The Republican Committee Has WITHDRAWN From Presidential Debates, RNC SLAMS Forum Over Democrat Bias
The Republican Committee Has WITHDRAWN From Presidential Debates, RNC SLAMS Forum Over Democrat Bias. The RNC had warned in the past the move would happen if the bias in favor of Democrats was not rectified.
This could mean no debates happen in the 2024 cycle as the GOP feels the bias just hurts their chances. But this divide has been a long time coming.
THe media bias is beyond palpable and with Elon Musk offering to buyout twitter sparking political and ideological panic its obvious now that politics has become dirtier than it even was before.
Elections and midterms are less about ideas and more about power
#Democrats
#RNC
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is April 14th, 2022, and our first story, Elon Musk has launched a hostile takeover bid of Twitter.
And this could change the game dramatically.
Leftist personalities are freaking out.
In our next story, we continue the discussion as Twitter holds an emergency meeting to decide what to do.
Developments are currently underway in this breaking story, but this could change the shape of politics in the future of this country.
And in our last story, the Republican National Committee has withdrawn.
From the Commission on Presidential Debates, there may not be debates if this is not rectified.
The Republicans are saying the pro-Democrat bias is untenable, and we must seek alternate solutions.
If you like the show, leave us a good review, give us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Elon Musk has officially launched an attempted hostile takeover of Twitter.
I completely support it, I am here for it, I am excited for it, and boy are these woke establishment lefties freaking out.
The meltdowns are insane.
Elon Musk may actually buy out 100% of Twitter, take the whole thing private, and then maybe nuke the platform, or maybe fix it.
And you know what?
I don't care either way.
The platform has become such trash, I don't believe it is salvageable unless someone like Elon Musk comes in and fixes it.
When Elon Musk bought shares in Twitter, When he bought that 9.2%, I purchased around 21 or so shares.
I have 22 shares.
I think I may have bought 20.
I think I bought 21, and then a day later bought one more.
It's not that much.
I think it's like a thousand bucks.
The reason I did this is because I genuinely believe that Elon Musk will save the platform.
Or at the very least, it can't be saved, right?
So my attitude was, if Elon Musk comes in, there's a good chance that as a shareholder, I will see some growth, I will see a benefit to my investment, and I believe Elon has the best intentions to help fix the platform.
Elon Musk has said in his filing that if they do not consider his offer to buy the company at a premium, he may have to reconsider his investment.
I agree.
It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure, there was a while ago, I had shares of Twitter when they first went public, and it was worth trash.
And I was warned by several people, you have to get out, sell that, do not hold it.
And you know what?
I think they were right.
And what they said was, this company values ideology over functioning business.
And they're right!
We heard it from current CEO Parag Agrawal when he was saying something to the effect of, you know, we have to have a healthy conversation, it's not about free speech.
This guy, and this current leadership, and the people at that company that I've spoken with personally on shows, are more interested in some zealous dogmatic ideology than a functioning platform.
I want a functioning platform.
I want a functioning company.
So I bought when Elon Musk came in.
Now maybe, I don't know, maybe I shouldn't have, so I could, you know, just be more, um, I guess angry, but seeing that, I said, yo, Elon Musk, he's gonna turn this to gold.
He's gonna fix these problems.
But then, management got in his way.
And it seems, this is all my opinion, mind you, it seems that they are trying, the people at the top, are trying to hurt the shareholders, or at least they don't care.
About the shareholders.
I'm not gonna try and assert any kind of credit or anything because I literally just bought this when, you know, a week ago or whatever.
I bought 22 shares because I was like, it's a good investment if Elon Musk is involved.
Now that they're saying, you know, that he... Now that it appears they're getting in his way, I think I have to reconsider my position as well, because without Elon Musk, I cannot even have a thousand bucks invested in this company.
And it seems silly.
Look, I'm nowhere near a big or prominent or in any way meaningful investor in this company, but I want to make sure you all know that I do have some shares because of Elon.
So, of course, my opinion will be based very much on all of this.
Here's the story from TimCast.com.
Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter.
Says he may have to reconsider his investment if the offer is not accepted.
Speculation over Musk's intention to enact a hostile takeover has been confirmed as he hopes to take Twitter private.
Musk also said he may have to reconsider his investment.
In a filing with the SEC on Thursday, Musk offered to purchase the entirety of Twitter for a premium on the company's traded values, $54.20 per share.
Speculation had been growing about Musk's intentions for Twitter after he declined to join the company's board last week.
Filing states that Musk's proposal is to acquire all of the outstanding common stock of the issuer not owned by the reporting person for all cash consideration valuing the common stock at $54.20 per share.
The offer is a 54% premium over the closing price of the common stock on January 28, 2022, and a 38% premium over the closing price of the common stock the day before Musk's investment in Twitter was publicly announced.
Additionally, the filing interestingly states that Musk intends to delist the company and take it private.
If the proposed transaction is completed, the common stock would become eligible for termination of its registration and would be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.
I don't know a lot about how this works.
I just have like an app and I was like TWTR buy.
But I would love to sell my shares at even or better.
Even or better.
I would love to have some equity in the company if Elon Musk really was gonna, you know, take it private because it's gonna be worth gold.
But you know what?
I would rather see Elon Musk fix the company, sell my shares, and accept it.
Otherwise, I really do feel like without him.
I personally feel like the best circumstance was Elon buying 9.2% and then helping guide the company and fix it.
Then the investors would all see a gain.
It would be better for our country, our society.
I'll take what I can get.
And if at this point it's a buyout, let's have it.
The filing goes on to say that Musk has no intention of selling any of his current position in the company and will continue to reserve his right to invest more in the future and interact with the company's board and strategic operations.
However, it also says if his proposal is not accepted, he would need to reconsider his position as a shareholder.
So, here's the tweet from Elon Musk.
He says, I made an offer with a link to SEC.gov.
It's horribly formatted, mind you.
There's no margins, but let me read what Elon Musk has said.
Date of the event, which requires, blah blah, April 13th, 2022.
Filing, amended schedule, yada yada.
If the filing person has previously filed a statement, blah blah blah.
Elon R. Musk.
Then we can see there's, you know, sole voting power.
Percent of class represented by amount in row, 9.1%.
And here we are.
Schedule 13-D.
Item 4 of the Schedule 13-D is amended and reinstated.
It's entirely to read as follows.
On April 13, 2022, the reporting person delivered a letter to the issuer which contained a non-binding proposal.
The proposal to acquire all of the outstanding common stock of the issuer not owned by the reporting person for all cash consideration, valuing the common stock at $54.20 per share.
This represents a 54% premium.
This we understand we read already.
The proposal is non-binding and once structured and agreed upon, would be conditioned upon, among other things, the receipt of any required governmental approvals, confirmatory legal, business, regulatory, accounting, and tax due diligence, the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements provided for the proposed transaction, and completion of the anticipated financing.
There can be no assurance that a definitive agreement with respect to the proposal will be executed, or if executed, whether the transaction will be consummated.
There is no.
There is also no certainty as to whether or when the issuer may respond to the letter or as to the timetable for execution of any definitive agreement.
So let's just slow down and say Elon Musk has said.
I want to take over this company.
I want to fix it.
Y'all are destroying it.
They may not respond.
But here we are.
Exhibit B. Brett Taylor, Chairman of the Board.
From Elon Musk.
I have invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe.
And I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.
However, since making my investment, I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve the societal imperative in its current form.
Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter, and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced.
My offer is my best and final offer, and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
Twitter has extraordinary potential.
I will unlock it.
Then, script sent via text.
As I indicated this weekend, I believe the company should be private to go through the changes that need to be made.
After the past several days of thinking this over, I've decided I want to acquire the company and take it private.
I am going to send you an offer letter tonight.
It will be public in the morning.
Are you available to chat?
Voice script.
One, best and final.
I am not playing the back and forth game.
I have moved straight to the end.
It's a high price and your shareholders will love it.
Yes, yes, I do.
If the deal does not work, given that I don't have confidence in management, nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
This is not a threat.
It's simply not a good investment without the changes that need to be made.
I agree.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America 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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
So people can pile on, it is a garbage platform run by ideologues who are like, we need healthy conversations.
No, we need humanity.
Now, I'm not convinced that demoderating the platform is gonna make it less of an emotionally destructive platform, but at least it can be a functioning business.
At least it will be healthier for our country.
I want to tell you right now, One of the reasons why I didn't want to be involved in anything having to do with Twitter shares or whatever?
