Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 4, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:34:35

SCOTUS RULES IN TRUMPS FAVOR, 9-0 Ruling STOPS Democrats Saying States CANNOT REMOVE TRUMP

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 SCOTUS RULES IN TRUMPS FAVOR, 9-0 Ruling STOPS Democrats Saying States CANNOT REMOVE TRUMP 00:00 Show begins 34:43 TRUMP WINS, SCOTUS Says NO Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:29:15

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:32

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.
		Now, it was initially reported by basically everybody in the media this was going to be a ruling on Trump eligibility.
		Now, we don't know exactly if that's going to happen, but at 10 a.m., while we're recording this show live, because at 10 a.m.
		we're expecting an announcement, and the reason why the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling today is because tomorrow is Super Tuesday.
		So of course, we here at TimCast are having a huge event in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
		Let me know if everything seems to be working on your guys.
		And we don't normally stream on this channel, but you know, considering we have this big breaking news coming out just the other night, and whether or not we actually Whether or not we actually get this ruling, we don't know.
		So, there is a bit of news that we can't go over in the meantime.
		Of course, we can take Super Chats and talk with everybody in the chat.
		So, Super Chat if you'd like, or regular chat.
		And we're going to be playing the waiting game as we go through what's currently going on with the breaking news.
		So, this is the reporting that we got from the New York Times.
		Supreme Court poised to rule on Monday on Trump's eligibility to hold office.
		An unusual announcement from the court provided a strong hint that justices will act the day before the primaries on Super Tuesday.
		As of recording this, we are about a half an hour out now.
		The thing is, the opinion could actually leak some point before the rulings come out.
		And, funnier still, the ruling may be completely unrelated to Trump's eligibility, although I find that very, very unlikely.
		We can certainly go over Trump's prospects.
		We had the D.C.
		primary where Nikki Haley finally won, and we can talk about why it doesn't matter.
		And how the left is being manipulated.
		It's just... Yeah, I feel bad for a lot of these people, right?
		There's this guy, Brian Tyler Cohen, and he says, haha, Nikki Haley beats Trump, you know, 60-30.
		Trump's probably so mad.
		Yeah, Nikki Haley got a thousand votes.
		She got 1,276 votes in D.C.
		Trump got 600 and some odd.
		These are negligible numbers relative to any of the other primaries.
		I mean, Trump gets a what?
		Michigan.
		What was it?
		Michigan?
		Trump gets 740,000 or whatever.
		So we're looking at several hundred votes in an area that's 95%, 93% Democrat.
		in an area that's 95%, 93% Democrat, it's meaningless.
		They say, haha, Nikki Haley beats Trump 2-1.
		They don't realize they're talking about a microscopic amount of Democrats.
		Now, to be fair, D.C.
		is a closed primary, meaning, in all likelihood, these are actual D.C.
		Republicans.
		I don't know anybody would think that a swamp monster is going to vote for Donald Trump.
		That being said, if Trump actually went to D.C., he would have secured votes.
		But apparently, according to Trump, he decided not to do it, so here we are.
		Now, I think it's very, very likely, based on what we saw in the oral arguments over Trump's eligibility, based on the 14th Amendment, even the liberal justices were like, what are you arguing?
		Why would a state have a right to disqualify someone who's not been found guilty or convicted of anything, pretending insurrection?
		It's actually rather fascinating, because the argument is, if Donald Trump can be accused, simply accused of insurrection, and then removed from a state ballot, then based on Joe Biden's funding of Iran, any other state, any Republican state, could do the exact same thing.
		The reality here is, of course, Republican states would never do such a thing because they're weak and pathetic.
		I have to wonder why it is that after we got Dr. Phil, that's right, Dr. Phil of Oprah fame, after we got him coming out on The View, coming out on Joe Rogan and saying, yeah, I talked with the head of the CBP union and they said that our tax dollars facilitate child trafficking into known prostitution rings.
		There has been no effort anywhere in this country by any Republican at all to do anything.
		Now, you can argue Abbott is doing something in Texas, trying to secure the border, but I mean, come on.
		You know, I just don't understand how you can have an organization, like, we know they're doing this.
		We see videos of them doing this.
		They've been doing it for years.
		Dr. Phil says they're doing it.
		And I'm just like, man, you'd think that maybe some Republican AG in some state might instruct his law enforcement apparatus to maybe do something about something, but I guess not.
