All Episodes
Jan. 9, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:40:25
TAPES OF BILL CLINTON Abusing Girls Exist Says NEW Epstein Docs, Trump ALSO Accused In SHOCK Report
Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:36:21
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:32
| Copy link to current segment

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.
Major breaking news right now.
The Daily Mail says Donald Trump named in latest Epstein documents.
We knew this one was coming.
We knew it was coming.
But this is interesting because the initial claims don't include Trump, but there is some separate email that does.
Regardless, as I've stated, anybody named in these documents, we should be investigating.
That being said, Bill Clinton, Richard Branson, Prince Andrew reportedly have sex tapes made of them.
Blackmail perhaps.
Engaging in these activities with Epstein victims.
Yo, this is a wild story.
Take a look at this from Sky News.
And this is why I say it's interesting that they're naming Donald Trump.
But take a look at this.
Sky News breaking.
Court documents allege sex tapes taken of Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and Sir Richard Branson by Jeffrey Epstein.
They say, Sarah Ransom, who says she was a victim of Epstein, wrote about claims the Duke of York, the ex-US President, and billionaire businessman were filmed by the pedophile US financier.
A firm representing Epstein's lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, highlighted the allegations to demonstrate Ms.
Ransom manifestly lacks credibility.
Interesting.
Ms.
Ransom gave a victim impact statement ahead of British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell being sentenced for sex trafficking.
Andrew has denied wrongdoing.
Sky News is approaching Richard and Clinton for comment.
The Duke stepped down from public life and no longer uses his royal highness title.
I'm assuming that's HRH.
After the controversy over his friendship with Epstein.
The Royal paid millions of pounds to settle a civil case with Virginia Giuffre, who accused him of assaulting her when she was 17.
He claimed he never met Ms.
Giuffre.
A U.S.
judge ordered hundreds of documents to be unsealed as part of Ms.
Giuffre's previously settled civil claim against Maxwell, which was filed in 2015.
unidentified
Ms.
tim pool
Ransom wrote, When my friend had intercourse with Clinton and Andrew Branson, tapes were in fact filmed on each separate occasion by Jeffrey.
Thank God she managed to get a hold of some of the footage of the tapes, which clearly identify the faces of Clinton, Andrew, and Branson having intercourse with her.
Frustratingly enough, Epstein was not seen in any of the footage, but he was clever like that.
After two hours of trying to convince my friend to come forward with me, I eventually managed to persuade her to send me some of the video footage, which she kept, implicating all three men mentioned above.
I personally can confirm that I have, with my own two eyes, seen the evidence of these acts, which clearly identifies Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Branson, having intercourse with my friend.
When my friend eventually had the courage to speak out and went to the police in 2008 to report what had happened, nothing was done, and she was utterly humiliated by the police department, where she went to report what had happened with Epstein, Clinton, Branson, and Andrew.
Now, this is the initial report, and when you actually look at the documents, we have this from TechnoFog, there is no mention of Donald Trump.
Which we will get to.
Technofog tweets.
Branson and Clinton named in latest Jeffrey Epstein documents.
Allegedly there are tapes.
Allegedly.
These documents mean very little, okay?
They mean a little, but they mean very little.
This is someone making a claim in a court document.
It doesn't mean it's true.
It does not mean it's true.
So we read this already.
Technofog says Alan Dershowitz requested the court unseal these emails to reflect the credibility of the witness, Sarah Ransom.
She made a number of accusations, including her friend being approached by Special Agents Forces men sent directly by Hillary Clinton herself.
That's interesting.
In order to protect her campaign in 08, they heavily intimidated her, ruffled her up, Luckily, she took photos as evidence, and was then forced to sign a confidentiality agreement which ensures that she can never come forward publicly implicating her husband.
She was then given a substantial payout directly from the Clinton Foundation to keep her quiet.
She is 1000% certain that the FBI did a cover-up, and she has the individual names of Hillary's special agent officers involved in intimidating her.
She was then forced against her will to sign a legally binding confidentiality agreement on Hillary's behalf for her eternal silence.
If she breaks this agreement, she is dead.
To provide further context on credibility, witness alleged that the footage was backed up on several USB sticks sent to Europe, payouts from the Clinton Foundation, an FBI cover-up, allegations against Sergey Brin and Trump.
Now this is where it gets interesting.
Trump, really?
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not surprised Trump was found in this.
Whether you believe it or not, I will say outright first, I do not trust the machine.
They don't like Trump.
They hate Trump.
Take that into consideration.
That being said, everyone named, you get an investigation.
I don't think it's a big deal to start looking into this to see what's going on and why Trump might be involved.
That's it.
It doesn't mean you charge him.
It doesn't mean that he gets arrested or anything like that.
It means all of these names.
You get no special treatment.
Here we go.
This is the one we already read.
She mentions the FBI cover-up and Hillary Clinton's special agents.
Another one says, I will send you the photo, amongst others, as soon as I'm able to fly back to the UK next week, as I definitely 100% have it all in my little storage box.
I also have other photos of the Epstein girls, and whilst on the island, including a couple pictures of me with Sergey Brin, and his then-fiancée, I can't, uh... Let's see if I can read this if I... No.
This stupid arrow is blocking it.
Let me try and open this in another tab so I can... Here we go.
Ann Wojcicki, I met the pair when they visited the island for the day as Sergi wanted to try out his new kite-surfing equipment, as he just had only started kite-surfing and was very eager to try out this new equipment with us girls.
And then we have this.
Several girls at any one time.
A sentence fragment.
She confided in me about her casual friendship with Donald.
Mr. Trump definitely seemed to have a thing for her.
And she told me how he kept going on about how he liked her pert nipples.
Donald Trump liked flicking... Woof!
We're not going to read this one.
Donald Trump liked, uh, you know, let's call it third base.
Or actually, is this second base?
One evening when we were showering together, she showed me her nipples.
They looked incredibly painful as they were red and swollen, and I remember wincing when I looked at them.
I also know that she had adult relations with Trump at Jeffrey's New York mansion on regular occasions, as I once met Jen for coffee just before she was going to meet Trump and Epstein together at his mansion.
Now, I will say this for Trump, and I will say this for, you know, even Bill Clinton, I want to make sure we're very, very clear and careful.
Who are the women that are being alleged to have engaged in these relations with Epstein, Clinton, Branson, Prince Andrew?
And additionally, who is this woman as it relates to Trump?
We need to know who they are.
We need to investigate this, and I will say outright, inquiry, baby.
Inquiry.
I do think it's really interesting that you have these direct claims against Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton, who reportedly, according to similar documents released in the Epstein case, went to Vanity Fair and said, do not report on Jeffrey Epstein.
At the same time, what information we have about Trump is that he actually Kicked Epstein out because he was creeping on young women and helped go against him.
Trump does not seem all that concerned about the Epstein documents in the same way that we have these other individuals.
That being said, this was absolutely, in my opinion, the likely outcome.
Who could not have seen it?
Come on.
Here's exactly the game, and it's the perfect game.
The first thing that comes out were witness statements from Virginia Giuffre.
I believe it was Giuffre.
It may have been the other woman.
Okay, let me just say this then.
I don't know if it was Giuffre, but a woman saying Trump wasn't there.
He did not sleep with the girls.
And what happens?
Each and every one of us in commentary who gets this say, documents are actually exculpatory or exonerate Trump.
He wasn't there.
He didn't engage in these behaviors.
I don't know what he was doing, but he wasn't there.
So right away, we have Bill Clinton named as liking him young, but not much else.
We get Donald Trump was not there and did not engage in relations with these girls.
Surprise, surprise, confirmation bias for each and every one of us.
But of course, what do we say?
It's very likely they're gonna name him eventually.
Now, far be it from me to prattle on about just the Trump involvement.
We don't know if this woman has any credibility.
Dershowitz says she doesn't.
And so, we'll see.
I'm not playing this dirty game.
Okay?
I'm not playing this game where we say, Dershowitz is accused.
Investigate.
Clinton is now accused.
Investigate.
Branson, Andrew, investigate.
And Donald Trump accused.
Oh, well, you know.
No, no, no, no.
Investigate them all.
And I'm pretty sure everyone agrees.
In fact, some of the most staunch, staunchest Trump supporters say do it.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
Well, many of them think it'll exonerate Trump once again.
And many don't care if it does or doesn't.
If Donald Trump really was doing it, so be it.
But my concern here?
I gotta say it.
My concern is walking into another Russia-gate-like trap.
This woman accuses very obvious people we have questions about, and then throws Trump in there.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
See you on the tour.
tim pool
I'm. K. Look, man, the machine has lied about Trump so many times.
It's the boy who cried wolf.
I don't want to give anybody a free pass, but I gotta point out the boy who cried wolf, okay?
Because with Bill Clinton, it's not so much crying wolf, but pointing to the wolf that's sitting right there that everyone can see.
With Donald Trump, it's crying wolf.
That ridiculous claim about Donald Trump going into the burg door for whatever bill, like the most prominent department store.
Nobody was there.
Nobody was around for some reason.
And in New York, where Trump's the most famous person, they went to a dressing room where the doors are locked, but for some reason this time it wasn't.
And then she had consensual relations with Trump.
And she sued Trump over this.
Spare me, dude.
Spare me.
But how about this?
I can say that a million times.
So let's move on.
Let's talk about the more egregious allegations in here.
Bill Clinton involved with Epstein's victims engaging in in activities with Epstein's trafficking victims and allegations that go well beyond well beyond just Donald Trump and whether he was involved or not.
Is it bad if he was?
Oh, you bet.
Come on, investigate.
And if it's true, lock him up.
But I don't know how much I believe it.
We'll need to get an investigation.
Let's talk about some very, very, very serious allegations.
With the Clintons, it is not just that Bill Clinton is involved in the trafficking of Epstein.
It's that the Clinton family paid off a victim to shut her up so Hillary could run in 08 and even sent FBI to try and stop her.
Now that is wild.
So I mean, here's the here's the challenge, man.
What do you do?
This is the concern that I had for the perfect game.
That they would then eventually name Trump in these documents.
