Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 8, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:18:00

Tucker Carlson Interview With Putin DROPS TONIGHT, Media Declares Carlson PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Tucker Carlson Interview With Putin DROPS TONIGHT, Media Declares Carlson PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:11:15

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:31

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do.
		And you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
		Now let's jump into the first story.
		Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin is reportedly going to be up tonight at 6 p.m.
		on Tucker Carlson's website.
		I don't believe that Vladimir Putin is going to say anything that we haven't heard already, to be completely honest.
		But I think the context of the conversation, and I believe the deliverability, is one of the most important things we can get out of this interview.
		I think it's fair to say, Vladimir Putin is in a ton of viral videos expressing his thoughts and opinions on so many issues.
		Perhaps I'm wrong.
		I will not underestimate Tucker Carlson.
		He is one of the best, if not the best.
		And I think we're going to get some very serious insights.
		And I think there could be some more nuanced takes on how things are going.
		Thus, I am extremely interested to see what Vladimir Putin has to say to Tucker Carlson.
		I hope Tucker asked about imprisoned American journalists.
		In his announcement, Tucker Carlson made some errors, and he was even corrected by Russian, was it the Russian press secretary, I believe?
		I don't know the official position.
		But a spokesperson for the Kremlin, I believe it was, saying that many journalists have tried to interview Vladimir Putin from the West, but they're not interested in working with biased journalists who are going to give a one-sided view on this.
		I don't blame them.
		I don't.
		Right now, the propaganda is out in full force.
		You got Jimmy Kimmel making up garbage nonsense to keep people in a stupor.
		You've got the Washington Post arguing.
		I mean, this is not even news!
		That the interview with Vladimir Putin shows outreach to Trump's GOP.
		The game they are playing.
		You know, I look at this stuff.
		Hillary Clinton calling Tucker Carlson a useful idiot, and I'm just... I don't know where we go.
		I really don't.
		But there is a culture war in full swing, and it is undeniable.
		We have two factions in this country.
		The zombie horde marching in lockstep behind Jimmy Kimmel.
		Not literally, but the likes of Jimmy Kinnel.
		And those that are in tune with larger conversations, different takes on the news, different opinions.
		You know, they call it left versus right.
		And my view is it's kind of... You can call it multicultural democracy versus constitutional republic, but that's just one component.
		Libertarian versus authoritarian, perhaps.
		Collectivist versus individualist.
		And maybe that's it.
		What is referred to as the quote-unquote right by the corporate press includes liberals, but liberals who don't follow the fake news put out by the establishment.
		I'll tell you my view as we dive into the current updates on what's happening with Tucker Carlson's Vladimir Putin interview.
		I don't believe we've had a legitimate system of governance for a long time.
		I think most of you agree.
		I don't believe that we've had legitimate options in the presidency for a long time.
		I think most of you agree.
		I grew up in a country where everyone seems to hate every candidate, yet somehow that's just who gets in.
		Now, I'm not saying it's rigged.
		I'm not saying there's a deep state controlling who does get in and who doesn't.
		I think it could in fact be a conspiracy or it could be more of an emergent phenomenon based on how money is spent, interests between various corporate and political leaders, which results in a system of governance where no one is ever happy.
		So I don't know.
		I can just say, I don't know anybody who liked George Bush versus, you know, John Kerry or Al Gore.
		Certainly there are supporters of these individuals, but the saying as it goes in this country is the lesser of two evils.
		And then along comes Donald Trump.
		There is no legitimate claim to a Trump cult.
		That's what the left tries to argue, but in fact, I think it's fair to say the left is the cult.
		The left doesn't seem to follow anything or anyone.
		They have no moral framework.
		It is just, you are with us or else.
		They lie all the time.
		Or at the very least are dishonest or misrepresent facts.
		They use comedians like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel to falsely represent what is really going on to keep people locked in their stupor.
		And that's why we call it Trump Derangement Syndrome.
		And I want to take that in literal sense.
		Derangement.
	There's no effective communication with these people.
	Now I get it.
	Trump certainly has his zealots.
	Absolutely.
	But I mean, look at a show like this.
	What you're listening to now is a single segment on TimCast News on YouTube, a component of the Tim Pool Daily Show on all podcast platforms.
	I read the corporate press.
	I'll read conservative news outlets.
	We will assess the facts and try to determine what is true and what isn't.
	And I think most of the people who listen to my show have differing opinions to me on various issues.
	We don't completely agree.
	We admit when we're wrong on certain issues and we try to entertain all angles.
	Someone asked, name one good thing Joe Biden has done.
	I believe on TimCast IRL we were incapable.
	However, I do think it's fair to point out that the Biden administration is working to get rid of ATM overdraft fees and exorbitant banking fees.
	I think that's a good thing.
	I do.
	I think it's silly or absurd to say that absolutely there's nothing we could agree on.
	However, when you look to the corporate press, they lie every day about Donald Trump.
	They misrepresent his positions or things he said because it's about control.
	There's an alleged transcript of the interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin.
	I believe it's fake.
	I don't believe it's real.
	Many people have been sharing excerpts from it, but I believe it's fake because the pace of the questions don't make sense.
	It's basically like, Tucker, question Putin.
	Paragraph answer.
	Tucker, question.
	Yeah, I really doubt that's the conversation Tucker had with Vladimir Putin.
	But in it, there is a question about whether or not this country is actually being run by, with the will of the people.
	Something to that effect.
	To which, allegedly, Putin responded that they don't see Joe Biden as being in control.
	And, um, I don't believe the transcript is real.
	It's a simplistic answer, but I bring it up because there's a fair point to be made.
	How many people in this country actually agree with the worldview of the corporate press of Hillary Clinton?
	It's a minority.
	And we know this because we have aggregate polling today.
	Donald Trump is winning across the board.
	Donald Trump, it was recently shown in a poll in New York's, I believe, third district.
	He is ahead by perhaps, I think, three or more points.
	In the district, Joe Biden won by 10 previously.
	I don't believe the establishment government represents anyone but their own interests.
	I think that there is a massive change happening in the mentality of this country, thanks in part to alternative and independent media, which is causing them to panic as they lose their iron grip on the hearts of this nation.
	They're losing.
	And thus, they cannot allow Tucker Carlson to interview Vladimir Putin.
	If Vladimir Putin's not a good guy, you would be stupid, sorry, I'll say it, to believe that this guy has our best interests at heart.
	If I had to place a bet down between Joe Biden, or let's put it this way, if I had to invest between the two, Putin or Biden, oh Biden 100% every single time, despite the fact I think he's crooked, I think he's evil, I think he's a terrible president, but the issue becomes, At least Joe Biden likes his house in Wilmington, Delaware.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm willing to bet Vladimir Putin would see our properties destroyed before he would see any harm come to his country, and I would expect that of him.
	And thus, it would be silly of anyone to take his word for it.
	Tucker Carlson is set to launch this interview tonight at 6pm, which I hope everyone does watch.
	This is history in the making.
	I think it's important you all take it with a huge grain of salt.
	A huge one.
	But we'll see.
	The Washington Post is trying to imply that Putin is teaming up with Trump or Trump's GOP.
	They must falsely frame it in this way.
	Hillary Clinton says Tucker Carlson is a useful idiot.
	I feel a tremendous amount of hatred in my heart for the establishment political elites.
	The way they lie, cheat, and steal.
	I think this world would be, this country, would be substantially better off if the news diets of the average person in this country was, of course, my show, Steven Crowder, Styx Hexenhammer, Glenn Greenwald, and Russell Brand, Dan Bongino, And I would say Kyle Kalinske, Breaking Points, Joe Rogan, the list goes on.