		I guess not.
		Alright, so as we're currently awaiting the news, we still have about 25 minutes, let's read more from the New York Times.
		They reported yesterday the Supreme Court announced on Sunday it would issue at least one decision on Monday, a strong signal that it would rule then on former President Donald J. Trump's eligibility for Colorado's primary ballot.
		Now, of course, many of you, I don't know if I have this pulled up right here, Illinois tried to remove Donald Trump from the ballot as well.
		There have been a few other states that have decided Trump is ineligible to run for president, but they've not yet removed his name pending a decision from the Supreme Court.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, I think it's fairly obvious the Supreme Court's going to come out and just say it is an absurdity to try and take Trump off the ballot because there's been no adjudication.
		Or I should say, it's not even fair.
		Trump was acquitted in the Senate.
unidentified		That's it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're done.
		He was impeached in the House over January 6.
		The Senate comes out and says, nah.
		I think it was something like 53 to 46.
unidentified		What was it?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		Was it?
		How many?
		Let me make sure I can get this right.
		Was it 60?
unidentified		50?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		57?
		Let's see.
		Trump impeachment.
		Let's make sure we get the...
		We'll make sure we get it right, because we're all about having our facts here, at least according to Wikipedia.
		If they say it's true, it must be true.
		It was 57 to 43 not guilty, right?
		57 guilty.
		What did I say, 53?
		57 guilty, 43 not guilty.
		That means acquitted.
		Result, acquitted.
		So in terms of whether or not Trump could be removed, how could we have a system Where an individual state can determine that an officer in a federal, that an individual running for federal office, not an officer, we cleared that one up in the immunity case, an individual running for federal office could be removed from a state level after having already been acquitted of what they're accusing him of.
		I mean, I don't know if that's doubled.
		I think what we're seeing with the federal level case, double jeopardy, I would imagine, not to mention the immunity contradictions.
		They say the court's unusual practice, though one suspended during the pandemic, is to announce decisions and argued cases from the bench.
		The justices had not been scheduled to return to the courtroom until March 15th.
		The timing of the court's actions may have been influenced by the electoral calendar in urging the justices to intervene in this case.
		The Colorado Republican primary had asked them to act before the looming Super Tuesday primaries this week, which include Colorado.
		A lot of people are operating under the assumption that because they're issuing this ruling on Monday just before Super Tuesday, which is tomorrow, we got our event sold out in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
		Go to timcast.com, become a member.
		Don't miss out on our events.
		Support us at castbrew.com, our coffee company.
		That's where we're holding the event.
		The assumption is it must be to protect Super Tuesday.
		Trump's going to win.
		They want to make sure there's no question about Super Tuesday.
		But hold on there, my friends.
		There's actually a good reason why they would rule he can be removed from the ballot.
		Now, I don't think there's a logical reason to argue.
		I think it's absurd.
		But if the idea is Trump cannot be removed, they need not issue a ruling before Super Tuesday.
		They could just wait.
		Because these decisions have been stayed.
		Right?
		You had, I think it was in Maine, the Secretary of State unilaterally removes Donald Trump from the ballot saying he's ineligible.
		And then says, you know, if the Supreme Court rules on this, people may come to find out their vote didn't matter.
		That they voted for someone who's ineligible.
		As if to imply, as we can all assume, whether or not the Supreme Court issues their ruling now, in a half an hour, or in a week.
		Trump is on the ballot in these places.
		Even the story from Illinois.
		They say after a Cook County judge ordered Trump to be removed from the Illinois primary election ballot, Winnebago County officials released a statement saying no changes are being made to the primary ballots just yet.
		The county says the ruling is on hold until the Supreme Court makes a decision about if Trump can be removed from the ballot.
		Anyone who has voted early does not need to take any action at this time.
		This is interesting.
		That would mean SCOTUS does not have to act today unless they were going to rule that Trump could be removed at the state's discretion.
		I think it'd be highly, highly unlikely, but let's play devil's advocate for a second as we await the decision.
		I don't know.
		I'm pretty certain, too.
		The chat is going to have the decision before I get it.
		Let's play devil's advocate.
		They make the argument that under the Constitution, the state legislatures ultimately have final say in whether or not a president can be removed or can appear on a ballot.
		Now, we saw with 2020 one of the most shockingly egregious failures of the Supreme Court.
