Trump Will Go FULL DICTATOR After Winning 2024 BUT Just One Day, Democrats, Maddow GO INSANE Over It
WATCH INFRINGED NOW At - https://timcast.com/members-area/infringed/
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
Trump Will Go FULL DICTATOR After Winning 2024 BUT Just One Day, Democrats, Maddow GO INSANE Over It
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.
Last night, Donald Trump spoke with Sean Hannity, and there was this tremendous exchange, which has the Democrats losing their minds.
When asked if he would abuse his power to go after his enemies, Trump said, only on day one.
After that, I'm not a dictator.
However, Trump said he was going to, on day one, shut the border down and drill, baby, drill.
And then after that, but Hannity was asking Trump, will you go after your enemies to get revenge?
And Donald Trump kind of dodged the question, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that he dodged in just that Trump does what Trump does.
I don't view it the same way.
There are politicians who are asked the question and then they intentionally deflect.
Trump just gets all excited and starts making jokes and laughing.
That being said, Donald Trump did say that he would be a dictator on day one.
Now, it's important because a few months ago, Rachel Maddow made the claim that Trump literally wants to kill her.
Let me say that again.
Rachel Maddow said on national television that if Trump is elected, he will personally kill Rachel Maddow.
That's what she said!
I'm not kidding.
She said Trump wants to put MSNBC on trial so that he can execute them.
You know, these people are the most insane people I've, I've, it's just, it's, it's nuts.
Last night we talked about this because Joe Biden basically said he wouldn't run if not for Trump.
As CNR.com reporting, Biden said that he, because of Trump, he, because Trump is running, he's going to run and he doesn't know if he would run if it weren't for Trump.
The funny thing is, If Biden wasn't running, Trump's chances are a lot lower.
A lot of polls show that Donald Trump, up against any other candidate, does poorly.
But up against Joe Biden, he wins.
Which is incredible.
I guess you can say that Joe Biden is some kind of Trump supporter who wants him to win or whatever.
There's another funny video that's going around.
That's gone around quite a bit.
Where people attack Taylor Swift.
So Taylor Swift gets announced as like Times Person of the Year or whatever.
And now people are showing this video, which they say shows she opposes Donald Trump.
I just gotta pause for a second.
If you've seen the video clip, she says, She says, if he doesn't win, at least I tried.
Or something to that effect.
I believe I'm getting the quote correct.
If he doesn't win, at least I tried.
That sounds like she's a Trump supporter.
That doesn't sound like she's opposed to Trump.
It's like, if he doesn't win, at least I tried.
Tried to what?
Help him win?
If she said, if Trump wins, well, at least I tried.
That would imply she was trying to stop the guy.
But, you know, whatever, man.
Maybe she misspoke.
But I'm like, I just I think we should take that quote for what it is.
And everyone should just run just that quote.
If he doesn't win, at least I tried.
Taylor Swift comes out full swing in support of Donald Trump.
I don't understand why it's on me to interpret her words in a different way than what she said.
You know what I mean?
And the same, I'll say the same thing for Donald Trump.
The left comes out and claims that any little old thing Trump says, this is a fundamental problem in the culture war.
The right will interpret and translate for Democrats.
Stop doing that.
Use their words.
It really is annoying.
You know, Joe Biden will come out and go, and then people will be like, we know what he was saying.
He was trying to imply this.
And it's like, no, just use his words.
Right?
So the media does this too.
But what we're seeing now is everybody knows Taylor Swift doesn't like Donald Trump, or at least that's the assumption.
So when she said, quote, if he doesn't win, at least I tried, they're like, aha, she hates Trump.
And I'm like, that statement implies she's trying to help him win.
At least?
So how about we just all can collectively say, young, white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman from Tennessee supports Donald Trump?
That's not even that shocking.
Especially considering she's a billionaire and she doesn't want to pay taxes.
So don't come to me with that, Taylor Swift doesn't like Donald Trump.
Hey, it's her words.
But anyway, I want to show you the clip here, the clip in question.
Comrade Stump says everybody is going to jail on day one.
He's basically portraying a future for America if he is put back in the White House, in which we don't have another election after that.
Ever.
Because the elections are all rigged, that the democratic process can't be trusted, that Congress should just work for him, the Justice Department should just work for him.
That's a strongman form of government, that's not what we have.
In what world has anyone ever entertained the possibility that Donald Trump wants to put Rachel Maddow on trial for treason, which implies she's aiding and abetting a foreign adversary at a time of war?
Now, she said sedition, I guess, but I suppose seditious conspiracy just warrants, what, two decades in federal prison?
The Republican Party, if they're going to elevate somebody like that to represent their party in a general election, not only do we have a 50-50 shot of him being back in the White House, any major party nominee has a 50% shot, but the Republican Party will have to reckon with that until the end of time in terms of what they did to this country.
Donald Trump getting elected and going after criminals, liars, manipulators and the corrupt is exactly what we need.
You know, look, man, we have a constitution.
It lays out the framework for this great nation.
And within this, we have the amendments, the first 10, the Bill of Rights.
Guaranteeing the government cannot infringe upon many of our rights.
Now, it's never been absolute.
Because culture changes.
What does free speech really mean?
What does the right to keep and bear arms really mean?
It has changed.
Over time.
And it's a constant battle.
But, uh, you know we're winning.
There are a lot of really bad things the government has done.
Illegal spying, warrantless wiretapping, etc.
And they try to justify all of the evil things they do.
There are evil people working within the intelligence agencies.
Abject evil.
There are evil people working within the DOJ.
They need to be fired and removed and, where applicable, criminally charged for their criminal actions.
You see, Rachel Maddow is scared because she knows she's one of the demons.
She is a corrupt and evil individual who, for years, pushed the lies that Trump was a Russian agent.
MSNBC did this over and over again.
Why?
To rig and steal an election.
Now, not in the way that the Trump supporters would argue, with fraud and stuff like this, no.
She is basically Prothero in V for Vendetta.
She goes on TV, she lies and lies and lies, like she just did.
No, he doesn't.
He's not going to do anything to MSNBC.
He's going to ignore you.
He's going to make fun of you.
That's it.
There's no reality where Trump signs an executive order saying, like, the media is hereby dissolved.
That's the stupidest thing.
And that's what they're arguing on The View.
Well, I wonder what Bannon and Patel have to say.
Trump is dead serious about revenge on media.
We're going to come after you.
Here we go.
Steve Bannon and Kash Patel claimed that former President Trump is dead serious about exacting revenge on his political enemies if he wins a second term.
In an episode of Bannon's War Room podcast, Bannon and Patel, two of Trump's close allies, pledged to prosecute members of the media who lied about the 2020 presidential election results, falsely suggesting Trump truly won.
Quote, we will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media.
Yes, we're going to come after the people who, in the media, who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.
We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly.
We'll figure that out.
But yeah, we're putting you all on notice.
And Steve, this is why they hate us.
This is why we're tyrannical.
This is why we're dictators, Patel said, suggesting that those terms were used to describe them.
Because we're actually going to use the Constitution to prosecute them for crimes they said we have always been guilty of, but never have.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Kash Patel, Steve Bannon, are not talking about, for no reason, going and arresting people.
He's quite literally saying, criminally or civilly, we're going to come after you.
If you lied, guess what?
