Bud Light DOUBLES DOWN, Donates 200k To LGBT Group, Bud & Target DOWN $40 BILLION, BOYCOTT WORKING
Bud Light DOUBLES DOWN, Donates 200k To LGBT Group, Bud & Target DOWN $40 BILLION, BOYCOTT WORKING
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/
Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/
Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3oC3kpKENQ
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
Now, let's jump into the first story.
This is what a zombified corporation looks like.
From the advocate, Bud Light pledges $200,000 to support LGBTQ plus business owners of color.
Bud Light is currently reeling from a massive boycott, which has knocked it down from the number one spot in the country to number two.
Number one now is Modelo.
In the United States, Modelo is controlled by Constellation Brands.
So this is a correction update from the previous segment.
I didn't mention this, but you know, upon further investigation, I have more information.
Basically, there was an antitrust suit which said Anheuser-Busch InBev can't own Modelo in the U.S.
So outside the U.S., it's Anheuser-Busch, but in the U.S., Modelo now number one.
I'm glad to hear it.
I like Modelo, so that's a good thing.
But let's talk about the zombification of Enterprise.
Bud Light knows that what they did with Dylan Mulvaney hurt them severely.
But they keep on trucking along like mindless zombies.
Now I wonder, with the latest news being that Bud Light's parent company sees $27 billion gone.
Shares near bear market.
20% down from its highs.
$27 billion wiped out.
I will say this.
People have asked, can you sue Anheuser-Busch for violating or neglecting their fiduciary duties to their shareholders?
I believe the answer is yes.
If you are a shareholder in Bud Light, and 30% of their customers jump ship, their stock is in free fall, and we all know why.
And Bud Light responds by saying, we're doubling down!
They're intentionally destroying the stock value.
They are intentionally sabotaging this brand.
Now, it may be, that's why I call them zombified.
It may be that they're just mindlessly marching along.
They don't care.
Well, that's negligence.
And if you're holding stock, I imagine you're going to lose a lot of money.
You're probably already dead.
You're going to lose more because, man, I'll say this.
If you were somebody who... Here's how I broke it down because Target is also down like I think 13 billion dollars.
If you were holding on to Anheuser-Busch stock when this controversy started, you probably thought, you know...
Look, these things blow over.
Boycotts are not going anywhere.
I'm fine.
I'm not going to sell my Anheuser stock.
You know, that'd be silly.
Then when it dipped by a few bucks, you're probably thinking, well, you know, it went down, but it's probably the bottom.
Then it went down way more.
Now I think it's down like $15 or something with no end in sight.
Now you're angry thinking like, okay, maybe this will finally stop.
And then Bud Light announces they are doubling down.
Not only are they giving $200,000 directly to LGBTQ plus causes, we also have Bud Light sponsors Cincinnati Pride Parade after Dylan Mulvaney controversy.
It's a zombie brand.
It is a zombie brand.
It is being worn like a skin suit.
There's no one in charge anymore.
There's no one looking at this company and being like, hey, our goal is to sell beer.
It's institutional capture.
I don't know what you could do.
I'd imagine if you are a shareholder, you know, you probably have grounds for a lawsuit, but at this point, anybody still holding the stock either just isn't paying attention to their wealth and they don't care.
Like, you've got to be somebody who just puts your money away and forgets about it.
Did I have stock in that?
Wow, I lost a lot of money.
You must be very well off.
I'd imagine most people who are holding shares in Anheuser-Busch were probably freaking out.
I wonder who it is who's still holding this.
No, seriously, I mean, obviously people still have Bud Light stock, but even if you support these social justice moves, you don't need to just lose all your money.
That's the craziest thing.
It's like, all right, give your money away, I guess.
Sitting there, I'm going to keep holding the stock for personal, principled reasons.
Okay, you could just, you could sell it and put your money into literally any other company for the next couple of months and still support Bud Light in what they're doing.
I don't know.
I guess there are people who are just like, it's okay to lose tons of money.
Or they're just not paying attention.
Check it out from theadvocate.com.
They say...
Bud Light and the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce announced on Tuesday that they have their existing partnership with Bud Light donating $200,000 to the Chamber's Communities of Color initiative.
Bud Light was brewed to be an easy-to-drink, easy-to-enjoy beer for everyone 21 and up.
And that still holds true today, said Anheuser-Busch.
Bud Light's parent company in a release.
We look forward to extending our work with the NGLCC to continue making a positive impact on the LGBTQ plus businesses that play a critical role in bringing people everywhere together.
The Communities of Color Initiative support Initiative, support LGBTQ plus business owners from diverse backgrounds through developing certificates, scholarships, and business development opportunities, etc, etc.
You get the point, you get the point.
Anheuser-Busch loses top LGBTQ plus rating over its Bud Light response.
And now you see, they care more about their cult rating than they do their shares.
This is the future, unless we do something about it.
This is what communism looks like.
And I'm not saying it's all identical, and there's probably a better word for the modern version of what we're seeing.
Technocommunism.
Algorithm.
Algorithm.
Algorithmism.
The ideas that are being presented and the reason they do these things is solely based on mindless algorithmic marching forward.
The people running Bud Light have been zombified.
They don't know, they don't care.
The company, look, I gotta say, if you lose 30% of your customers in two months and you keep doing the same thing, it kind of feels like whoever's in charge fell asleep at the wheel.
What happens when someone falls asleep at the wheel?
Okay, I'll put it this way.
You're driving in the big ol' Bud Light truck, carrying the beers.
And there's a person, he's driving.
And you're going down the road and everything's great.
That person falls asleep.
The car starts drifting.
For this moment, between the explosive crash and 25 car pileup, In this brief moment where the driver is asleep and the car is drifting, you know something's wrong.
You can see that the truck is veering off path.
You know that if you continue down this path, you will crash.
But in that moment, the truck is still there.
The beers are all still there.
And then, very shortly after, the driver falls asleep.
Kaboom.
So what do I see?
Bud Light is asleep at the wheel.
Their company is veering dramatically off course, it's spiraling out of control, and they're doing nothing to correct it.
Nothing.
They've just given up.
They've decided, jump out of the vehicle.
You know what this is?
They just jumped out of the driver's seat, and now nobody's driving.
What's gonna happen?
Yo, I wouldn't be surprised if Bud Light does collapse as a brand.
I'm not saying it will.
I mean, that would be, like, massive.
I think it's fair to say, actually, that Bud Light, as a brand, is garbage at this point.
You know, they still have sales, people will still drink it, because people really don't care all that much.
Like, give me a light beer, I don't care.
I've seen people, when I go out, they're drinking Bud Light.
I went to a bar and they had a bunch of Bud Light in the fridge.
Most people weren't drinking it, though.
I see a lot of people drinking Coors, and it makes sense when you look at the data.
But, I wouldn't be surprised if Bud Light becomes a negligible generic garbage brand that people mostly don't care about.
I mean, look, they're giving the beer away for free right now.
They have all these stores all over the place where it's like, $15 case with a $15 rebate.
Free beer!
There was, uh... We stayed in Charleston, West Virginia for Memorial Day.
And I didn't notice this.
I think it was Ian who pointed it out.
We were given free drink coupons.
This is really, really funny.
When we checked in, we were given free drink coupons.
And I was thinking, like, oh, that's cool.
Like, I wonder why they do that.
The free drink was Bud Light.
No joke, the free drink you got was Bud Light.