		And that is Texas v. Pennsylvania.
		Texas was concerned.
		They felt that the election at the federal level was being undermined by Pennsylvania's unconstitutional actions.
		That is, Pennsylvania made changes to its voting process without consulting state legislature in violation of the Constitution.
		Texas's argument, in my opinion, is sound.
		The argument is, If we're supposed to vote on what we're having for dinner, but one guy has a gun to his back, his vote's not legitimate.
		And if I lose out on my, let's just say we're gonna go for filet mignon, mmm, a delicious medium-rare steak, you know what, no, make it rare.
		And someone else wants to order, I don't know, chicken tenders.
		And we're one vote off?
		And one guy's got a gun to his back?
		That's not a real election.
	You need to step in and fix that vote.
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.
		See you on the tour!
		So this is what happened.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Pennsylvania changed the rules in violation of their Constitution as per a lower court's order.
		But the higher courts, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, said, no, no, no, universal mail-in voting is allowed despite the fact the Constitution says absentee voting only allowed in certain circumstances.
		Well, clearly, you have a constitutional violation.
		The courts at the highest level were appointed by Democrats.
		Actually, I don't know how it works in Pennsylvania.
		They may be voted in.
		But it was considered to be biased and in need of external intervention to determine whether or not the state legislature has approved this unconstitutional change.
		And the Supreme Court, the conservative justices, except for the great Clarence Thomas and Alito, they were the only ones of honor.
		They said, we're not interested in hearing this case because they're cowards.
		They're cowardly.
		You know, it's tough.
		It is.
		I could not imagine going through what they go through and only getting $200,000 a year.
		I know, I know.
		$200,000 a year?
		Man, you're living comfortable.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Your bills are paid, you got vacation, you're going skiing in winter with your family on these ski trips.
		You got vacation, you got food.
		Granted, the economy's getting pretty bad.
		But with $200K a year, depending on where you live... Now these justices, like Brett Kavanaugh for instance, he basically lives just outside of D.C.
		and $200K a year... What is it?
		Like $200... Let me pull up the SCOTUS salary.
		Let me pull up the SCOTUS salary.
		$255,000 a year.
		I gotta be honest, man.
unidentified		Oof.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's pretty rough.
		You know?
		$255,000 a year to have someone threatening to kidnap and murder your family.
		Ain't worth it.
		It's not worth it.
		You know, I don't know what else they could do, I guess.
		You know, if they go into private practice, they're probably gonna make more than that.
		But I suppose for these individuals, they have a mission.
		There's an ideology here that they're seeking to uphold.
		And that ideology may be in support of the Constitution as it was intended.
		Or for the far leftists, it could be to fundamentally destroy this country and burn it to the ground!
		I'm half kidding, by the way.
		But then you have to imagine when it comes down to an issue of the election.
		These justices are just cowards.
		I mean, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, I believe she was on the bench at the time.
		It's cowardly.
		There's no reason to say no to hearing one of the most important cases this country has ever encountered.
		Answering the question of constitutionality in elections.
		Now, they decide not to do it.
		And I think the reality is this.
		Should the Supreme Court have ruled On the issue of Texas v. Pennsylvania, their conclusion could have only been one thing.
		Pennsylvania was in violation of the federal constitution by altering the rules of an election outside of the state legislature through executive and judicial actions.
		Or I should say, I should say, uh, it's actually a bit more complicated than that.
		The state legislatures did cut a deal with Democrats.
		The idea was Democrats wanted universal mail-in voting.
		Republicans wanted to get rid of this down-ballot system they have, where basically, you can just say, I vote Democrat, and then it gives all Democrats.
		They were hoping that by getting rid of that, it would actually give them a leg up in various other areas of the election.
		So it certainly was done through the legislature.
		The problem is, the Constitution forbade universal mail-in voting.
		So in order for it to actually go through the constitutional process, They would have had to have, I think, taken out like a newspaper article, amended the Constitution, very difficult to do, and was not going to win.
		So they cut a deal and did it anyway.
		The issue then is, it's not so much outside the legislature, that's the simplified version we saw in many other states, but the greater, the actual, to get a bit more nuanced in this one was, did the legislature act properly in their attempts to alter the fundamental base of the election?
		In which case, to clarify, In Pennsylvania, the legislative process was not followed by which to change the rules of the election.
		I believe something like 48 states were involved in this lawsuit.