	Not any one of them individually.
	No, I think you'd have to listen to all of them, especially Breaking Points and Kyle Kalinske, and especially me saying, I think Kyle gets a lot of things wrong, but that's okay.
	Jimmy Dore, shout out to Jimmy Dore.
	I believe if you were to watch all of these shows, you as an individual are looking in this great Oracle database I mean it figuratively.
	Where you can see the likes of me, for instance, give my thoughts and opinions on these news articles that I pull up, and the interviews I do on the Culture War Show, which, much to the chagrin of these corporate news journalists, is actual journalism.
	Sorry, cry more.
	Tim's not a journalist!
	I do an interview show once a week, where I interview various figures on their thoughts and positions pertaining to their work.
	Uh-oh.
	Christian, I'm of course not a journalist anymore.
	But of course I get a lot of things wrong.
	And of course my opinions are just that.
	They're my opinions.
	So if you watch me and then you watch Jimmy Dore, you might be like, Tim was wrong on that one.
	Jimmy was right.
	Ah, but Styx was wrong on that one.
	And Tim was right on this one, but Steven Crowder got this one.
	Ah, Styx was actually right there.
	That's my point.
unidentified		Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See you on the tour.
		below.
		And that is a problem for this country.
		The good news I can say is, as a total aside, Shane Gillis is going to be hosting Saturday Night Live this Saturday.
		And they fired him five years ago for offensive comedy he had done on various podcasts.
		Too bad, he's back.
		I think we're winning this culturally.
		But I want to point out something that I hope makes you very happy.
		I can't remember who tweeted it.
		It may have been Mike Cernovich.
		It may have been Michael Matham.
		I think it might have been Cernovich.
		Could have been Malice.
		Could have been neither.
		So I apologize for not attributing properly.
		But it was a CNN video where they were talking about Donald Trump in the lead, in the polls, in aggregate.
		And they said, imagine spending 10 years calling Donald Trump a white supremacist, fascist dictator.
		And the people of this country intend to vote for him.
		The narrative machine has failed.
		Your propaganda machine is dying.
		The fake news has been suffering a bloodbath over the past couple of weeks with mass layoffs.
		Oh, by the way, TimCast is rapidly expanding.
		Our operation is doing particularly well.
		SCNR, a sister news organization, is in the process of growing as well with a great future ahead of it.
		Some bumpy roads for Scanner for a long time, but we've never given up and it is still here right now with an amazing news team that is reporting true and honest facts.
		We get things wrong.
		Everybody does.
		But our intention is not to tell you how to live your life, It's to just tell you what happened.
		Take a look at this from the Washington Post, for instance.
		They say, as Russian state television propaganda salivated over Tucker Carlson's interview with President Vladimir Putin, the first of Carlson's falsehoods, and there it is, you know.
		I was reading a story in Fortune.
		It's not news.
		Where is this labeled opinion?
		It's not.
		Democracy dies in darkness.
		You know, one of the issues I take with SCNR, for which I am an owner, principal owner, is that, you know, I actually think you can insert some important context around certain things, but Scanner tries to play it straight, and I actually do respect it.
		But sometimes I'm like, pro-life, pro-life, you know what we don't do at Scanner?
		Pro-choice, pro-life.
		Those are political terms They don't mean anything.
		You're either pro or anti-abortion.
		Pro-choice, what does that even mean?
		Pro-life, what does that even mean?
		Not interested.
		It's about abortion.
		And we try to make that distinction because I'm not here to use political terms to benefit one side or the other.
		So here it goes, ladies and gentlemen.
		This is what I see when I see Hillary Clinton say... This is what I think.
		When I see Hillary Clinton say, he's a useful idiot.
		When I see Jimmy Kimmel come out and insult Tucker Carlson.
		I say, Donald Trump is up in aggregate.
		And the polls typically favor the Democrat.
		Donald Trump is the majority.
		You are on the wrong side of history.
		Those who oppose what is happening here.
		Now it'll be interesting to see what happens with this interview.
		But you can see the outrage that they have.
		Let me show you this.
		From Huffington Post, Jimmy Kimmel burns Tucker Carlson by exposing his most telling phrase yet.
		Just four words from the former Fox News host say everything.
		This is not a news source, but I'll read what they're saying because they have influence.
		Jimmy Kimmel renewed his feud with Tucker Carlson on Wednesday after the former Fox News host announced he was in Russia.
		Why?
		Why is anyone getting their opinions from Jimmy Kimmel on Tucker Carlson?
		Jimmy Kimmel is dumb as a box of rocks.
	Quote, Tucker Carlson still doesn't have a job.
	He's in Moscow.
	House hunting, I hope.
	Carlson, a far-right conspiracy theorist whose shows have been marked by racism, xenophobia, and white nationalism, said he was going to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin.
	He's a murderer.
	He's a war criminal.
	He hates America.
	He hates everything America stands for.
	He's a liar and a propagandist.
	But Tuck thinks we need to hear him out.
	Yes.
	That's called academia.
	It's called journalism.
	But Jimmy Kimmel is a very stupid man.
	A very stupid and evil man who once wished death on his own friends.
	He's a scumbag.
	I'm not kidding.
	Tucker Carlson doesn't have a job.
	Is that a joke?
	Tucker Carlson makes millions per year at his job.
	Running his show.
	What a weird game to play.
	But imagine.
	The people who don't get their news from anywhere else.
	Are sitting here laughing, being like, haha, he doesn't have a job, he got fired by Fox.
	It's the weirdest thing.
	When Tucker got fired, AOC was cheering it on, saying that deplatforming works.
	Now Tucker Carlson is public enemy number one to these people.
	I want to show you this.
	It's a viral interview that's been going around.
	CNN did with Zelensky.
	Take a listen.
unidentified		Human being, so many people look up to you.
		They rely on you.
		No one can imagine how hard that is.
		Do you do anything to yourself?
		Are you ever able to take a minute to read or to listen to music or something to sort of give yourself that moment?
		I have such moments.
		It's important to be in silence, to be alone.
		Alone.
		How can I be alone?
		Alone I can be with music.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		We're done with this.
		I mean, the lady's on the verge of tears as they propagandize Ukraine.
		Here's the important point, my friends.
		The important point is that we are dealing with a corrupt political establishment in this country.
		The Constitution has been ripped to shreds.
		The function of our government is non-existent.
		It is supposed to be that Congress declares war.
		They haven't in a long time.
		I think since what, Korea?
		We are now at war with Russia.
		That's why they are upset that Tucker Carlson is interviewing Vladimir Putin.
		We have never declared war on Russia, but we're certainly at war with them.
		And so is the rest of NATO.
		Chuck Schumer said in an interview, we could lose this war.
		Now they're saying the quiet part out loud.
		Without a declaration.
		Without a news report.
		They've denied it.
		They've insisted.
		They have spat in your face.
		We're not at war.
		It's Ukraine.
		We're just assisting them.
		U.S.
		boots are on the ground.
unidentified		U.S.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		weapons are on the ground.
		U.S.
		intelligence guides the actions of Ukraine.
		Now, the U.S.
		has not formally mobilized its military forces to enter Ukraine, but of course, this is phase one.
		Think about where you're at.
		Zelensky is a puppet.
		He's a figurehead.
		I doubt he could actually command what's going on in Ukraine if he wanted to.
		Now he may be the absolute final say in Ukraine when it comes to the conflict.
		But not outside of Ukraine.
		So he's likely getting, let's just call it, advice.
		Externally.
		You want our weapons?
		You do what we say.
		You want our assistance?
		You do what we say.
		We're not going to give you the intel on this unless you strike this ship.
