Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 30, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:25:45

Trial To REMOVE Trump From Ballot BEGINS, Democrats CHEATING To Protect Biden And STEAL 2024

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 Trial To REMOVE Trump From Ballot BEGINS, Democrats CHEATING To Protect Biden And STEAL 2024 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:19:42

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:30

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And so it begins, the legal proceedings by which they will attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot to be president, at least in Colorado.
		It's not the first, it won't be the last, and I'm not so convinced they're going to lose.
		The New York Times reports Colorado trial will consider whether Trump, I'm sorry, whether 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump.
		A lot of people are saying it's stupid, it's a distraction, it's a long shot, it'll never happen.
		How do you prove insurrection?
		The 14th Amendment doesn't even explicitly state president anyway.
		It does say any civil office, which is interesting.
		Yeah.
		You know, it doesn't matter what the law is because what we have seen already across this country in terms of civil lawfare Is that they are going to stretch the law in any way imaginable to try and claim what they need to claim to get some... I don't know.
		You know, I call it a victory, but it's kind of just like they'll just say, hey, look, we won because of this technical rule.
		We've got little old ladies being hunted down and arrested as if they are no different from adult men smashing windows and jumping into a building.
		January 6th.
		They do not discern between the two.
		You will get a 5 a.m.
		raid whether you are walking around, looking, taking pictures, or you're one of the guys fighting with cops.
		They, on the other hand, the federal law enforcement, not gonna bet an eye at the far leftists who quite literally firebombed the White House on May 29th.
		And I love this one because I spent the weekend in Pittsburgh.
		And it's funny when you bring these conversations up to people are just like, huh?
		They have no idea that the far left firebombed the White House grounds and St.
		John's Church, May 29th, 2020.
		So here we go, baby.
		I'm telling you this right now.
		The argument they're making is that Trump's an insurrectionist with the betrayal Of Donald Trump by the likes of Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and others.
		They now have all the fuel they need.
		A public apology for committing insurrection.
		No, no, no.
		Hold on.
		I know.
		Jenna Ellis didn't plead guilty to insurrection.
		It was just, you know, like providing false statements or something like that, right?
		Well, Jenna Ellis, in court, said she did not know the statements she made were false.
		And you've got people defending her?
		I love this.
		Shout out to Andrew Klavan again, because I like Andrew Klavan.
		But he said, you know, all these little boys acting like they'd stand so tall and so tough facing down corrupt prosecution or whatever, and it's just like, okay, you know, I can cite Julian Assange all day and night.
		That dude basically gave up his life to stand up for what he believes in, and I have tremendous respect for the man.
		He should be pardoned, and I hope that'll be the case if Donald Trump wins.
		But, uh, can I just shout out Steve Bannon?
		Because I was talking about this last week.
		We had Grace, uh, uh, Grayson from, from, uh, uh, Whorum.
		And, you know, we're, we're asking her, it's like, is Steve going to jail?
		Is he gonna go to prison?
		Yeah, Steve Bannon said, F you!
		Bring it on!
		And so when I take a look, and I get it, I get it, you're gonna make the argument, yeah well Steve Bannon wasn't facing multiple felony counts.
		You can't make two arguments that contradict each other.
		One being, this case was, what I'm hearing from people supporting Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell is that their case was so weak they didn't want to go to court, so this is basically a walk.
		If that's the case, then do what Bannon did.
		Give him the big ol' middle finger and say, war.
		That's not what they did.
		Instead, they said, Trump did it and, you know, I'm so sorry.
		I'm exaggerating, but let me break it down for you.
		What they said, what Jenna Ellis said, is that she should have looked into it better, and that had she known, she wouldn't have done it, she regrets her actions, and she thought she was doing the right thing.
		What she stated in open court in Georgia is that the Trump team presented false information in an attempt to overthrow this country.
		And for that betrayal in Colorado, I assure you, they're going to bring this up.
		They're going to say, the judge is going to be like, on what grounds do you have to claim that Trump waged insurrection?
		And they're going to say, January 6th, they're going to cite all of the crackpot Democrat quote unquote evidence.
		And they're going to say, here are several statements admitted to public record from Trump's own legal staff admitting they were trying to manipulate the legal system with lies to take to take over this country.
		And there we go, baby.
		Now, let's just let's just lay it out there.
		I don't think any of that matters.
		I really don't.
	What's gonna happen?
	This is a precursor.
	This is preliminary.
	I don't know what Colorado will do.
	Maybe they'll say yes.
	It's blue.
	It could potentially go red, but I doubt it.
	Depends.
	And this is why it's so important to get Trump off the ballot.
	With RFK Jr.
	running, the media is trying to say that he's gonna pull votes from Donald Trump.
	I really doubt it.
	With Cornel West running, that's obviously pulling progressives from Joe Biden.
	And Cenk Uygur, appearing on the Culture War podcast last week, Talking about his right to run as a naturalized citizen, despite not being born here, he will also, and he agreed, pull donations and resources away from Joe Biden.
	In a place like Colorado, where we assume it will be blue, if RFK Jr.
	runs and pulls 15%, let's just say he pulls 7%, because I think that's what he's pulling in among Democrats, oh no no, I'm sorry, nationally, Democrats like 14-15%, Trump beats Biden in Colorado.
	I mean, maybe not, but potentially, right?
	That's why they gotta get his name off the ballot.
	So what happens?
	This may be preliminary.
	Colorado may say, no, no, we're not playing this game.
	Y'all are nuts.
	But what happens?
	The framework, the groundwork that is laid forth in Colorado may be implemented in other states because they are trying to hedge their bets against an RFK Jr.
	run.
	We had People's Pundit on the show.
	He explained Trump could win Maine if RFK Jr.
	runs because it will pull enough votes from Democrats.
	Hey, RFK Jr.
	will pull some from Trump because they're not the diehard Trump voters.
	They're more like middle of the road and they'll say, I'll take RFK Jr.
	But I don't think completely, because RFK Jr.' 's for reparations, but here's what I see happening.
	You're gonna get a state, I don't know, Maine maybe, who knows.
	And what they're gonna do, is they're gonna use the precedent set here, it's a trial balloon.
	They gotta see where they succeed, where they fail.
	A month before the election, the ballots will be released and there will be no Donald Trump on the ballot.
	Trump's legal team will then file suit and say, these ballots don't include my name.
	The state will respond, as an insurrectionist, you are ineligible and we have not placed your name on that ballot.
	See you in court in three months.
	Uh-oh.
	And you know, people keep saying, they're like, if they tried to do that, Trump would sue them and win so fast.
	Sure, but the ballots were already printed.
	Have a nice day.
	They will unilaterally just print the ballots without Trump's name on it.
	And then, come the court case, the judge will issue an injunction.
	Doesn't matter.
	If it's one day, Tuesday, three, four, five days.
	Tuesday.
	Two days.
	That's going to have a tremendous impact.
	Take a look at Arizona.
	People are saying, like, oh, they would never do it, they can't do it.
	In Arizona, they printed the wrong ballots on the wrong size, on the wrong paper, and the machines rejected them.
	Whoopsie-daisy, how did that happen?
	Well, the argument is, it must have been a big ol' mistake.
	So many argue that you have to intentionally alter the ballot size to make that happen.
	So when the wrong image was printed on the wrong paper, the machine could not properly read them.
	And thus, the machine kicked him back.
	Lines were jammed up.
	And people ended up leaving.
	Ah, the left argues no.
	Nobody left.
	Everyone got their vote counted.
	Oh, come on.
	Spare me.
	I don't care.
	If you in any way obstruct an election, the judge should bang the gavel and say, the election didn't happen.
	In Arizona, as soon as word got out that the machines were broken in all these locations, it is insane to me that a judge did not immediately say, we are putting a stay on this election because the machines are broken.
	Done.
	Have a nice day.
	Instead, they're like, yeah, whatever.
	That's crazy.
	You're outright telling people, your vote don't matter.
	And we don't care either way.
	What do you think happens with this?
	Here's the story.
	Let's go through some of the legal arguments.
	New York Times says, while some prominent constitutional experts argue that a clause in the amendment applies to former President Donald Trump, that view is far from universal among legal scholars.
	In fact, the 14th Amendment outlines specifically who cannot hold office.
	The president is not named, but it does say any civil office.
	So we'll read that in a second.
	A courtroom in Denver will host, starting Monday morning, something the nation has never seen.
	A trial to determine whether a major party's likely presidential nominee is eligible to be president at all.
	The lawsuit filed in September by six Colorado voters, with the help of a watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argues that former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
	That section disqualifies anyone who engaged in insurrectional rebellion against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it.
	I would make the argument that Donald Trump actually sought to uphold the Constitution.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	You know, we had Jent Uger here saying Donald Trump was trying to overthrow this country.
	That's why I can't vote for him.
	You know, even though Biden's really, really bad, I have to take him.
	And I'm just like, yeah, sorry, dude.
	I just, I don't, I don't follow that logic.
	I see this.
	Donald Trump legitimately believes that he won.
	I mean, look, that's it.
	And whether he's right or wrong isn't necessarily material.
	It's the intention behind it.
	Did Donald Trump attempt to overthrow and steal an election?
	I don't think so.
	I think Donald Trump legitimately thought foul play was afoot and he wanted it remedied and rectified.