They banned Donald Trump.
The guy who was saving their platform.
The guy who was making things more interesting, to say the least, but he really was changing the face of politics, in my opinion, in a good way.
With Twitter.
Bypassing the media.
Saying it straight to the people.
The media can fact-check him, and they did all day, non-stop.
But it was good to have this level of dialogue.
They got rid of it, and for what?
Twitter did not ban Alex Jones and Donald Trump because they broke the law.
They banned them because management didn't like them.
Period.
That's it.
Management didn't like them.
They got banned.
The rules are arbitrary, set by the management of the company.
They didn't like what these people were doing, so they banned them off the platform.
Alex Jones is a funny character that people like listening to.
They like seeing his content.
Twitter made a stupid move that, in my opinion, seriously harmed the company and made it irrelevant when they ban all of these people.
Now, you can have rules.
I'm fine with that.
But it seems like the rules only go in one direction.
And I've long stated, if they keep doing this, Twitter will eventually become a leftist activist blog.
There's gonna be ten people posting, like, the environment.
And everyone else is gonna move on.
I think Elon Musk has a serious case here.
To say, look at the rise of Gab.
Parler.
Look at, look at Getter.
Look at Truth Social.
Truth Social failed.
But these other platforms are emerging because Twitter is nuking its market share.
I think that right there, Elon, if you are listening, you need to point this at whatever opportunity you can.
How many millions of users are on Gab, Getter, Minds, etc., all these other platforms, who have left because they didn't like the censorship, or who were kicked off for arbitrary reasons?
What percent of Twitter has been harmed by these psychotic cult members who are driving this company into the ground?
I used to be the biggest fan of Twitter.
I'd be on the ground, I'm in Spain, and I'm livestreaming, and I'm like, make sure you follow me on Twitter, because I'm going to tweet out these livestreams, and that's how it worked.
I would go live on the ground reporting the news, and I would say, use Twitter to find when I go live.
I eventually stopped posting news on the platform.
I have repeatedly said I treat it like a trash platform where I tweet, where I just troll people, because who cares?
It's being run to the ground by lunatics!
Elon Musk can save this platform.
I will gladly accept his offer for my pittance of shares that I only bought because I think he's gonna save the platform anyway, and I'd like to get back to a functioning platform.
Donald Trump should be on the platform.
Alex Jones should be on the platform.
Laura Loomer should be on the platform.
Milo Yiannopoulos should be on the platform.
And everybody who got banned for saying hashtag learn to code should be on the platform.
And when you see Antifa make direct threats or organize violence, they should be off the platform.
But that's true for anybody who does that.
Trump didn't do it.
Alex Jones didn't do it.
Why were they banned?
Arbitrary BS reasons.
And even as it pertains to Carl Benjamin.
They said, look at these horrifying things he said.
Did he break the law?
No.
You know, and there are a lot of people saying, who's going to want to be on a platform that's so full of hate and mean stuff?
I think most people.
I think most people participate in the real world.
I think when Coca-Cola buys a billboard, and then activists stand near it, Coca-Cola doesn't say, oh no, now people are going to think we're sponsoring protests.
No they won't, that's stupid.
It's a lie.
Their whole game is, we have to ban these people because otherwise companies won't want to be involved.
Wrong.
Companies will have no choice.
You want to be in the town square?
You want to be where the conversation's happening?
Deal with free speech.
If somebody bought a sign inside of a building and it said, drink Pepsi!
And then I stood next to it waving a sign that said, you know, protest this or whatever.
Is Pepsi gonna go to the building and be like, we can't support you because people near your building are... No, of course not.
Why?
Because of regulation and law.
Because the law states.
So, if somebody posts a tweet and it's nasty...
And Pepsi has an ad on Twitter.
Too bad!
You don't want to advertise here?
Go somewhere else.
I think the reality is, most companies will be like, hey, you can't blame us.
The company, you know, mandates this stuff and we have nothing to do with it.
You can't be mad at us.
And they'll say, but you're funding it.
Yeah, well, we fund taxes that pay for those buildings, those streets, that water as well.
Don't play that game.
It's complete BS.
Count Dankula.
He says, oh lord, the amount of hot takes about Elon's Twitter purchase.
We need to save our democracy by restricting the information people see so they will vote the way I want them to.
Max Boot.
I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter.
He seems to believe that on social media, anything goes.
For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.
Yes, it is democracy when we block news stories about the president's son.
We must control what you can hear for democracy!
You fascists!
That's such BS.
Here we go.
This guy says, when the media platforms are in the hands of billionaires, we are screwed.
Count Dankula says, should we tell him?
I'm sure everyone's tried.
They're already in the hands of billionaires, just bad ones.
Twitter HQ is trending, Go Elon is trending.
Biggest news, I'm stoked.
But without 20-year-old Natasha McRainbow ZZMZR from the Trust and Safety Team telling me what's real and how will I know what's real?
Someone said, we've got a huge false information problem and his takeover would just accelerate and compound it.
This one's great.
This Twitter user said, well, if you're a Twitter investor, you'd better make some noise.
Sounds like Musk could be a platform killer.
And then we can see that when Elon Musk bought in, the price spiked.
You know, if I had known, back when Twitter was at like 16, 17 bucks, that Elon Musk would eventually, in several years, buy it out, I'd have dumped tons of money into it, because that would be a no-brainer.
Elon Musk, he turns things to gold!
Now, right now, I invested in, because I believed, as many people were saying, look, Elon Musk is buying shares, you know, someone tweeted, like, everybody should, and we should start to vote, and put as much pressure as we can to try and fix this company.
And I genuinely thought it was a good investment.
I think that buying it at that point... I think I'll probably... I think I'll break even.
Actually, no.
I'll make a small profit on my thousand bucks if the company gets bought out and my shares are part of it.
I don't know how it works.
All I know is I'm happy to take it.
I'm happy to see the company succeed.
If Elon Musk does not buy it out, the company is gonna fall into the gutter.
I think he is seriously the only chance to fix this stuff.
This Pam Keith said, I love you all, but I'm 100% out if Musk takes over Twitter.
Yeah, and no, that's not true.
Everybody's saying, look, there's companies that are invested with tons of followers.
They're not backing out.
But I'll tell you what is happening right now.
The platform has become irrelevant.
Ask any young person.
They ban anything interesting.
They have banned their way to irrelevancy.
People are on other platforms.
They don't care about Twitter.
Twitter has tried all of these things to try and save the company, but it doesn't work.
The company was dying.
Then Donald Trump came in.
And it was a revolution.
All of a sudden, people were using the platform.
Trump was tweeting.
The media wouldn't shut up about it.
It became the most relevant thing in people's lives to an extreme degree.
Probably, you know, negatively in some degrees, to some extent.
But it became extremely relevant.
Twitter started seeing growth.
This is my understanding.
I could be wrong, but you know, my understanding is that when Trump came in, he reversed things.
He reversed things and started improving.
Twitter has decided to start banning anybody who made the platform interesting and worth being on.
And now people are going other places.
They don't want to be here.
How many millions of users are on other platforms that could be active on Twitter, making the company work better?
But we heard it from their current CEO, and I think this should be disqualifying.
When he said in the past that it's about, you know, the current changing times and things like that, it's at that point I'm like, this guy Should be removed as CEO.
Now, at the time, I didn't have any shares.
You know, I only bought some now, like I said, because of Elon.
But at this point, I'm like, listen, there should not be a CEO who says, we don't care about how to solve the problems of the company and we don't care about our responsibilities to our shareholders.
We just want to push ideology.
Here's what I find fascinating.
Elon Musk was offered a seat on the board.
They said if you come on, you can't buy more than 14.9% of the company.
They said you will have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.
It was a trap.
Elon Musk rejected it.
It would mean that he couldn't tweet about it.
It would mean that if he came out and said, I think this would fix the company, they'd sue him and say you're hurting the company.
It was a con.
So he backed off and said, okay, fine.
In his filing, he's basically saying, management is impeding my ability to help this company.
And if I can't do anything as a large shareholder, it's a bad investment.
Elon Musk probably invested thinking, with this amount, he can start to give advice, and they even said it was true.
They said that he will be a guiding force, that he will help them, and his critical view will be great.
Then it appears they just roadblocked him, so he said, fine.
Either I buy it, or what's the point of investing if I can't fix the problems?
The Babylon Bee got suspended over a joke.
Elon Musk calls him and said, did they really suspend you over this?
