Biden ROASTED Over Pathetic LIE Saying Record Low Polling PROVED Democrats Want Him To Run In 2024
Biden ROASTED Over Pathetic LIE Saying Record Low Polling PROVED Democrats Want Him To Run In 2024. Biden said Check the Polls Jack when asked about polling showing Democrats do NOT want him to run in 2024.
Democrats are struggling to figure out how to get voters for the upcoming midterms as well as 2024. But they do have the one tried and true option, lie.
From Biden lying about his polls to Democrats fanning the flames of chaos, the only way they think they can get votes is to ignore inflation, gas prices, and the struggle of the people and replace it with fear of the right and Trump.
The strategy is burning this country down and they know it
#democrats
#biden
#trump
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I don't even know why I'm starting this segment by talking about Joe Biden's broken brain, but I guess that's the big story right now.
Biden bizarrely cites poll that most Democrats don't want him to run in 2024 as evidence he should.
A journalist asked the President, what do you say to these polls showing, what is it, only like 26% of Democrats say he should run again, and he goes, the polls show I should run again.
Take a look at the polls, Jack!
You know, this man is ignorant, deluded, and dangerous.
He doesn't know what's going on in the world.
He's not paying attention.
He doesn't know where he is.
He falls up the stairs.
And it's just... How many times do we talk about something like this with Joe Biden?
Now, the best part is they've run fact checks on this.
And one of the fact checks is like, actually, some people do want Joe Biden.
If you're comparing him to Donald Trump, maybe.
Okay, sure.
President sites figure that 92% of Democrats would favor him over Trump, ignoring less supportive statistics.
Which is probably why Elon Musk and many others, including myself, have said maybe Ron DeSantis is the better choice.
Because Ron DeSantis versus Joe Biden, hands down, victory.
Right now, we have a Gallup poll showing us what do American voters truly care about.
And with massive inflation at 9.1%, yo, I'm freaking out!
I know you guys are probably freaking out watching this.
I run a successful company.
I'm looking at what we have to do to maintain the salaries of people, to maintain this company, our costs, when we're looking at 9.1% inflation, and it's freaky.
It really is.
When the market dips, when the recession hits, if we fall into a depression, everyone will be in trouble.
That's my concern.
And for your average working class American, it is their active concern because they can't even afford to fill up their gas tank to go drive to work.
Now, I'm in a privileged position.
I have a successful company, so we're looking at electric vehicles, trying to offset those costs.
And what do we get from these politicians?
Let them drive electric cars.
Yo, I know the average person cannot just go out and buy a $50,000 electric car.
That's what Americans care about.
But instead, what do we get?
From the Democrats.
We get January 6th.
I saw one tweet.
Fact-check me on this one.
I couldn't find greater details.
But they're saying that Democrats said they didn't have time to get into inflation in their morning meeting because they were talking about other things.
And it's like, what?
The most important thing in the minds of Americans right now is the economy, gas prices, inflation.
When you look at the Gallup polling, hyper-partisanship, unifying the country, police brutality, abortion, These don't register for regular people, which is why I think no.
There's no way Joe Biden is gonna win, at least based on what's happening right now.
Now, granted, it's an eternity from now until the actual election in 2024 for president, but this says a lot about what may come in November.
Surprisingly, Fox News has a story about a shock poll.
Democrats are closing the gap with Republicans, and have been.
Roe v. Wade being overturned really did make a difference.
That lit a fire under the activist base of Democrats.
Now, what about regular working class people?
Be it Democrats, Independents, or Republicans?
Sorry, this doesn't register all that much.
But Democrats just need a boost of people who are going to go out and vote, and they'll take whatever they can get.
While most people might not care about abortion, They can still gain votes by pandering to those issues.
And although they may not care, according to Gallup, FiveThirty has a poll showing that Democrats actually do care a whole lot about political extremism, which may be the data Democrats are chasing when it comes to the January 6 hearings.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have been able to write up my thoughts, a rather short article for Newsweek.
Newsweek reached out and said, can you write an article calling out the January 6th committee for putting you next to some of these other people?
And I said, yes.
And I went pretty ham.
Truth be told, they were like, we gotta shorten it, because I was on the verge of writing a book.
I'm like, oh, you want me to write about Trump?
And I started writing up, and they're like, let's just keep it to the hearing.
And I was like, all right.
Because I was like, Civil War.
And basically what I was saying is, when Raskin published this clip showing me alongside individuals talking about a red wedding, and I'm reading an article, it's disinformation and it radicalizes people.
They're fanning the flames on purpose.
This is the important point.
As we're looking at Joe Biden's bizarre statements, as we're looking at what Americans really care about, and we see the data from FiveThirtyEight saying Democrat voters are worried about extremism, I call upon the stories that said Democrats We're actually funding far-right or Trump-supporting candidates because they think they're easier targets.
They are funding what they claim is destroying this country.
They are pushing disinformation to radicalize people, and that is the scary reality.
They are trying to gain votes not based on what the American people need, but by scaring them, by shocking them, by lying to them.
So let's talk about it.
We'll get started with doofy Joe Biden bizarrely citing these polls because, you know, that's the big news.
And then we'll talk about my thoughts on where we're headed this election.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com and become a member to support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive shows like Tales from the Inverted World.
The first two episodes were free, but we've really ramped up production.
We've got a 40-minute to hour-long series here.
And it's going to be going exclusive for TimGuest.com for paying members because we want to do more and we need money to do it.
To be completely honest, we can't just produce shows for free.
But we're going to produce a whole lot.
We've got a show, a weekly talk show with Shane Cashman.
We're going to be talking about the paranormal, ghosts, unsolved mysteries.
You'll of course get the TimCast After Hours show, which is uncensored.
We might just call it TimCast Uncensored, or, you know, that's the show, Monday through Thursday at 11pm, and many more shows to come.
And if you want to support our journalists who are calling out the lies every day, We need your support.
We need your support.
I'm gonna extend this a little bit and just be blunt with you guys.
Our news division and shows, they cost money.
We don't make anything off of them.
TimCast.com's news apparatus only exists if people become members.
We aren't running ads.
We don't want to.
We want to run ads on our stuff.
But the reality is, The only thing that really makes money is TimCast's podcast.
However, the website itself does have many members who support the news.
So, our news apparatus exists if you become members and want to pay for it, but it's all free because I don't think we can put the news behind a paywall.
We're going to be doing more with new shows.
We need your support.
Let's jump to the news, so don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and share the show with your friends.
Here's the story from The Independent.
Biden bizarrely cites poll that most Democrats don't want him to run in 2024 as evidence he should.
US President Joe Biden misrepresented a recent poll that showed most Democrats don't want him to run for office again, arguing the party does in fact support him.
Well, here's the fact check from Newsweek.
I love it.
Do Biden's polls show Democrats want him to run in 2024?
Here's what they say.
The cost of living crisis, gun control, and abortion rights have dominated headlines over
the past few months.
Biden's approval ratings have in recent weeks fallen behind the levels former President
Donald Trump experienced at the same point in his presidency.
However, this week Biden fiercely rebuked the challenges to his popularity among Democrats,
insisting he had the support of his party.
Here's the tweet from Ben Gittleson.
Biden tells me that despite most Democrats saying they don't want another candidate, most would still vote for him if he ran.
Here we go.
Okay, apparently the audio has ceased to function properly for whatever reason, so I'll just read more.
The feelings of unsteadiness around the Democratic Party have been undeniable in recent weeks.
It is in this context that Biden confronted ABC News' Ben Gittleson.
As the reporter suggested to him, two-thirds of Democrats did not want him to run for president.
The figures are broadly accurate.
The poll run by the New York Times Santa College Show, 64% of those who said they would vote in the Democratic primary would nominate a different person.
unidentified
However... Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
That 64% figure includes voters registered as Republican or Independent Other.
Some states require prospective voters to be registered as Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary.
Nonetheless, even among registered Democratic voters, just 29% surveyed said they would pick him to run again.
Biden, in the video post on Twitter, claims the poll showed that 92% of Democrats, if I ran, would vote for me.
Uh-huh.
It is true that 92% of Democrats surveyed said they would vote for Biden in an election.
