
But I will tell you this.
I find it particularly funny that you have Democrats in cities that want to defund police going out and buying guns.
Please tell me those people will be voting Republican!
Let's read the story from CNN.
It's been an unprecedented year for the firearms industry, which has seen a steady pandemic-related surge in sales since COVID-19 lockdowns began in March.
Yes, and then the riots.
Gun retailers and industry analysts say it's normal for Americans to stock up on firearms and ammo during an election year.
In many cases, the analysts say the surge is motivated by fears that a Democratic president might expand restrictions on gun ownership.
But this year's sales spike is different because it's being driven by a rise in first-time gun buyers, especially among African Americans and women.
About 40% of gun sales in the first four months of the year were made by first-time buyers, far higher than the annual average of 24% over the past two decades, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association that tracks gun sales and analyzes industry trends.
Gun sales among black Americans are up 58% through September, according to the NSSF.
Mark Oliva, The Foundation's Director of Public Affairs said the rise in black gun ownership is unprecedented.
We've never seen a year-over-year increase that large in African-American gun buyers, Oliva told CNN Business.
It is the largest demographic increase we've seen.
People that are buying guns today took a whole lot less look, a whole lot less like me, and a whole lot more like the rest of America, added Oliva, who is white.
Gun merchants and advocacy groups have noticed the trend as well.
Maybe it's not a good thing that everybody is stocking up on guns in the sense that violence may be about to unfold, but maybe it is actually a good thing.
These people are going to be open up to an entirely new world they didn't previously understand.
Hey, I actually fired a gun.
Is that all it is?
Maybe then they'll hear this rhetoric from these politicians and these activists and say, that doesn't really jive with what I know about guns.
I'm reminded of Daryl Davis.
You may be familiar.
He's this legendary dude who is still alive, who de-radicalized over 200 Klansmen.
How?
By just talking to him.
It was really that simple.
Because then these people started to hear this rhetoric, and they'd be like, that doesn't describe Daryl.
Daryl's cool.
And then all of a sudden they realized, maybe I'm believing the wrong things.
Think about it this way.
These people go to a Democrat rally and you get someone like Beto going, I'm gonna take your guns away!
And they're gonna be like, boo!
And he's gonna be like, why are you booing me?
We're supposed to be for this.
They're gonna be like, we own guns now.
We don't like that anymore.
So that's because they're being introduced to a new world.
They're gonna meet gun owners.
They're gonna go to gun ranges.
They're gonna go and try and buy a gun and be like, wait a minute!
It's not so easy, is it?
Is what they say.
Douglas Jefferson, vice president of the National African American Gun Association, an advocacy group, says his organization has seen a major jump in membership that began around March, when the COVID-19 lockdowns began.
Before the pandemic, Jefferson says, his organization, which promotes responsible gun ownership and training for black Americans, had about 30,000 members nationwide.
Since then, about 5,000 new members have joined.
People are worried about people stealing from other people breaking into homes, Jefferson told CNN.
That was on top of the civil unrest that you've seen this summer, the demonstrations and some of the riots that you've seen.
Thank you.
Jefferson said fears of violence by white supremacists and police have also been a major concern for his members, especially following, you know, much of the Black Lives Matter related protest incidents, the things that sparked the protests.
It just seems.
We've had a lot more high-profile incidents where white supremacists have caused harm to black people.
Have we?
I don't actually think we have.
There's a greater awareness of it, and concern for it, and people wanting to protect themselves and their families against it.
New gun owner Luther Thompson, 41, of Cartersville, Georgia, says he joined NAAGA during the spring, not long after purchasing his first firearm.
The divorced father of five says both pandemic-related crime and Arbery's killing weighed heavy on his mind, motivating him to obtain a concealed carry license and buy his first gun.
Since then, he purchased four additional firearms and persuaded his ex-wife to get her own handgun and license to carry a concealed firearm.
I have a family to protect, Thompson told CNN Business.
You have people out there who are ignorant to the point where your life doesn't mean anything to them.