	We saw many states procedurally change their voting rules.
	In fact, one thing we keep hearing is that there were 60 plus lawsuits and they were all thrown out.
	Not on the merits.
	In fact, there's one analysis, I retweeted this over the weekend, I should have pulled it up.
	Of the court cases that actually went to, were heard on the merits, Trump won the majority of them.
	The Trump team won, I believe it's something like 22 of 30 cases that were actually tried on the merits.
unidentified		However, Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
		See you on the tour.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bye bye.
		Now, I'm not here to argue all of that, okay?
		To break down all of the arguments about procedure.
		We did that years ago.
		My point here right now for this story is Trump really believed it.
		In which case, Trump is upholding the Constitution by following the constitutional and legal means to challenge an election he sees as unjust.
		If a president genuinely believed they lost and said, I hereby hand over this country to people I think cheated, That is breaking your oath to uphold the Constitution, which requires that the challenge be had.
		If you believe in the Constitution, you would not let people subvert it.
		So this argument is all about whether or not Trump is good or evil.
		Now, more importantly, This right here, a legal question should not, this should not exist.
		And you know what?
		It was a young nation, relatively young compared to how old we are now.
		I mean, look, we're talking about, what, 80 years into the age of this country, a civil war breaks up?
		That's young compared to most other countries.
		And because of the Civil War, they passed the 14th Amendment, which basically has a lot to do with citizenship and rights of former slaves, how we handle the rebellion in the states, the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment was to basically say that if you were one of these people that waged war against us, you can't hold office.
		You're out.
		Something interesting happened, however.
		I always mix up the years.
		I think it's 1876.
		The Second Civil War almost broke out.
		There was a question over which electors to count and alternate slates and things like this.
		And they said, okay, okay, hold on guys.
		We don't want to go to war.
		Can we make an agreement?
		A council was had and they ultimately decided, no, no, seriously, a committee.
		I said, okay, we'll let you be president, but we're ending reconstruction.
		Get the union troops out of the South.
		Blah, blah, blah, blah.
		You get it.
		It wasn't so much the will of the voter, kind of, but a debate was had as to who, which votes are the ones we're going to count, and the fear was, if they did not come to a discussion on this, it'd be another Civil War, because the South was like, no, this is who we voted for, and they said, no, no, no, no, hold on, hold on, hold on.
		Everybody comes back and says, guys, we've got an agreement, let's not fight over this, the Civil War was brutal.
		That, right there.
		Probably should have changed the terms of Section 3 of the 40th Amendment.
		But, uh, I say to Young Nation, I think they made a lot of mistakes.
		I think they did a lot of things right.
		Planted seeds of a great nation, but the 14th Amendment raises a lot of questions.
		So here we have the Cornell Law School, section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
		No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any
		office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state, who having
		previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
		member of any state legislature, or as an executive judicial officer of any state, to support the
		Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
		given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each
		house remove such disability.
		Two arguments.
		The first.
		It doesn't actually say President.
		And this is an argument people are making, though it does say any office, civil or military.
		No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice President.
		That's Elector of, not actually the President or Vice President.
		Or hold any office, civil or military.
		Now hold on there.
		The argument here is, holding office, civil or military, is intended to represent a bureaucratic government position, not an elected position.
		The argument being, They outline the elected positions for which they do not want you to be able to hold as an insurrectionist.
		Senator?
		Representative to Congress?
		Elector of the President or Vice President?
		Or a holder of office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state.
		I don't necessarily agree with that.
		I don't agree with that.
		I think any office, civil or military, does include civil office, which, to me, sounds like the president is a civil office, and it's the commander-in-chief, so it's military too, right?
		Well, that's what some people are making the argument for.
		But I don't think that one really matters.
		I think any office clearly defines the presidency.
	But, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, blah blah blah blah blah, what does it mean to wage insurrection?
	This is the game.
	With Democrat judges, they're going to say, oh yeah, Donald Trump challenging the election as per the Constitutional rules violates the Constitution.
	That's what they're going to argue.
	Well, that's insane.
	Donald Trump did not Call up an army with guns to go and march on state legislatures or anything.
	And Cenk Uygur outlines this as a scheme.
	The plan was for Mike Pence to challenge the election, and then for, you know, when that didn't work, he needed the J6ers to obstruct the election so that it would go back to the states.
	That makes literally no sense.
	I'm sorry, it just doesn't.
	There's a lot the J6ers could have done had there been an actual plan, but there clearly wasn't.
	Donald Trump told people to remain peaceful, and he told people to go home.
	Donald Trump said we're going to peacefully watch.
	There were peaceful rallies.
	Things got out of hand.
	Bad people did horrifying things.
	And I don't see any evidence of there having been a greater plan.
	But in the mind of Cenk Uygur on the left, January 6th was part of a planned coup.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	That's just not true.
	It's a weird world to live in.
	Now, it is possible that Mike Pence was part of their legal strategy.
	I believe that one, absolutely.
	They went to Mike Pence and they said, listen, as vice president, you look at these states, these state legislatures are upset.
	They feel that because the rules of their elections were changed without their approval, they're in violation of the Constitution.
	Thus, it's actually Donald Trump who is opposing the Constitution, and it is the Democrats, I say, who are in violation of it.
	Thus, I make the argument, the Democrats In these states should be removed from office under the 14th Amendment.
	I mean it.
	The argument goes both ways.
	Let's play this one out.
	You have a governor in office who changed the rules on election unilaterally.
	That violates the Constitution.
	That's insurrection.
	There you go.
	You do not have the legal authority of the Constitution to do this.
	The Constitution says elections will be held as the state legislatures decide.
	When the legislatures had the rules changed from underneath them and said, hold on there a minute, they said no.
	And they all did it in the 11th hour.
	Thus, Republicans won't do this, but they should in every state where a judge That's civil office.
	Or an executive changed the rules.
	They should be removed under the 14th Amendment.
	But the Republicans won't do it!
	Hey, Jamal Bowman should be expelled from Congress after we saw the video of him taking down the warning signs and then pulling the fire alarm.
	Republicans won't do it.
	But this is where we're currently at.
	Right now, Donald Trump, of course, is the frontrunner to second place Nikki Haley.
	If you like war, vote Nikki Haley.
	Ron DeSantis in a... I'd say close third, but not really.
	He's down by four cents in the prediction markets.
	This is where we're currently at, my friends.
	It's a question of whether or not it's actually going to work.
	The New York Times says the plaintiffs say that Mr. Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his actions before while supporters stormed the Capitol, Meet the disqualification criteria.
	Okay, where are the Republicans anywhere to file similar suits?
	Why is it only the Democrats engaged in civil lawfare?
	Where are we currently?
	Listen, my friends, it's civil war.
	We are not in the hot conflict phase.
	Call it pre-civil war, whatever you want to call it.
	Civil strife is what Stephen Marsh has described it as, and I think we're having him on the Culture War podcast soon to talk about a lot of this stuff.
	Civil strife is when a pre-Civil War era, people are dying a certain number of dead every year over political tribalism and things like that, and I think we're seeing it.
	When you look at these young people screaming pro-Palestine stuff and then fighting people in the streets, you're just like, the issue there proves, in my opinion, is people have no idea what they're talking about.
	So it's not about political issues, it's about hatred for the other.
	When you see 16-year-olds marching through the halls of their high schools, chanting from the river to the sea, you're like, they have no idea what they're talking about.
	But, they're bunched up, and they're adhering to each other, and that is the makings of tribal conflict.
	This is where we're currently at.
	Now, the left, the Democrats, are engaged in civil lawfare.
	It's lawfare.
	I say civil lawfare because it is.
	It's pre-Civil War.
	It is the use of the legal system to destroy your political opponents before it gets to the point of hot conflict.
	But I do believe this will ultimately lead to hot conflict.
	If they disqualify Trump from a single ballot, there's no election.
	You know, and I'll throw it to Roseanne again.
	We had Roseanne and Michael Maus on the show.
	Roseanne said there won't be an election.
	And the question is, what does that mean?
	Now, of course, I think she meant there quite literally won't be an election.
	Like, we'll just skip election day.
	I don't know.
	But I asked her, do you mean like there will be an election of some sort, but it'll be like a North Korea style election?
	You know, it's like they're not going to take Trump's name off the ballot.
	So no one really thinks they had a fair chance.
	Yeah.
	Here's what happens.
	If RFK Jr.
	pulls 7%, let's say 5% from Biden.
	If he pulls even 5% from Biden, Trump wins.
	Handily.
	So, the strategy here could be to spike Trump in states that are not necessarily swing states, but a five-point swing would guarantee Joe Biden, and they need to counter that.
	If Trump's name is on the ballot, sure, people will write him in, but what does that matter?
	A lot of people will just check Ron DeSantis or whatever the Republican Party member is.
	Nikki Haley, perhaps.
	And this is the dirty game being played right now.
	Right now, even Cenk Uygur, what did he say his website was?
	BidenIsGoingToLose.com.
	He comes on the culture war, he explains his position, he says, Biden's down this many points in this area, this many points in this area, he cannot win, he has to be, he has to be replaced, and the Democrats need to listen, and that's the purpose of his campaign.
	And Cenk, of course, not born in the United States, makes a 14th Amendment argument as to why he should be allowed to hold the office of presidency.