However, the respondents were asked if, on the condition that the election were held today and the options were between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, another candidate or not going to vote wouldn't vote if those would be the choices.
Here's what Newsweek said.
They didn't give him the hard red false.
They gave him the orange, mostly false.
The New York Times poll found that 92% of Democratic voters would support Biden if it were against— Oh, come on!
That's not what he asked.
What he said was, how do you respond to these polls?
And this is the dirty game.
Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
Right now over at Predict It, Gavin Newsom has 21 percent-ish.
It doesn't translate perfectly.
21 cents.
21 cents is the share price for Gavin Newsom to be president.
Now, Joe Biden does have the plurality with 34 cents.
Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg have double digits as well.
People not only don't want Joe Biden to run, they actually don't even know if it will be him.
To put it simply, 66% of people on Predict It are not betting on Joe Biden.
Take that for what it is and take it with a grain of salt.
I mean, look, it's still It's still Joe Biden as the lead.
I don't think he can win.
Now, when it comes to the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump at 42, with Ron DeSantis at 36.
Okay, so, you know, Donald Trump still has the plurality, but not the majority.
Many people think it will be Ron DeSantis, and he's gaining up, too.
Now, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Glenn Youngkin, there's people with single digits, but their overwhelming majority of people are either Trump, Or DeSantis?
We'll see.
I think the issues are clear.
While the Democrats are screaming about nonsense, like January 6th, that's literally what they're doing, according to Gallup, the most important problem that Americans are concerned with, high cost of living.
So, They say, what do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?
In June of 2022, economic problems, 40%.
Among net economic problems, you have 66%.
So it may be that there are a wide range of issues, but what takes the plurality?
There's two big issues.
When asked on economic issues, the high cost of living at 18%, followed by the economy in general at 13%.
So we're looking at around 31% saying, in some ways, it is the cost of living and the economy in general.
You do have fuel prices at 5%, which is surprisingly low, to be completely honest.
But lack of money, unemployment, they're all microscopic.
Now, we do see the government and poor leadership at 18% as well, rivaling the high cost of living.
That, I find interesting.
Gun controls at 8%.
Crime and violence, 6%.
Immigration, 5%.
Unifying the country, 5%?
Race relations, 3.
Take a look at this, school shootings is 2%!
Healthcare is 2%.
As the most important issue, why are Democrats jumping on top of this stuff?
You'd think the best thing they could do was it would address what 31% of people are concerned about.
Let's just say 36.
You say, fuel prices, the economy, and the high cost of living.
That can all be addressed in one speech.
You can say, we gotta get fuel prices down, which will bring down the cost of living and improve the economy.
Boom!
One sentence right there addresses 36% Of the people's most pressing issue.
Of the most pressing issue to 36% of people.
But what are you gonna do?
You're gonna do a, well, let's talk about bad leadership on gun control and violence and immigration and unifying the country and ethics to try and get anywhere near that number?
Here's what I think.
When you jump over to 538, this is fascinating.
This is a poll from May.
You can see that among basically everybody, the biggest issue is inflation or increasing costs.
For Democrats, surprisingly, it's only 42%.
That's weird!
Why?
Share of Americans by political affiliation who said each issue was among the most important facing the country.
42% said inflation and increasing costs was among the most important phase in the country.
So this poll is a bit different.
They're not saying what is the most pressing issue.
They say, how would you rate these issues among the most pressing?
Or would you rate them among the most pressing?
Only 42% of Democrats think the inflation is.
Well, that's actually simple.
According to several polls, a story reported by Vox.com six years ago, the Democrats have become the party of the elites, of the wealthy.
So, these are suburban, middle, and upper-middle class individuals.
Of course, they're like, I don't know, I'm not worried about rising costs.
I make money.
Among Republicans.
Blue-collar workers.
What do you see?
Well, among Republicans, it's actually way more prominent.
I don't think it's not giving me the Republican number for whatever reason.
There we go.
Among Republicans, 65% believe that increasing costs is among the most pressing issue.
Now, political extremism and polarization comes in among Republicans at 25%.
For Democrats, it comes in at 32%.
Independent and other, they view the economy at 50% and political extremism and polarization at 30%.
So, here's what I think is happening.
The Democrats aren't trying to win the majority.
They're just trying to win enough.
And they can pull from any pool they want.
So look, you may be saying, the biggest issue is inflation.
Shouldn't they go after it?
They could.
But the question is, who will be most animated?
I think the Democrats know they can't fix the economy.
They can't improve the economy.
So there's no point in trying.
What they do know is that they can use scary pictures and show Democrats, rile them up, get them all radicalized and scream and beat them over the head, that the end is nigh!
That evil Donald Trump tried to stage a coup!
Even if people don't really care.
I think that's their game plan.
We have this story from Axios about John Bolton.
John Bolton says he helped plan foreign coups.
It is one of the most insane stories I have ever seen.
The narrative is crumbling.
The neocons are coming out and just saying it.
And this one got the left and the right both going, what?
And boy, did they try to backpedal here.
John Bolton served as a national security advisor to Trump.
One of Trump's biggest mistakes.
I've said it over and over again.
It's one of the reasons I didn't like what Trump did as president.
And John Bolton Well, he betrayed Trump, smearing him and attacking him.
But right now, Bolton is kind of defending him a little bit while still propping up January 6th.
Driving the news, Bolton on CNN rejected the notion that January 6th was a carefully planned coup.
That's not the way Donald Trump does things.
It's rambling from one idea to another, one plan that falls through and another comes up.
I agree.
I do.
Ultimately, he did unleash the rioters in the Capitol.
As to that, there's no doubt.
As somebody who's helped plan coup d'etat, not here but other places, it takes a lot of work and that's not what he did.
Wow.
Although he said he wouldn't go into specifics in which countries he's assisted coups in, he noted he'd written in his books about efforts in Venezuela to end Nicolas Maduro's regime that turned out not to be successful.
Not that we had all that much to do with it.
But I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president and they failed, Bolton said.
The notion that Donald Trump was half as competent as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable.
Okay, well, I kind of agree with a lot of what he said there, but wow!
For him to come out and be like, as someone who's planned could it, huh?
Basically, um, confirming what many activists have said.
Here's the best part.
He outright admitted it, and then David Frum comes out and he's like, the next time Glenn Greenwald is caught carrying Steve Bannon's luggage, blah blah blah, he's gonna invoke Bolton's misplaced joke.
It's amazing.
He says, uh, security advisors should measure their words and avoid cynical jokes that give aid and comfort to those who do not wish this country well.
Ha ha ha.
Boy, the cat is out of the bag.
The narrative is crumbling.
Conspiracy, they cry!
And then Epstein dies in his jail cell.
And Ghislaine Maxwell is convicted.
Conspiracy?
Ladies and gentlemen, they're coming out and admitting it.
But anyway, I digress.
I just wanted to really find a way to jam in that John Bolton is a moron, and he came out and admitted this, but there is a real issue here, a real segue, as it were.
John Bolton praised the January 6th committee, saying they're doing a good job, and this is the narrative that we're getting.
Yo, it's falling apart.
To be completely honest, that's what I see.
It's falling apart.
Here's the story from the New York Times.
It's just been hell.
Life as the victim of a January 6th conspiracy theory, Ray Epps became the unwitting face of an attempt by pro-Trump forces to promote the baseless idea that the FBI was behind the attack on the Capitol.
So this guy, he's on video advocating for people to insurrect?
Why hasn't he testified?
Why haven't they played his clips?
Why have they defended him?
Seriously.
Why is it that Adam Kinzinger comes out and says, Ray Epps, he didn't do anything, he cooperated, so he's not involved?
Yo, the guy incited riot.
And people were chanting Fed at him.
I don't think he's a Fed, I don't know.
I don't have evidence to say he is.
I'm just saying, maybe he cooperated.
But this guy wasn't charged?
Of all the people that should be, this guy's on camera telling people to go in the Capitol.
So why not?
Why not?
And then the New York Times runs this puff piece defending him as a victim.
Here's why I bring this up.
I got an op-ed published in Newsweek that I'd like to highlight because it plays into a lot of what we're seeing.
