RCP Projection Shows BLOWOUT LOSSES For Democrats In Midterms, Fetterman Oz Debate BACKFIRING
RCP Projection Shows BLOWOUT LOSSES For Democrats In Midterms, Fetterman Oz Debate BACKFIRING. Democrats and Republicans are already accusing each other of cheating.
If neither side will accept the results due to distrust of each other or the system then the only result will be civil war. Already the RNC files 73 lawsuits in 20 states and democrats and liberal press are claiming Trump is cheating to steal not just the midterms but also the 2024 election.
Despite the revolt from voters Democrats are unwilling to course correct and are continuing to entertain unhinged leftist values that are pushing the gop to victory.
#democrats
#republicans
#biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The projections from RealClearPolitics show Republicans are going to win 53 seats in the Senate.
This is an apocalyptic defeat for Democrats, but both sides are claiming the other side is cheating.
Hillary Clinton said it.
Corporate press is saying it.
They're saying Republicans are already cheating.
Meanwhile, Republicans are pointing out that there's going to be election delays due to mail-in voting.
Both sides do not trust the process.
And that makes me feel like we're heading towards Civil War.
I know, I was at it before.
In our next segment, let's break down the Fetterman debate.
The prediction markets show Fetterman tanking after that apocalyptic performance.
It was really bad.
And in our last story, Elon Musk says he will buy Twitter this Friday.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Last night, many of you witnessed the debate between Fetterman and Oz in Pennsylvania.
And it was really, really bad.
It was brutal to watch.
It was sad.
And now the clips are going viral.
The prediction markets show that Pennsylvania is likely going to swing Republican.
And assuming that's true, It's looking really, really bad for Democrats.
In the latest RealClearPolitics projection, Republicans are expected to win 53 Senate seats, and 47s will lose, dropping down to 47.
Projections also show Republicans are likely going to take the House in massive numbers.
But here's the bigger problem.
Despite the fact there are many reasons why the Republicans are winning, the narrative is already emerging.
Democrats are saying outright, and their allies in the media, that Donald Trump is planning to steal the midterm elections.
And that he's also planning on stealing the 2024 elections.
At the same time, we've got reports of a truck carrying mail-in ballots bursting into flames, armed men standing outside of ballot drop boxes watching them.
Many on the right are pointing to reports that in Pennsylvania, they're expecting a delay in the reporting of the results as evidence of fortification, as it was.
To put it simply, Both Democrats and Republicans are saying right now that if they lose, it will be because the other side cheated.
Now, Democrats are taking it one step further, saying outright that Republicans are already planning on stealing and cheating in 2024.
But hey, welcome to the modern state of politics.
It seems that no matter which way you cut it, we are headed towards a complete collapse of confidence in our elections and institutions.
So much so, That I believe we're looking at, what is it, 70 or some odd lawsuits in 20 different states filed by the RNC already.
Now to Republicans, this is evidence that they're actually doing something about these procedure problems.
The Democrats are saying this is cheating outright.
Pick your poison.
What's it gonna be?
I think the Democrats are dangerous.
I think they're insane.
I think they have twisted this nation.
I am no fan of them.
The Republicans, I think, for the most part, consist of half neocons and a decent amount of libertarian-ish and conservative American-first type politicians.
The MAGA Republicans are effectively their own party.
But none of that really matters.
I mean, obviously, you know, I'm very much in support of many of the Republicans.
Not all of them, but my opposition to the Democrat insanity leads me likely to support basically any Republican at this point.
I've got the reasons to criticize them.
But the end result of all of this?
I mean, you look at the Fetterman debate.
There are people who hate Republicans so much, they would vote for a man who clearly could not communicate last night on the debate stage.
It's being reported that Fetterman raised a million bucks following the debate.
So here's what I see.
Regardless of your position, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, let this be a warning, I suppose, for the people standing in the middle.
It feels like the only outcome to this is civil war.
I don't mean necessarily like the old Civil War of 1861, but there's a lot of new articles popping up from the left talking about what to expect.
And I'd like to critique them and point out the things they don't understand.
But many people think it can't happen.
And the reason is they're like, why would a state turn on state?
You know, the country is very different.
People don't understand how jurisdiction influences things.
And they don't understand that, yeah, obviously many people have no appetite for civil war.
Some on the left and the right actually do.
But, as most people don't, it's never, it's never that everyone's like, hey, we want war.
War is thrust upon.
Not agreed upon, for the most part.
I mean, often there are, there's declaration of war and things like that.
But typically, even when Congress does vote, for instance, for war, it's usually because we claim we are forced into it.
Pearl Harbor.
9-11.
The Gulf of Tonkin.
I'll be it with that one.
False flag.
We wanted to enter, but we needed public support.
The point is, say all you want that we will not see Civil War because you don't see it in the cards or you don't see how it's possible, but one day, be it an accident, something happens, and then you end up with Civil War.
So I want to highlight that in this segment.
Why is it that four states—I believe it was Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia—they did not secede from the Union in 1860?
It was only after Abraham Lincoln said he was going to be calling upon 75,000 men to suppress the rebellion that four states actually sided against the Union.
It was tyranny.
There was fear.
So let's talk about how something could spiral out of control with both sides basically saying, the other side is cheating.
Where do we go?
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member in order to support our work directly.
As a member, you get access to the uncensored TimCast IRL Monday through Friday members-only show.
You'll be supporting our journalists who are writing all day about everything that's been going on.
Plus, we had Ilad on the ground.
Talking to HOKL supporters in New York.
If you want to support our field reporting as well, we rely on you as members.
But you'll also get access to the Cask Castle Vlog, Tales from the Inverted World, and many other shows.
So don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's get started with the news on political projections.
Real clear politics.
We can see it right here.
They're saying Nevada, Georgia, Arizona will go Republican.
That, to me, is surprising.
Because right now, 538 has Arizona going to Kelly, with Masters being down.
In Georgia, many people expected Walker to lose.
But now, real clear politics is just saying their projection is 53 seats Republican.
That's massive, by the way.
And I'll show you.
I'll just jump right here.
Take a look at this.
538.
Now, I've been covering their latest prediction models on what's going to happen in the midterms.
The other day it was 45 scenarios had Republicans winning.
Now it's 46.
Republicans win in 82 of 100 scenarios for the House.
Here's what's really fascinating.
As RealClearPolitics says, they predict or projecting 53 seats for the Republicans.
Despite the fact that Republicans only win in 46 simulations from 538, you can see that 53 seats is the bulk of what they expect to happen.
Now, there's a decent amount of projections that have landed in 51 seats for the Republicans, 52 for the Republicans, but 53 is a huge cluster.