		Ukraine, of course, being used as a proxy for the United States to go to war with Russia.
		Politico actually has the gall to compare Tucker Carlson to Walter Durante, the man who denied the Holodomor.
		Absolutely incredible.
		At a time where we as American citizens do not want war, consistently vote against it.
		Barack Obama campaigned against war and then massively increased it.
		Because these politicians know, if you want to vote, you cannot be in favor of war.
		Some people will vote in favor of it, don't get me wrong.
		But here we are.
		The notorious Walter Durante of the New York Times and Nazi broadcaster Lord HaHa offer cautionary tales.
		Is that a joke?
		It must be.
		Explain to the American people how we've gotten to this point, where there is a war happening in Eastern Europe for which the American people never voted for, for which Congress never declared.
		And the bad guy is Tucker Carlson.
		I'm sorry, America.
		Our country is being occupied by evil.
		Now, perhaps these men think they're good.
		Men and women.
		Perhaps they think they're saving this country.
		They're evil.
		That's it.
		There's no question.
		The intelligence agents, the corporate press, abject evil.
		Because it doesn't matter what they think.
		They are not the will of the people.
		It doesn't matter if they think this country will fall apart.
		Sorry, don't know, don't care.
		It's fascinating.
		I'm reminded of that quote by a not-so-great character to reference, but that is Rorschach in the Watchmen series.
		I believe it was Alan Moore who wrote this.
		Let me make sure I got that right.
		Was it Alan Moore?
		It was Alan Moore, yeah.
		Watchmen, what a great graphic novel.
		Let me explain.
		Rorschach has a quote, and it's never compromised, not even in the face of Armageddon.
		And it seems like a terrifying thing to say, honestly.
		But there is, I think, an important caveat.
		In the graphic novel, for those that aren't familiar, there is a villain.
		There's some kind of conspiracy going on.
		And it turns out that one of the alleged heroes orchestrated a false alien invasion To force the Soviet Union and the United States to unite against a common enemy to prevent nuclear annihilation.
		In doing so, this faux hero murders, I think, millions of people in various major cities.
		But then, the Cold War ends when the Soviet Union and United States announce an alliance to fight this perceived alien threat.
		In the film that came out, they made it that there was this other character, Dr. Manhattan, who had done it, but either way, the idea is to unite the various countries against a common enemy, preventing war.
		And the hero says, you know, killing millions to save billions.
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 Rorschach says the people must be told and leaves.
		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.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Rorschach says the people must be told and leaves.
		Dr. Manhattan, a character, informs him that he can't do that.
		If he were to inform the people of the world what had happened, it would plunge the world
		into chaos once again.
		So Rorschach refuses to compromise and tells Dr. Manhattan to kill him.
		And he screams, do it.
		It's the only way to stop him, otherwise he's telling the people the truth.
		And then he gets vaporized and explodes.
		It's an interesting question, I guess.
		Love that story.
		Brilliant writing by some smart guys.
		I'm not gonna sit here and pretend who's right or wrong.
		But my view is that there is an expectation of what is and is not acceptable, what is and is not just.
		And in this country, the people have a right to know, even if it means they choose wrong.
		That's free will.
		It's a scary prospect, I guess.
		Perhaps there are people in the deep state, in the bureaucratic system, in the intelligence agencies, who are sitting there desperately believing, if we don't do this, we will cease to exist.
		We have no choice.
		I still believe they are the evil, the villain of that movie, of that graphic novel.
		I know people get mad when I say movie, because it's a graphic novel first.
		The villain was allegedly the hero.
		One of the heroes trying to save the world from annihilation.
		I believe that's evil.
		I believe it's absolutely evil to subvert the will of the people, to destroy its founding documents, to lie, cheat, and steal over their individual perception of what is just and what isn't.
		In this graphic novel, it's probably simple to say.
		Super-powered individuals, well there's only one real super-powered individual, but a very wealthy evil man, knows nuclear annihilation is coming.
		They know.
		If the people find out what really transpired, the world could be destroyed in nuclear annihilation.
		Here's the real world.
		Everyone thinks they know.
		The dictators think they know.
		It is their way that must be done.
		And they're wrong.
		Every single time.
		Because a single human does not have the computational capabilities to really understand the full ramifications.
		There's so many variables that we can calculate as individuals.
		What ends up happening is you get people who say, I know I'm right therefore.
		So sure.
		In the deep state, these intelligence agents may genuinely believe If I don't do this, we die.
		But you know what?
		They're wrong.
		Because they're always wrong.
		Because they can't be right.
		They can't predict the future.
		There are certainly some things they may believe and may be correct about.
		Sure.
		The problem then becomes...
		When a small group of individuals believing that they are morally just decide to commit crimes in the name of good.
		The ends do not justify the means because we never meet the ends.
		We are only ever just living in a solid state reality of morality.
		That is...
		This is it.
		What we do today is what we live in.
		Believing in some greater good in the future that justifies the use of evil just means you have created evil now.
		And we live in evil.
		These men in these institutions who are lying to the American people, who have engaged in international warfare without the appropriate constitutional process, are Evil!
		Abject evil!
		They believe they are morally justified.
		They believe they are holy paladins fighting the good fight.
		Some are just corrupt evil who want the free money.
		They'll do the contracts to get paid, and they'll blow up kids to get it done.
		And you know what?
		The scary thought is, of course, we have villains around the world.
		We have adversaries seeking to lie, cheat, and steal, and take power.
	But this idea that you can subvert the founding documents, our institutions, because YOU know that you are right.
	I got news for you.
	You've already destroyed this country.
	So at what point does it even matter?
	You think that you will be defending this nation and our values and ideals or some liberal economic order to prevent World War III?
	I assure you, you're only creating it.
	Because with a snap of your fingers, you have created the tyranny and the chaos you claimed you were fighting against.
	There's no easy answer.
unidentified		I'm not a moron.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an easy answer for you.
		Perhaps the reality is humans, through their processes and through their decisions, will bring about their own destruction.
		But so be it.
		That's free will.
		In my view, a decentralized approach to this is the appropriate way to solve these problems.
		When a single individual or group of individuals believe that they're so right, their will be done, regardless of the process, regardless of the law, You get tyranny, suffering, and they're not right.
		Sometimes, but usually not.
		I look at it like the decentralized process that we've created tends to work better.
		How did we get to the point where the United States was the most powerful nation, the best nation, economically superior, meritocratic systems?
		It's not without government institutions, top-secret documents, backroom deals, that I understand.
		There's a balance.
		But the world we are in today, where a unilateral war is declared against Russia, and they lie to our faces and tell us to shut up and sit down, it's because they're evil.
		We certainly have problems, but I view it as this.
		I truly believe that each and every individual in this country is capable of appropriate decision making.
		Whether it be, I'm gonna sit this one out because I think you're better suited for this, or I genuinely believe this or that is a better idea.
		The problem?
		The corporate press lies to people to keep them stupid.
		That's mostly it.
		Under the idea it's better to control the minds and treat them like morons, like chickens in a chicken coop, than to respect what their will is.
		In the end, the powers that be view us just as that livestock.
		They don't care about you as an individual.
		They don't care what happens to you.
		They care about your output to work towards their ends.
		Because they're smarter and they're better than you.
		And if you get obliterated, collateral damage.
		What do they care?
		That's why when Donald Trump said he wanted our troops out of Syria, they lied to him, they lied to us, and they kept the troops in.
		Because your will be be damned.
		They don't care.
		Right now, I tell you this.
		The deep state does not have the majority.
		Donald Trump has the majority.
		The overwhelming majority of this country does not want war and opposes it.
		But they seek to make it anyway because they are evil people.