You know, I want to add to this op-ed some other ideas that ultimately didn't make the cut because op-eds should be succinct, get to the point, and explain it.
But I'll give you the gist of it and then read what I said.
The gist is Raskin, Jamie Raskin, who ran the clip, is lying to you.
Misrepresenting who I am, what I believe, what I've said, what I've advocated for.
And he's doing it because he wants to pull voters.
That's my opinion.
He doesn't want Trump to win.
He wants the Democrats to win.
And while people are really concerned about inflation, they know they can't win there because they've already lost there.
So the next best thing, according to FiveThirtyEight, is political extremism, for which they fan the flames.
Raskin published a clip of me alongside people calling for a red wedding or something.
Well, I was just reading a news article.
Now, I addressed this yesterday.
Here's the story from Newsweek.
I'll give you the gist of it.
Well, I should read it because, you know, with help from their editors, I wrote it and it was rather succinct.
So, let me read it for you.
During this week's January 6th committee hearings, I was surprised to find myself included in the evidence.
I was even more surprised to see myself misrepresented by members of the United States Congress.
During Tuesday's televised hearing, Rep.
Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, from Maryland mind you, I should go to his office and go talk to him.
I'm in Maryland.
Donald Trump's tweet calling is I should go to his office and go talk to him.
I'm in I'm in Maryland.
Tried to connect then President Donald Trump's tweet calling his supporters to come to a
rally in Washington on January 6 with the violent attack that later unfolded.
In response to Trump's tweet, the protests would be wild.
Meanwhile, other key Trump supporters, including far right media personalities, began promoting
the wild protest on January 6.
That's what he's saying, including me.
As proof that right wing media personalities were promoting the wild protest, Rep. Raskin
play to video.
It featured three people promoting the protest with gusto.
It also included a video of me simply reading out a news report that the protest was likely to happen, noting that Trump and his supporters viewed it as Trump's last stand, and concurring with the president that it was likely to get wild.
I even, in the segment, From December 19th, went on to say that the Proud Boys had engaged in violence, tearing down a banner and burning it.
Criticizing the violence and saying it was like Antifa.
Saying that numerous times.
And people got mad at me on the right.
But did he include any of that?
No.
I said, in what way is reporting the news the equivalent of promoting it?
Nowhere in the clip that Rhett Raskin played, or even in the full 30 minute long podcast that I did, did I ever encourage anyone to go to DC, let alone engage in any kind of violent protest.
The opposite is the case.
I have condemned political violence hundreds of times on my show, TimCastIRL, like I did on January 6th itself, after the violence had unfolded.
There is a link to the video we made, episode 197, I can't believe it was that long ago, wow, where we discussed, and there's a timestamp in this, outright saying it was wrong We've always said it wrong.
We mock those who are violent.
On my nightly show, I've routinely said that violence does not work.
It was one of my main takeaways from the collapse of support for Black Lives Matter following the George Floyd riots.
Back in September of 2020, I pointed out that Antifa's violence had gone a long way toward erasing BLM's PR gains from earlier in the year.
It's up on Twitter.
September 17th, 2020.
I show the polls.
I've routinely cited that metric.
In the lead up to January 6th, I made the same point.
Violence will solve nothing.
And if January 6th is expected to be violent, people should not go and I certainly would not be going.
My company initially intended to interview people in D.C.
on January 6th, but after warnings of disruptions from our hotel, we decided to avoid D.C.
on that day just as I advised my followers.
That's right.
Now, I had said, In the months leading up to January 6th that we were going to be there, that we intended to be there, we were going to get a hotel and maybe do the show in D.C.
to interview people who were there to protest.
Protests are legal.
No one had any idea it would be as bad as it was.
When we got word that the hotel said there were disruptions, I tweeted about it, and then we said, we're not going.
Because there was a high alert.
I had said, the one thing that would stop me from going if there was actually going to be violence, As I've long stated, it doesn't work, I don't want to be involved in it, and people shouldn't be.
Not only that, but I barely qualify as a Trump supporter.
I think that's a fair point.
I do think I do qualify as a Trump supporter, that's why I said barely.
Trump's most ardent fans give me a lot of grief for insisting on calling out his flaws.
They use a variety of homophobic slurs to denigrate me.
I think it's funny, I don't care.
I did proudly vote for Trump in 2020, and I explained why I thought he was the better option given the choices.
Still, playing the clip of me alongside Alex Jones and other ardent pro-Trump personalities is well over the top.
It's probably why in response to the video clip of me played during the hearing, conservative and libertarian personalities on Twitter mocked the notion that I am a pro-Trump YouTuber, or that I ever in any way encourage people to engage in violence or protest in support of Donald Trump.
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 So what was the point of including me in the clip?
Why omit my previous statements and sentiments on the election?
On Trump having lost the election to Biden?
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Someone included video footage of me, a person who condemns violence, reading a headline in a lineup of other people calling for a red wedding, and for people to kick down the door.
Someone made the decision to create a context around my innocuous words that would color them with the opposite meaning of what I always say.
Why?
Because that's what our political climate is designed to do these days.
Escalate.
Assassinate your opponent's character.
Smear everyone you disagree with as a violent insurrectionist.
To our political establishment, reasonable people you disagree with seem to present even more danger than the violent fringe.
Because we make it seem like debate is still possible.
This year my company has been swatted eight times.
People have called the police claiming active shooters at my studio.
They've also made bomb threats and even sent us a package that required the bomb squad to be deployed.
My private home was swatted twice and our studio was evacuated only a few weeks ago during our live show after we received a credible death threat.
When you consider that swattings have resulted in people being killed, and that my staff has been held at gunpoint by police, you begin to see the threat posed by radicalization and the spread of disinformation.
This is something I think everyone agrees on, but refuses to acknowledge their role in.
It's hard for me to see what played out on Tuesday's hearings in any other light.
After Rep Raskin played the out-of-context clip of me, I was inundated on Twitter with harassment as my name started trending.
People immediately started posting exaggerated and fabricated claims about me, citing the hearing as evidence of other insane conspiracy theories on par with the lunacy of QAnon.
I can certainly respect the desire to figure out how January 6th happened, how it got so bad then, and why our political climate continues to get worse.
I can respect the demand to hold those who made it happen accountable.
I also want to have an inquiry into the riots on May 29, 2020, to understand how left-wing rioters breached the White House barricades, how they were able to set fire to the famous St.
John's Church, and why the president was forced into an emergency bunker.
But that's not what happened on Tuesday.
On Tuesday, a clip of me cut from context was publicized on national television in a way that was designed to assassinate my character, to create fear and to radicalize.
And it'll make it harder for me to expose my audience to views across the political spectrum.
On my show, we have hosted conservatives, libertarians, liberals, progressives, and even celebrities.
But this clip poisons the well, making it that much harder to have a real conversation among Americans who otherwise would agree on so many issues.
So that was the gist of the op-ed.
I wanted to include a lot more, but we needed to keep it succinct.
But here's the ultimate point I make to you now.
Why did they include this clip of me?
I don't know.
They didn't need it.
It didn't do anything.
All they did was smear me.
Perhaps the issue is that TimCast IRL is a popular show that gets millions of views per day across the board, that my network gets 60 or so million views across YouTube and podcast networks, and that we are not like Steve Bannon or Alex Jones.
We are not suspended or banned from YouTube or any of these public places, and that's bad for them, because debate still does happen.
But here's what I posit to you.
Here's what I present to you.
While they smear me and put me alongside people they claim are inciting, when all I did was read a news article, Ray Epps is nowhere to be found.
The man who stood on the ground in D.C.
the night before and incited people to action.
So what is this?
It's a game.
It's lies.
And this is why I say, how could anything other than civil war be heading our way?
Perhaps I should write something longer.
I wanted to write a lot longer, and the initial draft I had did mention prominent personalities like a professor from Princeton University citing the Cold Civil War, Stephen Marsh, and my extended point, which admittedly was verbose and off-topic.
It was getting into, like, a little bit longer than the January 6th hearing, so I can respect not including it, was that after all of this, at the end of this op-ed, there's more.
Why include all of this, and why make it harder for me to bring on personalities to have these discussions?
I think the issue is that Democrats know they're losing.
The only thing they care about is clinging to power.
