Elon Musk Files To BUY TWITTER, END Lawsuit ENRAGING Woke Journalists As Trump Might Return IN DAYS
Elon Musk Files To BUY TWITTER, END Lawsuit ENRAGING Woke Journalists As Trump Might Return IN DAYS. If The deal finalizes Elon Musk may own twitter within 72 hours which could mean the return of Trump and many more conservative personalities.
Already Woke Journalists are complaining that this means the end of their narrative control as Elon could fix the rules and reinstate people banned over ideological reasons. Some fear this will impact the midterm elections.
However the return of Trump seems unlikely in any case as he has vowed to stay on Truth Social and if he were to move to Twitter it could hurt his company and eve others.
Democrats may actually see a boost if Trump returns to the press as he is the only thing they have to campaign on
#elonmusk
#twitter
#democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elon Musk has formally proposed ending the lawsuit and buying Twitter.
This means he could own the platform in days.
It also means Donald Trump could soon be back.
Of course, woke journalists are again losing their minds over the prospect of free speech on Twitter.
In our next story, Donald Trump is suing CNN, demanding $475 million for defamation, mainly because they keep calling him Hitler.
And in our last story, Kanye West says Black Lives Matter is a scam, and everyone knows it, and now it's over.
If you liked this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Huge news just dropped that Elon Musk is proposing closing the Twitter deal on the
original terms, leaving everybody quite a bit confused.
Why?
Elon Musk first said he wanted to buy Twitter.
Then Twitter was like, no, wait, don't.
And all these Twitterati leftists and journalists were like, oh, no, the world is ending if Elon Musk buys Twitter.
And then Twitter agrees to sell to Elon Musk.
Everyone's freaking out.
But then Elon Musk tries to back out.
The left starts mocking him.
Twitter's now demanding he buy the platform.
Elon gets involved in a lawsuit.
Twitter sues him.
Now, all of a sudden, abruptly, Elon Musk is like, yeah, I'll buy it for full price.
And it's just weird, because you'd think that right now, with the court case going on, there was still some ground for Elon Musk to say, OK, fine, I'll buy it, but shave a billion dollars off the sale price.
This was a headache for Twitter.
Why would Elon Musk just come out and be like, okay, full price, we're done?
There's a lot of theories and a lot of speculation.
For one, many on the left are now freaking out with one journalist talking about how they won't be able to control the narrative anymore, saying, as a private company, the rules will be capricious.
It's funny because that was literally their argument from the get-go, that private companies can do what they want, and now all of a sudden they're like, oh no, private companies can do what they want.
I don't know what this means.
But the interesting thing here is that they're reporting Elon could be in control of Twitter within days.
Oh, man.
Elon, please.
First, Donald Trump back on the platform.
Then I'd like to see, like, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, Carl Benjamin, the list goes on.
There are many people who should have their accounts reinstated, restored.
In a couple of days, we may find out.
I suppose there's some grounds for Twitter to say, no, we're not going to accept the terms of the deal, which makes no sense because they're suing for him to agree to this.
I don't know what court is going to be like, no, you don't have to buy it.
They're suing.
The judge is probably going to be like, okay, there you go.
You've won.
Congratulations.
No standing.
Case dismissed.
There's a couple reasons this may be happening.
Many on the left are saying that Elon Musk is embarrassed.
His private text messages got released as part of this lawsuit, and yeah, many of them were bad.
There was one where it was like, I would jump on the grand for you, and then it said, liked, I would jump on the grand for you.
That happens when an iPhone likes an Android text or whatever, and it's just silly nonsense.
Maybe.
I'm not sure Elon Musk really cares about that, though.
I don't think Elon Musk is overtly motivated by the fact that his text messages pertaining to the deal were leaked because...
We just basically saw what we already knew.
That's why I haven't really talked about Elon Musk's texts coming out for the most part, because it's like, here's him talking with Jack Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey wants him to come on and privatize Twitter.
It's like, we knew all of that.
All of that was released.
There is one other issue, though, that may be a reason as to why Elon Musk has decided to close this deal.
Now, it's been widely speculated as to why Elon Musk didn't want to buy Twitter after the fact, and it's because he would have needed to liquidate a massive portion of his wealth and potentially put Tesla and SpaceX at risk in order to buy Twitter, which is for what?
Because they banned Babylon Bee.
So what reason could have happened?
What would be so important that Elon Musk would say, okay, I will sacrifice my net worth.
How about World War III?
Recently, Elon Musk tweeted that Ukraine should basically work towards peace with Russia.
And a bunch of prominent Ukrainians mocked him.
Elon Musk said something that was revealing.
Someone mentioned that he was getting inundated by attacks over saying that Ukraine should negotiate peace.
And Elon said one of the biggest bot attacks he's ever faced.
I think this might be one of the big reasons.
Now, of course, Elon may have been facing defeat in this lawsuit.
Fair point.
Will Chamberlain, who's a guest on TimCast IRL frequently, and a lawyer, pointed this out.
Maybe that's just a big reason.
He knew he was going to lose and said, okay, fine, whatever, let's just get it over with.
But I wonder if this Ukraine story, where Elon Musk was being attacked by many of these pro-Ukrainian individuals, was a catalyst.
Could it have been?
Elon Musk is genuinely concerned about World War 3, and a bunch of bots are promoting World War 3.
And then Elon maybe went, OK, what's the point of being the richest guy in the world if you're dead?
You can't buy a yacht if you're dead.
So how about we take Twitter, we shut down the bots, and end the calls for war?
Of course, the left is now saying, he's going to be helping Vladimir Putin.
Well, this is interesting nonetheless.
Let's read the news and figure out what's going on with Elon Musk.
Closing this deal with Twitter.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com.
Click that Join Us button.
Become a member for two big reasons.
One, our journalists only have jobs because of you as members.
If you like the job we're doing, reporting the news, and of course, we are NewsGuard certified.
Take a look at that.
82 out of 100.
If you think we do a good job, and you like that we are breaking down the news, reporting these stories, we need your support.
Our journalists only work off of your memberships.
Now, truth be told, we do have advertising revenue across the board, and so the advertising budget does help cover costs, but the reality is, We don't run ads on our news articles.
The news articles are just funded because people are members at TimCast.com, so if you want to support our news endeavors, that's one way to do it.
The goal of the news is basically because we believe in it, and we're hoping that by putting out good stories, people will come and become members and then watch our other content.
So you also will get access to our uncensored, members-only shows from the TimCast IRL podcast, Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m., as well as the Cast Castle vlog and Tales from the Inverted World, But don't forget, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's get into the news from the Wall Street Journal.
They report, Elon Musk has offered to close his acquisition of Twitter, Inc., which is now up 12.67% on the terms he originally agreed to, according to a person familiar with the matter, a sudden and unexpected come down for the billionaire entrepreneur that could end a months-long battle he has waged to get out of the $44 billion deal.
Mr. Musk's lawyers communicated the proposal to Twitter's lawyers overnight Monday and filed a letter confidentially with the Delaware Chancery Court ahead of an emergency hearing on the matter Tuesday.
Very interesting.
The two sides are discussing how to ensure the deal can be closed.
The judge overseeing the case requested they come back to her by the end of the day with a potential plan that would allow the litigation to be dropped.
Should the parties agree, the proposal would enable them to avert a high-stakes trial set
to begin soon and potentially finalize the deal within days.
It would represent a major victory for the social media company. There are no guarantees they
will reach a deal or that the unpredictable Mr. Musk will follow through with his
proposal and close the transaction.
The five-day trial set to begin October 17th could still go forward as planned. Mr. Musk was set to
be deposed later this week as part of the preparations for the trial. Twitter shares
were halted after jumping 13% midday Tuesday on the news to $47.93.
That brings them closer to the $54.20 a share price Mr. Musk agreed to pay when the deal was sealed in April.
Bloomberg early reported on Mr. Musk's proposal.
Twitter sued Mr. Musk to follow through with his agreement to buy the company after he tried to back out of the deal in July.
He accused Twitter of fraud, saying the company misrepresented the condition of its business, including the number of bots on its platform.
Twitter countered that he was looking for a way out after the share price dropped along with the rest of the market.