	Interesting argument, I do think it's important people look at that one.
	Well, I guess I'll just give you the simple version.
	The point I made on that show was, if we go by birthright citizenship, as for the presidency, then you could have someone who is born to a surrogate, a Chinese couple, has a surrogate in California, give birth to their son, who is immediately brought back to China and raised under the CCP as a CCP loyalist, And then when he's 25, he comes to the U.S., never having spoken English, and in 10 years, he's eligible to be president.
	And the argument I get from people is like, well, no one's gonna vote for him.
	I'm like, that's not the point.
	The point is, the qualification is you were born here.
	But clearly, that's not preventing the CCP or any of our adversaries from exploiting the system.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		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 The argument then, of course, is to go further in that direction, remove birthright citizenship, and then it's like, sure.
		And then you kick the can down the road one generation.
		and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The argument then of course is to go further in that direction, remove birthright citizenship,
		and then it's like, sure. And then you kick the can down the road one generation.
		That kid who was born here, or Chinese immigrants come to the United States,
		they get their citizenship status, have a kid. The kid is then brought to mainland China to
		be raised under the CCP. And it takes a generation, but then once again, you have a CCP loyalist.
		So, you know, that's the question, who would you rather have?
		That scenario, the CCP loyalist, or Dinesh D'Souza running for- as your president?
		Most people on the right would say Dinesh, but he's not- he wasn't born here, he can't be president.
		That's my- you get the point, you get the point.
		I'm not saying I have the answers, I'm saying a question people should bring up.
		Anyway, I digress.
		The strategy here is going to be to test every legal avenue to remove Donald Trump and win.
		And you know what?
		The Republicans are not doing the same.
		What the Republicans are doing right now is playing catch-up.
		In 2016, the Republicans had an edge.
		The meme wars.
		Online, for whatever reason, Trump succeeded tremendously through these meme campaigns.
		It was fun.
		It was funny.
		That caught the Democrats off guard.
		That helped Trump win.
		It really, really did.
		Now, in 2020, the Democrats played the ballot harvesting game, changing all the rules, there were lawsuits over it, and the judges sided with Democrats because this is lawfare.
		I mean, when you have 48 states involved in a lawsuit against each other, you're in some dangerous territory nationally.
		And so what happens?
		Lawfare occurs.
		Democrats win.
		Hey, Republicans won the lawfare game in 2000.
		This one's really beyond me.
		I mean, I wasn't super politically active.
		I was a little kid.
		Al Gore, George W. Bush.
		And where are we at now?
		Now, the Republicans are finally realizing the game Democrats are playing.
		They're trying to play catch-up on ballot harvesting, but the Democrats have already evolved to the next stage.
		They are one-upping the Republicans handily.
		I like that one, huh?
		In these states, they're saying, okay, Republicans are wise to our ballot harvesting game.
		Let's spike Trump's percentages the best we can.
		And here's the other thing.
		If they remove Donald Trump's name, this is the important thing everyone needs to realize.
		If they remove his name from a swing state, he loses.
		Done.
		Hands down.
		And many people are gonna argue, no, no, no way, that'll never happen.
		Fine.
		What if they remove Trump's name from... Illinois?
		Ehhh, long shot.
		I mean, Illinois's blue, but, come on, you got a lot of red portions of Illinois?
		Sure.
		Okay, Oregon.
		And Washington.
		These places are so deep blue, that, like, when you look at all the maps, it's like, if only men voted, it's all red.
		Yeah, Washington's still blue.
		So let's say, in Washington or whatever, Trump is expected to get 30%.
		A couple million votes.
		If they successfully remove Trump's name from deep blue states, the stupid Republicans are gonna say, it doesn't matter anyway because these aren't swing states and Trump can still win.
		You're right!
		And then when the numbers get released on Election Day, and Donald Trump has 38% of the popular vote to Joe Biden's 45, but Trump still wins, people are going to shriek bloody murder.
		That will be Democrats' war cry.
		Here's what happens.
		In states like California, they still get a tremendous, I think they get like 10 million Republican votes.
		In Oregon and Washington, there's still millions of Republican votes.
	Sure, the Democrats always win.
	Massive advantage.
	But those millions still go towards the popular vote count.
	What if California removes Trump's name from the ballot?
	Those 10 million Republican votes, which would normally go for Trump, may be split, let's say 50-50.
	Let's say 50% of Republicans still write in Donald Trump.
	Trump still then loses 5 million votes.
	And when it comes to the popular vote, they're going to say, look at this!
	Donald Trump won the Electoral College, but he only has, he only has 60 million votes to Joe Biden's 75.
	That's the game they're playing.
	Perception.
	And Colorado, many might say, he's not going to win anyway.
	Sure.
	They will try to spike Trump's popular vote count.
	Why?
	Because then, even if they lose, they will make a massive national popular vote push.
	And they will use it as propaganda and say, why is it that a man who only won a third of the popular vote is president?
	That's not democracy!
	And the real reason is, Yeah, half the country probably did want Donald Trump, but with his name off the ballot, they didn't know how to vote or were confused or just voted for a different Republican.
	And the real question would be, well, they wanted a Republican to be president, but they split the vote by taking the name off the ballot.
	I hope y'all are ready for how dirty this gets, because it gets dirty.
	I'll leave it there.
	It has begun.
	We'll see how this develops.
	It may be quickly dismissed.
	Who knows?
	Next segment is coming up at 1 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	On Saturday, Professional hockey player in the UK, Adam Johnson, was killed when another player's ice skate
	Slid his throat.
	My heart goes out to the family of Adam Johnson.
	It's a sad, sad story.
	And we're going to talk about it.
	I'm not a big sports or pop culture kind of guy, but I have to talk about it for one simple reason.
	As the story goes viral, I'm seeing many people say it was an accident.
	I'm seeing every news article say it was an accident.
	A freak accident.
	An accident.
	And then, video comes out.
	It's slow-mode.
	And this is my first introduction into this.
	Doesn't look like an accident.
	It looks like Matt Petgrave intentionally kicked another player in the throat with his ice skate.
	Now, a lot of people are arguing, okay, manslaughter.
	Manslaughter.
	No.
	I can't speak for UK law, but police are investigating the death of Adam Johnson when a skate slashed his throat in freak accident, they say.
	All of the articles call it a freak accident.
	Bro, everybody on Twitter slash X is like, no way, dude.
	I'm gonna play the video for you.
	I'm not gonna show the aftermath.
	It's very important.
	While I don't like to show what I would consider to be shot content, I don't think this is that.
	I think breaking down in slow motion what happened.
	Matt Petgrave, hockey player, appears to raise his leg in a kick to the throat of another player.
	There's another reason why I want to talk about this.
	And, um, I, uh, again, this is not normally something I really talk about, but I saw this photo and it kind of freaked me out.
	Why?
	Are you familiar with that jersey?
	It is the Pittsburgh Penguins.
	A little penguin playing ice hockey.
	Adam Johnson.
	This story breaks my heart so much.
	Man, this dude just playing hockey.
	I used to play hockey when I was a kid.
	Many of you know that not only have I been rollerblading since I was a kid, played street hockey with my friends, but I even rollerbladed a little bit a couple years ago and haven't really done it in quite a bit.
	Been skateboarding once.
	I've been skateboarding my whole life.
	Rollerblading before skateboarding, playing hockey.
	On Saturday, I was in Pittsburgh.
	And I went to, uh, I'm walking outside.
	I left my coat at the hotel because it was kind of warm.
	It was like high 60s, 70.
	But it started to drizzle a little bit, and I was like, well, I don't have a jacket.
	And I was like, but all I have is like a winter jacket, so I should get a light jacket, right?
	And we walk into, I'm with my girlfriend, we walk into a sporting goods store for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
	And I said, I like Pittsburgh, we're gonna get a Steelers jacket.
	Everything in the store, Steelers, Steelers, Steelers everywhere.
	Everyone is walking around, the Steelers game was just the other day.
	I guess, I don't really follow the Steelers.
	And so I see this light waterproof jacket, and I'm like, I'll grab this one.
	Thought it was a Steelers jacket.
	And nope, in fact, it was a Pittsburgh Penguins jacket.
	And I was like, as I'm at the checkout, I'm like, oh, look at that!
	It's a Penguins.
	And I was like, I don't know.
	And I bought it.
	And it's just, I don't know, maybe meaningless, but I just thought it was weird.
	This dude used to play for the Penguins, and the same day that this incident happened, I was buying that jacket, and I just, I don't know, it just seems weird.
	It's a coincidence, I guess.
	But, like, I have no reason to buy a Pittsburgh Penguins jacket.
	Why was the store that mostly just sold Steelers merch had one Penguins thing tucked in the back and I grabbed it?
	I don't know.
	And I saw this photo and I was like, whoa, what is this?
	I was like, I just bought that jacket.
	Like, what happened?
	And then I read the story.
	I'm gonna show you the clip.
	And we're gonna talk about what it means to murder.
	Here's the video.
	Jimmy!
	On Twitter, JamesMK2010 says, Adam Johnson ice hockey injury.
	This was Kung Fu Kick by the guy in red.
	Rest in peace.
	This video has 15.3 million views.
	And I am seeing so many people say, manslaughter, manslaughter, manslaughter.
	No, no, no.