Republicans don't have to do much right now because they're on track to gain power.
Because according to Gallup, Americans believe the Republicans are better poised to fix the economy and help solve their problems.
So why would Raskin do this?
Well, he has no idea what he's talking about, nor does he care.
He would present disinformation and lies to smear my character in an effort to make it easier for him to win, and for his allies to win.
Not realizing the radicalization is leading to real world violence, which is why I included the swattings.
Now look, I'm not here to claim victim status or anything like that.
I'm here to point to the larger problem.
It just so happens this time it involves me.
Democrats in their quest for power will smear anyone regardless of the consequences, which have nearly resulted in me and my staff being killed.
We are lucky that we are not just some small house.
When the police arrived at the first swatting, our employees were held at gunpoint.
I don't blame the police for being lied to, but that could have gone bad fast.
And then you get people like Raskin doing exactly what these fringe lunatics do.
I shouldn't say fringe.
These are prominent Democrat activists posting misinformation and sharing it.
Smearing me, taking me, you know, there's clips of me quoting someone else.
They'll attribute to me.
In fact, that's what this was.
January 6th, the committee showed a video of me reading a news article that cited Donald Trump and me paraphrasing Trump and Trump supporters to make it seem like I was calling for action.
The Independent ran a story that said Tim Pool urged people to go to D.C.
Quite the opposite!
I didn't even go!
And I've routinely stated, as I did in 2020, well before this happened, violence does not work.
I've said it then, I said it on January 6th, as evidenced by the clip in the article from episode 197 of TimCast IRL, and I say it again now and since then.
When you get violent, regular people don't know.
They get scared.
They don't want violence.
We are in fourth and fifth generational warfare.
Information warfare.
Going down and rioting solves nothing.
And we mocked those on January 6th, saying, what made you think standing in a building was going to give you any political power?
It's not the 1600s, dude.
No, what gives you power is winning hearts and minds.
And that's the dangerous game the Democrats are playing.
That's why they lied.
Because Raskin is an evil person.
Now, it's either overt, malicious evil, or the banality of evil.
Raskin could have watched the segment that I, that I, that I, uh, from this, where this clip came.
He didn't.
In the clip, sure, I'm mad at the left.
I say Antifa has gotten away with this stuff.
I say it's possible it gets wild and potentially could be violent.
That's bad.
Nowhere did I say people should go anywhere.
Nowhere did I say people should do anything.
In fact, I warned that it could be violent and even showed quotes from an MSNBC presenter saying Trump supporters would get violent.
And I said it wouldn't be random, though.
It would be malicious.
It would be the Proud Boys.
Isn't that me just saying something bad was coming?
That's not me telling people to do anything.
They played that clip with me alongside people telling people to do things.
Raskin doesn't care.
These people don't care.
It's the harsh reality.
These people don't care about what is true.
They don't care about the clips.
They don't.
That's why the January 6 hearings are non-adversarial.
So let me wrap it all together.
Joe Biden.
He says people want him to run.
Sure.
I'll tell you what we do see.
The Democrats seem to be chasing after issues that no one really cares about.
Why?
They're trying to make voters, not win voters.
And that's the point of smearing me.
That's the point of January 6.
They want to stop Trump from running.
And they want to convince people that there is a real threat among the far right.
It's disgusting, and these people are evil.
But whatever, man.
I'll leave it there.
Therein lies the true issue.
Ray Epps doesn't testify.
He's the victim, says New York Times.
Well, thank you to Newsweek for publishing my op-ed.
Newsweek's been doing a rather good job, in my opinion.
They run opinion pieces I think are wrong, and it's fine.
I'm glad that they ran this, and they allowed me to call out the lies with facts and evidence.
Because we need to give people correct information so they can make the right vote.
Joe Biden, I think, ain't it?
I'm not saying Donald Trump is.
The one thing I think Donald Trump brings to the table is it'll fire everybody.
I'd love to see it.
But I've said time and time again, Ron DeSantis is better.
But oh, here we go.
They're going to play the same game.
Ron DeSantis is evil and authoritarian.
Yeah, they do that because they don't want to lose.
So they would sacrifice this country with lies and disinformation because they don't care about you.
And I gotta say, this is on the Democrats and it's on Joe Biden.
Not every element of what's causing inflation is their fault, but a large component of it is.
This goes back to the Democrat governors and the actions they took during the lockdowns.
It goes back to the mass printing of money, the refusal to stop giving out these checks, the moratorium on eviction.
All of it plays a role in why your costs are going to skyrocket.
To put it simply, we borrowed from ourselves in the future.
That's what we were doing during COVID.
Now, was it the wrong move?
I think a lot of it was wrong.
I think I was wrong.
And I think not all of it was wrong.
It's hard to know.
Hindsight is 20-20.
But what I can say is, the 9.1% number, which is apocalyptic, it means your wages are going down.
It means your savings are going down.
That number is based on revised inflation calculation.
If you go back to 1981 to actually see, is inflation today comparable to what it was like in 1981, you will find that using their calculations, it's actually worse.
This may be the worst inflation we have ever seen in this country.
Except maybe like the early days of the United States when it was really crazy.
This could be the worst it's ever been.
That means your wages are going down.
Borrowing from ourselves in the future is bad for a lot of reasons.
This is the idea.
You know, during COVID, they were like, look, just print money, just borrow money, and just send it out.
Massively increase the money supply so people can buy stuff today.
But that would result in inflation, and everyone knew.
They're lying.
It's like, no one could have predicted this, but people predicted it.
Here's the issue.
Inflation means a permanent decrease in your buying power.
You borrow from yourself in the future, basically, the U.S.
does, so that you can buy food for the next couple of weeks.
But this means you will struggle to buy food forever.
If you make $15 an hour, inflation is reducing your wages by about $1.30, $1.40.
That's your buying power.
Take a look at these numbers.
It's apocalyptic.
Charlie Bilello, or Bilea, however you pronounce it, says price increase of the last year, as per the CPI report, fuel 98.5%, gasoline 59.9%.
Gas utilities, 38.
Electricity, 13.
Food at home, 12.
New cars, 11.
The overall CPI is 9.1.
Transportation is up 8.8.
Food away from home, 7.7.
Used car, 7.1.
Shelter, 5.6.
Apparel, 5.6.
Here's what I want to talk to you about.
The cull.
The cull that is coming.
And what do I mean by that?
I am not trying to insinuate that there is an intentional effort to kill many people on the planet.
No, not at all.
I'm sure it's in the realm of reality, meaning like there could be nefarious global actors who are like, how do we reduce the population?
I know, let's make them all starve.
I don't think it's the case because it requires managerial power that I don't think many of these morons actually have.
I think what may be happening is that I talked about this a bit the other day, and what I want to get into right now is we have a bunch of crazy stories around what's happening with food, and this one, as of yesterday, from Voice of America, Sub-Saharan Africa facing severe food shortage.
Inflation is through the roof.
I think it's possible we're looking at a natural phenomenon that emerges through hard times.
To put it simply, They say the strong must survive.
That's the old saying, right?
Well, it's not that they must survive, it's that they do survive whether you want them to or not.
If there is a group of people, and you have some weak ones and some strong ones, and a flood hits, it is likely the strong people survive.
Just because, I mean, that's natural selection.
But what happens when the strong create a strong barrier that protects the weak from the rising floods or the disasters?
The weak then survive.
And what happens when you have an increasing population of weak people around the world?
Well, weak people drag down, consume resources, and strain the strong people, ultimately causing systemic or economic crises.
And then there's a collapse.
Look, I'll simplify it further.
If one person lives on a farm, and they farm and work hard every single day, sunup to sundown, that person survives.
With the extra food they're producing, someone else comes along who doesn't work that hard, but there's food there for them.
Eventually, there's always going to be extra food to a certain point.
More and more people join the farm, or come to the farm, whether they want it or not.
And then eventually, there's not enough food.
Everyone fights, breaks down, and they fight over what food is left.
The guy who works really hard says, I can't do this anymore, and leaves.
And then no one has any food.
And then those people starve, and leave, or die.
So, it's not that the farmer who worked really hard orchestrated starvation.
It's that the system became too heavy.