I might have to buy the company.
He comes in with a minority position, and it seems to me, on the surface, good faith effort to say, I'd like to offer up some solutions.
I'd like a seat at the table.
And what did they say?
No.
Here's what happened.
They released a statement saying they would not reverse any policy decisions.
So if I'm Elon, and I put billions of dollars, and I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, are you kidding me?
I'm coming in to help you fix these problems, and you're saying we're setting it in stone?
These things are costing us money, and have resulted in failure.
How could Elon have predicted that they would spit in his face?
He could've, but, you know, I think an average person might assume that with an investment of this size, they'll listen to me the same as they would anyone else.
Instead, they're like, no, get out.
You can't do anything.
Fine.
If we're gonna fix this, Elon's gonna buy it out.
Now, some people have said, no, no.
No, no, Elon's not gonna save it.
Spiked Online says, Elon Musk won't save free speech from Bhatia Ungar Sargon.
We can't rely on billionaires to save us from big tech censorship.
I'm a fan, Batya, but you're wrong.
The problem is, it's billionaires who have enacted censorship, and there's a billionaire who can strike it out.
The issue is, the billionaires are only on one side.
Destruction.
Destroying the businesses?
Purposefully hindering them at the cost of the shareholders?
You know, whoever owns pieces of Twitter, I'm curious as to what they're doing.
Why they aren't suing.
Because this company is being destroyed by the current leadership.
Jack Dorsey bailed out.
Elon Musk won't say free speech.
Perhaps not.
But I tell you this.
If Elon Musk does not buy Twitter, I think Twitter will cease to function.
I'll give you an example.
I don't know.
The other day, Hasan Piker and Tim Pool were trending because I had like a 10-tweet exchange where I was like, come on the show, bro.
You know, like he smack-talked me.
Here's what happened.
He made a joke on Twitter.
I screen-grabbed it and posted it.
That's all I did.
And then he smack-talked me, disparaged me, and said that, you know, something like, centrists claiming to be influential among people claiming to be true progressives or something.
And I was like, I'm not a progressive, I don't claim to be.
And then here comes the smack-talk back and forth.
I think it was a nonsensical, irrelevant conversation.
Maybe, you know, it resulted in me saying, I'll come to LA, you know, maybe we'll bring the trailer out, we'll do a show with this on.
I am willing to drive across the country for this.
But it's trending?
You know, where are the real Conversations.
Is this the healthy conversation the CEO thinks we're supposed to be having?
Four years ago, with this guy in a leadership position at this company, this is what he wants?
Ben Shapiro trending because he was called a bozo?
You have driven this platform into the ground because you were ideological psychopaths and you were all dumb as a box of rocks.
Either Elon Musk comes in to shake things up to fix these problems, or the company is doomed anyway.
Twitter is trash.
I've long treated it as trash.
I bought some shares because Elon, he may actually save the company.
If he's gonna buy it out, okay, fine, so be it.
It's better than the company exploding.
But my position, I've tweeted this before, delete Twitter, ban Twitter.
I don't wanna, I, that was it.
Elon comes in and I'm like, there's a real chance he's gonna save this platform.
Shareholders are gonna make some money.
The business will improve.
Society will improve.
Let's see what happens.
Bravo, Elon Musk!
Doing something!
I wish more regular people would stand up and do things as well, and many are.
Many of you are standing up and pushing back and refusing, and that is how we win this.
Good job, Elon Musk!
Go, Elon Musk!
Man.
Props.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Twitter has responded to Elon Musk's offer to buy out the company.
Ladies and gentlemen, the saga continues.
Blue check journalists are losing their minds, and it seems dirty tactics may be afoot.
Elon Musk's offer at $54.20 to buy out Twitter seems to be a great deal, but already there are special interests saying it's too low.
You can't accept it.
However, according to a report that was posted on Twitter, reportedly, in fact, check this guys.
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 Goldman Sachs said their selling point was $30 at the end of last year.
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.
Goldman Sachs said their selling point was $30 at the end of last year.
How is $54.20, which is higher right now than the actual trading value per share of $48.40,
how is that a bad offer?
This seems to be the tactic the left is employing to justify why Elon Musk should not be allowed to buy the
company that $54 is just too low, even though the company is not
trading at that point right now.
Will it trade at that point in the past?
Yes.
Except now, we are looking at a report out of Reuters which says the platform is essentially failing.
Full disclosure, as I mentioned in the previous segment, when it was announced that Elon Musk had purchased 9.2% of the company, which I believe makes him the second largest shareholder, not the first, I believe.
He may be the largest.
I think he's second.
I said, seems like a good investment.
I'm pretty sure I had shares before, but I sold them because I see them destroying the company.
Elon Musk seems like he'll save the company.
Now they're arguing it's going to hurt.
It's a low ball offer.
The company, uh, Twitter is stagnant.
The top users don't use the platform anymore.
We need something to change.
The company is nuking itself.
For what reason?
There are a couple of big companies that hold large stakes in Twitter that we've talked about before.
Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street.
They seem to hold a lot of many of these, uh, many companies.
So, um, curious, curious.
What is their intent?
We have this from thenewrepublic.com, which is a progressive website.
They write on March 7th, just about a month ago, how BlackRock, Vanguard, and UBS are screwing the world.
Such firms control a huge portion of the world's wealth.
Instead of using that power to solve climate change, they're blocking progress and profiting off inequality.
I personally believe that these companies want political power, and they're buying up
large portions of many companies to gain that power.
Elon Musk taking control of Twitter can gain control of the public discourse.
Perhaps he'll bring about free speech.
Perhaps he won't.
But either way, something shady may be afoot.
We've got a bunch of stories here.
I want to show you what's happening with the, you know, what do they call them?
They're calling them a goblin.
Goblin mode!
The Washington Post is freaking out.
These blue check journalists are losing their minds.
Elon Musk may have just pulled off epic 4D chess.
The Daily Mail reports Twitter board will meet at 1 p.m.
today to carefully review Elon Musk's $41 billion hostile takeover bid to take company private as he cheekily slips 420 pot joke With this $54.20 per share offer.
Elon Musk, you're a madman.
And you have my respect.
I think the price is great for what I put in.
I'm pretty sure that I would make a little bit of money off the deal.
Not a whole lot, because I only bought 22 shares.
I'm happy to see the company thrive and survive.
And I think, right now, it's a good offer.
I really do.
Listen, gentlemen, before we read this and talk about what these big firms, this shady dealing that may be going on, let me just say, Elon Musk may have just pulled a 4D chess move.
Right now, Musk is offering a premium of 38% on the closing price as of April 1st.
It is below last year's highs.
This is a good deal for the shareholders.
He's giving up a lot of money, right?
Well, let's say Twitter comes out and says, we've been advised the price is too low and not to accept it.
It's a low ball offer.
Okay.
Then Elon Musk then says, well, if I can't affect positive change, like I thought I'd be able to as an investor, and you're not interested in taking this premium deal, I will sell my nearly $3 billion worth of stock and the price will tank.
And when it does, I tell you this man, tons of people are going to rush to sell.
As soon as Twitter says no, people are going to dump their stock.
Why?
Because people are scared Elon will dump his stock and they're going to lose money.
And people are also going to say this company has no interest in making money for its shareholders.
I don't think that should be the end-all be-all for what a company does, but if a company is not trying to at least function properly, why would anyone invest in it?
Why would I?
When the price collapses to $30 or less, then Elon Musk just says, I guess I'll just buy the stock at half the price.
Or not only that, Elon Musk could just say, meh, well then I'll just buy 51% of the stock and take it over by force because they're unwilling to entertain the offer.
I don't know if it's entirely possible, because there are companies that hold a lot of these shares and they're not selling them.
So we'll see how that plays out.
But if this tanks the stock price because Twitter refused to accept a premium offer, the investors may file lawsuits saying you sabotaged us and and people could stand to lose 25 to 30 percent of their investment.
Considering who is invested in Twitter and considering what Twitter is, I believe that the controlling interests of Twitter, be it financial or managerial, are more interested in politics and dogma than they are a functioning business.
Elon Musk is playing a bold game.
Here's the story.
Twitter's board of directors will be meeting soon to discuss Elon Musk's hostile takeover bid, with the company saying it will carefully review the proposal.
The Twitter board will meet Thursday morning at 1 p.m.
Eastern time to consider Musk's bid to take the company private, and the company will hold an all-hands meeting to update staffers at 5 p.m.
according to CNBC.