I wonder if the reason they were giving out free drink coupons was because they can't move the Bud Light and it costs money to dispose of.
If a hotel chain has a thousand bottles or whatever and they're like, how are we going to get rid of this?
It's better off people drinking it so that we can get rid of it.
So they gave out free drink coupons.
This is really amazing.
Bud Light parent company, Anheuser-Busch, sees $27 billion gone.
Shares near bear market.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
I think the answer is yes, and I think people who had stock in Anheuser-Busch probably should, I mean, for one, you definitely need to be complaining.
They're doubling down on all of this.
We're seeing now, look at this, we got this story from, are they blocking me?
Tip Ranks.
Kohl's stock falls in pride uproar like Bud and Target.
It's now being reported Kohl's is facing strong criticism for the promotion of merchandise related to Pride Month.
A few social media groups are even pushing to boycott Kohl's stores.
Do people still shop at Kohl's?
Apparently they do.
But they had baby onesies or something like that.
That's what we're seeing on Twitter.
I have to wonder.
It is becoming painfully clear That if you start to embrace this stuff, it is damaging to your company, and it's creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where there's no excuse for any company to do it.
It's really crazy, actually.
Bud Light implodes, and they double down.
It's only going to get worse from here.
I'm going to say it again.
As a reason- Look, I don't want to give you any financial advice, I'm just saying.
I don't know how anyone could hold Bud- Anheuser-Busch stock at this point.
When they actually say, hey, you know that thing that cost us 30% of our customers?
Let's do more of it!
Clearly, people don't like what you're doing.
Which results in the Bud Light effect hitting Target stores, who now see, I think, what do we have here?
Target in free fall.
Retail giant's market value plunges by $13 billion!
Wow.
These companies that continue to embrace this, it's remarkable.
for the ninth consecutive day as Chain scrambles to recover from backlash against Pride Tuck-Friendly
swimwear.
Wow.
These companies that continue to embrace this, it's remarkable.
We're now looking at, I kid you not, $40 billion wiped out between Target and Bud for embracing
Pride and Wokeness.
The Bud Light effect is real.
Regular people are saying no, and the cascade is happening.
It's gonna get worse.
If you're... I'll be careful how I say this.
The stock of Target and Bud will not stop here.
Two things are happening.
The companies are doubling down, which means what made the stock go down in the first place will keep happening, and two, when you enter that bear market, people are going to say, I don't want to hold a hot potato.
So they're going to sell.
I mentioned this the other day, if you sold your Anheuser-Busch stock right when the controversy started saying, I don't, I don't, let's put it this way.
This is not advice.
If John Doe was holding Anheuser-Busch stock and said to himself, I will never hold a stock that is involved in any controversy because it can only go down.
Sold right when this happened.
$63 at the start of the controversy.
He would have saved a massive amount of money.
Double digit percent.
I think it's 15 to 16 percent.
Maybe more.
Maybe 17 at this point.
Could have bought Molson Coors and then not only saved but gained 20 more percent.
So somebody who had 10 grand could have gained by now a couple thousand dollars by switching.
Those that didn't see their 10 grand down now to about 7.
Maybe that's a bit, maybe harsh, maybe like eight something.
Either way, why would you want to lose money?
Who, in their right mind, is sitting there thinking like, I'm gonna keep holding on to this stock?
They say two months ago Bud Light rolled the dice on a marketing push involving Dylan Mulvaney, etc, etc.
About $27 billion in market value has vanished, falling to $107.44 billion through the end of May, down from $134.55 billion as tracked by Dow Jones.
The stock is down, oh wow!
from 134.55 billion as tracked by Dow Jones.
The stock is down.
Oh, wow.
A 20% drop.
May was the third worst month on record for company shares.
Wow, they're down 20%.
And I believe this is today we have here, the tracker for today, I guess.
Oh wow, look at that!
9am, it spiked to 53.79, where it's currently at 53.42.
Let's do six months.
It's currently at 53.42.
Let's do six months.
Oh, wow.
Look at that.
So it was fairly stable around 60.
They had a really good month in March, 66, and then they sponsored Dylan Mulvaney.
Slam.
All the way into the gutter.
Now, this is remarkable, because during the controversy in April, people were resisting!
Look at this!
Let me tell you, man.
On April 1st, they sponsored Dylan Mulvaney.
And that was where their peak was.
And it goes down.
Controversy up to April 12th has people freaked out.
But then people buy the dip.
They buy the dip.
They say, you know what?
It dips again, but then spikes.
And I'll tell you what happened in May.
The sales data came out.
The sales data came out showing 30% drop-off.
And then people went, holy crap!
This is not just some fluke.
Bang!
From $65.90 on May 4th, where we thought there was a recovery happening, all the way down now to $53.40, and I don't think we are seeing anywhere near the end.
Look at this volume!
This is crazy!
The volume's spiking at this time.
You know what it was?
People were buying a lot, probably selling a lot.
I bet a lot of people sold out when the controversy started.
And a bunch of people were just like, I'll buy into Bud.
People who weren't paying attention.
That's why it dips, because people are like, yo, get me out of here.
Smart move by those people.
And then other people are like, wow, Bud's down to 63, I'll buy the dip.
There may be some people who are like, look, I don't pay attention to this stuff.
I bought a bunch and I'll forget about it.
Given a long enough period of time, it'll probably recover.
The general mentality I hear from a lot of people is, you know, I'll put it this way, in 2008, when the market crashed, a bunch of people panicked and sold off a ton of their stock and assets.
And then within three years, it had completely recovered and was up.
So if you just did nothing, you were fine.
The people who panicked sold lost a lot.
I wonder if they're thinking.
You know what?
We're probably at the bottom.
I don't think it's the bottom.
I really don't.
I'm not gonna say I don't know for sure.
You know, it may go back up.
I don't know.
But we also have Target going way down.
And if we're seeing Bud Light, Target, and now Kohl's starting to take a hit, my friends, we are quite literally looking at the Bud Light effect.
It has nothing to do with pride.
It has nothing to do with the culture war.
It has everything to do with the market has created a law.
If a company is embroiled in a culture war controversy, their stock will go down.
Now, the direct correlation is LGBT pride stuff.
And what do we have right now in this month?
Pride month.
I'm willing to bet many of these companies are thinking, this is mainstream, it's normal, we can carry on.
No, I don't think so.
I really don't think you can.
Daily Mail says Target has lost $13 billion.
It comes as the chain seeks to recover from a backlash against its female swimwear range, which gives adult wearers the option to tuck male genitalia.
Wow.
The company's market value had been $74 billion, with shares trading at $160 billion as of May 17th, but stock fell later that week when it made adjustments to its Pride merchandising plan.
It was done to avoid a Bud Light situation.
A disastrous marketing decision to promote Bud Light's beer with Dill Mulvaney, etc.
If you want to say that pride was like the rainbow flag represented something, I get that.
But now they say there's black and brown people, there's trans people.
Taj... Maj, not Taj.
Maj Touré made an interesting point in that the trans flag uses the same colors as the
oof as as the flag. It was a tough one. It uses the same colors for what what these people
describe themselves as maps, the pedophiles.
Similar colors.
And a bunch of people got mad that he pointed it out, saying, no, that's the trans colors!
And he mentions that.
He says, yes, the question is, why are they using the same colors?
Because the pedophile flag has been around, they've used it for a while.