I wonder if Elon is playing a game of chicken.
That is to say, he comes out and says, okay, you know what?
I'll buy the company.
Now we're in a war, a very serious war.
NATO seemingly involved.
I mean, we all know NATO's involved.
But could it go to actually become NATO versus Russia?
Vladimir Putin's moving nuclear capabilities and armaments, deploying his tsunami bomb submarine, a weapon of the apocalypse, they say.
I wonder if it's not just about Elon saying you might lose, but about him saying we need to stop the bots that are egging on World War 3.
Could be a reason.
It couldn't immediately be learned what prompted Mr. Musk to abandon his battle with the company.
Chancellor Kathleen McCormick, who was overseeing the case, has at times appeared impatient with Mr. Musk's lawyers at hearings and has called his data requests absurdly broad.
It is possible he rated his odds of succeeding at trial as too low.
Mr. Musk has sought to amend his case to incorporate complaints from a former head of security who came forward as a whistleblower from Twitter in August, alleging problems with the platform's data security and in other areas.
The court allowed it, but there are no indications that it would meaningfully strengthen Mr. Musk's case.
I do think it's kind of crazy.
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.
Twitter has been adamant Mr. Musk was obligated to close the deal.
I think it's crazy that a whistleblower comes out and says, hey, look at all these things they misrepresented.
And they're like, yeah, but it doesn't matter.
You gotta buy it.
Dude.
If I went to go buy a car, and you were like, car's great, works, everything's perfect.
And then some dude came out and was like, I work for the company.
They lied about the miles per gallon on the car.
I'd be like, yeah, I don't want to buy that now.
You know, I was expecting 40 miles to the gallon is, you know, gas economy and everything like that.
They lied to me, now the dude comes out and says it's only 30, and they're like, no, that doesn't matter, you have to buy it.
That, to me, is crazy.
But let's take a look at this, this is where it gets interesting.
According to the Daily Mail, they say, this is the crazy part, Musk has been trying to back out, blah blah blah, Twitter fought his attempt to back out of mischief, his sudden U-turn on Tuesday means he could own the company within days.
But Elon Musk deserves a lot of criticism across the board.
I have some theories about what may have happened.
And let's start there.
This could be, within a few days, a major shift in the political landscape.
We're going to start with Will Chamberlain.
Alright, so Will, lawyer, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, frequent guest on TimCast IRL, appeared just this past week saying Elon's gonna buy it.
He thinks so, and Will was correct.
Here's what he says.
I'm seeing some people say the timing is suspicious for Elon to decide to buy Twitter again.
It's not suspicious at all.
He was about to be deposed, trial is in two weeks, and his lawyers were almost certainly telling him that he was going to lose.
Neither the law nor the facts were on Elon's side.
The judge was not happy with Elon's lawyers and was consistently ruling in Twitter's favor during Discovery.
Elon was staring down the barrel of an expensive trial with embarrassing deposition and trial testimony.
And with no realistic hope of winning, and with no realistic hope of winning, if I were advising Elon, I would have told him to take the L months ago.
He's deciding to take the L now because it really is his best option.
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
I have a conspiracy theory.
Here's how it works.
Elon Musk was asking current shareholders to retain their share and help him make the company go private.
That would mean he wouldn't need to buy up all outstanding shares at $44 billion.
So if some shareholder has $4 billion worth of equity, instead of buying it from him, Elon could say, go private, vote to go private, keep your shares, let me fix things, your share value will go up.
Right?
That would mean that Elon did not need that $4 billion.
He would only need $40.
Now imagine he's able to pull this off, going to all of the biggest investors, buying out the ones who say no, and letting the ones who say yes keep their shares.
Elon comes out of the lawsuit.
Twitter goes into turmoil.
There's chaos.
There's whistleblowers.
The stock price is tanking.
Elon then sits back, as interested parties who know that he's intending to take this private and probably will have to, buy up the shares on a premium.
Or at a discount is a better way to put it.
Starting at $54, Elon comes out and says, OK, now I'm not buying.
We saw the stock go down to the mid-30s.
Anybody at that point could have seen what Will Chamberlain was saying, that Elon would have to buy.
So now you have people who say, okay, if I buy this, I'm guaranteed to sell at $54 when Elon's forced to pay for it?
Or better yet, I will be one of those interested parties who keeps my shares Agrees to take the company private and give leadership to Elon.
And then, when he makes the company private again in a few years, the value's way up.
So, a lot of people may have bought it knowing they wouldn't need to actually sell it should Elon buy out the company, right?
I don't know for sure.
You know, I talked to Will about it.
He says, probably not.
Probably not likely.
But my attitude was, why would Elon just come out right now and be like, okay, full price.
Why wouldn't he at least be like, okay, Twitter, I'll tell you what, to avoid the trial, how about we do 53 billion?
Or, I'm sorry, $43 billion.
Just, we'll say that.
How about $53 a share?
It could be that Twitter would have to go back and have a vote on it.
It would take too long, and that Elon really was embarrassed.
It could be World War III.
Well, let's take it to the political arena now, because we don't know exactly what's happening, but I want to bring it here.
Ben Collins is a political advocate and activist who masquerades as a journalist for NBC News.
He tweets, Okay.
For those of you asking, yes, I do think this site can and will change pretty dramatically
if Musk gets full control over it. No, there is no immediate replacement. If it gets done early
enough, based on the people he's aligned with, yes, it could actually affect the midterms.
Okay, Elon, please hurry up. If Musk is really taking this site private,
there are no real guardrails anymore.
Rulemaking can be capricious.
He can elevate any idea or person he wants through recommendations and UX choices, and there will be no oversight on this as a private company.
Well, hold on there a minute!
That's what you advocated for and argued for for the longest time.
But my private company, they kept saying over and over again, that's the meme.
All of a sudden they're like, oh no, it's a private company.
Interesting.
He goes on to say, We know from Musk's private texts he talks with people who
want to let Trump back on and make a Blake Masters type a VP of Enforcement.
Masters is a far-right Senate candidate backed by Facebook founder and Trump donor Peter
Thiel.
In those Musk texts, the redacted senders and recipients lay the groundwork for a war
and battle after Musk takes over Twitter.
A coordinated pressure campaign that will lead to de-platforming of political enemies.
What does this look like in the short term?
Abandonment of traditional moderation policies.
Stuff like Pizzagate pushed by bots and liars will be protected.
Disinfo campaigns will top trending topics and drive news cycles.
In the long term, Musk's plans for this website are a suicide bomb.
Very few people want to use a moderation-free app saturated with lies by design.
We know this from dozens of Twitter clones who've tried and failed.
But he seems dead set on taking bad advice from bad people.
Ben is a liar.
He is a liar.
I don't say he's making a mistake.
No.
This is a guy who I believe intentionally lies.
He says very few people want to use a moderation-free app saturated with lies by design.
Lies like the Hunter Biden laptop, which was true.
Lies like the Covington Catholic kid lies.
Lies like Jussie Smollett.
Lies like Russiagate.
Lies like Ukrainegate.
Lies like hands up don't shoot.
All of those were lies.
People still use the platform.
The reality is, what he is actually saying is we will lose control of the narrative.
Peter Hamby says, you just described TikTok.
Addison responds, this is mostly true now though, right?
The algorithm isn't currently open source.
What oversight is in place now that would theoretically be removed?
And then one person responds, imagination.
Well, let's keep it political.
Here's Christopher Rufo, who says, NBC News reporter accidentally admits that Twitter has been suppressing, manipulating, and distorting the public debate in order to benefit the political left.
Ben Collins, Brandi Zadrozny, Taylor Lorenz, and Media Matters have spent years building an apparatus to declare entire realms of discourse disinformation and to punish dissenters with smear reporting and deplatforming campaigns, while their own outlets spread monumental lies.
These people are bullies for the establishment.
They work for the most powerful media corporations in the world and spend their time trying to suppress independent journalists, destroy reputations, and freeze citizens out of the modern communications and financial system.
Agreed.
Let's bring it back to Mr. Ben Collins with another tweet.