	No way.
	You want to keep an eye on this guy right here.
	In red.
	I'm not going to show the aftermath.
	It's brutal.
	But I do want to show the maneuver.
	And explain some things in my view.
	Here you can see them all advancing.
	I think it's going to cut the screen here.
	But notice right here.
	I'll make it smaller, but for the time being, let me go back a little bit.
	This here is Adam Johnson, and this is Petgrave.
	Petgrave makes a move, pushing into, but as you can see right here, he is looking at Adam Johnson.
	He then shoves the player to his left.
	Appears to be... I can't tell what number that is.
	And then you can see right now, his leg begin to rise.
	Let me shrink this.
	It'll be harder to see, because it's a very small screen and a very small screen.
	But because of the angle, it's hard to see.
	You then see here, his leg goes straight up.
	Okay, look.
	And it goes into the throat.
	Let me tell you.
	I'm not a pro hockey player.
	I'm not a big ice skater.
	But I used to play street hockey a little bit, for what it's worth.
	This has never, ever happened.
	I've never seen this.
	People have been spiked by ice skates before.
	No, no, no.
	What I'm saying is, in my experience playing hockey, I played for several years when I was a kid, and in my experience as rollerblading in general, I don't understand in what circumstance you would turn, raise your left leg, and pivot onto your right.
	Why?
	...increases the exposure of your right leg and can cause very serious injuries when you're dealing with these kinds of collisions.
	The move that Matt Petgrave made put him at serious risk of injury and he raised his boot and it slit the throat of this guy.
	What a crazy story.
	They say police are investigating the death.
	Heartbroken fans and his teammates have left tributes.
	Now, here's what's crazy is that everyone's saying, freak accident.
	Outstanding American ice hockey player dies in freak accident, they're calling it.
	Look, if you want to watch a higher definition video, you can find them.
	I know it's hard for me to show because mine's already picture and picture and picture and it's getting smaller and smaller.
	There's no way it's an accident.
	This guy used to play for the Penguins, man.
	He was an American playing in the UK.
	Daily Mail says, Aisaki player who accidentally killed opponent Adam Johnson
	with his boot blade is absolutely distraught and has been receiving vile messages from trolls on social
	media.
	Sheffield Steelers player Matt Petgrave, 31, fatally cut his opponent's throat.
	Isn't that crazy?
	It's just the weirdest thing. I'm sorry.
	Adam Johnson played for the Penguins in Pittsburgh, whose NHL team is the Steelers,
	was playing against the Sheffield Steelers in the UK, and this dude cut his throat.
	They collided.
	And here's the guy, Petgrave.
	They're arguing it was an accident.
	But many other people are pointing out, I'm not a big Euro hockey follow.
	I don't follow hockey all that much.
	They said this guy's the leader in penalty points.
	Okay.
	I can't speak for Europe.
	So I won't.
	But we're going to talk about what it means to commit murder and why I say murder.
	In the United States, at least.
	Cornell.edu What is this?
	WEX MURDER!
	Common law murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought.
	Malice aforethought is a legal term of art that encompasses the following types of murder.
	Intent to kill murder.
	Okay, that one's obvious.
	A person who decides to kill someone then does murder.
	But here I bring you grievous bodily harm murder.
	Now, the UK and the US have very similar legal systems.
	They're relatively different a lot of ways, but let's just say for the entirety of the world, we do follow similar procedures.
	It's the British Commonwealth.
	The United States, of course, declared independence and severed itself, but we do inherit a lot of those traditions.
	Blackstone's formulation, for instance.
	Killing someone in an act intended to cause them grievous bodily harm, for example.
	If the defendant fatally stabs the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.
	Felony murder is killing someone in the process of committing a felony.
	Depraved heart murder is killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life.
	For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.
	Now, this is the UK, again, I will state.
	So let's just break this down for US standards.
	I believe this, and I'm not a lawyer, probably could fall under depraved heart murder, likely falls under grievous bodily harm murder.
	This is much like the Alec Baldwin case, but still relatively different.
	Alec Baldwin was filming a scene, so the argument that he was intending to point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger goes out the window.
	You're now dealing with more manslaughter.
	There is an argument, however, of opportunity.
	An intent.
	Alec Baldwin, of course, is going to be charged again.
	It's getting a little crazy.
	It's like, dude, charge him or don't.
	But Alec Baldwin, on the set of this movie, had live rounds in his gun belt.
	A live round in his gun that he pointed at the cinematographer.
	Pull the trigger.
	The argument being, he didn't know, it was an accident, the bullet wasn't supposed to be there.
	But, if they prove that Alec Baldwin was feuding with this person, then you've got intent and opportunity.
	Still a very strong defense that he's just handed a gun and didn't know.
	Fine.
	In this instance, this guy raises his leg.
	He's gonna argue, it was an accident, man!
	I didn't mean to do it!
	Technically, that's the truth.
	He meant to kick the guy, not kill the guy.
	Depraved heart.
	You are wearing a blade on your boot and you raise your leg to kick someone?
	Okay.
	You are demonstrating a callous disregard for the value of human life.
	Firing a gun into a crowd, you're not intending to hurt any- Well, I'll put it this way.
	Firing a gun into a crowded room, you can argue, they're not aiming at anybody, they're not intending to kill anybody, but that's the result.
	Okay.
	You can argue that, like, somewhere in there, they knew this was gonna happen.
	If you are wearing an ice skate and you swing your leg somewhere, like, dude, you know what happens if you do that.
	There's no question.
	Grievous bodily harm murder, I think fits better.
	This dude knew Kicking someone with a blade is going to seriously injure them.
	And I'm a s- I- I- In my opinion.
	Not that it matters.
	I mean, this guy's in the UK.
	In my opinion, this dude was intending to injure the other player based on watching that video and the way he raised his leg.
	And me, I've- I've play- I've- I've rollerbladed.
	I've played hockey.
	I don't know how you get your leg in that position.
	Come on.
	He was intending to wound and injure this guy.
	Didn't mean to kill him though.
	I think that's fair to say.
	Matt Petgrave did not want to kill the guy.
	He wanted to injure the guy.
	And he killed him in the process.
	Grievous bodily harm murder.
	He swung a blade at a man and hit him in the neck.
	You may be angry at somebody.
	So you swing a blade thinking you're gonna hurt him or something.
	And you hit him in the neck.
	Congratulations, murder.
	You could have your fists out and you get mad.
	You're at a bar.
	Let's talk about this.
	You're intending to cause grievous bodily harm.
	You're in a bar, and you decide to punch a guy in the face, and that guy goes down and hits his head.
	Murder!
	I've seen it.
	Not, not literally seen.
	I have heard the stories of, uh, in close proximity to my life.
	Workplace.
	I told the story before.
	Some guy hits another guy's wife.
	The other guy gets mad.
	Then, I guess the guy who was hitting on the wife punches the husband after, like, they start yelling at each other.
	Husband hits his head on a table, dies.
	Murder.
	You intended to strike a man to cause injury and you killed him in the process.
	You intended to inflict bodily harm on a person.
	Manslaughter is like, you know, uh, and there's varying degrees, some people said negligent homicide.
	Negligent homicide is like, you're driving, you're speeding, okay?
	So you're breaking the law in your car, you're not intending to hurt anybody, you're just breaking the law, and then you hit somebody.
	Negligent homicide, probably manslaughter.
	Uh, and that's typically what mans- I don't know if negligent homicide is an actual charge, I think it is.
	But manslaughter is more so like you're driving your car, you're going too fast for the road conditions, someone's, you know, in the road, uh, walks out, and you hit your brakes, spin out of control and hit them, and they die.
	They can say, you were going too fast for the conditions, you knew people were sliding, let's say there's ice or something.
	Now that's where it gets tricky.
	Some of these manslaughter cases are really terrifying to me, because I have seen stories where it's like, dude, no one wanted anyone to get hurt.
	Story of like, someone's driving down the road, and then someone walks out from between a car, and they slam their brakes on, hit them, and they're like, well, you shouldn't have been going that fast, even though you weren't speeding or whatever.
	And there are certainly instances where someone should have been charged with manslaughter.
	Here's a sad reality.
	I tell you a horrible story from when I was a kid.
	Fourteen-year-old girl was crossing the street at a stop sign, and she did not stop.
	An old man hit her, blowing the stop sign.
	He ran her over.
	And, uh, not knowing what he hit, the old man reversed and crushed her skull like a melon.
	I mean, it's horrifying stories, man.
	I wasn't there.
	But we all heard the story because this was someone around our age in the neighborhood who had died a little bit younger than we were by like a year or two.
	The young girl was crossing the street and assumed it's a stop sign, they'll stop.
	The old man was not intending to kill anybody, couldn't see very well, and blew the stop sign.
	They didn't charge the guy.
	They took his license away.
	They're like, what are we gonna do?
	Put him in prison?
	He's an old man who couldn't see.
	Why was he driving?
	You see, these are tough questions.
	And a lot of people were like, lock him up.
	It's like, 70-something year old guy.
	He ran her over, and she would have, she would have lived.
	If he just didn't go, just, ba-boom, stop.
	Nope.
	He ran her over, was concerned, so he backed up.
	Crazy, crazy.