Well, lying, defamation, slander, libel, etc.
So they'll sue you.
Committing crimes by conspiring to defraud the public?
Now that one could be very different depending on the level of fraud.
Bannon and setting up the question to Patel, underscore the same point
mentioning MSNBC's Morning Joe Show.
And I want the Morning Joe producers that watch us and all the producers that watch us,
this is just not rhetoric, we're absolutely dead serious.
You cannot have a constitutional republic and allow what these deep staters have done to our country.
The deep state, the administrative state, the fourth branch of government,
never mentioned in the constitution is going to be taken apart brick by brick.
And the people that did these evil deeds will be held accountable and prosecuted.
Criminal prosecutions.
Guess what?
That means they're gonna have an attorney and a trial.
Oh, what's that?
You don't think these systems function properly and you think you're gonna get steamrolled?
I wonder why that would be.
But I would put it this way, the way I interpret these comments.
There are government actors who are working with media outlets.
How many pundits for these cable channels are former intelligence officials or worked in the intelligence sector?
A lot of them.
A lot of them.
Let's talk about Adam Schiff lying on television over and over and over again.
I mean, at a certain point, we need to explore criminal charges for people who are attempting to defraud the public to steal political power.
There is abject corruption.
Now, I would say this, the challenge is, Adam Schiff may be evil, but you're allowed to lie.
You are.
And it's a challenge we must fight every single day, but you can't just have the government come out and say, you lied, therefore you're under arrest, which is why I think Cash Patel mentioned the civilly Component of this.
You may just get sued.
Patel echoed the plan saying, The one thing we learned in the Trump administration, the first go-round, is we got to put in all American patriots, top to bottom.
We've got them, we got them for law enforcement, we got them for intel collection, we got them for offensive operations, we got them for DOD, CIA, everywhere.
Trump is the leading candidate in 2024 GOP presidential race, leading his closest competitor by at least 30 points.
Yeah.
And he's leading Joe Biden.
Hannity asks Trump to promise he wouldn't abuse power.
This is the headline they're rolling with.
Oh boy, oh boy.
Well, I got to tell you, my friends, it's looking like Trump is going to win.
It's from Fox News.
These six battleground states could cost President Biden the White House in 2024.
The lack of enthusiasm and declining support is certainly real, a top pollster says of Biden's Democratic Party base.
So, of course, what we've been seeing, the Democrats are trying to find a way to sub out Joe Biden, but it's likely not going to work.
Axios reports Democrats quietly move to succeed Joe Biden.
Now, why would they do that?
Biden can't win.
My friends, let me explain something.
I do believe that Donald Trump lost 2020.
Sure, there's a lot of arguments about ballot images and destroyed evidence.
All of these things are important.
All of these things should be adjudicated and we should get these investigations.
Hopefully, when Trump wins, y'all can have that closure.
But I believe that it's simple procedural change.
Now, it may be that there was fraud.
I think even Bill Barr said there was fraud.
I don't know if that had enough of an impact to actually change the results.
I can tell you two things that did.
People were mad at Donald Trump because the media, and Democrats and Republicans in many states, changed the rules to greatly benefit Democrats.
We can also make arguments about signature verification being very, um, lax, as it were, which would probably fall in between the fraud narrative and the, um, And the procedural change narrative, right?
I think the heavy-handedness of the fraud narrative is what pushes me away from like, look, we've had people come on the show and talk about, you know, ballot images were destroyed.
I think ballot harvesting was a huge component in how Donald Trump lost.
Ballot chasing and harvesting, which is legal in, I believe, in most states.
And then what happens is signature verification probably should have resulted in many votes being thrown out, and they were really lax on how they were actually handing voter signature verification.
But these are procedural issues, not fraud issues.
If there's a person working at a polling station and they're given instructions, yeah, don't, you don't got to be too crazy on the signature stuff.
They say, okay, eh, close enough, works for me.
They compare them.
That's not fraud.
Now certainly someone could look around and go, these are clearly fake signatures and I'm going to put it through anyway.
That could be a component.
There could be double counted ballots and things like that.
Now you're getting to the more serious fraud territory where, um, you know, ballots are printed up or something.
I don't, I don't believe it.
There are questions about like unfolded ballots.
Hey man, all of these are valid, but I think it comes down to one simple thing.
These states changed their rules to benefit the Democrats, like universal mail-in voting.
And then there was some ruling recently about, in what state was it?
It might be Colorado or something.
You don't even need to have your ballot dated properly.
So it's like, what?
So it could be from any time?
Yeah, these procedural changes make it very, very easy for Democrats to win.
So what happens is, you've got this large enthusiasm against Trump, the media is going nuts, they're blaming Trump for COVID, they're blaming Trump for lockdowns, and the average person doesn't know or care what's going on.
I'm sorry.
Occam's Razor would suggest not some grand conspiracy where they pulled all this crazy stuff off.
It would suggest, while there is coordinated effort, for sure, because it's an election, the reality is the ground game.
They went to people's homes with universal mail-in voting, and they said, you hate Donald Trump too, right?
And these people are like, yeah, I guess.
I mean, everything sucks.
The average person, or I would say the average swing voter, probably doesn't know, doesn't care about anything.
The question for them is, at the time of signing that ballot, is life good or bad?
So let me tell you why this is good news.
Because right now, life ain't good.
It's not.
We can see stress in the economy.
Donald Trump is not the president.
And when Donald Trump was president for his first three years, things were pretty good.
Until COVID hit.
I don't blame him for COVID.
I don't blame Joe Biden for COVID.
I can criticize both of their actions.
But now you've got people sitting here saying, things suck and Joe Biden is president.
Ain't nobody voting for Joe Biden.
Ain't nobody inspired by him.
And they got no way of really swapping this dude out.
So Reuters says, I love this one.
Democrats have no Biden backup plan for 2024 despite age concerns.
So what's going to happen?
Ain't nobody going to be voting for Joe Biden.
Their Democrats are going to knock on the door and they're going to say, hey, vote for Joe.
And they're like, why?
Everything sucks.
Well, don't vote for Trump.
I'm not voting for anybody.
One of the things I think we're seeing that's really helping Trump, especially in the polls, is that people don't want either of them.
Trump's got a solid base, and he's winning over a lot of voters.
He really is.
But the reason why, in my opinion, that the polls are shifting towards Trump is because a lot of people are outright saying they're not going to vote for Biden or Trump.
It's not that Trump is gaining substantially, it's that Biden is losing substantially.
With RFK added to the mix, yeah, Biden's done.
Young people even saying they're more likely to vote for Trump now, at least in some polls.
It's a mixed bag.
We had some polls in early November and end of October suggesting young people are swinging towards Trump.
We're getting some new polls coming out showing that it's actually going towards Biden.
But these are different pollsters.
So we shall see.
But I got to tell you, man, I do think they've got to find a way to get Biden out of there.
Now, Donald Trump speaking to Hannity said Gavin Newsom, he's slick, but he doesn't have the facts.
So we'll see.
You putting Newsom up against Trump?
Yeah, Newsom has a better chance than Joe Biden, but let's be real.
Newsom does not have the opportunity to build a narrative like Trump does.
Trump has a story arc.
You know, it was Carl Benjamin who told me this first, Trump has to be the nominee and he has to win because his story isn't over.
