Trump Boasts $122M Warchest As He All But Declares His 2024 Presidency, GOP CRUSHES Dems Fundraising
Trump Boasts $122M Warchest As He All But Declares His 2024 Presidency, GOP CRUSHES Dems Fundraising. Republican Super PACs have outraised Democrats.
Along with Democrats retiring in huge numbers, massive fundraising, and bad polls for democrats, its looking like a red wave in 2022 for republicans.
But the GOP should not get complacent. A year is an eternity in politics and Joe Biden while very unpopular is still going to try to muster a defense for democrats in november.
#Trump
#Biden
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump is boasting a $122 million war chest, as he basically declares he is running for president in 2024, and Republicans in the midterms are already crushing their Democratic opponents.
In our next story, Whoopi Goldberg triggers basically everybody by saying that the Holocaust was not about race.
Yeah, basically everybody got mad about that.
In our last story, BuzzFeed is not doing too well.
Their IPO is failing and down nearly 60%.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump's DWAC is up 660% since launching.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
We are entering a major election year with the midterms and many expecting Republican red wave, not just because people are fed up with failed Democrat policies, but because redistricting is heavily favoring Republicans.
But Donald Trump may have already just declared he is going to be running for president in 2024.
Not formally, mind you.
Donald Trump just said in a viral video that he will be the 45th and 47th president of these United States.
Now, many are wondering, how can he say that without declaring he's actually running?
Because he was speaking off the cuff to some friends and didn't declare that he was actually running.
It's not a formal declaration to talk smack on Instagram while you're golfing.
But of course, everybody knows what it means.
Donald Trump has been campaigning quite fiercely.
It's 2022.
We're not even in primary season, which is next year.
But Donald Trump is raising massive sums of cash.
Now, I've personally spoken with many of those in Trump's inner circle.
They've appeared on TimCast IRL and outright said, of course, Donald Trump is running in 2024.
Trump's got diehard fans and many people are outright fed up with Democrats.
So Donald Trump is entering the fray right now with $122 million in his war chest.
But it's not just about Donald Trump, which I do want to focus on.
It's also about this upcoming red wave where Republicans are out fundraising Democrats.
Super PACs Republicans raising way more money.
In fact, Even when it comes to some of Donald Trump's preferred candidates versus establishment Republicans, the Republicans are still raising massive amounts of money compared to Trump's preferred Republicans in the primary, but Republican versus Republican, they are absolutely crushing their Democratic counterparts.
Suffice it to say, ladies and gentlemen, I think regular people are absolutely fed up with the Democratic Party, and I think what we ended up seeing in 2020 was Donald Trump being anti-elected.
So Trump, of course, could be raising record sums of cash, but will it be enough to overcome the hatred of Donald Trump?
Well, we've experienced a lot already in just a year.
Joe Biden botched Afghanistan.
Everybody seems to be pissed off about it.
He's not solved anything related to the COVID pandemic.
People are more vaccinated than ever, but we're seeing more COVID than ever.
And I don't know if it's fair to blame Joe Biden for all of that, but certainly under his leadership, people are stressed out, they're pissed off, and it seems like there's no amount of hate for Donald Trump that is going to make things better for Joe Biden.
We're already seeing Democrats floating the idea that they will pull Joe Biden out for 2024 and try and get someone else, because I gotta be honest, everybody seems to realize Kamala Harris ain't it either.
So what does it leave us with?
Uncertainty, to be honest.
People don't like where the Democrats have brought us.
There's no real Democrat contender for the presidency, but people still don't like Donald Trump.
And Donald Trump has even floated pardons for those in January 6th.
Now, that could play a role in people saying, oh, look, fascism, it's coming here to America.
But I wonder if regular people are just going to snap and say, yo, I don't care about any of that.
Just bring the price of milk back down.
Get our gas prices down.
Get food back on our store shelves.
And that's the thing about despotism, my friends.
You wanna be an authoritarian?
You gotta have the authority first.
And while the machine does control a lot of cultural institutions in the narrative, they don't have the absolute power to shut down the American voter.
So long as the American voter can say, I'm mad as hell, I'm not gonna take it anymore, a Donald Trump may once again get elected.
But let's read exactly what's going on with this news about Donald Trump raising all this money and the news about Trump basically declaring that he is going to be running.
Not only did Donald Trump...
Imply he'll be running?
No, he flat out said he will win in 2024.
And that has a lot to do with how politics is played in this country, and why he's allowed to do it, and how it's going to benefit him.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support all of our work.
If you like these videos, If you like the journalism we're doing at TimCast.com, become a member and you will get an ad-free experience as well as access to our members-only podcasts.
We call the TimCast IRL Uncensored Podcast because they're not family-friendly.
We just actually swear a lot.
And we talk about things that are typically not allowed on certain platforms.
It's the best we can do to try and make sure there's a space for these conversations.
And with your support, we will continue to have these conversations.
But keep in mind, We are putting up some of these uncensored conversations for free on podcast platforms where there is less censorship.
We're just trying to do our best to make sure the message can stay active and we don't get shut down.
With your support, we will expand, we will launch new shows.
But don't forget to smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share this video with your friends if you really want to help out.
Let's read the story from ABC News.
Trump's fundraising extends massive $122 million war chest.
$22 million war chest. He raised $51 million in the second half of 2021, down from $82
million in the first half. Well, in the first half of 2021, we were dealing with a lot of
angry people, the elections and all that stuff.
Now, it's the end of 2021.
The narrative is kind of cooling off.
We're entering 2022.
It's midterm season.
People got to be donating to members of Congress.
And primary season for the presidential campaign isn't until next year.
ABC News reports, Former President Donald Trump announced Monday night that his political committees raised more than $51 million over the second half of last year to buttress what is now a massive $122 million war chest.
Trump's latest fundraising haul is a drop from the first half of last year, this we know.
It's possible that the $82 million sum Trump's team announced for the first half of last year included transferred money raised in the final weeks of 2020, though the exact amount transferred from the previous year is unclear.
Trump's war chest puts him in a uniquely strong position heading into the 2022 midterms and ahead of a potential 2024 presidential run.
I know they need to say potential, but let's not play games.
We had several people on Tim Cast IRL, like Peter Navarro, like Steve Bannon, and several others.
I'm not going to put words in their mouths.
You can watch the interviews we did with them.
But basically, many of them are like, yeah, Trump's running.
Trump is going to run.
And then they said, Trump is going to win in 2024.
I think it's a fair bet, to be completely honest.
I'll tell you this.
If you came to me right now and said, you know, a gentleman's bet.
Will Trump win in 2024 if he runs?
I'll say yes.
But keep in mind, we are three years out, basically.
There's a lot to be said for what that really means.
I mean, Who knows what's going to happen in the next year.
For all we know, Democrats find their frontrunner, which they don't have now.
I kind of don't think they will, but hey man, a couple of years, it's an eternity.
2023 is the real year the presidential races will light up.
And if they're going to pull Joe Biden out by 2024, they're going to need to announce it this year.
Keep that in mind.
If Joe Biden, he's claiming he's going to be running in 2024, and if he is, okay.
Well then, they're not going to say anything this year.
But if they're going to gear up for a primary, something big must happen this year.
Keep that in mind.
If they want to start lining up potentials for 2023, it's going to have to be mid-2022 when they start saying, like, here's a potential presidential, you know, a candidate.
That means Joe Biden will have to be discernibly not running for president again.
What does that mean?
I don't know, man.
But maybe Joe Biden just will run.
I think if Joe Biden runs again against Trump, he will lose in a massive and crushing defeat.
But, you know, who am I to say?
I don't have a good track record on guessing what will happen politically.
Let's read more.
They say the Republican National Committee also reported having $56.3 million cash in hand by the end of December 2021.
In a press release Monday, Trump's Save America Political Action Committee said that the $51 million was raised by the former president's multiple committees from July 1st to December 31st.
The average donation Trump received was $31, with a total of 1,631,648 donations.
with a total of 1,631,648 donations.
Notably Trump doesn't appear to be sharing many of his donations yet.