For some reason, the model being used by FiveThirtyEight says 53 seems like the most likely number.
That's important.
Because they're saying 46 and 100, which makes it seem like it's not a great chance for Republicans to win.
But actually, there is a strong correlation with their projection models and a 53-seat victory.
Let's jump over to the battle for the House.
Now, the RealClearPolitics website does not have a projection for the House.
At least, I don't see it up here.
But so far, what they're saying, based on the current polling, 225 Republican seats, only 175 Democrat seats guaranteed, which means we have 35 seats in toss-up territory.
If the polls heavily skew in favor of Democrats, you know what that means?
It means not only will all of these 35 toss-ups go Republican, But many of the safe blue may as well, and many of the likely blue may as well.
That means Democrats could theoretically have less than 175 seats.
That's what they think they're going to get.
We already saw with Florida and with Texas, Republicans won in traditionally blue districts.
So, apocalyptically bad.
As we turn to the governor races, the projection is that there will be five pickups.
For the Republicans and two for the Democrats.
Republicans will have 31 states.
31 states will be under Republican governors and 19 under Democrat governors.
If the people of this country, in their states, go out and vote for the state representatives, considering the major polling swing, if people vote for state reps and state senators and it goes Republicans, we very well may see a convention of states.
Is it possible?
Not guaranteed.
But we're only a few states away from getting the required two-thirds of states to hold a convention of states to amend the Constitution.
It doesn't mean the amendment will be guaranteed.
It means a constitutional convention may occur.
And this is where we are.
It looks like Republicans are going to blow out the Democrats with a massive and crushing defeat.
Political polls.
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.
Quote, my opponent thinks that right now there's a polio emergency going on but there's not a crime emergency.
Different priorities that I'm hearing from people right now that are not being represented.
Halfway through the debate, she still hasn't talked about locking anyone up, anyone committing any crimes.
I don't know why that's so important to you.
All I know is that we can do more.
questioning his insistence on the topic.
Anyone who commits a crime under our laws, especially with the change we made to bail,
has consequences.
I don't know why that's so important to you.
All I know is that we can do more.
That is shocking.
New York gubernatorial race has shifted from a likely Democratic rating as recently as
the beginning of this month to a toss-up per RealClearPolitics.
Well, right now, the projection from RCP is that Hochul will win New York.
But this is shocking.
I just watched a video of a man get shoved onto the train tracks in New York City.
There's a reason why I left.
Because two police officers were executed on my street.
And then when I decided I'll go to the Jersey side of things, someone planted two bombs.
Or I should say, two bombs were planted.
It may have been different parties.
So that was, this was years ago.
I said, I am not sticking around for this.
I moved down to the Southern New York Metro further and further away and then eventually to Southern Jersey because the crime was, was getting bad.
I'm sitting in my apartment when a helicopter flies within some... I don't know how low it was.
It was ridiculously low.
So loud, I get up and I look out my window.
And there I see police everywhere.
On my street.
The whole thing was locked down.
I look out my window and to the right and what do I see?
Crime scene.
People gathering.
Two police officers had been executed in front of my house.
I walked out my front door.
Police told me I couldn't leave to get back inside.
I waited for those cops to walk away and then I went outside.
You're not locking me in my house under false pretenses.
And I began to film what was happening.
In front of my house, the next day, I remember seeing my apartment.
Police tape, just blowing in the wind, ripped.
And I ripped a piece off, and I saved it.
And I thought to myself, I shouldn't be here.
It's getting crazy.
It's getting crazy.
Now, if I had stayed, I'd certainly be voting for Zeldin.
So we'll see.
But the people of New York who are remaining there because they have to or because they want to, I don't think they're going to be supporting HOKL over this.
If it's a toss-up, it may go to Zeldin, which would be very, very interesting.
But, my friends, let's go through all of the reasons.
Shocking video shows the moment an SUV's windows are blown out.
Before a brazen gunfight breaks out in broad daylight in New York City.
I don't blame the guns for this.
I blame the crime.
These people don't think they're gonna get held accountable.
How about this one?
New York Governor Kathy Hochul says she would do it all again when asked about firing unvaccinated healthcare workers after New York Supreme Court struck down mandate and said axed staff should get jobs back with back pay.
These people are insane!
The Supreme Court said what was done was illegal, reinstated these people, And ordered back pay.
Joy Behar claims Dr. Oz is violating the Hippocratic Oath by going after Federman.
Aren't you supposed to do no harm?
You people, Democrats, want a mentally disabled man to be in office.
Now they already did it with Joe Biden, fine, but Fetterman's substantially worse.
So they blame Dr. Oz for debating him?
Okay.
Here we go.
Mail-in ballots expected to delay Pennsylvania election results.
So we'll see.
From The Observer Reporter.
Voters in Pennsylvania shouldn't hold their breath waiting for the results of close races on election night two weeks from today.
It will likely take several days for the full unofficial vote totals to be released for statewide elections in many legislative races as county officials across Pennsylvania count the Voluminous?
I'm sorry, I can't pronounce it.
Number of mail-in ballots that are now pouring into elections.
It's going to take a few days, Acting Secretary of Commonwealth Lee Chapman said.
That doesn't mean anything bad is happening.
It just means that the election process is playing out and every vote is being counted.
Wink wink.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Whatever.
Tell you this.
Ain't no Republican is going to accept that answer.
The Constitution outright says there will be an election day, not an election month.
End of story.
End of story!
This is purely a constitutional violation.
If you want it to change, you must change the Constitution.
Amend it.
But to say that unilaterally you have decided that election day will actually be election month Defies the laws of this country.
But of course, the Democrats don't like this country.
They say the country was founded on evil principles, and they would see it burn.
Here we go.
Pennsylvania Secretary of State reminds voters possible delays in election results are typical.
Okay, you know what that means?
You'll probably see the results come in saying that Dr. Oz won, and then a few days later they'll say actually it was Fetterman.
No Republican will accept that.
I expect that we will likely see in all of these states, and we are already seeing it, ballot watchers.
Now I'm surprised we're only hearing it in Arizona.
I'm surprised we're not hearing more about people going out in Pennsylvania and monitoring ballot drop boxes in polling locations because of this, but maybe they don't have the drop boxes.
Maybe they're doing mail-in voting, which it's a lot harder to monitor, isn't it?
From The Blaze, RNC vows to play offense with most litigious election cycle yet.
Launches 73 lawsuits in 20 states.
So where do you think we're going?
Do you think these lawsuits are going to pan out in favor of the Republicans?
We are going to see partisan judges make their play.
Republican judges will likely lean Republican.
Democrats will likely lean Democrat.
And policy, procedure, law, none of it's relevant.