He says, Elon Musk got embarrassed on Twitter yesterday by a lot of the Western world,
and continuing this lawsuit would have meant releasing more private texts. There's always
a desire to over-intellectualize the decision-making of the richest guy in the world,
but don't overthink this. Perhaps.
That could be the issue.
I don't know for sure, but that could be the issue.
Let me see if we got the story here.
From CNN Business.
F off.
Ambassador tells Elon Musk after unveiling Ukraine peace plan.
Elon Musk drew backlash on Monday from Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his unsolicited advice on how to bring about peace.
In a Twitter poll, Musk suggested a path to Ukraine-Russia peace.
That included redoing elections under U.N.
supervision in the regions of the country recently annexed illegally by Russia, the land Graham grabbed covering nearly a fifth of Ukraine.
The elections were dismissed as shams by much of the world, but Elon's point is great.
Why not have the U.N.
supervise?
Ukraine and most of the world reject any implication of Russian sovereignty over the regions it has invaded, and Ukraine has vowed to take back its land.
Quote, It started in Crimea, and it will end in Crimea, and this will be an effective revival of an international legal order, Zelensky told the Crimea Platform, blah blah blah blah blah.
In response, F off, said Ukraine's ambassador to Germany.
Zelensky started a poll, asking his followers, which Elon Musk do you like more?
One who supports Ukraine, and one who supports Russia?
Alright, well let's jump to Elon Musk's tweets.
He said, in response to Zelensky, I still very much support Ukraine,
but I am convinced that massive escalation of the war will cause great harm to Ukraine and possibly the world.
Below it says, do you support Elon's view?
I'm going to select yes to see the results.
And no is the dominant response.
Likely because it is Volodymyr Zelensky's Twitter account, followed by his supporters.
But maybe, I mean, Twitter polls are just that, Twitter polls of people's followers.
In the end, most people responding say they don't support Elon's view.
Here we have a tweet from Kim.com.
Elon as a prisoner of war in handcuffs.
This tweet is from the top advisor of President Zelensky.
Why?
Because Elon tweeted an idea about peace in Ukraine.
By the end of this year, Joe Biden will have spent $100 billion on Ukraine.
This is how they show their gratitude.
It's a photoshopped image of someone wearing handcuffs in military uniform with Elon Musk's face superimposed on the body.
Photoshopped.
That's the gag.
Elon Musk should be arrested or... What are they trying to say?
I wonder.
In this tweet, Here's the original.
Elon Musk said, Ukraine-Russia peace.
Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision.
Russia leaves if that is the will of the people.
Crimea formally part of Russia as it has been since 1783 until Khrushchev's mistake.
Water supply to Crimea assured.
Ukraine remains neutral.
So we can see here the final result was no.
I didn't vote on this one.
2.7 million votes.
In response to Elon Musk, no.
I gotta say, to a certain degree, I actually disagree with this as well.
Nemly Nika says, wonder how many bots were activated to turn around the original result.
Is this possibly the reason why Elon Musk abruptly said, I'm taking Twitter?
Is it because he saw an issue, World War 3, big mistake, and then he sees, he puts out a poll, most people say yes, but then all of a sudden it flips no.
Elon Musk believes this was bots.
I'm not saying it was bots, but could it be that Elon Musk is saying, there are bots manipulating public opinion, this is why he's been mad about Twitter, and now he's like, too far.
Putin is threatening nuclear war!
This could be, in my opinion, a big reason.
I don't know.
Again, I'm not saying bots did do this.
I'm saying if Elon Musk genuinely believes bots are manipulating public opinion and getting us potentially into World War 3, I think that's good enough reason as any to say, okay, you know what?
We should.
We should take over Twitter and put an end to the bots.
And here's the thing.
Even if Elon's unsure, if he owned Twitter, he would actually be able to publish the data and say, I removed all the bots.
Here's the proof.
Most people say yes to my plan.
Here's what I want to say.
I agree with Elon to a certain extent.
I don't want World War III.
I don't want nuclear missiles flying through the air, or tactical nukes, or nuclear artillery, or any of that stuff.
I want the fighting and the war to stop.
But there is a challenge.
Maybe we have to accept Elon's proposal if it means avoiding war.
But what does that mean?
Appeasement for Putin?
Putin trying to annex the eastern regions, the Donbass region?
I'm not okay with that, man.
This idea that someone can storm the gates and then take it and you're supposed to go, okay, we accept it.
No.
No dice.
I don't like the idea of U.S.
involvement.
Ukraine doesn't really have the means to defeat Russia without NATO involvement.
And I don't think the West should be involved in this conflict.
It doesn't mean Ukraine should lay down and give up.
I don't like that idea either.
But if NATO wasn't involved, Ukraine probably would be crushed.
We shouldn't be involved.
Then Ukraine would probably be crushed.
It's unfortunate.
I don't want it to happen.
I don't like what Russia is doing.
I don't think Ukraine should just let them take whatever land they want.
But I don't think it's worth World War 3!
Being a leader means making hard choices.
Sometimes, there is no good choice.
The end result is something bad happens.
And then you weigh it on the scales.
Nuclear annihilation for the planet.
Or, at the very least, nuclear destruction and more death.
But it means you get to keep your smoldering wasteland.
Give up, let them take the land, and that's the end of it.
No more death, no more war, but you lose control.
It's hard to know for sure what this all will come down to, but I do believe this may be the catalyst as to why Elon is saying, okay, fine.
I think all these things play a role.
He's looking at losing this court case, he is embarrassed, and then he sees this and says, okay, you know what?
Fine, I'll buy it.
Elon.
Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, Carl Benjamin, Laura Loomer.
There's many, many more people, but those are off the top of my head.
Bring back their accounts.
Or, you know what?
I gotta be honest.
Unban everybody.
Unban everybody.
I mean, except for people, obviously, who post, like, child abuse stuff and have, like, directly incited violence.
unidentified
All the hate speech stuff, just bring it all back.
There's no guarantee Elon actually does any of this.
But I do wanna highlight this tweet from Evan Engel.
It's just too good.
He says, ugh, my friend just sent me this screenshot from the future.
I hate it.
It's a tweet from back in April, and it's a fake Twitter screenshot.
Elon Musk, in the fake tweet, says, we are bringing back live streams.
Should we allow Putin to have one?
And then it says, free speech dictatorship.
74% say free speech.
Working on a way to beam tweets directly into your brain lol.
We are updating rules re-allowing serfs to tweet.
And then at the bottom for some reason there's a Trump tweet that says our beautiful country will no longer allow the lying Jewish media to badmouth our and then it stops.
As if Donald Trump, I love this, has been anything but supportive of Israel and Jewish people.
It's amazing.
These people live in a wacky world.
But here's what I love about this prediction.
When Elon Musk says we're bringing back livestreams, should Putin have one?
74% agree with free speech.
This is like a tacit admission that these people know the will of the people is free speech and they suppress it.
Bravo.
Blue check.
Here we go, baby.
Court agrees to hear nine new cases, including challenge to tech companies' immunity under Section 230.
This is where it gets really interesting.
If Elon Musk does buy Twitter, and then the Supreme Court overrules certain immunities from Section 230, Twitter is going to get annihilated with lawsuits.
I don't know exactly what'll happen.
I don't know how the courts will rule.
We'll see.
But if they do strike at immunity, then Twitter could get just blown up with lawsuits.
We need Section 230.
What we want challenged is the immunity.
So, I wonder, if the Supreme Court is knowledgeable enough to understand the issue, will they do the right thing?
Here's what needs to happen.
Section 230 needs to exist, but it needs to have judges say explicitly what the limits are on immunity.
Here's how it should work.
If you are a Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or otherwise, you cannot be sued under Section 230 for something said by a user.
Hands down.
But with that, you cannot remove what a user says.
That's it.
Now, of course, there are exceptions.
There's always exceptions.
Overt criminal activity can be removed as a good-faith effort.
Now, that was supposed to be the case.
And so, under Section 230, they said, okay, you can remove certain things, like child abuse, criminal activity, and obscene, lewd, and lascivious things.
What happens then is, these tech platforms say, this homophobia is obscene.
I can remove it.
We need these clarifications.
And I think the clarifications should be illegal activity.
And do you know what that means?