Too many weak people weighed the system down until it collapsed.
Maybe that's what we're seeing right now.
A pandemic.
How does a pandemic start?
Well, you have a dense population.
Pandemics start for a variety of reasons, but a pandemic spreads among a dense population.
You have weak people who don't go outside, who have low vitamin D, and they spread a pandemic.
These people freak out and panic because they don't want to work or do anything hard, and so then they strain the system by forcing everyone else to live the way they want, and then the strong people say, I can't do this anymore.
Now, I don't think it's orchestrated.
I think it's more like a flood came.
And the way I described it yesterday is you have a mountain.
Strong people climb to the highest point of the mountain, supporting themselves and their friends and their families.
The weak people can't climb that high and get washed away with the floodwaters.
Then the floodwaters eventually go away and all that's left is strong people.
In this instance, what we're seeing right now is not necessarily man-made.
It is exacerbated by a disaster.
Well, depending on who you ask, I guess.
COVID.
I think it is a phenomenon of weak people weighing down the system, straining it, and then causing death and destruction.
So let me show you what's happening around the world with these food shortages.
But before we do food shortages, gas shortages, I'm going to shout out safeandreadymeals.com.
They love to rag on me for promoting SafeAndReadyMeals.com emergency food kits.
But I know many people who have hit me up.
There was flooding.
So I've been shouting this out for the past couple of years and it's an emergency food kit.
They have a 25-year shelf life.
You can get your one-month kit.
It's $235.
You get a discount when you go to SafeAndReadyMeals.com.
I shout this out because I think, look, I'm not telling you to be a prepper and dig a hole in the earth and fill it with 30 years worth of beans or anything like that.
I'm just saying, you've got an emergency first aid kit.
You're not a doctor.
No, but you have this stuff.
You get an emergency food kit in case sometimes the road's closed down or the power goes out or whatever, or a hurricane hits, especially depending on where you are.
Sometimes it rains.
That's why I say, you know, I watched the flood in Houston.
Right now, I'll tell you two things.
I have a ton of this stuff from safeandreadymeals.com, and it's for two reasons.
One, I think there's going to be a food shortage because we see what they're... and maybe it's not true, maybe I'm wrong, but you look at what's happening with Ukraine, you look at what's happening with Russia, they're saying food sources are being depleted, you've got people in Sub-Saharan Africa who are already facing food shortages and threats of food shortages and fuel shortages in the U.S., so it'd be good to have some emergency food in the event we do see shortages.
More importantly, It's inflation.
If groceries have gone up 12%, this thing lasts for 25 years.
If you buy it right now, and then a year from now, it's gonna cost you $260 to buy the same thing, you're like, I'm glad I got it cheap.
Because it lasts 25 years.
What's a year?
You wait two years and now it's going to be up another 12, 20.
Who knows how much inflation is going to go up?
Go to safeandreadymeals.com.
Check it out if you want to get this stuff.
I recommend it.
But let me show you this from the AP.
UN chief warns of a catastrophe from global food shortage.
The head of the UN warned Friday that the world faces a catastrophe because of the glowing shortage of food around the globe.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres He said the war in Ukraine has added to disruptions caused by climate change, the pandemic, and inequality to produce an unprecedented global hunger crisis, already affecting hundreds of millions of people.
He said there is a real risk that multiple famines will be declared in 2022.
He said in a video message to officials from dozens of rich and developing countries gathered in Berlin, and 2023 could be even worse.
He noted, harvests across Asia, Africa, and Americas will take a hit as farmers around
the world struggle to cope with rising fertilizer and energy prices.
This year's food access issues could become next year's global food shortage.
No country will be immune to the social and economic repercussions of such a catastrophe.
I showed this already.
Sub-Saharan Africa facing severe food shortage.
Already.
You know it.
Here we go.
Germany triggers alert level of emergency gas plan.
Sees high risk of long-term supply shortages.
Think it won't come here, my friends.
Think we will not be affected?
Here's the fact check that I showed where the AFP tried to smear me!
Well, you know what?
I guess when you have this many viewers, the media is going to try and call you out.
It's a video where I said it was insane for Joe Biden to give a million barrels of our crude away.
And they said, no, no, it's wrong.
What he's doing is going to help prices.
Talk about the stupidest, myopic, ridiculous attempt at discrediting a good opinion.
Joe Biden did give away our oil.
Even they acknowledge that, saying that it was sour crude, which has more sulfur, and it was better used to replace the Russian barrels in Europe.
How does that change anything I said?
I said it was insane to give our crude away.
We should be developing ways to handle dealing with crude.
I'm sorry, sour crude.
But anyway, here's the point.
They are giving away our oil to Europe.
At least a little bit.
Depleting our strategic reserves.
At a certain point, we are being put at risk by this.
And the fact check says that I'm wrong.
Look, in my opinion, if I think Joe Biden shouldn't have done something, how is that a fact check?
You just don't like my opinion.
But I think it could come here.
I want to throw it to our good friend Bill Gates.
Ah yes, Bill Gates with the article from the World Economic Forum from 2018.
Bill Gates has a warning about population growth.
They say this is originally in Reuters.
Oh, okay.
Rapid population growth in some of Africa's poorest countries could put at risk future progress towards reducing global poverty and improving health, according to a report by the Philanthropic Foundation of Bill Gates.
Really?
Demographic trends show a billion people have lifted themselves out of poverty in the last 20 years.
But swiftly expanding populations, particularly in parts of Africa, could halt the decline in the number of extremely poor people in the world, and it may even start to rise.
Population growth in Africa is a challenge, Gates told reporters in a telephone briefing about the report's finding.
I love this.
I love what they wrote here.
They're like, we want to reduce global poverty, but poor people being born means we're going to have more poor people.
Okay, okay.
What are you saying, Bill?
That the real goal of yours is to reduce poverty and particularly have less poor people in general by, like, not allowing them to be born?
It's a crazy thought to me.
Someone born poor shouldn't have been born because they're poor?
They say it found that poverty in Africa is increasingly concentrated in a few countries, which also have among the fastest growing populations in the world.
By 2050, it is projected more than 40% of the world's extremely poor people will live in just two countries, the Congo and Nigeria.
Asked about the best way of tackling the growing population and poverty challenge, Gates said improving access to birth control was key.
And this should be combined with investment in young people's health and education.
I find it funny.
Telling poor people to bang but not have kids doesn't solve the fact that they're poor.
You see what Bill Gates is saying right here.
Look, a lot of people think Bill Gates is going out there and being like, we have to kill people!
Look, he's telling you right now what he's doing.
He's saying, you're poor, we don't like you poor people, take this birth control so there won't be more of you.
He is not saying, I would like to make you not poor.
He is saying, I want to make you less.
There's too many of you.
And that's enough.
According to UN data, Africa is expected to account for more than half of the world's population growth between 2015 and 2050.
The population is expected to double by 2050 and could double again by 2100.
Wow, what a weird year.
Yet if every woman in sub-Saharan Africa were able to have the number of children she wanted, the projected population could be up to 30% smaller.
Have the number that she wanted?
What does that mean?
This would also enable more girls and women to stay in school longer, have children later, earn more as adults, and invest more in children.
Look, I'm not going to sit here and talk to you about what these people are doing and what their plans are.
I can only tell you this.
Four years ago, they said, we got too many poor people in Africa.
And now, with the food shortage, it is sub-Saharan Africa being hit the most.
No, it's not necessarily.
I think, what did he say, Nigeria?
I believe those are both Sub-Saharan African countries.
I could be confusing the geography.
I'm not an expert on African geography.
I'm like, I think the funny thing, too, is I was reading, I was using Google Earth, and, no, no, I was on Google Maps, and I was searching for something, and then, I can't remember what it was, but it jumped over to Africa for some reason, and I was like, I've never heard of some of these countries.
I think that's really funny.
I don't know every country on the planet.
That's for sure.
Here's from the economist.
Which countries are driving the world's population growth?
The UN expects the global population to reach 8 billion in November and to surpass
10 billion this century. It's actually Asia and Oceania.
As of right now, the population growth that we are seeing is coming from Asia and Oceania.
However, it is projected that Africa is going to overtake everyone else gradually.