With over $122 million cash in hand, Trump says his PACs have only donated $1.35 million
to like-minded causes and endorsed candidates.
Remember that.
It's important for the upcoming stories I want to show you based on about the midterms and how the media is framing things.
Save America's filing.
Shows that $1 million of that contribution went to the non-profit conservative Partnership Institute, which is led by a slew of Trump's close allies, including Mark Meadows, Jim DeMint, and Ed Corrigan.
Much of Save America's money in the latter half of 2021 was spent on Facebook ads, payroll, and consulting fees for various firms, including $1.5 million paid to Tim Unn's firm, Event Strategies, and $60,000 paid to former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale's firm, Parscale Strategy.
Over the past year, Trump has been fundraising with numerous allies.
So we get it, we get it, right?
They're going to mention there's a lot of money being raised.
The RNC has continued to help cover Trump's legal bills in the past few months.
RNC's fundraising has dipped in comparison to substantially larger amounts it used to report every month while it was fundraising with Trump during the 2020 election cycle.
But let's talk about Donald Trump's campaign, and let's talk about that very important point that Trump is not sharing his donations yet.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
You got to watch out for the slick media, how they try and pull the wool over your eyes
But let's start with this interesting question.
From Yahoo News.
Why Donald Trump can say he'll be the 47th President of the United States without having to declare himself an official candidate.
I just want to say, outright, as I mentioned earlier, if somebody is filming me privately and I say something like, I'm going to be Superman next year, like, what does that really mean?
I'm not actually declaring anything.
Context is relevant.
And you can say whatever you want to your friends.
He did not himself make a public declaration.
He was just smack talking.
But here's what they say.
Yahoo reports Trump gains advantages by delaying a formal announcement that he's running for office, some experts say.
Clad in a white polo shirt and red MAGA hat, Trump lined up to hit a golf ball.
First on T45th President of the US, a man off-camera declares, Trump then interjects the 45th and the 47th.
It's the latest in a litany of hints, suggestions, and near declarations that Trump's offered about whether he'll run for president in 2024.
But Trump must make more than a few indicative remarks for the federal government to require him to officially register as a presidential candidate and begin adhering to financial disclosure and fundraising limit requirements, election experts say.
There's no law against joking, bloviating, speculating, or predicting, said Brad Smith, chairman and founder of the Institute for Free Speech, and a former Federal Election Commission chairman.
To become an official candidate, Trump needs to put money where his mouth is.
He would have to raise or spend more than $5,000 specifically in support of a presidential campaign effort to officially register as a presidential candidate according to FEC guidelines.
Let me take you back in time, my friends, to a story about then-candidate Hillary Clinton.
She did, it was reported, it's been a while, so fact-check me, it's been seven years, but my understanding is that she did some speaking gigs for high-profile companies.
I believe one was Goldman Sachs, again, it's been a while, you can fact-check me on this one.
And they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, put it this way.
If someone were to declare they were running for the presidential office, all of a sudden now, you can only contribute $2,500.
I think it went up because it goes up every year or whatever, but it's limited.
Let's say Donald Trump is not an official candidate.
He can come out and say, I'm gonna be the 45th and 47th president, haha, you know, I'm just kidding.
Hey, by the way, you wanna give me $100,000?
You see how it works?
And then people will contribute money or they'll hire Donald Trump.
Here's how it'll work.
They'll say, you know, Donald Trump basically says he's running.
We all know he's running.
We get his point.
I mean, maybe it's a slim chance he will, but come on, he's gonna run.
But he sends that signal out, assuring people, and then you might get a company that says, Trump, we'd like to pay you to consult for us.
We'll give you $10 million.
And then Trump takes it, he pays his taxes on it, and then he declares he's running.
There's no way an individual or company could give him that money if he was an official candidate.
So this is how politics is played in this country.
It's a dirty game, but everybody does it.
They're gonna say, even though Trump has conducted campaign-style political rallies, raised tens of millions of dollars, most notably through his PAC, he hasn't expressly declared that these committees exist in service of his presidential ambitions.
If he starts to spend money pursuing a run for office, that could trigger candidacy.
Ken Gross, a former associate general counsel for the FEC, wrote an email to Insider, making such a statement on a golf course, possibly in jest, about becoming the 47th president, doesn't quite get you there.
But everybody knows, and they'll start slinging money against Donald Trump.
Trump's also made some bold statements about what he intends to do.
Politico reported this only a few days ago.
Trump suggests he might pardon some January 6th defendants.
He'd have to be returned to office in 2024 for that to happen.
I don't know if he will, to be completely honest.
I do not know if Donald Trump has it in him to actually pardon these people, but...
I don't know, man.
It's hard to say I think he will, but I probably lean more towards he would than he wouldn't.
I think that if Donald Trump gets re-elected, or I should say if he gets elected in 2024, I have described Donald Trump as a bull in a Chinese shop, or a bull in the ivory tower.
In 2016 and 2015, Bernie Sanders, the populist from the left, Donald Trump, the populist from the right, they approached that ivory tower, and they said, let us in.
Well, Bernie Sanders, being weak, knocked on the door and said, you let me in, the people are mad!
And they said, shut up, Bernie.
Donald Trump stormed in like an angry bull, stomping about, running up the spiral staircase, smashing the fine china, and leaving all of the political elites going, oh heavens!
As this bull rampaged about, knocking over their plans, disrupting the establishment.
And they were very, very upset about it.
Well, Bernie wasn't able to get in.
They booted him out.
He joined them and basically said, tell me what to say and I'll say it.
But Donald Trump, they eventually removed.
Now, if Donald Trump were to get in again, I'd describe this as a bull on fire!
Now, it's a raging bull, completely enraged, and the engulfed in flame serves two metaphorical points.
One is that there's limited time for the bull to act, knowing that this is it!
I'm on fire!
But also, that fire wreaking havoc itself.
The destructive nature of the fire will also cause damage to the ivory tower.
And what I mean by that is...
Donald Trump, if he gets in, no holds barred.
He is going to want revenge on those who misled him, who lied to him, and he is going to do what he wants, when he wants, without being held back.
In his first term, he was held back, he was accused of Russian collusion, Ukrainian garbage, quid pro quo, all the lies, and Trump did as he was told by his advisors.
Many people told him, don't get on these alternate social media platforms.
Now he's banned.
They told him not to do this, not to do that.
And he listened to them.
It was a mistake.
I think if Trump gets reelected, he's just going to be shut your mouth to all of these people.
And he's going to start banging the gavel and saying, what I want done shall be done if I'm the president.
Don't get me wrong.
It'll be within the confines of the presidential office.
It'll be within the confines of what he's legally able to do.
But a lot of what he did in his first term was based on advice from really bad people.
I mean, the dude hired John Bolton, the war hawk, who said, by this time next year, we'll be celebrating in Tehran.
And then Americans were like, yo, we don't want to go to war with a nation like Iran.
It's not Afghanistan or Iraq.
It's massive.
And it would be insane to think we'd do that.
Trump made many mistakes.
I don't think this time around he's going to listen to anybody.
He's going to be like, out of my way.
So maybe he'll start issuing blanket pardons.
Maybe he'll be like, Assange, get out of here!
Oh, you know, Snowden, get it out of here!
Everyone's pardoned.
I don't know about Assange.
Because I gotta admit...
Despite the fact that a lot of people think Trump, you know, may actually do these things, Trump still has some establishment views.
He does not like Bitcoin.
He opposes it.
He's the reason Julian Assange got raided at the Ecuadorian Embassy in the first place.
Now that one's a big story.
Donald Trump knows that Julian Assange can effectively exonerate him in the Russiagate smear and said, I don't care if he's not going to cooperate, we're going to make him cooperate.
That's a problem.
That's despotic.
Trump is far from perfect.
But I think Trump will get in there and he'll be like, Antifa, you're done.
I'm done with this.
Build the wall.
I'm done with this.
Make it happen.
January 6, he may very well just pardon as many people as possible.
Trump's hint that he might pardon people his supporters claim, says Politico, have been treated unfairly could become a calculus in their decisions to accept plea deals or to enter into negotiations with prosecutors.