	He wasn't intending to hurt anybody, he wasn't intending to kill anybody, but these are typically the circumstances where they say it's manslaughter and negligent homicide.
	In this instance, because the guy was old, they just said, no more driving for you, you can't drive forever again.
	He's an old man.
	Probably at this point, it's been 20 years.
	I'm sure that guy's not even with us anymore.
	That young girl lost her life because of it.
	Now, if it was a young guy, speeding and intentionally blowing the stop sign, you're getting negligent homicide, manslaughter, a very serious one.
	But murder, I think, you have to be intending to hurt somebody.
	Again, it's the UK, so I don't know exactly how this will play out.
	The wiki for Adam Johnson says on October 28, 2023, Johnson was fatally injured in a game
	against the Sheffield Steelers at the Utilita Arena when his neck was cut by the skate of
	Steelers player Matt Pengrave.
	After the impact, Johnson attempted to skate to the team bench before collapsing on the ice.
	Players on both sides locked arms from a protective ring around Johnson while medical professionals tended to him before screens were put up and the arena evacuated.
	Johnson was eventually transferred and formally pronounced dead at Sheffield's Northern General Hospital at the age of 29.
	In response to his death, EIHL suspended all games scheduled for October 29th, and numerous leagues and teams worldwide, alongside various politicians representing Nottinghamshire, issued statements.
	A fan fundraiser has raised money.
	Hundreds of fans assembled outside of Nottingham Arena.
	Some, I believe the team is now saying, one team, you have to wear neck guards from now on.
	You know, it's kind of crazy.
	This kind of stuff can happen.
	But everyone now has to wear neck guards because of what appears to be a murder.
	A guy with an ice skate kicked a guy in the neck.
	Alright, well, I'm gonna leave it here, man.
	Look, you know, I don't normally talk about stories like this, but, uh, I don't know.
	I saw this video, and I'm seeing all of these people on Twitter say, wow, manslaughter, manslaughter, manslaughter, and I'm like, okay, maybe in the UK again, maybe in the UK.
	But I want to make sure everybody understands.
	If you intend to hurt someone and you kill them, you should get locked up for murder.
	That's the point.
	There's felony murder, and I've known about this for my whole life.
	You know, my dad is a firefighter, and he works with cops, and so, you know, this is an important thing people need to understand.
	If you're committing a felony crime, and someone dies, you get murder.
	If you're an accomplice, this is what my dad would say, if you're with your buddy, and he says, let's go to the bank, and you drive him to the bank, and you don't even know what he's doing, and you guys both go in, and he robs that bank, and someone dies, you are getting charged with murder.
	You are an accomplice.
	Stay away from bad seeds, man.
	They will lock you up.
	Ain't nobody gonna believe you when they're like, you were the getaway driver.
	It's like, I had no idea what he was doing.
	Oh, please.
	Your buddy's armed?
	He wants to go to the bank?
	Granted.
	I mean, maybe a little bit extreme and, you know, we'd see, but that's the idea.
	It's like you're with someone who commits a crime, even without a gun.
	A guy, uh, look at that.
	There was that, you see that woman?
	This is kind of a crazy story, to be completely honest.
	A young woman in New York City pushed an old lady.
	The old lady fell over and died.
	Hit her head or something.
	That young woman is going to jail for like 20 years.
	Look, man.
	We need to understand what justice is about.
	And what is the purpose of prison?
	Is the purpose of prison retribution?
	Pain?
	Suffering?
	I don't think so.
	Why do we lock someone up for a long period of time?
	So that our society is safer.
	If you commit a violent crime, we lock you up because we don't want you to do it again.
	But that typically means the harsher penalties are for people who intended to cause bodily harm.
	In this instance, I'd say if Matt Petgrave was in the United States, he should get 5 to 10.
	That's what I'd say.
	Why?
	We do not want him doing this ever again.
	We don't trust him.
	Many people have argued he's a violent individual.
	In the past, you can see he's got a lot of penalty points.
	He's attacked people.
	Dirty play.
	That's what they say.
	I'm not saying it's true.
	I don't know for sure.
	And this was an intentional act that resulted in death, it appears.
	In which case, this guy, five years probably.
	Someone died.
	Now a lot of people are like, lock the guy up because the family wants to feel better.
	And I'm like, look.
	My view of My view of prison is we want people to be safe.
	So violent repeat offenders, you get locked up for a long time.
	But this also means like that woman in New York who pushed an old lady.
	Okay.
	I don't know.
	What are they giving her?
	20 years?
	Let me look this up.
	Because, uh, I think that that matters.
	What is that one?
	She pleads guilty.
	And, uh, what are they?
	ABC 7 says 8 years.
	8.
	So she'll be out in a few.
	Look, man.
	Why are we putting some young woman in prison for 8 years over shoving an old lady?
	Was she wrong to do it?
	Yes.
	Did the old lady die?
	Absolutely.
	And that is horrifying and it is very, very wrong.
	But let's think about this young woman and the purpose of locking her up for 8 years.
	So the family of the old lady feels better?
	I mean, I hope they feel better.
	It's a horrible thing.
	But shoving someone isn't a felony.
	You know, if you go to New York and someone shoves you, the cops will tell you to shut your mouth and stop crying about it.
	I'm not kidding.
	I had an incident in New York where I was physically assaulted.
	And so trying to avoid a fight, I back off.
	The altercation doesn't back down.
	I call the police.
	Stupid me.
	And they're like, what happened?
	And I'm like, you know, this guy shoved me.
	I'm trying to de-escalate.
	He's not leaving me alone.
	And, you know, I want to keep things relatively private.
	Considering I'm in a circumstance where this guy's hanging around and it could escalate to an actual physical altercation, I said, smartest thing to do is call the cops.
	Cop said, guy, leave.
	Okay, we're good.
	And then, we're not gonna charge him.
	Are you hurt?
	And I was like, no, but I mean, come on.
	Like, can he just shove people?
	Like, get out of here, kid.
	And I'm like, okay, whatever, I guess.
	If it was Illinois, it'd be very different.
	This woman in New York shoves a guy.
	I mean, shoves an old lady.
	That's it.
	She intended to shove her.
	The old lady fell down and died.
	She didn't think that was gonna happen.
	And then it did.
	She gained eight years for that.
	What would make sense?
	I think community service.
	I think restitution.
	And I think a suspended sentence with court supervision or something like that.
	You're very lucky.
	You're not going to prison, but what you did resulted in someone's death.
	However, shoving someone barely qualifies as a misdemeanor.
	I don't think the justice system is functioning properly when, let's put it this way, Alec Baldwin is free to go, and this woman in New York is getting eight years.
	She shoved someone.
	Woman died.
	Well, Alec Baldwin had live rounds in his belt.
	He shot a lady and a guy.
	Look, whatever, man.
	I'll leave it there.
unidentified		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
		on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
		I'm sure most of you have heard that Bud Light has sponsored UFC and we've all made our jokes about it.
		A lot of people were upset they were calling for a boycott of UFC.
		Now we have UFC champion Shawn Strickland in what may be one of the most Wow, masterfully played trolls and strategies in the culture war with his overt defense of Bud Light.
		No, no, no, no, but hear me out.
		This guy knows what he's doing, and I think what he's doing is very, very, very smart.
		We'll be very careful here on YouTube, but basically what this guy has done is he comes out, and he says he's gonna fix Bud Light.
		He's so excited for the sponsorship.
		It is amazing!
		And what do we all expect?
		We had Cash Patel on the show, when this news breaks, and Cash is like, I'm gonna text a UFC fighter and see what they say about the Bud Light sponsorship, and then he looks at his phone, they're pissed.
		And we're like, yeah!
		How many people want to come out with the Bud Light label behind them or on the ground and be like, this is what we're all about?
		Sean Strickland says he's going to fix the beer and made a series of statements on Twitter A series of statements which I'm pretty sure violate a lot of rules and a lot of platforms, to be completely honest.
		Basically saying that, you know, he thinks women are born.
		He defends biological females.
		And some of the statements he made are, let's just call it, particularly offensive to the left.
		His point?
		Bud Light backs what I say and gave me money.
		What now?
		You know, when I first heard this, I was like, dude, are you really?
		I'm like, I heard this guy said he was great.
		It was so great to get the sponsorship and he likes the money and he appreciates it.
		And I was like, here we go.
		Is this going to be another story of some guy being like, I ain't got no values, pay up, baby.
		And I'm thinking to myself, man, money talks is what it's all about.
		And then I actually looked at what he said and I was like, oh damn.
		Basically, he's put out a series of statements.
		For the newsworthiness of this, I'm going to show you what he said, okay?
		And for the educational context.
		Actually, I'll disagree a little bit.
		We'll clarify some things.
		But I'll show what he says.
		We have this from louderwithcrowder.com.
		UFC champion tests limits of Bud Light sponsorship with anti-trans comments.
		Says he can't wait to fix the beer.
		We have this one from Outkick.com.
		Sean Strickland shares blunt message after Bud Light UFC deal.
		And then finally, you see where we're going with the headlines here.
		Sportskeeda.
		Sean Strickland labels the transgender community as mentally ill in risky statement on Bud Light UFC partnership.
		Okay.
		The first thing I want to clarify is... I think this really, really does matter.
		I don't know what people mean by mentally ill, and I genuinely... Like, I get the general idea, like, your brain isn't aligned properly or something.