It's very obvious.
And what do you say?
Everyone coming out being like, I don't I don't care if you're in the documents, the ones identify you should not be president, things like that.
And then they say, whoop, there's Trump.
Did they get you?
Or is our standard going to be applied the same?
Prove it.
If it's Bill Clinton, prove it.
The implication is serious.
Prove it.
Let's not forget that right now, Bill Clinton has some serious accusations against him, and Trump is moot.
Trump's arguments against Trump are moot.
Why?
One witness said it didn't happen, one said it did.
What am I supposed to do with that?
Okay, let's investigate.
With Bill Clinton, not only did Epstein say they were good friends, and that he likes him young, but they also claim that Bill Clinton went to Vanity Fair to try and shut him up, to stop them from reporting on this.
We also know that around this time, the original accusations made against Epstein, he got a slap on the wrist deal, and a cover-up.
Makes you wonder why that might be.
Could it be that Hillary Clinton wanted to win in 2008?
That the Democrats wanted to win in 2012?
And that accusations against Bill Clinton, should they come to light?
Would destroy the Democratic Party?
Now that makes sense.
So the FBI comes out, all of that makes sense.
With Trump, they lie about him all the time.
With Trump, one witness says he wasn't there and he wasn't with the girls.
Another person now says, my friend says.
Okay, well, you know what?
Produce the videos.
I don't even know if there's allegedly videos of Trump, by the way.
It's just her saying that Trump was engaging in second base and eventually adult relations.
But it's very, very different.
Let me pull this one back up.
She said, I also know she had sexual relations with Mr. Trump at Jeffrey's New York mansion on a regular occasions as I once met Jen for coffee just before she was going to meet Trump and Epstein together at his mansion.
We need to know who she's referring to, because when it comes to some of these victims, and I believe it's the case for almost all of them, they're underage.
But again, I don't know who she's referring to.
I'll need to go through further documents.
These are just coming out, and I'm producing this because I think it's important to get out there.
But it will be interesting to break down and go through.
I don't have any perfect answers for you, my friends.
I can say only a few things.
In my emotions, in my heart, I say, I don't believe it.
You come out and you accuse Trump, I don't believe it.
I know Trump's a lecherous old man.
I'll call him that, fine.
He likes the ladies!
You know, I've heard so many stories about Trump.
But it feels like that's what they're trying to play to.
It feels like they're trying to exploit this, when in reality, Donald Trump has been lied about so often, so often, that I just find it hard to believe anything about him.
Now, here's my personal bias.
I don't believe it.
Personal bias, right there.
Why?
Donald Trump is a threat to the machine.
He's a threat to these people.
He hates the Clintons.
He already threatened locking up Hillary.
He didn't do it.
Maybe he should have.
So why should I believe these claims against him?
You claimed he was a Russian spy, you lied.
You lied about the Ukrainegate scandal.
You lied about feeding fish.
You lied about the very fine people statement.
That was a hoax.
It's all lies.
Just every single day, lies, lies, lies.
And if you take a look at this document, It's filed today.
It's released.
I'd like to see the date from when the original statement was made, because I don't believe these people.
I really don't.
And I gotta be honest, too.
I don't even entirely believe anything about this.
And here's the fair point.
Technofog even is effectively giving Bill Clinton some defense.
Allegedly there are tapes.
Allegedly.
This is a woman saying, my friend did these things.
So as far as it goes with Clinton and Branson, take it all with a grain of salt, man.
We want to look at Bill Clinton and be like, this guy, he's flying on a jet, you know, he's got his scandals already.
You know, walks like a duck, smells like a duck.
Smells like a duck?
unidentified
No.
tim pool
Quacks like a duck.
Maybe.
But to be fair, some lady claiming that her friend has a tape is not evidence of anything.
It's not even admissible, it's hearsay.
Now, it's interesting, of course, to hear Bill Clinton being named in these documents so seriously.
But, man, it's getting wild.
You know, look, I recorded a different segment for one, and I quickly recorded this when the news breaks.
And I'm like, okay, okay, let's, you know, let's switch these segments out, because how serious this is.
But it is wild time, man.
It is a wild time.
Jim Gaffigan.
I think it was Jim Gaffigan at the Golden Globes.
I don't care for the Golden Globes.
But apparently he made a joke.
Actually, let me pull this one up to show you where we're currently at.
About how he doesn't fit in Hollywood.
I think it was Jim Gaffigan, right?
Oh, yeah.
unidentified
Golden Glo- Gold's joke leaves, uh, oof.
tim pool
Here we go, baby.
Look at the headline they use.
Comedian Jim Gavigan makes daring Jeffrey Epstein reference at Golden Globes 2024.
So, uh... Oh, come on.
Can we close this stupid thing?
It says, uh... Where's the quote?
Where's the quote?
Come on, come on, come on.
He said, this is so exciting for me.
The Golden Globes.
I can't believe I'm in the entertainment industry.
I can't.
You know, it's so unlikely.
I'm from a small town in Indiana.
I'm not a pedophile.
I don't know if that's a new category here, but... Woo!
They know it.
They know it, man.
As noted in the Epstein documents, a lawyer asked Epstein accuser, Sjoberg, how to pronounce it, I saw one press report that said you had met Cate Blanchett or Leo DiCaprio.
Now, just because these people were named, she says, I did not meet them.
When I spoke about them, it was when I was messaging him and he would get off.
He'd be on the phone at the time and he would say, oh, that was Leonardo or that was Cate Blanchett or Bruce Willis, that kind of thing.
I got questions about when that happened.
I got questions about when these celebrities were on the phone with Epstein.
Because people knew going back to the early 2010s.
I mean, Alex Jones had been talking about it.
They covered this up.
Slap on the wrist charges and a cover-up.
And people knew.
Remember that woman?
Was it Amy Roback from ABC News saying she had the story?
She had Clinton?
So let me go back to this and tell you right now.
If you come to me and say, they named Trump, I say, fair point.
They did.
Investigate.
But if you want to ask me my personal opinions on how I'd handle it, Bill Clinton has been implicated so many times.
The Roeback thing where she's on a hot mic being like, I had Clinton.
I had Clinton.
And then when everyone's like, we think Clinton's gonna be named in this.
Now with all the accusations against him?
Come on, man.
You want me to come out and go after Donald Trump?
No, we don't play that.
Donald Trump, standard questions.
And then I think we walk away because it's hearsay.
Bill Clinton, I think we got more than enough, more than enough and probable cause for a heavier investigation.
What more could we say, man?
What more could be done?
I don't know.
There's a lot more we have to go through.
These documents are just coming out as I'm recording this.
And so, the crack team of journalists over at scnr.com are digging in and will be writing about their findings.
But understand, too, some of these documents were already released several years ago.
Some of the names that were redacted actually were already released several years ago and are only re-redacted for some reason.
So it's hard to know exactly what this will all mean or turn into.
But I will say, my friends, the machine is breaking down.
It's pretty wild.
Ten years ago, if you claimed, and this literally happened, that the government was involved in child trafficking rings and all that stuff, secret islands, you were called a conspiracy theorist, and now it is a fact.
So much so, it is seeming more and more likely every day that a former U.S.
president was involved in the exploitation of trafficked children with Jeffrey Epstein.
Things are getting wild.
2024 is going to be scary.
I tell you what, because these people are powerful and they're being backed into corners and they're not just going to roll over.
In fact, my fear is that we eventually get to the point where someone like Bill Clinton comes out and says, yeah, well, so what?
unidentified
What are you going to do about it?
tim pool
Then what are you gonna do about it?
Reminds me of The Simpsons, when they vote for Kang or Kodos.
Remember that Treehouse of Horror?
And then, it turns out that Bob Dole and, um, who else was it, Bill Clinton, were both actually Kang and Kodos aliens.
And then they're like, oh no, and he's like, it's a two-party system, you have to vote for one of us!
And then one guy's like, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate!
Ha ha, throw your vote away!
And then it ends with everyone enslaved, and Homer's like, don't look at me, I voted for Kodos.
Part of me fears that these people have become so brazen in their behaviors that Bill Clinton eventually just comes out and says, so what?
What are you going to do about it?
More to come, man.
We'll cover this tonight on TimCast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
and I'll see you all then.
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 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.
America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool
Joe Biden will pull out of 2024 election on health grounds as approval rating plummets.
So sayeth a top JP Morgan strategist.
And this may mean nothing.
I mean, it's just some guy saying, I think Joe Biden's going to pull out in like two months.
It may mean everything, considering it's coming from a major financial institution.
And, well, they make a living off of speculating on the market and predicting how the market will operate.
That is to say, if they're going to come out with a bold prediction like this, it's going to have a massive impact on the economy, and I'm sure they're going to make financial bets on this.
But that being said...
You never know how these dirty games are played.
I mean, this guy could be saying this because it'll cause a bunch of people to dump or short sell certain stocks or behave in a certain way, which can then be exploited by these financial institutions.
So it is highly speculative.
But I will also point out there is kind of a funny component to something like this, and that is the self-fulfilling prophecy element of the show that I do.
Now, it's not lost on me that there are many people who watch the Tim Pool Daily Show programs, which is, this is the opening segment.
And that means this guy may have been watching TimCast IRL or one of my shows from several months ago.
And then I said, I think Joe Biden will pull out on health grounds.
Gavin Newsom will run out.
I mean, potential scenarios.
Because Joe Biden's approval rating's in the gutter.
I mean, nobody wants to vote for the guy.
And Donald Trump is leading by like double digits in many swing states.
And so, you know, I say something like that.
Maybe this guy watched one of those episodes and was like, yeah, I think Tim's right.
And then he goes and says, I think Joe Biden's going to pull out.
Then I read that news story from him.
You get the point?
Like at a certain a certain point when you're getting a ton of viewership, then it's possible the news stories you're reading about speculation are just based on your own speculation.
So who knows?
However, considering the confirmation bias for me, I'm going to read this story because I think the guy is right.
Now, he made a bunch of other predictions, which are pretty bold, like a boycott of driverless cars, and oh man, is there a lot to talk about already right there.