So why would you be like, yeah, the colors are the same?
And they're actually very similar flags.
The trans flag is like three colors.
It's like blue, pink, white, pink, blue.
And then the flag that pedos use is like blue, light blue, light pink, white.
It's like very similar.
That's what he was basically pointing out.
And they got really, really, really angry.
And they were like, no, this is fake news!
Fake news!
Okay, well look, man.
I can tell you this.
They're calling it LGBTQIA Pride, or whatever they want to call it.
But the symbol doesn't even... I don't even know what the symbol means anymore, other than it represents the cult.
This new religious movement that has no logic.
There's... Look.
For me, what makes something a cult is, is there a logic to what they do.
And if there's not, and they're blindly following something without understanding why or having any real reason, cult.
I think there are many people who are cult-like followers of Trump.
I believe there are many people who are cult-like followers of Christianity.
And then I believe there are a lot of people who think Trump is the right guy for a variety of reasons and are understanding of criticisms of him.
I think there are people who are Christians who can have logical conversations about their views of the world and why they believe what they believe.
And I'm like, okay.
I believe there are people who believe in opposing discrimination, and they can logically break down why it's good.
I can tell you why I think diversity is a good thing, but diversity actually represents a difference in worldview.
It represents a wide range of opinions of different kinds of people from different kinds of backgrounds, and that actually, that decentralization can help us solve problems better.
But that's not what they're pushing.
They're a cult.
When they say diversity, equity, and inclusion, they don't actually mean it.
They make movies like Black Panther and then say it's diverse.
It's not diverse at all.
They talk about inclusion, but they actively insult and engage in hate speech and mockery of people from different walks of life.
It is just some weird, creepy cult.
But more to the point, as I brought this segment up.
Bud Light is doubling down.
Target likely will as well.
I mean, when they said they were hiding the Pride stuff, they still publicly stated they were going to keep doing it.
And now we are in what they call Pride Month.
I call June American Greatness Month.
It's the greatest month.
Everyone agrees.
It's American Greatness Month.
And as you all know, the rainbow was God's covenant to all life on Earth to never flood the Earth again.
I tweeted about this.
I am not Christian.
Nor Jewish, nor do I actually hold true any of those stories.
The point I was simply making is that all of these companies that are putting up the rainbow, why should you let them take the rainbow from you?
The rainbow has been a symbol of Christianity and Judaism forever.
So I just say this, thank you for putting up the rainbow to symbolize your praise of the Lord.
They don't really mean it.
But symbols have meaning because we give them meaning, so take the meaning back.
Don't let these weird cultists just claim these things.
And that's a thing to me, and I was telling Seamus, I was like, put the rainbow behind you, and he's like, oh, I was on the wrong message, and I'm like, dude, if you refuse to use your own symbols because someone else did, Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
I don't think so. Now, you can lose control completely of a symbol.
And when that happens, then I understand not using it.
At this point, however, the rainbow is still the covenant.
It's still God's covenant.
So, use it.
I don't understand.
Just outright use it.
Show up to church wearing the rainbows and say it's God's covenant.
And then, guess what?
You will probably see a bunch, like, who has more cultural influence?
Christians?
Or the LGBTQ groups?
We'll see.
But I'll tell you.
Final thoughts.
Anybody holding Bud Light stock is going to lose everything.
Because I don't see why anybody... Like, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.
Bud Light just announced they're giving more for the Pride stuff.
Despite the fact that they've seen a massive backlash because of it.
They don't care.
They don't care that they know they're destroying the company.
I'll say it two ways.
Donating this money and sponsoring Pride likely will cause more consumer backlash.
But there's something else.
There's going to be some savvy businessman who says, I don't care about Pride, I don't care about donations, I care about if the company makes money.
And two things he's now looking at.
30% decline in sales.
Good indicator you should sell, I suppose.
Not advice, I'm saying hypothetically.
But then he's probably also thinking to himself, there's clearly no leadership here.
And if a company has no leadership, why would I expect the stock to go up?
I wouldn't!
If the pilot jumps out of the plane, I expect the plane to crash!
Good luck.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The Daily Wire had a deal with Twitter to play their famous documentary, What Is A Woman, tonight live for free for everybody to check out.
I think it was, I don't know if it was gonna be live, but it was gonna be free for like 24 hours.
And at the last minute, it is being reported by The Daily Wire and their CEO, Jeremy Boring, co-CEO Jeremy Boring, that Twitter pulled out of the deal because the documentary misgenders two people.
That's right.
A documentary about gender misgenders people.
And it's fascinating because the documentary actually has done really, really well in that Matt Walsh, who is leading this picture, gives an opportunity to anyone to express their ideas.
And in fact, one of my favorite scenes, one of the scenes in question, Shows Matt Walsh actually arguing the side of gender ideology as a good interviewer would do.
Speaking with a man at his store who had an encounter with a trans woman who was on the city council.
Matt Walsh actually says, but you're not a scientist.
How do you know these things?
You've not done these studies.
How can you tell someone's a woman?
How do you know you're a man?
He's actually arguing the points made by the left to see what this guy will say.
It's what a good interviewer would do, and it allows people to express themselves in a semi-adversarial way.
Meaning, here's the other side.
What's your argument?
Twitter said, nope.
So they cancelled the deal, and when the Daily Wire said, we're going to show it anyway, they said, we will make sure no one sees it.
I'm paraphrasing, but let me read for you the story and show you the thread from co-CEO of Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring.
The Daily Wire reports Twitter cancels deal with The Daily Wire to stream What Is A Woman over misgendering and will label the film hateful conduct.
And it's just so shocking and offensive that, you know, it's the first day of American Greatness Month, where all of these companies are putting up rainbows to symbolize God's covenant to the Earth.
I'm just so surprised.
You see what I'm doing there, huh?
Anyway, let's read the news.
Daily Wire co-CEO Jeremy Boring revealed Thursday that Twitter cancelled a deal with the conservative media company to stream its hit documentary, What Is A Woman?
You know, I'm saying documentary out like that on purpose because I love it when people say that.
For free on social media platform due to misgendering.
After Elon Musk's takeover of the social media platform, Boring said.
his promised dedication of free speech, The Daily Wire sought a deal to stream Matt Walsh's
What Is A Woman on Twitter for the documentary's one-year anniversary.
Initially, Twitter responded enthusiastically to the idea, even offering The Daily Wire
a package to purchase a whole page for Twitter users to view the film.
Boring said.
That changed after the platform asked to view a screening of the film.
Jeremy, could it be that it all changed after the new CEO came to be?
The woman who worked for the Biden administration and the World Economic Forum?
Don't worry, ladies and gentlemen, I have Snopes!
The greatest news organization!
They say Snopes has new Twitter CEO, Linda Iaccarino, worked with both WEF and Biden administration.
They say, quote, and label it as hateful conduct because of misgendering, Boring said in a Twitter thread.
we no longer purchase the package they offered, they would no longer provide us any support.
It would actually limit the reach of the film and label it as hateful conduct because of misgendering,
Boring said in a Twitter thread. Well, let me just pull up the actual Twitter thread
and go through everything Jeremy says. So Jeremy tweeted this morning around 9 a.m.
Twitter cancelled the deal with The Real Daily Wire to premiere What Is A Woman for free on the platform because of two instances of misgendering.
I'm not kidding.
Here's what happened.
One year ago today, we released What Is A Woman.