All that matters now?
Power.
While the Republicans are filing lawsuits, they say on procedural grounds.
Vanity Fair says Trump is actively plotting to steal the midterm elections.
Per Rolling Stone, Trump has convened lawyers and advisors to scheme how to challenge the results in November if they don't go his way.
Yes, despite the fact that his attempt to steal the 2020 election is reportedly under criminal investigation by the DOJ.
Here's what they say.
If you were actively under investigation for attempted murder, a thing you'd probably want to avoid in the meantime would be going out and trying to murder someone else, most people understand, without needing it to be explained to them why this would be a bad idea.
And then there's Donald Trump.
He hasn't been implicated in any murders, Nor is he currently trying to kill anyone that we know of.
They say ha ha ha.
He is, however, said to be actively plotting to steal the midterm elections and the presidential one after that, which seems pretty wild given that he's reportedly under criminal investigation.
I'm sorry, man.
You come to me and say, you don't think there will be a civil war.
And I say, the remedy for procedural dispute is a lawsuit.
And right now, corporate press, Democrats are saying, Hillary Clinton outright saying, that the procedure of the judicial branch, the solution to our disputes, is trying to steal the election.
If Donald Trump convenes a group of lawyers to file lawsuits, that is not an attempt to steal the election.
That is using the rules of the country under the Constitution to challenge things and potentially win an election.
That's it.
But you see where we're going with this?
That's how they're framing it.
They're saying it is stealing to actually file a lawsuit.
That's insane.
Lawsuits are just.
Lawsuits are justice.
Lawsuits are the pursuit of justice.
If you can't even file a lawsuit to challenge procedure without being accused of stealing, well, where do you go?
Where do you go?
From Salon, the South lost the Civil War but won the PR war.
Propaganda and psychological warfare helped perpetuate false narratives about the Confederacy that still persist.
This is an article of Paradox, but exemplifies very well what is currently going on, published only a few days ago.
I want you to take a look at that subheader.
Propaganda and psychological warfare help perpetuate false narratives about the Confederacy.
Okay.
False narratives.
I would like to break down for you the game that is being played with all of us.
I do fear civil war.
I do think people need desperately to start researching the civil war.
Because right now what I hear from most people is we can't have one, like Bill Maher said, because the Mason-Dixon line would go through Nana's kitchen.
The Mason-Dixon line was not the principal cause or function or a matter in secession.
Because a bunch of these states south of the Mason-Dixon line did not secede, at least not right away.
Let's talk about the paradox of the article.
They start by saying, the violence broke out after the losing side in a presidential election refused to accept defeat.
No, we're not talking about the January 6th Capitol riots, but the American Civil War.
On a basic level, the Civil War was little more or less than 11 states violently seceding from the Union after the 1816 election because they opposed the victorious candidate, Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln.
Correctly or otherwise, they feared that Lincoln was an abolitionist and opponent of white supremacy, both ideals that they held to be central to their southern identity.
Despite Lincoln's repeated reassurances that he only wished to limit the expansion of slavery and would otherwise leave it untouched, the newly formed Confederate States of America waged bloody war to form their own country so they could keep slavery intact.
False.
Now let's break that down.
This one's important.
Some of that's true.
Slavery was a large component in the Southern secession.
But this is seven states.
What did they say?
Eleven.
They said it was eleven states violently seceding from the Union because they opposed Abraham Lincoln.
I'll start with this from the Library of Congress.
If you want to consider me to be incorrect, good leftists, I will show you just the Library of Congress in the timeline of the Civil War.
The South secedes.
It was, in fact, seven states.
It started with South Carolina.
They perceived a threat from Abraham Lincoln.
They called a state convention.
The delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the USA.
It was followed by the secession of six more states.
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
That's it.
The South created a government in Montgomery, Alabama.
The seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution.
Whoa!
Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Nelly.
That's only seven states!
Seven states perceived a threat from the incoming Abraham Lincoln Republican administration.
Not eleven.
So why did these other four states join in?
Well, it's actually right here.
The South seizes federal forts.
In South Carolina, they repulsed a supply ship that was trying to reach, I believe it was at Fort Sumter.
Lincoln's inauguration happens after that.
At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4th, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states, where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession.
The attack on Fort Sumter April 1861.
When Lincoln planned to send supplies to Sumter, he alerted the state in advance.
However, South Carolina feared it was a trick.
Resupplying the fort meant that they would not leave.
The commander, Robert Anderson, was asked to surrender, and he offered to, but only after he exhausted supplies.
The South was concerned the supplies would reach him, he'd resupply, and that he'd not surrender, so they said no.
The Civil War began, April 12th, 1861.
Shots were fired on the fort.
The fort was eventually evacuated.
Not a single person lost their life in the conflict.
However, afterwards, in I believe it was a salute, they were firing a cannon.
Someone got injured.
However, following the attack on Fort Sumter, they say four more states joined the Confederacy.
The attack on Fort Sumter prompted four more states to join the Confederacy.
With Virginia's secession, Richmond was named the Confederate capital.
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 June 1861, West Virginia is born.
Residents of the western counties of Virginia did not wish to secede along with the rest of the state.
right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Residents of the western counties of Virginia did not wish to secede along with the rest of the state.
The section of Virginia was admitted into the Union as the state of West Virginia on June 20th, 1863.
June of 1861, four slave states remained in the Union.
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not join.
Although divided in their loyalties, a combination of political maneuvering and Union military pressure kept these states from seceding.
Which brings us to the first battle of Bull Run.
So now let us address the lies that we see here in the Library of Congress, as well as from the left.
Eleven states didn't fear Abraham Lincoln was going to abolish slavery.
Seven did.
And they sought to enshrine slavery in their constitution, among other things, but very much mainly slavery.
Several slave states said no.
It was not the attack on Fort Sumter that resulted in these states seceding from the Union.
Don't believe me?
Arkansas secedes from the Union May 6, 1861.
They say, this is from Politico in 2017.
On this day in 1861, Arkansas lawmakers voted 65 to 5 to become the 9th of 11 Southern states to join the Confederate States of America.
Unlike South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas waited until after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, South Carolina in Charleston Harbor on April 12th, and President Abraham Lincoln's subsequent call for troops on April 15th to act.
You see, the real issue here for the people of Arkansas, or at least the principal straw on the camel's back, was not slavery.
It was not the fear of Abraham Lincoln.
It was Abraham Lincoln calling upon 75,000 troops to suppress the Southern secession.
This freaked out many states.
They felt that Abraham Lincoln was overreaching.
Don't believe me?
Let's take it to the University of Nebraska.
They say, The delegates—not a single Virginian delegate—criticized slavery.