But the idea that Joe Biden will pull out of 2024 on health grounds is, I actually think, the simple solution.
It is actually more conspiratorially minded to me that Joe Biden stays in the race.
Right?
Think about this.
Joe Biden, ailing health-wise, losing in the polls, and he stays in.
I'm sorry, that defies basic logic and the simple answer here.
It's hard to predict, because some people would argue the normalcy bias would be Joe Biden just remaining in the race and then running for two terms, but I think that's silly and absurd.
We're beyond normal, so normalcy bias is out the window.
There's no optimism bias here.
Normalcy and optimism bias are typically the two biases where people are like, things will just stay as they are.
It's mostly normalcy, but optimism is, it can't get bad.
No, no, no.
Something like that could never happen.
But that's the idea that Joe Biden, okay, despite all of his failures, has such a powerful stranglehold on the Democrats that they won't remove him.
It's conspiratorial, it is.
It's like, I don't know if conspiratorial is the right word, but it's just like far-fetched, okay?
Any sane person is gonna recognize Joe Biden can't do this, and they need to find an exit for him.
So perhaps that exit will be A health issue after Super Tuesday.
Charlie writes, U.S.
President Joe Biden will pull out of the running for the 2024 election on health grounds, a top JPMorgan strategist has predicted.
Michael Semblast, or is it?
I think it's Semblast, has made 10 surprise predictions for 2024.
And number three on the list is his hunch on President Biden abandoning his hopes for a second term in office.
He added that Mr. Biden will withdraw after Super Tuesday, when the majority of states hold primary elections and caucuses.
After blaming poor health for the decision, Mr. Biden will let the Democratic National Committee decide who steps in for him for the 2024 election, Mr. Sembless said.
The JPMorgan Heavyweight added, Biden has a low approval rating for a president with around 10% job creation since his inauguration, although that figure is the byproduct of his inauguration coinciding with the rollout of COVID vaccines and the reopening of the U.S.
economy.
Right, so it may as well be zero.
Mr. San Blas also believes the president's poor polling will play a big role in his decision.
A recent survey by the New York Times and Siena College in November found that just 37% of people say that they trust Mr. Biden with the economy.
Because those people are zombies who don't pay attention to things.
That's amazing.
Speculation around Mr. Biden's state of mind raised its head again this week after Mr. Biden seemed confused while on stage at Valley Forge in Pennsylvania.
David Axelrod, a man who helped mastermind Barack Obama's election win, has raised concerns over Mr. Biden's age, as have many other Democrats.
But take a look at this from Axios, and the picture starts getting painted right before your very eyes.
November 2nd, 2023.
Democrats quietly move to succeed Biden.
Do they really?
Think about it.
It's perfect.
How do you bypass the Democratic selection process?
unidentified
Well, the Democrats play dirty games, as we like to say.
tim pool
Remember when Bernie Sanders tried to run, but oh boy, they got superdelegates.
You know what superdelegates are?
Mmm, we love it.
Look, the Democratic and Republican parties are not public institutions.
They're private entities.
They are regulated, but sure.
The way the Republican primary works, and this is why Donald Trump was able to win, is that, you know, you have primaries and caucuses, and then the states say, like, hey, the party says, like, we chose this guy, and so Donald Trump wins because he wins the vote.
He beat everybody out.
But then you go take a look over at the Democrats, and what do they got?
They got something called superdelegates.
Oh, it's so smart.
These are appointed people within the party who have more voting power, they have a super vote, than the primaries suggest.
In which case, Theoretically.
You know, when you're looking at any candidate in the Democratic Party.
They're going to reach a certain threshold of votes, and then the superdelegates can come in, and they can swing it however they want.
Let's say you get 60% Bernie and 40% for Hillary.
The superdelegates step in and say, we vote Hillary.
Hillary then beats Bernie, and it switches, 60-40.
I'm oversimplifying this dramatically, but you get the point.
Superdelegates were the Democrats' way of saying, your vote does not count and never will.
Now think about this process.
You can't even trust the superdelegates because no one knows exactly what to do.
So what do you do?
It is too late now to have a primary for Democrats.
Even Andrew Yang, he's tweeting out, he's like, I would never vote for Trump, but to say you're defending democracy while canceling your party's own primary.
Okay.
Even Andrew Yang is like, geez, this is brilliant.
Joe Biden delays as long as possible.
And then drops out due to health concerns.
Let's say just after Super Tuesday, it'd be massive news.
And the DNC appoints a new presidential candidate.
And they'll say, it's unexpected, and we wish President Joe Biden the best, but perhaps he's correct.
Now, unfortunately, We do not have the time nor ability to hold a primary.
Ugh!
Whatever shall we do?
I know.
How about we just all say Gavin Newsom?
I think it'll be Gavin Newsom.
Maybe not.
I mean, he's been... I don't know how direct he's been, but he basically said he's not gonna run.
When he was debating Ron DeSantis, for whatever reason he was, he was like, the one thing we have in common is that neither of us is gonna run for president or neither of us is gonna be the nominee.
But that doesn't mean he doesn't want to do it.
And, as I've predicted.
Now, I've given a much bolder prediction of Joe Biden going, Oh!
My heart!
And then falling over, and then Gavin Newsom throws his jacket off and runs out on stage and saves the life of the president!
Think about how majestic that would be, historically.
Great story.
And stories sell.
It may just be something simpler than that.
Biden says, I've been diagnosed with, you know, something or other, or says, I did my job.
I ran because Donald Trump was a threat to this country, but I've, you know, I recognized my age and getting on and I want to pass the torch down.
I think what's more likely to happen here, if this does happen, is that Joe Biden is likely going to suffer from some dramatic hit to his health.
If Joe Biden just came out now and said, oh, come on, man, I'm getting old.
People would be like, how dare you?
You could have dropped that a long time ago.
But, if Joe Biden trips and falls, or is attacked.
This is the scarier thing.
With everything that Joe Biden is doing on the southern border, with everything going on with, this is really really funny, with everything going on with January 6th, You know, there is a lot of anger in this country, and it's scary.
It is very terrifying.
I wish the best for President Joe Biden and his clean health, and my fear is for the safety of everyone in this country because of how hot tensions are getting.
We were talking with these, uh, these fellers over on the Culture War podcast.
Check it out, by the way.
We do it Friday mornings, 10am, over on Tenet Media and all podcast platforms.
And, um, you know, they were saying they believe it's possible that Donald Trump or Elon Musk is the Antichrist.
Certainly no one suggested Joe Biden was.
But they said that if Donald Trump, if someone makes an attempt on his life and his eye or arm gets, like, scarred, that's a sign of the Antichrist.
I think it's hilarious.
Okay, sure, we'll be on the lookout.
Would you imagine if something bad happens to Joe Biden, like he's attacked?
Now that is a clean exit for Joe Biden.
And that's why I tell everybody, You know, the Republicans, for the longest time, were like, impeach Joe Biden!
And they're like, but then Kamala Harris was like, I don't care!
Now it's kind of like, wait, wait, wait, don't impeach him.
He's losing!
So for those that want Donald Trump to win or the Republicans to win, the last thing you want is for anything bad to happen to Joe Biden.
We must protect this man with all of our strength.
In fact, I would recommend that, you know, he had marks on his hand for like, what looked like an IV treatment.
I get Joe Biden all the top best medical he can get.
Give the man a nice warm blanket, put him in his wheelchair and make him comfortable.
I want him eating the finest of steaks.
And I want that that that nurse to come in and cut the steak for him and, you know, get it nice and soft and tender.
And I hope Joe Biden lives as comfortable as a king could live.
Because come November this man cannot win an election.
So the best thing for this country, the best thing, the only thing, is that this man runs for re-election and loses.
Why?
This is why I say always there has to be criminal trials, that vigilantism is always, is not going to save us from this, because we need to win the narrative.
We need to own the narrative and the culture.
And we need a trial, in this instance an election, to say to the American people this man is not fit, And we have chosen someone else.
But that's why I think they will say, oh, heaven's me, Joe Biden's heart.
It just can't take the strain.
And I'll try and bring someone else in.
The New York Post's Bill Ackman is in November, says Biden passed his peak and urges him to drop out of the 2024 race.
So be it.
But right now, it's looking like nothing's going to stop Joe Biden.
From SCNR.com, Missouri State Senator files bill to disqualify Biden from 2024 election ballot.
Our country is being invaded because Joe Biden has swung our southern border wide open.
Now, this story broke on Friday, which is like the worst time to release a story, so whatever.
And now we're giving it that good old Monday morning boost because stories published on Fridays are where stories go to die.
But yes, there is a move by many Republicans to disqualify Joe Biden.
You know, it's tough because part of me says, yes, please do it.
And then part of me says, no, wait, don't.
Joe Biden can't win.
OK, the reason they're disqualifying Donald Trump in these states or trying to, at least, is because Donald Trump will win.
So the last thing we want to do is give them what they want.
You know what we should do?
Every single Republican should clap and cheer for Joe Biden and say, please, please run.
We won't stand in your way.
So, while it is fun to see them trying to remove Joe Biden from the ballot, let us once again recognize, we had Rep Alex Mooney on the show last Friday, and I was like, don't impeach!
Don't impeach!
We must protect this man at all costs!
He has failed this country, and he will lose an election.
And that's the way it should be.
He did a bad job, he's gonna run again, and everyone's gonna say, dude, you did a bad job, we don't want you as president.
And that is the way it should be.
You know, I get it.
Ain't nobody expect it's gonna be that way, huh?
There's lawsuits already being filed, and we are entering lawfare.
I mean, we've been in lawfare.
Going back to 2016, it's been nothing but lawsuits.
Lawsuits and, as I like to say, dirty games.
Dirty games.
And here we are.
Well, I got good news for everybody.
Good news.
SCNR.
Biden's re-election campaign says they raised more than $1 million in 24 hours after January 6th's speech.
During Biden's speech, he claimed that democracy is on the ballot.
Democracy, huh?
Take a look at this from Senator Jeanne Shaheen.