It's getting bad out there.
You have no choice but to protect yourself.
Thank you, good sir, and I agree.
There are people who have gone to other people's homes and threatened them and gotten violent with them.
And don't we all just want to feel safe?
I mean, that'd be great.
Thompson said fears of post-election civil unrest have also compelled him to stock up on guns, as well as ammunition, which has been out of stock in many stores across the country.
I've seen social media posts saying, if President Trump isn't re-elected, we're going to start a war, he said.
You just don't know how people are going to react.
I don't think we are going to see people marching through the streets.
But some people have said we should expect things like the Troubles in Ireland.
My favorite thing about leftist Twitter is how they don't know how to Google search anything.
During the debates, Trump said coyotes are bringing immigrants, you know, children.
And everyone was like, animals can't carry babies.
You think coyotes are like picking up them by their jaws and like carrying babies?
Coyotes aren't.
It's a reference to smugglers.
I made a post where I was being silly on purpose.
But I love Twitter for this.
There was some video I saw where someone said, you know, they spray-painted stolen land on like a statue.
And then I said, how long is too long before it starts getting weird when you demand back stolen land?
Like, I'm part Irish.
Would it be weird if I started demanding back Northern Ireland?
And then all these leftists were like, oh my god, does he not know about, like, Northern Ireland and, like, Belfast and the Peace Wall?
And I'm just like, you morons.
Could it have been more obvious?
I literally produced, like, a 20-minute video from Belfast filming the bonfires.
I went to the Peace Wall.
But these people are ignorant and arrogant.
And it's the ignorant arrogance that really scares me.
So now I'll bring this together.
You had a bunch of really dumb people who are going out and buying guns.
And I went to a gun shop to pick up my first gun, and I asked the guy if he was excited to be selling out all his weapons and ammo, and he was like, yeah, it's great, you know, business is good, but you got a lot of dumb people who are buying guns.
And I was like, that's a good point.
And he's like, a lot of these people don't know how to use them, they're not going to get instruction or training.
So I'll tell you this, definitely go do that.
But I bring up the Twitter thing because of two points.
One, a lot of dumb people don't even use Google.
You think they're going to look up how to use a gun?
Man, these people.
I'm worried about them.
But the other thing is that I think we are going to see violence kind of like the Troubles.
So if you're not familiar with the Peace Wall, and I'm not some expert on Northern Ireland, I just went there for a couple days.
The peace wall, like, it's a wall that separates the factions that we're fighting.
On one side is a bunch of, you know, like, pro-military and, like, pro-Israel.
On the other side it's like pro-Palestine and pro-communism or whatever.
And I'm like, some of these things make no sense.
Like, why in Ireland are they talking about Israel-Palestine?
Tribalism.
The real issue and the real conflict was rooted in the other.
My tribe good, your tribe bad.
And that's where we are.
Like, think about Ocasio-Cortez.
She is the herald of the new progressive tribe.
But what has she done other than just, you know, snap her fingers in the face of some Republicans?
Like, seriously.
Not a whole lot.
She caused harm to New York City, chasing out tens of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue, and then she goes on Twitter and she just posts hot takes insulting people.
That's what she does!
Bravo, I guess?
You get a lot of followers for it.
That, in my opinion, is the perfect example of what we can get.
People cheering for her, saying, I love you, bae, or whatever, and it's like, but is she doing anything for you?
Has she helped you?
No.
She's done some things I can respect, you know, getting together with, like, Ted Cruz on, like, lobbying issues and stuff like that, that's for sure.
But most of her time is just spent being an overt partisan, rallying her base.
And Trump does the same thing.
Now, Trump's got his supporters who like that he rallies his base, and he mocks AOC, and AOC rallies her base, and they mock Trump.
I'll tell you what, you might think you're right, I don't care if you think you're right or you think you're wrong, or whatever, you think I'm wrong, I don't care, the point is, the tribes are here.
People are getting mad at each other for being the other.
It's not even about what someone is bringing to the table.