Now, by 2100, it's still going to be the majority, Asia and Oceania having the most children and expanding population, but Africa is growing as well.
So what do you think happens to someone like Bill Gates?
You know, someone like this who's like, we have a problem with poor people.
He's not complaining about Asia.
Asia right now, according to The Economist, is the majority of population growth.
But Bill Gates doesn't care.
Bill Gates did not write an article saying we got too many people in China.
He's saying there's too many poor people.
And it's because of Africa, so his advocacy is reducing population growth in Africa, where as of right now, it's not even the biggest!
That's crazy, isn't it?
It's kind of obvious what he's saying.
He doesn't care if, you know, your society is at a certain threshold.
It's almost like the idea of eliminating poverty is just to eliminate poor people, but then you'll just have different poor people, right?
Look, Poverty in Africa right now is like wealth in 1900s America.
Not completely, but to a certain degree.
People seem to think that Africa is all like mud huts and like mud roads and things like that.
Dude, look at Kenya.
It's beautiful.
Nairobi, for instance.
So there are many cities in Africa, but don't get me wrong, there is abject poverty in Africa, and that's probably what Bill Gates is talking about.
Way worse than anything we have here in the U.S.
and have had for a long time.
That stuff does exist.
So what?
Don't let the people exist?
Here's the issue.
If you find the deepest areas of poverty and these people stop having kids, let's say all of those communities just cease to exist in 50 years.
There will still be poverty because poverty is relative.
today have air conditioning, clean water, refrigerators.
Go back to like 1913.
I don't think they had refrigeration in 1913 at all.
I think they brought ice blocks on ships covered in sawdust.
I don't know the year refrigeration was invented, but a poor person today in the United States has better dental care than Rockefeller did because we didn't have the technology.
So you follow the logical conclusion here.
If all of the poorest people in Africa cease to exist because people like Bill Gates encourage them not to have kids, and then they don't, and then that's it, then who becomes poor?
Well, while the rest of us will be enjoying flying cars or whatever, there are gonna be people who don't have that, and they're gonna say, look at these poor people, they can't even fly.
I suppose the idea is, one way to eliminate poverty is to make everyone poor.
Because if poverty is relative and everyone's at the same income level, they'll be like, no one's poor, that's just the level income is, right?
And it feels like that's where we're going.
Financial Times says global population growth hits lowest rate since 1950, from July 11th, 2022.
So let me lay it out for you.
A bunch of global elites are saying there's too many people, particularly in Africa.
A major food crisis hits, affecting particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, where their concern is the most.
And now, global population, which was expected to explode, is at its lowest rate since the 1950s.
Look, I think there's too many people.
That's my opinion.
I think cities are overpopulated.
I think there are many areas that aren't overpopulated, and if people spread out from cities, it would alleviate a lot of the problems we're facing.
I think a lot of the problems we find with pollution come from the concentration of pollution, and that the Earth is capable of absorbing a lot of human refuse, as it were, both biological and physical from, you know, the creation of products, but it's better if it's dispersed.
I'll put it this way.
A bed of nails.
A bed of nails spread out, you can lay on it.
A single nail concentrated to a point will puncture you if you try and step on it.
If you took a whole bunch of small lasers and you turned them on and they were pointed at wood or something, it's not gonna burst into flames.
But if you point every laser to the same spot, then you're gonna get a fire.
Hyper-concentrating everything into a single point creates destruction.
So we see in these big cities, you know, mercury and carbon, nuclear waste even, things like that.
And it's bad.
And it's bad, and it's polluting the environment, and it's hard for the Earth to absorb and dissipate all of that because it's hyper-concentrated.
If we were to break down the cities and move people out of them, I think the planet can actually handle substantially more people.
Well, it's another thing we're actually seeing.
So it's interesting, nonetheless.
I wonder if it's a natural consequence.
When the pollution gets too bad, weak people start to die off, strong people say, I don't want to live like this, move away from cities.
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, it can just be the way things go because it's the logical conclusion.
I moved out of the city because violence.
Why was there violence?
Population density had gotten to a point where a cop couldn't even fart without someone smashing a window.
I know I'm exaggerating, but we had something like 9 unarmed black men being killed, resulting in widespread national rioting.
I mean, it was one guy for the most part.
And it's bad that it happened, but think about the margin of error.
With hundreds of millions of police interactions, the amount of people who are wrongly killed is going down, but still, it doesn't matter.
Population density makes city living untenable.
And so I think it's a natural consequence of what's happening.
That when there's a food war, when there's a food crisis, when there's a pandemic, the food goes to the strong.
The strong survive and the weak don't.
I think that's it.
But, for all of you, I know it probably means very little other than your costs are skyrocketing.
I went to the grocery store, you know, it was like, wow!
The prices have gone up.
It's crazy, man.
You know, I talked about this a while ago, last year, about food shortages, the cost of mayonnaise.
We had MayoGate when the left attacked a restaurant because they said their mayonnaise was expensive.
And I went to the grocery store and filling up a grocery cart was more than it was in the past few months.
If you have U.S.
dollars in the bank, they're losing value.
You are losing buying power.
So what do you do?
Man, I'll tell you this.
We're trying to run a business.
We want to keep a certain amount of cash on hand to make sure we can pay our employees as we expand the company.
The problem is, every month we set on U.S.
dollars, the value of those dollars go down.
And so that means, like, we got to give people raises.
And so we're trying to figure out how we can do this because the company isn't expanding fast enough.
We've got to find ways to bring more revenue in if we're going to pay people more money.
But we just can't.
If we bring in more members, if we produce more content and we sell more, we make more money, then we have to use that more money just to pay for giving people living wage, or I should say inflationary increases.
So then, what can we do?
We can charge more for memberships.
Daily Wire charges $12, we charge $10.
They've got more content than us, mind you.
And I'm wondering if, like, we need to just bump up things to a couple bucks to deal with this stuff.
But then what happens for you guys?
Now you need more money because, like, I can't afford the things I want.
It is very difficult.
Inflation across the board.
We gotta figure it out, man.
In the end, I suppose the end result is going to be the people who are strong enough to make it through will.
And if this continues, the people who aren't strong will struggle and they won't make it.
They won't have kids.
The population growth is going to drop dramatically.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
For all the man's faults, I just completely understand why people love Donald Trump.
I just do.
I also understand why people don't like Donald Trump.
And it can be exemplified and summarized in this quote.
He could have made Elon Musk, quote, drop to his knees and beg.
Okay, I gotta put that one in the title of this video somehow.
The Daily Mail reports Trump says he could have made Elon Musk drop to his knees and beg for subsidies for his driverless cars that crash and rocket ships to nowhere when he was president.
Tells him to focus on getting out of the Twitter mess.
Elon Musk has responded saying, LMAO.
And, you know, Donald Trump is the roast master.
I'm sorry, he is a roast master.
The dude should host celebrity roasts because he knows how to do it.
Daily Mail reports, Ex-President Donald Trump has escalated his war of words with the world's wealthiest man, Elon Musk, in a series of messages on Truth Social.
On the right-wing social media platform, Trump recalled the many times that Musk visited the White House between 2016 and 2020.
Trump wrote, when Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many
subsidized projects, whether it's his electric cars that don't drive, well, let me read the
actual truth. He says, when Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many
subsidized projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars
that crash or rocket ships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling
me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican, I could have said, drop to your knees and beg
and he would have done it.
Bravo, good Sir Trump.
Bravo.
Um, look.
I don't agree with Trump.
I just think it's funny.
It is funny.
Anybody who says it's not funny is lying.
I don't think he's right.
I think he's right in a certain respect.
You know, Elon Musk getting subsidies and deals and things like that.
But I'm just gonna have to come out and say it.
I own a Tesla.
And there's no excuse for you gas guzzlers to even drive a car.
Why don't you just... I'm just kidding.
But you saw the Democrats be like, just buy an electric car.
No, I have a Tesla.
It's, uh... Relative to the cost of cars today, it's actually... It is more expensive, but, man!
Inflation is through the roof.
But anyway, I digress.
They're the best.
They really are.
I've looked at some other electric vehicles.