		If the will of the United States is to avoid international conflict, and that truly does lead to a unipolar Chinese communist world, so be it.
		The will of the people decide.
		These spineless cowards, I am glad to see that they are losing.
		Bravo to Tucker Carlson.
		I hope you all check out his interview, 6pm, on his website.
		It is tuckercarlson.com.
		Should be very interesting.
		I'm gonna 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.
		The oral arguments in the Supreme Court case as to whether or not Donald Trump can be removed from a state's ballot over insurrection are currently underway.
		As I record this segment, it is live right now.
		Now, we don't know exactly what will happen, how they will rule on this issue.
		But if the demeanor of the liberal justices says anything, they are going to get crushed!
		The Democrats, that is.
		Yo, absolutely fascinating arguments and determinations being made in real time.
		You can see the arguments, you can see the understanding, and it looks like some are suggesting 9-0.
		All liberal justice is actually saying, you can't remove Donald Trump.
		And it's fascinating because it seems like they've broken down.
		The meaning behind the 14th Amendment, the clause about someone not being able to run, I'm sorry, someone not being able to hold office based on having been an insurrectionist, and the arguments from the Democrat side to remove Trump Absolutely make zero sense, and it seems like some of the justices are getting frustrated.
		In one segment, one portion of the debate, of the arguments, Gorsuch is actually like, stop, stop, don't, no, answer the question, and they can't.
		And he says, if you don't have an answer, that's fine.
		Yo, I'm gonna break down for you so far where we're at with what we've got, and it is absolutely fascinating.
		Now, the question at hand right now is whether or not Donald Trump can run for president under the idea that he waged insurrection against the United States.
		But there are a lot of holes It's not just a question of whether Trump is an insurrectionist.
		It's a question of does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment even apply to the President, which it seems like already the Supreme Court justices have determined it does not.
		In one instance pointing out that the President commissions all officers, in which case he would be above any of these restrictions.
		Now, I believe that there is a simple and logical reason as to why the President does not fall under the purview of the 14th Amendment, Section 3.
		They can make all their arguments, but I will start with this.
	Let's go to the beginning.
	January 6, Democrats claim Trump waged insurrection.
	Okay.
	Under that premise, they have begun removing him from the ballot in several states, Maine, notably, and unilaterally.
	Now, the first argument is whether or not there's ever actually been a determination that Trump did engage in insurrection, and the answer is no.
	He's not even charged with it.
	Now, there are questions about January 6th and the criminal charges he does face, but he's not facing the specific charge of insurrection.
	So then you have the questions of whether or not he falls under the jurisdiction, the purview of that amendment, to which, as I mentioned, they're saying no.
	Now, let's go back in time.
	Why would it be that the President would not be included in the 14th Amendment?
	Let me show you the 14th Amendment right now.
	Section 3 is the one being brought up, and I want to give you my view on this, which I'm not a lawyer and I could totally be wrong, and I probably am, but I want to bring this up anyway.
	And then we'll read all the latest updates, which y'all are gonna love.
	I just want to say it again, it looks like Trump may win this handily.
	Section 3 says no person shall be a senator, or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, Interesting.
	So let's start here, and I will give you my thoughts.
	to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
	against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
	by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability." Interesting.
	So let's start here, and I will give you my thoughts to go back to the Civil War.
	Why is it that following the Civil War, a constitutional amendment would be created
	saying that you can't be a senator or representative or an officer, etc., etc., but not include the
	I think it's actually quite simple.
	When it comes to an issue of the Senate or Congress, this is an insurrectionist state would decide, we are going to send someone to Congress to vote who wants to secede or believes in secession.
	No.
	We will not allow that.
	From this point forward, you, Southern states, if you're going to choose a senator, which they used to do by state level, it wasn't a popular vote, or if you're going to send a member of Congress that you elect, they cannot have wage insurrection.
	Fair point.
	But why not the president?
	Simple.
	Because the northern states get a say in who the president is.
	It's that simple.
	Would the South have actually agreed to terms leading up to 18, I believe, 76?
	Were they told you would never be allowed to have a president again?
	Or your leaders are disqualified?
	Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, may remove such a disability.
	My view is simply this.
	It was even Trump's lawyers who made the argument, if there was any office you'd want to disqualify, it's going to be the president.
	I suppose their argument being, if they did not explicitly state the president, then certainly they did not mean for the president to be barred.
	Because it really was the most important issue.
	They'd outright be like, you can't be president!
	No, I actually think it makes sense.
	Let's say post-Civil War Reconstruction era.
	South needs to send reps.
	No, no.
	Those guys waged insurrection against us.
	We are not going to allow them in and vote for more turmoil or chaos.
	Now what about the president?
	Send whoever you want to be president.
	Because we're going to vote no.
	It's that simple.
	Northern states would not vote for someone they thought was a threat to the country.
	And that each state has a right to determine who the president would be.
	This is the purpose of ending the Civil War.
	That the South is brought back into the fold.
	But the insurrectionists, we don't want a state choosing to send someone into Congress because New York has no say in whether or not South Carolina decides to send someone who wants to wage insurrection.
	Get it?
	I think it makes a lot of sense.
	But let's start here.
	We have this from the Daily Mail.
	Even the Supreme Court liberals appear skeptical of kicking Trump off the ballot.
	Justice Elena Kagan says it would be extraordinary if a state could stop a candidate from running in blockbuster arguments over barring the ex-president in 2024.
	Yo, it's so wild.
	Everybody's got live feeds running.
	It's crazy.
	Let's start here with some arguments made by Trump's lawyers.
	This is CNN's update.
	Here's to know about the initial arguments made by Trump's lawyer.
	Let's start here.
	Power of the states.
	Several of the justices from both ideological sides pressed the Trump lawyer about stripping states of their ability to exclude candidates from power, including whether an admitted insurrectionist could be removed from the ballot.
	Mitchell argued that it was the role of Congress to determine whether someone should be disqualified.
	So even if a person admits to being an insurrectionist, states have no basis to act.
	Quote, even if the candidate is an admitted insurrectionist, Section 3 still allows the candidate to run for office and even win election for office and then see whether Congress lifts that disability after the election.
	Mitchell said in response to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts.
	A very interesting point.
	Simply put, the Fourth Amendment doesn't say you can't run for office.
	Stop.
	There we are.
	Nowhere does it say you are not allowed to run for election.
	It just says you can't hold office.
	There's a lot to break down in this.
	I'll give you the simple version.
	They argue that the president is not an office under the United States.
	That matters.
	Why?
	It's not about this provision.
	Trump's lawyer pointed out, under the office, under the United States, appears in different provisions.
	I believe the impeachment clause, the emoluments clause, and if they issue a ruling on it, it will have massive implications for other issues.
	And it would actually cause serious problems.
	It could theoretically exempt the president from the emoluments clause.
	Meaning the president could profit personally off of being president.
	So the argument here is, you can't be an elector of, or hold any office, but more importantly, officers are appointed positions.
	That is, the president appoints them.
	There's a lot to break down, though.
	The role of Congress.
	Mitchell argued that Colorado's decision to remove Trump from the ballot was improper, because among other reasons, the state disqualified Trump before Congress explicitly gave it the power to do that.
	The debate over the term officer.
	The justices pressed Mitchell over whether the framers of the 14th Amendment believe the president is an officer of the United States and therefore subject to the insurrection ban.
	The argument is a central focus of the former president's legal team, which believes that when the amendment's framers wrote officer, they meant lower federal officials.
	You see?
	Officer?
	Officials?
	Appointed by the president, not the president himself.
	It seems like Gorsuch completely agrees, but we'll get to that.
	The discussion led to a particularly intense exchange.
