Twitter Adopts POISON PILL To Block Elon Musk Hostile Takeover, Corrupt Establishment PANICKING. The true value of Twitter is its control of politics and the narrative.
Somehow the Left and Democrats have landed firmly on the side of big corporations, wall street, Saudi Arabia, and trillion dollar wealth management firms.
Republicans while mostly just sitting on their hands only seem to *not* help corrupt organizations but still seem to impede progress.
Elon Musk has pulled the veil from the beast and exposed the power structures of the establishment and corrupt cult.
#ElonMusk
#Democrats
#Twitter
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Twitter board has adopted a poison pill to try and stop Elon Musk's hostile takeover.
But many are saying this means they're violating their fiduciary duty to the shareholders, and now they could be sued.
Things are heating up.
In our next segment, another equity firm has stepped up and may actually try to outbid Elon Musk.
The fight is on.
These groups want to control the political power that is Twitter.
They don't care about money.
It's one of the most significant culture war battles in the past decade, or in the entirety of the culture war.
And in our last segment, a little bit of fun on Friday, Joe Biden tries to shake hands with the air.
That's right, the air.
No one was there.
Perhaps he was hallucinating.
Now, if you like the 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.
And many people are saying this proves that they are in violation of their fiduciary duty to the shareholders, When Elon Musk made an offer in earnest to buy out the company at $54.20, the board should have immediately presented it to the shareholders.
How do you feel about this?
The shareholders could have then just said no outright and chosen not to sell.
But instead, they said poison pill.
The plan effectively would cap Elon Musk from buying more than 15% of the company, making sure that if he did, the other investors could buy cheaper shares to prevent him from gaining total control.
This is one of the biggest and most important culture war battles that we have seen since the beginning of the culture war.
A billionaire with the power to take back the town square and restore freedom of speech is being thwarted by powerful special interests, zealous ideologues who have control of the company, but there may still be a path forward.
Elon Musk, in an interview, said he didn't know if he would be able to buy this company, but he does have a plan B.
Some have said that Elon Musk, if his offer is not accepted, he sells out his shares, 9.2%, crashing the value down to $30, triggering a wave of lawsuits from people who are outraged that they could have sold at $54, but the board blocked them.
Elon Musk then begins buying up shares at a discount price and actually gets control of the company for cheaper than he actually offered.
They're trying everything in the book.
They're saying Elon Musk is low-balling because, you know, last year Twitter was trading much higher.
Well, it's not about whether Twitter was trading much higher, it's whether or not Elon Musk is going to make money for people.
You see, Twitter was trading around $80 briefly, and many people probably sold out and made some money, and some people maybe bought in, but ultimately the price tanked to around $30.
Elon Musk was basically saying you're going to get double your money from before I bought in.
In fact, I believe it was Goldman Sachs that said their selling point, price point, for Twitter was around $30.
Why would they reject this?
My friends, many employees at Twitter are freaking out.
The CEO is speaking saying, oh, you know, don't worry, we're not hostages.
This is the same guy who said it's not about free speech.
The same guy who said it's about the current state of things.
These are cult members who have gained control of our institutions.
They don't care about money.
They care about dogma and zealotry.
Well, many of the shareholders may agree, and many may not.
Elon Musk is a shareholder.
If they do not take his offer in earnest, Elon Musk himself could sue.
It looks like no matter what happens, he is going to be causing damage, stress, and maybe even triggering an extraction from these special interests that are trying to control our discourse.
The story is just increasingly insane.
Bill Gates in farmland.
Blackrock and houses.
Oligarchs are buying up our property, seizing our ability to communicate.
And right now, the left is on the side of Saudi Arabia?
Censorship?
Major big tech corporations?
It is just the weirdest thing I never thought I would see something this blatant and egregious.
That the left is actually like, it's good that a Saudi Arabian prince controls a portion of Twitter, and that major companies, investment firms, evil megacorps like Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street have controlling shares of the platform where we vote.
For the longest time, the point was the corporations were preventing us from getting real leaders in this country.
That they're buying our members of Congress.
And now that these companies seek to control our means of communication, the left is defending them!
It's insane.
The cult needs to be stopped.
And we do it?
Well, Elon Musk does it the way Elon Musk does, but we do it by voting in the primaries and supporting people like Elon Musk when they make these moves.
Well, let's read the news and see exactly what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, help support the work we do here, the work I do making these videos, And the work our journalists do every day.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments of the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 8pm.
Yesterday was a really amazing conversation with Michael Knowles and Jeremy Boring of The Daily Wire.
We talked quite a bit about a giant meteor coming to destroy the Earth, and then it got into spirituality, religion, Quantum physics.
Just weird, crazy stuff.
So check it out.
Support our work.
Don't forget to smash the like button right now.
Give a little tap.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share this show anywhere you can in any way you can.
Grassroots marketing is the most powerful thing.
Here's the story from TimCast.com.
Breaking!
Twitter board utilizes poison pill to stop Elon Musk from buying the company.
In a press release on Friday, keep that in mind, Twitter announced that it was enacting a plan that would limit Elon Musk's ability to purchase the social media giant outright.
Faced with the prospect of a hostile takeover, the Twitter board has adopted a defensive strategy called a shareholder rights plan.
Shareholder rights plans, also known as poison pills, are a takeover defense tool often used to avoid escalating
a hostile or unsolicited offer by keeping an investor from accumulating a significant
ownership stake.
Shareholder rights plans are one of the most potent and effective defenses
against a hostile takeover. By capping ownership, a plan compels a bidder to negotiate directly
with the board of directors instead of launching an unapproved tender offer or accumulating a
controlling stake through open market purchases. Such a maneuver can level the playing field
by giving the board greater control of a process, providing more time for deliberations,
and responding to aggressive negotiating tactics.
Now I want to pause real quick and just say on Friday.
I don't know how many of you are watching the news on Friday, but the reality is most people don't.
Unless you're mission-driven, you care about what's happening, the average person says, yo, it's Friday, I'm beat.
I'm gonna go chill out, hang out, and just kind of, you know, kind of relax a little bit.
It's that simple, right?
Fridays are where news goes to die.
Now, why would Twitter put out this press release on a Friday?
I mean, Elon Musk announced this stuff earlier this week.
Granted, it all is happening pretty quickly, and this may just be... it's just time.
I mean, Elon Musk makes the offer, then they respond as soon as they can.
No, I think the real issue is, this shows That they are violating their fiduciary responsibility.
Their fiduciary duty.
They're not entertaining a legitimate offer.
They didn't present it to the shareholders.
They simply said, no, we are going to prevent it from happening.
No, no, no.
They say they're still considering Elon Musk's proposal, but it seems fairly dirty.
They're going to say, However, a rights plan is not absolute protection.
While it does prevent a third party from quickly acquiring controlling stake in the company, hostile bidders can still wage a public campaign to pressure the board to negotiate and complete the intended purchase.
In the press release, Twitter states the plan will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person, or group gains control of Twitter through open market accumulation.
An evident response to Musk's attempted purchase on Thursday.
The so-called poison pill becomes active if an entity, person, or group acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Twitter's outstanding common stock in a transaction not approved by the board.
If the plan becomes active, current shareholders will be entitled to a special class of shares sold at a lower-than-market price to acquire controlling equity in the company, thus ending the third party's ability to gain controlling ownership.
According to Twitter, the shareholders' rights plan will remain active until April 14, 2023, seemingly thwarting Musk from purchasing controlling interest in the social media platform for at least one year.
At this point, Musk's remaining option would be to lobby current shareholders by convincing them to relinquish their shares in a sale directly to him.
In most instances, someone like Musk will be forced to utilize a public campaign to compel shareholders to abandon their right to exercise the purchase of options made available through the limited plan.
It remains to be seen what the next steps Musk will take in his bid to purchase Twitter.