So that's, I believe, I don't know if they're saying Eastern 5 p.m., but this could be 2 p.m.
Eastern or potentially 8 p.m.
Eastern.
I suppose we'll see.
According to a regulatory filing, Musk launched his bid with a text to board chair Brett Taylor on Wednesday.
So this we covered in a previous segment, but here's we are.
And they're going to mention that the offer includes the digits 420.
Yeah, maybe.
I don't see why Elon Musk had to offer 5420.
He found a way to squeeze in $4.20, but he is being advised, I believe, by Morgan Stanley, so this could just be people looking too deeply into it.
Maybe they said, you should do $54 a share, and he says, throw in $0.20, because Elon Musk is a funny guy.
Shares of Twitter jumped 5.6% at the opening bell Thursday to $48.40, but the stock remained 11% below Musk's offer price, suggesting that investors do not view the success of his bid as inevitable.
Let's break this down.
With Elon Musk saying he wants to buy it at $54, you'd think people would be rushing to buy up shares.
Why?
It's at $48.
Musk wants to buy it out at $54.
You're guaranteed to make money, right?
Well, hold on there a minute.
Why would people believe it won't be sold at that price?
We got shady dealings afoot, my friend.
Something doesn't add up.
If people thought the true value of the company was over $54, and that's why they shouldn't take the deal, They would buy!
Because they'd be like, Elon Musk has low-balled Twitter, I'm gonna buy, because I know it'll hit 60, 70 bucks, right?
If the real issue was that, if what was gonna happen was that Elon Musk would successfully buy the company at $54, buying at $48 is, it's free money!
And if they have no reason to buy, because they think it's worth more, then why aren't people investing more?
Something doesn't make sense.
Now, of course, Twitter confirmed this in a press release saying it was an unsolicited, non-binding proposal.
Oh, here's the game!
Meaning that Elon Musk has given him an out.
That if certain regulatory things aren't met, then he can't do it, he wouldn't do it.
And it sounds like they're saying that so they can be like, well, we can't accept it, it's non-binding.
We'll discuss it, though.
Take a look at this.
We've got a lot to break down.
Bob Sullivan.
This is on Twitter, verified user, independent journalist, author of five books, 15 years at MSNBC.
He writes, I can't decide if Elon Musk's Twitter takeover plan is a gigantic moment for the future of tech media or just another publicity stunt, or both.
He says, Twitter's profits last quarter were 182 million.
Its monetizable daily active users totaled 217 million.
Even using this smaller number, Twitter made about 83 cents per user, less than a penny a day.
Twitter is 16 years old.
I look at that and I say, something doesn't make sense.
Twitter should be making more money.
Ah, I know.
You see, what happened was Twitter nukes its own followers.
Let me tell you about what happens when a platform seeks to make money.
TikTok.
TikTok had an issue with bullying.
An individual would go on the platform and go, I'm gonna dance, and then would get bullied.
And Twitter would be like, this bullying is bad for the platform.
How do you address it?
Well, Twitter says, if you're being bullied, that we should ban the bullies.
Okay.
Then you have no bullying.
TikTok said, ban the person getting bullied.
You know why?
One person getting banned will stop the bullying.
10 users make us money.
Keep the bulk of users.
Get rid of those that are the epitome of the bullying.
It's an interesting logical conclusion, but it's correct.
If you are truly seeking to maximize revenues and user base, that's what you do.
It's kind of messed up, isn't it?
I think neither should be banned.
I think people should just recognize it.
Take a look at this from Zero Hedge.
Now, I typically don't use your hedge as a source, but they posted this.
This is interesting, they say.
This is awkward.
Twitter board hired Goldman to advise it that the Elon Musk $54.20 offer is too low.
Only problem?
Goldman has a sell rating with a $30 price target.
Investments continue to fuel multi-year transition, it says.
Given Twitter's need to make heavy OPEX CapEx investments, we see its GAAP EBIT margin structure and blah blah blah stuff I don't understand, as capped relative to peers, Twitter at current levels trades at 57 times 57 times EV2 operating income with our forecast, blah blah blah, margins in fiscal year 23 and 24.
As a result, we still see a more negative risk reward skew from current levels until Twitter's valuation is more reflective of the current multi-year investment cycle.
We reiterate our sell rating and lower RPT from $36 to $30, reflecting the same valuation multiples on lowered forward operating estimates discussed therein.
I'm not an investment guy.
I don't know if what Zero Hedge has here is correct or whatever.
So take it with a grain of salt.
Dig into this stuff.
I looked into it a little bit.
It sounds to me like what they're saying is, based on the amount of money that they make, their current share valuation doesn't make sense and it should be lower.
And if that's the case, Look, all I know is this.
I got a couple shares.
I got a little bit in Twitter.
I see something like this and I ask that question.
Hey, I'm worried.
You know, I don't want to lose half my money.
I only put like a thousand bucks in because I thought Elon Musk was gonna help the company.
If Goldman is right on this, and you know, it's on me.
Let's be real.
Like, I didn't read this stuff.
I just saw the company.
I said Elon's gonna help, but I don't want it to drop down to 30 bucks.
I mean, I'll lose money.
I don't want the company to get hurt.
I want Twitter to be fixed.
I used to love Twitter.
Now I think it's a joke, one big troll opportunity from lunatic journalists who write garbage.
If they reject this deal, then what?
Then what?
Do I lose money?
Yo, they better not reject this deal.
The Dallas Morning News says, The $54.20 per share offer is too low for shareholders, said Vital Knowledge's Adam Krcifulli in a report, adding the company shares hit $70 less than a year ago.
Although Musk is the world's richest person, blah blah blah, this becomes a hostile takeover offer which is going to cost a serious amount of cash.
He will have to sell a decent piece of Tesla stock to fund it.
Tons of people on Twitter saying that's ridiculous.
Twitter's nuking itself.
Its value should not be at that point, but here we go.
Ladies and gentlemen, from Yahoo Finance, Twitter will review the offer with advice from Goldman Sachs and Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich, and Rosati, a source told Reuters.
Twitter's shares rose 1.8% mid-morning to $46.70, blah, blah, blah.
Hold on there a minute.
Serial underperformer?
Twitter's lower-than-expected user additions in recent months have raised doubts about its growth prospects, even as it pursues big projects such as audio chat rooms and newsletters.
The big question for the Twitter board now is whether to accept a very generous offer for a business that has been a serial underperformer and tends to treat its users with indifference, said Michael Hewson, Chief Market Analyst at CMC Markets.
Musk has amassed more than 80 million followers, Quote, if he really wants to take Twitter private, his past run-ins with regulators might not pose an obstacle, but it might make potential financing sources leery of providing the cash for the deal, unless he is willing to pledge a large portion of his Tesla holdings to collateralize the debt, said Howard Fisher, a partner at law firm Moses Singer and former senior trial counsel at the SEC.
Musk's move also raises the question of whether other bidders might emerge for Twitter.
It'll be hard for any other bidder's consortium to emerge, and the Twitter board will be forced to likely accept this bid and or run an active process to sell Twitter.
This is amazing.
Twitter may be forced to say, okay, we have to consider this.
Does anyone want to bid more?
Then what do we get?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Twitter, Inc.
Vanguard Group at number one, Elon Musk at number two, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, State Street, Aristotle, Capital Management, FMR, LLC, Jack Dorsey.
Will other firms be forced to outbid Elon Musk?
And if they do, Elon Musk caps himself a cool couple billion dollars in the deal.
When I see Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, etc., I see politics.
Politics.
When I see the outrage Axios, Elon Musk goes full goblin mode.
When I see Washington Post columnist frightened by prospect of Elon Musk buying Twitter, the ideological nutjobs are freaking out.
Maybe then.
Twitter says, okay, if we're forced to entertain this offer from Elon Musk, what must we do?
Open up the discussion to other bidders.
Does anyone else want to buy and offer us more money?
Let the bidding commence.
Let these woke lunatics come in and say, no, no, no, we're not letting Elon Musk take the town square.
We'll give $56 per share.
Will Elon Musk counter?
Will he say $64.20?
Will other firms step up and join forces to try and outbid Elon Musk and prevent him from getting in?
And if they do, the company goes private, Elon Musk can make himself billions of dollars in the deal.
It's like a win-win for Elon Musk!
Then Elon, all you gotta do is take those billions of dollars and launch your own Twitter, I guess.
Not that I think it would work, to be completely fair.