And I'm like, ugh.
Are we in some kind of simulation where it's all just a Trump show and we're all sitting here just going along with whatever it is that Trump's story is supposed to be?
Perhaps.
But yeah, Trump's story isn't done.
We have not seen the completion of the arc that is the Trump narrative.
Gavin Newsom has no capability to build that narrative.
And this is what creates that X factor.
Joe Biden has nothing.
He's an amorphous blob that just represents no Trump.
And the reason he gets elected in 2020 is because people were voting against Trump.
That's it.
You know, people, I think you need to understand when everyone's like, there's no way Joe Biden got 85 million votes or whatever.
I'm like, sure he did.
But you gotta understand, that not really votes for Biden.
Nobody, like 20% of the people probably voted for Biden.
The rest were just like, who's not Trump?
Democrat.
I think one thing we should do is remove party affiliation from ballots.
Explain to me why we put party affiliation on ballots in the first place.
Seriously, I mean it, like comment, let me know.
Because I think if you don't know who you're voting for, You shouldn't vote for him.
I don't care what party they're a part of.
There was a transgender anarchist satanist who ran as a Republican and actually won the primary, and this is up in New Hampshire.
And it was hilarious, and I applaud this.
The individual was like, well it's your fault for not, for just checking a party affiliation.
Yes.
Transgender anarchist satanist.
And they voted for this person.
Because they was like, don't don't don't care, I'm gonna check the R box.
I say we get rid of DNR, NL, and whatever off all the ballots.
And when you look to vote, you gotta know who you're voting for.
You know why?
I think if that was the case, people would actually be voting for who they thought should win, and other people would vote randomly.
That's it.
Be random.
Some might argue that whoever's on top would win because people will just vote for the first person, okay?
The ballots can randomly align the names.
The names can be just spattered randomly.
I think this would result in Republicans winning almost the entire, uh, forever.
Because Democrat voters don't know anything and it's the ballot harvesting where they're like, fill this out and vote for this person.
Now they could certainly do that still, but a lot of this stuff is vote Democrat, vote Democrat.
Imagine if they had to refine their message and say, vote for John Doe, Jane Doe, Jack Doe in every different district.
Here's your, your, your candidate for president.
What if someone's looking and they're like, ah, oh, Donald Trump, he's famous.
I think party affiliation should be removed.
And then we'll see how people actually want to vote.
Because the average person would probably vote for a random name.
And conservatives and republicans would probably vote for a candidate they liked.
In fact, this would also increase the libertarian vote.
Because the best bet for libertarians is that the average person is going to vote at random.
Libertarians will vote Libertarian, Conservatives will vote Conservative, and Democrats will vote Random, because they only know to vote for Democrats.
To be fair, Republicans do this too, but to a lesser degree.
I think that's the path forward, but for the time being, let's stay focused on whether or not Trump is going to execute Rachel Maddow.
I think the answer is no, Rachel.
I think you're safe, and I think you might need to check yourself in for a medical exam, because you're becoming paranoid and delusional.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
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 And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
More and more, news is starting to break, and the veil is being lifted.
The mask is slipping, and the woke left is being exposed for what it really is.
Several years ago, we learned about the Women's March.
The organizers were deeply anti-Semitic.
Now, I am not a free speech absolutist.
I do not believe that people can just say absolutely anything.
But, I do believe greatly in the general concept of free speech and to explain as we get into the story.
What I mean is, If you're instructing someone on how to commit a crime, you are party to that crime.
So, I do think there are certain limits.
There are many people who believe that you can say anything you want because you didn't do anything wrong, even instructing someone how to commit a crime.
I'm not sure I fall in that camp.
Now, that being said, when it comes to the issues that we're seeing at Harvard, UPenn, and MIT, Where Elise Stefanik, Republican, asked these representatives at these universities if calling for the genocide of Jews warranted bullying and harassment.
My view is individuals should be allowed to express their opinions no matter how awful they are.
Opinions are different from calls to direct action.
So, again, not a free speech absolutist.
However, we are not talking about the right of a student to express an idea.
We're talking about whether universities uphold their standards in applying hate speech rules.
That is to say, I actually agree with the Harvard, UPenn, and MIT residents on their stance on calling for the genocide of Jews.
I think it's abhorrent, I think it's evil, and I think anybody calling for genocide is bad.
And that's why I want these individuals to expose themselves.
Now, hold on.
We got a lot to break down.
The story is, the other day, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania appeared before the House Education Committee to discuss anti-Semitism.
This, I think, is one of the most important stories as it exposes the absolute hypocrisy of the woke left.
Now, If someone were to come to me, or if I were to see someone on the street or on a campus, and they expressed such a disgusting view about killing anybody, I'd say, I'm glad they let me know so I can avoid them and work against them.
Because these people are bad for the entirety of human civilization.
Silencing them, I don't think, helps us.
So, when we go back to the social media arguments and censorship, My attitude's always been, if you tell these people to hide their views, they will, and they will empower themselves in secret.
Censoring people does not make the idea go away, it only makes sure that you don't know where it's occurring.
However, the woke left made the argument that they should be able to censor anyone, and this brings us to this story, and what I view as a major strike into the heart of the hypocrisy of wokeness.
When it comes to Jewish people, those who claim to oppose hate speech, those who claim to support diversity, equity and inclusion, outright defend their activists calling for the genocide of the Jewish people.
And I mean, look, these quotes are wild, wild.
When asked this question.
So again, I will say it as such.
If these people at these universities were actually classical or traditional liberals who believed in free speech, and, you know, like you were to come to me and said, do you think that these things... I want to play the clip for you so you can really see this because it is shocking and amazing.
But if someone came to me and said, Tim, If someone called for the genocide of a group of people, is that bullying or harassment?
My response would be, are they standing on a soapbox and just saying it?
Or are they going up to the person and yelling that they should be genocided, right?
Because that's the difference.
Someone expressing an abhorrent view is different from targeting an individual.
I think that should be stated.
And that being said, there's questions about what the limit is on harassment, because I do believe harassment is different from free speech.
That is, if you walk up to someone, stand within a few feet of them, and start screaming at the top of your lungs your ideas, and you follow them around saying these things over and over again, I don't know at what point, like, that's not really free speech, you're not expressing yourself, you're just kind of harassing an individual.
You get the point.
But here we have this story.
Billionaire Bill Ackman demands resignations of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT presidents after all three refused to say if calling for the genocide of Jews is harassment.
Now here's why this is important.
We have this story from City Journal.
Harvard's double standard on free speech.
They say, in this year's FIRE report, Harvard's speech climate didn't merely rank dead last among those of the participating colleges, it was also the first school that FIRE has given an abysmal rating for its free speech climate, scoring it zero on the 100-point scale.
That dismal distinction made headlines last month across the United States, Europe, and the Middle East and Asia, but not on the Harvest campus.
The Crimson didn't even publish an article in the news section, much less an editorial.
You see, here's what's happening.
Harvard, these other universities, they will silence the moderate opinions of, say, conservatives.
They will ban people from speaking.
They will shut you down.
And then when it comes to people attacking, quite literally, someone for being Jewish, they say it's, well, it's context dependent.
And that's the point.
This exposes the hypocrisy.
They don't care about protecting people from hate speech.
They hate Jews.