		Gender dysphoria...
		is a mental disorder as defined by the DSM-5.
		This is the diagnostic medical document breaking down these things.
		Now, there are many on the left who, at one point, wanted to get gender dysphoria removed, saying it's not a mental disorder, but the Trans Committee actually said, no, no, no, no, no!
		Stop.
		If you remove it from diagnostic criteria, people can't get prescription medicines.
		So it needs to remain a mental disorder in order for people to seek treatment.
		Otherwise, they'll just say, then there's no disorder here, then you don't get any medicine.
		Prescription only.
		Now, a lot of people say mentally ill, and for some reason, I think YouTube has like a bone up their ass about it.
		They don't like the... It's like, hey, it's a mental disorder.
		That's what you're supposed to say.
		You can't call it a mental illness.
		I don't know.
		Perhaps it's because they find mentally ill offensive or whatever.
		But for the sake of this segment, I'm not trying to drag on anybody who's trans.
		I got trans friends.
	There are some people you don't like.
	I think Dyl Mulvaney is a narcissistic sociopath, irrespective of being trans.
	I think Dyl Mulvaney is not actually trans.
	I think Dyl Mulvaney is getting plastic surgery to fit a character and is more borderline, you know, narcissistic, borderline personality disorder, narcissistic, histrionic, all of those things.
	And desperate for attention.
	As exemplified by the other videos made by Dylan Mulvaney, as well as the fact that Dylan tried a series of different kinds of content, including animal safari stuff, none of which worked.
	And then finally, when the trans thing started to work, Dylan doubled down on it, said, I'm non-binary, then I'm trans, and then made a whole bunch of videos because Dylan was getting traffic.
	So I don't think Dylan's actually trans.
	But here we go.
	Let's read this from Outkick.
	I think it's important to note the difference in the headlines.
	They say, Sean Strickland is ready to give Bud Light a shot, but he thinks the company absolutely messed up in partnering with Dylan Mulvaney.
	The move has been seen by many as an attempt to get back into the good, blah blah blah.
	Sean Strickland is keeping an open mind, making it clear his views won't be changing on the transgender issue.
	See, this is funny because I don't know if Outkick actually understands what he's doing.
	He says, I am so f-ing proud of you guys for doing the right thing after that f-up.
	You know how I feel about transgenders.
	I go f-ing hard.
	Just what I do.
	He says he's the biggest advocate for biological females, etc, etc.
	Now, here's the thing.
	When I first saw this, I was like, what do you mean doing the right thing?
	Bud Light doubled down on giving money to Pride events, and some of them had lewd and lascivious activities in front of children.
	Oh, I see it now.
	They say, it's unclear what right things Bud Light did after the Mulvaney disaster, other than writing a fat check to the UFC.
	Let me break it down for you, outkick!
	This dude goes on Twitter, and this is the point he's making.
	He said, I really want a Bud Light sponsorship.
	Yes, I like money, but I think it's a story of redemption.
	Either way, I'll go so hard on them, my next fight, they will have to accept me or denounce me, and then we will know what they stand for.
	Holy crap.
	This dude has declared war on Bud Light.
	And sort of, sort of.
	What he's saying is, when he comes out of the next fight and speaks, he is going to make so many offensive statements, as he's already doing, that Bud Light is going to have to either break the contract, give USC all the money for nothing, or let his statement stand.
	Oh man!
	This dude just gripped Bud Light by the balls and squeezed.
	Now I don't know what their contract terms are, but when we found out that Bud Light was sponsoring UFC, I'm thinking like how many UFC guys are gonna, they're gonna rag on Bud Light like crazy.
	Here's where it gets crazy.
	Here's the crazy crazy thing.
	This dude figured it out.
	This dude's smart.
	I'm wondering about the Bud Light contract.
	Typically, here's how it works.
	In a lot of these business contracts, if someone says, Hey, we're going to sponsor your event.
	We'll give you a million bucks.
	You have a term.
	Okay.
	Done.
	Signed a contract.
	The point of the contract is you can't break it.
	If you decide to change your mind, you're on the hook for the million dollars.
	There may be an escape clause of some sort.
	Like if we agree to terminate, we'll pay a penalty of $250,000.
	This is a $100 million contract.
	And Dana White probably said to Bud Light, you realize what's gonna happen if you do this.
	And Bud Light said, we have to do it, we're gonna do it.
	And he's like, you're gonna get backlash, it's gonna be big news, and maybe Dana White understood this better than we did.
	A lot of people were ragging on Dana.
	I gotta pause for a minute.
	I gotta pause for a minute.
	I don't know what he can or can't say, but this may actually be the forced realignment of Bud Light that people have been asking for.
	When Sean Strickland and other MMA fighters come out and start making overt political statements that are shockingly offensive to the left, Bud Light can't do anything about it.
	Now Bud Light hasn't apologized, they keep doubling down, but this is what he's saying.
	Sean Strickland is saying, he says, women are born not made, he calls transgender people mentally ill, and he says society should not even accept them as normal.
	Now Bud Light gives me money, and I just said that.
	I've been saying that my entire career, so what do they support?
	I gotta, I, I, I, okay.
	Look, while I, I, I, hey, I'm not saying I agree with his statements here, you know what I mean?
	My point is this.
	Bud Light, upset over the deal with Dylan Mulvaney, has been panicking.
	Now they're sponsoring MMA, and they know the opinions of MMA fighters.
	Bud Light is basically saying they want money behind MMA fighters' speech and not Dylan Mulvaney's.
	Wow.
	I gotta say, if... I gotta be completely honest, this may be the Bud Light redemption I didn't see coming.
	Let me stress it again.
	If they put a hundred million dollars in MMA, and all these fighters come out and start just going OFF about it, and Bud Light just says, well, we sponsored it.
	Wow.
	It's not an apology, but, guys, I kinda think, like, that might be Bud Light's redemption.
	Now, I will say, I don't know, maybe Sean Strickland goes a little too hard, but that's kind of the point.
	It's not so much about what your actual opinions on gender dysphoria and transgender people are.
	This guy is realigning the Overton window as hard as possible away from where it currently is.
	And if Bud Light panics over this and severs the deal saying, we do not want to be associated with this speech, he's got him by the balls.
	I imagine if they break this contract and say, we want it removed, UFC says, you owe us $100 million.
	How much do you want to bet?
	All the leverage is in the hands of Dana White.
	Dana White says, okay Bud Light, we'll do this deal with you, but if you back out for any reason, you pay us the full amount.
	And Bud Light said yes.
	Why?
	I'm not saying I know for sure.
	I'm saying, check it out.
	If Bud Light... This is interesting.
	I gotta think smarter, because I did not see this.
	I did not see it, and that was a mistake.
	Bud Light comes to me.
	I said if Bud Light offered me $100 million for sponsorship, I'd say no way.
	I now realize how stupid that is for exactly what Sean Strickland has said.
	No, you should take the deal.
	You should.
	And you force Bud Light to back everything you're saying.
	I feel really dumb.
	Last week, I said if they offered the money, I wouldn't take it.
	Why?
	Money's not everything.
	And then I realized that money, every dollar, every dollar is a pledge, is a pledge for the words you say.
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This guy, Sean Sirkin, smarter than me?
		I can't believe I missed this one.
		If Bud Light came to me now, and said they wanted to sponsor the show, I'd smile and say, let's negotiate the terms.
		The terms are gonna be, you can't back out, and if you do, you pay the full amount, and that's it, baby.
		Why?
		Because then every day, when we have our conversations, and with that Bud Light sign right behind us, Bud Light is backing every word we say.
		I did not even think that.
		I was too, uh, I was too angry.
		I was too angry!
		And it was ignorant.
		And now I realize.
		Outkick says the UFC is notoriously anti-woke.
		Anti-woke.
		And definitely has a lot of fans that are on the libertarian conservative parts of the spectrum.
		This may be one of the biggest culture war victories, and I did not see it coming.
		I thought, this was selling out, Dana White was selling out, I can't believe they'd agree to this, Bud Light's a dead brand, and like, wait a minute.
		This may be one of the biggest cultural defeats the left has seen in the culture war yet.
		Bud Light giving a hundred million dollars to UFC is actually them waving the white flag in a way we could not have even thought possible.
		Man, these UFC fighters are going to come out and they're going to say such horrifying things in Bud Light's perspective.
		And there's nothing they can do about it.
		If Bud Light cancels the deal, Bud Light's dead.
		All they can do now is say, keep talking guys, say whatever you want, the money's yours.
		Amazing.
		Amazing.
		I gotta be honest, I can't believe I didn't see this.
		I feel really dumb.
		I'm like, they took the money, they're trying to save Bud Light, and now I realize, this is exactly what you want to happen.
		These woke brands that get woke and go broke, what you want is to force them to realign, to force them to back you and say, you lost 30% of your sales, you want it back?
		You're gonna pay me to say whatever I want.
		Crazy, right?
		You know, I wanted to stand on this like, I don't care about the money, I care about what matters in this country.
		And now I realize how stupid that was.
		Bud Light's waving the white flag saying, please, we beg of you.
		We beg of you.
		Now here's the funny thing.
		Harley Davidson?
		They don't say much.
		So I'm like, get out of here with that.
		But UFC fighters are notoriously outspoken.