It means doxing will be allowed.
That's right.
Because doxing is free speech.
You can take someone's address, name, and phone number and hold it up and walk around city center.
They can't do anything about it.
That's free speech.
You're not inciting anybody to do anything.
You're just sharing information.
The reality is, most of this information about address and phone number, it was in the phone book!
For the longest... I mean, you can look this stuff up.
Growing up, how many people remember this?
You got a book every month, too.
The yellow pages and the white pages.
White pages had everybody's information.
You wanted to find a certain person, you'd open the white page, you'd find their name, there's their name, there's their phone number.
Online.
You can't post this stuff.
They said doxing is illegal.
Well, no, I'm sorry.
Doxing is against the rules.
Not illegal.
So they ban people.
I get it.
I'm fine with it.
That would mean people would be doxing me.
Yeah, whatever.
Make it so that only illegal content is removed.
Then we carry on.
This would mean that Twitter would have the good faith ability to remove illegal content.
And if they weren't sure, they could leave it up and defer to the authorities, such as, is it incitement or not?
Obviously, if it's child abuse and other videos of abuse and crimes being committed, then to a certain degree, you can remove it.
If someone, but this is where the line is, right?
If someone posts a video of like, And posting the video is the crime itself, like certain images of children.
You remove it.
If someone posts a video of a crime being committed as a news piece or to share the information, that's fine.
The issue is when the video itself contains content, child abuse, or when someone incites people to engage in violence.
Those are not legal things.
That's not protected speech.
That's what I think we need to see from all of this.
In the meantime, rest assured, my friends, many of these leftists are starting to lose their minds again.
It was funny because they were freaking out when Elon first announced he was gonna buy it.
Then they all started laughing and gloating, thinking they were safe.
Because Elon was trying to back out.
Now?
Here we go again, ladies and gentlemen.
I wonder.
Is it too much to speculate as to some kind of 4D chess?
Probably.
I think it probably just comes down to Elon realized how expensive it was gonna be, and it was harder to pull off than he thought.
He thought he could buy it, and then he was like, man, I don't know if I can.
Been there.
You know, we're working really hard every day to expand TimCast, and we've been hiring a bunch of people, and it is expensive.
And let me tell you guys something.
We make money here at TimCast thanks to our members at TimCast.com and through some sponsorships, but for the most part, it is memberships.
Memberships, I believe, are the big driver of how we, you know, do things.
But advertising plays a role, it does.
So, we go and try to expand.
And that means I go places and I look at the buildings and I'll be like, okay, we need this for this reason.
And then I'll, you know, say, okay, here, I'll offer this much money.
And then a day later I'll go look at the finances and go, oh man, that really does strain us.
I don't know if we have the money for that.
And I'm like, ugh, that's gonna be brutal.
We'll have to figure it out.
And then a few times they've come back and said, your offer was too low.
And I'm like, naturally, because it was a strain for us, okay, it's a good thing we're not getting it.
For the most part, we've tried to stay well within our means and grow without putting the company at risk, because obviously we've got to pay salaries, and salaries are expensive.
The point is, Elon Musk probably said, I can buy this, then agreed to, and then started going over how much it was really going to cost and how it was going to play out in the long run, and went, wow, this is crazier than I thought.
In the end, though, it's looking like it's all coming down.
Elon Musk, within days, may own Twitter.
This means we may see a mass exodus.
There could be Twitter disruptions.
Who knows?
It could mean that within a few days, Donald Trump is back on the platform right before the midterms.
October?
Surprise much?
That could be bad.
Donald Trump coming back on the platform could ignite the left like crazy.
It's bad timing, I'll tell you that.
But we'll see.
It could also be a major net positive, because you'll see people like Milo back on the platform, if Elon makes these moves.
Don't know for sure.
We'll see.
I'll leave it there.
The next segment is coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Donald Trump is suing CNN for defamation, demanding $475 million.
To be specific...
He's requesting, formally, $475,075,000 because there's $75,000 compensatory limit, and then he wants $475,000 punitive.
But it actually may go up a lot more than this because the compensatory damages, the initial claim, is going to be set at trial, or at least that's what Donald Trump is seeking.
So this could end up substantially more than $475,000,000.
And I'll tell you, my friends, this one's interesting.
Right off the bat, I read the lawsuit, the filing.
We have it pulled up.
And I'm looking at it, just shaking my head, saying, you know, Donald Trump is suing CNN because they likened him to Hitler some 7,700 times.
And he's saying that's defamation.
CNN bragged about their bias.
They bragged about stopping him from winning in 2020.
And thus, they owe him damages.
They know what they're doing is fake news.
They know they're lying.
And he makes an interesting point.
That when Stacey Abrams claimed the election was stolen, they didn't challenge her at all.
She actually said that there was fraud and the ballot machines were flipping votes, at least according to this lawsuit.
And I believe he mentions Cuomo.
It might have been Tapper or Cuomo.
I think it was Tapper.
He said to her, like, so how are you going to fix these things?
CNN has stated over and over again that Trump's claims about the election are the big lie.
And this is the principal claim in Trump's lawsuit.
Now, right off the bat, I look at this and I'm like, dude, you're allowed to say these things about people.
It is not reaching the criteria of actual malice to call someone Hitler.
But Trump has an ace up his sleeve.
You see, a lot has been changing in the legal landscape of the past year, which suggests, albeit this is a major long shot, and I'm not a lawyer, there's a few things I'd point out which, again, lawyers, correct me, but I've seen some interesting things.
Notably with the Project Veritas lawsuit.
They got a tremendous victory.
I don't know if it sets precedent.
I don't think it does.
But there was a tremendous victory when James O'Keefe sued the New York Times.
The New York Times claimed that they were, you know, giving opinion.
Oh, we're allowed to express our opinion.
The judge said, no.
You claim this is a fact-based news report.
Then if you put in there your opinion and it's wrong, you are acting as though it's news.
See, this is an interesting point.
If I put an article that says, news fact, And then give my opinion, which is not provably true and defamatory.
They're gonna say, you made a statement, you gotta live by it.
If you want to make an opinion statement, those are protected.
You know, I can come out and say something like, I think Nancy Pelosi is awful, and I'd be willing to bet that she kicks dogs.
The idea there is, it's in my opinion, based on her behaviors, I bet she does that.
Now, I don't know what she actually does, but there's better ways to do it.
You could say something like, Nancy Pelosi is a white supremacist.
She is.
Nancy Pelosi holds white supremacist views.
Or, how about this one?
Nancy Pelosi is an unrepentant racist who engages in racist activities and assists, directly, white supremacists.
How about this?
Can we crank it up a notch?
Nancy Pelosi actively supports, assists, and aids white supremacists.
Now, that sounds like a statement of fact.
It's not.
That's my opinion.
And it's funny because you're like, but you're saying she does a thing.
No, no, no, no.
You know, even if you said... Like, it's really weird how this defamation stuff works.
You have to say something like, Nancy Pelosi walked up to Person A and then committed Act B and I watched it happen.
That's defamatory if it didn't happen.
But Nancy Pelosi is viral right now.
I'm sorry, she's going viral in this video.
Where she says farmers in Florida are asking, why are you sending these migrants up north when they need them here to pick our crops?
Based on that, my opinion is that she's supporting, aiding, and associating with white supremacists.
Because, you get the point.
Like, she said a thing, whoa, that's racist in my opinion.
So when they say Donald Trump is like Hitler, it's an opinion.
It's an opinion.
Now this is an opinion show.
I give my opinion and thoughts on the news.
So when I give my opinion, it's just that.
But if CNN comes out and says, the most trusted name in news, this is news, objective fact, Donald Trump is Hitler.
Well, there's an interesting argument to be made based on what we saw with Project Fairtest.
Now, I still gotta say, I think this is going nowhere.
I think Trump's lost.
It's going nowhere.
But I think Trump's doing this for a reason.
I think Trump is attempting to litigate 2020 election claims through a defamation trial.
This is interesting.
Part of Trump's lawsuit is that what CNN has said is false, calling his claims big lies.
CNN defends themselves saying that 50 court cases have determined there to be no fraud.
Ah, but hold on there a minute.