Indeed, many of the Western delegates were slaveholders, and those that did not spoke in support of the institution.
They say this.
Eventually, they got their wish.
As President Abraham Lincoln called for troops from Virginia and the other states after the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln clearly intended to suppress secession in the South, and Virginia's delegates voted the next day, 85-55, to secede with the South and join the Confederacy, which you'll find in many of these states.
was that it was divided. In the four slave states that joined the Union, it was divided but leaned
Union. In the four states that joined the Confederacy, it was divided but leaned Confederacy.
The principal catalyst was Abraham Lincoln calling upon troops to suppress the Southern
secession. That was true for Arkansas and Virginia and surprise, surprise. North Carolina in the
the Civil War.
North Carolina joined the Confederacy on May NOT 1860.
It was the second-to-last state to leave the Union.
While seven states in the Deep South seceded as a direct result of Abraham's election, North Carolina joined three other states.
It was after Confederate forces fired on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter.
They say the state's position changed dramatically after this, when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteer soldiers to crush the rebellion of the southern states that had seceded.
Several states did not want to join the war.
They had Union sentiment.
They did not want to leave the benefits of the Union in the defense.
But when Abraham Lincoln said, we're calling upon soldiers to go into the South and suppress this, they said, this is too much.
How about Tennessee?
Tennessee, I believe, was the last.
Yes.
It was a divided state, with the eastern counties harboring pro-Union sentiment throughout the conflict, and it was the last state to officially secede from the Union, in protest of President Lincoln's April 15th proclamation calling for 75,000 members of state militias to suppress the rebellion.
Explicitly described.
The Civil War was principally the core issue, slavery.
But why did many people fight?
Most people did not fight for slavery at all.
I'm talking about the North or the South.
For the southern governments in the initial seven states, they feared Abraham Lincoln was gonna end slavery and that would have a big problem for their economy.
But this was mostly the wealthy political elites.
They weren't the ones doing the fighting, for the most part.
It was regular people called to fight.
Why?
Because the North... Abraham Lincoln called on 75,000 troops to go and shut down their independent governments.
So people said no.
And I've heard from many people.
Some people said that when the Union, many people weren't fighting, but when the Union then, you know, came into the South, all of a sudden it bolstered the fighting.
Here's the reason I bring all of this up.
For one, to point out the games they play.
How they put out fake news and claimed they're fighting fake news.
They say, the PR myths that persist to perpetuate false narratives.
See, the Mason-Dixon line, that was like, you know, separating slave-holding states.
Maryland was a slave state.
Delaware was a slave state.
They joined the Union.
That wasn't really the core issue for the most part.
Bill Maher seems to think that's a necessity.
Well, let's do this.
You take a look at these states right now, Senators.
Let's take a look at the Governors.
Oregon is projected to go Republican.
That's crazy.
Here's what I think is possible.
Many people look at a state like Oregon and say, oh, see, look, they're going Republican, right?
Just like with many of these eventually Confederate states.
There may be an election.
Many people may see what happens, and these states may harbor right-wing sentiments.
By 2024, the Republicans may control the federal government in every branch.
You will have a small number of blue states saying no.
And you'll have a state like Oregon, which is pushing Republican, have sentiments in favor of not seceding or issuing declarations.
But then something will happen.
Sentiments will change.
Donald Trump may become president.
He may invoke the Insurrection Act.
You may then see something like Lincoln.
If Trump gets elected in 2024, come 2025, California and many other pro-abortion states or whatever, that's their moral issue.
Child sex changes or something.
Trump then calls on the, invokes the Insurrection Act to go and suppress rebellion.
Then you see moderate states that are shifting right, all of a sudden the sentiment in the state says, no way, we're done with this, Trump's a fascist.
And that's it.
I don't know exactly how things will play out, but this idea that it's a deep moral issue that causes civil war is not correct.
It was the principal driver.
Abortion could be this time.
But then are people going to say the cause of the Second Civil War was abortion?
Or are they going to say that tribal divisions had exploded over a ton of issues, not just about abortion?
That's the reality of the Civil War in the United States.
There was a principal moral issue in economics.
And right now, there are larger issues, some bigger than others, but it really just comes down to the fact that two tribes have started to exist.
They can't coexist.
So a clash will occur.
I suppose we'll wait and see.
Right now it looks like the Republicans are going to win in November, in only a couple of weeks.
The Democrats won't respond very well.
It will be insane what we see over the next couple of years.
But what happens when the Republicans have Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch?
You think the left will just simmer down?
I think that's grounds for them to go even more crazy!
So we'll see.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The aftermath of last night's debacle is here.
And it's bad, man.
I don't know.
If you guys didn't watch the Fetterman debate with Dr. Oz, this is the Senate race in Pennsylvania, then I'll call you lucky.
I'll call you lucky.
A lot of people were mocking and gloating and laughing at John Fetterman as he failed to make words, as he failed to speak and said utter nonsense, like when asked about fracking, he says, I support fracking and I don't.
I don't know what that means.
But of course, you've already got journalists coming out translating for him.
You've got many liberals saying, don't be ableist.
But there's two big stories.
John Fetterman has tanked in the prediction market.
After debate with Dr. Oz, clips of mental damage go viral.
This was brutal.
I genuinely felt sad for this man.
It's amazing.
There's a tweet.
Where someone says, isn't it funny that the only people that are claiming to feel bad about Fetterman's health are his ideological opponents?
And I can't remember who tweeted it, but they said, that actually reflects more poorly on you, his supporters, than us, his detractors.
Fetterman prediction market.
Dr. Laws now has a 66 cents.
He's sitting at that on predicted.
Let me slow down for a second.
I'm going to show you a bunch of these clips of Federman.
And it doesn't make me happy.
I mean, this guy should not have been debating.
He had a stroke in May.
He clearly can't understand words.
He is blaming the captioning service.
He is blaming the device that was attempting to make him able to communicate that didn't work.
Prediction markets are not polls.
Prediction markets, in my opinion, are probably better than polls.
You're saying tonight that you support fracking, that you've always supported fracking, but there is that 2018 interview that you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all.
It was helping two students 17 years ago to help them buy their own homes.
They for and didn't pay the bills and got our paid.
And it has never been an issue in any of the campaign before.
I gotta be honest.
The Washington Free Beacon transcribing what he said actually makes him sound a lot better than if you actually listen to what he said and understand he's struggling to speak.
But let me just point out.
Never been an issue before?
Are you kidding?
This is from 2016.
Never been an issue before?
Are you kidding?
They actually write.
They say, uh, candidate for U.S.
Senate, this is back in 2016, has unpaid taxes.