		I honestly think Bud Light bit off more than they could chew with this one, and it is going to be apocalyptic for the brand.
		Sean Strickland, dude, shout out.
		Well, I disagree.
		I disagree.
		I think it can be done in ways, uh, well, you know, I don't know.
		Look, man.
		Um, I want to make sure that I'm being understanding, is the way I should say it.
		I want to make sure I'm being factually correct.
		I don't want to offend or insult anybody.
		But what he's doing, I don't think it's so much about trans people as it is about pushing back in the culture war.
		So that being said, I do not agree with what he's saying.
		I'm just presenting that in a news context for you.
		What you think is entirely up to you.
		My only point here is, I agree with him challenging Bud Light to see if they actually care, or if they are just trying to pander.
		We'll see.
		Next segment's coming up at 6pm.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
		You know, I warned you, I warned you, but it looks like we're heading in this direction.
		I don't know what the results of the Trump lawsuit in Colorado is going to be, but already we are getting shocking information.
		The judge in the case donated to a group to remove Republicans who supported Trump on January 6.
		Let me stress.
		The judge financially provided resources to groups to remove Republicans who supported Donald Trump.
		Now she is presiding over a case to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
		Oh boy.
		Minnesota's next.
	Michigan is next.
	And I wonder how this will play out.
	But if you've got a judge who financially supports groups to remove Republicans who support Donald Trump over January 6th, presiding over this case, you think you're gonna get a fair trial?
	Now, now, hold on.
	There's a lot that could happen.
	Maybe the judge will be fair.
	Maybe the judge will be like, look, I made a donation a while ago, I don't really know a lot about it, but present me your evidence.
	There's one other big factor at play.
	The Trump legal team said, in order to argue on the 14th Amendment, the individual has to have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion, and she goes, nah.
	She said no!
	Seriously.
	The Trump team argument is, you need to prove someone has to be tried and given due process over insurrection, and then you can say, it's definitive.
	Here we are.
	Here we are.
	PBS reports arguments in lawsuit using insurrection clause to knock Trump off the presidential ballot begins.
	I love this.
	I love how they phrase this.
	First, you can see that PBS, they don't actually mention the plaintiffs.
	They don't tell you who's doing it.
	It's intentional.
	They're going to mention, at the start of Monday's hearing in Colorado, the judge rejected a Trump motion that she stepped aside because she once contributed money to a liberal group.
	You gotta love the media.
	Well, it's okay, my friends.
	We got this tweet from Mike Davis.
	Mike Davis has the receipts.
	He says, New, Denver District Judge Sarah Wallace, a Democrat donor, commits reversible error by refusing to recuse from Trump January 6th case after donating to anti-Trump January 6th PAC.
	That's right.
	She is actively working with a PAC seeking political goals pertaining to January 6th while presiding over a January 6th case.
	Okay.
	You thought there was going to be a fair trial?
	You thought the legal system was going to play this right?
	Look, blue states and red states are worlds apart from each other.
	These people are evil.
	She should be disbarred or removed or impeached.
	I think it's a judge.
	I think it's an impeachment.
	What we need to do...
	What must be done.
	And what must not be done.
	The first thing everyone needs to do is you call your reps, you organize, support people like Scott Pressler.
	This must be won in the courts.
	And you say, but how, Tim, the judges?
	Yes, because Republicans need to be filing in Republican states in the same way.
	There is light at the end of the tunnel.
	Do not take the defeatist approach.
	What needs to happen is, I don't know, there needs to be some efforts to win.
	Yeah.
	The last thing anyone needs, violence, riots, and protests.
	Seriously.
	What we need now is organization and lawfare.
	Republicans in red states need to be filing the exact same things about Joe Biden.
	Seriously, Joe Biden's staff contributed to far left insurrectionists who firebombed White House grounds and forced President Trump into a bunker.
	Kamala Harris can be removed right now.
	She directly did it.
	Directly solicited money for those waging insurrection.
	Oh, and you might argue it's not insurrection, though, because, hey, they're playing that game.
	It's time to play the game where the Republicans at.
	Here's what Mike says. On October 18th, 2022, Democrat Governor Jared Paulus appointed Democrat
	donor Sarah Wallace as a Denver district judge, January 10th, 2023. On October 15th, judge
	designee Sarah Wallace donated to the Colorado Turnout Project, a political action committee
	formed to vote out Republicans who supported Trump on January 6th.
	This week, Judge Wallace is holding a highly unusual and unconstitutional trial to determine whether to disqualify Trump from the ballot based upon his activities on January 6th.
	Judge Wallace previously rejected all of Trump's legal arguments, including the only way to disqualify for insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is to win a federal criminal conviction under the Federal Insurrection Criminal Statute Congress passed to execute Section 3.
	Which they did.
	Trump has not been convicted.
	Today, Judge Wallace, admitting to making the anti-Trump January 6th donation, said she didn't remember making it, but despite her donation, she claims she can be fair.
	But her subjective belief in her ability to be fair is not the correct legal standard.
	The standard is an objective one.
	Will the public reasonably believe she can give Trump a fair January 6th-related bench trial after she donated to an anti-Trump January 6th pack?
	The answer is clearly not.
	This is the reversible error.
	But will the Democrat-controlled Colorado appellate courts correct this?
	No.
	That's not the game, baby.
	That is not the game.
	Colorado judge rejects Trump's bid to toss lawsuit aimed at keeping him off 2024 ballot.
	I think Trump's argument is sound.
	Okay, um...
	If you're going to accuse someone of insurrection, then they have to have due process determining they waged insurrection.
	Suing without having a determination of insurrection?
	The argument they're making is, no, no, no, we'll determine that here and now.
	Michigan judge declines Trump's request to toss lawsuit to remove him from the ballot.
	Michigan judge?
	Oh yeah, and PBS mentions that Minnesota is next.
	A week-long hearing on one lawsuit, Colorado got underway, while on Thursday, oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court in an effort to kick the Republican former president off the ballot in that state.
	Next up, of course, is Michigan.
	A judge on Wednesday, this is from, uh, let me get the date here, uh, October 28th.
	This is last week.
	rejected former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to force him off
	the 2024 ballot in Michigan. Court of Claims Judge Robert Redford, what a name, denied the request
	and turned down Trump's motion to be party to the lawsuit, citing the court's limited jurisdiction.
	In the order, Redford wrote that Trump does not fall in the definition of the state
	or any of its departments or officers. This is just amazing.
	The judge, however, repeated his invitation to allow Trump to respond to the lawsuit in an
	amicus brief.
	They're trying to remove Trump's name from the ballot and saying Trump's not party to the lawsuit.
	Trump's lawyers argue that it is manifestly inappropriate to remove him from the ballot and that neither state officials nor the court should have the authority to take such action.
	This is very clever on the part of the Democrats.
	Don't sue Trump, and don't give Trump standing to sue back.
	Sue the state for incorrectly listing him and then the state is the party, not Trump.
	Community activist Robert Davis filed the lawsuit on September 15th to force Trump off the ballot,
	arguing the former president is ineligible to run for office again because of section 3, 14,
	blah, blah, blah, blah. Davis applauded Redford's decision.
	It's quite obvious the attorneys have been retained by the former president are unfamiliar with Michigan law.
	They don't understand the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
	They also seem not to understand the meaning and importance of the oath of office established by the Michigan and U.S.
	Constitutions.
	Davis filed a lawsuit against Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson after she declined his request to remove Trump from the ballot.
	Benson argues she doesn't have the authority to do so.
	You see?
	Where are the Republicans at?
	This is amazing.
	The judge scheduled an emergency hearing on the matter for November 6th in the Michigan Court of Appeals, Courtroom in Grand Rapids.
	Davis said it is pretty bizarre that Trump is essentially arguing he is not beholden to the Constitution, which he's not.
	The arguments that the former president's legal counsel... Okay, I'm just gonna pause right here.
	There's no legal basis for Trump having committed insurrection.
	There is no legal basis.
	Trump has not actually been indicted or charged with insurrection.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We should have every Republican file the same things against, literally, insert all Democrats.
		Every single one.
		Use the arguments they're making in the exact same way.
		And then argue what you want is insurrection.
		That's it.
		Find a conservative jurisdiction to agree with you.
		Kamala Harris solicited donations to far-left extremists who were firebombing the White House.
		I mean, it's a stretch, right?
		Well, of course!
		She solicited donations to the Minnesota Bail Fund to bail out George Floyd rioters.
		But during the George Floyd riots, many of these people who helped organize this, you know, it's part of a bigger... There you go.
		My point is this.
		You can make all the arguments in the world that you want.
		That's what the left is doing.
		The right should make the same arguments.
		Joe Biden's never been convicted of insurrection, neither has Trump.
		So just say it in court.
		Force Joe Biden to respond.
		Now, the reality is I think they want Joe Biden off the ballot anyway.
		So the best thing for Donald Trump is to keep Biden on the ballot, in which case I can understand why they're not filing.
		They want Joe Biden on the ballot.
		OK?
		So then start filing against Gavin Newsom.
		This is the challenge, right?
		The challenge being Biden on the ballot is good for Trump.
		This is why they're taking these actions anyway.
		There need to be more clever strategies for the Republican Party in terms of lawfare as to how they're going to win.