What the steps will be.
Okay, hold on.
This is where things get interesting.
Elon Musk offered to buy out the entirety of the company.
He didn't say he was going to try and acquire through open market means.
He said, how would your shareholders like to just sell out everything at $54.20 a premium?
It's my best and final offer.
Elon Musk has been planning this.
Twitter is reacting to this.
I think it's fair to say that Elon saw this coming.
This is a common tactic, but there's an interesting question.
Why enact a poison pill on public market acquisition when Elon Musk was offering up private, or I should say a direct and total purchase of the company?
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.
It's going to stop Elon Musk's potential plan B, I suppose.
CNBC reported just the other day, Elon Musk says he's not sure he'll be able to buy Twitter after a $43 billion bid.
It teases a plan B. Perhaps his plan B was that, as many people pointed out, when the stock price collapses, he'll come in and buy it up at a discount.
He can't now.
Here's how it's basically going to work.
If Elon Musk does start purchasing through open market means, and he gets to 15%, These other shareholders will then have access to shares which will allow them to dilute the value of Elon Musk's shares, effectively stealing money from him and stealing control.
It is a dirty move.
Considering Elon Musk isn't trying to just, well, he didn't initially start by going into the open market.
In this op-ed from Real Money, Elon Musk's bid for Twitter is a Machiavellian play.
Interesting.
What do you mean, Real Money?
They write.
This is from Ed Ponzi.
You love to hear it, don't you?
Well, good sir, who seems to be an expert.
Elon Musk's bid for Twitter.
I believe Musk will eventually own the company, one way or another.
You love to hear it, don't you?
Well, good sir, who seems to be an expert.
I say that only because I agree with his sentiment, but in all reality, why is this?
He goes on to write, earlier this week I wrote about Musk's penchant for humor.
Did you notice the reappearance of the number 420 in his 5420 bid for Twitter?
This is a reference to marijuana.
And as apropos, his funding secured tweet, in which he mulled taking Tesla private at 420.
Seriously?
I also wrote about Musk's tendency to go all in on his ideas, and that 9.2% or even 14.9% ownership of Twitter would be insufficient.
In a new statement, Musk has now indicated that he wants to take Twitter private.
In other words, he wants it all.
Musk said his $54.20 per share bid is his best and final offer.
Now, real quick, I want to add an interesting play by Musk.
You see, what he said is, it's not a threat, but if the management will not allow the company to be fixed, and I don't believe they can fix it, it's not a good investment.
It's simple.
Elon Musk thought that at 9.2% they'd entertain his ideas.
But in fact, they tried to hinder his ideas and outright said, we will not change past policy decisions.
That's it.
This is fair play.
Elon Musk isn't trying to trick anybody.
He said, I'll do 9.2%.
Let's talk."
And they said, okay.
Then publicly said, we're not going to do any of that.
So Elon's like, okay, fine.
I don't want to be in the board if you're not going to fix it because I thought you were playing fair and I could help you save this company.
I want to buy the company outright.
Now they're saying, we don't know about that poison pill.
Elon Musk could have gone in for a private sale, but it looks like they have violated their fiduciary duty and Twitter is playing dirty games to maintain political power.
Interesting.
Let's consider how this might play out.
Musk's offer will not be accepted.
Just over a year ago, Twitter was an $80 stock, so it's unlikely that a buyout price of $54.20 would generate much excitement.
Musk knows this to be true.
If Musk then sells his shares, the stock might drift back to the mid-30s.
That's where Twitter was trading prior to the initial news of the Tesla CEO's interest in the company.
This will irritate shareholders, who in hindsight will question why a deal with Musk wasn't consummated.
If a market downturn should occur, the likelihood of which is increased in the current interest rate environment, we could see Twitter in the mid to upper 20s.
If that happens, shareholders will be begging for a buyout at $54.20.
In this scenario, that price could represent a gain of 100% for shareholders.
Of course.
That $54.20 price would be off the table.
At this point, Musk can either start buying shares again at a lower price, or come in with a lower bid.
On the other hand, if Twitter's price moves higher, he could simply choose not to pursue the company.
I believe it would be a mistake to treat Musk's bid for Twitter as if it were a typical M&A deal.
While some may feel this bid is ill-advised from a business standpoint, we need to understand that typical business concepts are irrelevant in this case.
Musk has decided that he wants to own Twitter, and I expect that will happen at some point.
If the above scenario unfolds, he might end up owning the social media company for even less than his current bid, but this was written before news of the poison pill.
Which brings me to this tweet.
From BowtiedRanger.
I'm not familiar with the expertise of BowtiedRanger, but considering the poison pill, I think it's an interesting take, and I've seen it repeated by many other individuals, but this take is a bit more concise.
BowtiedRanger on Twitter says, Twitter is hoping to frustrate Elon out of his offer by imposing roadblocks like a post-offer poison pill.
It's a defense tactic.
Three likely outcomes.
Twitter ends up in a shareholder derivative suit for breach of fiduciary duty for not properly evaluating the entire fairness of Elon's offer.
Twitter is quote in play, meaning the board has to execute a sales process to find the highest bidder.
Elon launches a proxy battle and teams up with other major shareholders to take over Twitter.
More traditional hostile takeover approach.
If you're a Twitter board member, you're going to have a lot of sleepless nights coming up.
Interesting.
Perhaps the more traditional takeover is what may be coming.
Elon Musk is getting advice.
I think he's getting advice from Morgan Stanley.
I believe Morgan Stanley holds a piece of Twitter, and I think it's fair to say one thing.
If Elon Musk buys the company, he will fix it.
Fact.
It's simple.
How many users does Twitter have?
If Elon Musk simply unbans Donald Trump and Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, and many others, their followers will return to the platform.
And we're talking about 100 million people?
Now, maybe many of those people are still on the platform.
Simply by banning these people, not everybody quit.
But what about all the people that were banned for saying, learn to code?
What if Elon Musk says, you want a verified badge?
Five bucks a month.
Then we verify you.
That five bucks allows us to maintain the profile and do the checks to make sure you are who you are, which creates the healthiest outcome.
No more bots.
Uh-oh.
You see, Elon Musk is talking about fixing democracy, as they like to say.
He's talking about restoring freedom of speech in the digital spaces.
He's talking about making money for the company.
I think any legitimate investor in the company is going to say it makes sense.
But what the left is talking about, what the establishment is talking about, what Vanguard and BlackRock seem to be interested in is political power.
Political power indeed.
Eric Hartman on Twitter.
Again, you know, these are just some interesting accounts that I've seen.
He says, so let me get this straight.
The progressive left is now rooting for Saudi Arabia, Wall Street, Vanguard, BlackRock, and against free speech, liberty, and the dude who makes electric cars and is going to Mars?
Yo, it really does seem like Elon Musk is doing the most to actually solve problems.
It's not about solving problems.
It's about power.
Here's proof.
February 10th, 2022.
Reuters.
Twitter misses ad revenue and user growth estimates.
Revenue forecast light.
Oh, you mean only a couple months ago it was reported that Twitter was failing?
Elon Musk says, hey guys, I can fix this.
And they say, we're not going to entertain that offer.
Get out.
Yo, what?
Again, I always say this full disclosure, I have 22 shares on Twitter.
I don't think that represents any kind of strong interest, but I would love if I was able to sell at $54.20 to someone like Elon Musk, who I believe would then fix the platform.
In fact, if Elon Musk does leave, I'll tell you what I was really hoping for.
I was hoping that with 9.2%, Elon Musk goes on the board, he applies pressure in certain areas, the platform improves, I make some money on my investment while supporting a move.
You know, when Elon Musk bought in, my attitude was, gotta support the guy.
I wanna support him to whatever ability I can, but I don't know if I'm confident in Twitter as a platform, so it was like a thousand bucks, something like that.