	For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence, Mitchell said.
	A chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?
	Justice Katonji Brown-Jackson asked.
	Mitchell responded, This was a riot.
	It was not an insurrection.
	Mitchell will have an opportunity to make a brief rebuttal to arguments, etc.
	etc.
	But let's jump through some of these.
	In the officer debate, Julie Kelly tweets, Murray again not helping himself.
	This is, uh, Murray is the lawyer for the Democrats.
	President Trump had a five-day trial, really.
	Keep in mind who testified at his trial, Eric Swalwell and DC Metro cop Daniel Hodges caught misrepresenting his experience.
	During at least one trial.
	Kavanaugh notes that Trump has not been charged with 2382, the insurrection statute.
	If the concern you have that insurrectionists should not hold office, there is a tool to make sure that happens, which is criminal prosecution.
	Kav says Murray's position could disenfranchise voters to a great degree.
	Murray says Section 3 is intended to protect constitutional democracy.
	President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million voters.
	These are emotional nonsense Exclamations, they're not even arguments.
	Yeah, but Trump was trying to do this.
	I don't care what you think Trump was trying to do.
	Was he charged with insurrection?
	Has a determination of insurrection even taken place?
	Is he even an officer?
	Answer the questions.
	Oh boy.
	Greg Price tweeted, this is just a bloodbath.
	Justice Gorsuch spends two minutes slapping around Colorado's lawyer.
	You almost gotta feel bad for the guy.
	Let me play this clip for you, you can hear it for yourself.
	Make sure we get the audio properly.
unidentified		you say he is disqualified from holding office from the moment it happens.
		Correct, but nevertheless...
		You say he is disqualified from holding office from the moment it happens.
		Correct, but nevertheless...
		So it operates, you say, there's no legislation necessary.
		I thought that was the whole theory of your case.
		And no procedure, it happens automatically.
		Well certainly you need a procedure in order to have any remedy to enforce the disqualification.
		That's a whole separate question.
		That's the de facto doctrine.
		It doesn't work here.
		Put that aside.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me explain briefly where they're at in this argument.
		What the Democrat lawyer has said is the moment Trump committed insurrection, that's it.
		He's disqualified.
		Thank you and have a nice day.
		Well, that creates a whole lot of problems, you see, because Donald Trump was president when they alleged that he committed insurrection.
		And what does that mean for anyone who followed his orders after the fact?
		You see the problem with trying to make an argument that the 14th Amendment already disqualified Trump and you don't need an act of Congress or a law or a criminal charge.
		This is where it comes from.
		They want to say we can take Trump off the ballot simply because he committed insurrection on that moment on January 6th.
		Problem.
		The Supreme Court in its entirety, it would seem, is arguing there needs to be some kind of due process.
		Legislative action from Congress, criminal charges, something to determine this did happen.
		Let me play more.
unidentified		He's disqualified from the moment.
		Self-executing.
		Done.
		And I would think that a person who would receive a direction from that person, the president, former president in your view, would be free to act as he or she wishes without regard to that individual.
		I don't think so, because I think, again, the de facto officer doctrine would nevertheless come into play to say this is... No, de facto, that doesn't work, Mr. Murray, because de facto officer is to ratify the conduct that's done afterwards and insulate it from judicial review.
		Put that aside.
		I'm not going to say it again.
		Put it aside, okay?
		I think Justice Lee is asking a very different question, a more pointed one, a more difficult one for you, I understand, but I think it deserves an answer.
		On your theory, Would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me just say this again.
		Gorsuch is asking, Donald Trump is president.
		You claim he engaged in insurrection on January 6th.
		He is still president.
		You argue he's immediately disqualified.
		Yes, you need legislative action for some kind of remedy, but you're saying right now, bang!
		So a lower federal official who reports to the president is what?
		Not supposed to follow any orders now?
		How do you make that determination?
unidentified		I'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was, you know, a president was elected and they were 25, and they were ineligible to run office, but nevertheless they were put into that office.
		No, no, we're talking about Section 3.
		Please don't change the hypothetical, okay?
		Please don't change the hypothetical.
		I know I like doing it too, but please don't do it.
		The point I'm trying to make is- He's disqualified from the moment he committed an insurrection.
		Whoever it is, whichever party, that happens.
		Boom.
		It happened.
		What would compel, and I'm not going to say it again, so just try and answer the question.
		If you don't have an answer, fair enough, we'll move on.
		What would compel a lower official to obey an order from that individual?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There it is right there.
		It's absurd.
		There was no determination that Trump committed an insurrection on January 6th, and there were many people who still reported to him for the next two weeks.
		So these people would have to just unilaterally decide internally that, think about what would happen.
		On January 6th, the riot happens, right?
		The left screams insurrection.
		Democratic-leaning individuals in the federal government immediately say, we will no longer accept any orders.
		He is no longer the president.
		Republican leaning would be like, you're crazy!
		It was a riot, it wasn't an insurrection.
unidentified		It would rip the country apart instantly!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		With left leaning refusing to take orders from the President.
		I mean, that's it.
		Congratulations.
		Instant chaos.
		I do not believe that's what the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to happen.
		Man, this is wild.
		Bussovic tweets, Gorsuch just schooled this lawyer that the Constitution states the president
		commissions all officers of the United States and the president himself cannot be one of the
		officers since he's the one who appoints them. Wow. We'll come to that last one in a minute.
		We have this, an AP report coming out.
		We have Sung Min Kim of AP saying, Supreme Court sounds broadly skeptical of efforts to kick President Donald Trump off the ballot.
		This is amazing.
		Jack Masobic says, even Kitanji is pointing out that the Office of President is not listed in the 14th Amendment.
		Now, one really interesting argument did emerge, I think is pointing out.
		It's separate from I don't think it'll play a role, but it is an interesting argument and it's a byproduct we should consider.
		I tweeted, a byproduct of Cenk Uygur's running for office is to create a clear example of states making individual determinations as to whether a person is allowed on the ballot based on federal criteria.
		This argument being used to say Trump should be removed if a state determines it.
		This actually came up.
		The lawyer for the Democrats pointed out what they're trying to argue right now.
		And this is points for them.
		We'll see.
		I think the Supreme Court's probably going to throw this one out.
		I think it's obvious at this point, but who knows?
		Who knows?
		What they're trying to say is this.
		Donald Trump, fine, may or may not be an insurrectionist.
		But the states can figure out for themselves if he is, and remove him.
		Now the funny thing is, even liberal justices said, do you have any idea the ramifications to the election if states start just unilaterally removing people?
		The repercussions are national.
		And I think, what do they call it, the national imperative or something like this?
		The states must act with understanding that their actions will impact the federal government in every other state.
		That is to say, you can't just disqualify the frontrunner.
		But the Democrats made the argument that there are many states right now where some people are or are not on ballots.
		Is that a problem?
		Nikki Haley is not on the caucus tonight for Donald Trump in Nevada, but she was on the primary.
		Some people weren't on the ballots in some states.
		Are we going to shut everything down and say we can't have this?
		No, it's for the states to figure out.
		Interesting point.
		He said, right now, there are candidates who are not even citizens, who are not even natural born citizens, who are on or not on some of the ballots.
		Some states have said you are, you can run, and some have said you can't.
		Cenk Uygur.
		Now, some are suggesting this is intentionally why he ran, to create this predicament for the Trump team.
		I don't think the Supreme Court justices, even the liberal ones, are stupid enough to fall for this.
		I don't think that's why Cenk Uygur actually ran.
		The argument being that he knew some states would say, despite the fact you're not a natural-born citizen, you are on the ballot, and others would say, you are not a natural-born citizen, you're off the ballot.