		And perhaps the answer is not to remove Biden from the ballot because you want him on the ballot.
		In fact, they should be filing to make sure he stays in the ballot even if he dies.
		If Joe Bud is incapacitated in any way, his name must remain in the ballot for the American people.
		That's the game.
		What they should be filing is other things pertaining to universal mail-in voting, and that's where we should see the battle take place.
		But I'm not surprised this is happening, and we'll see how it plays out.
		We'll talk more about it later tonight at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
		That'll be at 8 p.m.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
		I saw this video reposted by Robbie Starbuck from Cubano's Poor El Mundo.
		I think that's Cubans for the World.
		And it's an amazing video.
		You got this guy.
		He sees these young people with a table and says, are you a communist?
		Then get organized.
		And he asks them, like, hey, what are you doing?
		And they're like, we're communists.
		He's like, what's going on?
		It's funny, because it turns out the woman he's speaking to says she's from China.
		And he goes, then why are you here?
		And they're like, uh, she's like, because China sucks.
		And he's like, China's communist!
		And she's like, not really.
		This is the thing.
		This video perfectly exemplifies it.
		They enact these policies in their own state, cities, countries, or whatever.
		Then when it sucks, they try and go somewhere else and bring it to you.
		Weird, right?
		They go to the places that are resisting this that aren't communist.
		Lady, if China was bad, I got a simple answer for you.
		There are many places in this world with much more communist-like societies.
		Venezuela and Cuba are an option.
		Why choose the United States?
		Ah, yes, because they're insane people.
		Here, let me play the video for you.
		This is a good one.
		Let me, uh, we'll get this one, we'll get this one going.
unidentified		What is this?
unidentified		This is a banner and this is a table.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is a banner and this is a table.
unidentified		Why is that?
		That says, are you a communist?
		Yeah.
		Then get organized.
		That's what it says.
		And also under there, it says socialist appeal.
		So you're socialist?
		Communist and socialist, yeah.
		You're communist and socialist?
		Yes.
		Oh, nice.
		Where are you from?
		I'm from China.
		China?
		You?
		40.
		So if you're from China, why do you live here?
		That's a good question, no?
		Because China sucks.
		For me, at least.
		China sucks?
		Yes.
		So why are you promoting that?
		Because China isn't communist.
		I don't know... China is not communist?
		No.
		I think China is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, guess what they say?
unidentified		No, it's not what they say.
		It's the reality.
		China is a communist.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, here we go.
unidentified		Yeah, we do.
		Yeah, we do.
		This is a public space.
		This is a public space.
		I can film.
		I mean, you can't film people without their consent.
		I can.
		I'm on the public space.
		I can film anyone.
		This is what communists do.
		I'm just having a debate.
		I don't know.
		Communists, communist people, this is what communist people do.
		They ran away.
		They ran away when someone happened to buy it with them.
		I'm just talking to you.
		I'm not doing anything bad.
		No, I know, but we have something else to do.
		Listen, I'm from a communist country.
		I know what communism is.
		None of you live in a communist regime.
		She lived in a communist regime and she fled.
		She left.
		Why you don't live there?
		Why don't you live there?
		You're promoting this rubbish.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why you don't live there?
unidentified		You're promoting this rubbish for what?
		You know how many people died through communism?
		Okay, hold on.
		China isn't communist, so why did you move to a capitalist country?
		Make it make sense. Make it make sense, please.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, I do. I do. Okay, hold on. China isn't communist. So why did you move to a capitalist
		country? If China sucks and you don't like it and you want communism, why not move to Cuba or
		Venezuela? That's right.
		Come to the United States because it's better under capitalism.
unidentified		I'm just having a debate with you.
		Why you being rude, man?
		I'm not being rude.
		If you don't let me talk, I can't do this by myself.
		He offended me, you know why?
		Because my dad was in jail for 15 years for communism.
		Just because he couldn't say what he thinks.
		Now I'm telling you as a normal person what I think about communism, and you're offended.
		Because communists are like this, you can't express what you really feel.
		If you live in a communist country, you will understand what that is.
		But because you don't live there, this is what you do.
		You promote something that is very damaging to millions of people for years.
		And you support that because it's cool.
		It's not cool, man.
		You don't understand.
		It's not, it's not, it's not funny.
		You know how many people, it's not funny.
		You think it's funny.
		It offends me when I see people doing that, but I can't say anything because this is a free country.
		This is a free country.
		In Cuba, in my country, in my country, you can't do that.
		You can't promote anything out of communists.
		Only here you can do that.
		Go to fucking communist country and do it there.
		Why are you doing it here?
		Confusing people's mind, young people's mind.
		Confusing young people's mind.
		Oh, my God.
		Tell me one country.
		Tell me one country that communist war.
		I don't even know why you are, man.
		Stupid.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I love that.
		I love that.
		The the the the best breakdown.
		Someone who left China To come to America for communism.
		You see, I gotta wonder about subversive ideologies and, you know, what's the real reason someone from China would come here to promote communism?
		It's divisive.
		And the crazy thing is, the amount of people who have died under communism is like 100 million or some insane number, yet for some reason these people are proud to come out and espouse this.
		How is this crazy to me?
		You know, They go on social media and they scream, punch a Nazi all day and night.
		My response is like, hey, stop the violence.
		I don't care who it's coming from and, you know, people are going to speak.
		Same is true for communists, too.
		But, you see, these people come out and espouse and demand violence, but then expect to be given free speech.
		This is the game.
		There was a tweet by Will Chamberlain.
		You've got these far leftists demanding, celebrating Hamas, while at the same time talking about taking away people's guns.
		Now now, hold on.
		I know leftists like guns.
		I'm not saying all of them.
		I'm saying there are some people, many people who are like progressive liberal types, not far left, who are anti-gun, want gun control, and are celebrating Hamas.
		These are the people who The younger progressive types are going to come out and they're going to align with the neoliberal agenda and say guns are bad because it's just the thing.
		The far leftists that actually pay attention are anti-establishment.
		They're pro-gun and many of these people are communists.
		My point is this.
		You can see the utter hypocrisy Actually, no no no, it's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
		They're allowed guns, they're allowed speech, you're not.
		That's the game.
		If people like this are allowed to get political power, you will not be allowed to question them.
		They'll say you're offensive, and you're engaging in hate speech, you're under arrest.
		Then when they come out, hmm...
		Take a look at what's going on right now in universities.
		Take a look at what's going on right now in some of these high schools.
		The people who claim that hate speech should be banned are saying really messed up things about Jewish students.
		No, I'm not conflating Jewish and Israeli.
		At a Cooper Union in New York, Ron Coleman brought this up, Jewish students were locked in a library as fire officers were banging on the door screaming, free Palestine.
		The fear for their safety was not because they were Israeli.
		They weren't.
		They were just Jewish.
		And that's the point.
		The far left will come out and demand that hate speech be banned, but the moment they get censored, they go, help, help, I'm being repressed!
		And then when you help them, the moment you do, they'll push you back.
		They'll push you back down.
		I'll keep the language light on this one, but you get the point.
		They'll say, help me brother!
		It's free speech!
		And you'll say, you're right, it is free speech.
		You'll lift them up, and then they'll push you off the cliff.
		And you'll say, why?
unidentified		They'll say, because you let me do it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because we want power.
		That's why they do it.
		This is the challenge I think many of us have faced for a long time, in that we continually for years defended the free speech of these people.
		They put out this comic where they make the argument that you can't tolerate intolerance because eventually intolerance takes over.
		It's the, what is it, Karl Popper paradox?
		The paradox of intolerance.
		And it's funny because it's like, Hmm.
		That's a lot to consider there.
		We must defend free speech, even the free speech of those we don't like, because we have to protect our speech.
		I used to think that.
		I used to say that all the time.
		I'll defend everyone's free speech because eventually they'll come for mine.
		I don't anymore.
		I don't defend that.
		I defend the free speech of those who fight for free speech.
		Why?
		If you're a far leftist and you're a communist and you fight for free speech for me, I'll take it.
		Jacobin Magazine fights for free speech and they're socialists.
		I'll take it.
		I will defend their right to free speech.
		Why?
		If you have people who oppose your values, trying to exploit your values to gut you and steal from you and destroy you, you probably don't want to give them any advantages.
		If they're actively fighting against free speech and you're giving and you're protecting them, what you basically have is a situation where, on average, free speech is on the decline.
		For you, and for them, it's secured.
		So it's not really free speech, it's the ability to speak.
		If they're actively trying to suppress your speech, and you're actively defending theirs, over a long enough period of time, your speech will disappear.
		Now, if you say, I'm not gonna argue they should be silenced, but I certainly won't rush to their defense, then, they've, they are now facing the ramifications of their OWN speech.
		When they demand an end to free speech, and then someone comes to take it from you, you say, well, that's what they wanted?
		Meanwhile, me and my crew over here that are for free speech will keep defending it, and say, you can't take it from us.
		That inverts the system.
		Then, over a long enough period of time, if everyone's defending only those who believe in free speech, those who believe in free speech succeed, and those who actively oppose it end up silencing themselves.
		But I will just finalize this by saying, isn't it hilarious that somebody left a communist country, came to the United States, and then demanded communism?
		Why?
		Tons of other countries you could have gone to.
		Hmm.
		Interesting, huh?
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel.

▲