Here's what I love about the Elon Musk is a goblin and the Washington Post.
I think they're talking about, who are they talking about, Max Boot?
Yeah, losing his mind.
Take a look at this.
Ian Miles Chong tweets, Elon Musk is a billionaire.
He shouldn't be allowed to own the media.
Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, John Henry, the Boston Globe, Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas Review-General, Lauren Powell Jobs, The Atlantic, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Los Angeles Times, and Mark Benioff, Time Magazine.
Oh, they're all billionaires and they own our media.
Social media is currently run by billionaires.
So what's the issue?
The issue is simple.
The billionaires who currently run these platforms are typically woke, for the most part, or unwilling to challenge the woke.
Elon Musk, he's standing up and saying, I got an opportunity to fix this platform.
Here's the funny thought.
If these companies, if another company steps up and says, we'll do $58 per share to buy out the company, I don't know if they can pull it off.
You got Mastodon trending, leftist Twitters, it's not going to work.
Will any one of these firms put up $50 billion to buy out Twitter?
Because they can't just buy some of it, they've got to buy all of it.
And that means buying out everybody.
That means I'll make money on the little bit that I bought.
It means everybody who bought shares and believed in Elon Musk will get rewarded, I suppose.
I want to see the company succeed.
I want to see a long-term investment that makes sense.
But if these companies buy out Twitter, then it should be private, and they're going to run it into the ground.
I believe Elon Musk is the only hope.
The Babylon Bee got suspended over a joke.
They're funny.
They make the platform fun.
I don't care if the left doesn't like Babylon Bee.
I do.
They can have the onion.
That's fine.
I think the onion writes some articles that are funny sometimes.
They used to be better.
But you can have your thing.
But they don't like the Babylon Bee, so they suspend it?
They make Twitter boring and useless!
There's no conversation, there's no interaction.
I used to post news articles all the time.
I rarely do, or at least relative to what I used to, because it's a garbage platform.
So I post nonsense, I troll, and it's just, I don't even care about it anymore.
There is no value.
There's minimal value.
There's one thing I get from Twitter.
Just a curated list of news sources and journalists.
And then I look for news stories.
I see what people are talking about.
It's about it.
It has become a small portion of the work that I do and it used to dominate.
Twitter used to be this big happening place.
The President was there.
Now Joe Biden sputters and mumbles and he doesn't post anything interesting.
Donald Trump, the President of the United States, was actively Creating a space where you could see and yell at the president.
So they destroyed the company because they don't like his opinions?
The company was thriving with Donald Trump on the platform and Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos.
It was a major center of conversation and they nuked it.
So the only real opportunity for the shareholders would be Elon Musk.
Even if any one of these activist shareholders comes in with a better offer, I'd still argue The company does better under Elon Musk.
But if the goal is just to make sure you're taking care of the shareholders, so be it.
Then people who have shares can take whatever offer is better than Elon Musk's.
And then we'll see Twitter just burst into flames.
But what do they do?
Outbid Elon and then take it public again to get their money back or something?
Why would people want to invest in a company if Goldman Sachs is saying 30 bucks?
Got this tweet from Will Chamberlain. Antonio Garcia Martinez says,
If Elon takes over, there will be a slew of left-wing gabs and parlors as the super woke
threaten to leave Twitter. They'll all fail like the right-wing versions did,
and it'll be glorious to watch the just-build-your-own people sulk and wail.
Will Chamberlain says, Exactly. Everyone says they're going to leave Twitter until they do,
and it sucks. Elon Musk, man, wow.
You know, people often ask me, is there anyone when you were growing up you looked up to?
No, not a single person.
But right now, I gotta say, I am jealous and inspired by what Elon Musk is doing.
And I'll tell you why.
You know, we're here at the Daily Wire headquarters.
Daily Wire has given the middle finger to the establishment, pushing back and saying, you wanna play dirty games?
We're gonna beat you at your own game.
Respect.
You know what I wanna see?
I wanna see people challenge the system.
I wanna see Elon Musk say, I'm not gonna sit back and just take this.
I'm gonna buy Twitter!
Amazing.
Amazing.
I'll tell you what we're gonna do.
We here at TimCast, y'all at TimCast.com who've become members, you are granting us your power.
It's like Dragon Ball Z. How many of you watch Dragon Ball Z?
Come on, get the reference.
When Goku does the Spirit Bomb and everyone gives their energy and he makes the gigantic energy blast, he defeats Vegeta.
That's exactly how I'm gonna say it.
That's exactly how I'm gonna see it.
And anybody who says anime is dumb, I'm gonna say that's the point.
We will be rogues.
We will challenge the system.
We will bring back variety.
We will not be homogenized.
We will be something different, slightly, than the mainstream.
We'll be the nerds talking about Star Trek.
We will be the punk rock energy coming to your system and saying, I'm gonna buy billboards in your town that say ridiculous things and give you the finger.
I'm gonna buy commercials that are ridiculous and shock that system and say, it's time to wake up.
Elon Musk is done sitting back.
I don't know if he's the best guy in the world.
I don't know if we can trust him.
But this move right here is exactly what I'm talking about.
It's about time that people stood up and said, let's shake things up a little bit.
Let's bring back some real opportunity.
Let's bring back some real adventure.
Let's challenge the rigid, culturally decaying system.
How many reboots?
How many movies are just reboots, remakes, garbage?
It's time we do something weird.
And you know what we're doing that's weird?
I didn't say, hey look, we made a political podcast, it works, let's make five more.
Some people have.
Whatever.
Nah.
We're doing unique things.
Tales from the Inverted World, Pop Culture Crisis, Chicken City.
You know what's fascinating to me?
YouTube.com slash Chicken City.
ChickenCityLive.com.
We're buying ads for this.
And so many people are laughing either at me or with me.
We interviewed Ben Shapiro and he laughed and he was like, that's all it is?
It's chickens?
I'm like, yup.
We want to do things that are fun.
We want to seek out real business opportunities.
We want to change the game.
How many people are like, the path to success is doing a political podcast?
They say, Tim Pool's a grifter!
Oh yes, my chicken grift!
And they laugh at it.
And they mock it.
But it's fun.
It's relaxing.
It is the exact opposite of what we bring here.
Why?
My interest is solutions.
My interest is making the world a better place.
Chicken City does that.
Tales from the Inverted World, Pop Culture Crisis.
It's not about sitting here and me venting at what I see all around me.
When I'm like, that sucks, that's a problem, they're hurting people.
It's about what can we do to change the game?
I'll tell ya.
Mix things up a little bit.
People look at Chicken City and they're like, why would people want to watch us chickens walking around all day?
Have you watched it?
It's so chill, it's so fun, you've got a live chat room, the chickens are silly creatures that make funny sounds, they're cute and they're silly, and you can feed them, you can give them treats, and you can activate the chicken party.
It is the opposite of where we are here.
It is interactive, not political.
It's just relaxing.
And it's fun and silly.
We want to bring levity to this world.
We want to shatter the hyper-partisan garbage.
We're not perfect.
Tim Castile, we play partisan games, same as anybody else, but I think we have no choice because the culture war, the cold civil war, whatever you want to call it.
Some say cultural civil war.
What Elon Musk is doing is just culture jamming, but with $50 billion.
That's what we need.
We need all of you to say, I'm going to try something crazy.
Try something new.
That's what we're going to do.
I want to buy a commercial on Tucker Carlson tonight.
Mostly an older audience, but the commercial is going to be the stupidest and most ridiculous thing you've ever seen.
And there are people like, why would you waste money on that?
Because it's not wasting money, it's just trying something different and having fun.
If you're not having fun, you are doing it wrong.
Not everybody has fun, but you should.
So when we make our dramatic Chicken City commercial, and you've got, you know, like, my brother wearing a suit, and he slams the table, and he's like, Roberto, the deal is off!
And then Roberto goes, and screams, and there's like an explosion, and you have no idea what the commercial's for, but it's just on TV.
It's about time people sitting down say, what did I just watch?
And get snapped out of that routine mindset of everything being boring, mundane, droll, etc.
We want to buy billboards that are crazy and make people think.
Snap them out of the boring routine.
We want to see change.
I want to see something real.
I want to try something new.
Let's get it, Elon Musk.
I'll leave it there.
We'll see what happens.
I have a feeling by the time I'm getting ready to record my last segment at youtube.com slash TimCast, we're gonna have another major update in the Elon Musk saga, so I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Today has been a rather crazy day, my friends.