I mean, look, man.
There are a lot of people who hate Jews.
Seriously, antisemitism exists.
I gotta play you this clip.
You gotta listen to exactly how they break it down, because some of these are rather shocking.
And that being said, I'll stress This video, in an isolated context, you have these administrators saying, look, you know, we don't like people saying this, but it's not harassment if they're just saying it.
And I'd be like, OK, I mean, it's abhorrent.
It's disgusting.
But I get what you're saying in terms of free speech.
However, the problem is these people don't hold these views universally.
And that's how you know.
I just got to say, man, I think they hate Jews.
It seems kind of a cliche and like a trope to say, because accusations of antisemitism get thrown all around.
But dude, I am done with this.
The far left marching around, chanting slogans and supporting Hamas.
And then you have these universities, which we know for a fact ban speech, allow this speech.
They are evil, and they overlap with Nazis to such a great degree, and again, I know, Godwin's Law, oh no, we're comparing- Dude, they're fascistic, they believe there's no truth but power, they want to impose their will through authoritarian means, They, you know, I love this.
I was reading an academic article on how Nazi Germany was socialist, when it wasn't actually socialist, because people on the right will say, oh, the Nazis, they were actually the socialist party.
And the left says, they weren't left, they were far right.
So I read an academic paper about the economics of Nazi Germany, and guess what they used to enforce their economic plan?
Cancel culture.
That's it.
What would happen is, if you were a steel mill, and you wanted to produce steel for cars or something, you would get people coming to being like, hey man, I heard that you're not helping the war effort.
Like, what's wrong?
And then they would ostracize you, shun you, and cancel you.
Nobody would want to work with you, nobody would want to buy your product, you'd be forced to bend the knee and produce the product they wanted you to produce.
Kind of like what we see with DEI movies.
Take a look at Snow White.
Snow White was going to be remade into a live action.
Then Peter Dinklage says, how backwards and offensive that you would have dwarves in a movie.
So they release a photo of Snow White and the Seven Companions, a diverse cast of people, and they got roasted for it.
But that's it.
Using social pressures to force businesses to align with your ideology.
If someone stands in a soapbox and says nasty, awful things, we say, well, that person's nasty and awful.
Thank you for letting me know.
If a person goes up to an individual and keeps saying it over and over again and repeatedly does it over a period of time, whatever that time period may be, then you're harassing a person.
That I totally agree with.
But let me just point out right now.
What do you think would happen If Elise Stefanik said, would calling for the genocide of black people constitute harassment, they would say, in no uncertain terms, instantly, it is.
Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct and we do take action.
It is well known and widely reported, but the moment...
Someone asks them about the Jews, all of a sudden they're free speech warriors.
Absolutely incredible.
I'll stand by my positions on free speech.
I'm not a free speech absolutist.
I do believe, you know, a lot of people don't understand this.
They believe that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
You can.
And a lot of people also believe There are people who claim that I'm a free speech absolutist because they think when I say something like, you shouldn't be able to incite immediate acts of violence or instruct people to commit crimes.
I think those are components of the crimes themselves.
They say, you're a free speech absolutist.
I'm like, no, there are people who are free speech absolutists who believe you're allowed to instruct someone on how to commit a crime.
And you are not part of the crime because you took no action within that.
I don't like that game.
If someone's at a planning meeting saying like, here's how you do all these things, see you later, they're a component of the crime.
But all I did was speak, you helped coordinate a conspiracy to commit a crime, come on.
So if I'm looking at say like deep state agents, All they're doing is talking to each other, and then someone carries out the action?
No.
They're all party to the actions that took place.
They were part of it.
They were part of the planning phase.
Planning is part of a crime.
Here's the issue, okay?
And I think it's plainly obvious.
There are people right now... There's a tweet, I think I retweeted it, where some guy was like, Look at all the free speech absolutists immediately trying to ban speech!
Uh-huh.
I am for censorship.
You betcha!
I'm absolutely for censorship.
I don't think kids should look at naughty words and adult content.
I don't think people should be advocating for... Not advocating for.
I don't think people should be instructing on how to commit crimes or instructing people to commit crimes.
These things all cross a line.
So when it comes to, say, Twitter, for instance.
I do think it's fair to say that if you target someone with sharp invective, then the platform can, in some way, take action against you.
I am not this absolutist.
The issue, when it comes to political censorship, is first, is it fair and balanced?
Second, is it effective?
And when it comes to fair and balanced, it's do we agree on where those lines are?
If we do not, then there is no line.
If the left says misgendering is offensive and the right says no it's not, you don't get to arbitrarily decide if you're offended.
That line is now drawn based on your whims.
So, that creates a broad stroke.
Meaning, you can say a lot of things.
You can argue, I don't think it's offensive to say this slur.
The issue, most conservatives and most liberals would agree on certain things that cross the line into targeting someone with harassment and it's not just calling them a name.
It's typically, well I shouldn't say the left, I think the fair assessment is a repeated action taken against someone on social media using extreme rhetoric or instructing violence or something like that.
Then you can be like, hey look man, you're crossing the line into illegal territory.
I think the reason why I'm not outright saying just criminal activity like a lot of people might say is that I believe civil tort violations or civil action can result in someone.
I do believe it's fair for Elon Musk to be like, hey, we're suspending you because of a civil complaint, not a criminal complaint, which means.
Harassment can be criminal, in which case you could actually be told to take down certain speech if you're actually legally harassing someone.
That's gonna be up for a court to decide.
I am not, not an absolutist.
When I say I'm for censorship, I'm talking about adult content on platforms where children have access to it that shouldn't be allowed, that should be censored.
People instructing and advising on committing crimes and acts of extremism, things like that, I don't think should be allowed.
Now, if someone goes on to Twitter and advocates for the genocide of any group of people, I have no problem saying outright that should be allowed.
One hundred percent.
Any group of people.
And I'll just use me, for instance.
If somebody started espousing hate speech towards mixed race people.
I don't care.
All that happens is I know you've said it and I don't like you.
That's it.
I will avoid you.
I know your views.
Let's have a nice day.
You know, you go do your thing and I'll make sure that I don't support things you're involved in.
I think shining a light on this speech is the most important way to combat it.
Why?
Most people do not like when someone calls for genocide.
So I want to make sure, when I'm advocating, you don't vote for someone.
Do not support this person's political positions.
They say why.
Here's a video of them stating they want genocide over target group.
I don't care if it's a white person, a black person, a Jewish person.
And you know what most people are going to say is, yeah, we don't like that.
And that person's going to lose political influence.
The last thing we want is for them to hide.
Now, Bill Ackman is getting praised quite a bit because he's not just talking about Jews.
He's actually calling them out for their anti-white sentiment as well, which is also very important.
If someone wants to speak their disgusting opinions, let them speak their disgusting opinions.
Why?
Well, everybody hates everybody else's opinions.
Calling for killing a group of people is insane.
But if it's not an immediate call to action or a threat, it's an opinion on what you think should happen, then all you've done is expose yourself as a bad person we should avoid and make sure you don't get power.
Imagine you had a presidential candidate, scared to express their opinion, so they hid this.
That then the person gets elected and it wields that power in a bad way.
This is why it's actually good that someone expresses their opinions without fear so we can know who the bad people are.