She's, uh, I believe she's New Hampshire.
She actually had the gall to tweet this out.
Quote, A democracy, if you can keep it, said Ben Franklin.
January 6th was a stark reminder of just how fragile our democracy is.
She went on, and screen grabbed the whole thing.
Community notes on X pointed out, The correct quote is, A republic, if you can keep it.
These people are evil.
That's all I can say.
They are either zombies, or they are evil.
And... I just, I have to wonder, I mean... I believe that she deleted the tweet.
But I have to wonder, because you get caught, when they keep saying, OUR DEMOCRACY!
This country is not a democracy, nor has it ever been.
But Democrats have been trying to force this country into a democracy for a long time.
They want you to believe that democracy is the best form of government, is the appropriate form of government, and it's not, and it's never been.
It's actually a terrible form of government.
The idea that 50.1% will dictate for 49.9% I explained this last week, but let me break it down for you again.
Because those of you who have been brainwashed by these psychopaths, democracy is not rule, is not tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is not 50.1 over 49.9.
50 is not 50 50.1 over 49.9. Democracy will end up being 3% of the population controlling 97.
And if you have been brainwashed by these people into believing democracy is the best way to do it
because the majority shall rule, they lied to you and they tricked you into believing something
that's wrong.
In a democracy, it actually turns out that only a tiny, tiny fraction actually will control things.
Why?
Let's say, how can we best break down this mathematically?
Let's say you have 10 people.
Each of these people has three, uh, let's say three numbers assigned to them.
The first person is 1, 2, 3.
The next person is 3, 4, 5.
The next person is 4, 5, 6.
Et cetera, et cetera.
What you'll notice is that not every person has the same number.
But there are some overlaps.
So when it comes to the majority vote, it's hard to do with just three numbers.
Try and understand this.
The majority of people may say, we all like chocolate ice cream.
And then, they pass a vote.
Okay, for dessert we have chocolate ice cream.
51 people of 100 voted for chocolate ice cream.
49% wanted vanilla.
Now they have to eat chocolate.
And that sounds like how democracy works, but the reality is there aren't just two choices.
It is not just ice cream for dessert.
In fact, it's do you want sprinkles?
Do you want cookies?
So the number one was more complicated than this.
This is easy.
Let's say you're at a yogurt land.
You ever go to yogurt land?
And first, you have to choose which flavor of yogurt you want.
Out of 100 people, 51 say, we want plain tart.
Tart yogurt is the best.
And 49 wanted a bunch of different things.
They lose.
Everybody gets tart.
Then, they say, vote on your toppings.
Well, guess what?
That 49 that wanted different flavors, they wanted something else.
They didn't want sprinkles, they didn't want fruit, they wanted chocolate.
What ends up happening is, when everyone then votes on a topping, and there's 20 different toppings, how many people wanted sprinkles?
51 out of 100.
Boom!
Now you got tart with sprinkles.
How many people wanted avocado?
51 did want avocado, and they got avocado and sprinkles!
Wait, wait, wait, hold on!
They wanted avocado?
Well, they like avocados.
But they didn't want tart, and they didn't want sprinkles.
They wanted a different flavor.
Point is this.
What goes good with chocolate ice cream?
Fruit?
Eh, kinda sometimes, but typically caramel fudge peanut butter.
The only problem is, half the people want fruit, half the people want chocolate.
When all is said and done, and you whittle it down, You'll end up with original tart flavor with peanut butter, asparagus, spinach, avocados, lemon wedges, and you're like, but that sounds terrible.
That's the point.
How many people out of 100 wanted that total combination?
It's very, very small.
This is the issue with direct democracy.
And we do have elements of this as a problem in this country.
How many people actually agree with the policies of Joe Biden?
Zero.
Seriously, zero.
Maybe like 3% of the country actually like everything Joe Biden has done.
And that's a reality.
But that's the point of a republic.
Each and every, you know, you have different jurisdictions, and everyone can run their own jurisdiction as they want, and we all agree on certain things.
But this means as a republic, the states have sovereignty, and the states can provide that differing option for you, who perhaps did not want what was being offered.
It's an interesting concept that I think most people don't quite understand.
51% of people are not going to all agree on their toppings.
They're not going to all agree on whipped cream.
They're not going to all agree on their flavors.
One by one, with the plethora of things to vote on, a democracy will result in a psychotic, broken system.
I mean, a really simple example, actually, would be Occupy Wall Street.
You know, my analogies probably are too wacky and don't work, but let me give you a simple one.
During Occupy Wall Street, you had what was called the General Assembly.
Everybody just stood there and they all wiggled their fingers if they liked what was being proposed.
They called it jazz hands.
And you could do something called a hard block.
Make an X with your hands.
Hard blocks had to be addressed when moving forward because, well, it's democracy, right?
So one day they said, we need to clean up.
One of the problems that Occupy was having was that the rain was getting all the supplies soggy and wet.
And they said, look, our clothes are getting soggy and wet.
Our food's getting soggy and wet.
It was raining a lot.
It was rainy season.
It was, you know, September into October.
So we need bins to put them in.
So at a General Assembly meeting, someone said, I hereby propose we buy plastic bins that we can put all of our supplies in and seal them so they stay dry.
Now that's a simple proposal, right?
In a democracy, you'd think, are most people just going to support or oppose it?
That's not what happened.
So when everyone voted, a lot of people said yes, but a lot of people said no.
No, but we need the bins to keep things dry.
So then someone said, hold on there.
Why are you guys voting no?
And they said, we don't want to buy bins to support plastic garbage destroying the planet.
And then someone said, well, how about we get recycled bins?
Well, okay, now we agree.
All right, all right, everybody.
All in favor of buying recycled bins to put all our stuff in.
No, no, protest.
unidentified
No.
tim pool
The recycled bins are still being used.
That's still propping up these big corporate chains because these are Walmart bins.
We want to make sure the bins were made fairly and the employees were treated properly.
So we want a small business, fair trade certified, recycled bins.
Okay, okay, fine.
All in favor.
No, says the majority.
No?
But we all agree.
No!
Because plastic, it doesn't matter.
We can use biodegradable materials.
Why are we gonna keep reusing these things?
As long as they're in use, even recycled, the plastics are gonna keep getting made.
Because now what happens is you buy from a small company, they're just gonna make more.
You buy recycled from one guy, he's gonna buy a replacement.
Biodegradable corn plastics!
Okay, all in favor of biodegradable, fair trade, corn plastic, recycled bins.
Here, here!
unidentified
What?!
tim pool
It doesn't exist!
So, do you know what they did?
They went to Walmart and they bought bins.
I don't know if they actually went to Walmart, they went to the store and they bought bins.
And they were like, just don't tell anybody.
The reality was it was impossible, based on their direct democracy, to actually get it done.
Because if everybody gets to vote on what they want, you get some psychotic nonsense.
Fair trade, biodegradable, recycled plastic bins from a small business that treats their employees well and pays them at least 15 bucks an hour.
The list goes on.
It was an absurdity.
An impossibility.
That's direct democracy.
And then the issue is, with no one really in charge and no one to be held accountable, when they went and just bought whatever they wanted, how could anybody check?
They just said, sure, yeah, whatever.
And then one day they had, like your standard store bought plastic bins, and nobody said anything.
That's direct democracy.
It's nonsensical.
Now, don't get me wrong.
These issues still exist even in a greater system.
Even a better system, I should say.
Even in, you know, our constitutional republic.
You know, it's not perfect.
But a republic system creates some, some, it alleviates some of these problems.
You elect someone that you think is good for the job, who can make the right choices.
You know what that means?
It means one day, That person who wanted the Fairtrade walks in, goes to that rep and says, I wanted Fairtrade bins.
Why are you buying these cheapo plastic ones?
And they say, Look.
Here's what we did.
We bought them recycled.
But they're the same old bins you buy anywhere else.
Why?
It's the best we could do.
I made that choice.
If you don't like it, I'm sorry.
I did everything I could.
That individual can make the choice that makes the most sense without being bogged down by constant bickering and nonsense.
And that's the point of my analogy about why democracy doesn't work.
And this is what they keep saying.
Joe Biden says it.
Democracy is on the ballot.
Incredible.
Well, if you want to live in a nonsense world where nothing makes sense and everything's broken, democracy is the way to go.
If you want to support the greatest nation this world has ever seen, The greatest nation in our history, the United States of America.
You vote for the Constitutional Republic, the republic for which the flag stands.
Right?
If you can keep it.
Donald Trump is not the perfect guy, but that's the point.
The point is, you're not going to get a perfect guy.
This idea does not make sense.
So we vote for representatives who will run this country properly to the best of their abilities and hold people to account.
Why?
The reason why democracy is not going to work is very, very simple.
It is not your job to be a politician.
It is your job to do your job.
That means you may be a plumber, computer software engineer, who knows?
Maybe you make competitive paper airplanes in a paper airplane league.
Whatever it is you do that makes money.
Good for you.
But your job isn't to study finances, the economy, read the news every day, argue with other individuals over political ideas, and vote on bills.
That's the job of a politician.
And the point of our country is that we get to vote on who to hire in the public sector.
And that person is hired for the job, and they'll either do a good job or a bad job.
I think it's fair to say many of them are doing bad jobs.
But that's it.
We don't vote directly because then you would never get anywhere.
The reason why the likes of Biden and the Democrats want quote-unquote democracy, why they're trying to rewrite history and say our democracy over and over and over again, is because they know that a democratic system, a truly pure direct democracy, is chaos for which they can control it and there's nothing you can do about it.
Whereas with a republic, the states can simply say, I object.
I refuse.
It's amazing, this system.
We must repeal the 17th Amendment, mind you, because they have been pushing us towards direct democracy for too long, and it's a problem.
That being said, I agree with this guy.
I think Joe Biden's going to drop out.
I said it a few months ago.
Joe Biden will drop out.
I do not see a logical path for this man to run for office.
I could be wrong.
This guy could be wrong.
But more and more people are saying it's going to be someone else.
Because logically, Joe Biden, he's going to lose.
Jake Uygur is running and he's like, he's going to lose.