Court records show dozens of tax liens filed against Fetterman and an organization he leads.
Dozens!
That's not just one or two people.
This is what we have.
Why haven't you released your medical records?
I'm just going to play the clips for you.
unidentified
You released this note from your doctor saying you can work full duty in public office, but you have not released your detailed medical records surrounding your stroke.
Mr. Fetterman, will you pledge tonight to release those records in the interest of transparency?
So right at 16 on the timestamp, he does not resume speech until 23 on the timestamp.
Now let's get into his excuses for what happened.
So at 23, seven seconds after the question was asked, he began to respond.
Now of course, there is a statement that has been put out by Fetterman's campaign as to what really happened.
And they say, Nexstar, the closed captioning system was rife with errors.
That's exactly what my point was.
Thank you for proving me correct, John Fetterman, that the technology does not exist.
Here's what he's saying.
He's saying that because the captioning was full of error... Let me just read.
This is from NewsNation now.
After Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman had difficulty speaking during his highly anticipated debate with Mehmet Oz, the Stroke Survivors campaign blamed the caption system provided for him as being delayed and filled with errors.
I'm going to pause there and say there are two caption systems.
The one on the left is slightly delayed.
I'm sorry, the one on the right is slightly delayed from the one on the left, it appears.
Following the debate aired nationally by NewsNation, Fetterman's campaign claimed the Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor outcome overcame a slow and incorrect captioning system, saying, That's my point.
Phil thrilled with John's performance.
He did remarkably well tonight, especially when you consider that he's still recovering
from a stroke and was working off of delayed captions filled with errors.
That's my point.
And I was right.
They say John won countless exchanges.
He didn't.
Counter-punched aggressively.
He did.
That's true.
And pushed back on Oz's cruelty and attacks.
No.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Fetterman is now criticizing the closed captioning process employed by Nexstar during tonight's debate.
Nexstar Communications Chief Gary Whiteman said in a statement, Both candidates agreed to the technical setup of the closed captioning process weeks ago, which was implemented at the request of the Fetterman campaign.
Both candidates were offered the opportunity for two full rehearsals with the same equipment used in tonight's debate.
Mr. Fetterman chose to do only one.
In fact, Nextar's production team went to extraordinary lengths to ensure the effectiveness of the closed captioning process and to accommodate several last-minute requests to the Fetterman campaign.
The closed captioning process functioned as expected during rehearsal and again during tonight's debate.
We regret that Mr. Fetterman and his campaign feel otherwise.
So we have the reality, which is Fetterman's campaign is lying about what really happened, or we have the sad lie which disqualifies Fetterman from holding office.
Fetterman's campaign, and Fetterman himself, and his wife, they say, and all of his supporters, Here we go with Liz Plank.
When your side is so bad, you have to rely on ableism to win.
Okay.
Okay, Liz.
Federman says that his campaign says it was full of errors.
So you're saying the technology was incapable of allowing him to have a debate.
Is Oz... I'm sorry.
Is Federman going to be able to debate on the Senate floor?
Is he going to be able to debate other politicians and world leaders?
Is he going to be able to do his job if he can't understand what is being said because of errors?
Someone commented saying, this is like claiming you've lost a marathon because your wheelchair malfunctioned.
The way I put it is, listen.
Some people can't walk.
We have exosuits.
Have you seen them?
They attach them to your legs, and then you can walk very slowly.
Now, your legs aren't really receiving commands from your brain.
There's technology being worked on for that.
The suit just moves your legs for you.
In Fetterman's case, his brain can't comprehend the sounds as they're traveling into his brain, but he can read.
But if the machine cannot do the job, I'm sorry.
If you can't walk, you can't represent us in the Olympics.
The Olympics.
You need... You're running.
You're a sprinter.
We want the best of the best who can run.
We're not going to bring someone out who can't run and needs a special device and then blames the device.
In fact, when it came to that Oscar... What was his name?
You know, he had the leg prosthetics.
Many were concerned that would give him an advantage because there's less muscle fatigue, but others pointed out he would have to rely on his upper muscles more than anyone else, so it actually could be a disadvantage.
The point here is, the technology there exists for someone to be able to run with leg prosthetics.
If the technology does not exist to real-time transcribe to a degree that you can actually have a debate, you cannot do the job!
Listen, if I need someone to lift heavy boxes for me, you can't blame technology that doesn't exist.
And this is what we're seeing.
That's Liz Plank.
Here's one.
Dr. Oz just gave a master class on how to bully people with disabilities.
Seriously?
Amazing statement.
Dean Cain says he's running for the U.S.
Senate, Liz, and she says, Are people with speech impairments not supposed to run for office?
Don't we want everyone to participate in democracy?
Our representatives need to be people who are capable of doing the job.
I mean no disrespect to anybody who suffers a disability, but I'm sorry if you can't walk, you can't be a firefighter.
I'm not trying to be mean to you.
There are certain jobs that require you have the physical abilities to do it.
But of course, this is what the left proposes.
Imagine sending someone to the chess championships, the international grandmaster, whatever it's called.
And it's somebody who doesn't know how to play chess.
Are they going to argue, like, hey, just because they don't know how to play chess doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed.
Everyone should be able to participate.
Yes, I agree.
And they can go and enter the beginners level competition.
But if I want to send someone who is going to represent the United States, it's not going to be someone who can't do the job.
Whether it's because they haven't learned how to do it, or because they're physically incapable.
This is where we are.
Lies, lies, lies.
According to Joe Colvello, Director of Communications for John Fetterman.
So he says, you know, I don't know who this guy is.
He says, Fetterman has raised over $1 million since the debate.
It's shocking.
I mean, it's absolutely terrifying.
Interactive polls.
WPXI.
Who won the PA Senate debate?
82% voted for Mehmet Oz.
That's unsurprising.
The left, the Democrats, they can only fall back and say, ableism.
Ableism.
Is that it?
Fine.
Campaign on that.
But I'll just tell you, man.
What we're seeing now, with John Fetterman raising money off of incoherent, nonsensical statements, and a proven inability to do the job, shows these people hate you.
It's not an emotional statement.
Someone tweeted, this is how much they hate you, they're going to vote for this man.
And it's true.
They hate you.
I am not saying that to make you feel like there's a war going on.
I'm saying, when Democratic voters look at Dr. Oz and hear what he's saying, they hate him so much, they would rather vote for John Fetterman, fully aware of John Fetterman's inability to do the job.
I think Mehmet Oz had some good answers.
I think he had some bad answers.
I actually think Federman got a good one in there, or two.
I really do.
I really do.
But it is insane to me that they will come up with any excuse possible to try and justify the horrifying drop in his support, in his capabilities, in the prediction markets.