To celebrate the occasion and expand the movie's already enormous impact, we decided to give it away for free for 24 hours on Twitter.
With Twitter's recent commitment to free speech, we thought it would be the perfect place to distribute the film and drive the conversation forward on one of the most important topics of our day.
Twitter responded with enthusiasm and offered us the opportunity to buy a package to host the movie on a dedicated event page and to promote the event to every Twitter user over the first 10 hours.
We accepted and signed an agreement.
After we signed, Twitter asked to see the film to better understand what parts may trigger users, so they could better prepare their response.
They said they were still all hands on deck for the launch, so we sent them a screener.
After reviewing the film, though, Twitter let us know that not only could we no longer purchase the package they offered, they would no longer provide us any support, and would actually limit the reach of the film and label it as hateful conduct because of misgendering.
Specifically in the film, a father refers to his 14-year-old daughter as her, and a store owner uses the wrong pronoun in a confrontation with a trans person.
Which is literally the point of the film!
And not only that, it is not the Daily Wire that is doing it.
It is subjects in the film saying these things.
This is insane!
Twitter basically is saying, if out in the wild you happen to film someone, And even if the context is critical, they will ban the content.
Yep.
Look, I like Elon Musk.
Elon Musk does great work.
And, uh, worthy of criticism, of course, especially pertains to China, but I'm not going to know everything.
I think what he's doing is some of the most important work on the planet with SpaceX, with Starship, and with Mars colonization.
So I'll accept, you know, that some bad comes with good, but it's a net positive across the board.
I wonder if this is an oversight.
I kind of believe Elon will intervene and say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
This film, we're not doing this.
And I think that they likely will see this turned around.
I'm hoping.
I don't know for sure.
I wonder if bringing on this new WEF CEO is what's changed at all.
And Elon may be recognizing that he's not able to save this platform the way he hoped.
We'll see.
He's done a decent amount of good already, but he goes on to say there's more.
Jeremy says we reminded Twitter they removed misgendering from their policy that the term misgendering itself is misleading and that enforcing such a policy places them on the side of the most radical elements in society.
The side most opposed to their commitment to free speech.
Twitter clarified, they only removed misgendering from their policy because they didn't need to be that specific, but that they still consider misgendering abuse and harassment.
My oh my.
They gave us the opportunity to edit the film to comply, we declined.
Bravo, good sir.
When we asked how much they would limit the visibility if we posted the film anyway, Twitter replied that our own followers would not be able to see it in their feeds.
This, they said, is part of their speech not reach policy.
It's also called shadow banning.
Of course, saying you have the right to speak, but we'll make sure no one hears you is a bit like saying you have the right to cast a vote, but we'll make sure it isn't counted.
That's not right at all.
Not a right at all, he says.
We brought all our shows to Twitter Tuesday because we believe Twitter was committed to free speech, especially on this issue.
After all, the Babylon Bee was silenced on Twitter over this very issue, and that in part prompted Elon Musk to purchase the platform.
The other tech platforms have already decided where they stand in the trans debate, and demonetized and deprioritized all those who disagree.
Now, Twitter has joined the ranks of the other tech superpowers in ensuring one side of the debate is suppressed.
Elon Musk is not beholden to conservatives.
He has the right to run his business as he sees fit.
But if Twitter is going to throttle one side of one of the most important debates facing society, it cannot claim to champion free speech.
I'd like to bring you back, Jeremy, to like three years ago when this was literally their policy.
He says, I hope Elon Musk will reconsider this awful policy.
If we can't debate these issues on Twitter, where can we debate them?
If conservatives aren't welcome on Twitter, where are they welcome?
It's unlikely another centibillionaire will come along to offer an alternative.
Well, Jeremy, there's always Rumble.
Yeah, for real.
There's always posting the documentary for free for 24 hours on Rumble.
Look, Twitter's a massive platform, and Elon buying it opened the door.
I, as CEO of TimCastMedia, have subscribed to the enterprise-level user of the platform.
TimCastNews on Twitter, which is our parent account, has the golden badge, and it costs a lot of money.
It's not just about the Golden Badge, it's about prioritization, it's about verifying all of our employees, up to a certain number, I believe.
And, uh, it's about, you know, like, here's our business, this is really us, we want to be verified.
We don't want, um, we don't want people impersonating us and things like that.
I don't know if I care anymore.
You know, when Twitter announced they were going to be bringing on this World Economic Forum woman, I was about to click cancel.
And then people were like, no, give them a chance!
Give them a chance.
When they do something wrong, and I said, fair point.
If I cancel now, I actually sacrifice my leverage.
And so it's better to say, hey, hey, you're bringing this, this WF person on.
If you do bad by us, we cancel.
No, no, no, no, okay, okay, okay, please don't cancel, please don't cancel, trust me, we'll be okay.
Right now, we are on the line.
If they do not reinstate this deal with the Daily Wire, we'll probably cancel.
I'll probably just cancel Twitter Blue across the board and just be like, there's no point.
There's no point in paying for a platform that would do something like this.
Look, if we were talking about someone who said they wanted to post a video that was just screaming hate speech, and like, we made a video where we just don't like X group of people, I'd be like, okay dude, listen.
This is, the segment's in question, subjects of the film making statements.
Okay, how are we supposed to know what people in the real world think if we can't even show a thing that happened?
You see my point?
It is not Matt Walsh who is going out here and be like, I'm gonna misgender all these people!
They say this account is verified because it's an official organization on Twitter.
Well, I don't know about you guys, Daily Wire, but I'm not going to pay if they don't restore you.
Maybe the Daily Wire thinks it's still worth paying for the service, but my view is, I will not give money to these companies.
I won't do it.
It's bad enough I have to go to Starbucks, okay?
Starbucks isn't the worst, in terms of like, wokeness, but they're as bad as anybody else, right?
What I mean to say is, they do bad things, but it's not like Target or Bud Light.
When I go out for coffee, we've got two coffee shops, one's hardcore woke, big masks only, and they don't carry heavy cream.
And I'm like, okay, not interested.
And then you've got Starbucks that they allow people to come in without masks, and at a certain point, like the mask manager dropped this one store, kept them up, like that's the wokeness, that's the weird cult-like behavior.
And Starbucks is like, nah, you're good.
And they have heavy cream.
Man, and I'm not a big fan.
I want to open Castbrook coffee shops all over the place so we can have American values in our enterprises.
Maybe the real mission is just that we launch Castbrook together.
When we launch our first, we just say franchise it.
And then we would take like a percentage of like franchise fee, but it would go towards like a legal defense fund or something.
And then we have like protocol of like, play these shows, put these TVs up.
How cool would it be to have like a thousand Casper coffee shops and you walk in and James O'Keefe, OMG, Steven Crowder there on the TV.
That's what we gotta do.
I will not give my money to Twitter if Twitter is actively saying they're psychotic death cultists.
I'm like, dude, I'm not gonna fund that stuff.
I don't have Netflix.
I don't have Disney Plus.
I got rid of those things.
Slowly getting rid of as much as I can.
The challenge?
We want to win a culture war, so we have to be involved in culture.
To a certain extent, we can't just remove ourselves.
That's why I tell people, look, don't cancel your Disney, don't cancel your Netflix.
Do it if you can, do it if you must.
But I'm not going to tell everybody, just boycott entertainment in general, because we need to know what's going on in the entertainment world, and then we need to create alternatives.