This was interesting when I was reading the filing.
I believe, for the most part, these court cases pertaining to the 2020 election were not about fraud, but about procedure and were dismissed on standing, as most Trump supporters probably know.
If CNN is coming out and saying that fraud lawsuits were dismissed, they have to be very specific in addressing those specific claims.
Which makes things interesting because then what if Trump said, hey, did you see this lawsuit pertaining to procedure?
We should look into that.
Then CNN says Trump was pushing the big lie in that speech.
That claim was the big lie.
Associating a procedural argument with a fraud-based argument, you've got two different issues here.
So I wonder, If what Trump is really going for is a roundabout way to get the issues of the 2020 election in a court when the courts have dismissed it on standing, right?
So this is fascinating.
I'm not a lawyer.
So, you know, you should probably take a look at what Viva Barnes or Ricada have to say about this.
But I'm wondering if, you know, you get a guy and he says, I'm going to sue Pennsylvania Because they allow universal mail-in voting.
And then the courts say, you have no standing to make this claim.
Dismissed.
The court did not rule on whether or not universal mail-in voting was allowed or not.
I'm giving an example.
They actually did rule on this.
I think the State Supreme Court said it was fine.
My point is, someone argues policy.
Court says, no standing.
Dismissed.
They never rule on the policy.
So then what happens is CNN comes out and says, aha, see the court case was dismissed.
Trump, withstanding from defamation, files a lawsuit.
As part of this case, CNN will have to assert that their calling Trump a liar is backed by the truth.
So they'll have to assert in court about these court cases.
If Trump says, I was talking about this and can prove in this statement I said lawsuit in Pennsylvania related to procedure, CNN called that a lie, well then it's going to be interesting because CNN's defense is that the fraud lawsuits, okay, well hold on.
What about the procedure lawsuits?
Let's read some of this from TimCast.com and we got some more news on CNN.
The lawsuit was filed on Monday in the U.S.
District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Lawyers representing the former president accused the network of a campaign of dissuasion in the form of libel and slander to keep him from winning the 2020 presidential election.
Quote, CNN has sought to use its massive influence, reportedly as a trusted news source, to defame the plaintiff in the minds of its viewers and readers for the purpose of defeating him politically, culminating in CNN claiming credit for getting Trump out in the 2020 presidential election.
The lawsuit reads, CNN's campaign of dissuasion in the form of libel and slander against the plaintiff has only escalated in recent months as CNN fears the plaintiff will run for president in 2024.
As a part of its concerted effort to tilt the political balance to the left, CNN has tried to taint the plaintiff with a series of even more scandalous false and defamatory labels of racist, Russian lackey, insurrectionist, and ultimately Hitler.
In order for a public figure to sue for defamation, they typically have to prove actual malice.
But Trump's legal team argued the standard does not apply in this case.
Now hold on.
They do, in their filing, assert the actual malice standard has been reached, but it shouldn't matter anyway.
Quote, Even though the actual malice standard is met here, in circumstances like these, the judicially created policy of the actual malice standard should not apply, because ideological homogeneity in the media or in the channels of information distribution risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness, just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.
Suits like these do not throttle the First Amendment.
They vindicate the First Amendment's marketplace of ideas.
Trump has threatened to sue the network in July if they did not retract a number of statements in a letter titled Notice of Intent to Bring Civil Action for Defamation.
The letter was addressed to CNN Executive Officer Chris Licht and CNN Executive Vice President and General Counsel David Vigilante.
CNN has the, quote, CNN has had the opportunity to review your letter of July 21st, 2020, and to evaluate your demand to take down and retract 34 articles and televised segments you identify as defamatory, and to cease referring to representations made by former President Trump regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election as lies.
We declined your request.
CNN response began.
Hold on there a minute.
Trump didn't say lies.
He said, quote, the big lie.
In his lawsuit, Trump's lawyers point out the big lie is a direct reference to Adolf Hitler's attempt to smear Jewish people.
Their point is that CNN is trying to defame Trump as akin to Hitler for questioning the 2020 election, using the phrase the big lie.
Not saying outright you have posted lies, saying you are using the phrase the big lie.
You see the difference here?
CNN's playing dirty games.
As they noted in their filing, Stacey Abrams made direct claims that her election was stolen on CNN and they did not challenge or criticize her for it.
You got something interesting there.
CNN goes on.
While we will address the merits of any lawsuit, should one be filed, we note that you have not identified a single false or defamatory statement in your letter.
It is well established the outcome of the 2020 presidential election was unaffected by fraud.
No, hold on there a minute!
Unaffected by fraud is an interesting response.
This is a response letter, not a legal statement to the court.
But, there was fraud.
I mean, a guy was just criminally charged.
Did it change the outcome of the election?
No, I don't believe so.
Now, as to whether or not it is well established, that's an opinion statement.
So, it'll be interesting to see how they respond in a court filing.
I don't believe evidence has ever been presented sufficient enough to claim that fraud changed the outcome of the election.
But to say unaffected, I mean, that's interesting.
One guy filing one false ballot does affect the outcome.
It changes a number by one.
Does it ultimately change the outcome?
No.
But people have been arrested and charged for this stuff.
So it's interesting that's what they said.
Again, not a legal filing, just a response to Trump.
They say, as verified by the dismissal of no fewer than 50 lawsuits by judges across
the United States asserting otherwise, the sanctioning of multiple attorneys for making
unsubstantiated election fraud claims, and investigations conducted by the Department
of Justice, Congress, and various state and local bodies.
Now I just want to pause there a minute.
I don't know what lawsuits they're referring to, but again, this is why a formal response
should be interesting.
I don't think... I think CNN's going to have to issue some response.
They're probably going to say something like this.
They've got to be very careful.
This could open the door.
I don't think this goes anywhere, to be completely honest.
I don't... I read through this, and you know what, man?
It's just, um... It's just frustrating.
Yeah, I wanna see CNN held accountable, but I don't think this is gonna go anywhere.
Now, it'll cost them money, sure, I guess.
Trump should sue.
I think he has to.
And maybe a judge will have the balls enough to be like, you can't go on TV and call someone Hitler for four years!
But I'm not convinced a judge is gonna have the balls to actually do it.
I think they're gonna be like, well, you know, Times v. Sullivan, and these are opinion statements, so...
Should be interesting.
I read through this.
Trump, I think, really needed just to show some definitive statements.
And what they're basically saying is they're calling him Hitler over and over and over again.
And it's like, yeah, at a certain point, you can maybe argue that they're claiming to be news.
The real argument is this.
CNN is claiming to be the most trusted name in news.
So when they go on and present as fact, the argument from Trump is that that should overrule any opinion argument.
You cannot, in my opinion, go on TV and say, welcome to our news program where we share facts.
Trump is Hitler, by the way.
Because then you're basically admitting, you are cutting out the idea that it's opinion.
You want people to believe it is a fact.
That matters, in my opinion.
Now, I think what the courts hold is that it doesn't matter.
We've seen this defense used by even, I think, you know, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, that although they're a news program, these are all opinion statements.
So this is likely what's going to happen.
CNN is going to say, we're a news network, but these are opinion shows.
Just because we're a news network doesn't mean that our opinion guys all of a sudden now are doing hard news.
Therein lies the challenge.
The distinction between news and opinion.
That's where it will matter most.
So we'll see how this plays out.
But let me tell you something truly interesting here.
Chris Cuomo says he's learned lessons after being fired from CNN.
There's something interesting in this that I think relates a little bit to the lawsuit.
So he goes on a talk.
He's got a show and NewsNation.
The ratings are not good.
He's only getting a million bucks to do the show.
Here's what he says.
He added, quote, you know, there's this thing I called good as it gets Republicans, you know, Bill Barr, Mitch McConnell, Liz Cheney, Mike Pence.
Really?
At the end of the day, they all did the right things on one key issue, which is, did Trump win the election?
And they all said, no, he didn't.
Okay, I don't agree with the politics on much else, but that's as good as it gets, Republican.
You're not going to get them to agree with you on most things.
If you went down a list of the things Liz Cheney believes most liberals would be booing her out of the room, but she gets cheers now because on that one issue, which is the most fundamental issue right now, she did the right thing.