Some of those facing most serious charges grumbled about Trump's inaction in his final days in office.
Thoughts captured in private messages obtained by the Justice Department, even as he pardoned dozens of their political allies.
Quote, We are now and always have been on our own.
So glad he was able to pardon a bunch of degenerates as his last move, and ish on us on the way out.
Proud boy leader Ethan Nordian said in a message to prosecutors included in a May court filing, F you Trump, you left us on the battlefield, bloodied alone.
Okay.
This year is not just about Donald Trump, however.
Take a look at this story from Axios.
And I want you to remember, I pointed out that bit in the first story, that Trump hasn't shared this fundraising yet.
Trump-backed candidates confront cash wave.
What does that mean, Axios?
What are you trying to say?
They say, some of Donald Trump's hand-picked candidates are hitting an obstacle in their efforts to purge the Republican Party of Trump skeptics.
Money.
Lots of it.
I think this is false framing.
I think this is manipulative.
But let me read it for you.
They say, Key Trump-backed Republican challengers were heavily outraged by their Republican primary opponents late last year, newly filed financial reports show.
The money advantage has the potential to play a decisive role in closely watched House and Senate primary contests this midterm year.
Yes, typically those who have more money do win, but we are in a different world, my friends.
Social capital matters.
They say, the lack of it can spell trouble for a number of candidates Trump has endorsed out of personal affinity or simply a hatred of the more moderate Republicans they're looking to unseat.
They go on to mention Rep Liz Cheney more than quadrupled the fourth quarter fundraising haul of her top primary opponent, fellow Republican Harriet Hageman.
Cheney's $2 million haul, her best ever fundraising quarter, came as she spearheaded efforts to investigate Trump's role in the January 6 attack.
Hageman reportedly raised $443,000.
This is BS.
It's complete BS.
Let me show you this story from Fox.
Trump-backed Cheney primary challenger, Hageman, hauls in $1 million since launching congressional bid.
Okay, well, maybe someone is manipulating the game.
Fox is saying, look how much money she's raised, without pointing out that Cheney raised $2 million.
Why should I care that a neocon establishment garbage Republican like Cheney is making money off of people who don't like Republicans and just want to see her win?
For all we know, that people, people, Republicans were donated to AOC because they wanted her to win because she makes the Democrats look so awful.
Hey, let me, let me just throw out, do I have this story here?
Yeah, I have this story here.
AOC reveals she's quit Twitter after getting anxiety over negative tweets.
Well, I can actually sympathize.
Twitter does suck.
But I mean, she just reflects so poorly on the Democratic Party.
Now, they're going to mention this.
Axios.
Other Republicans who, like Cheney, voted to impeach Trump have outraised Trump-backed challengers.
Lisa Murkowski, Fred Upton, Jamie Herrera-Butler, John Gibbs.
Sure.
Sure.
But, are they raising money from people who just don't like Trump?
In which case, Trump's got the support.
And now I'll point out, ABC, when they mention that Donald Trump isn't sharing any of that money, what happens when he does?
What happens when Trump says the midterms are the most important thing right now, and he drops a million, two million bucks on each one of these candidates' super PACs or whatever?
Well, then all of a sudden, how much money they raised is irrelevant, because Trump is the leader of the party.
And if Trump decides to give these people money, and they're more popular anyway, then so be it.
Keep in mind, the Republican establishment is garbage.
I don't know if these challengers are the answer.
I do know that Donald Trump has supported someone over Robbie Starbuck, in Tennessee's, I believe, 5th District, which resulted in a lot of Trump supporters being like, yo, Trump is out of touch with his own base.
So maybe something happens.
Maybe Ron DeSantis runs.
Maybe Ron DeSantis beats Trump.
I gotta say, I gotta be honest.
Trump may run.
I think he's had a good chance of winning.
I think Ron DeSantis would win over Donald Trump, hands down.
But, you know, who am I to say?
Axios says, even some contests without an explicit Trump antagonist, Trump-endorsed candidates are facing an onslaught of cash.
Retmo Brooks, the Trump-backed Republican running for Alabama's open U.S.
seat, pulled in a modest $3.85.
Republican rival Katie Boyd Britt more than tripled that haul.
She now has more than $4 million in the bank.
Meanwhile, a late entrant to the race, Army veteran Mike Durant, put in $4 million of his own money behind his campaign last year.
And that's crazy!
Who are these people at $4 million just run for office?
Why would you want to run for office?
It's just... I gotta be honest with everybody, look.
You have to be a special kind of insane to have that kind of cash and be like, I know!
I'm gonna be a politician!
I guess if you have the money and you really believe in it, it says a lot about Trump.
Maybe that's it.
You've got the money, you've succeeded in business, and you think to yourself, now what?
And you want to get involved in government.
I don't know, man.
Not for me.
You know, a lot of people have jokingly mentioned I should run or, you know, whatever.
Some people may be serious, but it's absurd on its face.
I never want to be involved with these crackpots.
Why would I want to be in a position where I have to even argue with one of these lunatics who I know are lying in Congress?
You know what I'd rather do?
I'd rather just do a show, reaching many, many more people, and be involved in culture, more than sitting in a room and trying to rubber stamp three- I mean, look at this, here's a 5,000 page omnibus bill, you ain't got time to read it, bring it in by wheelbarrow, and just rubber stamp it, everybody, and that's what they do.
The system is broken, and we all know it.
You know what, man?
People are ready for something different.
Republican super PACs outrace Democratic rivals ahead of midterm congressional elections.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
You know, I should probably recognize that I'm ahead of the game.
And I'm not saying that to brag about myself.
No, I remember back during Occupy Wall Street, when I was doing this livestream stuff, I was told by these journalists and these professors at universities, these J-School professors and personalities, that I had the unfortunate privilege of being ahead of the market.
It meant that what I was doing was obviously more effective, more innovative, and it was working really, really well, but none of these companies were capable of adopting these techniques at the time.
I was out of the market.
So when I make a lot of predictions, maybe my issue is that I'm looking at the news.
I'm reading the news all day every day, and I can see a lot of what is to come.
But my problem is that I assume it's coming too soon.
Back in 2018, I was watching the culture war, and I was like, I think Republicans are going to win, maybe even a supermajority, maybe a red wave.
And I was wrong.
Why?
Everything I was seeing, it takes a lot longer to hit the mainstream and have an impact politically.
You see a story today, you know, Joe Rogan, you know, they're threatening to cancel him.
And then you say something like, wow, certainly people should recoil from that and be tired of censorship.
But the recoil probably won't reach the average person, the knowledge of these events, for a long time.
And then, once it's permeated the general public, people say, I'm not voting for that.
That's why we're seeing today Republicans raising more than Democrats ahead of the midterms.
Because the impact of what's happened with Democrats in 2018 needed to saturate.
In 2017, Trump wins.
Culture war.
Ah, it's terrible.
I said, I think with Trump's victory, 2018's gonna go Republican, but who knows?
And, you know, I thought there was a good reason to believe it could with Trump campaigning, but not enough people came out.
Not enough of Trump's supporters came out in the midterms.
A lot of people didn't like him, and they were animated.
But then those people, the regular people who didn't show up, got to saturate in policies of midterm Democrats.
These moderate Democrats promised kitchen table issues, and what did they deliver?
Impeachment.
It did nothing for anybody.
The system was bogged down.
We have questions about why it is our schools are failing, why it is our jobs are disappearing.
And what did the left do?
Impeached Trump.
Because they're culture warriors.
Regular people said, I can't believe they would do this to us.
Then comes 2020, and Republicans didn't win across the board because people were animated against Trump, and that really did help Joe Biden, but not enough down ballot.
Republicans still overperformed, shocking the pollsters.
In blue areas like South Texas and Miami, Republicans won, what no one thought was possible.
So now we move into 2022.
We're late to the party.
I should say, I'm not late to the party.
I overestimated the speed at which the information would hit the average person.
They sat back wondering why things were getting bad.
Now they know.
Now they're watching shows like this.
They're walking away from mainstream corporate press that lies, cheats, and steals.
And they're realizing who betrayed them.
Their votes for the Democratic Party did not save them.