We wanted to get an electric car, the Hyundai Ioniq, for TimCast, so we could pick up guests.
Short trips to the hotels and stuff with the electric car, because it's cheaper, and then airport and longer runs with gas, but we couldn't get one.
But looking at the specs, I gotta be honest, Tesla cars are just legit.
Driverless cars that crash.
Once again, he's referring to the same thing.
And, uh, they do.
But they're not publicly available.
So again, it's funny, but... I gotta give it to him on the rocket ships to nowhere, because way too downplay one of the most important advances in rocket science.
Yes, Elon Musk launches rockets that don't go anywhere.
They just come back and land back on a platform.
So, while I can certainly say Trump is wrong about this, I find it absolutely hilarious.
He goes on to say, now Elon should focus on getting himself out of the Twitter mess, because he could owe $44 billion for something that's perhaps worthless.
Also, lots of competition for electric cars.
P.S.
Why was Elon allowed to break the $15 million stock purchase barrier on Twitter without any reporting?
This is a very serious breach.
Have fun, Elon, and Jack, go to it.
Trump, Jack Dorsey is not at Twitter anymore!
So again, I'll tell you exactly why people love Donald Trump.
Because the tweet was just, it was funny.
It was Trump smacking down someone who was critical of him, pushing back.
Donald Trump called Elon a BS artist first.
I think that's how it started, because Elon failed to buy Twitter, and then Trump said, see, I told you he wasn't going to buy it.
And it's because Trump wants to promote Truth Social.
Admittedly, the engagement on Truth Social is legit.
It's hefty.
Makes you wonder about the bot accounts on Twitter.
So I would just say to Elon and Trump, you must stop fighting.
We like both of you, for different reasons.
But for the exact same reasons I understand why a lot of people don't like Donald Trump.
It was a crass, derogatory tweet that accomplishes nothing.
Whatever, man.
Grow up.
Grow a spine.
Sometimes people say things, and it's whatever.
The ex-president wasn't going to let Musk off the hook with regard to the billionaire's controversial decision to pull out of his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter.
Elon Musk responded, saying, LMAO, and then posting a meme of Abe Simpson yelling at cloud.
Oh man, I love this timeline!
Now, it's true.
Elon Musk is being sued by Twitter.
That was the other big news that we should get into.
And Donald Trump is roasting him over it because Elon Musk said Donald Trump should bow out.
This is how amazing everything is right now.
I just absolutely love this.
Not only do I get to show you— Oh, come on.
Are you going to allow me to zoom in here?
All right, that'll work.
Not only do I get to talk about Donald Trump insulting Elon Musk in a rather funny way, Elon Musk brings us the meme-driven lawsuit for the books.
Thanks, TechCrunch+.
I love how everything is plus, like Disney+, Paramount+, TechCrunch+, DailyWire+.
We were talking about TimCast.com.
I'm in a good mood with these stories.
They're hilarious.
But go to TimCast.com and support our work.
Become a member.
We've got a ton of exclusive content coming your way.
And we're going to be launching it as a streaming video on-demand service with a bunch of shows.
I'm really excited for it.
I'm just excited to make shows that we will deliver to people who want to pay for them.
But anyway, I was talking about how everyone is doing plus, and I'm like, let's just do Timcast minus!
When Elon Musk announced his intention to terminate his $44 billion bid for Twitter, the social media company didn't give up easily.
Today, Twitter sued the SpaceX and Tesla CEO for refusing to uphold his contractual obligation to buy the platform.
The company's lawyers claim that Musk's concerns about Twitter's bot numbers are illegitimate.
When you agree to buy a slow-growing social media platform for more than it's worth, there's no takesies-backsies.
Take backsies?
Unless the company seriously misrepresented itself.
Even though Twitter handed over its firehose of internal data, Musk claimed the trove of information wasn't sufficient.
So he extended his ongoing public tantrum over Twitter bots, which culminated in his declaration that the deal was off.
Now, I don't completely trust Elon Musk on this one.
I love how NBC writes an article, and they're like, Tim Pooh claims that Elon Musk is playing 4D chess, and I was like, no, Elon is claiming he's playing 4D chess.
These people apparently don't know what news reporting is.
I am not telling you when they say something, I'm telling you what people are talking about.
When I give you my opinion, I will say I. I don't think Elon is playing 4D chess necessarily, but fine.
It's technically the truth.
What I said was, considering Elon Musk's successes, it's likely he knows what he's doing.
But it might not be 4D chess.
He may just be going with the flow.
Anyway.
As Twitter wrote in its lawsuit against the erratic billionaire, Musk apparently believes that he, unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law, is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy stockholder value, and walk away.
In response to the lawsuit, Musk tweeted, anyone with a Twitter account, even the bots.
has seen that Musk has been tweeting through it.
Based on the memes he's posted, it wasn't shocking at all that he was getting cold feet about his $44 billion impulse buy, especially in light of the stock market turndown.
I want to pause right there and just say, yeah, that might be it.
Let me tell you guys and try and break this down, try and break it down for the layman.
I'm sure most of you can follow.
Let's say Elon Musk has 100 shares of Tesla.
He doesn't.
He has way more.
But let's say 100 shares.
Let's say he shares a dollar.
Or let's say he shares a billion dollars, whatever.
He wants to buy Twitter for $44 billion.
He's personally committed $33.5 billion of his money, and then the rest was going to be financed through debt and other investors.
So that means he's got to liquidate 33.5 shares in his company.
But then, the market gets smacked down.
Here's the problem.
Now he's got 100 shares, but they're only worth half a billion dollars.
This means he would need 67 shares, liquidating double of his holding to buy Twitter.
Now that's not one-for-one math, but the point is, Elon Musk is going to lose more shares in Tesla to cover the $33.5 billion than he would have at the start of this deal.
So perhaps it is just him playing some game in an effort to reduce the cost and save himself some money.
Here's the issue.
It's entirely possible that Elon screwed up.
You know, he's rich based on shares he doesn't have access to.
He may be a smart guy, but it doesn't mean he's a perfect guy.
And maybe he screwed up.
Maybe he said, I want to make this bet.
Maybe he thought he was going to buy Twitter before things got salty and went sour in the market.
But then it did.
All that it really matters is that Twitter's value went down, and so did Tesla.
But the amount he agreed to pay stayed the same, meaning his overall expense via stock has skyrocketed.
It could be Elon Musk screwed this one up bad.
Could also be that Elon Musk is a guy who's talked about a coming recession for some time.
He planned on doing this sale on 420, so maybe he knows what he's doing.
Honestly, I don't know, man.
They're going to say, Twitter's lawyers agreed.
In his press release announcing the deal on April 25th, 2022, Musk raised a clarion call to defeat the spam bots.
But when the market declined and the fixed price deal became less attractive, Musk shifted his narrative, suddenly demanding verification that spam was not a serious problem on Twitter's platform, and claiming a burning need to conduct diligence he had expressly foresworn.
But that doesn't really matter all that much.
Now, it could be this.
Elon Musk thought that by securing this deal at $54, people would rush to buy the stock, bumping it up above $54.
So, I'll put it this way.
Joe Rogan signed a deal with Spotify.
Remember that?
And after the deal was announced, Spotify's stock jumped something like 7%.
Now, I don't know if Joe Rogan got any equity in that deal.
Maybe he got some shares or something.
Maybe not.
No idea.
But think about it this way.
If you were going to do a deal with a company, and you were going to get shares in that company or own the company outright, you'd be hoping that if I buy this company for $100, the value of the company rises to $150.
Elon Musk may have been hoping that by announcing he'd buy the company, making an offer, He thought the market would respond by saying Elon will make the company more valuable.
And thus, even though he's going to secure the company at $54, people may have been willing to buy it at $55 or $60, thinking after he buys it, the value will skyrocket.
But that didn't happen.
Because Twitter's fake.
The stock went down.
Then the market took a hit.
And now Elon is left holding the bag.
And he's got to find a way out.
It could be the case.
They're going to say, how do you prove that an extremely online mega-wealthy troll is trying to dupe you?
You show the receipts.
And the receipts in this case happen to be memes.
Twitter's lawsuit against Musk has more pictures than your standard legal filing.