Democrats think he's going to lose.
They're begging for a primary.
They won't give one.
Why?
The Democrats don't want Bernie Sanders.
They want Gavin Newsom.
And if they open a primary, guess who wins?
Cornel West, maybe?
RFK Jr., perhaps?
So here's the play.
No primary.
It's now too late.
Joe Biden has a health episode and says, I can't run.
I'll finish out my term, but I can't run.
The DNC says we have no time.
We can't hold a primary.
I think it's fair to say Gavin Newsom will step up to the plate.
That way they can bypass that process and jam in whoever they want.
So we shall see.
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.
You're gay.
No beef.
You are a gay man.
There's nothing wrong with that.
I really don't care if you're gay.
You live your life the way you want to live it.
This is a video that is actually from just over a month ago, around the end of November.
My girlfriend is trans, but I'm not gay.
Love don't judge, says the video.
And it's starting to make the rounds in the commentary.
I did see this video and I wanted to comment on it because I want to make it really, really simple for you, dude.
Here's this guy.
His name is Jesse.
He's dating... I think the guy's name is Jesse.
He's dating this trans woman.
I got no beef.
I wish them the best.
I don't know anything about him other than this, but you are a homosexual man.
And the only reason I think that we see this kind of narrative is because these gay men are ashamed of being gay.
And I mean that sincerely.
I am not being cute.
Homosexual is defined as a person who is attracted to another person of the same sex.
Doesn't say gender, you can try and redefine things, but just because the man, the biological male, because I know this guy doesn't want to use the woman-man, well let's say, just because the biological male That you are dating as a male looks feminine does not make you straight.
And what you got to understand is we had this conversation on Timcast IRL.
I was like, the implication there is that if a ripped dude dates a masculine, muscular woman who's like a power lifter, but she likes dudes, he's gay.
Okay, that does not make sense.
Let me play this clip for you.
Just a little bit of this video.
And what does it have?
It's got 271,000 views.
Everybody's saying he's gay.
Let me play a little bit of it and show you exactly what they're saying.
unidentified
Jesse, he fell in love with Cassidy.
I'm a proud trans woman.
Jesse was raised in a strict conservative family.
One thing I was definitely taught was a natural woman is who you're supposed to be with and if you're with anybody else you're gonna be out of this household and out of this family.
And their relationship has caused a stir with loved ones.
The main misconception that people have is that he's gay.
I was very apprehensive.
Right.
I didn't know that he was Love don't judge.
tim pool
He is gay.
And there's another clip that I think I have here.
So Joey Manorino says, Alpha males do not date trans men.
I think you mean males trans identifying male is what a trans woman is, right?
But there is a portion where the guy's like, yeah, here we go.
Let me play this clip for you right here.
unidentified
I don't get this.
Okay, I don't get this.
tim pool
I mean I kinda get it.
This guy is ashamed of being gay.
And he's not the only one.
There are a lot of guys, I guess, who are attracted to males.
They are males attracted to males.
Look, I gotta be completely honest with you.
I don't know about you, and I don't care what you're into.
I'm fairly, I'm very libertarian in this regard.
Jesse, Cassidy, I wish you the best.
Thank you very much.
Live your lives.
Be happy.
I got no beef.
But I think it's fair to say You're ashamed of being gay, because there ain't nothing wrong with you just saying, like, you're a dude who's with a male.
You're a male?
It's a male-male relationship.
It's two males.
Okay?
That is a homosexual, homo meaning same, sexual, same-sex relationship.
There's... I don't see anything wrong.
I'm not some diehard Christian conservative.
I don't see... I understand the Christian arguments for, like, the marriage and all that stuff, but I'm like, dude, As long as you're keeping it away from kids, like you're not going to kids and indoctrinating them on this stuff, and you keep sex ed, you know, for, for, you know, people, like, for the appropriate ages, you go into privacy of your own home, you do what you want to do.
But it is very obvious these people are ashamed.
Ashamed of being gay.
unidentified
And they're like, nah, I'm not, I'm not gay, I'm, like... Okay.
tim pool
Check this out.
He's Google search homosexual, right here.
Sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex.
That defines these people.
And then he says, I'm an alpha male that's attracted to femininity.
My friend.
Google search what a twink is, okay?
It's really funny because like all the LGBT people are like, oh Tim's defining twink now for everybody, you betcha, you betcha.
Among gay men, a gay or bisexual young man with a slim build and youthful appearance.
And then you have, I had to Urban Dictionary this one because bear, obviously you're gonna get like a large, aggressive predator mammal.
But the slang term is, it describes a husky large man with a lot of body hair.
Basically, among, and this is from 2003, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this, but my general understanding is that the guy who is ripped and muscular with the facial hair is a bear, and the trans woman would just be a twink.
Now, no, no, I get it, I get it.
Trans woman is different from twink.
My point is, If he says that he's just attracted to femininity, but there are, like, there's tops and there's bottoms, you know what I mean?
There's give and there's take.
Like, this is the point.
You are two dudes.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I think the issue comes from two things.
One, this guy's like, nah, I'm not gay.
Like, what are you talking about?
She educated me.
I'm not gay.
Just say, sure.
Call me whatever you want, I guess.
You know, if you're in love and you're living your life, live your life.
It's fine.
Male on male.
Homosexual.
I think the other issue is the political.
And the goal here is, for these individuals, they want to create this narrative that biological males can be legally women.
Why?
That's the important thing.
There was a trans woman who posted a picture of a birth certificate saying, haha bigots, I'm now female since birth.
And it's a legal, not factual statement.
A legal distinction versus a factual distinction.
If we're talking about medicine, science, etc.
There is a distinction between male and female.
You are not female since birth.
You just put female on your birth certificate.
Okay?
That's a legal distinction.
And that's what they're trying to create.
Why?
Something that I talked about a few years ago.
The purpose of changing the definition of woman.
What is it?
You can change the law without a vote.
These people say they're all about democracy.
They don't even give you that much.
So right now, if you look at a lot of laws, it'll say men or women.
Male or female, but often men or women.
Men or women.
In fact, they're even trying to change the definition of female because this will change the law.
So in the law, let's say it says something like, you cannot discriminate against a person based on being male or female.
On their sex.
Or gender.
Because gender was used to describe biological sex.
They changed the definition of the word gender.
And what do you get?
Supreme Court rules gender identity is now a protected class.
If you have a law that says you cannot bar women from voting.
They actually, you know, like in the Constitution, the 19th Amendment, a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on their... Actually, let's do this.
Let's do this.
Let's pull up the 19th and read the language verbatim.
So that we can, you know, play this game here.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Now, what they're doing is, they're arguing that a trans person's sex is... So this is how it starts.
They first would say something like, we're talking about gender, not sex, and gender is a social construct.
But now we're to the point where they're actually arguing to change the biological sex on a birth certificate.
This is the point.
It now means that males can be granted protections that females are normally entitled to, because men and women are different, so long as they claim to be female.
That is, there has already been court rulings on... Right, so bars do ladies night.
That's actually illegal under the Civil Rights Act.
It's sexual discrimination.
The only way that would be legal is if they offered comparable discounts to males.
So when a bar says 20% off for ladies to get the ladies in, that's actually a violation of the law.
And there are people that go around suing over it.
Now the funny thing is there are a lot of guys that roll their eyes and be like, dude, bars are always just a bunch of dudes and if you want to get the ladies in, you've got to entice them to come in so the men can meet the women.
That's the point.
I don't care.
I'm not making that argument.
I'm saying these are the arguments that people have.
There was a case where there was like a computer club for women only.
And some guys sued saying it's sexual discrimination, and they said no, because there is a men's computer club too.
So long as there are two computer clubs, it doesn't matter they're segregated, so long as the equal opportunity exists.
Now what's happening is, seems like some males figured out a way to get in and say, okay, well then, I am a female.
And so long as society accepts that you can unilaterally decide what this characteristic is, then the protections are gone.
There's a reason why we have protections for females, like women's sports.
I love saying this.
We did not, as a society, create women's sports because, quote, sometimes people wear dresses.
But that's the argument of the left when it comes to the issue of trans.
If you wear a dress, you can be a woman, because women is a social construct, and it's based around... But then at the same time, if you're a woman who wears jeans and a t-shirt, you're not really a man.
Women can wear whatever they want.
It's meaningless.
But now, as they've pushed these ideas, a biological male can enter a woman's competition, in most cases, without undergoing any procedures, just with social transition, they call it, because woman is a social construct.
The pushback, of course, has been to say, oh, well, now you have to adjust your testosterone or things like this, which is also complete nonsense.
Throwing it back to why this is a gay man right here, and I'm not saying that to be mean to him, Men and women are different.
From the point of conception, they are different.
Aside from the obvious fact of chromosomes... Let's fix the argument, yeah, well, they're intersex people, and there's XYY syndrome, or XXYY, and things like that, where people have different chromosomes, and more than they should.
Intersex etc.
There's there's there's something called like testosterone immunity or something like that where someone is completely biologically male But testosterone has no impact on them so they end up appearing female developing like they're female But they have underdeveloped testes instead of ovaries those all those things all happen however outside of all of that 98 point like I think 7% or something of people fall into overtly distinct categories of either male or female and This individual who is trans, what you need to understand is going to have a bunch of characteristics that are male, and that this gay man here is attracted to.
Like, uh, what is it, um...
Was it female belly buttons or below the hip line, male belly buttons?
Male center of gravity is higher than female center of gravity.
These are just obvious things based on muscle mass.
Males, trans or otherwise, have more skin collagen, have more muscle mass, have more bone density.
Now those things can be affected by taking hormone replacement therapy, but still, this guy is attracted to the masculine end of the spectrum, and is in a relationship with someone who is biologically male.
That's it.
I think the interesting thing about this is, there are so many men, like I mean like dudes dudes, like this guy, who refuse to say they're gay.
It's like bro, come out of the closet baby.
Ain't nothing wrong I guess.
It's a weird argument to be made.
And I think it's political.
And I think it's based on shame.
This guy says it outright.