Trump, at the very least in 2019, things were great.
And now, people are donating to what they want.
Republicans.
I don't think the Republicans are gonna save you, I gotta be honest.
I don't think it's going to solve any of the problems.
But some people, they just want an alternative.
From the Hill.
Two Virginia universities no longer requiring COVID-19 vaccinations after AG's legal opinion.
Regular people are fed up and want their lives back.
They want to pour a glass of milk into a bowl of cereal.
They want to smile with their friends, go to work, make some money, hit the bar after work on a Friday night, watch the game, high-five their friends, and just sit back, relax, talk.
They want to get back to normal.
Now, many of these cult members, these Democrats who are wrapped up in all of this, they're tribalist.
They're just wrapped up in, it's all the fault of the other, it's the other.
But you're not recruiting regular people anymore.
Many Democrat voters have switched parties.
Independent voters are joining the Republican Party.
We are seeing a major shift.
Republican registration is through the roof, and now in states like, I think Florida, they now have more Republicans than Democrats for the first time in a long time, if not ever.
Again, I don't think the Republican Party is gonna save you.
But if you can get in some of these national populist Republicans in primary, the Republican neocon establishment shills, maybe.
So as I often say, go vote locally.
Know who your city council is.
Why?
If you don't, they'll pass ordinances in your city that will affect everything.
Know who the school board is, otherwise they're gonna bring CRT and other garbage to your schools.
Vote for your state reps.
Vote for your state senators.
When you own the legislation in your state, you can redistrict as you see fit and potentially call a convention of states.
And then vote in the primaries for these federal elections.
And make sure the establishment shills can't even run.
In the general, I mean.
They run in the primary, they lose, and you get someone who cares about this country, who opposes war and wants to help you working class Americans.
That's the path forward.
The media wants to convince you you can't win.
They want to convince you not to get out there and vote.
The Democrats want to change the rules to benefit themselves, and Republicans have walked into those traps, but do not fall for it.
If every single America-loving individual voted in the primaries, I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, get rid of the Uniparty, we would all be better off for it.
But it's going to require you getting up, getting active, and saying at the very least, everybody please vote locally and in your primaries.
I'll leave it there.
If fundraising is indicative of anything, it is that Trump and Republicans are probably in for a major win, and things will get spicy.
But, who knows?
You get complacent, you lose.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Oh boy, celebrity gossip.
I know how much we all love that.
But this story's actually interesting and important, and it shines a light on a bit of what's happening in the mainstream media around political correctness and comedy and things like that.
For those that missed the story, Whoopi Goldberg, On The View.
Very prominent show, I mean, let's admit it.
...said that the Holocaust wasn't about race, and this resulted in widespread condemnation from basically everybody.
Now, most of the people, like, on the right were like, oh snap, I can't believe she just said that, and it was the people on the left and other hosts that were like, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop, stop, you are wrong about this.
It was, uh, it was kind of interesting to watch.
They were discussing racial issues.
Whoopi Goldberg said that it was basically just white people doing it to each other, Which is, it's just so wrong.
I mean, I'm not just talking about the Jewish people and the Nazis.
There were also, you know, gay people and Polish people.
It was very, very much about race and many other things.
And for Whoopi Goldberg, she was like, it's just about humans doing it to humans.
It's like, you clearly didn't think this one through.
But looking at the story and the aftermath, it's really interesting because the one thing that, you know, strikes me is just, it's this question I've asked before, I'm sure many of you have asked, what happened to these people?
They've gone insane!
You know what I think it is when I see this, right?
So here's the update.
Whoopi Goldberg then goes on Colbert's show, and she tries explaining what she really meant, making everything worse!
She said, quote, as a black person, I think of race as being something that I can see.
Ma'am, are you saying that when you look at a Jewish person and you look at a German person, you just see a white person?
Because the racist and just very offensive caricatures of Jewish people, I mean, look, the reality is when you're in Europe, you can tell if someone is like Eastern European or like Spanish.
They're both white?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
See, this is the problem with wokeness and what's happening with all of these people.
In their world, white is white, no matter what.
And you have a conversation, and we see this meme all the time, where there's a meme about this, where someone will say something like, you know, all white people are racist, and the response is, do you mean Slavic people, Germanic people, Nordic people, Mediterranean?
Like, what do you mean by that?
Because they're not all the same.
And so it's really interesting, because I wonder what Whoopi Goldberg means.
Lighter complexion?
There are Jewish people who have dark skin.
There are, again, stereotypes about what Jewish people look like.
And I think it's fair to point out, like I already said, having traveled all over Europe, I think Europeans get it.
You can look at someone and be like, oh, that person must be Italian.
You can look at someone, ah, this person is Polish, or this person is German, this person is British.
Because people look different and they have different backgrounds.
Now the problem is, we don't want to judge people based on their looks.
We want to judge them based on what's inside.
But what I see in this story is that Whoopi Goldberg has a woke worldview.
White is white as far as she's concerned.
So when she looks back at the Holocaust, she just says it was all white people.
I'm not surprised by this, I gotta be honest.
Because we know that many racial identitarians, regardless of if it's white or not white or whatever, have very disparaging views of Jewish people and they believe insane conspiracy theories.
We've seen what's happened with, you know, the Women's March and Farrakhan.
For those that aren't familiar with those stories, I know they happened some time ago, but the leaders, the organizers of the Women's March, deeply anti-Semitic, believing crazy conspiracy theories about Jewish people.
Surprise, surprise!
It makes its way up the woke chain to people like Whoopi Goldberg.
Now the other thing I see here, which is really interesting, because we've got a couple things.
I mean, one, it's that, you know, the woke people think all white people are the same, and it's frankly weird in my opinion.
And there's a question over whether or not Jewish people are considered white.
Often you'll see people on Twitter who are Jewish say they are or they aren't, so I mean, look, it's not for me to talk about.
But we can also see something else interesting, in that Whoopi Goldberg is a deeply offensive person.
This article from the Daily Mail goes way back, and talks about some of the really, really offensive things she's done, and she refused to back down.
Now, well, she's definitely trying to back down, but this is really interesting.
Let's read through this.
Daily Mail reports Whoopi Goldberg stoked more controversy on Monday evening when she half-heartedly tried to apologize for saying the Holocaust isn't about race by asserting race is only about skin color and Nazis had to do the work to find out who was Jewish.
Yeah, kind of.
First of all, according to the Auschwitz Museum, they were absolutely targeted based on race, not based on culture.
That being said, there are many ways you can tell that someone may be Jewish.
Perhaps they have a yarmulke, or if someone is like a Hasidic Jew, you can clearly tell that when they wear certain clothes, it's part of their culture.
So now you have this multifaceted Racism and, I guess, culturalism with World War II Germany.
I mean, you have people who don't wear certain clothing because they're scared of people finding out their background because there is a racial and cultural component to that.
So, it's worse than just racism.
Here's what we say.
She said, uh, oh man.
During an interview at the Late Show with Colbert, after her comments on The View about the Holocaust caused furious international outcry, Goldberg said she understood why she had angered people, but she didn't stop there, and instead tried to explain why she thought the Holocaust was not about race, because Jews are white.
When you talk about being a racist, you can't call this racism, she said.
This was evil.
This wasn't based on skin.
You couldn't tell who was Jewish.
That is not true!
You had to delve deeply and figure it out.
My point is they had to do the work.
You see, when, when, look, let me just, let's just talk about reality.
I went to Thailand.
It was Chinese New Year.
And I was standing on this street with thousands of people all celebrating.
I could see over everyone's head.
They were all on average shorter than I was.
Because this group of people from Thailand have a certain height, right?
That doesn't mean all Asian people, or not even all Thai people.
It just meant for whatever reason in this area.
This is one of the reasons I actually...
Oppose racism from a logical standpoint.
I mean, obviously there's an emotional reaction of like, dude, leave people alone, let people be who they are.
But logically, it doesn't make sense to, in my opinion, hold racist views or uphold racial segregation.
Because you end up, I think, I was talking about this with Seamus from Freedom Tunes the other night.
And he was like, imagine if saying like, the rape of Nan King wasn't about race because they're all Asian!