What with Elon Musk attempting a hostile takeover of Twitter, we're now learning a Saudi prince, one of the largest shareholders in Twitter, is rejecting the deal, saying Twitter's worth way more Then what Elon Musk is offering.
However, I think that's likely not to be true in a financial sense.
From a political standpoint, why the Saudi prince is absolutely correct.
And who am I to question the capabilities of one of the greatest investors on the planet?
Now, you may be thinking, what does this have to do with the RNC?
I mean, that's the story you clicked, right?
It has a lot to do with it.
But here is the big story.
The RNC, the Republican National Committee, has withdrawn from the Commission on Presidential Debates, suggesting, I think it's fair to say, there will not be official debates between the 2024 presidential candidates.
And why?
Well, the Republicans are saying the whole system is biased, and they produced a list showing exactly where that bias is.
And that brings me back to Twitter, a platform that is overtly biased, but there are interesting questions about how the bias manifests and what its results are.
Certainly, I believe banning Donald Trump was bad for Twitter and bad for Trump.
I think that banning many right-wing personalities has hindered Republicans' ability to organize and forced them to try and pander to more left-leaning opinions because that's the engagement they see.
But there is a potential backfiring here.
Donald Trump is not popular among older women.
And according to AARP, of course, They have to take this stance, or at least a similar one.
They're saying women over 50 will decide the upcoming elections.
The reason is, this is the one group that isn't really decided.
And perhaps it's because of Donald Trump.
Now, women over 50 may not really be the deciding factor.
AARP, of course, is putting out information.
They have a poll, and this is their target demographic.
So, they want to advocate for people that are part of their organization, or at least who they're targeting.
But I do think it's fair to say that suburban women and older women do play a major and outsized role in what's going to happen in 2022 and 2024.
And so, censorship also comes into play here.
If Donald Trump is a loudmouth, arrogant, and lewd man in public media, as he has been, and he is a leading candidate with the Republican Party, you're going to lose these voters.
Ron DeSantis, on the other hand, he's younger, he's fearless, he's aggressive, but he has a bit more tact.
Now, I'm a fan of Donald Trump.
To a certain degree.
I voted for him in 2020.
And depending on what we see in the presidential election, I'd be willing to vote for him again.
There's no outright no.
Depending on who the Democrats put forward, I gotta be honest.
I am not inclined to vote for any Democrat because of the insanity, the bias, and the corruption that we have seen from the establishment.
And to put it mildly, if the Republicans put forward someone like Mitt Romney, I ain't going anywhere near those votes.
But a Ron DeSantis?
I would prefer DeSantis over Trump.
But we'll see.
We don't know for sure.
If the bias on social media and the manipulation in media and big tech continues, Republicans don't stand a chance.
No matter what the polls are saying, we are fighting an uphill battle.
We are clawing an uphill battle.
Crawling.
to try and get information out. And Twitter, they suppress key information that could harm
Democrats like we saw with the Hunter Biden laptop. This is it really is catastrophic for
conservatives and for right leaning moderates or anybody who's sick of the establishment garbage.
And that's why the Twitter story is relevant in this context. But mostly the Saudi prince.
Well, I could talk about Vanguard and BlackRock, but I'm going to focus this segment on politics, what may come in 2022 and 2024.
And I think the reason the Saudi prince is relevant is he's rejecting the deal.
But I think it's for political and ideological reasons.
There is an interest in controlling the narrative in this country, and external forces have the ability to do that.
Foreign sources can do that by buying a stake in Twitter, which is becoming our public town square.
But let's talk about what's happening with the RNC first.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL Podcast, Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m.
But members support this right here, what you are watching, this video.
We are able to keep this mission going, our operation, news, commentary, and our new shows, thanks to you as members.
If you like the work we do, if you believe in the mission of challenging culture, Changing the political landscape and ending the bias.
Become a member at TimCast.com, but don't forget to also smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show, share this URL, wherever you can.
Grassroots marketing is the most powerful.
Now, let's read that first story from Axios.
The RNC withdraws from Commission on Presidential Debates.
Axios reports, the Republican National Committee voted unanimously Thursday in favor of withdrawing from the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Quote, the Commission is biased and has refused to enact simple and common-sense reforms to help ensure fair debates, including hosting debates before voting begins Today, the RNC voted to withdraw from the biased CPD, and we are going to find newer, better debate platforms to ensure that future nominees are not forced to go through the biased CPD in order to make their case to the American people.
Debates are an important part of the democratic process, and the RNC is committed to free and fair debates.
The Republican Party for nearly a decade has complained the Nonprofit Debate Commission, which has described itself as nonpartisan, has favored Democrats, according to the New York Times.
I agree with the Republican Party, and I think it's obvious.
And the RNC didn't just release a statement, they issued key points, facts, on what happened that prove bias.
They're going to say last year McDaniel warned CPD that the RNC would advise future Republican candidates against participating in Commission on Presidential Debate-hosted debates unless significant reforms were made.
In January, the RNC reiterated their position by sending a letter to the CPD threatening to block future GOP presidential nominees from sanctioned debates if meaningful reforms are not made.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the press release from the RNC that not only made the statement but provided background info.
They say.
Restoring faith in our elections means making sure our candidates can compete on a level playing field.
Today, the RNC has voted to withdraw the Republican participation from the biased Commission on Presidential Debates.
The rule change is the culmination of a year-long process.
To be clear, we are not walking away from debates.
We are walking away from the CPD.
It is biased and does not serve the interest of the American people.
Here are some examples.
Waiting until 26 states had begun early voting before hosting the first debate in 2020.
Making unilateral changes to previously agreed-upon debate formats and conditions, in some cases without even notifying the candidates.
Selecting a moderator in 2020 who had once worked for Joe Biden.
Failing to maintain the organization's strict nonpartisan, with a majority of its board members publicly disparaging the Republican nominee.
Ronna McDaniel and RNC officials repeatedly asked CPD to reform and make changes to future debates to ensure a fair and impartial forum.
Unfortunately, the CPD was unwilling to make common sense reforms.
The Republican Party deserves better.
The American people deserve better.
We know that when Republicans have a free and fair forum, we win because our policies are best for the American people.
We look forward to exploring other avenues for candidates to have a free and fair forum for all Americans.
Okay.
Let me take a jump over to this story from the New York Post.
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal rejects Elon Musk's Twitter takeover bid.
On the surface, not really a related story.
But if you understand the nuance of what's happening in this country when it comes to politics, the inner workings, you'll see exactly why this is important.
Let me connect the dots for you.
There is absolutely a bias in media and institutions against Republicans.
I can give you one simple point to prove it, and it's the point I often bring up that stems from the discussion I had with Jack Dorsey and Vijay Agade over at the Joe Rogan Experience.
And that on Twitter, They have a misgendering policy.
The misgendering policy means that if you use the pronouns a person does not identify with, you will be banned.
This culminated in the moment when Zuby, a famous rapper, said, OK, dude, in response to a trans woman, and received a suspension for misgendering.
Now, that policy is absolutely absurd to anybody on the right.
The misgendering policy exemplifies the bias.
On the left, they feel it is misgendering if a person says their pronouns are she, her, but you use he, him.
On the right, it is considered misgendering someone if you use pronouns that don't align with their biological sex.
Two distinct worldviews, yet Twitter upholds one of them, not the other.
That is proof of bias.
Now, of course, the left responded by saying Tim's being transphobic, but I did not argue that it was right or wrong to have either policy.
I am arguing that the policy proves that Twitter sides with one side over the other.
The left is free to say it's the right move.
I didn't say it wasn't.
I simply said it's evidence of a hard bias.
Now, why would a Saudi prince reject Elon Musk's bid, which is a 38% premium on the platform?
Well, in a statement they said that it doesn't reflect the true value of Twitter.
I agree.
But I don't think it's financial.
I think Elon Musk's offer is a great deal, considering Goldman Sachs, I believe, has a selling point of $30, and Elon Musk offered $54.20.
Well, the Saudi prince rejected it, and the reason for it is, as I've long maintained, and many others have as well, This massive stake in the company, which I believe is around 5.5%, gives them control of a platform that can alter the political discourse in this country.
That is to say, foreign individuals and foreign interests know the power of Twitter, the value, is controlling politics in this country.
The bias that is favorable to Democrats and the left, and they're not going to give it up.
No, I guess it's a private company, and there's no way to force an investor to sell off their interests.