I mean, this one's just absolutely remarkable to look at.
This swing overnight.
The predicted markets aren't perfect, but I think they're better than polls.
And I think we're likely going to see a major polling swing show.
Interestingly.
When it comes to the gubernatorial race, governorship, Shapiro is leading in the prediction markets and the polls against Doug Mastriano.
Now, it could be that Mastriano is not a celebrity TV doctor, or it could be the only reason that Fetterman is losing is because everyone knows his brain doesn't work anymore.
I think that's a fair point.
You take a look at what's currently happening in the polls, you take a look at what's happening with Mastriano, and there it is, right in front of our eyes.
Now, it could be the polls are wrong.
You know, we had Doug on the show, I think he's a good dude, I think he's got better policies than Shapiro, and I would be surprised if the state actually went Democrat.
In many polls, 538 has Federman within two points of Dr. Oz, above Dr. Oz.
So, we'll see.
There's a lot that can happen now and then, but voting is currently happening, and we have this story that y'all should pay attention to.
A constitutional crisis is brewing in Pennsylvania over mail-in ballots.
There's already been several court cases.
There's been challenges already.
So we will see exactly where we go with this.
I don't think Fetterman can win.
But they voted for Joe Biden.
And what did they say?
They said, stay alive, Joe Biden.
All we need is your corporeal form.
They will vote for Fetterman.
Because what they're saying now is... I'm not kidding.
They're tweeting this.
To be a senator, you only need to say yay or nay.
That's it.
And they're telling you exactly how they view the system.
They don't think senators are supposed to do anything other than say yay or nay.
The voters will decide, because they want direct democracy.
But we're supposed to be a constitutional republic.
Representatives are supposed to go to office, are supposed to go to D.C., and represent us.
Fetterman will be unable to explain his ideas, as he already is.
He will be unable to debate or challenge other ideas.
He won't know what someone's saying to him.
Fine.
If you want to choose a man like that, then do so.
But don't be surprised when your gas prices skyrocket, when the economy tanks, and you'll have this man representing you who's unable to communicate your ideas.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I want you all to imagine something.
It's Friday evening.
You're getting off of work.
About to head home.
Planning a night out with the boys.
Grab a drink.
When all of a sudden you hear a... What's that?
I don't know what sound effects use on your phone.
You pick your phone up and you look.
And it says tweet from Alex Jones.
What?
How can it be?
That's right.
And the tweet says, I'm back, baby!
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
Elon Musk vows to complete Twitter deal by Friday as he faces court-ordered deadline to close the $44 billion acquisition despite employee protests.
That's right.
They are so mad.
The prospect of Elon Musk buying this platform.
Elon makes an interesting point.
He responds to a point someone else made.
There was less of an uproar when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post.
Very interesting.
Now, there are still some concerns.
Maybe the Biden administration will stop it from happening.
It's Wednesday.
This could be Friday.
And OK, let's walk back a little bit of that opening scenario, that hypothetical.
Just because Elon completes the deal by Friday doesn't mean he unbans Alex Jones or Donald Trump or whoever else right away, though I kind of think he should.
The moment the papers are signed, Elon, you should go in and be like, unban them all and just let it all loose.
Let them, everyone, let everyone come back.
Yo, I was reading this report that said that Twitter's panicking because they can't keep their super users anymore.
The platform's bleeding dry.
Elon Musk, I think, can bring the platform back.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I wonder how much of what's happening with Twitter is due to a fear.
It's almost like sinking in quicksand.
You get someone like Alex Jones, and you have, what's his face, Will Wheaton.
He was like, if they don't ban Alex Jones, I'm gonna quit the platform.
So they eventually ban Alex Jones.
Will Weins still quits the platform.
The threats are meaningless.
He left.
Congratulations, you lost a user.
And then what did you do?
You banned a bigger user who generates more traffic.
So here's what I think.
Twitter started banning itself into irrelevancy.
It banned Milo, it banned Trump, it banned Alex Jones.
Twitter was already suffering, and then Donald Trump stepped in, and all of a sudden Twitter mattered again.
Then they banned Donald Trump, sealing their fate.
But they're convinced.
They think the far right is driving away users and making it so nobody wants to be here, because they're complaining all the time.
Here's the reality.
Donald Trump, Jones, Milo, Laura Loomer, etc.
made the platform interesting and a place to be.
And they got rid of him.
And now they think that's what they have to keep doing in order to maintain the platform.
But as we can clearly see, people are leaving anyway.
So, maybe Elon Musk will save the platform and make everybody very wealthy in the process.
Those who, I suppose, retain equity or help provide funding for his deal.
Maybe he'll make himself quite a bit richer.
But we'll see.
Here's a story from the Daily Mail.
Elon Musk has reportedly pledged to close his $44 billion Twitter deal by Friday, the same day he faces a court-ordered deadline to complete the acquisition.
Probably why he's doing it.
Musk made the vow in a video conference call with bankers who are helping fund the deal.
Led by Morgan Stanley, the banks have finished putting together the final credit agreement and are in the process of signing the documentation, marking one of the last steps in providing $13 billion towards the deal.
Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathleen McCormick previously ordered Musk to close the deal by 5 p.m.
on Friday, October 28th, warning that otherwise a new trial date would be set in Twitter's lawsuit seeking to force the sale.
Meanwhile, Twitter staffers penned an open letter this week protesting Musk's alleged plans to lay off up to two-thirds of the company employees after completing the deal.
Let me help you, Daily Mail, with your math!
75% is not two-thirds, it's three-fourths!
How about that?
Here's a story from Time Magazine.
I just love to see it.
You know, in the end, there is nothing but good that can come of this.
If Elon Musk buys the platform and then blows it up, I'm gonna be laughing all day and night, I know.
There are a lot of people who are like, Tim, we do follow you on Twitter.
And I'm like, I don't tweet anything.
It's like, here's what I do.
I wake up, I retweet stories that I want to read later on.
It's like a thumbtack, it's like a notepad.
I can do that anywhere, I guess.
I use Twitter as an RSS feed, I guess, like news stories come through.
It's about it.
I think Twitter's valuable in it's created a conversation.
You know, there's a conversation currently happening on a bunch of ideas, but we don't need it.
We really don't.
So, you know, if he brings back Alex Jones and whoever else, here's the worst case scenario.
Elon buys the platform and does nothing.
unidentified
He buys it and says, I really don't care for the platform, so I'm going to let them keep doing the things that they're doing.
I'm going to be like, that would be the biggest victory for the left.
But, apparently now Elon Musk has already made plans that make me happy.