		Of course, Democrat states on one side, Republican states on the other side.
		A few states abstaining, and the Supreme Court just went, guys, we're too scared!
		I don't want to do it!
		You know, look, man, I get it.
		You don't get paid that much for the threat in your life, but why take the job if that's the case?
		The money shouldn't be the issue.
		You want to be in the Supreme Court.
		You get nominated.
		You swear an oath to do your duties.
		You should do your duties.
		And said they didn't, and now here we are in this extremely annoying circumstance that should not be happening because the Supreme Court should have already issued a ruling on this four years ago.
		Okay, to be fair, Three and a half years ago, they should have said, the Constitution states, the legislature has final say in how the elections are run.
		That being said, the state's Constitution, and you know what?
		Fine, fine, let's be fair.
		They could have said, the state legislature ruled, the courts upheld it.
		We're done.
		We're done.
		Whether or not it's constitutional or not is a question for the state courts and not the federal courts.
		They could have simply said that, but they're cowards.
		They were concerned that by issuing any, in my opinion, their concern was issuing any ruling on the matter would invoke the other side, or say evoke.
		I don't think that's the appropriate way to handle it.
		I think the Supreme Court should have said, yes, we will answer this question.
		Yes, we will hear the arguments.
		But I think their concern was, if we issue any ruling on this, we will have either side blaming us.
		And guess what?
		Someone showed up to Brett Kavanaugh's house to kill him and his family.
		And so these people... I don't know, I think that was before, I think.
		I think it was before, actually.
		Because this was... No, when was Roe overturned?
		No, no, no, this had to have been after.
	Let me, uh, let me make sure I get the dates right.
	Typing in, let's see.
	The assassination plot was in 2020, uh, 2022, so it's two years later.
	These people are terrified, right?
	I want to make sure I have that clear because I don't think they were influenced by that.
	That happens, that comes way later.
	I think the Supreme Court justices are terrified of what's going to happen to their families if they put themselves at the center of this.
	Which is why, what may happen, I think the simplest solution right now is for them to say, you can't remove Donald Trump.
	Or actually, man, I don't know.
	Think about it.
	The Supreme Court, not wanting to get involved like we saw back in Texas v. Pennsylvania, may say something as stupid as, hey, don't look at us, man.
	The states can do what they want.
	Why wouldn't they?
	We didn't get an answer from them in Texas v. Pennsylvania as to can the states do what they want, whether it violates their constitution or not.
	They said we're not going to hear it.
	Clarence Thomas and Alito said we have to take this up.
	This is original jurisdiction, meaning a state is suing a state.
	We are the ones who answer that.
	Who else is going to answer that?
	And all the justices were like, nah, you know, we don't want to be involved.
	Based on the oral arguments, however, I think it's fair to say The justices were extremely skeptical of the idea that a state could remove a president from the ballot.
	Perhaps this is how they get that ruling without directly being involved, saying, look, people can vote for Trump.
	But I imagine there's a strong possibility that these people come out and they simply say something like, we don't want to be involved because we're scared.
	That's it.
	They say we issue a broad non-issue non-ruling.
	States can do what they want.
	If the state decides to include someone on the ballot, it's up to them, not us.
	There's an interesting argument here.
	Let me ask you guys.
	You can comment.
	Let me know what you think.
	Should the federal government be allowed to tell the states who they have to have on their ballot?
	That's an interesting question.
	Why would the answer be yes?
	Why would the answer be no?
	Let's talk about why should the answer be yes.
	How many people want to be on the ballot and can't?
	RFK Jr.
	wants to be on the ballot.
	He can't.
	He's having a hard time.
	Many people would argue they should put him on, but why him?
	Why not Alex Jones?
	No, no, I get it.
	You can argue Jones didn't file to be on the ballot.
	No, no, I get it.
	But there are many people who filed to be on the ballot who don't get on.
	Why should Trump be on the ballot and say not RFK Jr.
	in many of these states?
	Serious question.
	Now, many may argue that Trump's a clear frontrunner.
	He was president before.
	I mean, why would you exclude him?
	I don't know that's a sound legal argument.
	That a person's ability to appear on a ballot is determined by their popularity.
	By them having appeared on a ballot before.
	If you want to argue it's polling numbers, that would be arguing that the media has the right to determine who is going to be on these ballots.
	You know, look.