		And thus, creating a circumstance in which states decide for themselves Based on federal criteria whether to include someone on the ballot.
		And as such, the states could decide Trump falls under Amendment 14 Section 3 criteria to be removed from the ballot.
		I don't believe that.
		Because the question of Jen Cougar's running for office in this circumstance has yet to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
		So it's simply saying, like, some dude threw a pie, therefore, you know, like, no, no, no, no, no.
		The guy who threw it hasn't been arrested yet.
		We'll get to that later.
		If the courts had already ruled states could make these determinations, then fine, but they haven't.
		So this, I think, is a meaningless argument and actually shows the weakness of the left's position on this one.
		It looks like, based on everything we're seeing, yo, it looks like Trump's going to win this one.
		Ketanji Brown seems pretty perturbed, but the other, uh, the liberal justices seem to be like, I don't understand why you think you can do this.
		It is insane to remove the front runner for the 2024 election from the ballot without legislative or criminal prosecution.
		It's nuts.
		So here's what must happen.
		You want to take Trump off the ballot, you need to criminally prosecute him.
		Which requires impeachment.
		They tried to impeach him, it failed.
		And this is why they tried to impeach him.
	And it failed.
	They can't do it.
	It makes sense.
	After the Civil War, the leaders of the United States did not want another one.
	Reconstruction ended with, I believe it was 1876, when separate slates of electors were sent and everyone was like, oh crap, This could be civil war all over again!
	And they compromised.
	And they said, here's what we're gonna do.
	We'll give you the presidency, but we end Reconstruction.
	And we did.
	That's how it came to an end.
	Compromise.
	We did not want war.
	It makes sense that when they put this thing together, that you would have to impeach the president before determining an insurrection.
	Why?
	They want it to be very difficult to create these rifts.
	If the Democrats were correct in their argument, the moment January 6th happened, the moment the first barricade was breached, it would be an obligation of every federal officer of the country to defy orders from Trump.
	And take them from who, though?
	Mike Pence?
	No idea.
	We have nothing in place for that.
	The framers of the 14th did not expect that to be the case.
	So the Democrats' argument is meaningless.
	But of course, The arguments are still going on.
	We don't know exactly what's going to happen, but heck of an update.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	NBC News is not a news organization.
	It's just a word they use to trick you into thinking they're a news organization, but they're actually an activist organization, and right now they want Libs of TikTok creator Hayaraychik in prison.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	NBC News targets Libs of TikTok with hit piece accusing her of inspiring bomb threats.
	But it's worse than that.
	They're actually going to say that Libs of TikTok has some responsibility for implying it.
	And that there should be some accountability.
	Okay.
	I'm game.
	Timcast Studios was swatted 15 times, of which a few of them were bomb threats, of which I believe two of them included the delivery of packages constructed in such a manner to bypass bomb detection equipment, resulting in a robot being deployed to our studios and a multi-hour evacuation.
	Shortly following reporting from NBC News, do you want to play this game?
	NBC News has written a bunch of garbage about me, and then we got targeted with death threats consistently.
	By all means, how about I just say, it's because.
	Is NBC News facing any accountability for their lies and their smears?
	Ridiculous.
	But take a listen, take a look, listen to this, it gets wild.
	Here we go.
unidentified		David, have any charges been brought against specific individuals who made these threats?
		Is there any scenario where law enforcement is looking at the owner of this account, Haya Raycheck, and saying, OK, maybe we can hold her responsible for some of these incidents?
		I mean, investigating a bomb threat, it takes up a lot of police resources.
		It traumatizes people who are at the other end of that.
		What sort of consequences could there be here?
		That's right, Alison.
		Every law enforcement officer I spoke to, up to the FBI, talked about how many resources these threats take up, even when they turn out to be hoaxes.
		Now, it's important to note that Haya herself is not a suspect in any of these bomb threats. The accusation from
		victims and from law enforcement is that she has helped to inspire or spark these threats by
		essentially creating a list for someone or multiple people to go through and and pick
		potential targets.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So when, excuse me, Tucker Carlson gets added to this Ukrainian list of Russian assets or whatever,
		The media says it's not a kill list.
		It's not.
		But at the same time, you have others in the corporate press arguing that because Libs of TikTok reposts people's own social media, she's crafted a list of sorts.
		This hit piece is absolutely wild.
		Post Millennial reports, NBC believes libs of TikTok exposés are so problematic that they reached out to law enforcement to ask them if they thought bomb threat hoaxes in their communities could have been inspired by Reichick's posts.
		The author of the article attempting to link Reichick to the bomb threat hoaxes.
		David Ingram appeared on NBC to state his case.
		He indicated that it was his intent to provide law enforcement with examples of posts from libs of TikTok that correlated with threats in their communities.
		NBC is now openly saying it.
		Their goal is to frame me for bomb threats and get law enforcement to investigate me.
		NBC News is sticking the FBI on me.
		This is how they're going to try and silence me.
		Unbelievable.
		She has also been targeted by many other outlets that don't approve of her reposting liberal content for a conservative audience.
		Reichick has received threats herself.
		And I will stress this.
		Absolutely.
		To what responsibility does NBC News bear for lying about me?
		For posting lies?
		They once featured my face on the Today Show in a fake news story.
		That's right.
		They made this stuff up.
		So, David, have any charges been brought against specific individuals?
		Is there any scenario where law enforcement is looking at the owner of this account?
		Holy crap.
		We played this one already for you, so we'll read on.
		None of the 33 incidents picked by NBC have been linked by law enforcement to libs of TikTok in any way.
		NBC admits there is no evidence to back this claim up.
		While the direct inspiration for the threats are not known, the timing suggests that libs of TikTok posts have been used to pick targets.
		Suggests.
		Not known.
		Amazing.
		I think Haya should sue NBC News over this.
		And I'm not here to play these stupid games.
		I hate lawyers.
		You have NBC News suggesting she should be in jail And they're gonna say, well, you know, Times V Sullivan says anti-slap legislation.
		Don't care.
		File the lawsuit anyway.
		How do we fund this?
		That's the question.
		Does Libs of TikTok have the means to file a lawsuit of this magnitude against NBC News?
		And you should.
		Make them pay for it when they do it.
		And you know what?
		I'll tell you.
		Maybe you don't win, but At least you'll make them have to defend their lies and insinuations and their overt defamation.
		When NBC contacted the FBI, they did not give any indication as to the status of the 33 incidents NBC attempted to link to libs of TikTok.
		Matt Wall said, alternative headline, people who horrifically abused, mutilated, castrated, and sexualized children later played the victim when their behavior was exposed.
		Ingram alleged any way that officials in California, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Oregon all believe Reichick sparked threats in their localities with her posts on social media that digitally heckle people, such as drag performers, LGBTQ teachers, and doctors who treat trans patients.
		Police, Ingram said, do not have suspects in these cases, but that the intention behind providing a timeline on her posts that correlate to the threats is to accuse her of providing reasons for locations to be targeted.
		In essence, isn't NBC doing to Libs of TikTok exactly what they accuse Rychik of doing?
		In providing correlation, not causation, between posts and threats?
		That's kind of my point.
		NBC recounts bomb threats made at schools or hospitals that Libs of TikTok has exposed, and then blames the threats not on the school's secretive education practices, but on Rychik for making those practices public.
		In one instance, there was a teacher who was producing only fans content in school and got fired.
		And they were like, that's libs of TikTok's fault.
		Yeah, maybe the people are mad about the porn star in the school.
		NBC takes its first case study, a school in Coralville, saying a bomb threat was made against a school in that community.
		Law enforcement quickly determined that the threat was a hoax.