That being said, there are a lot of smart people who understand calling for the genocide of Jews will result in you losing basically all of your friends.
You might find a certain pocket of people on the left and the right who are going to stand with you.
Maybe these Harvard educators.
But most people are going to avoid you like the plague.
This is where we're currently at with wokeness.
I couldn't believe it when I saw this video.
The woman in the beginning actually saying that there is a context in which calling for the genocide of Jews may not be anti-semitic.
She's not talking about Israel.
She's not saying calling for sanctions against the Israeli government.
She actually said there could be students calling for genocide and it doesn't even constitute anti-semitism.
Look, man, I think it's bad when the left targets white people.
I think it's bad when they target Jewish people.
I think it's bad when they target Latinos or black people.
I don't care.
I can't stand racism.
I really, really can't.
I can't stand these people.
And, you know, racism, I mean a prejudice against someone based on their race.
By all means, if you want to look at nationwide data based on race, I don't care.
If you want to cite statistics, that's fine.
Stats are real.
If you want to talk about the differences between different groups of people based on race, these things actually matter.
Sickle cell anemia, for instance, is more prominent among the black population.
But if you try to win political arguments by telling me I should hate someone or take action against them solely because of their race, you are wrong and you lose.
There is no circumstance where I, as a traditional liberal, classically liberal-leaning individual, am going to condemn an individual who did nothing simply because of who they are, their race.
I don't care if you're LGBTQIA2+, whatever.
You can love who you want to love, you can live how you want to live, but if you start targeting children, we've got a problem.
If you are a black, white, Latino, Asian, whatever, I don't care.
People can come to me and talk about crime statistics, and I'll be like, dude, there's no circumstance where I'm gonna meet a Mexican guy, an Asian guy, or a black guy, and assume something about them based on national level statistics.
It doesn't help me learn anything about them.
I had this conversation with someone recently, and I'm talking about, I said this, listen, people talk about white privilege, all right?
Let's talk about white privilege.
Let's say you go to a job interview and you want to get a job at a bank.
And you show up wearing a Daygo tee and baggy jeans and sneakers.
And you walk in with a bag and you got a sideways cap and you're like, yo, what's up dude?
I think I could work your bank pretty good, man.
They're gonna be like, I don't know if this is the right job for you.
The people in the banks, they wear suits.
Now what happens if a black or Hispanic man walk in wearing a nice suit, walk in, walk right up to the owner and say, nice to meet you.
I'm here for the job interview.
I think this is a wonderful establishment and thank you for your time.
You don't have to talk like some white Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
You could be a Latino guy, and you walk in wearing a nice suit, and you shake their hand and say, you know, even if English is your second language, thank you for letting me come.
I'm going to work very hard.
And they're going to say, you know what they're going to say?
They're going to say, do you speak Spanish?
You say, yes.
I'm like, that's excellent!
Thank you so much.
It's not about race.
It's not about language.
It's about, are you here to work with us?
Are you going to be a good worker?
Are you going to be able to help and cooperate and be part of a team?
These things matter.
And culture matters.
So when that guy walks in slouching, wearing street clothes, more urban style, it doesn't matter what your race is.
It matters that they're going to say, listen, the customers that we have here, they're not going to be this.
And you know what?
It might even be discriminatory to a certain degree, because they could be like, well, hey, look, Being a banker may not be the job for you, but if you're a nice guy and you can work well in a team, it doesn't matter what clothes you have, we can find work for you, but maybe this position isn't right for you.
My point ultimately is, it's almost never about race.
Never.
And they always want to make it about race.
It's almost always about, do you fit in with the culture that you are trying to join?
And there are a lot of people that claim it's all about race.
The left will argue that cultural roots are racial and it's all intermingled and all that stuff.
Listen, man.
It's not race.
It's your ideas, it's your behavior, it's your mannerisms.
And if you want to argue that people shouldn't discriminate based on those things, fine.
But that's cultural discrimination.
Not race-based.
Anyway, look.
This is why I can't stand the left.
This is why I think this story is so important.
It shows exactly who they are.
When they say you're being hypocrites because you're supposed to defend free speech, but now all of a sudden you're getting mad about the Jews, that says a whole lot, doesn't it?
There's actually a tweet, I retweeted it, where a guy's like, look at all the free speech warriors all of a sudden angry that college students are calling for the genocide of Jews, and they want to censor it.
I'm like, listen man, That's not the defense you think it is.
It's showing that your tolerance for hate speech stops with the Jewish people.
It exposes you as a hypocrite.
They don't care about racism or anti-Semitism.
They use us as cudgels to steal power.
Me?
I deeply care about these things, and I want them to stop.
And there is an accurate and correct way to deal with it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Yeah, this story is not very culture war-y, but it may be the most important story happening right now.
Ukraine war bad, Israel war bad, but right now Venezuela is building up its military and preparing to invade Guyana.
I don't know if this leads to any kind of larger national conflict, or I should say larger international conflict, sorry.
My concern is, however, as I've pointed out, World War is not just one big superpower engaging in war with another big superpower.
It's when there are wars popping up all over the world, and then you have alliances aligned with each different conflict.
In this instance, Venezuela is aligned with, say, Russia and Iran.
Should this conflict escalate, as Venezuela wants to steal the oil from a neighboring nation, What's going to happen for countries in South America?
I gotta pull up this map and I'll show you what's going on.
But this is, uh, this is pretty wild.
The Wall Street Journal reports Venezuela ramps up threat to annex parts of Guyana.
It's not just that, they're building up their military and have already declared the land is theirs.
Venezuela is ratcheting up its claims to a swath of Guyana, its oil-rich neighbor, which has recently become one of the world's hottest energy frontiers.
The growing dispute between Venezuela's authoritarian regime and Guyana involves a vast area facing the Tushan village called Essequibo.
Essequibo?
Probably pronouncing it wrong.
It comes as an ExxonMobil-led consortium has made a series of offshore oil discoveries, and Guyana pushes for more hydrocarbon exploration in areas that Venezuela claims as its own.
On Sunday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro staged a referendum on Guyana, which he said gives him public approval to annex much of the country.
The Guyanese deny that any part of their country belongs to Venezuela and say their neighbor's claim has been a constant impediment to their economy and has stimmied foreign investment.
We are not going to succumb to Venezuela's bullyism, Guyana Vice President Barat Jagdeo said in a recent news conference.
We are not a belligerent country, but we will defend our country by any means whatsoever.
Jigdeo said Guyana, which has no navy, is working on increasing its defense cooperation with a number of allies, including the U.S.
Because of Maduro's threats, two delegations from the U.S.
Defense Department are expected to visit Georgetown, Guyana's capital, in the coming days.
Now, Guyana is an English-speaking country.
Now, I've done only a cursory bit of research.
I don't know much about Guyana, but take a look at this map.
This is what Venezuela is trying to claim.
This is Guyana Esequiba.
A large portion, it's half the country.
Venezuela's claiming it's theirs.
And here's the reality.
Venezuela didn't care about any of this land, but Guyana discovered oil, it started increasing the standard of living for the people of Guyana, and Venezuela, being a psychotic, socialist regime, authoritarian, said, eh, we're just gonna go take it.
Let me pull up this here map of Guyana here on Google Maps.
And you have Venezuela.
Maduro actually held up a photo showing Venezuela's borders extending to this region of Guyana.