	It's a tough question, it really is.
	Take a look at how polling works.
	And why are we seeing all these polls where, you know, Nikki Haley has 7% or RFK Jr.
	has 13%?
	Because they're included.
	Let me tell you this.
	I actually want to commission this poll because I do want to make this a bet.
	If I go to—we'll go to a pollster and say, We are going to poll 10,000 people and we are going to ask them, who would you rather have for president?
	Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or, uh, it's gotta be a good name.
	Let's say, uh, Eric.
	Seems like a good name.
	Um, what's a, what's, what's a good name?
	Eric, uh, let's come up with a, we don't want it to be too generic.
	It's gotta be pretty good.
	Biden, Trump.
	Um... Williamson might be too vague.
	How about... Marion Williamson.
	Um... Eric... Donaldson.
	No, no, that might invoke too much Trumpism.
	How about... Come on, give me a name.
	Who's got a name?
	Someone chat me a name.
	Bischoff.
	There you go.
	Eric Bischoff.
	Fohman?
	Foreman.
	Eric Foreman.
	That's right.
	Yeah, the problem with Eric.
	No, OK, Eric Foreman works.
	I'd be willing to bet Eric Foreman on a poll gets 7 to 10 percent.
	And I mean, if the only options a person has are Biden, Trump or Foreman, you will get a lot of people voting for Foreman.
	Now, Trump's got a very strong base.
	Trump has a massive base of support, even outside of his base.
	What I mean by that is Trump's base are the people who are like, Trump is the guy, we're voting for Trump.
	And that's a solid 40-50% of the GOP right now.
	But Trump's also got a large percentage of people who are probably more like me and many of you who are like, Trump's the guy.
	You know what I mean?
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 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 ▲ ● ▼		The diehard Trump people are like, Trump all the way, Trump did great, all that stuff.
		I got a lot of good things to say about Trump.
		I got some criticisms of Trump, but Trump's certainly the guy.
		Vivek Ramaswamy may be better, but he's not in a position to win, right?
		I think Dave Smith would be great, because I think Libertarians would accomplish in the Mises Caucus, particularly a lot more of what I would like to see, but realistically, it's Donald Trump.
		So I have no problem when asked, who are you voting for?
		Oh, Trump, no problem.
		But there are a lot of people who are going to be like, I don't want either of them.
		I bet a lot of these people are apolitical, not watching a lot of news and not paying attention.
		They're just like, I'm sick of all of it.
		Foreman gets those votes.
		Now, here's my point.
		If we're to determine eligibility, who can appear in a ballot based on polling, well then, I mean, and that's the general idea.
		Like, we all know Trump's popular.
		So, of course, they want to put him on the ballot.
		He's the frontrunner.
		You can argue that as the frontrunner for the GOP, it makes sense.
		But that still comes down to polling.
		In the primary, we don't know who the nominee is.
		Now, if you were going to say, Democrats and Republicans are clearly the two major parties that are always going to win, so whoever they nominate goes on the ballot, I'd say, okay, that I get.
		It's a weird criteria still, but we all understand.
		When it comes to who gets to be on a primary ballot, how do we make the determination?
		Signatures, maybe?
		Maybe it should be whoever gets the most signatures.
		You have to have people write in a postcard saying, I want this person on the ballot or something.
		I don't know.
		Because for now, it really just seems like you filed, we know who you are, we're going to put you on the ballot.
		But there are a lot of people who want to be on the ballot, and they don't get to be.
		In the primaries or otherwise.
		So it'll be interesting to see exactly how this plays out.
		I'm gonna check on our people, Randall Carlson.
		People are still giving me names.
		Change my- what is this?
		Deplorable Kulak says, I'm going to change my name to No Competency.
		Uh, didn't someone try doing that?
		Changing their name to none of, none of these candidates or something like that?
		And they were like, no, you can't do that!
		Because they're like, I bet I'll win if I run under, uh, no confidence.
		Change your name to no and confidence.
		Good luck with that one.
		Actually, I think I have SCOTUSblog pulled up right here.
		And, uh, let's see.
		So Skoda's blog is live blogging this announcement of opinions for Monday, March 4th.
		And let's see where we're currently at.
		I think they have a bunch of updates.
		9.54 a.m.
		And they're just chatting.
		So they're basically saying Trump is going to win this one.
		Someone said, there's no way this is 9-0.