Employees at Twitter are circulating an open letter protesting Elon Musk's plan to fire as much as 75% of the company's workforce as the deadline for him to complete his $44 billion acquisition looms.
Musk must complete the acquisition by Friday or face resumption of the lawsuit.
Elon Musk told prospective funders of his Twitter acquisition that he planned to replace or eradicate— ooh, I love that choice of words— the jobs of nearly 75% of Twitter staff, reducing headcount from 7,500 to just 2,000.
The Post reported last week, Musk has previously claimed that the social media company has bloated and has also said its workforce has a strong left-wing bias.
Yes, Elon!
Fire them all!
Oh, I'm so excited for this.
Time-reviewed a draft of the open letter circulating Twitter blah blah blah.
Let's just read the open letter.
Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, I give you...
Staff, Elon Musk, and Board of Directors.
We, the undersigned Twitter workers, believe the public conversation is in jeopardy.
Elon Musk's plan to lay off 75% of Twitter workers will hurt Twitter's ability to serve the public conversation.
A threat of this magnitude is reckless, undermines our users' and customers' trust in our platform, and is a transparent act of worker intimidation.
Twitter has significant effects on societies and communities across the globe.
As we speak, Twitter is helping to uplift independent journalism in Ukraine and Iran, as well as powering social movements around the world.
A threat to workers at Twitter is a threat to Twitter's future.
These threats have an impact on us as workers, and demonstrate a fundamental disconnect with the realities of operating Twitter.
They threaten our livelihoods, access to essential healthcare, and the ability for visa holders to stay in the country they work in.
We cannot do our work in an environment of constant harassment and threats.
Without our work, there is no Twitter.
Okay!
Your terms are acceptable.
Next.
We the workers at Twitter will not be intimidated.
We recommit to supporting the communities, organizations, and businesses who rely on Twitter.
We will not stop serving the public conversation.
We call on Twitter management and Elon Musk to cease these negligent layoff threats.
Yes, workers.
We deserve concrete commitments so we can continue to preserve the integrity of our platform.
We demand of current and future leadership, one.
Oh, here we go.
Respect.
We demand leadership to respect the platform and the workers who maintain it by committing to preserving the current headcount.
What?! !
Get out of here!
The only way you respect us is by not firing redundancies.
Bye-bye, Elon.
Please fire these people.
Safety.
We demand that leadership does not discriminate against workers on the basis of race, gender, disability, orientation, or political beliefs.
We also demand safety from workers on visas, blah blah blah.
Now please, don't discriminate on the basis of race, gender, disability, orientation, or political beliefs if political beliefs fall upon an employee who is based in Washington, D.C.
For anybody else, yeah, I don't expect Elon to discriminate on the basis of anyone's immutable characteristics, but political beliefs?
Yo.
You dare.
You dare!
After your political bias, overt political bias, that was expressed by none other than your Chief Legal Counsel and CEO Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde, you dare.
You are nothing but biased.
And as soon as the threat is pointed in their direction, they say, oh woe is me!
It's not about firing you for being far left, it's about an imbalance.
He's trying to avoid the bias.
And the problem is, these people aren't.
They aren't fair.
They are politically biased.
They will ban you if you don't align with them, but then, when the cannon is pointed in their direction, they will beg for fairness, and Elon will grant it.
That's the problem.
You see, Elon Musk made an error.
Early on.
He said that his plan for Twitter is to make everybody a little unhappy.
A little bit unhappy.
That no one's going to get everything they want.
Elon, I don't think you understand.
The right, whatever you want to call the right, is content with the left speaking their horrible minds.
They just want free speech.
The left is not content just speaking their horrible minds.
They want the right banned.
Therefore, any compromise means many on the right will be banned.
The left wants all right-wingers banned.
The right wants no left-wingers banned.
The compromises, some on the right, get banned.
How is that solving any of the problems?
It's not.
They want protection.
We demand Elon Musk explicitly commit to preserve our benefits, those both listed in the merger agreement, and not remote work.
And not, e.g., remote work.
We demand leadership to establish and ensure fair severance policies for all workers before and after any change in ownership.
Dignity.
No, I'm not gonna read that one yet.
I'm just gonna say you don't deserve it.
But they say.
We demand transparent, prompt, and thoughtful communication around our working conditions.
We demand to be treated with dignity and not to be treated as mere pawns in a game played by billionaires.
To tweet saying, there was less uproar over Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post than Musk buying Twitter.
Remarkable, isn't it?
Jeff Bezos.
Not a fan of the guy.
I think Amazon is trash.
I think the Washington Post is pure garbage.
And it's thanks to him.
Partly.
Sure.
From Colin Wright on Twitter, he says, It's going to be amazing watching the left completely flip from supporting Twitter's right to set their own terms of service to advocating for governmental control of Twitter due to spreading dangerous disinformation and national security reasons once Elon Musk takes over.
Elon Musk responded, Twitter should be as broadly inclusive as possible, serving as a fair forum for lively, even if occasionally rancorous, Wow.
Debate between widely divergent beliefs.
Colin responds, I fully agree and very much look forward to Twitter being a true marketplace of ideas.
I personally hold 22 shares in Twitter.
I don't know what that means.
Maybe I'll make 50 bucks on a share and share whatever I guess.
I'm excited for this man.
I'm excited for change.
I'm excited for any kind of attempt.
I don't think Elon Musk is perfect, far from it.
But I'll take what I can get.
I suppose.
Here's Slate.
From October 4th.
The people who are thrilled that Elon Musk is really buying Twitter.
Oh yeah, look at this picture they use of Elon Musk doing duck face or whatever.
Here we go.
After months of sabotaged commitments, legal back and forth, new public discourses, a gitter over bot armies, and text message dumps, The Elon Musk Twitter debacle has finally circled right back to where it started.
That's right, folks.
On Tuesday morning, Bloomberg News reported that the Tesla CEO now says he will purchase Twitter, just like he said he would back in April at the original agreed-upon price of $54.20 per share, coming out to $44 billion total.
The whole ordeal that kicked off after Musk attempted to renege on the Twitter deal, citing problems with bots and contemporary transparency, was set to culminate in a highly anticipated court battle later this month.
Since Twitter has apparently taken the offer, there will be no need for that now.
Okay.
Who's really excited about this, they say?
Twitter executives.
This outcome is likely a huge relief for the Twitter C-Sweeters behind this deal.
The tangle with Musk has brought out all sorts of ugly facts about the company, financial weakness, serious allegations of national security issues, and fraudulent practices, weakened public use of and trust in the platform, but hey, it's not these guys' problem anymore, and they'll get paid up for their shares.
Donald Trump and the American right-wing.
Full stop!
Trump said he's not coming back.