A good amount of money, but not like a substantial investment.
But then they started screwing with him.
Now I'm worried.
Am I going to lose my money?
If this drops down to $30, do I lose $400?
I don't want to lose $400.
If Elon Musk can't make the changes to fix the company, and that's what he's saying now, I'm kind of worried.
Why aren't the shareholders getting a say in whether or not the company gets sold to Elon Musk?
Reuters, February 10th.
Twitter, Inc.
reported weaker-than-expected quarterly advertising revenue and user growth on Thursday, and forecast revenue short of Wall Street targets, indicating that its turnaround plan has yet to bear fruit.
Still, the social networking site said it made meaningful progress towards its goal of reaching 315 million users, blah blah blah.
That number right there.
The company's just been stagnant.
Particularly.
Here we go.
They say monetizable daily active users, users who see ads, grew 13% to 217 million in the fourth quarter of last year.
Missing consensus estimates of 218.5 according to IBES data from Refinitiv.
It was up from 211 million users in the previous quarter.
User growth for Twitter is going to be predicated upon young people.
Older people will use it or they won't.
You can try and convert older people, maybe you can't.
Young people don't care about Twitter.
Ask them.
They don't.
They're like, I don't know, that's like political stuff.
I like TikTok.
TikTok is fun stuff.
Huh.
Yeah, see, we have a show.
It's called Pop Culture Crisis.
It's a new show.
We launched it.
It's got, I think, like 22,000 subs so far.
It's new, you know, and we're getting the hang of the show, and everybody's got to take their time to improve.
When I first started doing my show, I sucked at it.
Pop Culture Crisis, when they started, actually pretty good at it.
They could be better.
Yeah, we're not worried about Twitter for pop culture crisis.
There's no opportunity for cultural expansion in that space.
TikTok, however.
Now, hold on a minute.
How did that happen to Twitter?
Because they are led by zealots and ideologues who are burning the company to the ground.
National Review writes, Incoming Twitter CEO said companies should focus less on free speech because he's a zealot.
Because he believes in power, not a functioning business that is healthy for everyone.
It's about crushing the political opponents that you do not like.
That is bad for business.
And the board agrees.
Otherwise, they would have been like, hey, cool.
We got an offer, guys.
Hey, how about this?
We're going to put up an open bidding process.
Does anybody want to outbid Elon Musk?
Let's all get paid, baby.
Instead, they're like, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
We like our power.
If the prince, that Saudi Arabian prince, really believed that Twitter was worth more, instead of rejecting outright the offer, why wouldn't he say, okay, it's your best and final offer.
Does anybody else want to offer us more money?
Because I think it's worth more money.
Instead he goes, no.
Let me tell you guys something.
There is no such thing as no in business.
This is a fact.
I'll ask you a question.
If you get a phone call right now, And it was the CEO of McDonald's.
I know it's McDonald's, calm down.
And they said, and this guy, I think it's a guy, I don't know, whoever, said, I want you to work the register at our location in LaGrange, Illinois.
Just off of, what is that, LaGrange, is it Boulevard, or is it whatever?
I don't know, we just call it LaGrange.
And what's your response?
Will you work the cash register?
Right now, you start tomorrow, first thing, quit your job, upend your life, move to Illinois, Well, you know, most people say no.
Unless you're, you know, established as, you know, with a prominent career, I can get it.
Maybe you're a priest.
Okay, you know, you've dedicated your life to something, but for the average person looking for a good job, the answer is...
How much?
The answer is not no, the answer is how much?
Now, let's play another game.
McDonald's calls you, your local McDonald's, and they say, we want you to come work the register.
And you say, how much?
And they say, 10 bucks an hour.
What's the answer?
Once again, the answer is not no.
The answer is, I counter with, name the price that would convince you to do it.
Some people would say, I wouldn't counter with anything because I don't want to work at McDonald's.
That's not true.
Like I said, some people are dedicated.
Like, I wouldn't expect a priest to give away, you know, to stop being a priest, something you dedicate your life to, or necessarily a doctor or a lawyer.
I mean, like, you know, you're somebody with a typical office job, or you got a good paying job, and it's not really your passion, but you are good at it.
That's a lot of people.
For you, you get a call from McDonald's and you say, I'll do it for $100 an hour.
Now, what if they say no?
Who cares?
You don't want the job anyway.
The reality is, there's no no.
It's only them who can say no.
Right?
You say, $10 an hour won't cut it.
If you want me to take a job I really don't want, I'm willing to do it for a certain amount of money.
The point I'm making is that the response from Twitter, I understand because Elon said it's my best and final offer.
But wouldn't they then immediately field an offer from someone else?
They're offering you money.
Well, okay, maybe Twitter is worth more.
I think it is.
The zealots seem to think so.
Then why would you not say, here's the true value of Twitter.
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.
And they're saying outright, it is a failing business.
It's been criticized by investors.
So when Elon Musk steps up and says, I'm gonna give you guys a premium, why reject it?
The true value is not monetary.
The true value is that when you're richer than rich, you don't need money.
You can make money wherever you want.
You can steal money, it's whatever.
The rich get rich.
Buy a bunch of houses, you're rich forever, right?
If you can control the flow of information, What's that famous saying?
Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws.
What was that?
One of the Rothschilds said that.
You know, give me control of a nation's currency, I care not who makes its laws.
Interesting.
Give me control of the flow of information, and I care not who controls the currency.
Because you can be the richest and wealthiest person in the world, but I can make all of the news bad.
I can make every moment of your life a nightmare.
We can trigger investigations against you.
We can make people believe anything we want.
And all that money in the world won't protect you from being excised from modern culture, modern society.
That's what Twitter does.
People like Alex Jones and Donald Trump get removed, no matter how powerful they really are.
Alex Jones, a millionaire.
Donald Trump is a billionaire.
But they can rip you out.
They can run the stories and they can destroy your lives.
Then their allies in government can come after you.
That's where it gets scary.
Recode acknowledges this.
It's something the left truly understands.
For politicians, business leaders, celebrities, and journalists, Twitter is a key platform for amplifying their message and controlling their own narratives.
That's right.
Elon Musk said, open the gates.
I don't want that power restricted to political elites and authoritarians.
And the political elites and authoritarians said, no.
Fascinating.
Twitter shareholders win in Elon Musk's quest for justice.
At least that's what they said yesterday over at Fox Business, because the price went up.
It's a win then, but not a win now.
You'll need to correct that one.
Twitter's CEO Prag Agrawal told employees they are not hostages of Elon Musk.
Yeah.
I wonder what he's saying there.
Sounds to me like what he's saying is, you can quit.
Twitter will burn itself down before allowing someone to restore freedom of speech.
Mike Cernovich tweets, Twitter's board of directors just robbed shareholders out of billions of dollars.
Is the Twitter board violating their fiduciary duty to Elon Musk?
I think so, because he can fix the company, and they're not offering up this decision to the shareholders.
It really is remarkable how we've come to this point.
Lifehacker, how to delete your Twitter account when you've had enough.
Yo, the corporate press is actually, this is Lifehacker, this is Gizmodo, this is formerly the Gawker Network.
If you've tweeted your final tweet, here's how to delete your Twitter.
30 minutes ago, I pulled this up.
Well, that's amazing.
So about an hour ago, because I've been talking for a half an hour.
How to delete your Twitter account.
Will they actually destroy Twitter?
Wow.
What's that called when you're being invaded so you blow up your own supplies and factories?
I forget.
It's not scorched earth.
It's something else.
Similar though.
So that they can't use anything you've got.
Is that what's happening?
It certainly feels like that's what's happening.
Defiant Ls with an excellent tweet.
Business Insider tweeted, Billionaire Jeff Bezos Washington Post buy marks a fascinating cultural transition in America.
And that was in 2013.
Now they write, Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter represents a chilling new threat.