It's like, dude, that's insane, right?
But you can see that Whoopi Goldberg is overtly racist.
She thinks, she has this reductive view of what race is.
It's only about your skin color and therefore nothing else matters.
But you have to understand that, you know, when I bring up Thai people, for instance, I went to Sweden.
Everybody was taller than me.
Yeah, different cultures, regardless of their skin color, have different, you know, can be pointed out.
It's a reality.
We don't want that.
Like, that's the point of opposing racism.
You know, we look back in time, and there's like, talk about how the Irish were mistreated and all that stuff, and people would be like, are you Irish?
And stuff.
I'm not sure if it was as bad as some people make it out to be, but I'm, you know, Irish need not apply signs.
So I've read some that they were like myths that didn't happen, but, you know, I don't, I don't know.
All I know is the tropes exist, but I'll put it this way.
If you are in France and you see a group of people who are all six feet tall, men and women, you might be like, maybe they're from Scandinavia.
Because we know that people from Scandinavia tend to be taller.
Does it mean they are?
No.
But, you know, I'll put it this way.
There are attributes of different ethnic backgrounds that are easily identifiable.
And that's the point of actively opposing racism.
Because we want to say things like, hey look, that guy is from, you know, Somalia, and that guy is from Haiti.
They both have a certain skin color, but they're very, very different.
The Haitian guy's a lot taller, the Somali guy's a lot smaller.
Just because their skin is a certain tone doesn't mean they have everything in common.
That's the problem with judging people based on skin color.
You don't know where they're from.
You don't know who they are.
You have to give people a chance.
This is exactly the point.
Whoopi Goldberg is deeply racist, and that's the issue here with wokeness.
This is exactly it exemplified.
Let's read some more.
Okay, otherwise I'm just gonna go on a rant on this stuff.
In another part of the... Okay, here's what she says.
When you talk about being racist, you can't call this racism.
It was evil.
If the Klan is coming down the street and I'm standing with a Jewish friend, I'm going to run.
But if my friend decides not to run, they'll get passed by most of the times because you can't tell who is Jewish.
You don't know.
That is outright nuts for several reasons.
Now, first and foremost, I understand why if she saw the Klan coming on the street, she'd run.
I think, for the most part, in the United States, you don't have to worry about that.
And, like, what I mean is, if you're on a dark street and there's people with Klan robes, yeah, I'd recommend getting out of there because these are nasty people.
No, for real.
And that's a shame.
You shouldn't have to do that.
I think if you're like downtown, you know, in a big city and there's a march happening with a bunch of, you know, racists or whatever, I'd understand why you would, but I think you'll be safe.
I think you will.
I think, you know, we don't tolerate that kind of stuff, and they'll try and come out and put out their message, but I would understand someone wanting to move away from there, or get away from these people.
Run away, call it whatever you want, yes, you know, getting away from these people.
If it was a bunch of Antifa, I'd recommend the exact same thing for other groups of people, for sure.
But I think it's just hilarious that Whoopi Goldberg would be like, you know, the Klan is coming down the street, and she's with a Jewish person, and the Jewish person will get passed by most times.
I don't think that's true!
I really don't think that's true!
You know, and it's remarkable, outside of the cultural issues, what she's really saying is that if the Jewish person wasn't in any way acting culturally or displaying any cultural symbols of their Jewish heritage or whatever, and they just happen to be Jewish, Maybe they might get passed by more than her.
So I can understand that.
I'm not going to play games.
I mean, I understand what she's saying.
That's the problem of racists.
They see skin color.
So why would she then play the exact same game?
And furthermore, I got to be honest, people, they still might be like, hey, is that person Jewish?
You know what I mean?
They had issues with ethnicity, not with race.
Wrong.
Because most of the Nazis were white people and most of the people were attacking were white people.
So to me thinking, how can you say it's about race when you are fighting each other?
She's just outright wrong.
I'm just gonna throw it to the Auschwitz Memorial.
Check this out.
This is the Auschwitz Memorial Twitter account.
They say, to Whoopi Goldberg, Holocaust, the destruction of European Jews, a seven chapter online course about the history of the Holocaust.
Links to all chapters below in the tweet below.
They linked to this image.
A chart presenting a pseudoscientific division of people into races forming a basis of the racial profiles of Nazi Germany according to this chart.
The only racially pure people are those who have four Germanic grandparents.
German citizens with three or four Jewish ancestors, first and second column on the right, were Jews.
The second and third column from the left were called mixed blood categories depending on the number of Jewish ancestors they had now.
I'm not insane, right?
I want to be fair to Opie Goldberg.
It is absolutely true that many Jewish people were able to hide and pretend they weren't Jewish.
That's true.
But we're talking about scales here.
Many Jewish people weren't able to hide and hide who they were based on certain physical attributes and characteristics they had.
So, depending on, you know, the person's background, depending on how mixed, you know, or not they could have been, or depending on just how they looked, They may have been able to pass, as it were.
A concept presented by many on the left.
But Whoopi Goldberg, of course, would not have been able to.
So that's a fair point.
But for her to take it to the logical extreme of, therefore it's not about race, it's just absolutely insane.
So again, I really want to reiterate this point.
I feel like Whoopi Goldberg is taking wokeism to its extreme.
That white people can't be racist.
When in fact, there's just nuance in this.
It's fascinating to me because intersectionality, which was, you know, the rising ideology before ultimately critical race theory became more dominant.
But intersectionality is being, you know, obviously a part of that.
They believe that every person of a different background experienced racism differently.
Now that we've reached critical race theory logical extremity, it's just like, well, if you look white, then you don't experience racism at all.
Period.
There we go.
Anyway.
I don't want to harp too much on, you know, the controversy with Whoopi Goldberg.
She tries to, like, apologize, but it doesn't work.
And she defaults to, like, she says, quote, I feel being black when we talk about race is a very different thing to me.
So I said, I thought the Holocaust wasn't about race and it made people angry.
I'm getting a lot of, you know, mail from angry folks.
But I thought it was a salient discussion because as a black person, I think of race as being something that I can see.
That's fascinating to me.
Something she can see.
When she looks at two different racial groups who have fair skin, she says, they're all white.
That's it.
Yo, that's called being racist.
It's like what I mentioned with Seamus.
If you looked at an Asian person and said they're all Chinese, we consider that to be racist.
I gotta be fair, you know?
I can certainly understand why someone who's, you know, from the United States hasn't had a lot of, hasn't interacted a lot with people of other racial backgrounds might think, you know, everyone from Asia is Chinese or something.
I'm not trying to, I think people deserve compassion and understanding.
We try to educate them.
And we can say the same thing of Whoopi Goldberg.
Like, hey, let me help you understand.
This wokeness stuff is making you nuts.
You look at a Polish person, you look at a Spanish person, or someone from Portugal, and you're gonna be like, these people look very, very different.
They're very different.
Now you can call them both white, I suppose.
But actually, here's the crazy thing.
The Coalition for Communities of Color have said that Slavic people are people of color.
And we've made this point.
This is why I say, wokeness is insane.
None of it makes sense.
Let's throw it back to Whoopi Goldberg's past.
Because I want to get into the point about what's happened to these people, right?
Wokeness has driven them insane.
You get woke, you go broke.
Look at all these tweets!
Whoopi Goldberg attempts to all lives matter the Holocaust.
Wow.
So everybody clearly went off on her.
But it gets interesting because we go back in time to when Whoopi Goldberg was dating Ted Danson.
They had put together this comedy routine where Ted Danson wore black makeup on his face, white makeup on his lips.
You get the point.
And he started saying the N-word over and over again and talking about Whoopi Goldberg's body, and it was deeply, deeply offensive to a lot of people.
And Whoopi Goldberg laughed it off and said, I don't care.
Why is that?
She said, I like it too bad.
You know, that's what's fascinating.
No joke.
They say, you know, let me see if they have that quote here.
When Ted made the jokes, people were offended.
Where is it?
Whoopi Goldberg said, you know, she liked it, whatever.
If that's what Whoopi and Ted find funny in their bedroom, it's not funny to the outside world.