Cuomo at the conclusion said the show was the best I could have imagined.
Ooh, there's something interesting right there in that statement from Chris Cuomo.
And that is, these people have one issue.
They cheer on Mitch McConnell, Cheney, Pence, Bill Barr because they don't like Trump.
Oh, they can come out and be like, no, no, it's because Trump's big lie.
No, it isn't.
They hated Trump before he claimed the election was stolen.
Look, I think an insane reasonable person can say two things.
Trump had great policies and the economy was great in 2019, and the fraud narrative is silly and needs to just, you need to move on from it.
Diehard Trump supporters really don't like it when I say that, but I say it a lot.
You need to tell people to get out and vote.
You need to win in the midterms, and telling people that the election was fraudulent is voter suppression.
Maybe.
Maybe there's something I don't know about.
Totally fine.
Maybe you think I'm wrong.
Hey, alright, you're allowed to.
You need to get every single person you know to go vote.
That's it.
Every single person.
Not only that, they should be going to their friends and family and getting them to go vote too.
Everyone.
Everyone.
Max voter turnout.
You know why?
You win the midterms, you win in the state houses, in the state senates, and then you can audit and do whatever ever you want, you will have the reins and the subpoena
power. But for the time being, this I don't think helps anybody. But here's the point, not
to get into all that.
When Cuomo comes out and says Liz Cheney is as good as it gets Republican,
she's a warmongering psychopath.
But she hates Donald Trump, so you think that's as good as it gets?
Chris, you are nuts!
And you know what?
Screw you, News Nation!
This dude faked being in COVID quarantine, and y'all know it, and y'all gave him a show.
I'm sick of it.
All lies.
All manipulations.
So as we watch CNN burn down in a blaze of failure...
Here you go, my friends.
Chris Wallace's CNN Celebrity Talk Show debut tanks.
Do you know what their key demo viewership is?
I want you to bask in this.
I want you to gloat in this.
I want you to sit there, raise your fists like Elmo with the flames behind you.
44,000 viewers.
Now slam your fist on the table and say, yes!
These scumbags that would spit on their own mothers for a dollar.
Chris Wallace.
His show drew in just 44,000 viewers in the advertiser-coveted demographic.
Wow!
I made a video of my chickens that got more views than that in the key demo.
But to be fair, total viewership, he got 400,000.
Amazing.
29% drop in the average ratings for the 7 p.m.
Eastern Time Hour.
Woo!
So not only is he collapsing in the key demo, a worthless program by a pathetic spineless man, even in primetime senior viewership.
I don't know how many views this guy gets on YouTube, probably a bit more, but 44,000 viewers?
These people get views on YouTube because YouTube is propping them up.
And in spite of censorship, we at Timcast and many other independent channels rival them.
And they hate it.
They're angry.
They want us to go away, but they can't make us go away.
We get more viewers than they do.
It's really amazing.
By the time you watch this video, it probably has more than 44,000 viewers.
Isn't that crazy?
Well, to those who watch the video right when it comes out, of course it doesn't.
But most people will watch after the first half hour when you will notice it's got more than that.
And it's all key demo viewership.
So let's just bask in that.
Knowing that CNN, despite everything that's going on, they are just collapsing.
CNN ratings continue to tank as boss Chris Licht has work cut out for him.
After the 2020 election, the viewership at Timcast dropped precipitously.
But it actually was fairly high in January of 2021.
And then following that, it just slowly, slowly dropped off to around probably half.
I mean, in live viewership, it was crazy.
During the peak of 2020, we were getting like 180,000 concurrent viewers or something.
150,000 concurrent viewers on Timcast IRL.
Kind of scary thought.
We were getting over a million views per night.
Nuts.
It was crazy.
Huge shows.
Everybody was watching.
And then you had 2020, and everybody was burned out.
In 2022, things started to slowly pick up again.
Right now, we are entering the midterms, and viewership for TimCast is starting to pick up substantially.
I think we're up like 30% already.
It's fantastic.
And then you take a look at CNN, and they're down that much, and that's the point.
While CNN and TimCast started to drop, CNN kept going down, and TimCast is starting to go back up.
Now look, With a political show and culture commentary, we talk politics a lot, viewership goes down in off years.
Everybody knows that.
I'm not going to rag on CNN because, like, after the election, their ratings dropped.
People kept doing that.
You know, they were like, their ratings are down.
I'm like, yeah, everybody's ratings are down.
It's about proportionality, right?
But right now, their ratings should be going up.
And they're not.
They're going down.
That's amazing.
Nobody wants to watch your garbage shows anymore, dude.
I think come 2024, CNN is just going to be sputtering.
They're going to have nothing.
And we are probably—2024 is going to be nuts.
We're probably going to be getting the same viewership.
It's going to be bigger.
So this is the cool thing.
Here's how it works with the ebbs and flows of news and commentary viewership.
In off-seasons, viewership goes down.
But it doesn't go down as low as it's ever been.
It stays a little bit, and then it spikes again.
So it's like every fall, you're up, you're up, you're up, and then it goes down, but then you're up more and you're more, because there is growth.
I'm not surprised people don't want to pay attention to politics in off-seasons.
The midterms aren't as relevant.
But now, considering the culture war and the pop culture being politics, the midterms are starting to pick up.
So it's going to get pretty interesting.
Viewership for us is going up, and for CNN, it's in the gutter.
I'm glad to see it.
I can respect Chris Licht trying to weed out the ideologues, but it's not working.
As for Trump's lawsuit, CNN will issue a response.
The response will be interesting, but that's probably all we're going to get, so we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
Become a member at TimCast.com to support our work.
Follow at TimCastNews on Twitter, and we'll see you all at 1 p.m.
Provocation!
Kanye West sparked outrage on Tuesday after dismissing Black Lives Matter, the social movement created to protest social and racial injustices aimed at his own community.
Ah, his own community, huh?
Well, here's what Kanye West posted that's sparking the controversy.
He said, Everyone knows that Black Lives Matter was a scam.
Now it's over.
You're welcome.
Yeah, Kanye's right.
Okay, I'm sure there's a lot of good intentions behind Black Lives Matter, but...
Yo, we've got the stories.
Accusations of money being stolen, all these houses being built.
Yeah.
Where's the money?
It's not being counted for.
A lot of weird stuff happened with Black Lives Matter.
But I love this.
Real quick, I just want to start by mentioning this.
This caption.
His own community.
What does that mean?
As if Kanye West is a part of some social justice activist community or that he has to be simply because he's black.
Just because you are of a race does not mean you're a part of a certain group.
You could have disparate worldviews.
You could be at odds with each other.
Multiple factions of religious people, and they're all white.
Do we say, why is the white community fighting each other?
No.
Kanye West clearly is not about whatever this is.
So there's a bunch of big controversies happening around Kanye West right now.
Apparently, he's getting attacked because he wore a White Lives Matter shirt, I guess.
And then, this is the crazy thing.
Someone tweeted, Kanye West making black models wear White Lives Matter shirts is the culmination of his anti-blackness, blah blah blah.
What did it say?
His immersion into white supremacy?
Look, they actually said his immersion into white supremacy ideologies and methods is disgusting.
It's Bob Marley's granddaughter who was wearing that.
Now, we'll get into all that, but I want to address first and foremost, here's the story, and then I want to ask, is Kanye West correct?
Kenya West sparked outrage on Tuesday after dismissing Black Lives Matter.
The rapper and designer slammed the global cause on Instagram, where he commands more than 17 million followers after wearing a provocative white Lives Matter sweater at his Surprise Yeezy fashion show in Paris on Monday evening.
Opting for white uppercase lettering on a stark black background and addressing followers in the past tense, West, 43, wrote, Everyone knows Black Lives Matter was a scam.
Now it's over.
You're welcome.
The outspoken star appeared to be reinforcing a lack of faith in the cause, which has developed a reputation for staging mass street protests regarding the perceived mistreatment of ethnic minorities around the world.
No.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you civics polling.
Ah, civics.
We have 347,326 responses.
347,326 responses.
Tell me this is not a beautiful sample size.