Billionaire trolls taking over social media.
We are not stupid!
And we have had enough!
The billionaires already control social media!
You think that we're morons.
Certainly many people are morons.
But this game you play does not work anymore.
We have discovered the means of decentralized communications long ago.
And try as you might to centralize the internet, you will fail.
Now.
You've made great strides in your censorship attempts, but people have still found a way.
Minds.com still exists, Gab still exists, BitChute still exists, Rumble still exists.
There are people with power and you cannot control them all.
Try as you might to be like Shanghai, pulling people from their homes.
But do you think you will succeed by being this stupid?
You're not playing 4D chess, my friends.
We know that it's already billionaires in control of these platforms.
Vanguard and BlackRock, State Street, they own large portions of these companies.
Are these not massive trillion-dollar organizations?
And you think I'm gonna be mad about Elon Musk, the guy who makes rocket ships?
No, I'm not going to cry about it.
I'm going to laugh.
Because if at the very least, it's like a Trump moment, where this billionaire storms into the ivory tower and roughs it up like a raging bull, I laugh.
Yo, I can't get in that ivory tower anyway.
Why do I care?
You people spit on us from atop your tower.
And now the bull's been unleashed.
Elon Musk.
Electric cars.
Going up against the entirety of the auto industry.
And didn't Joe Biden fail to mention Tesla when he was talking about car manufacturing?
Because it is a big club and you ain't in it.
Elon Musk may be the richest man in the world, but he's certainly an outsider.
At least, presumably.
And this is where we're at with it.
You expect us to play this game?
Yeah, okay, let's play this game.
Charles Gasparino tweeted, As Elon Musk offers to buy the rest of Twitter, a legal source tells Fox Business the SEC and Justice Department have launched what he described as a joint investigation into a myriad of Musk regulatory issues.
Even the government's involved.
They will try to destroy him the same as they did Trump.
There is a cult that is gaining more and more power in our institutions and government.
Ten years ago, it was not as powerful.
It's even more powerful now.
Do not bend the knee to these people.
Stand strong.
Defy them.
Stand up for people like Elon.
At the very least, he's shaking up.
He's shaking things up.
Slate says, investment firms aren't buying all the houses.
They're buying the most important ones.
Well, Slate, I think you're a bunch of liars, but you get this one right.
Yeah, big evil companies are buying up low-income housing.
They're controlling things.
What do they say?
Wall Street, you know?
The median price increased over 28% over the last two years.
And they go on to talk about Blackstone.
Interesting.
Invitation Homes was spun off from Blackstone, the world's largest private equity company.
And they're buying up houses.
Bill Gates is the biggest private owner of farmland in the U.S.
Why?
Hmm.
Now we have what's going on in China, and maybe that's a good indicator.
The way it was described to us, over at TimCast IRL here, was that some American politicians went to China and saw how they were able to crush dissent and do whatever they wanted.
And they thought, how can we do it here?
Well, in order to do it, you need to control the flow of information.
And that's where we're at.
You need to control what people think.
They're trying, it's not working, and they won't win.
We'll see how this plays out.
Next segment will be tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
What is Elon Musk doing?
That's the big question.
What is this game being played right now over Twitter?
I wonder if it is as simple as Elon Musk believes in free speech, and he is pushing back against censorship, or if there is something darker, something deeper.
I don't know.
Neither do you.
Nor does anyone except maybe these private equity firms that are trying to shut down Elon Musk's attempt to gain control of Twitter.
In the latest news, Elon could have competition.
Private equity firm Tama Bravo is considering a Twitter bid to thwart Musk's plan to buy social media giant as Vanguard scoops up the largest stake in the firm.
Why?
This company is failing.
Well, it's really simple.
I'll tell you this.
You're not buying a social media platform.
You are owning the news cycle.
In the industry, my friends, they refer to this, they refer to Twitter, the stream of information, as the firehose.
Because it is an endless stream of opinions, of views, of photos, of videos.
You want to own that.
It is the global town square, effectively.
Somehow, global terrorists have accounts, and the Russian government and the Chinese government have accounts, but Alex Jones and Donald Trump don't.
Because, well, conflict is good for the people in power.
They need you to see enemies.
What they don't need you to see is external influence in your own country that is making you vote against their interests.
What they want is, look at the evil Putin!
unidentified
Oh, and look at this little girl with the Ukrainian flag!
The fact that foreign interests have controlling stake, or I should say, have influential stake, in Twitter, where our news cycle is being manipulated, and the former president can't be on there, but Russia, Russian government officials, Chinese government officials, outright terrorists are allowed on the platform.
Something is wrong!
So maybe Elon Musk can fix it.
But let's take a look at what's happening with Vanguard buying the larger stake.
Ooh, that's getting weird.
You know, the fascinating thing about these big companies, Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, it was actually Ian on TimCastIRL who first brought this to my attention, talking about these companies that basically own everything.
Apparently some of these companies actually own each other, too.
They have stakes in each other.
Perhaps the real goal here is to obfuscate the true amount of power that they are amassing.
And if we don't do something about it, you will live under a boot.
Here's the story from the Daily Mail.
Private equity firm.
Tama Bravo is contemplating a bid for Twitter to rival that of Elon Musk's offer for the social media giant.
Well, I can only say as a shareholder of 22 shares, that's right, 22.
Hey, a competition sounds pretty good at the very least.
You know, I'd prefer Elon Musk get in there and fix it.
But, uh, if in the end they compete and the share price goes up for everybody, well, you know, the platform's trash anyway.
I can't imagine it succeeding beyond a certain amount of time.
It's eventually going to ban its way into irrelevancy, as I believe it already has.
I'll say it again, Elon Musk pointed this out.
Some of the top 10, out of the top 10 accounts, he pointed out several haven't even tweeted once this year.
Tama Bravo, which already owns other tech names, McAfee, Landesk, and Barracuda, manages more than $103 billion in assets.
Has a team set aside working on the possibility of acquiring the platform.
How are they going to do it?
You manage $103 billion in assets?
Okay.
Then between you at the company, do you have enough to rival Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, who's going to be putting up $41 to $43 billion for this?
They're making a push, a source told the New York Post.
Currently, it is not known what Tama Bravo's bid might be or when it will let the Twitter board know of its interest.
A source told the Post that should a bid be made by the company, it might be seen as a white knight.
Tesla chief Musk launched the hostile takeover.
Yeah, yeah, we know.
$43 billion deal.
Musk told a conference in Canada that he was not sure he would succeed and acknowledged a plan B, but refused to elaborate.
I think we know what his plan B is.
After the stock value implodes because corrupt ideologues are trying to use the platform for evil instead of as a functioning business, Elon Musk then comes in and just starts buying up shares.
At a discounted rate.
Now, of course, there's a poison pill being—that may be attempted by the board.
It was reported—I believe this is what they're trying to do.
I could be wrong about this.
It seems that they want to set it that, you know, no one company can hold more than 15%.
The board can vote on something like that or they wouldn't sell to that degree.
I don't know how that would work or if that's actually what they're planning, but there is reporting—USA Today says, They want to put a poison pill that would prevent Elon Musk from being able to buy the company.
Why?
This doesn't make sense.
The company isn't doing well.
I mean, it's a big company, don't get me wrong.
It's worth billions of dollars, of course.
But they struggle with user growth.
They are losing users.
It's like they're trying to extract as much control over the system as they can until the system burns down.
Elon Musk could come in and fix it and make everybody money.
But you know what?
Elon Musk said at this conference, I don't care about the economics.
And if that's the case, and I believe it is, why would any of these other companies that have invested in Twitter care about the economics?
They don't.
They want power.
They can shut you down, they can shadowban you, they can hide your opinions, and they can make it seem like the true popular opinion is crackbot, crackpot, cult garbage.
Crackbot.