You can see just south within these borders, you have Brazil.
Brazil is massive!
And I wonder what comes next.
Guyana already is talking to the U.S.
Should Venezuela invade?
The question becomes, does the U.S.
get involved in a third war?
And I say third, but it's kind of funny considering we're already involved in so many everywhere else.
With Venezuela being aligned with Russia and Iran, does this just exacerbate the tensions and escalation towards a world war?
It ain't just the Middle East.
The Wall Street Journal says Essequibo, a sparsely populated and mostly jungle-covered terrain that makes up two-thirds of Ghana, is pockmarked by informal gold and diamond mining, as well as logging operations.
Venezuela has claimed it for more than a century, and Maduro said his country will now take back the land robbed from Venezuela by colonial powers.
We've taken a new step towards a new stage of our history.
Ah, you know what's really, really funny?
unidentified
They say that, oh, you know, Vladimir Putin is Hitler, and all that stuff.
Yo, these claims are very similar to the claims made by Hitler.
Granted, it's a bit different.
After World War I, you actually did have the annexation of several pieces of Germany, and there were ethnic Germans living in other lands, and so Germany was like, that's our excuse for invading, but of course, they did not stop there.
The question is, how far does Venezuela go with this?
We've taken a new step towards a new stage of history, Maduro said on Sunday, in a speech outside of the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Venezuela's capital, Caracas, as he and his aides hailed victory in the referendum, but didn't explain how they planned to retake the land.
How much they've underestimated us, how much they've underestimated me.
Sadio Garavini, a former Venezuelan ambassador to Guyana, said the referendum was largely a wag the dog moment for Maduro as he tries to rally support ahead of presidential elections that he's supposed to hold.
Supposed to.
As part of a tentative agreement, his government recently reached with the Biden administration.
The U.S.
in October eased economic sanctions in exchange for democratic reforms, which Caracas has yet to make.
They're probably not going to.
It's largely an internal political maneuver to distract public attention from the enormous social disaster we're living," said Garavini, referring to Venezuela's economic crisis during Maduro's 10-year rule.
His tenure has been marked by the exodus of nearly 8 million people, or about a quarter of the population.
And guess where they're going, my friends?
They're coming up here to the United States.
Coming up through our porous southern border.
Reclaiming the Essequibo is one of the few issues that the Venezuelan regime and its opposition agree on.
But voting stations were largely empty around the country Sunday, with critics calling it a desperate attempt by the embattled leader to strum up nationalist fervor.
Now, there are other reports that Venezuela's military is already amassing on their eastern front, appearing ready to take this land and occupy it.
They want the oil.
Venezuelan electoral authorities said about 10.4 million voters participated, just under half of eligible voters.
Opposition politicians, pollsters, and electoral analysts cast doubts on the veracity of the results.
The government has been accused of widespread fraud in past elections.
The dispute has raised concerns from neighboring Brazil to the U.S.
to the U.N.
Guyana has filed suit at the U.N.' 's International Court of Justice, seeking to reaffirm its borders and lay rest to Venezuela's claims once and for all.
After refusing Maduro's efforts to settle the dispute through bilateral negotiations, the case is likely to drag on for years.
In recent months, Venezuelan military officials have posted videos on social media purporting to show army personnel patrolling along the Essequibo, while pro-government activists replaced Guyanese flags with Venezuelan ones.
Meanwhile, Maduro has publicly railed against his Guyanese counterparts, accusing them of selling out to the U.S.
imperialism and claiming, oh I love this line, without evidence.
The U.S.
is setting military base in the disputed land.
The border controversy is the byproduct of the territory being passed from one colonial ruler to the next, from the Spanish to the Dutch to the British, who took over in 1831.
British Guyana gobbled up much of the Essequibo through expansions of gold mining settlements and deceitful map drawings according to Raphael Bedel.
Professor at the Academy of Political and Social Sciences in Caracas, under British rule, Guyana saw its land area nearly quintuple.
I don't care.
I really don't.
These claims of, this land was once mine, mean very little to me right now in the context of, I don't want World War III.
So, when you have a dictator and a disgusting government, like Venezuela's government is, and they say, oh, we better take this land, I have to ask why that may be.
Ah, it's because in the past decade they've discovered lots of oil.
Yeah.
Guyana is not a well-off nation.
It's relatively poor.
I believe the majority of people live below the international poverty line, whatever that may be.
It's not a lot of money.
Let's see if we have a per capita income here.
GDP per capita, 61,000.
Okay, it's not that bad.
Uh, GD- What was this?
2023 estimate.
Uh, what- There's nominal, and what is- I don't- I don't know what to- Purchasing power parity.
I- I see, I see.
Their per capita, uh, income, nominal, is $20,000.
So, uh, not all bad.
Georgetown is the- the capital.
They speak English, and a- a- a- I think- I think English Creole is like the, um, the dominant language.
But, uh, English is an official language.
And everything's in English down there.
This is a country that is relatively small.
I believe it is only, what is it, half a million people?
Okay, it's just 795,000 people live there.
When the oil was discovered, life started getting better for the people who lived there.
Venezuela was once the wealthiest nation in South America, and the socialists gutted the country and destroyed it.
Absolutely amazing.
I feel bad for Venezuelans.
I understand why they want to come to America, but America is not being made better by what's currently happening here either.
Now that they've discovered oil there, Venezuela, being a parasite of socialist destruction, wants to invade and steal the oil.
So here we go, baby.
Hopefully.
Hopefully it doesn't happen.
But there's not much to be said.
I mean, it's wilderness.
But my fear, I suppose, is if Iran and Russia get involved in defending Venezuela's claims, and then we end up with war in South America, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, and then Southeast Asia.
My friends, at that point, you got World War.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
on the channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Dylan Mulvaney recently spoke at Penn State.
And nobody showed up.
Half-empty auditorium.
Wow.
That's an understatement.
When you actually pull up the photos, you can see it's like probably 70-80% empty.
Nobody showed up.
I'll tell you why.
Dylan Mulvaney is not popular.
Dylan Mulvaney is not influential.
Dylan Mulvaney is not prominent.
This is exemplified by Bud Light sales continuing to decline.
They've not recovered.
Even after everything Bud Light's done, they've not recovered.
And the issue is, the amount of people who follow Dylan Mulvaney, it's likely not a legitimate influence.
It's likely algorithmic.
And many of them, I believe, hate Dylan Mulvaney.
And that's why I want to talk to you about this individual.
A lot of people on the left will say like, oh, you're obsessed and things like this with someone who has got 12 million followers.
But I think what we're looking at is a warning to the American people and to parents about what these machines will do.
I want you to see this from scnr.com scanner.
Al Gore says social media algorithms are the digital equivalent of AR-15s and should be banned.
They ought to be banned.
They really ought to be banned.
He's right.
He's completely right.
What we're looking at with Dylan Mulvaney is the story of an individual desperate for attention and the machine plugged Dylan Mulvaney in.
That's it.
Then you got sideshow gawkers Carnival goers who wanted to egg on an individual who was influenceable and suffering, and that's what they did.
Recently, Dillmulvany had a mental breakdown on TikTok, saying that, uh, they're just crying all the time and they don't know why!
I'm like, yeah, it's because you're depressed, you're being targeted, attacked, and made to suffer.