		It appears this all stems from a post made earlier in the week by Haya Rajchick and her Libs of TikTok account, Dvorak said in a report for NBC.
		NBC admits fully that Rajchick did not make a bomb threat, that Rajchick exposed the local junior high school for providing a book that teaches kids about gay sex.
		In fact, going on to say it was pornographic.
		But goes on to blame Reichick anyway.
	In other words, if you expose bad actors in education, you are guilty of the possible actions of others who may have a problem with some of those actions.
	of TikTok account could have had a role in the bomb threat.
	In other words, if you expose bad actors in education, you are guilty of the possible actions of others
	who may have a problem with some of those actions.
	NBC then goes on to make this spurious claim that Rychik is to blame for the actions of those in other
	towns and cities as well, all because she exposed educators, administrators,
	and schools that provide pornographic materials, teach inappropriate subject matter, or perform drag for
	children and teens.
	In fact, there were only three cases among the 33 identified by NBC in which charges had been pursued, and in none of those cases was Libs of TikTok mentioned.
	These includes hoax threats made to Boston Children's Hospital, Which was exposed in 2022 to be performing sex change surgeries on minors.
	From double mastectomies on girls to castration and vaginoplasty on 17-year-old boys.
	The hospital later denied that it was happening, but documentation from their own website showed it was in practice.
	Here's the important takeaway, my friends.
	Call it whatever you want.
	NBC News is the most activist-y faux news outlet.
	You can insult the New York Times.
	NBC News is 100% fake news leftist activism.
	Wild.
	They have a whole team of people to lie, cheat, and steal and fabricate news.
	It's crazy.
	Absolutely.
	And they call it the disinformation team.
	And I'm like, yeah, because they fabricate news.
	They twist it.
	They falsify it.
	They manipulate the information.
	This is the problem with the media.
	But now they're going one step beyond.
	Now they're saying, can we put people in prison?
	Can we create social and cultural pressure to stop libs of TikTok with a threat of law enforcement?
	It's only a matter of time.
	You look at what's happening to Donald Trump.
	The fraud charges, the ridiculous claims of rape, which are false.
	That's right.
	I will say this is a statement of fact.
	A court has determined that Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll.
	So it is false.
	A judge determined her statements are substantively true in some degree, but a court has determined, at least it's been reported far and wide, Trump did not rape this woman.
	But they will come after you anyway, even if they have to make it up.
	And you can see, this is crazy, the fact that they were asking the question, can we put this person in prison for exposing what we are doing?
	You think it stops here?
	It's another grain of sand in the heat.
	Hopefully Donald Trump wins, but I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	I wonder how many women right now are just like, thinking of themselves privately, feminism was a mistake.
	I am not saying every single woman thinks this.
	I am not saying they should think this.
	And I am not saying feminism was a mistake.
	Slow down there, woke leftists.
	I am saying, I am wondering how many women think that thing.
	Maybe it's one or zero.
	Maybe it's a million.
	Because we got this story about this young woman who is crying because she has to go business to business with resumes to find a job.
	She's crying over this!
	Oh, it's so wild.
	She's like, I went to college, I have three degrees, I speak multiple languages.
	It's a harsh reality.
	You were misled.
	And the reason why I asked the question about how many women may be privately thinking to themselves feminism sucks, Is because, you know, there is no world in which you would not be doing this.
	None.
	Except where you'd be like a trad wife and some dude would work and you'd stay at home and that was the expectation.
	You go way back in time.
	You know, a hundred years or whatever.
	There's no expectation for men to have jobs.
	The men get jobs.
	So when the women get old enough, men and women then come together and they're like, you gotta find a wife.
	They get married, then the guy gets a job, he's working for family or whatever, and then, uh, it's not absolute, but there's the tendency.
	The woman would have the kids and take care of the family at home, and the man would go off and make the money.
	But today, women are expected to do exactly what a man would do and go out and find that job to make that money.
	Now, feminism isn't really the issue right here for this individual circumstance.
	There's a lot of things that are wrong.
	In the immediate, she could still literally, like, try and find a guy, get married, and then not have to work.
	She says, I just want to be a TikToker if I'm being real with you.
	Yeah, few and far between, I gotta tell you.
	And that's a job.
	Like, making content and being successful is just another kind of work.
	It's the work you want to do.
	I respect that.
	So maybe, if you lived with someone who was bringing home the bacon, you'd have more time to focus on maybe being a TikToker.
	Now, again, I'm not saying it's literally just that, you know, feminism caused all these problems or whatever.
	I'm saying I wonder if there are women who are like, why am I going out business to business with resumes?
	Like, that's a thing guys have always done.
	I did it when I was younger.
	I had a little, it was like a little blue folder with a clear front.
	And I had a bunch of resumes.
	And I had to walk down for like two or three miles.
	Most of you have probably done this.
	Going to every Ms.
	Beck, are you hiring?
	When I was 21, I lived in Wrigleyville in Chicago.
	And I'm on Clark Street.
	And I went business to business saying, I'm looking for work.
	And yet they all said, nope.
	Oh, it was amazing.
	They had no use for me.
	21 year old guy.
	And it's frustrating.
	And it's difficult.
	Because outside of that, in my neighborhood growing up, the women had all the entry-level preference.
	That's just it.
	So I'm in Wrigleyville.
	I'm 21.
	I go into a bar and I say, I'll do anything.
	And they're like, look, we need bartenders or security.
	You're not big enough for security.
	And like, we're going to hire a security company with insurance.
	And these guys are all like 6'5", and they're, and they're massive.
	We don't need a 5'10 guy to do that.
	And as for a bartender, you're either going to be a trained bartender who can make all the fancy drinks or a hot chick.
	Which one are you?
	And I'm like, I have neither.
	Can I take out your garbage?
	And they're like, no, because that's just an ancillary duty for anybody who works here.
	See you later.
	And I was like, man.
	Eventually I did get hired as security for a venue called The Metro.
	And that was mostly because they were like, they got their big guys who can lift and carry out people, but they needed general security.
	And it was like, I would stand on the balcony and I would look down at the crowd.
	And if somebody was smoking or doing something, I'd call it in.
	Watch the door and things like that.
	Stop people, call it in.
	And that I could do.
	And for that, I got minimum wage.
	And then there were women, same age as me, working the bar.
	And they were making hundreds of dollars per night.
	And I was like, man, isn't that wild?
	Isn't that wild?
	And yet they still complain.
	You know?
	Oh, I should be getting more money.
	Oh, it's so rough and stuff.
	I'm not talking about all women.
	I'm saying the women.
	Some of them.
	Some of them were really cool.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I eventually, uh, I did get a job as like a gopher.
	Some guy took pity on me and I was like, I can't find work, man.
	Nobody wants to hire me.
	And so he was like, I'll throw you, I'll throw you 50 bucks every night if you come in and help clean up.
	And I was like, you got it, man.
	Shout out.
	That guy was awesome.
	I don't remember his name.
	It was a long, this is 15, 16, this is 16, 17 years ago.
	But when I was younger, it was like, when I'm 16, good luck, man.
	Every place that I could get a job at, which was gonna be like fast food or a grocery store, would always choose to hire young women.
	I don't know if that's just the neighborhood I was in, but it was.
	I remember going to one place, all the employees were girls, and I was like, I'm looking for a job.
	And one of them was a friend of mine, she was like, dude, they only hire girls for this.
	They don't want guys working here.
	And I'm like, okay.
	I tried to get a job as a server once because I'm like, I could do that.
	And outright was told like, we only hire women to be servers here.
	And I was like, okay.
	And so I think when you see, you know, Oman like this, she's struggling right now.