Now of course the responses span back almost just about three years.
Check this out.
Man, we go back in time.
Oh, it goes... 2017, there you go.
Charlottesville rally.
Minus 6% net support.
So, let me show you the trend line.
Net support is a reference to, you know, positive versus negative.
So right now, you have a minus 2 net support, meaning the majority opposes Black Lives Matter.
Isn't that amazing?
Since the flip happened in March of this year, Zero net support, it was 50-50, and then in April, Black Lives Matter went underwater.
Look at this bubble.
This wave, it spikes, it comes to support, majority support, right around, let's see if we can hit that 1%.
Where's that 1% at?
Come on, wow, it's just zero.
There we go.
2018, June.
It reached its peak right after George Floyd was killed with 24% net support.
That's massive.
Then they couldn't help but riot.
Then they defended Jacob Blake, who had assaulted a woman and had a knife.
Then the Derek Chauvin conviction happened, and I think people saw something.
This is really amazing.
After Derek Chauvin was convicted in the George Floyd case, net support dropped.
Ahmed Arbery shooting verdict, and it goes down!
This is amazing!
Yo.
Ahmed Arbery.
This is the one where the media was like, he was just jogging and these men lynched him.
And then you learn in the trial that he was actually a felony suspect.
The police had went around saying, this is the guy.
Now these guys, no problem, saying they shouldn't have gone after him.
But these guys weren't lynching some jogger.
They were responding to a police request for information about this guy who was seen burglarizing the neighborhood.
The funny thing is, a gun had gone missing only, I think, six weeks earlier.
And they were concerned he may have been armed.
Yeah, what happened?
These guys are going to prison for life.
And now, Black Lives Matter dropped in May to minus two, went back up, and is once again at minus two net support.
Ain't that something?
Kanye West says it's over.
I gotta tell ya, it's dying out.
They had their wave.
Not so much anymore.
The average person now, on average, people do not support Black Lives Matter.
It's amazing.
Here's what's fascinating.
We're looking at net support trendline, all demographics.
Let's take a look at 18 to 34.
Unsurprisingly, 18 to 34 year olds, a 15% net support.
35 to 49, 4%.
That's amazing.
50 to 64, minus 12.
65 plus, minus 13.
percent net support. 35 to 49, four percent. That's amazing.
50 to 64, minus 12. 65 plus, minus 13.
This is why it's important. These young people are supporting what is clearly, in my opinion, a scam.
Black Lives Matter activists accuse executives of stealing $10 million in donor funds.
How much needs to be said before you go, hey, wait a minute.
You're not paying attention so you assume everything is true.
That's the amazing thing.
Young people, you know, I know this because I experienced it.
And when you're young and everyone says you think you know everything and then you're like, man, what do you know?
And then you look back now and you're like, how is it that 18 to 34 year olds on average don't read the news but think they're so smart?
To be fair, to myself, I did read the news.
And, you know, my life has been beset on all sides by people who don't read the news.
Granted, I was wrong about a lot of things.
Still am.
Probably always will be.
But you'd think these young people would probably just read the news.
Read it!
Nope.
They don't care.
You know, maybe... There's that saying.
If you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you're not conservative when you're older, you have no head.
I wonder if it's actually just that younger people are driven by social interaction and older people are less so.
You know, I was thinking about this.
When you get older, you don't have as many friends.
When you're younger, there's just people everywhere, and you're calling up, you got your phone list, and there's so many people, and you're like, let's see, this person's doing this, you're always partying, and there's everybody you know.
When you're older, you hang out with your family and like one or two friends.
And I think it's because when you get older, you assume responsibilities, you start learning a bit more, and you focus on family and what's important.
Because of that, you're looking at the bigger picture.
You're more likely to look at the news and watch news when you're younger.
You're more concerned about what, you know, Janet said at lunch during, you know, fifth period or something like that.
So it's no surprise that younger people support Black Lives Matter because they don't read the news.
That's why it's so powerful when someone like Kanye West comes out and says, nah, because young people are looking for social cues.
But let's take a look at this.
We went through the age.
All right.
How about men?
Men, minus four net support.
Among males, support for Black Lives Matter is lower than general, than the general pool.
That means females, look at that, 33%.
It's absolutely amazing, the disparity between men and women on this issue.
Women support Black Lives Matter substantially more than men.
And this one's obvious.
Among the Democrats, look at that, 85% net support.
No surprise there, Democrats don't read the news.
Republicans, uh-oh.
Minus 74 net support.
Here's where it matters most.
Among independents, 17 net support.
Now, I think that's still generally bad, but you can look at the drop-off.
From a couple years ago, 58%, 59%, down to 17.
58 percent, 59 percent down to 17.
I made a mistake.
I had female in there.
Let's restart.
I made a mistake.
Among Democrats, it's 80% net support, not 85.
Among Republicans, it's minus 78.
And among independents, it's actually minus 2.
But I'm saying the same thing.
This is the important thing.
Among independent voters, they have turned on Black Lives Matter.
They aren't taking it anymore.
So I was wrong just a moment ago.
I thought they were actually... Oh man, I got it wrong again.
It's even worse than I realized.
I had 18 to 34 year olds in there.
That's big actually.
18 to 34.
It's minus 12 support amongst independents.
What am I talking about?
Minus 83 among Republicans and support among Democrats only 77.
I was wrong twice.
You see it happens.
I forgot to remove the other filters from the polling.
Look at this.
Minus 12% support among independent voters.
Oh, it's way worse than I realized.
Look at the trend line.
46% of independents oppose Black Lives Matter.
34% support, 19% just don't care.
I'm willing to bet that if you remove everything and look just among white people, it's going to be major opposition.
That's crazy!
Look at this when the riots happened.
It just spiked.
I'm sorry, man.
This just is worrying in terms of racial conflict in this country.
Among black or African voters, 78% support.
Even they're dropping down.
That's kind of crazy.
Hispanic and Latino, what are they saying?
They're saying 52% support.
And other.
I love how other.
Great, thanks.
Asians get lumped into other.
How much you wanna bet non-college graduates?
Same thing.
Major drop in support.
Oh, okay.
Among the non-college graduates, minus 3%.
College graduates probably gonna go, oh, whoa!
Yo!
Kanye West was right, let me just say.
Among college graduates, it's minus two?
Wow, Black Lives Matter really is over.
Post-graduates, 8%.
Yeah, because they're in the cult.
Here we go, everybody.
Ye began trending online when he wore a long-sleeved shirt with White Lives Matter written on it during his Yeezy Season 9 show.
Kanye West dubbed Yeezy Season 9 collection blah blah blah.
He's wearing the phrase, people were mad about it, Candace Owens wore it.
In response to his shirt, Twitter users began to flood the platform with disapproval.
Jaden says, Black Lives Matter, true leader's lead.
Boozy Badass says, after all we've been through as a race, you put this disrespectful ish on.
You give no f's about how blacks have died and suffered at the hands of the white man.
Bob Marley's granddaughter and daughter of Lauryn Hill, Sella Marley, is among those who modeled Kanye West's new White Lives Matter design in Paris.
How about this?
You lost!
You lost!
You are losing the culture war.
It is right there for you to see.
Crazy.
A bunch of black models, celebrities, activists wearing a White Lives Matter shirt.
Making a statement.
Sella said, He's been through a lot of persecution in the media and by people, but it doesn't stop him from being who he is.
Amazing.
She first worked with West in 2017 during New York Fashion Week.
Sella fawned over West in an interview with Vogue over what it was like to work with the rapper.
She said, He's so passionate about everything.
And he has you looking forward to his next move, as he always thinks outside the box.
The former NYU student described the experience as exciting and inspiring.
West and Lauryn Hill have crossed paths in the past.
The rapper repurposed Hill's Mystery of Inequity on one of his breakout hits, 2004 All Falls Down, yada yada yada.
Take a look at this.
Candace Owens posted it, too.
She's got the black letters on the white shirt, White Lives Matter.
It's an interesting point.
I feel like, I don't know if there's a bigger, what the bigger message is.
But you typically see, there are these viral photos of white people wearing Black Lives Matter shirts.