I can look at Donald Trump and be like, hey, those things are good.
Peace in the Middle East with drawing our troops.
I like that.
They won't even say that.
They'll just be like, orange man bad.
They'll scream no matter what Trump does is wrong.
Chris Hayes from MSNBC criticized Trump's peace deal.
Trump ended the war with Sudan and Israel.
It literally ended a war.
And he's like, well, it's cynical and transactional.
Because they have to hate.
So I see this scum stuff.
And, I don't see a break in the tribes.
It just seems like people are gonna be dumb, and now they're gonna be dumb and armed.
I don't know.
I'm glad people are taking responsibility and buying their weapons, but I- and this is showing people going to instructors, so that I can respect.
I hope they take it very, very seriously, because I'm worried about violence.
And if people have tons of guns, we saw what happened in Kenosha, man.
It's just violence, you know?
I'm not blaming Rittenhouse.
I think he was defending himself.
But just... more violence.
After something like that, I just see an escalation in the next chaos, in the next riot or whatever.
But I don't know, man.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Many of you may have once been fans of Vice and Vice Media.
And based on the title of this video, you came and you're looking at it, you understand what we're gonna be talking about.
I mean, to be completely honest, I think it's a skin suit being worn by weird, woke, plastic people who don't actually know what made Vice cool and entertaining.
But we have this story from Airmail.
I'm not super familiar with what it is.
But this guy, William D. Cohen, talked to Vice employees and executives about what happened to the company and how it's basically crumbled.
Vice, at one point, was worth $5.7 billion.
You may remember back in the day, those amazing videos.
I mean, do you remember?
Do you ever see the video of when I went to Ukraine?
And I did the on-the-ground thing, and it was very straightforward?
Did you see the stuff we did in, like, Egypt or whatever?
I actually field-produced a documentary about these people who traveled from North Korea all the way through the DMZ into South Korea, and it was amazing.
I didn't go to North Korea.
I just produced the doc.
It got millions of views.
I went to New Zealand.
I interviewed Kim Dotcom.
We had fun, exciting adventures.
And it was edgy.
It was offensive sometimes.
It was silly.
It was fun.
The company at one point was worth $5.7 billion.
It got tons and tons of investment.
Today, people wonder if it's even worth $700 million.
Shane Smith, the guy who started it all, along with Gavin McInnes and Saru Shalvi, but Shane was the CEO for a long time, is basically gone.
What is VICE?
And why did it fall?
It's really simple.
VICE got woke and went broke.
And it's the perfect example of how you destroy something, and how the investors themselves have destroyed their investment.
So, look.
Air Mail talks about, he says, this would be Vice's moment.
We have a narcissistic fabulist in the White House.
There's riding in the streets.
The nation is the world leader in coronavirus.
The country is mired in a deep recession.
The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
Black Lives Matter movement has never been more potent.
California and Oregon are burning up.
This is the moment made for Vice Media in all its edgy millennial-ness.
This would be it.
And yet, what is the most popular TV show on Vice?
It's about wrestling.
Got a decent amount of views, I guess.
This week, Vice News had a scoop that broke through Twitter.
Jeff Toobin!
We know that story, I'm not going to repeat it.
To think that just three years ago, Vice News on HBO brought us Ellie Reeves' mesmerizing Charlottesville documentary.
He goes on to say, most notable among employee turnover, however, is Shane Smith, Vice's larger-than-life co-founder, who back in the day was known to have spent $300,000 on a board of directors dinner at the Bellagio.
He had reportedly just won a million dollars.
He resigned from the day-to-day management of the company after the New York Times revealed in December 2017 allegations about the sexist, misogynist side of the company's culture.
Shocker!
Some of Smith's bros found themselves accused of harassment and racial bias after having filled Vice with young, attractive women.
By the time he left, though, Smith had already pulled many of his millions out of vice and decamped to Los Angeles, where he and his wife, Tamika, restored a sprawling Santa Monica estate that had been featured in the shootout scene of Beverly Hills Cop.
Smith bought it sight unseen for $23 million.