I don't believe Del Mulvaney is trans.
I believe Del Mulvaney is getting surgeries that make Del Mulvaney fit a cast or a character.
Celebrities do it all the time.
Why would a celebrity get butt implants?
Because they want to fit a role.
Why would Del Mulvaney undergo facial surgery or hormones for the exact same reason?
To fit a role.
What we're seeing now is proof.
Dylan Mulvaney speaking at Penn, and the room's empty.
They said it's half.
No, it's not half-empty.
Half-empty is just a vague generalization.
It's more than that.
You take a look at this photo, and you can tell.
I'll try to even be nice.
60% empty?
It's more than half.
It looks to be about 80%.
There's very few people sitting up front.
How's that possible?
Dylan Mulvaney has 12 million followers.
Okay, my friends.
That's one platform.
One platform!
Let me break something down for you.
On Twitter, I have about 1.9 million followers.
On this YouTube channel, it's like 1.2.
TimCastIRL is 1.6.
The TimCast original channel is 1.32, which now is mostly clips from the Culture War.
And so, you could argue, across the board with Instagram and everything else, and Facebook, Tim Pool, let's see, we've got 2, we've got 5, we've got 6, 7, wow!
7 million followers, but let's be real, there's overlap.
How many people subscribed and followed on our platform?
Okay, so it's not absolute, obviously if I've got 1.6 on TimCast IRL, but 1.2 here, 400,000 people have not subscribed to this channel, but did to the other one.
Some people don't even know those channels exist.
My point is, Dylan Mulvaney with 10 million followers, that means they're unique individuals, maybe bots.
They don't show up.
How's that possible?
We do an event in Austin.
We sell out in two days.
We do an event in Florida, and we were just about at capacity.
We didn't sell that one out.
Now, to be fair, I guess there's more than just me at these events, right?
And so that may be a big factor, but we did an event in West Virginia, and we basically sold out.
How is it that I have a smaller following?
Well, influence.
That's really the question at play.
Dylan Mulvaney has no influence.
Dylan Mulvaney is a negative influence.
And of course people have heard of Dylan Mulvaney because they keep putting this individual on magazines and trying to prop Dylan up.
But as we can see here, Bud Light sales continue to drop.
Here's the story that I think needs to be pointed out.
Here's an individual who has algorithms saying, if you engage in a behavior we want, we will get you more views.
That's it.
I'm gonna pull Mr. Beast into this one.
Don't get mad at me, Mr. Beast.
Mr. Beast, why is he the biggest on YouTube?
Because YouTube decided he was.
End of story.
That's it.
That's really it.
There are a lot of podcasts and channels on YouTube that aren't good.
And you wonder why it is.
I watch this one guy.
I watch the other guy.
How is this guy smaller?
YouTube chooses.
It's algorithmic.
It's editorial.
YouTube whitelists.
I believe that's been reported numerous times over the past several years.
Certain content is a free pass into the algorithm.
It then puts you on the front page.
Here's the reality of how this media stuff works.
If your channel is suggested on YouTube, people will watch it and you will make money.
That's it.
And that's why when it comes to TimCast IRL, people say, even though I watch every single episode, every single night, and I'm subscribed to all your channels, YouTube still does not show me your videos.
In fact, some people say, they even go to youtube.com slash TimCast IRL, and the live video's not even there.
Not even there, when we're live.
And so people have to try and find the URL.
Which is crazy.
With that inverse pressure, we still manage to be the top spot every night, weekdays, on YouTube, live.
Dylan Mulvaney, on the other hand, with 12 million followers, can't get people to show up to a room at a university.
Now, listen.
You might argue, well, Tim, you know, your event, you're selling... Look, I'm selling tickets.
It costs money.
And people have to drive... We're talking about a college campus, which is supposed to be full of young people who are following Dylan Mulvaney.
This is... Dylan probably thought it was gonna be a sold-out room.
When people cheer for someone who's destroying themselves, it's because they enjoy a carnival sideshow and they want to watch someone descend into misery.
What if the reality is that Dylan Mulvaney is mostly followed by bots on TikTok and they're not real people?
How many people are famous for being on TikTok?
Honest question.
I know there's people who are famous TikTokers, for sure.
I've read about them in the news.
But I wonder what degree of influence they truly have.
Because I've met people who are like, I've got 200,000 followers on TikTok, and it translates to nothing.
They get no comments, they make no money, and I'm like, I'm wondering how real this is.
Now let's think about how scary this becomes.
An individual who is driven to produce content and receives likes based on that content could be manipulated by bots.
They could be talking to no one.
So imagine this.
Dylan Mulvaney signs up for TikTok, makes a video about animals.
Some people watch.
Dylan Mulvaney then makes a video about being trans.
The machine, not humans, then gives an arbitrary fake number of comments that are generic, an arbitrary number of views.
Dylan then sees.
The view count goes, whoa!
Look how many people are watching me!
I'm famous!
But you never actually see any of these people.
What if?
There aren't actually any people.
And Dylan is being manipulated into body modification because a social media app is pretending it's popular.
I believe there's a very strong possibility this is exactly what's happening.
And I've asked myself the same question going back years.
How do I know that any of the views on these videos are real views?
How do I know the person watching this video is actually, how do I know they're actually there?
Well, It actually is quite simple.
We track it with ad sales and we track it through personal encounters.
Ad sales matters the most.
We take a look at the average turnaround or a conversion for a view on other shows for other platforms compared to ours.
And that means a human being bought a product and gave us money and we got their information.
I take a look at how many members we have at timcast.com and how many people are buying Cast Brew Coffee and we can see it's a lot of people actually.
Uh, Cast Brew Coffee is already tracking to crack, uh, seven figures per year.
That's right, we launched castbrewcoffee.com, support the show, and we're on track to generate over seven figures a year in revenue.
That's not all profit, mind you, it's revenue, but it's big sales.
And other, I'll keep it relatively vague because I don't want to call anybody out, but our partners in doing the basic business back end stuff, they asked when we started the company, and we were like, April, and they were like, what?
How could you be doing so well so quickly?
Because I know that you are actually there watching this.
And I know that my views on the world and what I read matters more to me than whether or not someone's gonna like or dislike the video.
And I think most of you know that based on the stances I've taken at odds with my own audience.
It's fascinating when the left says Tim Poole's sabotaging his audience because, you know, whatever.
And I'm like, what am I supposed to do?
Lie and say something I don't believe to get clicks?
I ain't doing that.
Domovani is doing that.
And that's what is creating this nightmare scenario.
But I really do wonder.
I don't trust TikTok.
I don't.
I know people use it.
Because I've seen the videos.
But I don't believe their numbers are real.
Much like Facebook.
I don't believe it.
I think YouTube's numbers are mostly real, but I know there's a lot of fake views there too.
I don't believe it.
And so what happens is a person can be backed into a corner with a computer screen telling them to destroy themselves, and they think it's the whole world when it's not.
Welcome to the Nightmare Scenario.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
We recently had a Title IX hearing before Congress, and Ocasio-Cortez made one of the most insane comments ever made regarding the issue of males competing in women's sports.
AOC makes shocking claim that all schoolgirls will be forced to undergo genital examinations if biological men are barred from women's sports.
AOC said that all underage women could be subjected to genital, genital, uh, genetical examinations.