He says that he grew up in a family that told him, here's who you gotta be with and if you're not, you're out.
Conservative upbringing.
So why does he say he's not gay?
Because he feels shame.
He feels shame.
Whatever, man.
I don't know.
I'm not gonna tell you what to feel.
You live your life.
You do what you wanna do.
But admit who you are.
Look.
I got a lot of friends who are gay.
And, uh, they're out of the closet, they're public, they do their thing, and it's like, okay, you know, well, congratulations, I suppose.
I don't care one way or the other.
You do you, I'll do me.
I think there is a question that needs to be asked about how far live and let live can go, but I'm still more on the libertarian side of things for, you know, these people.
It's like, if you are gay and you want to be with someone, I don't care.
There are questions, though, about surrogacy, about raising kids, questions that I do not have the scientific knowledge, cultural knowledge, nor legal expertise to be able to answer for you.
That's why I just kind of lean libertarian.
I'm like, man.
But I do recognize the arguments brought by conservatives when they say this philosophy has led down this road where, you know, many conservatives predicted what would happen in schools and the arguments being made, and they're actually being made right now.
Now we're at the point where you quite literally have two males in a sexual relationship and they're arguing it's not a homosexual relationship.
Okay, maybe you don't want to use the word gay.
I don't care what you call it, man.
It is a homosexual relationship.
That is a fact statement.
unidentified
Fact!
So look, recognize this.
tim pool
They want to change definitions of words because it empowers them and it'll change the law.
If the law says, this is what I love because I always made this argument, You'll see, so skateboarding was the big thing.
And you'd go to a skate, a spot, a skate spot, we call them.
A place where there's good obstacles and the urban terrain is conducive to skateboarding.
And they'd put up a sign saying, no skateboarding.
What happens?
People on bikes, scooters, and rollerblades show up and do their thing.
And then the cops or the security guard go, okay, well, what are you doing here?
And they'll be like, well, no skateboarding.
None of us are skateboarding.
Oh.
The word used, so fascinating.
So then they started adding other things to it.
Now the signs say, no biking, no scooting, no rollerblading, no skateboarding.
And then I said, oh yeah?
And then you bring a plow board or a snake board, like there's, these are all legally distinct things.
My favorite, my favorite sign I've seen was, no vehicles or toy vehicles for athletic purposes to be allowed on the premises.
Toy vehicle or vehicle.
Oh, they're gettin' ya, they're gettin' ya!
Because, uh, toy vehicle, they defined as... It's so vague, they can say anything now, and that's how they did the catch-all.
But then someone made the argument, a bicycle is not a toy vehicle, it is a legally distinct vehicle with rules of the road.
So then they actually had to put no vehicles.
Like, that encompasses driving your car up the stairs.
But it was because people bike.
BMX.
They do tricks.
And so they were like, no vehicles, no toy vehicles.
That includes all of these things.
And still, you're not going to be able to ban everything.
Next thing you know, someone's going to show up and do parkour, and they're going to be like, no sports!
Please.
Stop doing sports.
On our stairs.
But that's the point of legalese.
Language is everything.
Textualism.
We understand the purpose of the no skateboarding sign.
But people are gonna be like, ah, you can't do anything about it.
You didn't define it.
So what happens is, if there's a no skateboarding sign, and you skateboard, then they can say, you were warned, here's a fine.
If there's no sign, you can say, I had no idea I was doing anything wrong.
There's no signs saying no trespassing.
I'm just here on public property.
Or, it's a private building, but I didn't realize you've got to be given that warning.
That's where we're going.
Fighting the legal language.
The big takeaway.
I don't think it's all about this guy being ashamed of being gay.
I think the big play is politics.
Right?
Redefine what it is to be female and to be a woman and you can strip the rights away of actual females.
Adult human females in this country are having their rights attacked every single day because effeminate males who take drugs and get surgery want access to the privileges we've granted them.
I think there should be special laws for men and women.
Certainly do, because men and women are different.
It's an argument that's really interesting because it's made by the diversity, equity, and inclusion individuals.
Mark Cuban, for instance.
He said, I used to think equality was treating two people the exact same, but then I realized that's not true.
And I'm like, yes, I actually don't disagree with that.
But I think you're all racists who use that understanding to manipulate.
I think it is fair to say that different people get treated differently.
What the woke left does is they exploit that to implement policies that are detrimental to everyone and are racist to everyone else.
That being said, a man with more collagen and muscle mass, higher center of gravity, is going to have much, much different capabilities in a sporting arena than a female, and so we say we create a female and a male.
In fact, we don't even have a male!
Most of the colleges do have male divisions, but Major League Sports?
It's not male!
It's the best of the best, and then female.
Women's, but now that they're arguing that woman doesn't mean adult human female, which it does, they're arguing that males can compete in female sports.
That's the point, right?
That's the game they're playing when they do this.
Love don't judge.
I don't know what that means, love don't judge.
I think they're telling you to love and not judge, or that love itself doesn't judge.
My friends, it certainly does.
We put limits on love every single day, and we should.
There was this viral moment where Snapchat, I think it was Snapchat, had a sticker.
Meaning when you film a video, you could like drag a little animated thing and put it on, and it said, love has no age.
Love does, in fact, have age.
Sorry.
Yeah.
And that age is 18!
Depending on which state you're in, but I think 18 is a pretty good number.
You know, to be completely honest, 18 seems like just about the right number.
Okay?
And it is tough, because 18 is still really young.
I mean, 18 years is kind of crazy, right?
But at a certain point, you're kicked out of the nest, you're an adult, and you've got to fend for yourself.
And I think...
You know, the laws, they do well.
They do well.
We've done a pretty decent job of trying to figure out the appropriate time span and contractual, like, when you get the right to sign a contract or join the military.
I think drinking, I get.
People have said, like, how come I can die for my country, but I can't drink a beer?
Alcohol's poison.
And so it's different.
Dying for your country is a noble thing that you can do once you're old enough and of contract age.
Drinking is a poisonous substance which damages your brain.
And fair point, fair point.
I do agree in terms of libertarian, in terms of libertarian ideals.
But I understand why there's a difference.
That being said, they're not trying to ban 18-year-olds from buying guns.
I was at a gun store, and there was a guy who was 20, and they said, you can't buy a handgun, you can only buy a long gun.
And I'm like, that's unconstitutional.
That's insane.
Dirty games, man.
Evil people.
I was talking to, uh, I love this one.
You want to test the bona fides of a Republican?
Ask them.
Are children protected under the Second Amendment?
The answer is yes, they are.
And I talked to Republicans, they go, no, of course not.
And I was like, you are incorrect.
And I said, are nuclear weapons protected under the Second Amendment?
They go, no, absolutely they are.
You are incorrect.
Fascinating to me that we have Republicans today that don't get that.
And they say that's far right, it's extreme, whatever you want to call it.
No, I'm not speaking as to what I want to be the case.
I'm speaking as to what is the case.
Back in the day, let's go 200 years ago.
unidentified
Just go 200.
tim pool
Let's go to 1824.
Did children bear arms?
to 1824. Did children bear arms? Yes, they did. Yeah.
Here's the best part.
Today, children still bear arms.
That's right.
Many states specifically outline and have codified and protected the right of children to bear arms.
I think Wisconsin, for instance, if you are under the age of 18 and accompanied by a parent, you can bear arms.
If you're under the age of 18 and between the age of like 14 to 18, you are allowed to bear a long gun on your own for the purpose of hunting.
Now, it's codified because that's basically the point of what we're doing.
You don't want to send children into war back then.
But the dad would go out with his kids and they'd bring rifles and he would teach them to hunt.
Now as for the nuclear weapons question, who do you think makes our weapons?
Private companies.
The government does not own these things.
They do a lot.
They do tests, of course, but private military industrial complex corporations own these weapons.
So, can private individuals, let's put it this way, can private persons own warships and nuclear weapons?
Yes, they can.
Because they currently do, and that is how we build our military up.
It's never been otherwise.
So, how insane is it?
When you get these Republicans and they're like, no, they should be allowed to have biological weapons and nuclear weapons, and I'm like, they currently do and they always have.
Are you arguing that Lockheed Martin should have all their weapons confiscated by the government?
No, I get the government regulates and issues permits and all of that stuff, but it is private corporations that are building these weapons.
It is private corporations that have warships and hellfire missiles.
You should read more.
Anyway.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is... What are we doing?
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
A section of a Boeing 737 MAX 9 was ripped from the plane mid-flight.
Several cell phones flew out.
A door panel, which wasn't actually used in this plane, they called it a door plug, was ripped out.
That was the section.
The plane was forced to engage in an emergency landing.
Now we've heard quite a bit about the Boeing 737 MAX 8, 9, etc.
They had crashed.
There have been a couple crashes before, and so they were grounded.
Now they're being grounded again.
Over this holiday week, over Christmas, I actually flew on Alaska Airlines several times.
Flying from Chicago to Seattle to Anchorage to Barrow, which the airline calls it.
I know the people have voted to call it Utqiagvik, but the airline says Barrow.
Then back to Anchorage, then to Fairbanks, then we flew from Fairbanks to Seattle, and back home, all on American Airlines.
And we were flying on a Boeing 737 MAX 9, and I think we may have flown on a MAX 8, because we flew on a couple.
One of the worrying things, I gotta be honest, we were, uh, I forgot which flight it was, it might have been, it might have been the Seattle, I think it was Seattle to Anchorage, was, was Alaskan Flight 93.
And I was like, I don't know how I feel about that.
It's like, you know, certain skyscrapers don't have 13th floors.
And, uh, just, you know, with all due respect, like, asking me to board Flight 93, I don't know.
But there is something more sinister afoot, my friends.
Recently, we heard a story about a United jet that suffered a hard landing, leaving Newark and heading to, I believe it was George Bush Airport?
It was in Texas?
The hard landing basically destroyed the plane.
Nearly totaled it, causing severe damage to the body.
It slammed down, bounced in the nose several times, and there are questions as to what happened.
Now, according to Ashley St.
Clair, there are questions, and I'm assuming this comes from a source, but she asks, was this related to a diversity hire?