Burp.
No, I mean crackpot.
As I often say.
Twitter's board met on Thursday afternoon, and the company's CEO, Parag Agrawal, afterwards spoke to staff.
He told employees that the company was still evaluating Musk's $43 billion offer, according to The Verge.
Ahead of Agrawal's speech, employees were playing songs including, "'I Say a Little Prayer' and "'I Want It That Way' by the Backstreet Boys," the site reported.
The 37-year-old Agrawal then held a 25-minute Q&A session.
He did not say when the board would have an answer for Musk.
Let's jump over to our good friend Elon Musk's tweets.
Responses which the Verge said frustrated some staff.
The board would follow a rigorous process and make a decision in the best interest of
our shareholders.
Uh oh.
Let's jump over to our good friend Elon Musk's tweets.
Take a look at this.
Cameron Winklevoss tweeted, Twitter is considering a poison pill to thwart Elon Musk's offer.
They would rather self-immolate than give up their censorship programs.
This shows you how deeply committed they are to Orwellian control of the narratives and global discourse.
Scary.
Elon says, If the current Twitter board takes action contrary to shareholders' interests, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty.
The liability they would thereby assume would be titanic in scale.
That is to say, my friends, it's entirely possible That with the Saudi Prince, with Vanguard, with Tama Bravo, they're not going to accept this.
These are shareholders, mind you.
But that would mean the Twitter board would have to put it up to a vote.
If the Twitter board says, no, we're not going to accept this, and we're not going to take a look at what the shareholders want, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
Like me, I have 22 shares, and I'd love for Elon Musk's offer to be accepted.
Now, if they don't ask, they would be in violation of their duties.
You could sue them if you're a shareholder.
Now, I don't know exactly how it works, but that's the idea.
They would be liable for not considering the interests of shareholders.
Now, they could put it up for a vote, and quite simply, controlling interests could say no.
Perhaps this is why Vanguard bought another chunk.
They want to have more power.
They need to make sure 51% says no, but it makes no sense.
Elon Musk has exposed The communism, the socialism, that exists only for the ultra-elites.
They don't care about money, they will be rich forever.
You know, I refer to this as breaking the barrier.
There's a point at which you have so much money, you will never be poor.
Unless you run afoul of the elite's socialist system.
And I mean that somewhat facetiously, obviously the left is going to be like, there's no communism, you're insulting us.
What I mean is, at the highest levels, the government just prints money and gives it to you.
Like what we see with these private equity firms buying up houses.
They get loans from the Fed.
And they can just do whatever they want.
Rules for thee, but not for me, the little guy.
Yeah, no, you've got to play the game where you're hustling.
You know, it's funny.
If you're poor, this is a joke, I didn't write this.
The banks charge you money.
Sorry, you didn't have enough in your account.
We're taking 35.
And if you're rich, they give you money, like, thank you for being rich.
You know, it's funny.
You have a ton of money in your bank, and they just say, they say, your bank account is free if you have X amount of dollars.
And then, with interest, you'll actually be given money.
But if you have a small account and you're living paycheck to paycheck, they really try and strain you out.
Squeeze you out.
I actually think that's stupid.
But I guess the issue is for these banks, they're like, if you're rich, we want your money in our bank.
We want lots of money.
And so we need to incentivize you to put your money here.
If we charge you money, you'll go to a different bank.
For poor people, it costs us money to maintain your bank.
You gotta pay for it.
I'm not a fan of how the entire system works, but going back to the main story and the main point, what Elon Musk is exposing is that special interests don't want to give up power over censoring your ideas, because you're bad.
Nick Short, Political Short on Twitter, Communications Director for the Claremont Institute says, If the board of directors at Twitter reject the offer made by Elon Musk, then wouldn't the board be acting in direct opposition to the financial interests of their shareholders?
To which Elon Musk replies, Absolutely.
It would be utterly indefensible not to put this offer to a shareholder vote.
They own the company, not the board of directors.
Nick Headley said, Elon Musk, where would you draw the line on free speech?
There are necessary limitations.
You cannot openly call for genocide, for example, because people might die.
And disinformation, where a fact is irrefutable, can be dangerous, too.
Knowing where to draw the line ain't easy.
Well, Nick, I have an answer for you.
It is that you, nor I, nor anyone else, are the arbiters of truth and morality.
We are but humble humans.
We are fallible.
And thus, when dirty games are played by the likes of Twitter and Facebook, they suppress true facts, like the Hunter Biden laptop.
This is political disinformation, so we're gonna restrict access.
Why?
Because they are psychopaths.
People who think they're better than you, and they know it!
No.
People should be allowed to decide for themselves.
And that means stupid people, and that means smart people, and it means, well, figure it out.
But, midwits.
That's who run these companies.
Midwits.
Now, I'll never make the mistake of undermining my opposition political rivals.
The people who have access to this cash, they're smart people.
They're not stupid people.
They know how to control systems.
These are people who can look at a machine and say, I know how it works.
High IQ people.
And they're powerful.
But they're narcissistic, egotistical, and they think they're smarter than you.
Now truth be told, as I said, they're smart people.
They may be.
But the smartest people in the world are not as powerful computationally Then the decentralized network of humanity itself.
Of course, they seem to think there are too many people and not all of them.
But this leads to a scary premise.
To put it simply, however, I would say no matter how smart these people think they are, they get things wrong way too much.
And because of that, they have caused tremendous suffering across the board.
I think this is... it's an abuse of power.
And that's why I've always been somewhat left on a lot of political issues.
You know, I said I like the idea of taxing the rich at a high rate because it restricts their power.
But then they just get involved in government and then they do dumb things.
Well, it is true the president doesn't have nearly as much power as people think it does, so the real issue, I suppose, is the alphabet agencies.
In which case, taxing the rich and taking their money and giving it to the government isn't a great solution.
It's simple, probably not perfect, but I'm interested in exploring that if it means powerful special interests are restricted in manipulating the flow of information.
Maybe we can restrict government corruption if we get rid of the crony sycophantic individuals who have the ability to manipulate it.
They say, the 37-year-old Agrawal held a 25-minute Q&A session.
The board would follow a rigorous process in the best interest of our shareholders.
Musk last week disclosed a purchase of 73.5 million shares, this we know.
On Thursday, asset manager Vanguard Group increased its stake to overtake him as the largest shareholder.
Vanguard now owns 10.3% of Twitter, while Musk owns 9.1%.
Vanguard, led by CEO Tim Buckley, increased its stake in the company at some point during the first quarter, according to SEC filings made on April 8th.
Vanguard previously reported owning 67.2 million shares of Twitter, or about 8.4% of the company, as of the end of December, according to FactSet.
Let's play a game.
They say, Vanguard bought it at some point in the first quarter.
Really?
Increased its stake at some point?
Why wasn't this publicly available?
When did they report it?
The SEC filings were made on April 8th.
I find that really interesting.
They're going after Elon Musk saying he didn't properly disclose his purchase.
The game is rigged, even for someone as powerful as Elon Musk.
Let's play another game.
It's called SpaceX is not publicly traded.
You want to talk about Elon Musk's net worth?
It's basically Tesla.
280-something billion dollars.
If SpaceX goes public, could Elon Musk instantly become a trillionaire?
He may be.
The cost of space travel has dropped so dramatically, thanks in part to what Elon Musk is doing.
Starlink will bring internet everywhere on the world.
Low latency internet, which means watching movies and gaming.
Interaction.
The challenge right now is satellite internet.
Which we use back at our compound for emergency backup, is the latency is somewhere around, I think, 350 milliseconds.
That makes gaming quite difficult, because there's a lag.
So you press the button, and then a third of a second or so, or, you know, a decent amount of time lags before the information can go to the server and then come back to you.
With Starlink, the latency is very, very low.
I think it's like 10 to 50, which means gaming.