So they go on to mention that, they say, Goldberg was unrepentant, declaring, I don't care if you don't like it, I do.
Later, she said she resented the criticism from people who don't even know her.
If they knew me, they would know that Whoopi has never been about political correctness.
What happened to these people?
Where in the past, they would be shocking and offensive and say, too bad, grow up.
I wish we had more of that today, to be completely honest.
If Whoopi Goldberg really believed the things she believed about the Holocaust, why wouldn't she just be like, no, you guys are wrong, here's what I'm saying, deal with it?
No, she immediately backs down.
Like, oh, not only have they gone insane from wokeness, they've also become spineless in whatever it is they claim to believe.
I think you see something with this.
You see that Whoopi Goldberg doesn't believe what she's saying.
The fact that she backs down immediately and is like, I stand corrected, I don't know, shows she cares more about not offending people than believing anything.
I think Whoopi Goldberg's statement on the Holocaust she thought was actually woke.
She thought she was being politically correct because they keep saying white people can't be racist.
So this is her saying, well, you know, the woke people have said.
And then when it causes a backlash because there's no logical consistency within wokeness, she now just says, sure, whatever.
She used to say, here's what I like, and if you don't like it, too bad.
You know, everybody has lost their mind.
You know, grow a spine a little bit.
I guess, you know.
I guess back then, it was the early 90s, you could be offensive and maintain your career and say, ah, too bad.
She did some other jokes where apparently she made a joke about Bush and she lost a sponsor.
They mentioned this in the show.
So I don't know if they say, SlimFast, a lucrative contract with SlimFast, she lost it.
Because she made jokes about George W. Bush saying, we got to put Bush back where it belongs.
And she was like, I've done material on every president.
I'm not going to, you know, blah, I'm not going to, you know, get angry.
The Manhattan-born performer found herself cast into the wilderness after her comments, and has since said she didn't work for five years.
For a good three years, I couldn't even get arrested, she told the New York Times.
Eventually, I was lucky enough to get a radio show, and then Barbara Walters asked if I would consider doing The View.
That's amazing.
She got canceled for being offensive to the president?
Well, I'll tell you this.
I think this is a part of where it all begins.
You know, this is mid-2000s.
We're starting to see the rise of cancel culture awakeness around the end of the 2000s, but it wasn't really prominent or bad.
No, it wasn't.
Into the early 2010s is when it started to spike and skyrocket.
If you look at the LexisNexis data, we see, you know, all this social justice talk around 2008, 2009.
So Whoopi Goldberg, she experienced something very early on, being offensive, talking about a president.
She couldn't work.
She felt that pain.
And all of a sudden, now she's scared.
Now she's willing to say whatever she thinks she should say, right?
Oh, okay, I'm sorry, this was 1994, she made the Bush comment.
So, I don't know what she's talking about.
No, okay, it says 94, but up here it says 2004.
I think it was 2004, not...
1994.
Actually, I don't know.
I can't tell.
They got it wrong.
They say she was invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 where she made a crude joke about George W. Bush.
So I think clearly 1994 is the wrong date they have in that photograph, but I think Whoopi experienced the pain.
She got a job finally, and now she's just gonna say whatever she's told to say.
Her opinions are trash.
They're based on fake news and manipulation, but I don't know.
You know, I saw this story, and aside from it being an insane comment, a lot of people were putting that comment on Whoopi Goldberg.
And that's what I thought was interesting here.
They say, Whoopi Goldberg said this, and she was wrong and crazy, and all these tweets come out criticizing her, and I'm like, I don't think it's a Whoopi Goldberg thing.
I think it's a wokeness thing.
Wokeness outright says white people can't be— only white people can be racist.
Did I get that wrong previously?
Maybe I said something wrong.
Only white people can be racist.
That's why she thinks it's not about race in this.
I think I accidentally said it, white people can't be racist.
No, no, I meant to say only white people can be racist, and black people can't be racist.
So in her worldview, based on wokeness, she looks at the Holocaust, she's like, how is it racist?
It's just white people.
Right.
Because what happened to the Polish people wasn't about race whoopee?
No, it clearly was.
Slavic people are different.
It just ultimately comes down to These people have a warped sense of reality.
It has more to do with being scared of losing their job than anything else.
And Whoopi Goldberg probably thought she was being politically correct when she said it, which is absolutely fascinating because of how insane her comments were.
But I mentioned this last night on IRL, on Tim Castellaw's podcast.
Right now, the left simultaneously supports Martin Luther King Jr.' 's I Have a Dream speech that, you know, one day my four little children will be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin, while also saying things like this and advocating for a racist worldview where you would discriminate.
In California, they tried to repeal the civil rights language from their constitution.
They failed.
How can you be progressive and simultaneously call for discriminating on the basis of race
while claiming that you support Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision, a dream, of not doing that?
It makes no sense.
And that's the point.
And that's the point.
There's no principle.
There's no logic.
There is only fear and a cult that will say whatever they think they need to say to fit in.
And that's what be Goldberg.
And that's all these other comedians.
That's where we're going.
But you know what?
I don't care.
I think I'll say this.
In today's world, it just so happens that I am unwilling to Like, change my principles for a bunch of crackpot lunatics.
However, my worldview, my opinions and principles are acceptable enough that I'm allowed to have a show.
There are many people who are unwilling to change their opinions, but their opinions are deeply offensive, so they get banned from YouTube instantly.
You see how this works?
There may come a time where my opinions are deemed too extreme and offensive, and then I will just get banned because I'm not going to pull a Whoopi Goldberg and just be like, oh, I'm sorry.
Oh, geez, I didn't realize.
I can't believe I was being so offensive.
No, I know.
You know, I'll be reasonable, I suppose, and say sometimes people accidentally misspeak, you know, talking fast and blathering on for a long time.
Like, I can't even remember.
Did I accidentally say white people can't be racist?
Because that was a mistake.
I mean, I meant to say only white people can be racist in the woke world view.
Sometimes stuff like that happens.
And if I did that, I'll be like, I didn't mean to say that, you know, I'm not sorry for, you know, I guess I apologize for making the mistake in that capacity.
I feel no remorse.
It's just like it was an accident, you know what I mean?
If Whoopi Goldberg misspoke and said, I didn't mean to say that, what I meant to say was this, I'd be like, oh, okay.
But in this instance, you can see, I think in the end, If you follow wokeness to its natural conclusion, this is what you'll end up with.
You will end up with nonsensical, deeply offensive, insane comments where you're like, well if Jews are white and Germans are white, then nothing happened, right?
Whoopie, that's crazy.
Obviously she thinks something happened, I'm being hyperbolic, but she's like, it wasn't race.
Yeah, there's like a chart showing racial breakdowns.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
BuzzFeed ain't doing too well.
The latest scoop is that BuzzFeed is limiting its hiring after a rough public debut.
You can see BuzzFeed's stock price has been collapsing.
It's not a good time to be working for BuzzFeed, to be honest.
However, if you are someone working for Donald Trump's media acquisition company, well, let me just show you this.
Dwack.
Over the past six months, DWAC, which is Digital World Acquisition Corp., has exploded from $10 to a current price of $75, and now it just ticked up $0.93.
And where is BuzzFeed?
Starting at $10 and now at Ladies and gentlemen, if you invested in BuzzFeed, you have lost nearly 60% of your investment already.
And if you invested in Donald Trump's Digital World Acquisition Corp, you are up 661%.
661% Wow. So that means if you bought one share of Donald Trump's dwack, you'd have made 65
Wow.
If you bought BuzzFeed, you'd have lost $6.
Isn't that something else?
But let's read about what's going on and what's happening with BuzzFeed.
Before we show you the direct ramifications of BuzzFeed's complete failure, let's read about what happened.
This story is from December 6th, the New York Post.
BuzzFeed shares sink in IPO after spooked investors rock SPAC merger.
Shares of BuzzFeed plunged as much as 17% in their NASDAQ debut on Monday after its merger with a blank check company was hit by a flurry of investor withdrawals last week.
New York-based BuzzFeed stock opened up 14% at $10.95, but reversed course to trade as low as $8, and this is back in December.