Maybe the case.
Boeing, of course, has heavily prioritized diversity.
And then you take a look at some of these other stories that we have, and boy, hmm.
It looks like we have a couple potential conspiracies afoot.
I don't know if conspiracy is the right word, but more like agendas.
You see, when you say conspiracy, they try to make it seem like you're arguing someone wanted someone else to die.
But I suppose I should put it this way.
Woke DEI policies are resulting in a failure and a collapse of infrastructure and our economy.
Namar Cuban famously came out this past week and was like, I'm all for DEI.
And then everyone pointed out that the Dallas Mavericks don't have any older Asian women
playing on the basketball team because it's a nonsense statement.
Now, you know, on the surface, you can say diversity just means making sure we're taking in the best applicants and we're looking everywhere.
And in a simple explanation, it makes sense.
If you're only looking at white people for a job, you're missing out.
But if the argument is you're going to artificially inflate your demographic numbers by hiring only minorities or women, you will end up with failing industry.
Because you're prioritizing ideology over meritocracy.
So what do we have?
We have that agenda, my friends.
But if we want to get a little bit more conspiratorial, I gotta be honest, I also have a, uh, I got a bigger conspiracy.
A Green New Deal conspiracy.
unidentified
A Great Reset Conspiracy Agenda.
tim pool
Now, the diversity thing may just be your standard political agenda, which is causing infrastructure collapse.
But I believe it's also decently probable that we're looking at a great reset move to limit air travel.
You take a look at everything we've seen over the past several years.
They want you to work from home.
They want you to be locked down.
They have advocated in the press for climate change lockdowns.
That is, they want you to not be able to leave your house because of climate change.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in her Green New Deal resolution, oh so many years ago, nearly five years ago, said that they effectively wanted to make air travel unnecessary, and in a blog post said, phase out air travel.
What happens?
A couple plane crashes, a couple close calls, and people are quite a bit worried about flying commercial.
Not to mention a pilot shortage, massive cancellations, and delays sweeping across the country over the past several years, and it really does seem like air travel is being broken down.
Now, I say whatever, I guess.
But let me give you a lesser-known public metric.
Private air travel.
Now, many of you may be saying, I will never fly in a private jet, so it matters not to me.
And you're correct.
For the most part, it doesn't.
But for those of us that use private air travel for running our businesses, and I gotta tell you, I think this is something that's missed in the public sphere because of the esoteric nature of the private jet.
I don't care if you like or don't like private jets.
Okay?
That's not the point.
The point is, the cost of private jets is skyrocketing.
And it's an absolute insanity.
Three years ago.
I'm sorry, this is about three and a half years ago.
I'm talking with some wealthy individual.
And I was, we were talking about a potential trip across the country, and I said, the challenge for us is, you know, if I do the show Monday morning, I'm sorry, Friday morning and Friday night, that means I only have Saturday to fly out.
So a Saturday event, like if you were going to book me as a speaker, is like basically impossible.
And they said, get a private jet.
And I was like, I can't afford a private jet?
You crazy?
And they're like, ah, no, no, no.
From like, From the East Coast to the Midwest, we're looking at maybe like 15k round trip.
And I went, really?
And how many seats?
Like 8 to 10 depending?
And I'm like, okay.
So we're looking at just over a thousand bucks per person for the crew to come out to do this event.
That's actually not that bad.
That's only a little bit more than first class.
Guess where it's at now?
40 to 50,000.
Inflation?
Maybe.
What started to happen is because of the cancellations, because of the pilot shortages, because of just the general... First, with COVID, nobody wanted to fly because of all the restrictions.
Now, because of the crises pertaining to these flights, Anyone who can afford it is trying to afford it.
Rich people before would say, I don't care if I fly commercial, I'll fly private when I fly private.
What I mean by rich is, we're talking about people who have a net worth and maybe just over a million and a decent income to be able to handle the cost of like a $15,000 to $20,000 flight.
They'd say, eh, whatever, first class, it's a thousand bucks, you get a meal on the plane, and they're a bit more comfortable, and it's not that big of a deal.
But now it is.
With plane crashes, with uncertainty, with diversity, the demand for private flights is through the roof.
Long story short, all of these factors, with diversity, and with climate change, and the Great Reset, and all of these things, are putting tremendous pressures on industry, and resulting in their collapse.
Whether it's intentional, whether it's an outright cabal conspiracy, which no, probably not, but it may just be simply put a political agenda resulting in negative consequences.
We want to phase out air travel.
We want climate change agenda.
We want a great reset and Green New Deal, etc.
That will result in what we are seeing.
Perhaps it is a bit more nefarious.
So let me show you where we're currently at.
NBC News says, Now over at the New York Times, I can show you this clip they have of someone sitting in the plane with a section blown off!
Alaska Airlines that it expects cancellations to continue through the first half of the week.
Now over at the New York Times, I can show you this clip they have
of someone sitting in the plane with a section blown off.
Take a look at this.
So here we can see, I don't know if there's any audio.
I think we do have audio on this, do we?
There's not a whole lot to hear.
The plane landed.
It was only in the air for about like 10 minutes, I believe.
I could be wrong.
And at first, you know, I'm having dinner with friends and family, and whoa, take a look at this.
Window blows off 737.
I was like, huh?
Wow, that's crazy.
We were just on one of those flights with Alaska Airlines.
It wasn't.
It wasn't a window.
It was a door plug.
Basically what I've read, and this could be wrong, there is a section of the plane that could be a door, but Alaska Airlines opted for it to not be a door.
So it's just basically sealed over.
It exploded and ripped off the plane.
A couple cell phones flew out, fortunately.
This is crazy.
The cabin depressurized and sucked things out of the plane.
Apparently people holding phones had their phones fly out of their hands.
People could have been seriously hurt.
Now, how does this happen?
January 6th, the FAA announced the temporary grounding of certain Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft.
And once again, another story emerges of mass cancellations.
Flights being grounded.
How many people are now stuck?
Can't work.
They talk about the metaverse, they talk about working remote, and then all our planes start breaking down!
No, I'm not kidding.
737 MAX 9s were grounded.
This was 10, I think it was, what was this, 10 years ago when they launched this?
There's some crashes and they're like, whoa, we better put a halt on this.
Now it's happening again.
Prices are going up.
Pilots shortage.
People don't want to fly.
I just don't think it's a coincidence.
I don't think it's a coincidence, but conspiracy, maybe not.
The likelihood is, this Occam's Razor, there are people who are implementing diversity and climate change agenda programs, which is having a collapse effect.
That is to say, I don't believe there's an individual going, we're going to crash planes.
I believe what's happening is that Boeing announces global equity, diversity, and inclusion, and their plans to bring together a team and to be diverse.
Global equity, diversity, and inclusion strategy.
Getty.
G-E-D-I.
Sure.
And what does this turn into?
They hire people based on race instead of merit.
That's what they do.
And then you get people who, based on the lack of merit, can't properly design a plane or fix it.
And those planes crash.
Or the infrastructure crumbles.
And that's where we are.
A big component of what we saw as to why We have a pilot shortage and other work shortages.
It's because when COVID happened, a lot of people just retired.
They said, OK, that's it.
I'm out.
I don't want to deal with this.
I don't have to deal with it.
I'm retiring.
And then we lost a lot of people.
And nobody wants to be a pilot anymore.
It used to be a prestigious thing.
Not so much.
So where are we?
Take a look.
Where are we?
CBS News.
This is from January 2nd.
Plane crash in Japan?
Pilot shortage?
Kids boarding the wrong flights?
Take a look at this.
The Alaska 737 cockpit voice recorder data was erased.
Erased.
How does this happen?
Now this one has a lot of people yelling conspiracy.
Something happened.
What was really going on?
We don't know.
It could just be, and I'll keep it simple, diversity.
That's it.
When you prioritize diversity over meritocracy, this is what you get.
It could also be, with the lockdowns that happened, and all the retirees, all the people retiring, these companies are desperate to hire anyone they can.
The only problem is, we are crumbling as a human society.
The people they hired can't do the jobs.
And these extremely technical devices that carry hundreds of souls... They're faulty.
And they fail.
And now, how many people are going to say, I don't want to fly, if this is the case?
The cockpit voice recorder data on the Alaska... Alaskan Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9, which lost a panel mid-flight, was overwritten.
U.S.
authorities said, renewing attention on an industry call for longer in-flight recordings.
The National Transportation Safety Board Chair, Jennifer Hamedy, said on Sunday no data was available in the cockpit voice recorder because it was not retrieved within two hours when recording restarts.
Erasing previous data.
Interesting.
I wonder.
Could this door have blown out due to pilot error?
And because of the pilot error, they intentionally made sure that nothing got recorded?
You know, look.
I don't know.
Maybe there was something wrong with the pressurization settings.
I don't know how these planes work.
Maybe the pilot did something wrong, which resulted in the door panel blowing off, and then the co-pilot's like, what did you do?
Did you press this?
Oh, I pressed the wrong button.
Oh, no.
Quick.
Erase it.
And we'll call it all just whoopsie-daisy.
I think it's diversity.
Boeing Max 9 plane had been barred from long flights over water.
This is crazy.
Had been barred.
Alaska Airlines restricted the use of the plane, which lost part of its fuselage on Friday because of a warning light that went off on previous flights, an official said.
They knew something was wrong, which says to me that the flight recorder data likely was intentionally recorded over.
I have this from reason.
Let's talk about the conspiracies from 2019.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal aims to eliminate air travel.
Really?
And look where we are five years later.
Five years later, we have these plane crises.
Not just this door being blown off.
We had, there was a crash.
Did you see the video of the crash?
It was, uh, what was like a National Guard and a commercial jet exploded.
Was it in Japan?
You had the hard landing in, uh, in Texas.
So, okay.
There were a lot of flights every day.
These things happen, but... ...seem to be happening a whole lot more.
More importantly, with the... ...employee shortage and the price of private flights skyrocketing.
I gotta tell you, man.
So we fly private.
I'll tell you why.