In the middle of the mountains, in an RV.
We'll get to that point.
Elon Musk was able to give satellites to people in Ukraine to connect them to the Internet and give them powerful access.
SpaceX is probably worth a ridiculous amount of money.
Would Elon Musk be willing to risk more?
See, here's the game they might be playing.
These people, they're collective.
They're collective.
Their power is amassed in that they've teamed up and they manage other people's assets.
Tama Bravo, 103 billion managing assets.
I'm curious about how much net worth those involved might actually have outside of their own company, because maybe it's more.
As I said before, we see these big investment firms, or these management firms like Vanguard and BlackRock.
Some of them, I don't want to say which or how, but among these groups, they own pieces of each other's company.
So how much will they really be able to offer?
Are they really going to be able to offer $45 or $50 billion?
And would Elon Musk not just come back with a plan B and say, $60 billion?
Because he knows how important Twitter is.
Is Elon Musk mission-driven?
He is.
He said it.
Elon Musk said it at a conference.
I don't care about the economics.
If he were able to generate $60 billion for Twitter, the company would be worth more money.
Under its current leadership, it won't.
And this is why it doesn't make sense these other companies are trying to buy it out.
Now, Vanguard buying more, if it was in response to Elon Musk, it seems like it wasn't, does make sense.
If Elon says, I'm gonna buy it at a premium, well then, if it's trading at $48 and he's gonna buy it at $54, free money!
You're gonna make more than 10%!
Alright, I'll throw in a billion bucks and get a hundred million out of it.
Why not?
Elon Musk is gonna hand the money right over to you, so bye bye bye, right baby?
They're saying that because Vanguard bought this, it's likely the deal won't go through.
But I look at this and I'm like...
It literally might be, because they're like, Elon's gonna give us free money.
We're gonna get a big return for our shareholders.
But I'm not convinced Vanguard and any one of these other big companies, State Street, BlackRock, I don't think they actually care about money.
They are rich, and they will be rich forever.
You know, people ask me, People ask me about what my goals are with this company or whatever, and I say, I don't know, every day I wake up and I lay one brick.
I wake up and I look at the building we're putting together, the city we're building, and I say, whoosh, brick.
I do the work every day, and brick by brick, we will build this machine.
And I've had people ask, like, would you ever take a buyout?
Would you ever, you know, sell to a company?
And the answer is yes, of course.
There's no such thing as no in business, only terms.
However, I don't know what terms could be offered by any company that would incentivize me to give up what I enjoy doing, and that is every day laying a brick.
What I mean by that is, look, I've been well off for a long time.
It's funny when many of these people on the left are like, you know, Tim's grifting and making all this money off a grift or whatever, and I'm like, bro, Disney paid me a bunch of money.
I was... I was flying twice a... Was I flying one and a half times a week?
Working for Disney with major budgets.
I could have stayed where I was, and I was well off.
Anything I could have wanted, I had.
Now I have a company where I have way more responsibility, way bigger of a headache, employees to deal with, and things aren't so easy, but the company is growing.
And the company is growing because every day I feel like laying bricks.
We built this mobile studio, we come out to the Daily Wire headquarters, we interact with them because it's fun, because every day we want to say there are certain things that are more important.
And that's honor.
You know, I thought about this the other day.
I was talking to the guys at Daily Wire.
You know, I said, what are you after?
You know, like, why do you do what you do?
And I said, ah, man, you know, it's because I wake up and I just want to lay bricks.
I want to wake up and just build.
But I really want to see honor be returned to this country, this idea that we have a duty to each other and that we will work together.
And I think right now we have, typically among the establishment political party, You have ideologues who think they're better and smarter and that their world is better than your world, whereas I feel a decentralized network of humanity should be deciding what is the world.
That is to say, more of a free market when it comes to ideas.
These big companies, I guarantee you they feel the same way.
I do not believe that Vanguard is sitting there saying, like, we want a big return.
They're saying, how do we control global influence?
Because when you have that much money, Saying one word could make you rich.
There was a point where some hackers took control of the AP, the Associated Press Twitter account, and tweeted that Barack Obama had been injured.
And I think it was like the NASDAQ dropped by, or it was, you know, a major US stock dropped by like 10%, maybe the S&P or something.
This is massive, because people were selling off like crazy, because the AP said something crazy happened.
And then the AP quickly regained control, corrected saying it was fake news, and the market rebounded about 9%.
1% never returned, but more importantly, 10% of the net value of this exchange shifted hands, and some people's lives were probably destroyed.
It's a scary thought.
But my point is, for many of these people, they realize that that level of influence is more important than just trying to invest well.
Oh yeah, we'll just buy into Twitter because Twitter's gonna make us money in the long run.
Yeah, right.
They're saying we're gonna buy into Twitter because if we can control the narrative, we can manipulate any stock we want, however we want.
And that is the dirty game.
Controlling the flow of information.
I think these people are evil.
I think Elon Musk is chaotic neutral.
I think his attitude on free speech absolutism is not perfect.
I think him just being opening it up to the public won't solve everything.
There will be problems left to overcome.
I think we often get so angry about political censorship we forget that some censorship is actually good.
Like when people post abuse of children or animals.
We don't want them posting that content.
Especially when it comes to kids.
The horrifying things that people do on the internet.
Those people should be in prison for the rest of their lives.
Some would call for the death penalty for the people who exploit and abuse children.
The point is, you gotta have those limits.
You'll need censors to moderate that kind of content, but not political opinion.
These extremist organizations, these massive equity firms, they don't care about fairness or honor.
And I view that as evil.
I'm a big fan of Star Trek.
I like the Klingons.
A little too much for me.
They're a little too aggressive and arrogant.
You know, in the Star Trek universe, the Klingons are a very honorific, honor-based culture.
No, I respect the idea of honor.
That is to say, that you have a standard for yourself, you have a standard for others, And you would also recognize your duty to others, that you would have scruples and say, it would be wrong of me to engage in certain behaviors because it would violate the rights, infringe upon the rights, or cause harm to the others and the whole.
We need that.
These big companies don't have it.
I'm not even saying Elon Musk does, but his moves could help bring back a sense of duty and unity.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Joe Biden is currently being mocked for trying to shake hands with no one.
Yes, Joe Biden, finishing a speech, turns to shake hands with no one.
There's no one standing there.
And then he looks around, points at someone, seems befuddled.
And it's hard to know exactly what's going on.
But my friends, this is not a story about Joe Biden appearing to be befuddled.
Because, well, I'm sure by now most of you realize that Joe Biden, if anything, is a befuddled man.
No, this story, this segment, is about how the media constantly tries to protect a man who is so out of his gourd, I can't imagine he'll actually run in 2024.
Well, technically, he'd need to start running this year, considering how politics has gotten insane.
Here's my prediction.
Joe Biden, his approval, his polls, they're in the gutter.
Beyond in the gutter.
I don't think he can run simply because of his, you know, what's what's the right word?
Derangement?
Probably, yeah, derangement maybe is the right word.
But Joe Biden just doesn't seem to be functioning.
Even in 2020, he did not seem to be functioning.
He'd call a lid and they knew they were going to get him in because people just hated Donald Trump.
So if Donald Trump runs again, maybe, just maybe.
People might vote for Joe Biden.
But I think at this point, when you see years of Joe Biden struggling to speak and trying to shake hands with the air, Even the most ardent holdout might say, you know what, I at the very least cannot vote for this guy.
Plus, everybody now knows the Hunter Biden laptop story is true.
So my only assumption as we move forward is that they gotta sub this guy out.
But what are they gonna do, Kamala Harris?
She's less popular than Joe Biden is, depending on what metric you look at.
I think if you look at the fact that Joe Biden's the president, he's gonna get a lot of the blame for what's going on.
But I think in terms of just like, Would you like Joe Biden or Kamala Harris?