The reason we launched Cast Brew Coffee, go to castbrew.com if you want to support us, is because I don't expect people to stop shopping at these big coffee shops.
They gotta get their coffee from somewhere.
We must present a real alternative.
Rumble!
They don't have a Twitter-like system.
Maybe Rumble, you guys could create a community thread kind of thing.
But I'll leave it at that.
You get the point.
I will terminate if they don't rectify this.
Jeremy Borg goes on to say, We plan to post the movie anyway tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Will Twitter make good on their threat to throttle it and label it hateful conduct?
Or will Twitter live up to its great promise we'll all find out together?
Matt Walsh says, read this thread.
We are streaming What Is A Woman free for all on Twitter tonight.
Despite signing an agreement with us, Twitter now says they will label the film hate speech and suppress it.
This is a gross betrayal of the free speech promises they have made to their users.
Twitter wants us to censor the film if we're going to post it.
We will not do that.
It will still stream tonight uncensored at 8 Eastern, no matter what.
We'll find out if Twitter is truly a free speech platform or not.
We are putting the ball back in their court.
Censorship around misgendering is one of the primary catalysts that drove Elon Musk to buy Twitter in the first place.
If this is allowed to stand, it will all be for nothing.
He says, one of the many things that makes the suppression and censorship of what is women so ridiculous is that we simply provided a forum for both sides to make their case.
The fact that the trans side utterly humiliates itself is their fault, not ours.
We let them speak.
Twitter has now chosen a side and declared that one side is not only wrong but shouldn't even be heard.
This is, of course, the position of every big tech platform on the issue.
We hoped Twitter would be different.
Today, it seemed like we were wrong.
Indeed.
Indeed.
This is one of the clips from the film, I Want to Play For You.
Matt Wall says, the other hate speech scene.
Please note, Twitter is accusing this father of misgendering his own daughter by calling her, her.
This man is being persecuted by the Canadian government for trying to protect his daughter from mutilation.
Twitter has taken the persecutor's side.
unidentified
Right, so what happened is we set up a meeting with B.C.
Children's Hospital, and according to the B.C.
Oh, whoops. I need to, I'm like, why is the audio wrong?
I find that, uh, really fascinating, to be completely honest.
It's just weird, like, that a dad would be like, well, the court said it.
I'm like, wow.
I wonder what it would have been like 200 years ago.
I just, I don't know, I don't know.
Kind of feel like it'd be a lot crazier.
Frank J. Fleming, I saw this one on Twitter, this is, uh, he's a former engineer, scripted creator for Daily Wire, says, man, this sucks.
So Elon bought Twitter because the Babylon Bee was banned from his gendering, but they would have throttled the reach of a free release of What Is Woman because of that.
That's taking aside a really dumb one in an issue that needs more public debate.
I agree.
Ben Shapiro tweets, Any society that isn't normatively based on heterosexual
family formation is, definitionally, doomed to collapse.
Pretending that society ought to be apathetic about such matters, or even worse,
condemnatory of the presence of traditional norms, is civilizationally suicidal.
That's what they want.
I mean, there's no other way around it.
It is a presumption to say they want it, but you know what?
Let me just remove that from the equation and say, whatever it is they're doing results in this.
Children sterilizing themselves, people gorging themselves, people aborting their kids.
The end result is less people.
I saw a story today that said, teen pregnancy is way down!
And I'm like, that's a good thing.
We don't want teenagers getting pregnant.
We want people in their early 20s to start having families and to be responsible.
But the Malthusians are pronounced.
They think the Earth is overpopulated.
I disagree.
I do think there's too many people in cities.
I think cities are disgusting.
I think we have serious cultural problems.
So maybe, maybe what they really want is a re-organization, a Great Reset, as it were.
I wonder what that could mean.
Maybe the Great Reset doesn't mean what you think it is.
When we look at the details of something like the Great Reset, which they publicly discuss, it's, you know, you'll, you'll be, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy.
Think about this.
Along with those policies are the policies of population reduction.
Again, it doesn't need to be intentional.
I don't know what they want or whatever, but let me just say this.
Policies of Resetting global capitalism combined with sterilizing people, aborting children, and not having families, promoting... How would you describe this?
Less than traditional lifestyles?
This reduces the amount of people that will be created.
What happens?
If civilization collapses, only the strong will survive.
Perhaps, whatever the Great Reset is, whether intentional or not, will result in a resetting of American social norms.
You know, I said this on TimCast IRL in the member section, I think Bill Gates hates liberals.
I genuinely think he hates liberals.
I'm not saying he's a conservative.
I don't think that he agrees with conservatives, but he hates liberals.
And a lot of people have been like, what?
What makes you think that?
And I'm like, dude, his policies advocate for their demise!
Like, dude, if you went to someone and said, would you consider aborting or sterilizing your kids?
Do you think that's a term of endearment?
No, you're basically saying, I despise you so much I want your lineage to end!
It doesn't mean he likes conservatives, but conservatives are saying no to this.
So the end result is just the left and liberals gorging themselves, aborting their kids, sterilizing their kids, body positivity, propping up people like Lizzo, who is morbidly obese.
And the Great Reset will be a reset of human civilization with people who are stronger and more capable and more responsible.
And I'm not saying anyone's doing it intentionally.
I'm saying that seems to be the case.
Cities will collapse, the left will sterilize themselves or gorge themselves out of existence, and then conservatives will start having kids as they've often done, and the earth will be a genuinely conservative place.
I think we need more people, but not liberals.
And I don't mean that as prescriptive or anything.
What I'm saying is, we need people who recognize working together towards a common goal.
And I think that goal is space colonization.
That's why Elon Musk is doing important work.
But liberals, for the most part, want to be influencers.
They want to eat a lot of food.
They post videos of them eating, and they're wayward souls.
I think it's possible people can be saved.
That this urban city dweller who doesn't know what's really going on in the world, who's morbidly obese, can start to learn, can exercise, can eat right, cut out those sugars, and then find a better life.
But it really does feel like the policies, again, whether intentional or not, will result in the demise of the average urban liberal.
But we'll see, my friends, tonight.
If they throttle this, if they don't restore The Daily Wire's ability to publish this, I want them to uphold their agreement.
I'm gonna terminate our Twitter Blue subscription.
Our Enterprise subscription, because I don't see any point in supporting Twitter if that's the case.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are already campaigning in Iowa.
And Ron DeSantis, who has been getting the media treatment for some time, is getting a harsh lesson today.
But I like this story.
He slams a reporter for trying to set him up.
But this is the game, my friend.
This is a lesson today for you as to how the media crafts false narratives.
And I'm going to break it down for you.
Bravo to Ron DeSantis for calling this out.
Basically, what happens is DeSantis is meeting with voters.
He's taking pictures.
He's talking to people.
And a reporter asks him why he isn't taking questions from voters.
Well, that's weird.
He literally was.
So why would they ask?
It's a framing technique.
So when they write their article, they can say, many people seemed upset.
They don't explain why.
I asked, why weren't you taking questions from voters?
Ron DeSantis snaps at me.
Creating the false impression.
The DeSantis wasn't taking questions so they can write something and you cannot sue them.
Let me tell you some stories.
Let's read the news first.
Are you blind?
Are you blind?
Tense moment.
Ron DeSantis snaps at Associated Press reporter for asking why he took no questions from voters while surrounded by supporters.