Are they saying genital or genetical?
Because I think those are different things.
Uh, examinations of biological men are banned from competing women's sports.
The squad member spoke out, AOC34, that there were multiple proposals that would marginalize trans Americans and claimed that questioning athletes' gender would open up women and girls to genital examinations.
If it was genetical, I think that's a reference to doing a DNA test, which also could happen too, but we gotta read a little bit before we call out the absurdity here.
We are talking about opening up all women and girls to genital examinations when they are underage.
Potentially, just because someone can point to someone and say, I don't think you're a girl.
I would like to introduce Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to something called a physical A physical examination.
Now, I don't know about the ladies, okay, but I know that the majority of people watching this video are dudes, and everybody knows, turn your head and cough.
Okay, so, uh, anyway, when it came to, uh, taking a look at your health, there's no question, if you are suffering some kind of medical issue downstairs, the doctors check for it.
Now, a lot of people are pointing out.
They're saying that, yeah, but there's also birth certificates, so we're... Sorry, guys!
They're changing birth certificates.
Yes.
So there are trans people, children, who are getting their birth certificates changed.
Some of them even say X. But you know what the issue is here?
We do not live in a world of technicalities.
We live in a world of actions and intents.
And what that means is, There are a lot of things that are illegal that you could get away with, but you shouldn't.
And there are certain things people don't do, despite the fact they probably could get away with it.
Why don't you drive the wrong way down a one-way road?
Some people do, and they never get caught.
The likelihood of you getting caught driving the wrong way down a one-way is probably 0.00001%.
The chance there's a cop who's gonna see you do it, It happens, but we only hear these stories likely because there's like 300 million people in this country.
The reality is, people just don't do it.
There are a lot of things in this world people don't do because they believe it's wrong and shouldn't do.
And the point here is, if we pass a law that says female sports must be protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, It's not a question of examining anybody.
It's a question of integrity and scruples.
Some people will break the rules, but we assert the rules anyway.
So we say it's illegal to drive the wrong way down a one-way road.
K?
People will do it.
Periodically, they'll get caught because they went the wrong way.
But I love, I love this.
I know people who drive backwards down one-way streets because they don't want to deal with a detour or something.
And it works!
Because think about it this way.
Let's say you're on like a residential street.
Chicago, they're all one-way.
It goes left, right, you know, whatever.
East to west.
And then back and forth.
It inverts.
Let's say you took a left onto a one-way street and you drove two houses too far.
What do you do?
You just reverse.
You just reverse.
So I know friends who have reversed down one-way streets And then when the cop sees them, and they reverse, and then take a three-point turn and go in another direction, they don't get even stopped!
Because it's just like, oh, he must have just taken a wrong turn and then backed out.
They don't care.
The point ultimately comes to this.
There is no reason for these things to happen.
All we need to do is say, ladies and gentlemen, we don't allow males on female sports teams.
And guess what?
I don't believe... AOC is making really bold claims.
She's making several bold claims.
One, AOC is claiming that trans people are criminals.
That's right.
That's what she's saying.
She's saying that if we say males should not be on female sports, that the males will lie and cheat anyway.
Why would you say that, AOC?
Why would you need to perform an examination on someone?
The assumption is that the only reason that would ever happen is that males would break the rules to cheat and play on a women's sport team.
Now hold on there, that sounds like a right-wing talking point, right?
The fact is, if males are barred from being on women's teams, on female teams, call it whatever you want, then we don't have to worry about any examinations because we all operate under the assumption that everyone playing is female.
That's all.
Because no one's breaking the rules.
Because we don't think that trans people are inherently going to break the rules, right?
The other thing she's saying is that genitals define gender.
Which, uh, a lot of people would agree with.
It's not absolute.
You know, a lot of people want to call out the left for their crackpot views and all that stuff, and that's fair, but it's also fair to say genitals don't define gender.
I know there's a lot of conservatives being like, wait, what do you mean?
Yeah, like, a dude who, like, gets his junk blown off in war, we're not gonna call him a woman, okay?
I don't think genital examinations actually solve the problem either, especially as it pertains to the rare instances of birth defects or things like that.
But also, I think, injuries.
Like, a 15-year-old kid who gets in a car accident and it mutilates him in a bunch of places, we're not gonna call him a woman, okay?
So the idea that the way you prove a gender is through a genital examination is a lie.
What AOC is trying to do is she's trying to say something shocking, which is nonsensical.
Because, uh, physical exams are a normal thing for all human beings.
Thank you and have a nice day.
But instead of saying physical- Let me try this quote.
We are talking about opening up all women and girls to getting physical examinations when they're underage.
Potentially just because someone can point to them and say, I don't think you're a girl.
Okay.
I've had to get numerous physicals throughout my life.
Should I be angry about it?
I'm... I gotta say...
Women go for examinations related to their body parts.
And men do too.
Men should get prostate exams and tests for testicular cancer.
And women should get pap smears and mammograms.
Is it shocking and offensive that because these things exist, humans have to undergo physical examinations by doctors?
What a disgusting people.
I'm sorry, Democrats are evil.
I got the Krasensteins on my back saying that it's a blanket statement meant to get clicks.
And Riley said, why would we overhaul the entire system for what you describe as a very, very small portion of the population?
Why should every woman, everywhere, Have to change their behavior for .001% of the population.
You see, that doesn't quite make sense, does it?
And that's their argument.
The reality is, these people are insane and will say whatever they think they have to say to get attention.
She said, I think not.
And per usual, I don't believe we're sitting here in a panel of men that has actually thought about the biology and privacy consequences of all women, trans or cisgendered.
Oh ho ho ho!
What are you saying, AOC?
Are you saying that there won't be trans men competing against males?
Yeah, there won't be.
Mac Beggs tried calling out, I think it was Jake Shields, MMA fighter.
And like, good MMA fighter.
I think Jake is undefeated, isn't he?
I don't know.
Jake said he would fight 10 trans men with no breaks, no rest period, no training.
Mac Beggs, a trans man who was a wrestler, said that he would kick Jake Shields' butt.
Macbags is biologically female.
Macbags, I believe, is like 5'2".
Listen, you can call yourself whatever you want to call yourself.
Females have wide hips, less bone density, less skin collagen, less fast twitch muscles, a wider Q angle, more prone to leg injuries, they were exposed to less prenatal testosterone, and this results in, um, very different biology.
That's just it.
So listen, this is why we have different divisions.
But AOC is basically arguing in favor of what Riley Gaines is saying with everything she's said.
Spare me your lies and your hypocrisy.
Riley Gaines masterfully called Rhett Lee, Summer Lee, a misogynist.
Lee got angry and wanted to have the words taken down for engaging in personalities.
And they whispered in her ear, you're a moron, shut up, you can't do that.
And then she said, I withdraw.
Oh, it was masterfully done.
This woman right here is evil.
Summarily, evil.
Evil is not always just demons who want to burn the world to the ground.
It's also the banality of evil.
There is no reason at all to allow males to compete in women's sports.
None.
You want to create a league for trans people?
Then you create a trans league.
But why force women to change everything?
Because they're evil.
Okay?
They want power, and they want to win, and they don't care what works.
They don't care what helps people.
They don't care what makes people happy.
All they care is that they cause suffering and destroy.