At the very least, Joe Biden is, well, I guess a befuddled old man, right?
There's a sympathy factor there.
Kamala Harris is a shrill, awful woman who laughs at suffering.
But anyway, I digress.
I don't think the Democrats have anybody.
I think they know they don't have anybody.
So the media is going to do everything they can to try and protect the befuddled, broken president.
In this story from The Telegraph, they say, Joe Biden mocked for shaking hands with thin air after speech.
Yes.
But there's another story that we must tackle.
Bird poops on Biden as he claims U.S.
is in dumps because of Putin.
Did a bird actually poop on Joe Biden?
Well, upon watching a video, it does seem the splatter does happen on Joe Biden's shoulder, just above his lapel.
Now, the mainstream media is saying it is not bird poop.
You are wrong, New York Post.
It is but corn, which makes no sense.
I mean, it might make sense because they're like, he was standing next to a pile of corn talking about ethanol, but why would corn splatter?
Why would it bounce off and splatter from straight overhead?
Oh, I think we can break this one down.
Honestly, I think it may be bird poop, but, uh, you know, I don't know for sure.
I don't think anybody really does.
It just depends on what you think it is.
But let's talk about how the media is protecting a man whose brain doesn't work before we just make fun of the guy because a bird pooped on him.
Hey, look.
I'm walking into the Daily Wire headquarters the other day, and about five feet in front of me, I hear a... And I'm like... And I look over, and there's bird poop right there on the ground, and I was like, that was close.
And then I look up at the roof, and sure enough, I see a little bird butt.
That's a true story, I'm not kidding.
I look, and there it is, and I'm like, that could have been me.
I'm not gonna blame Joe Biden because a bird pooped on him.
Assuming the bird pooped on him.
I'm gonna go after the media for lying about it and trying to come up with any reason why a bird didn't poop on him instead of just being like, who cares?
You know, look.
Somebody wants to complain about Joe Biden getting pooped on.
I don't think they're winning votes.
It's just a thing that happened.
Well, let's talk about this first story.
The Telegraph reports Joe Biden is facing renewed questions about his cognitive state after he appeared to shake hands with thin air following a speech on America's ongoing supply chain woes.
The 79-year-old president had just finished delivering a nearly 40-minute speech in Greensboro, North Carolina, when he turned to his right and stuck out his hand.
Before he appeared to say something into empty space while miming a handshake.
I can't believe this actually happened.
Let me play the video.
Alright, everybody's clapping, and then, and then he does it.
He, he sticks out his hand, turns, and then finger bang, bang bang, you know, you make, you know, pow, he points at somebody.
And then he just seems befuddled.
There's a video going around where it showed Joe Biden seemingly confused.
Obama's behind him, people are talking, and Joe Biden's looking around like, oh, what's happening?
And people made fun of him because they were like, Joe Biden looks lost.
The media then said, fact check, was Joe Biden lost?
False.
Joe Biden was looking for someone.
And I just found that story funny because I'm like, you're fact checking the opinion people have about how he looked?
How do you fact check that?
Well, perhaps what they do is they find the most fringe elements who take things too far and then fact check that to try and make the entire story seem bunk.
Joe Biden wasn't lost, but he did look lost.
He was looking for somebody, couldn't find him, so maybe a little bit lost.
There's another video that's really sad where Joe Biden walks over to Obama and is like patting his shoulder with this distressed expression like, and Obama's ignoring him.
And it's just it's just it is a sad video.
Fact check false.
Obama was just being polite.
Whatever they want to say, it's nonsense.
Here's the story.
Footage of the moment shared on social media showed Mr. Biden then turned back to his audience looking disoriented while aides and guests at the university applauded his speech.
Earlier, he claimed to have served as a full professor at the University of Pennsylvania despite never teaching a class there.
Yo, this guy.
Is so out of his mind.
He's just like saying things that are easily disproven.
And I feel kind of bad.
I feel bad for Joe Biden.
I don't feel bad for the media or the Democrats.
I feel bad for this befuddled old man who doesn't even know what his life is anymore.
And they clap and they cheer and it's gross.
This dude should have been riding off into the sunset.
He should have been sitting in his rocking chair on his porch with some, you know, with some straw in his mouth, sipping on a nice unsweet tea, some sun tea.
Instead, they prop him up.
The dude can't talk.
He shakes.
Was he hallucinating?
I mean, let's get real.
Did Joe Biden hallucinate when he tried to shake the hand of nobody?
I mean, what was that?
Did he see someone there?
And you know they're not going to be honest if they give him a cognitive test.
This guy is broken.
They say, his speech had been aimed at ramping up pressure on Congress to increase funding for semiconductor funding amid a shortfall of the key component.
A number of his political adversaries, including Ted Cruz, seized on Mr. Biden's latest gaffe, using it to question his mental aptitude.
Cruz shared the video with just wide-eyed emojis.
And?
Harmeet Dhillon, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, wrote, I repeat, where are the White House and Biden family handlers whose job it is to make him look good?
Robbie Starbuck, running for Congress in Tennessee, said, oh man, the music makes it 10 times worse.
The man is unfit to be president, period.
I agree.
I have questions about Donald Trump, and I always did.
That's why I didn't vote for him in the first place in 2016, because I felt like I didn't think he was presidential.
But then you put Joe Biden up against Donald Trump, and I'm gonna vote for Donald Trump.
I mean, Hillary Clinton, I was like, yeah, they're both bad.
Joe Biden, a guy who didn't even campaign, nah.
Plus, let's be real, Trump's second term agenda, actually pretty good.
I think, I mean, from like any populist standard, pretty good, whether you're left or right.
The left wanted Biden for some reason?
Like if you're, look, if you're a left populist, you would rather have a populist.
Why would you vote for Joe Biden, who's an authoritarian, corrupt crony capitalist?
Literally makes no sense.
But, uh, whatever.
You know, they go on to mention, uh, you know, Joe Biden and his other gaffes.
Well, Joe Biden's not a professor.
He never taught a class at UPenn.
I don't know why he just said that, as if people couldn't Google it and be like, he made that up, but sure.
Well, let's get to the real.
The real story.
Bird poops on Biden as he claims U.S.
is in dumps because of Putin.
Oh no.
The New York Post says not even the birds approved of President Biden in Iowa on Tuesday as a winged spectator defecated on the beleaguered commander-in-chief as he gave a speech inside a barn.
Biden's blue suit took a direct hit as he began a 25-minute address in which he blamed the U.S.' 's 8.5% inflation rate on Vladimir Putin.
I'm here today to talk about what we can do.
Lowering the costs for American families and put rural America at the center of our efforts to build a future that's made in America.
Biden said moments before he was struck.
That's not hyperbole!
The president didn't seem to notice the white splatter just above his U.S.
flag lapel pin and continued speaking next to an enormous pile of cornmeal.
Hmm, interesting.
The New York Post acknowledges that Joe Biden was standing next to a gigantic pile of cornmeal.
Okay, well, let's take a look at this image.
You can see there is some sort of splatter on Joe Biden.
What is it?
I don't know.
I have no idea what it is, but it did splatter, and it makes me feel like it may be bird poop.
Now, we have fact checkers stepping in to inform us it is not bird poop.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Snopes, thank you, Snopes, says, did a bird poop on Biden?
Something fell on the president's shoulder.
Was it bird poop?
All right, here's what we're going to do.
We are going to go into depth here, and we're going to do a hard scientific analysis of what is on Joe Biden's lapel?
Okay.
Now here's what Snope says.
Miscaptioned.
A video shows a bird pooping on US President Joe Biden.
They didn't say false.
Here's what they say.
Biden was standing next to piles of processed corn.
It was likely corn.
Yes, Joe Biden was standing next to a big pile of corn.
And not only that, you can see that corn is falling from the sky.