By mid-afternoon, shares were down only 7%.
The company was one of the 10 trending stocks on StockTwits.
After shareholders redeemed a majority of their stake, BuzzFeed said last week it would receive only 6% or nearly $16 million of the proceeds from the trust account of the blank check company.
It's a company, 895th Avenue Partners.
Special purpose acquisition companies typically sell shares at $10 apiece.
Put the cash in a trust account and then search for a company to buy.
It's shareholders can choose to redeem their shares in return for cash.
Tightening scrutiny from the SEC and saturated demand have weighed on the SPAC market, which soared in popularity last year.
BuzzFeed's deal is a barometer of investor interest in peers like Vox Media, which is reportedly considering a SPAC merger.
Magnum Opa's acquisition, the SPAC merging with Forbes, has been trading below its issue price of $10.
This is just absolutely hilarious!
BuzzFeed also secured $150 million through a convertible note financing.
Basically, I could be wrong about this, but I think it's debt.
You know, essentially they're like, it's a loan, you know?
The company, which produces news, videos, and online quizzes, was founded in 2006 by Jonah Peretti, blah, blah, blah.
Ladies and gentlemen, get woke, go broke!
Once again.
In 2016, the company was valued at $1.7 billion after Comcast owned NBCUniversal Investment.
BuzzFeed, which won a Pulitzer Prize in June, bought the news website Huffington Post last year, and also acquired youth entertainment company Complex Networks in June this year.
That's right, ladies and gentlemen.
This is not just BuzzFeed spiraling out of control.
It is also Huffington Post.
It is also Complex.
And I love this in the background.
It says, there's a guy holding a sign, glad we didn't sell to Waystar.
Well, don't hold your breath just yet, my friend.
It's really crazy to see, isn't it?
You've got, uh, is that a t-shirt with Ben Smith?
I can't- is that Ben Smith?
I can't tell.
Huffington Post.
Tasty Brands.
Ah, my friends, BuzzFeed is in trouble, and everything in between.
Look, I wish no ill will, you know, professionally, I suppose.
I don't like to see companies fail or struggle, because it happens to the best of us.
BuzzFeed was once this roaring, popular, money-making machine, and now it's spiraling out of control.
And, you know, when you grow too large, these things can happen.
BuzzFeed will probably recoil, they'll retract, and then they'll find their path and maintain some kind of presence.
Right now, TimCast.com is exploding.
We're growing.
We're, you know, but I guess I run my business differently than a lot of these companies.
We're not going to take big investment.
We're not going to try and grow faster than we can.
A lot of these companies, they'll see growth, and they'll be like, hey, look, we got all this money coming in.
Let's take a big investment.
That way, we can grow even faster, make more money quicker.
But then, a year or two goes by, and it's like, you know that debt we took on?
We aren't actually able to make money off these projects.
So, We got a couple new shows over at TimCast.com, right?
Obviously, there's this show, Tim Pool Daily Show.
There's TimCast IRL.
Two shows where I'm, you know, one of the core pieces of talent.
Obviously, Tim Pool Daily Show is just me.
TimCast IRL is a rotating group of individuals.
But then we have Pop Culture Crisis with Brett Miracle.
We have Tales from the Inverted World with Shane.
And we are preparing some more shows.
Some conspiracy conversation shows, Chicken City.
The thing is, as much as we absolutely could launch a ton of shows, I've stopped and said, okay, we've launched these new projects, they need to become sustainable.
They're all making money, it's fantastic.
And it's not bad.
But right now they cost more money than they make.
If the shows can never get to a point where they sustain themselves, then we either have a conversation about whether or not the shows can continue, whether or not we want to subsidize them because we like them, and we just need to determine that.
If we get to a point where we're like, Tales from the Inverted World is awesome, we love it, We don't know if it'll ever make enough money to sustain itself, but we'll keep the project going because we think it's worth making.
That's subsidy on our end.
Once we get to that point in knowledge, we can say, okay, let's do a new show.
There may come a point where we're like, guys, it's just not possible to maintain this show if people don't want it.
If people don't spend money on it, we can't keep it going.
Companies like BuzzFeed and Vox and these other digital media outlets decided to just take a bunch of investment to launch projects that ultimately didn't work.
And now it's failing.
They may retract back to a position where they can make money like they were when it was just BuzzFeed and listicles, but that's substantially less money, right?
So I'll put it this way.
For us, we're doing so well, I would absolutely believe we could bring in a massive amount of investment which would shock the media landscape.
And then what?
And then what?
Just throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks and then in a year we fire everybody?
I ain't playing those games.
I'm never a fan of that stuff.
I don't live that way.
I don't live on credit cards.
I'm not playing that.
Here's what's happening to BuzzFeed, because they play dirty games.
And you know what?
Dirty games is my perspective.
They play these games where they try to bring in money.
And also, let's just be real.
You want to talk about grifting?
BuzzFeed is grifting.
Okay?
Here's what Axios says.
BuzzFeed is limiting hiring to only critical positions and will not be adding any new jobs unless there's a business case justification, the CEO said last week.
BuzzFeed is under pressure to preserve cash after a high level of redemptions from SPAC investors that have its IPO merger.
BuzzFeed raised only around $16 million of investor cash in its IPO alongside $150 million of debt.
Ouch.
The company also lowered revenue guidance for the full year in 2021, setting a slowdown to its retail business.
Did you know that BuzzFeed sells, like, spatulas and products in Walmart?
Man.
I don't blame them.
I mean, hey, if you can do it, you can do it, to be honest.
It's pretty smart.
BuzzFeed says, if we're gonna sell ads, sell ads for things we own.
I agree.
We've done advertisements for Tales from the Inverted World.
We have a book.
It's invertedworldbook.com, I believe, and you can buy one.
We own it.
It's part of the company.
So instead of buying ads from people who are like, hey, we'll pay you X to promote our product, we're like, let's just make our own stuff.
We'll promote our own stuff.
We're better off doing that.
So BuzzFeed does that.
They sell spatulas and, you know, I don't know, whatever, measuring cups and things like that.
And to be honest, we actually have a bunch of them.
You ever see the Tasty things at Walmart?
That is owned by BuzzFeed.
They say, without growing its profit margins, the company won't as easily be able to afford future acquisitions, which Peretti has noted are a key part of the company's long-term growth vision.
I'll tell you what's gonna happen.
We start with Vice.
Now, many of you know I worked for Vice, and they expanded.
There was Vice.com, then they launched Vice News, which was like a subdomain of Vice.com, but then they had, like, Motherboard, and they had... Broadly, I think it was called.
They were launching all these websites.
And the idea was, People go to Vice for something specific.
They'll go to Motherboard for something different.
And so the people who like Motherboard might not like Vice.
It actually makes sense, because I'll tell you this.
We have pop culture news on the front page of TimCast.com.
Some people might go there and be like, yo, I don't care about pop culture shows, but we have it there and it's in the mix.
So they might prefer to just go to, you know, Tim Pool or TimCast and look at the news we have there and okay, well, you know, news is different from... So you can go to the read section or you can go to the news section and you can read that specifically.
The idea with a lot of these companies was separate the verticals so that someone who doesn't care about news will only get tech.
Eventually it didn't work.
The problem was these websites could not sustain themselves.
They didn't make enough money.
So then they brought it all back into the fold.
When BuzzFeed acquires these other companies like Huffington Post, how much you want to bet eventually they're going to be like, Huffington Post doesn't make enough money to sustain itself.
And then Huffington Post becomes a footnote.
It just becomes like a tag on an article.
It ceases to exist.
They're gonna say, BuzzFeed was initially projecting around $95 million in revenue from the commerce sales for 2021.
It's now projecting a high teens percentage increase in commerce sales year over year, as opposed to a 60% year over year due to the pandemic-related supply chain issues slumming in retail sales.
Ladies and gentlemen, if there's one thing that Let's Go Brandon accomplished, and I mean Brandon himself, Joe Biden, it's that he has inadvertently destroyed BuzzFeed.
Wow.
That's crazy.
Whatever, man.
Supply chain disruption hurt BuzzFeed to the point where they're spiraling.