You see how the headlines are already starting to do it to push the lie.
Let me show you the video here because I do believe they have the video right here.
Oh, I love that. I'm sorry. Look, we were ragging on to send us over charisma and stuff, but that was masterfully
delivered. So much respect. Are you blind? I like I'd expect him to ask the one time snarkily, but then he like
really sticks it to the guy.
Are you blind?
Are you blind?
Very nice.
Very nicely done.
You see how the headline's already crafted to make it seem like he wasn't taking questions?
This is how they do it.
Snaps after Associated Press reporter asks him why he took no questions from voters while surrounded by supporters.
Already, they are creating the narrative he's not taking questions when he literally is.
It's remarkable.
There was a guy, he wrote for the Boston Globe, I think it was, and he had written that there was a certain individual, this was years ago, during like the Berkeley riots, he wrote that a guy was a white nationalist.
And I said, what?
Why would he write that?
That's so weird.
Because the guy's writing about a mixed-race family with a mixed-race kid.
And so I messaged him and I was like, hey, that guy you're writing about's got a, like his wife is black and his kid's mixed-race.
And he was like, yes, so.
And I'm like, well, you called him a white nationalist.
And he said, is he a nationalist?
And I'm like, he is a nationalist.
And he goes, is he white?
And I'm like, he is a white man.
Yes, because then he's a white nationalist.
And I'm like, wow, that's how evil these people are.
This was the setup.
They say Ron DeSantis exploded at an AP reporter on Thursday for asking why he was taking no questions from voters at a campaign stop in Manchester.
The 2024 Republican presidential hopeful began the event alongside his wife, etc, etc.
In a swipe at Trump, he vowed to end the culture of losing that has infected the Republican Party.
That's not a swipe at Trump.
That's a swipe at, like, McConnell.
He then met some of his 250 supporters in the crowd to pose for selfies and sign autographs when he lashed out at journalist Steve Peeples.
Blah, blah, blah.
The Florida governor was chatting to voters individually but didn't take questions from reporters.
And there it is.
I despise these people so much.
I'm sorry.
I just have so much hatred for the corporate press.
You see, what happened was DeSantis decided to take questions from regular people to talk to them one-on-one.
That's fantastic.
Good job.
And the press said, why won't you talk to me instead?
And cried and whined and then lied.
Fire these people.
Shut down these companies.
One of the greatest moments of my career.
I was at an event called News Exchange.
This was in Morocco.
I was invited.
There was a whole bunch of big speakers.
You had, like, Christiane Amanpour there.
Big stage with thousands of journalists in the audience.
And then I said something about, if you don't understand, like, where technology is going, whatever.
I was like, if you don't know what you're doing, fire all of these people.
These reporters tend to be elitists who think they are owed something.
You're not.
And that's one of the reasons they really hated Trump.
He cut them out of the picture by tweeting.
And now you can see they're going to do the same thing to DeSantis.
Because he's going to come out and he's going to say, I'm going to talk to the people.
I'm not talking to you.
You don't matter.
What do I care what you have to say?
You're going to lie anyway, right?
And now they're having a temper tantrum.
Jonathan Allen.
He is a, what is he, best-selling author, NBC News.
He says, after declining to take audience questions after his first New Hampshire campaign event, DeSantis lashed out at a reporter for asking him about why he was chatting with members of the crowd individually.
I respect that framing of it.
Yes, he was chatting with members of the crowd one-on-one, answering questions for them specifically.
I think it's great.
I think it's great.
And then also, like, wait, just as an aside, what?
Tim Pool trending with What Is A Woman?
Tom Morello?
Oh, thanks, guys.
The far left, they love tweeting my name out.
Here we go.
Here we go.
I love this one.
DeSantis tells an Iowa voter, we're going to do ballot harvesting.
I'm doing it, yes.
Says he won't fight with one hand tied behind my back.
Here's the video.
unidentified
Yes, we will.
We will.
So, each state is different, right?
So, like in Nevada, they send everyone a ballot, which is bad.
But we're going to do ballot harvesting.
We're going to do ballot harvesting.
I'm not going to pleb fight with one guy behind my back.
You've got people on the other side saying Trump can't win, voters don't like him, they would prefer Biden, and that's why Ron DeSantis is the real opportunity, and there's some truth to that as well.
But I gotta tell you, look, I see two different guys, and I gotta say, good news.
So they're gonna run Biden because they don't got anything else, and it's not gonna work.
Meanwhile, on the right, you got too many people.
Let's be real here.
You got Trump, you got DeSantis, Tim Scott, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Glenn Young, and Christy Noem.
You've got a bunch of people to a sliding scale of viability.
Now let's be real.
Donald Trump, probably the most likely.
I got this fly, it won't leave.
Donald Trump is the most likely to win.
That's obvious.
Ron DeSantis, of course, coming in second.
This is predicted, we're showing.
Tim Scott likely won't win.
Mike Pence likely won't.
Nikki Haley, Glenn Young, Ken Christie, no.
But you can actually point out the varying degrees of charisma and notoriety and accomplishment.
On the left, you have nothing.
Name one.
Gavin Newsom, maybe?
Everyone always goes, Oprah, Michelle Obama, or something like that.
And it's like, yeah, people who aren't in politics, perhaps.
Trump wasn't.
Maybe Michelle Obama is their key.
But all I gotta say is, look.
The Trump people and the DeSantis people should be careful about how they engage in this rhetoric and these attacks.
Because it may come down to having to support one or the other.
And yo, I'm telling you, if Trump gets the nomination and DeSantis people don't vote for him, you're out of your mind.
And if DeSantis gets the nomination and Trump supporters don't vote for him, you're out of your mind.
Like, it's one of these two.
Trump right now is my primary vote.
Let's see how things go.
DeSantis has charisma problems.
I hope his people listen because I would love to see him succeed.
It's not going to be super easy, but let's fix that.
Here's what you get.
With Donald Trump, you've got over-charisma.
He's arrogant, he's brash, but he is more charismatic.
With Ron, it's completely inverted.
He may be more stoic and more reserved, but with that comes a lack of charisma.
Figure it out, guys.
And, uh, I don't wanna- I don't- I don't care for this Trump v. DeSantis stuff.
Obviously there's a primary, and there will be, but let's keep it above the belt.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Millennials are becoming more conservative, so they say.
But maybe the reality is the left is just going absolutely crazy.
We have two data points.
In a story from the New York Times, they say millennials are not an exception.
They moved to the right.
Over the last decade, almost every cohort of voters under 50 has shifted rightward.
And I think this data point is due to human lack of comprehension skills.
And it's kind of crazy to think.
Millennials aren't getting more conservative.
They're not.
But they are more likely to vote Republican.
In another story from the Financial Times, they say Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics because they're not getting more conservative.
The issue here is that they're conflating two totally different things.
In the New York Times article, they say that millennials are in fact moving to the right, despite what the Financial Times may actually say.
But the New York Times is playing a dirty game where they're trying to make liberals into conservatives and the left become liberals.
It's the shift.
It's the great wheel, as I call it in politics.
Here's how it works.
Imagine you have a wheel.
And you have centrists in the middle, right-wing, far-right.
Left, far-left.
When the wheel spins, the far-right falls off.
They go under.
Then, right-wingers become far-right, centrists become conservative, liberals become centrists, and leftists become liberals.
The fringe communist psychopaths become now far-left.
You see how it works?