The corn is being loaded in a big pile and is filling up behind him.
Sure.
It certainly seems plausible that what fell onto Biden was a piece of some sort of corn by-product and not bird poop.
Are you kidding me?
Okay.
The White House says corn shortly after the video, blah, blah, blah.
The White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield, posted a message on Twitter stating that it was corn and not bird poop that fell on Biden's shoulder.
Here's the issue I have with this.
Bedingfield said, if you guys knew your way around a corn silo at all, you'd know it was corn.
Why?
Why would I know it was corn?
Okay, hold on.
They may be playing a game here.
Maybe it is corn.
I see the photo record.
We examined photographs from Reuters, the AP, and Getty to get a closer look at the corn slash bird poop.
Upon closer examination, the bird poop appears to be somewhat yellowish in color, like corn, and looks more like dust from corn processing than liquid.
False.
I say false, good sir.
You don't know.
How can you argue a definitive fact on this being misattributed when you don't even know?
So the White House said it wasn't bird poop.
I don't know if it was bird poop, but let me show you something.
Here's a slow motion video capturing the moment of impact.
There it goes.
I think it's fair to say that whatever hit Joe Biden was, to a degree, granular.
But hold on there a minute.
They said some kind of corn byproduct.
You see, what Snopes is doing is trying to make it seem more plausible that it's corn.
Let me just give you the simple answer.
Could a bird have eaten a ton of the corn and then pooped out a combination of poop and corn?
Yeah, and so here's my case.
Your Honor, I present to you a photo from Exhibit A. The point of impact on Joe Biden's lapel shows that whatever hit maintained its integrity at the site of impact and then trickled downward.
That is to say, I would argue that there may be a viscous material binding some of these corn particles, which is why they would argue a corn by-product and not outright corn.
You see?
Now, why would a corn by-product fly up in the air and fall straight down on Biden?
I don't know.
Based on that, I can only go with what I do know.
Birds eat corn.
It's not good for them.
The bird might poop out a large quantity of it, and then it would have some viscous poop or urea mixed in with it, and we would consider it to be bird poop.
It would then land on something, and at the point of impact where there is some kind of viscous bonding element, it would stick, and then splatter.
Now, here's the real point.
Why did Snopes fact check something they didn't know?
I know, many of you are probably laughing.
You're like, haha, bird poop.
Some of you are probably saying, Tim, who cares about bird poop?
You're right, you're right.
That's why I didn't cover the story when it happened two days ago.
And people were like, you see the bird poop?
I'm like, I really don't care.
It is not Joe Biden's fault he got pooped on.
You'll get pooped on.
Mark my words, one of these days a bird will poop on you and then you're gonna sit there and be like, I shouldn't have made fun of Biden.
And everyone's gonna be laughing at you.
Nah, I'm kidding.
But look, you'll get pooped on.
I don't blame Biden for getting pooped on if he got pooped on.
I just don't know why the media is trying so hard To deflect this?
To fact-check this?
So what?
That's the real story to me.
That something bad happens, something embarrassing happens, and then the media tries to find an explanation.
And it's Betteridge's law of headlines, right?
Snope says, did a bird poop on Biden?
Yeah, but this is the way that— Was it bird poop?
No.
That's the game they play, right?
Because if a headline asks a question, the answer is no.
Would they have just said a headline of, people believe a bird pooped on Biden because something splattered on him?
We don't know if it's bird poop.
Isn't that the real fact check?
Let me give you a real fact check.
Here's a fact check.
Snopes admits in their own article, they don't know what landed on Biden.
They think it might be corn because he's standing next to corn.
But if a bird got into there and ate a bunch of corn, the bird would be pooping out corn, wouldn't it?
Or couldn't it, at the very least?
What I can only say is the media is trying to do the exact same thing they're accusing the right of doing.
They are speculating as to what happened and then writing articles about it.
The New York Post said a bird did poop on Biden.
Now, I think it's a fair assessment because you see the splatter, but they don't know.
I think based on everything they've seen and everything that everyone said, they'd be like, okay, just write it up, a bird pooped on him, we accept that as true.
But it's probably not, which is why I don't go near stories like this.
Then Snopes comes out and says, no, it was definitively corn!
A corn byproduct, obviously, because real corn wouldn't stick to him like that.
You see this stupid game the media plays?
I'm no fan.
I am no fan.
Fox News reports Biden's spectacularly low approval rating makes re-election virtual impossibility, says former Clinton pollster.
Voters see Biden's out-of-control spending as a reason for inflation.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, Joe Biden, he can't run.
What are we gonna do with this guy, huh?
If Joe Biden doesn't run, the Democrats need to start preparing for a primary.
And that means the primary season will be early 2023, next year.
So they have about one year.
You know, I was hanging out with the Daily Wire guys.
Ben Shapiro said they're going to strap him to a gurney, and they have to.
They have to.
I get it.
Strap him to a gurney.
But I mean, you would literally have to strap him to a gurney.
I know Ben was speaking figuratively, but you would literally have to do it.
The dude slept through his first campaign, and it was a referendum on Trump.
And COVID.
Now, with the referendum on Biden, he ain't gonna win.
So what do they do?
Stand back and say, give Trump a second term?
Give DeSantis a first term?
Honestly, I have no idea.
I'd imagine.
They're gonna have to launch a primary, they're gonna have Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, and they're gonna have to try and figure out a way to make them seem like viable candidates.
Because where are we right now?
The media does everything in its power to try and obfuscate the embarrassing things that happen to Joe Biden, the corrupt things that Joe Biden does, and the fact that his brain is broken.
Now props to the Telegraph, you know, I suppose they're more conservative and they're pointing out that Joe Biden's trying to shake the, you know, shake the hand of no one.
I'll tell you what's coming.
What's coming is a fact check that says, did Joe Biden try to shake the hand of an imaginary person?
False!
Joe Biden simply lifted up his hand and then turned away.
We don't know what his intentions were.
He was just maybe waving to someone.
That's what they'll do.
Yo, he raised his hand as if to shake someone's hand.
That's what people saw.
I think it's fascinating because I go back to that moment when Donald Trump was speaking and Jim Acosta had the microphone and the White House aide tried to take it from him and he yanked it back.
And it was amazing because I even had like a DM from Phil DeFranco and he was like, are you serious with this?
It makes no sense that the White House, like the way the motions were between Jim Acosta of CNN and the White House aide, it made no sense that the White House aide would extend her arm fully and then lean her shoulder down to try and pull it down.
She would pull it towards her, not down.
It does make sense that Jim Acosta holding it tight to his chest with her hand on it pulls it down because that's where his hand would go.
Look at the motion I'm making with my hand right now.
And it's amazing to me that people don't understand basic concepts like that.
You would not reach your hand all the way out and then dip your shoulder down and lean into a pole.
That makes no sense.
You'd grab the mic and pull it towards you.
Jim Acosta holding it towards him would yank it down.
The media lies.
There are people who will believe whatever the media lie is.
They want to fit in.
They've always wanted to fit in.
And so what they do is, when the media has a false narrative, they go along with it just so they don't become outgroup.
Yo!
Y'all are the outgroup!
To each and every one of you!
Phil DeFranco also got the Covington Kid story wrong.
Because the dude apparently can't just Google search anything?
No, it's because people just become lazy.
Bill Maher is lazy.
Jon Stewart is lazy.
Phil DeFranco is lazy.
They don't do the work.
I did not cover the bird poop story when it came out because I didn't think it mattered, and I don't care.
But now that we're seeing the media's reaction, talking about Joe Biden's handshake, I also don't care.
Well, I care a little bit about that because the dude's brain is broken.
But the reason I bring these things up is, how is this man going to run for re-election to any sane person who's paying attention?
I'm sick of people falling for these pit traps.
But it's mostly on the left and the establishment.