Throughout the 62-page document, the plaintiff shares several images of Musk's tweets.
Mostly memes about the acquisition to prove that he has acted in bad faith.
Of course, they included the poop emoji that Musk tweeted CEO Parag Agrawal when he attempted to answer the mogul's spam inquiries.
Parag Agrawal says, we've suspended over half a million spam accounts every day.
Usually before any of you see them on Twitter, we also lock millions of accounts each week that we suspect of being spam if they can't pass human verification challenges, CAPTCHAs, phone verification, etc.
Musk responded with the poop emoji.
Okay, okay.
Look, I'm gonna point this out.
It's a meme-laden lawsuit.
It's funny, but Elon has—he might have to buy Twitter!
So we can sit here and pontificate all day and night about what Musk wanted to do, but in the end, it seems like he will buy Twitter.
It's part of the agreement between Musk and Twitter.
Musk is in violation if he disparages the platform in relation to the suit, not just disparaging the platform.
Read the deal.
It said that Elon Musk can talk about the suit but not disparage people in doing so.
So he's allowed to insult people.
He's just not allowed to say, here's the deal we're doing, this guy sucks.
According to Twitter, the poop emoji does indeed count as disparagement, but the platform's lawyers pulled several more tweets to make their case.
In two other instances, Musk tags the SEC's Twitter account and calls upon them to investigate Twitter's financial disclosures, which have claimed that more than 95% of monetizable daily active users are humans.
His lawsuit reads, Musk's conduct simply confirms that he wants to escape the binding contract he freely signed and to damage Twitter in the process.
Here are some photos where Elon Musk is saying, Hello SECGov, anyone home?
Twitter's lawyers also included a meme that Musk posted just yesterday, which shows the billionaire laughing alongside text, making fun of the platform.
They said, I couldn't buy Twitter.
Then they wouldn't disclose bot info.
Now they want to force me to buy Twitter in court.
Now they have to disclose bot info in court.
Then he tweeted a meme of Chuck Norris playing chess and declared, Chuck, mate.
It is Chuck Norris playing chess against a full board, but he only has a pawn.
Like, he's so good, he will beat you with a single pawn.
Does Elon Musk understand that Chuck Norris memes haven't been funny since before Tesla manufactured its first car?
Are you TechCrunch seriously with the opinion?
Come on, spare me.
Perhaps he's too busy single-handedly increasing the U.S.
birth rate.
Bravo on that one, however, to keep up with pop culture.
Regardless, Twitter used these memes to argue that Musk sees his hugely impactful acquisition as an elaborate joke.
I love it.
I'm sitting here just thinking things are getting funnier and fun.
I like Elon Musk.
He's done a lot of bad things.
You've got to criticize him for a lot, but at least he's shaking things up.
They say this is far from the first time we've seen memes at the courtroom in 2013.
The creators of the memes Keyboard Cat and Nyan Cat earned a settlement after suing Warner Brothers for unauthorized use of their copyright in a video game.
That incident alone was almost 10 years ago.
Now, even your tea-spilling group chats can be subpoenaed and promptly displayed in the New York Times Featured.
It's not even the first time that Musk has gotten in serious legal trouble for his bad jokes.
In 2018, Musk tweeted that he was considering taking Tesla private for $420 a share and had already secured funding.
Of course, he was just making a low-hanging weed joke, so the SEC charged Musk with fraud over false and misleading tweets.
As a result, Musk stepped down as Tesla board chairman.
The company paid a $20 million fine after making an agreement with the SEC.
He now must have tweets about Tesla proofread by lawyers turned Twitter sitters.
He was trying to make a 420 joke.
That was it.
And people were like, wow, is that for real?
He was kidding.
Doesn't matter.
You play these games, you find out.
This is, however, the first time that memes will play a role in determining the fate of a massive corporate acquisition.
We hope the judges at the Delaware Court of Chancery have fun.
And I would just like to say good news to all of those who want Elon Musk to take over Twitter.
It's probably gonna happen.
Whether it's because Elon Musk is engaged in 4D chess, or if it's because Elon screwed up and now he's going to be forced to buy the platform.
Look, I don't care.
If Elon Musk made a mistake, I don't care.
If Elon Musk loses billions of dollars, I don't care.
If Elon Musk is playing 4D chess and has just tricked Twitter, I literally don't care.
I care about things that are more important than all of this.
I can certainly entertain the fun of the jokes.
And it's fun to see life get a little bit more exciting, like when Elon posts memes of Chuck Norris.
It's hilarious.
I enjoy it.
Or Donald Trump says that he could have made Elon Musk drop to his knees and beg.
Ha ha ha.
What I care about is that we solve the crisis that's happening in this country with the political landscape.
That we allow people to speak their minds.
That we end the censorship.
Man.
You guys know that the other day, Jamie Raskin of the January 6th Committee pulled a clip.
He posted a clip of me out of context, alongside ardent Trump supporters saying, Red Wedding, and kicked down the door.
In the video clip of me, I'm literally just reading a news article.
This is the problem.
When you ban people like Alex Jones, you make it more difficult for Alex Jones to explain what are his intentions.
Fortunately for me, I still have a platform on Twitter and YouTube and Facebook to counter the lies of the January 6th committee.
But think about the people who can't.
On January 6th, Alex Jones was at the Capitol saying, do not go in, leave.
He said it was a trap, it was a psyop, they were gonna get ya.
Well, whether he was right or not, it certainly made all the Trump supporters look really bad.
They shouldn't have done it.
But Alex Jones' ability to tweet on this platform to engage with this public conversation was removed.
And why?
Because Twitter claimed he made a post that was like, it was innuendo, it was a metaphor, but it was too literal!
We don't care!
We can't play these games, man.
We need to be able to make jokes and make references and allow context to matter.
Y'all know the story of Count Dankula.
He did a joke on Twitter about his girlfriend's pug being a Nazi, and they arrested him over it.
Context matters.
So, look.
After all is said and done, Donald Trump can say whatever he wants.
Elon Musk can post whatever he wants.
We need Elon Musk to take this platform over.
So, here's what I'm gonna say.
Thank you, Twitter.
Thank you, Twitter.
I'll say it again.
Thank you for suing Elon.
Because if this forces Elon to buy the platform, we're all better off.
Maybe we won't be best off.
Maybe things won't be perfect, but Elon in charge is better than what's happening now.
So I wonder what the real issues are.
Maybe Elon Musk is trying to save himself some money.
That seems really likely.
And it seems likely this lawsuit will result in Elon Musk saving himself money.
Elon Musk might kick back at the lawsuit and say, okay, I'll give you $35 billion for your platform.
And Twitter will say, no, you agreed to X, and he'll say, then we will have a lawsuit, I will file discovery, and we'll let the court decide.
The court might force a settlement.
This is what people don't understand.
They seem to think that you can sue someone and that if you win, you win.
No, the judge can throw it out.
The judge can look at Twitter's lawsuit and say, I don't care.
And Twitter can have to appeal or say what and then try and refile or whatever.
Or the judge can go to Twitter and say, I am instructing you to reach a settlement agreement with Elon Musk.
Come back in a month and let me know how it goes.
Elon Musk can say no.
Or Elon Musk can then file something with the court and be like, we offered them a good deal, but they won't take it.
You don't know exactly how it's gonna play out, and everyone thinks they're the experts on the law.
I'm not.
I've seen a lot of people break down Twitter's lawsuit, cheering for it.
I've seen a lot of people break down Twitter's lawsuit, claiming it's bunk and nonsense.
I've seen people claim that Elon is correct about the bots, and that Twitter outright said they weren't gonna give him the information.
Yo, hands down, they did.
The CEO said, we can't reveal some of this information because it's private.
Oh, there you go.
And Elon Musk, I doubt the dude's a moron.
I think he's got a plan.
But in the end, whatever.
Whatever.
Twitter sucks.
TruthSocial in many ways is better, but I don't know what the answers are.
What I do know is that censorship is a huge problem.
What I do know is that Twitter is extremely biased.
What I don't know is if Elon is going to save the day.
I hope!
Twitter wins.
I'll say it again.
I hope Twitter wins.
And I hope Elon is forced to buy the platform.
Because I do like him better.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