The whole wheel shifts.
That's what the New York Times is actually doing.
Now, let's break this down.
There is some good news here.
Millennials and Gen Z are seeing a massive shift towards the Republican Party.
Not massive enough, but fairly large.
And it will likely become more pronounced as time goes on.
But the big challenge is that the Republican Party does adopt more liberal policies as time goes on, welcoming in former liberals as the Democratic Party becomes more and more fringe leftist than The issue is it drives away many of the millennials who are still left.
So this is the game they're playing.
And you can break it down very easily.
First, over the financial times, they say millennial voters in the UK and US are not following the typical pattern of growing more conservative as they age.
But what is he talking about?
What does it mean to be conservative?
None of these people actually know.
They don't define it.
What is he actually saying?
The Financial Times breaks it down.
ECONOMICALLY conservative.
Interesting.
So they're not talking about social issues.
They're not talking about wokeness or LGBTQ.
They're talking about taxes and fiscal policy.
Yes.
When you have people like Steve Bannon on the Trump supporting right saying that wealthy people are ripping you off, don't be surprised if the younger generations don't adopt more laissez-faire capitalist policies.
But to argue that makes them not conservative is very strange.
Over the New York Times, they show this graph.
And Nate Kohn writes about this.
this. He says 15 years ago, a new generation of younger young voters propelled Barack Obama
to a decisive victory that augured a new era of democratic dominance. 15 years later, those
once young voters aren't so young and aren't quite so democratic. Why?
It's really simple.
It's not because people like me have become conservative.
I've actually moved slightly left on many issues.
But the Democrats are nuts!
They want to sterilize kids.
You've got proponents of abortion up to birth.
You actually had Northam in Virginia give his famous quote.
The baby would be delivered, resuscitated if necessary, brought into another room, and then the mother and doctor would make a decision.
What?!
The baby!
It's alive!
That's insane!
So no.
These leftists, these far leftists, they want me to be conservative.
But it doesn't make sense and it doesn't work in an actual debate format, which is why I actually think they don't want to debate.
It's why they don't want to appear on shows like Tim Kast IRL.
It's not so much about having their ideas refuted.
It's about the contrast between me, a traditional liberal, a conservative, and them, the crackpot psychopaths of the far left.
When they come on this show, they say, we had the guy from the surf, he's like, Tim, you're for forced abortion, forced birth!
What does that even mean?
It doesn't mean anything!
If there's a baby in a woman, baby's gotta come out somehow.
And so his whole stance is, if the woman's pregnant at eight and a half months and the baby can live, who cares?
It's gotta come out, you can kill it.
I'm like, that literally makes no sense.
You have to remove it, why kill it in the process?
I'm sorry, I guess it's the compromise.
You can't kill it, it's alive.
See, I've always come from the traditional background with urban Democrat-Liberal types of safe, legal, and rare.
Within a certain amount of time, you know, it's unfortunate we don't like it, but this is the compromise.
We'd be like, the government shouldn't be involved up to a certain point for 14th Amendment reasons and things like that, and privacy, etc., etc.
But now the left is just pro-abortion outright.
They think you should literally.
I think, what did Planned Parenthood tweet?
Someone said they tweeted something like, any reason is a good enough reason, or whatever, and I'm like, no it isn't.
Like, that's crazy.
We've never supported that.
Yet, in a debate with these leftists, I have Seamus Coghlan, whose hardcore pro-life wants to ban it completely, no matter what.
Then you have me, traditional pro-choice, debating with an abortion absolutist.
And they're calling both of us conservatives.
I'm like, we're not going to agree on policy.
He's conservative, I'm liberal, and you're a crackpot.
This is what's happening.
The Democrats have embraced such psychotic policies that there are many millennials who aren't becoming right-wing who are voting Republican.
The New York Times uses this trick to say, yes, millennials are moving to the right.
Voting Republican doesn't mean you move to the right, you psychopaths.
It means we're taking anything we can get to get away from the cult.
Anything.
It's funny when I see people who are like very liberal and they're like, I don't like Trump, but man, wokeness is insane.
We don't want to have anything to do with it.
And then what they do in both of these is they conflate the two things and make them seem like they're the same.
He goes on to mention, uh, last fall voters supported this, that, or otherwise.
I think they mention the financial times in here.
And I think, um, let me see if I can just, uh, pull it up.
Cause I think it is relevant to the conversation.
Let's see what we got here.
Uh, let's just type in Times.
Last fall, young voters, uh, the young voters of 08 by then, 32 to 43, preferred Democratic congressional candidates by just 10 points.
And, uh, they do mention the financial, you know, they probably put FT.
It's gonna, do we get it?
Okay, what do we got?
All right, this is just too ridiculous.
I don't want to read the whole article.
But, uh, but I'm pretty sure, that's how I found the, uh, the Financial Times article as it was.
Okay, let's just read it.
They say, uh, blah blah blah blah blah, the shift towards the right among young voters who propelled Obama to victory is part of a larger pattern.
Over the last decade, almost every cohort of voters under 50 has shifted toward the right, based on an analysis of thousands of survey interviews archived at the Roper Center.
It's not necessarily a stunning finding.
Political folklore has long held this, as we get.
The Financial Times, for instance, wrote that millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics by not moving to the right as they age.
Similarly, the Democratic data firm Catalyst found that Democrats essentially haven't lost ground among millennials and Gen Z in over a decade.
These findings have helped spark a new wave of speculation about whether the long-awaited era of Democratic dominance might this time really be at hand.
But a different story emerges by tracking the same cohort of voters over time.
Rather than a whole generation with changing composition, the Millennials of 08 are not the same as those of 2016, for instance.
Six additional years of even more heavily Democratic Millennials became eligible to vote after the 2008 election, canceling out the slight Republican shift among older Millennials.
The shift of the right appears largest among the oldest young voters.
The older Millennials who came of age in a very different political era.
Basically what they're saying is the generation doesn't mean anything.
It's the time they were born.
So that's why they break this down by 85 to 89 and 1990 to 94.
If you just say straight up Millennials, you might see a different picture.
But here's what I think we're seeing.
Algorithmic decay.
The rise of a new religion.
I think Instagram, TikTok are captured.
I think TikTok especially is captured, likely with heavy Chinese influence.
Republicans are too stupid to do anything about it.
So, while I do see a path forward, and I am fairly optimistic, I am startled by what we see on a day-to-day basis.
Bud Light knowing that they're destroying their brand, double down!
Sending more money to causes that offend their audience.
These are the kind of things that makes people like me say, you know what?
I'm voting Republican for the first time.
I don't care.
The Democrats are nuts.
People like Steve Bannon.
When he speaks, he sounds like he's at an Occupy Wall Street.
The rich people are ripping you off!
You gotta tax them!
Tax the wealth!
Wealth tax!
And I'm like, I don't think big government's the answer.
I don't have all the answers.
What I can tell you is, we are facing trying times.
Conservatives need to keep their kids away from these schools.
You'll regret it.
You gotta, you gotta make sure that they're not being overly medicated.
It's hard to know because doctors might say this is the right thing and then... I recommend, that's one of the reasons I say get away from cities.
Get your kids out there into the real world to work hard.
To understand nature and life.
I'll take it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
that as we enter the 2020 24 election cycle, there's a good amount of optimism in that
younger voters are shifting to the right, not in the sense that they're becoming conservative,
but the Democrats are so insane. The Republicans are the safe alternative. Good. I'll take it.