He's got truth social.
So try harder, Slate.
They say, no ideological group has been more pleased with Musk's purported goals for Twitter
than the American conservative movement. Given Musk's off and on criticisms of liberal censorship
and nattering on about the need to protect free speech on social media, many right-wingers believe
they're disproportionately censored on Twitter, not least due to the banning of then-President
Donald Trump following the Capitol insurrection. Musk has said he believes Trump was unfairly
booted from Twitter and that the network has a left-wing bias the right agrees. And they're
correct. You know how I know? Because there was a podcast with Joe Rogan, Jack Dorsey,
and Vijaya Gade, and of course me, and they outright said they were.
Okay.
So there you go.
I love—these people are just incorrigible.
Tim Pool firmly believes that there's a bias against conservatives.
I'm like, well, they said there was.
Let me explain for those that are unfamiliar with the 29th.
It's almost four years now, right?
Three and a half years ago.
Man, it was really long ago, wasn't it?
Crazy.
Anyway.
In the episode, I said, Twitter's rules on misgendering are overtly biased.
I said, your rules are overtly biased in favor of the left.
And Jack goes, no, they aren't.
What rules?
And I said, your misgendering policy.
And he's like, what do you mean?
That's not biased.
Yo.
The right believes.
Misgendering someone would be, if there's a biological female who believes they're actually a male, and you call that person by male pronouns, you're misgendering them.
Get it?
The left says misgendering is when you don't use preferred pronouns.
The right says misgendering is when you don't use biological pronouns.
Twitter enforces only one side of that debate, in favor of the left.
Outright bias, banning people for not agreeing with the leftist worldview.
Which is fractured in many ways, but they just went, oh, thanks for the feedback.
That was it.
It was obvious they have bias.
And more importantly, too, I said to them, like, who put you in charge of public discourse?
You're a private company.
It should be nationalized.
I'm not a conservative.
I'm not a free-market, laissez-faire, libertarian type.
Here we go.
India, along with other authoritarian regimes.
As I wrote at the time, Twitter's current leadership sued the Modi administration in July over numerous censorship requests.
But Musk has stated that he would have Twitter follow individual country social media laws.
Twitter does that now, you vapid fools.
That's why we get those notifications from Germany.
Twitter is determined under German law you violated no rules.
Guys and dudes.
Oh, I love it.
As my colleague Jonathan... Oh, who wrote this?
Who wrote this?
This is written by Nitish Pawa.
I'm assuming Nitish is a female name, so I don't know, but...
unidentified
As my colleague Jonathan L. Fisher wrote, one key takeaway from Musk's text message trove is that he has basically no one in his life to dissuade him from potentially bad ideas.
As a result, all of the extremely prominent tech guys and celebrities on his Rolodex, Larry Ellison, Joe Rogan, Marc Andreessen, Jack Dorsey, a Murdoch son, and more are no doubt psyched This has gone through.
They have different agendas.
Dorsey wants to make Twitter a protocol, not a company.
Others want to invest in Musk's takeover.
Others are fixated on ending what they see as censorship.
Congrats, bros.
Okay, well.
I'm down to see Twitter become a protocol.
Here, here, Jack Dorsey.
I wish Jack Dorsey paid attention more to politics and stopped drinking his own refuse, which he did on Twitter.
Edit button fans.
Musk is definitely among this legion, so he'll presumably ensure the completion and deployment of the new edit button.
It's already been deployed, so...
The Delaware court system.
Judges there are probably happy to get back to more pressing matters.
The ratio.
Is Musk's abrupt turnaround proof of the power of numbers and digital mobilization?
Whatever.
Who's unhappy?
Bot armies?
Indians?
Okay.
Disinformation fighters?
Oh yeah, you know what that means.
That's actually really great news.
There's no such thing as a disinformation fighter.
They're journalists.
I fight disinformation all day every day.
Well, these people are lying, evil pieces of trash.
So when I say something like Joe Biden engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine in order to protect his son, or I should say, inadvertently protecting his son, they say it's disinformation.
It is a fact.
Joe Biden said, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting a billion dollars.
That's a quid pro quo.
It's a fact.
The prosecutor was investigating his son.
Well, investigating Burisma, where his son was a board member, so, inadvertently.
And now their reign of terror will be coming to an end.
Twitter employees are upset.
Good.
Let them be.
They're cult members.
Tesla shareholders.
Yeah, they're worried Elon's gonna sell off stock, which is gonna hurt the price.
Ukraine.
I love it.
The entire Ukrainian executive branch seemed to have it out for Musk on Monday after he tweeted a poll asking whether the country should cede some of its territory to the invading Russians.
We can likely expect some more profanity to be sent his way.
Keep crying, cultists.
I want you to keep crying.
It's scary that we rely on such efforts.
That it has to be Elon Musk to buy the platform to make something like this happen.
It's scary that for years we knew Twitter was doing these things and nothing gets done about it until some billionaire just says, I'll buy it and then tried to back out actually.
It's scary, isn't it?
There is so much that we know is evil and broken and is going on and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Elon Musk steps in and we're happy about that.
I think it's good news.
The terrifying reality is what comes next.
The left will now rally Democrats to pass laws to curtail Twitter to give them more power.
Not satisfied with losing the control in the private sector, they will now go towards government.
Elon Musk and many on the right will keep ceding and compromising.
Let's be real.
They're weak.
That's just it.
Weakness.
I have come out and said the Second Amendment defends the right to keep and bear nuclear arms.
They're like, no, no, no, I don't know about that.
Sorry.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When did we pass a law saying we will restrict the degree to which, you know, this grants you the right to keep and bear arms?
We didn't.
No, no, I mean, like, we have the NFA and things like that, but we never amended the Constitution, so under what pretext do we have the right—does anyone have the right to do that?
They don't.
The NFA outright violates the Constitution.
All gun control violates to a period.
It's pretty extreme, right?
I don't expect to get elected anytime soon.
And so, for that, it's easy for me not to pander.
To just tell you what I literally believe.
And when the left comes out and mocks me because I said biological weapons count as arms, I don't like the idea, but that's a reality.
Maybe if the left actually recognized that.
And came out and said, did you know the Second Amendment would protect your right to own nuclear weapons and biological weapons?
Many people might be like, hey, you know, why don't we amend that?
And say there should be some limitations.
They won't.
They won't go near it.
They try to use it as an example of why 2A is bad.
Here's my point.
I'm not going to try and pander for the sake of anything.
Because I'm not running for office.
That's just it.
Whatever.
It's scary that we rely on billionaires to make these changes, but that's a reality, isn't it?
Unless something can be done, we can win some elections, I guess, and win the culture.