There was one where a black dude was wearing a Trump shirt, and a white guy was wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt, and they were at odds with each other.
And it's just funny to see.
And I feel like this is kind of the point.
You see all these white people wearing Black Lives Matter shirts, and then when you see black people wearing white Lives Matter shirts, they get mad about it.
The woke left gets mad and starts insulting these people.
Not to mention there are many BLM supporters who are insulting them.
WLM, sure.
Palling around with Candace Owens.
Shocker! Kanye West made a statement at his Surprise Yeezy fashion show on Monday wearing a black sweatshirt with the
slogan White Lives Matter written across it's scene Monday. Yo,
that's crazy.
He said, I am yee.
And everyone here knows that I am the leader.
Wes said at the event, you can't manage me.
It is not the first- This is, you know, this is funny.
This is punk rock.
It absolutely is.
It was, uh, I think, who was it?
It was, uh, Sid Vicious.
He wore swastikas.
Because the point was to shock people.
And to tell them basically to screw off.
And that was punk rock.
It was meant to offend your sensibilities.
Now?
Punk rock?
Yeah, right.
Punk rock is corporate mainstream garbage.
You take a look at these famous punk rock bands, and they're going up on stage and saying garbled psychopathic cult nonsense.
There was a show recently where one band, they were like, these Republicans just want tax cuts!
Don't vote for them!
And I'm just sitting here like, that's really funny because Democrats overwhelmingly represent the wealthy.
It's like poll after poll shows this.
In 2016, six years ago, the Democratic Party overtook Republicans as the party of the wealthy.
But I think it's funny that these people are so dumb.
They don't read the news.
They don't look at any data.
I saw a meme.
I got some advice for you.
I don't know if it's true or not, but it was a good point.
They said, somebody was like, it was a tweet, they said, I told my, you know, sister, I think it was sister or something, to stop watching the news for 14 days and just read boring stuff like legislation.
And that's the challenge.
And they said, okay.
Two weeks later, they were red-pilled and they were like, I can't believe it.
Biden's insane.
Here's what you do.
Tell your friends, when they're woke, when they're leftist, say, you know what?
You're probably right.
So I got a challenge for you.
You and I will both not read any news for two weeks.
All we will do is look at the legislation.
That's it.
We'll look directly at the bills.
Not CNN, not MSNBC, and not Fox News.
See what happens.
Invariably, these people are going to be like, I had no idea.
Because I have a story for you.
If you've listened to Tim Castile, you've probably heard me say it, but I have a friend who was telling me, we were talking politics, my friend is like default liberal.
They don't pay attention to politics all that much, but they watch the news.
So they were saying stuff like, it's crazy that they're trying to ban abortion.
And I said, I was like, well, look, certainly Republicans, pro-lifers do want to ban it, but the Supreme Court thing is about having the states determine it.
So yeah, Republican states are trying to ban it.
And then I was like, but the problem is the Democrats, I can't vote for them because they want abortion up to the point of birth.
Like nine month abortions.
And my friend goes, what?
That's not true.
And I was like, dude, and I grabbed my phone, I pulled up the bill, not a news story, I said, here's the bill, dot gov, read it.
It said, read that section right there.
And it said, abortion, post-viability abortion to the point of birth, in the instance of a threat to the health of the mother.
And they looked at it confused, and were like, yeah, but it says for the health of the mother.
And I was like, yeah, and it also says post-viability.
And they're like, what does that mean?
Viability means the baby can survive on its own, right?
Yeah, okay, so why kill it?
What?
Why abort terminate the life of the baby if it can survive on its own?
And they were like, I don't know, this seems strange to me.
And I'm like, this is the bill they are trying to pass.
Read it.
And they were confused.
This can't be true.
I gotta look into this.
This doesn't seem right.
It doesn't seem right.
That's the amazing thing.
I said, dude, who do you think is more correct?
The bill that you just read, literally what they're trying to make law, or CNN analysts?
It's like, well, it's probably not the CNN analysts.
Why would you believe some random guy when you literally just read what they are doing?
That's the point.
These people, they don't know what they're talking about.
Because all of their information is filtered through the lie machine, through CNN, through MSNBC, through these fake articles, and they believe it!
So here's what you do.
You say, guys, for two weeks, it's going to be good for your mental health, it's going to be good for your work, and it'll prove you right.
Don't watch the news, and only look at the legislation.
Or ignore the legislation as well.
Just don't look at the news.
And then see how you feel.
Because I'll tell you this.
These people, once they start reading the actual bills, they're going to be like, I don't understand why Democrats are doing this.
Why are they banning fossil fuels?
Because you need the cult leaders to keep people in the cult.
That's a scary thing.
That being said, there is something else funny I saw, it's a meme, where it's like, I see these Libertarians post this stuff, it's a Trump supporter and a leftist and they're both like crying, angry, wojak faces looking at each other, and then it's like, You know, Trump supporters are fascists and take over the country, and the other one is like, Antifa are violent extremists, there's gonna be a civil war.
And then it was like, me, who doesn't watch the news, and it's like the Chad guy, and he's like looking at the sunset.
He's like, ah, life is good.
And then next to it was a news story saying Putin mobilizes nuclear armaments or whatever.
That's the funny thing right there.
There are people who genuinely think that, I know that nothing bad is happening in the world because I went outside and nothing was happening.
It's like, oh okay dude, yeah, I'm not surprised.
The people who don't know that Putin is mobilizing nuclear, his nuclear deployment units or whatever, thinking everything's fine.
Ignorance is bliss.
There's people who have said, like, there's not going to be a civil war because I went outside.
Yeah, okay, dude.
I went outside, and I saw creepy flags.
And I asked people, do you actually support the creepy flag?
And they say, no, I'm just scared of the creepy extremists and terrorists.
And I was in Oakland at a bar.
They had a poster in the window that said like Trump was a pig or whatever.
And I was like, do you guys actually hate Donald Trump or what?
And the bartender was like, no, we don't care.
And then I was like, then why did you put that in the window?
And they're like, if we don't, then they'll attack us.
I was like, yeah.
The bartender told me that she left the bar and she got jumped by a bunch of leftists.
And I was just like, wow.
They attack people.
That's what they do.
They go around.
Maybe leftist is the right word.
Many of these people will feign leftism, but they're actually just agents of chaos, I guess.
But when people are being forced to put ideological signs in their windows, yo, you got something really dark and creepy going on.
But here's where we're at right now, my friends.
Here's where we're at.
Black Lives Matter is done.
That's it.
On average, their support is in the gutter.
Independent voters say no.
Among Democrats, it's only 77% support.
But if you combine Republicans and Independents, you can see it ain't moving the needle anymore.
That says a lot.
I think the wokeness is just people are done with it.
That's why there was that movie Bros.
You know, Billy Eichner.
It's like a romantic comedy about gay men.
It bombed.
Nobody saw it.
And then he actually was at some event and he was like, you have to go see it to prove that people want these movies!
And then nobody saw it.
I guess proving people don't want these movies.
And I'm gonna shed it out.
We put out a song, Only Ever Wanted, check it out on Spotify and YouTube, and they said it was bad, and they mocked us, and the leftist media roasted us, calling it butt rock and MAGA garbage.
And we hit the Billboard charts across the board.
It was so good that even a different song of ours was trending.
They say, the only reason they're watching it is politics.
The song's bad.
Okay.
Well, if politics was a major driving force, then why didn't anybody go see that movie?
The reality is, we're winning the culture war.
You can see it here, it's exemplified in the polling for Black Lives Matter, in statements made by Kanye West, and people coming out with White Lives Matter shirts.
I don't much care for the messaging of either, you know, White or Black Lives Matter or whatever.
But I see what Kanye West is doing.
He's poking the bear, he's pushing back, he's being punk rock.
Good for him.
And for everybody else, it's a wake-up call to these corporations.
But you know what?
I'm totally fine with these corporations bailing.
You know?
I'm totally fine with all these corporations just conceding and surrendering the culture war.
Go make your woke garbage nobody wants to watch.
And we'll make songs that hit the billboard charts.
And then in ten years, when you guys are on the outs and we are the establishment, then maybe you'll look back and say, maybe it was a bad idea to do that.