But I think the reason this is happening, the reason why so many people are hell-bent on controlling Twitter, is that this platform, the bias we see, It is upstream from politics.
And this is when the RNC says there's a bias, you need to understand it stems from control of culture.
Politics is downstream from culture.
If you can control the creation of culture, you can control the politics after the fact.
If no one is allowed to question Democrat talking points, and if Twitter is allowed to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, Democrats will win.
Surprise, surprise!
Donald Trump Abraham Accords, arguably good for the Middle East.
Hmm.
I don't know the interests of Saudi Prince Al-Waleed, but if Donald Trump were to get our troops and our assets out of the Middle East, well, we sell weapons to the Saudis.
There is U.S.
activity in the Middle East.
I wonder if the Saudis have an interest in maintaining the current establishment position.
Perhaps they want a piece of any oil or energy deals that go into Europe.
You see, Russia, who Donald Trump was not particularly adversarial with, but a little bit, they produce a large quantity of energy that goes into Europe.
The Middle East and various countries produce a large quantity of energy as well, but they compete with Russia.
Well, the Biden administration and the Democrats seem to be opposed to Russia to a great degree.
It's funny how those interests align, isn't it?
I firmly believe there are special interests buying up property and assets in this country to influence politics.
You'd be a fool not to think so.
I don't know about the Saudi prince, but my personal opinion is that he's rejecting a bid which is a good buyout offer because the real value is the manipulation of political opinion.
So I think the RNC is right to pull out.
Matthew Iglesias says, everyone knows that Musk reinstating Trump on Twitter would be good for Democrats but nobody wants to say it.
It's interesting.
Why would they then not do it?
It would be good for Democrats in the sense that Trump looks bad.
I agree with that.
But it certainly exposes, in my opinion, that Twitter's motivations are not monetary.
Trump was making the platform bigger.
Why boot him off the platform?
Matthew Iglesias says it would be good for Democrats.
In a certain sense, I think it would.
I don't know.
All I can say is there is a political motivation in my opinion.
Over at CNN, Democrats intensify fight against Biden immigration policy.
And now we can see where things are starting to break down.
It looks like with the move by Elon Musk and with the latest polls and the failures of the Biden administration, the Democrats are in serious trouble.
Maybe this is a reason why they won't bring Trump back.
The last thing they... I don't know.
I honestly don't know.
Because Trump would force them to take certain positions.
The Democratic Party was forced to abandon long-standing positions on immigration because of Trump.
Oh, you think I'm wrong?
Go back to 2008.
Hillary Clinton called for a border barrier.
Bernie Sanders called for a border barrier.
In 2015, Bernie Sanders called for securing the border.
But when Donald Trump tweets all day every day, build a big beautiful wall from sea to shining sea, the Democrats must oppose him.
Maybe they want to take his positions.
Hey, like we saw Joe Biden do in his faux State of the Union address.
But having a loud and vocal Donald Trump Having him speak up on policy puts you in a difficult position.
You know, perhaps.
I don't know.
Democrats are fighting right now.
Beto O'Rourke has done a 180.
All of a sudden, he's like, we gotta secure our borders.
But if Trump were the one leading that charge, Beto O'Rourke would have no choice but to reject Trump's proposal.
That's the joke, right?
There was an article from the Babylon Bee that said, Donald Trump, ingenious move, Trump endorses his own impeachment, forcing Democrat to oppose.
That was the joke.
The joke was, anything Trump was for, the Democrats had to be against.
And that put them at odds with the American people, because as bad as Trump was in a lot of ways, people liked his policy.
He was fairly moderate.
Even Matthew Iglesias and Vox pointed out, Donald Trump was a moderate.
He's just bombastic.
Keeping him off the platform allows Democrats to endorse positions that are more favorable to Americans and not be in constant opposition to Trump.
I think it's all one big, dirty political game.
Of course, you end up seeing the second bus of Central American migrants from Texas arrives at the U.S.
Capitol.
There's a fight happening.
Absolutely.
And whether or not Trump is the right guy for the job, people are upset about what's happening in this country.
And I think Democrats are spiraling out of control.
I think they're losing control of the narrative in the mainstream media.
And I think Elon Musk's latest move has exposed the political manipulation.
I'll just repeat this.
Twitter has a price target, I believe.
Goldman Sachs says it's $30.
Fact check me on that, because I saw a tweet going around.
I'm not entirely sure it's correct, but either way, the Twitter stock is around $48, and he offers $54 per share.
Everybody makes money.
Why would you not take that when Twitter is a suffering platform?
Because they want political control.
But everyone can then see it.
They can see that when these big investors say, we don't want to make money, they're after something else, and it is political motivation.
Big changes are heading our way.
Big changes are coming.
The other reason why I want to highlight this bill, I'm sorry, the buses coming to the Capitol, is to talk about the increase in fearlessness among some Republicans.
The Republican Party, in my opinion, doesn't do anything really to help us, but there are some Republicans that are doing things that have an impact.
The RNC withdrawing from the debates.
Bold move.
I respect it.
Good job.
What else do we got?
Greg Abbott sending migrants to the Capitol?
Okay, not a perfect solution, but I understand the statement.
We have this.
Kentucky lawmakers override Governor Beshear's vetoes on abortion, fairness, and women's sports bills.
The override means both bills will go into effect immediately.
Wow.
Republicans are starting to take bold moves, at least at the local level.
I'm sure that this is bad news for Democrats.
We have this from Florida.
Ron DeSantis signs 15-week abortion ban into law.
More and more Republicans are standing up, rejecting the establishment line, rejecting the Democrats.
And you know what I have to say?
I believe that this is the fault of the corporate press and big tech.
You see, there was a point.
Where if you gave an opportunity of some people on the right to speak, they would take it.
If you said to Alex Jones, avoid talking about certain things that we fear could cause violence, and you're fine.
He'd say okay.
And he really did try before he got banned.
He would say things and then go, I mean that figuratively of course, figuratively, because he didn't want to get banned.
But then they banned him, now he's unleashed.
They lose control of the narrative.
When Jones gets banned, he doesn't just disappear.
He keeps doing his show and he still gets millions of views.
He's still on the radio.
Now he says whatever he wants, he riles people up, and Republicans eventually say, I am done compromising, I am done negotiating, it gets us nowhere, and you are playing dirty.
So the RNC pulls out of the debates.
You are not gaining control by playing dirty games.
You have to give a little to maintain control, and it was that simple.
For the longest time, the media, big tech, the presidential debates were able to control, to a certain degree, what the Republicans and the right were able to do.
Well, they've gone too far.
They've severed the line between the two, and now they have no poll factor.
The way we used to describe it is that the Democrats, the left, were constantly pulling Republicans to the left, but the Republicans were being dragged and slowing them down.
Some said, it was good that we worked towards progress, and it was important that the right made sure it didn't go too fast and spiral out of control.
But at a certain point, the left decided, we're constrained, snipped the cord, and jumped so far left, everyone else is left standing there watching them saying, y'all have lost your minds.
So now the Republicans are saying, We got a coalition with moderates, and we're gonna take it.
And you know what?
I think we're actually seeing that.
So let's go through some of this data.
I see this article from this press release from the AARP, of course.
This is the Association of Retired Persons, and they say women voters ages 50 and over will decide the balance of power in the next election.
I am not entirely convinced that's true, but I think it's an interesting data point, and I want to show you what the data means.
They're going to say, new research released today by AARP in partnership with pollsters Celinda Lake, Christine Matthews, Kirsten Soltis, Anderson, and Margie Omero found that only 17% of women in this important voting bloc have made up their mind about who they will vote for in the 2022 election.
About two-thirds, 65%, say they will not make their decisions until weeks or just days before election day.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, women, voters age 50 and over, do not solidly belong to either party's camp.
And the vast majority haven't made up their minds about how they'll vote in November, said Nancy Leamond, AARP Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer.
The instability and uncertainty of the economy, the pandemic, and the political environment are leading these women to demand that candidates address quality of life and pocketbook issues like the cost of living, supply chain problems, and ways to end the discord permeating politics today.
What are the issues that concern them?
72% are concerned about having enough income to keep up with rising costs, with 48% saying they are very concerned.
A majority, 52%, say the economy is not working well for them, a 15-point change from 2019, when just 37% said the same.
Right there.
It's the economy, stupid.
What are Democrats focused on?
Cultural, social justice, and woke issues.
Bravo!
Under Donald Trump in 2019, the best numbers of our lives.
Will this play a role?
I certainly think so.