Tomorrow night, Tuesday, at 11.30, after we wrap IRL, I have to get to Des Moines, Iowa, for the Vivek Ramaswamy Town Hall we are hosting the next day.
How is that going to be possible if I also host a morning show?
Now, by all means, I can cancel my morning show, hop a commercial flight, spend the whole day traveling, Yeah, that's not... that's not practical.
It's not practical at all, and if I miss that commercial flight...
No, no town hall.
So we fly private.
So we, uh, we find charters and, uh, it's not as expensive as people think to charter a private jet.
It's between, like, I would estimate, it really depends on the charter, mind you.
If you go for, like, you want to charter a 737 private, like, if you want to fly on, like, Trump's Air Force Trump or whatever, okay, that thing can cost, like, $100,000 to $200,000 for a charter, but come on.
Typically, when you're flying, it can be, depending on how far you're going, for a flight like this, like 20 grand for nine people.
So a couple grand per person, but you fly when you want to fly, you fly back when you want to fly back, not that bad.
So we're watching these prices increase dramatically to the point where we have another event planned and it may be cost prohibitive.
Look.
Doing a town hall with Vig Ramaswamy and the Iowa caucus is an expensive trip.
That's what I said before.
It's like a hundred grand to do this thing because we have to get a private jet.
We have to get the entire crew who can run the show there.
We got to get them all there right after IRL.
Be there in the morning.
A lot of heavy lifting to make something like that happen.
We're starting to look at the cost of these flights skyrocketing, doubling, doubling.
It's nuts!
And I'm like, I don't know if we can pull this off.
Now, the Iowan for sure.
I'm just saying, in the future... We got one trip that we're looking at right now for a big show.
And there's this company that has really low cost.
It's a company called Varijet.
They have small jets that can fit...
Four adults plus two kids, and they are really cheap.
They're comparable to the price of first class.
So it's like, it's really good.
They came back with a quote that was so insane.
It was like four times the price of first class.
But the only way we can pull off these shows is if I can, if I can fly after we wrap IRL and we hop on the plane immediately.
Private flights, you just walk on the plane, you go.
So maybe we just can't do these shows anymore.
Maybe that was the point of all these greenhouse, you know, climate change agenda policies.
They would prefer it if we just did remote shows where our guests call in instead of sitting here in studio.
But we do everything in person, in studio, with our guests.
We fly them out.
It's getting crazy.
The cost of flights is going up.
It's getting harder and harder every day.
It really is pretty dang wild.
This is one of the reasons why we chose to operate near D.C., because so many political individuals, commentators, etc., are nearby.
It makes it easy for people to just drive in.
Plus, East Coast is high population density.
But it is getting crazy.
So five years ago, when AOC says she wants to eliminate air travel, what do we get?
Factcheck.org.
Green New Deal doesn't call for an end to air travel.
It just says they want to make air travel unnecessary.
They want to stop, they want to scale up to the point where air travel is not necessary.
And they also said, quote, we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.
Get rid of airplanes?
Don't worry.
The fact checkers say they don't call for an end to that.
Huh.
Let's, uh, let's carry forward, shall we?
Uh, I won't, I won't use, I will briefly mention, I did have this pulled up.
ESG is laying off a bunch of, I'm sorry, BlackRock is laying off a bunch of their ESG employees.
So, uh, good.
We are winning.
But, uh, and, and BlackSwan Events, I have this out of order.
Uh, farmers are protesting.
These are all just factors in the climate change agenda stuff.
But what I want to get to is, uh, this story right here.
Female-led company didn't build collapsed bridge.
Remember this story?
Out of Florida, there's a bridge.
It collapsed.
The meme was that it was designed by women or something.
Yeah, I don't know that that's true.
But what I can tell you is the fact-checkers like to lie and manipulate.
What I can tell you is the company that built it certainly prioritized diversity and bragged about it to a great extent.
So sayeth Snopes.com.
You have this article in the factcheck.org from, what is this, minuteman-militia.com, sure.
It says a female-led construction company built the Florida bridge that collapsed.
The fact-checkers say, quote, female-led didn't build it.
That's a lie.
Female-led is an opinion statement, not a fact statement.
You can argue that there is fact in the opinion statement.
That is, this is a company that had many women in managerial positions, so it had female leadership.
The argument from this website, Minuteman Militia, is that there shouldn't be any women, because they're all bad at what they do, in terms of construction.
I'm being a little hyperbolic, but basically that's right.
Anyway, look.
They outright say the construction company is owned by five brothers, but it does have many women high up on the ladder who are doing design and engineering work.
One woman who said that women can bring an artistic perspective, and they argue it's women saying they can make it look pretty.
Whatever.
No, you can't build things, the bridge collapsed for no other reason than terrible structure.
Blah blah blah.
You have this other image.
MCM, the builder of the FIU bridge that collapsed, and it's a bunch of women.
Okay.
Here's Snopes.
And here's the point I'm getting to.
Was it an all-female construction company?
That's not what they said.
They said female-led.
Okay?
Here's a picture of MCM, the builder of the FIU bridge that collapsed, and it shows a bunch of women.
If you want to argue, well, there's just some women in management, the company isn't run by women.
Some of it is run by women, but it's more so run by men.
It's men that own it.
It's just a company that sucks.
They should, I don't know, if they're responsible for it, I don't know, I'll just say allegedly.
The issue here is, it's fascinating, This is the game they play.
Someone says, this company prioritized female leadership, which they did, and then a bridge collapsed, which it did.
Now, I don't know what caused the collapse, who designed it, or whatever, but okay, let's make sure we get that context in there.
Snopes changes the argument to be absolute so they can debunk it and trick people into believing it's not the case.
Because of course Snopes has false After a devastating pedestrian bridge collapse at Florida International University on March 15th, etc.
etc.
This company... I mean, I don't... The Snopes page is formatted all crazy-like.
This company had a post, a strong woman looks at a challenge dead in the eye and gives her all thanks for the MCM women blah blah blah.
It's absolutely a company that bragged about diversity.
Bragged about these initiatives.
I mean, I should have said it earlier on, but diversity programs are killing people.
We had planes crash.
Boeing is all about that diversity, baby.
All about it.
Look, man.
Real diversity?
Real diversity means?
Back in the day, when they would only hire white people, dude, the best person for the job might not be white.
So diversity just means you look at everyone available.
But that's not what the woke used diversity to mean anymore.
Diversity now just means no more white people.
No more men.
That's the stupidest thing ever, because it's the exact same problem.
If you're gonna hire people and you ignore a race of people, like I already said, you are not gonna be hiring the best person for the job.
And here we are.
I give you the tweet from Ashley St.
Clair.
On July 29th, the United plane was nearly totaled after a hard landing.
I believe it was totaled in the sense that it can't fly, but, you know.
Who was flying the aircraft?
Was the co-pilot a former flight attendant who was fired and then rehired through United's diversity program despite being on a list to not return to United?
Am I correct this individual failed multiple trainings, including simulator training?
Am I also correct that United has covered up this DEI disaster and many others?
It seems Ashley St.
Clair has sources within these airlines.
And the reason she's phrasing this as a question is because potential litigation and lack of confirmation.
But I would not be surprised if this is the case.
Ashley says, was the No.
2 at Denver Hiring Center also onboarded through DEI?
Did she or did she not change fail grades for diversity hires because, quote, it makes the numbers look bad?
Did the instructor who failed as co-pilot ask corporate why they passed him?
Very, very interesting.
Do you want to fly on these Boeing Airlines and these United Airlines?
So I have a question.
Is this the Green New Deal?
The Great Reset?
Or is it just a diversity agenda?
Because I got to tell you, the diversity agenda is resulting in such terrifying aspects of flight.
That people are not going to want to fly anymore, and thus, the Green New Deal's... let's just call it a passive desire to play to the fact-checkers.
To end air travel or make it unnecessary, it's coming to fruition because of the failures of these programs.
Look at this.
The fuselage here on this plane looks cracked, buckles, after a rough landing, they call it.
I think it's patently obvious, my friends.
It is one or the other.
The diversity agenda of the woke is causing infrastructure collapse.
Its prioritization of diversity over meritocracy means over a long enough scale... You know what?
Let's play the blackjack game!
I've used this analogy before, for those that understand it.
You get it, you get it.
For those that haven't heard it, here it is.
When you play blackjack at a casino, the house edge is like 0.5%.
That means for every 1,000 hands, the house is going to win 505.
That's it.
That's teeny.
How long is it going to take to play that many hands?
The casino knows that in the short term for you, it's 50-50 as far as you can tell.
But for the casino, over a long enough period of time, they cannot lose because the math averages out.
The average will be that they will win 0.5% of all bets placed against them.
That's the edge.
And other games have up to 3 or even 30%.
There are some really bad bets you can make in a casino.
And if you're willing to make it because you don't know better, you're going to lose your money over a long period of time.
You may argue They may argue that hiring this one guy did not do anything.
But over a long enough period of time, if the stress on our industry through diversity hires over meritocratic hires is 0.5%, then you will get crisis.
How many bridges have collapsed?
The one?
How many planes have crashed?
A couple?
That's the point.
Out of the tens of thousands of bridges they've built in the past, you know, however long.
Out of the tens of thousands of flights, how many real disasters have we had?
Not that many.
So the argument is, and has always been among these people, there are sacrifices they're willing to make.
They say, look, we'll do the diversity hire thing, but sir, that'll result in two additional plane crashes every ten years.
unidentified
Bah!
tim pool
Two!
Out of how many hundreds of thousands of flights we make, who cares?
Do you want to be on that plane?
I don't think you do.
Do you want to be driving under that bridge?
You certainly don't.
And therein lies the point.
Acceptable losses for the agenda.
Or, it could be climate change.
And they could be intentionally sabotaging this stuff because they want to scare people away from flying on these planes.
Either way, both are happening.
Planes are having errors with diversity as an initiative.
It's diversity having over meritocratic hiring.
And it's resulting in people being scared to fly.
Especially on these planes.
Conspiracies, conspiracies.
Oh boy, I wonder.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 4pm on this channel.
Export Selection