Thanks to Joe Biden, you reap what you sow.
The integration of complex networks is likely to result in the consolidation of two companies.
Administrative Functions, BuzzFeed named Complex Networks Chief Christian Basler its new Chief Operating Officer.
Axios spoke with staffers who said a hiring slowdown caught them off guard, especially after months of the company touting ambitious growth plans.
The hiring slowdown is meant to preserve cash.
Some said it felt like another major signal the company's SPAC wasn't going well.
It didn't track with anything else we've been told recently, one person said.
It's unclear how long the hiring slowdown will last.
BuzzFeed declined to comment.
Most media companies saw their stocks decline.
Blah, blah, blah.
Shut your rotten mouths, Axios, and don't play that game.
You go to Donald Trump's dwack and it is through the roof and has always been.
In January, dwack went up.
This is Amazing.
It's huge.
Huge.
Okay?
Take a look at this story from Reuters.
This is SPAC-linked Trump's venture outperforms others in sector.
Now, Dweck isn't necessarily the same thing as BuzzFeed.
I get it.
I'm just trying to show you that when it comes to the populist movement, there's success.
When it comes to whatever the leftist establishment is doing, they are spiraling.
Yo, my friends, we're winning.
I don't think Donald Trump is the end-all be-all.
I don't think he's like the one savior or the god-emperor or anything like that.
But whatever this is, freedom, anti-establishment, it's working.
And BuzzFeed's establishment garbage is failing.
Reuters said shares of the blank check acquisition firm that agreed to merge with Donald Trump's social media venture have outperformed every other special purpose acquisition company despite the regulatory risks facing the deal.
That's right.
And they don't list BuzzFeed here, but BuzzFeed is down.
Digital World Acquisition Corp., which inked an $875 million deal in October to merge with Trump, TMTG, currently ranks as the best performing SPAC stock ever!
This story is from January 24th, okay?
This is all happening now.
Digital World's shares ended at $73 on Friday, way above their $10 initial public offering price.
Man, I'm not much of a stock trader guy, you know?
I like cryptocurrencies.
I like investing in things that I'm indirectly involved in.
But man, do I wish I just took a big chunk of money and bought into DWAC because up 660%
This is despite TMTG not having rolled out its social media app yet, and the regulatory risks facing the deal.
Democratic U.S.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and SEC Commission Chairman Gary Gensler said last month, or what they plan to, investigate the planned merger for potential violations of security laws around disclosure.
Oh please, of course they would.
The SEC has declined to comment on whether it will take any action.
Digital World disclosed last month that it has fielded inquiries from the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, FINRA, about providing details on their nature.
The financial underperformance of most SPACs makes Digital World's stock rally, driven by Trump supporters and retail investors, all the more notable.
According to Jay Ritter, a professor at the University of Florida, SPACs on an average have underperformed against the broader market by 25%.
If regulators let the deal go through, Digital World shareholders are all but certain to vote for it, given the stock's performance.
Digital World expects to issue a proxy statement with details on the deal in February, laying the ground for the vote to be held in the following weeks, according to people familiar with the matter.
Apple's App Store currently lists February 21st as the date that Trump's new social media app, Truth Social, will be available for download.
Digital World CEO Patrick Orlando and other SPACs insiders paid $11.8 million to receive founder and placement shares in the SPAC that are now worth roughly $620 million!
I'm not trying to say that they are absolutely the same thing.
But I just find it absolutely fascinating to see that if you were going to be investing in a company that people know about, that has been successful in the past, it's now dropped 57%!
To be totally complete, 57.35%.
BuzzFeed is down.
And DWAC, 661%.
From a financial perspective, if we were going to look to the wisdom of the crowd to predict where we are headed in the future, Donald Trump has a large and powerful movement behind him.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the media landscape will absolutely favor Trump, the things he says, the Trump movement, populism, or anything like that.
It's certainly a better hint.
If you look at BuzzFeed and everything they've pushed, BuzzFeed is a centralized media landscape and woke leftism.
And it's failing.
Digital World Acquisition Corp, Trump's new platform, is a decentralized media platform of individuals posting.
It's skyrocketing.
And it's not woke, it's anti-woke.
Now maybe, we'll see what happens.
Perhaps it's all just big speculation, who knows?
Perhaps it is being driven by the fact that retail investors, Trump supporters, are pushing for this and won't back down.
Because they want it.
Nobody wants BuzzFeed though.
So it may not be anything to do to performance for DWAC.
There's not even a product available yet.
You've got BuzzFeed, the old guard.
Not even that old, right?
They've been around for a while now.
They've succeeded in the past, and they're failing and no one wants to be involved in that.
And you've got Trump's platform, which doesn't even exist yet and everyone's like, let me in the door.
The wisdom of the crowd.
It's not always correct, but the idea is that, you know, it's like, it's like ask the audience and who wants to be a millionaire, that you'll see a tendency of the crowd to be correct in a lot of ways.
Not always.
Sometimes ask the audience fails because they get things wrong and there's misconceptions.
But what it seems is the crowd is betting on Trump winning and BuzzFeed losing.
And that is the point to drive home.
When we look at these stories about Joe Rogan and they try and smear him and they lie about him, and now they're digging up everything he's ever said.
Oh, this was so predictable.
I don't know if it matters.
There's a video someone posted, and it was like a compilation of Joe Rogan saying a racial slur over and over again.
And they're like, just watch the thread.
It's not out of context.
It totally is out of context.
Look, Joe has said stupid things.
His podcast has been around for 10 years, and Joe said stupid things.
A lot of people have said stupid things.
And of course, they're gonna try and smear him.
Doesn't matter.
Don't care.
There was that race car driver who lost a sponsor because his dad in the 80s said the N-word.
I kid you not, that's how insane and stupid everything got, but I think people finally snapped and said, I don't want to live this way!
Leave me alone!
I saw Ted Lieu earlier, and he was like, it's not hard to condemn Nazis, Ted Cruz.
Just say it.
And I'm just like, shut your mouth, you moron.
No one cares anymore.
We are so sick and tired of all of that virtue signaling garbage.
Why won't you condemn this or say that?
Shut up!
I don't care about your opinion, you idiot.
I just don't care anymore.
You can only push so hard before people snap and say, shut your mouth.
That's it.
You know, they say, you know, there was a period where people were like, they didn't want to be called racist.
Because nobody wanted to be racist.
It was like someone accused you that you're like, hey man, I don't like those things, don't call me that.
Now it's just like, I literally don't care about your stupid garbage opinions.
They're meaningless, they don't move the needle for any of us, and we're busy dealing with things that are more important.
That.
That sentiment.
That anger.
That tiredness, I think, is reflected in what we're seeing with people telling BuzzFeed to shut them up.
You know, BuzzFeed ran this story, BuzzFeed News, where they claimed two black men fought to the death over a chicken sandwich, a fried chicken sandwich, and it was a fake story.
It was overtly racist, and the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed would not change the story.
The real story, Was that some dude was waiting in line at the Popeyes, and another dude cut in line, they got into an argument, they went outside, and then one guy just stabbed the other guy.
They weren't fighting over a chicken sandwich, they were fighting over some dude cutting someone else in line, and apparently the story is, the guy who got cut, who died, he was the one who died.
The guy who got cut twice.
The guy who was in line.
Some dude cuts in front of him.
He says, hey dude, don't cut in front of me.
And the guy says, shut up.
And then they, when they go outside, because they're arguing, the guy who cut in line pulled out a knife and stabbed the other guy.
That's my understanding of the story.
BuzzFeed reports it as, they fought to the death over a fried chicken sandwich.
Because BuzzFeed are scumbag pieces of trash, who claim the high ground that they're not racist and they're racist.
No, what happened was, some dude was like, don't cut me, and the other guy killed him for it.
Senseless violence.
The race had nothing to do with it, the food had nothing to do with it, but you know what?
Scumbags like BuzzFeed said, here's an opportunity to take a stereotype and run it.
Yeah.
Because they're trash.
Good.
Glad to see them go.
We'll see how it plays out.
They might still exist as a company, but there it is, my friends.