I'll leave it there. Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes. Stick around and I'll see you
all shortly. And all of a sudden I find myself a big fan of Hunter Biden.
Biden.
I'm kidding, by the way, but check out this story.
Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights?
The president's son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns, but the law's constitutionality faces growing challenges.
Yo, bring it on!
Hunter Biden could soon find himself in a surprising position, at the cutting edge of the fight to strengthen the Second Amendment.
The President's son is the target of a DOJ investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018, a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine.
Federal law bans drug users from owning guns, but the constitutionality of that law, like many other provisions restricting gun ownership, is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.
His lawyers have already told DOJ officials that if their client is charged with a gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment according to a person familiar with private discussions, granted anonymity because they're not authorized to speak publicly.
That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms.
DO IT!
Here's what's really going to happen.
The DOJ will back off and they'll say, fine, you win.
And then we'll get, not only will we not get Hunter Biden criminally charged for committing crimes, but we will also not get a chance to strengthen gun rights in this country.
I hope they charge him.
I hope he challenges the law under the Second Amendment.
And I hope he wins!
Dude, I've heard a lot of people say the mentally ill and drug addicts and things like that should not be allowed to have guns.
You should not be allowed to wield a weapon if you're having a manic or mental health episode.
They should take that from you.
If you're having- if you're unwell, they can stop you from bearing that arm.
So if you're, like, walking around with a gun and you're saying, like, the sky is green and the monkeys are coming, and you're saying something crazy, they can take the gun from you.
That I'm okay with.
But if you are diagnosed with a mental illness and deemed to be rational and fit for the time being, they should not be able to.
Now, there are challenges there, because a cow could be like, hmm, you seem off to me.
But there's always going to be some line.
If you're a drug user, what does that really mean?
If you're not currently on drugs, you should not be barred from owning or bearing arms.
If you are under the influence, yes, they can come to you, they can take the weapons from you.
The reason why I have this stance is that the Constitution does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
Unless you're mentally ill, or you're doing drugs, or insert literally anything else you want.
I don't play that game.
It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.
Good luck.
And that's the point.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
It is better than, it is better in my view, that guilty persons bear arms So that it means regular law-abiding people can also bear arms.
Here's the point.
I would say it this way, but it doesn't quite make sense.
It is better that ten guilty persons bear arms than one innocent person be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms.
The reason is, those ten criminals are going to bear the arms anyway.
And that's the point.
You cannot take away the right of the individual who has broken no laws because the people who break laws will not follow those laws.
So why leave innocent people defenseless?
It makes no sense.
Let's get it, Hunter Biden.
The dispute would come as the White House fights to tighten gun laws, and it could put conservative gun rights enthusiasts who typically criticize the Biden family in unusual alignment with the President's son.
Don't know, don't care.
It's an issue of principles.
I don't like Hunter Biden.
I think he's a bad dude, hangs out with some bad boys.
I think he does some creepy, gross stuff.
But on this issue of fighting for gun rights, I'm right here.
Federal prosecutors are expected to soon finalize the Hunter Biden investigation.
David Weiss, the U.S.
Attorney for Delaware who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, is leading the probe.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in May that Weiss is capable of making any decision that he feels are appropriate and that he won't face political pressure.
Weiss is widely reported to be examining potential tax crimes related to undeclared income, as well as Hunter Biden's purchase of a handgun in October 2018.
When he bought the gun, Biden filled out a federal form on which he allegedly avowed that he was not an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance.
Politico reported in 2021.
But according to Biden's 2021 memoir, he frequently used crack cocaine at the time.
I was smoking crack every 15 minutes, he wrote.
A lawyer for Hunter Biden declined to comment.
Now, I do want to say this.
He can make the argument that drug users should be allowed to bear arms.
But he can't make the argument that he didn't lie.
They will not just go after him for being a drug user.
They'll say, that's not the crime.
The crime is you lied on a federal form to obtain a weapon.
So maybe...
You win.
And people who are users of drugs are allowed to keep and bear arms.
But you still lied in a federal form to obtain a firearm.
That's irrespective of whether it was about drugs or not.
That he's not getting away from.
A lawyer for Hunter declined to comment.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment as well, citing the fact that the President's son is a private citizen and that the DOJ probe is ongoing.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms.
The ATF says this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the 12 months before buying a gun.
Violators can receive up to 15 years in prison.
But the provision long considered an unassailable gun restriction now faces challenges.
Last June, the Supreme Court undid decades of lower court jurisprudence about the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin.
The court's sixth justice conservative majority ruled that contemporary gun restrictions must be consistent with those of the founding era.
The new constitutional test presents a massive opening for people working to loosen gun restrictions since firearm laws in America's founding era were in some ways extremely permissive.
The president, meanwhile, called the ruling deeply troubling and said it contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.
Screw you, dude!
They had warships!
Private, massive, multinational corporations have weapons of mass destruction right now!
So spare me!
Oh, we'll allow nuclear weapons, but only if you fill out your form.
There's a form you can fill out to build nuclear weapons.
Because private individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.
I love sitting down with politicians and being like, do you think people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons or biological weapons?
And they go, no, of course not.
I'll say, why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Look, I get it.
A private individual with a nuke is a bad thing.
People with nukes?
It's one thing if you're a guy and you have a rifle.
Rifles can cause a lot of harm and a lot of damage if used inappropriately.
We want to stop those bad people.
And the left makes the argument that muskets were substantially weaker in terms of fire rate and all that stuff.
Dude.
You had a right to keep in bare arms when they had breech-loading rifles, okay?
And those fire very, very quickly.
And then you're not going to come to me and say, okay, no, they had repeaters in the 1800s.
And people carried guns all over the place.
And then y'all started imposing these laws, starting with the NFA.
I mean, there were other laws and stuff, too.
The point is, we have long been permissive of very powerful weapons.
You do not get to say, well, the Founding Fathers didn't know this was going to happen.
Don't care.
Don't care.
They said you can have arms.
Have a nice day.
Here's what we do.
When you want to change the Constitution, you use the constitutional process by which to do it.
Please do so.
I don't think people should have nukes, but so long as the Constitution remains, they have the right to.
And I would be willing to bet If a bunch of Republicans said, here's a compromise, we will amend the Constitution to say, a new amendment, the right to keep and bear arms does not pertain to nuclear armaments, weapons of mass destruction, and biological agents.
I'd be willing to bet most people would agree with that.
And here's the compromise.
You do a new amendment and say, The right to keep and bear arms does not extend to the right to own nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons, high-powered aircraft, etc., but does relate to rifles, handguns of any type.
Any type.
And so what happens?
The right of the individual to have, say, an AR-15 with extended mags or drums, talking 100 rounds or whatever, is expanded.
The right to own a machine gun expanded, but now you can't have nukes.
I don't think people should have nukes.
For the time being, however, until you change it, people can.
And this is what people need to realize, too.
They say, that's stupid, they shouldn't be allowed.
It's like, okay, well, you think, like, Boeing is government-run?
No, it's a private company.
That means a private individual is in control of these things.
What do you think is happening?
You shouldn't be able to have weapons of mass destruction.
Okay, well, private individuals do.
All over the world.
This never changed.
I don't know where this idea came from, where these people think the government has all the weapons.
They don't.
The government buys the weapons from private manufacturers.