Let me show you some data.
Let's jump over to civics.
This is the Democratic Party favorable rating among age 50 to 64 females.
They find the Democratic Party to be 50% unfavorable and 42% favorable.
Not all that bad, but 50% unfavorable?
I wonder what that means.
We gotta look at some more data.
The Republican Party favorable rating among the same demographic is bad.
30% favorable, 56% unfavorable.
Now here's what's interesting.
56% unfavorable?
More people?
Wait, wait, hold on.
50% say unfavorable.
The Republicans are hated more by this demographic and less favorable while 13% are unsure.
I can't say I'm surprised.
Republicans are trash.
However, things are changing.
If the issue is economics, I feel that you might actually say, I don't like the Republican Party!
But, are you going to vote for Democrats that aren't actually fighting for economic issues?
It's hard to say.
Let's take a look at all demographics and see exactly how they feel.
Among all demographics, 55% find the Democratic Party to be unfavorable and 37% favorable.
Let's go over to the Republicans and look at all demographics.
Among all demographics, it's 57 to 31.
Most people don't like the Republican Party.
You want to know what I find truly the most fascinating?
When you go to this poll from Civics, it says, which political party do you think is more concerned with the needs of people like you?
40% say Democrats, 35% say Republicans, and 22% say neither.
Yeah, I think Democrats are mostly in a cult.
But you also need to understand that Democrats are quickly becoming a smaller political faction, as independent voters and Republicans seem to be aligning.
In which case, we must reassess the question here.
If women ages 50 and up are what matter most in this upcoming election, let's take a look at the data.
Democratic Party favorable rating age 50 to 64, female, independent.
Now, what we find here is, when you pull this, you can see favorability among Democrats is 29% and 58% unfavorable among independents.
So more independent voters do not like the Democratic Party.
But these are a specific demographic.
50 to 64 year old women, Independent voters.
There's no guarantee it will be any better for better for Republicans.
So let's take a look.
Unfavorable or favorable opinion of the Republicans.
We're going to go with 50 to 64, female and independent.
And here we can see, actually.
Fair's a little bit better in terms of unfavorability.
29% favorable for Democrats, 23% favorable among Republicans, but 22% unsure.
53% favorable among Republicans, but 22% unsure.
However, 55% unfavorable for Republicans, 58% unfavorable.
Perhaps it's all meaningless.
Because, truth be told, it's just, maybe this point matters, maybe it doesn't.
I think when you eliminate this voting bloc, because it is very speculative, you'll see it is independent voters that are typically siding with Republicans, but maybe not necessarily Republicans.
Maybe the real issue is populists.
If we take a look at the favorable opinion of the Democrats among independents, 67% unfavorable, 21% favorable.
If we jump over to the Republican Party and take a look at independent voters across the board, we can see 59% unfavorable, 22% favorable.
That is to say, independents lean slightly to the right.
19% unsure.
And it's that unsure that I think matters the most.
So we'll see how things play out.
When we look at civics, national economy, current condition, how would you rate the condition of the national economy right now?
Well, 50 to 64 year old females say it is, this is interesting, 43% very bad, 28% fairly good, 21% fairly bad.
bad, 28% fairly good, 21% fairly bad.
OK, we're digging through the political polls, but let me put it this way.
Perhaps whether you like a party or not is less material than whether or not you're concerned about the economy, which is why I highlighted 72% siding income as the key issue.
If 64%, a plurality, believe the economy is bad, maybe they will simply vote for change.
And that's all that matters.
But, this does include Democrat women who are probably going to vote Democrat no matter what.
So let's crank it up to Independent, and what do we get?
Uh-oh.
Now we're looking at, remarkably, 71% of independent females, 50-64, say the economy is bad.
And very bad is increasing.
It stands to reason, if this is the prime voting bloc, and it may be, That's bad news for Democrats.
Because it's kind of up in the air between the two parties.
People don't like Republicans, but will they vote for change?
I think the answer is yes.
A referendum on the Democratic Party.
Among independent voters, it is even worse.
76% say the economy is bad.
say the economy is bad. Only 20% say the economy is to some degree good. And to me, it's kind
of insane that anybody would think the economy is good right now, considering we're talking
about global famines and gas prices are through the roof.
But let's play the game, my friends.
Let's take a look at how the Democrats feel about the economy.
Remarkably!
45% say fairly good.
10% say very good.
That is 55% of Democrats think the economy is to some degree good.
That is objectively insane.
We have got inflation at massive highs, record highs, going back to the 80s, 8.5%.
We have a labor shortage.
My hotel can't even get me cream for my coffee.
And you think this economy is good?
These people are in a cult.
Now, maybe that's all that matters, because cult members are going to vote for the cult.
But among Democrat voters, to have only 39% saying the economy is bad?
Wow!
You know, it's really fascinating.
According to one poll, 59% of Democrats agree with Ron DeSantis' parental rights and education bill in Florida.
Maybe the real issue here is that Republicans, the establishment, are garbage.
Maybe if we primary these people and bring in legitimate American first populists, America first populists, maybe many of these voters would actually change their mind.
Among Republicans, I ask you, is the economy good?
Yeah, you knew where this is going.
93% of Republicans say the economy is bad.
I'm just gonna stop y'all right here.
It is insane to think that in January of 20, right before Biden got inaugurated, Republicans just changed their mind and all of a sudden thought the economy was bad.
Okay, you know what?
The economy was bad.
It was.
2020 was a pandemic.
In 2019, the economy was good though.
The fact that there's a partisan view of the economy says a lot.
It means independent voters, in my opinion, are the only thing that really matters.
Who do they agree with?
Well, I tell you this right now, my friends, the economy is objectively bad.
Interest rates, I'm sorry, inflation rates at 8.5%, objectively bad.
So for somebody, anybody, to say fairly good or very good, I'm just like, that's wrong.
We're in this mobile studio, cost a couple hundred grand to build, well to buy, and then build out everything inside.
It's expensive.
Yeah, our business is a booming.
It would be booming more if the people we served, if the people who watch these videos and subscribe to our website, were doing better themselves.
Because we are only as strong as the weakest link.
Now that being said, I don't say that to humblebrag or rub anything in anyone's faces.
No, I'm eternally grateful that everyone who watches has helped lift us to this position.
But I am not so insane to think that simply because our business is working, the economy is doing well.
No!
The economy is doing miserably!
I hear it all day every day from everyone.
Just because... I'll put it this way.
You're on an island.
You're on top of a skyscraper when the great flood happens.
And you look around like everything's fine up here.
You know, we got grass on the roof, we got vegetables growing in our rooftop garden.
When it rains, we have water.
We have a water filter system.
What's the problem?
Seems like things are going great, and you look down, there's 15 feet of water washing everyone away.
And sure, people on the lower floors of the building might be like, hey man, things are getting bad.
We're not underwater yet, but the water's rising, and we're worried.
These wealthy people and these Democrats have plugged their ears and they're saying everything's fine and I don't need to look down.
For those of us who work at TimCast, who work at these other platforms, and apparently Republicans, we're looking down and we're like, you know, the water level's increasing.
People are going to get washed away in this flood.
We need to do something about it.
Perhaps the analogy is imperfect because I don't know how you stop a flood.
But when you've got people who are voting for policy and not recognizing how bad things are, lying to you, cheating in debates through bias, Well, don't be surprised when the Republicans pull back and then just go for it.
You have lost your connection.
The Democrats have severed it.
They've gone too far off the plot.
And because of that, Republicans are also unleashed.
They've tilted back to a slightly more right a little bit.
The Democrats have gone off the rails, so what am I supposed to say?
I'm not a fan of wide-reaching, outright abortion bans.
I don't have all the answers.
I have heard the moral arguments, the nuanced arguments from the pro-life crowd, and I totally agree on many of their positions and recognize them.
Perhaps we were better off when the answer was safe, legal, and rare.
But we're not there anymore.
Now it's all or nothing.
Enshrining the right to abortion with no restrictions in some states?
Outright banning them in others?
Perhaps that's the strong moral issue that acts as the spark for a civil war.
Or maybe I'm wrong.
Either way.
The Republicans are saying we will no longer play in these debates.
The separation is getting worse.
What happens in these upcoming elections?
I don't know, but I think Republicans are going to win, and I implore you to go out and vote in your primaries and make sure it's not going to be these rhinos.
It's not going to be the corrupt establishment Democrat masquerading as Republicans.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4—I'm sorry, at 8 p.m.