And in 2016, the Wall Street Journal invited them inside to film.
This is the important point I want to get to.
What happened in 2017, and why did Vice truly die?
Well, to be honest, the changes were coming before 2017.
And to be fair, I was only there for about a year and a half.
I was there because it took a long time to negotiate, but I convinced them to do real news on the ground reporting.
They wanted to do something where it was like documentaries from the field, they would call it Vice News.
I said, send me on the ground to cover these things.
Initially, I was going to go to Ireland.
I believe it was Ireland.
And then Turkey's Gezi Park protests erupted, and I said, get me on a plane tonight.
They did.
The coverage got tens of thousands of views.
It was groundbreaking for them, and they were really excited and said, let's do legit news.
I'll tell you what the problem was.
It started to get a little unfun, to be completely honest, when I was there.
And I don't want to be there anymore.
So it's one of the reasons I left.
And they weren't woke when I left.
But they started to become woke because the investors wanted them to.
And this comes from my conversations with former employees, executives, and high-ranking officials.
The investors destroyed their own investment.
I kid you not.
Get woke, go broke.
It wasn't really Vice's fault so much.
I mean, in the end, it kind of was.
Vice used to be super edgy and crazy and punk rock and fun.
And we would parachute into crazy conflict and get criticized for it.
But we were on the ground, face-to-face with the danger, telling you this is what we saw.
We weren't some elites, some J-school graduate with a degree.
I was some random dude from the south side of Chicago, hopping on a plane and flying across the world and being like, yo, check this out.
They were ridiculed early on, saying that you're just some random guys who show up, point at some poop and say, wow, look at that.
And they said, so what?
People liked that.
It was authentic.
It was the birth of this new era of authentic media.
Kind of like what you get when you watch me just talk randomly with no script.
And then it started to change.
It started to become more plasticky.
But that wasn't what finished it off, because they still did a good job having fun making these documentaries and being kind of, you know, loose and off the cuff.
Something happened in 2017.
Allegations emerged.
The Me Too movement targeted some of the people at Vice.
Now what they could have done is said, screw you, we're Vice, kicked the garbage can over and started romping about saying, now let's get back to punk rock instead.
The investors.
And I gotta be careful.
I'm gonna be fair.
I had some conversations with some former employees.
So this is based on what I know.
My experiences working at the company.
And that was three years before all this happened.
And then what ended up happening to the company based off of what former employees have told me.
What I was told by a couple different people.
After these allegations came out, and there had been some accusations in the past, Vice didn't know how to handle it, but more importantly, instead of being the edgy punk rockers that people wanted them to be, they decided, we're going to do what the investors want.
We want a safe transition so we can sell this company.
This Airmail article makes a really interesting point.
They mention that the goal of Vice at some point was to sell the company.
To pump up its evaluation to a really, really high number and then just sell it out, everybody gets rich.
They say in the story there are rumors that Shane Smith turned down a massive sale offer because it would not have made him a billionaire.
He was a billionaire on paper, and if he sold it, he wouldn't have gotten there.
Maybe that's true, I don't know.
But I'll tell you what I heard.
And I'll tell you what I experienced.
When they got accused, instead of going punk rock, they decided to go woke.
They thought going woke would save their evaluation.
As most of you know, that's not how it works.
They started to bring on more and more woke individuals and write more and more woke articles, specifically because...
As I'm told, and this may be incorrect, the woman they brought on, because of Shane's past, you know, accusations, the woman they brought on, her name is Nancy Dubik, I believe her name is pronounced, decided, we are going to go feminist, intersectional, woke, progressive, to attract the younger audience and protect ourselves from the allegations against the former people running this company.
That's not what anyone wanted.
That's not what young people wanted.
And so the company is now shrinking.
They've lost, I believe, about a thousand employees.
Their evaluation from once a multi-billion dollar venture has dropped dramatically.
Why?
They gave in to the insanity.
How many people really want to go to Vice to see them complain about wokeness?
I don't think anybody does.