	And outside of everything I was just mentioning, I think that there are a lot of service sector
	jobs that pay better that tend to hire women.
	I think it's an important thing to point out.
	As for this woman, let me play this video for you.
	You can hear it from her herself.
unidentified		This is the most humbled I've ever felt in my life.
		I'm literally holding resumes, a stack of them, so that I can go in person to places and say, are you guys hiring?
		It's honestly a little bit embarrassing because I'm literally applying for like minimum wage jobs and some of them are being like we're not hiring and it's like what?
		This is not what I expected.
		I graduated college with two degrees in communications and acting.
		I speak three languages.
		Ugh.
		This sucks.
		I just want to be a TikToker if I'm being so real with you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is this your content then?
unidentified		I literally need to make money.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You just want to be a TikToker, that's it?
		Well, shout out, maybe you'll get some attention from this, but is that the content you're going to make?
		I got an opportunity for you, young lady, Loni Santos, 26 years old.
		Where are you based out of?
		Are you in New York or something?
		Think about the video you just made.
		I want to make money.
		I need to make money.
		Let me throw you some information.
		The reason why it's so hard for you right now is that the labor market is, uh, well, let's just say the labor pool is massive.
		And every day with, you know, five to 10,000 low skilled workers coming in, guess who you are competing with?
		Yeah.
		So when Joe Biden doesn't secure the border, You're going to have people coming to this country who need to live and work, who are going to be granted work permits.
		And then when you try and get your minimum wage job, they're going to say, lady, you got three degrees to speak multiple languages.
		We're not hiring you to take out the garbage.
		You're going to quit in two seconds when you find a better job.
		We're going to hire Santos over here, who just arrived in the country and got a work permit.
		And then you're going to say, but I'm Santos.
		And they're going to say, no, you're an American woman with a college degree.
		Go find a better job.
		And you're going to say, but nobody's hiring.
		I need money!
		And they're going to say, you shouldn't have voted for Joe Biden then.
		Here's your opportunity.
		Why don't you make videos on TikTok complaining about inflation?
		Make videos on TikTok talking about how the labor pool is too flooded and it's hard to find work.
		At any rate, I think it's important to point out this... What is happening with the younger generation?
		Communications degree?
		Is that a joke?
		Like, what is that gonna get you in the real world?
		Acting?
		What is that gonna get you?
		You know what, man?
		I feel bad for... I don't blame young people for having been misled by the older generations.
		But that is literally what's happening now in schools, and it's going to just break everything.
		She needs a job.
		Lohanee, Lohanee, I press your name, she needs money.
		She needs to pay rent.
		This is why I brought up the feminist thing in the early portion of this, like maybe she might just be happier if someone else is covering her bills and she got to do whatever she wanted.
		But you know what?
		You always have to trade something.
		You don't just get to live for free.
		The problem right now is she can't even find work to pay her bills.
		Me, personally, I think it's a product of Joe Biden's country and the mass border crisis, mass migration crisis.
		I also think it's a problem of these Gen Z kids being told, and millennials, go to college!
		Get your degree!
		What, now she's got debt and nobody wants to hire her.
		I gotta tell you, what can you do?
		What are your skills?
		You're 26 years old.
		You are a fully grown human adult.
		What are you doing with your life?
		Unfortunately, your entire opportunity for growth and development was wasted, but it's not your fault.
		I don't think so.
		It's the generations that came before you, and the schools, and the policies.
		Look, man.
		When you're a little kid, that's your opportunity for developing skills.
		As you get older into your teens, you are harnessing, refining, and mastering those skills.
		It's really easy to see when you look at pro sports.
		Skateboarding is a great example.
		The best pros in the world are like 19 years old.
		Some of the biggest feats accomplished in skateboarding were done by 13 year olds or younger.
		And then, of course, you've got tremendous opportunity as you get older.
		You don't just stop, but a lot of the biggest names in pro skateboarding hit their peak when they're like 20.
	You're 20 years old.
	You've mastered your art at 20.
	You've pushed the boundaries at 20.
	And after that, you are just stable.
	You're 26.
	You've peaked.
	Congratulations.
	You were told to sit back, have fun, and party, and you did.
	And now you're 26 looking for a minimum wage job.
	Let me give some advice to everybody.
	The advice that I saw when I was 16.
	It's an economics article on the internet.
	Boy, I read the internet all the time.
	I would go to FARC.com.
	Awesome website back in the day.
	And, uh, I don't know how old I was when I started going there, though, but maybe I was, like, 16.
	Man, that's crazy.
	I'd read FARC.
	Crazy.
	Anyway, the article said, if two 18-year-olds split their paths, one 18-year-old decides to work at McDonald's, making $7 an hour.
	The other 18-year-old decides to go to college.
	They are paying debt.
	They've taken out loans.
	Four years later, we can look at the average salary increases and growth opportunity for McDonald's.
	The 18-year-old is now 22 with four years of experience at McDonald's.
	If they've studied, learned the policies and procedures while they were working, spent time, as much time as you would in college, working this full-time, By 22, with four years, they should be either a shift supervisor or assistant manager.
	They will have earned, you know, I don't remember the exact math or whatever, but they would be net positive to the tune of $40,000 or so, or $50,000 or $60,000.
	In fact, they may already have a savings to the tune of $10,000 after four years, depending on how they spend their money.
	To the 18-year-old who goes to college.
	They will have incurred, on average, $30,000 in debt.
	And they will leave at 22 with no work experience, no work understanding, no job opportunities, and $40,000 in debt.
	Which would you choose?
	And I thought, wow!
	I mean, that's obvious, isn't it?
	The guy writing this wrote, if you went to any investor and said, you give me $40,000 and in four years, you will owe me $40,000 with interest, they would say, what?
	Why would I do that?
	If you went to an investor and said, for $40,000 invested, at the end of this time period, you'll have an additional $40,000 plus growth opportunity.
	They'd say, that sounds more like it.
	Imagine investing four years of your life Paying $40,000 to do it, coming out the other side thinking you're going to make money.
	It's just so unfortunate.
	Look man, you want to know where the money's at?
	I'll tell you where the money's at.
	Mapping out systems at a young age and learning how the machine works, and then running the machine.
	Think about the people who started YouTube at a young age.
	Or at YouTube's young age.
	There was no monetary opportunity.
	Think about people who started playing Pokemon, for instance.
	Did any of these people think they were gonna be millionaires?
	There's actually a comic by, uh, Gary Larson, isn't it, in the far side?
	And it's a kid playing Nintendo, and his parents are hugging with thought bubbles of classified saying, Seeking Mario Player.
	Expert Mario Brothers player needed.
	Salary and benefits.
	The joke he was making was that these kids were wasting their time learning useless skills, but guess what?
	There are pro gamers!
	Lots of them!
	Esports!
	They're making a lot of money!
	Not all of them.
	But you can monetize if you can figure it out.
	Instead, you go to college to be taught by someone who's not actually in the field?
	Let me tell you guys something.
	After Occupy Wall Street, I was invited to give guest lectures to PhD journalism courses.
	And I had people, even my own family, being like, are you gonna go to college now?
	I was 25.
	You're gonna go to college now?
	Like, why?
unidentified		I'm teaching the colleges!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		While these people went to a box to be told what to do, I went to the street and applied my knowledge of the internet technology to convey information in a way that was functional and efficient to the people who followed me.
		To the people in school, they were reading books about journalism done 10 years ago.
		Remarkable, isn't it?
		I feel bad.
		I wish her the best of luck.
		But you gotta figure it out for yourself.
		You gotta figure out how to convince someone with that money in their hand to hand it to you.
		I don't blame her.
		I wish her the best of luck.
		Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