And at the same time, as we're seeing Vice is hurting, and we're seeing calls for the Wall Street Journal, this is coming out now, to adapt to a younger audience and talk about race!
My channel's skyrocketing.
100 million plus views per month on my channels.
100 million!
I'm grateful to everybody who watches.
My channels are now bigger than Vice News.
No joke.
I believe this channel actually is.
Think about how crazy that is.
That they could have kept me on.
I could have saved that company.
I could have made them huge.
And now this channel.
Actually bigger than that, huh?
It's kind of crazy to me.
The investors came in and said, because of the accusations we need an out.
How about we just start giving in to the feminists and say we'll be feminist, buy some feminist brands, things like that.
They said okay.
My understanding is that the investors demanded it.
And I think, for the most part, Shane and the executives at Vice just wanted to make sure they got paid and didn't watch everything crumble.
It was a mistake.
Imagine what Vice would be today under my leadership.
I'm gonna go ahead and say it.
Seriously.
My channel's bigger than Vice.
Really amazing, huh?
Now, I guess when you consider their websites, they claim to have like 340 million, you know, views per month, which is substantially higher than mine, but that's the written stuff.
I don't do the written stuff.
Maybe I'll get to that point.
On YouTube alone, though, my channels are massive compared to what Vice was.
I'm confident that if I was reporting on the ground, if I was leading the charge, and I was hiring people, it would be something way different.
It would be huge, successful.
Probably evaluation would have gone way up.
But that's one of the reasons I don't want to be there anymore.
Because I knew.
You know, in 2013 I told them to do this.
What I'm doing right now.
No joke.
I said, we have an ample opportunity to just film the opinions of our journalists.
Just to record them and say what's happening today alongside a Vice article and then them giving you the personable and authentic breakdown.
And they said okay, and then never really wanted to do it.
Because they didn't know how to do it, I guess.
Instead, they decided to change the company and go after this woke ideology, buy up other woke companies, hire more woke people, thinking the same stupid idea that Fusion thought.
Young people are all progressive, therefore we should just pander to them!
It did well for Fusion, who sunk between 300 and a billion dollars down the toilet.
Gone.
Put that on fire.
And now Vice, which was once worth 5.7 billion, and should have been the new Time Warner, is in the gutter.
Because they got woke.
Because they didn't want to just be regular people.
And now because of it, they have created a whole new network of insane people who believe insane things.
You know, I do, I periodically do videos about Vice.
I was only there for just over a year, about a year and a half.
So I'm not going to pretend to be this long-standing, decades, you know, OG employee.
I wasn't.
But I was the founding member of Vice News.
And I'm proud of the things they accomplished after I left.
A lot of the stuff that I brought, the negotiations I had, made it exist in the first place.
There was not going to be an on-the-ground news reporting.
And you can quote this from Shane Smith, who said it.
They had no intention of doing this until I came and Sad, we gotta do this.
It took months of negotiating to finally get it to happen.
And so I am bummed to see that I came there and said, here's what's up.
And they took it, and they flushed it down the toilet.
Because they wanted to go after this fringe leftist ideology.
Here's what you need to understand.
Perhaps it will be true that the audience you speak to changes.
Perhaps it will be true that, or they age.
What is your goal?
Do you change your brand to attract younger people and betray your existing audience?
Or do you just make content for everybody?
Vice decided to change their brand to go after the youth, and that was wrong.
And I do believe it was probably because of Nancy Dubik.
Dubuk, or Dubik, or whatever her name is.
I believe she contributed to the failures.
They got rid of Shane, and they deserve it.
Shane was accused.
They said, we're gonna bring in someone else.
He essentially got me too'd.
This person did not know how to run the company, did not have the edge, or the charisma.
And there you go.
It's too bad, really.
But I'll tell you this.
I'm planning on some big things.
As you know, we have Scanner, which is absolutely still up and running.
It's just... There should be notice about what's going on.
I don't run the editorial.
That's the easiest way to put it.
So the strategy and how the publishing happens is beyond me.