		I'm going with 5-4.
		Roberts will vote with 3 to pretend that the court has legitimacy.
		another news organization do the following, especially for big announcements.
		Have a certified shorthand court reporter listen and transcribe what was said.
		Record audio of different volunteers reading it.
		Yeah, it's likely what they're gonna do is, they're gonna, if I don't know exactly how they drop the opinion.
		I think that the document should just drop, right?
		Someone said, there's no way this is nine and O.
		I'm going with five to four.
		Roberts will vote with three to pretend that the court has legitimacy.
		Wow, that's amazing.
		So these are, this is SCOTUS blog reporters that cover SCOTUS.
		Let me show you some of their opinions.
		We'll go back to the, uh, here we go.
		This is, I believe, Ryan McMillan says, So this is another, a very interesting component of this.
	taking the bench for reasons of intense dissent on the court, such as in a 5-4 case like Bush v. Gore,
	how many members must agree to have the ruling issued without taking the bench?
	So this is another very interesting component of this.
	Typically, whenever they issue a ruling, they show up. This time they're not.
	I I kind of feel like that may, that's possibly indicative of them ruling against Donald Trump.
	Saying he can be removed, the states can do what they want.
	Now I think that's odd.
	That would happen, I don't know.
	But, imagine, okay.
	If they say, let's say it's unanimous.
	The states can't take someone off the ballot like this.
	You know, especially someone who hasn't been convicted under, you know, they've got to play by the rules.
	Trump's not been convicted of this.
	You can't unilaterally just decide, but some courts are ordering it.
	Let's say they come out and they say, no, no, no, Trump's on the ballot.
	This is ridiculous.
	Why would they not show up?
	You can argue laziness.
	I'm gonna argue security.
	Security.
unidentified		I mean, think about it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		SCOTUS rules Trump can be removed.
		The states have ultimate decision-making power.
		And, oh boy.
		If they do that!
		And it's 5-4.
		The liberals, and then Roberts, sides with them.
		Oh boy.
		They're going to hope that they're not sitting in those benches.
		Now, maybe.
		But I honestly, you know, D.C.
		being 92% liberal, they probably fear the left more than the right, so it would actually make more sense they're not showing up for security reasons because they're going to side with Trump.
		And siding with Trump, oh boy.
		It was not a right-winger who came to Brett Kavanaugh's house.
		So let's read some more.
		A lot of this is just being erased because, you know, If Colorado ignores SCOTUS, is there a remedy?
		That's an interesting question.
		I think this, uh, I don't know who's commenting on this.
		This might just be a live chat.
		Yeah, this is just a live chat with questions.
		So, let me refresh this to see if we have any official updates right now, because it looks like we just have the live chat.
		They're saying Kagan moderates this?
		Is that what they're suggesting?
		Waiting for the, uh... One person says, I'm guessing 9-0.
		I thought it likely 9-0 before oral arguments.
		After listening to the oral arguments, I was more convinced.
		All nine were skeptical of Colorado's arguments in some form or fashion.
		There may be five different concurrences with different reasoning.
		But it'll be 9-0, that's my prediction.
		There is another, uh... Five minute, uh... We're three minutes out.
		There's something else to consider, too.
		And that is... that the states just ignore the ruling.
		That's it.
		The states make a statement about the Supreme Court is illegitimate, it was propped up by Donald Trump himself, he's an insurrectionist, and therefore we have decided.
		What can the Supreme Court do?
		Nothing.
		And more importantly, do you think the federal government will intervene?
		They won't.
		So what'll happen?
		Nothing.
		In a state like Colorado, run by Democrats, imagine the Supreme Court comes out and says 9-0, Trump stays on the ballot.
		Press conferences held and they say, our courts have ruled this.
		The federal government has no right to intervene as we've all seen with Texas.
		When the Supreme Court says that customs and border protection have a right to this jurisdiction, Texas defies them and says no.
		Therefore, we too shall defy the court.
		Now that would be particularly interesting.
		The challenge with doing segments like this, just as we are two minutes now out from the official posting, you know, I'll give you the in the weeds, oh boy, a minute, one minute, one minute, one minute warning.
		Normally I record about 9 a.m., work an hour beforehand, hour and a half beforehand, pulling up stories.
		I got a bunch of stories, Nikki Haley's win, we've got a bunch of cultural stuff, we've got the misgendering policy on Twitter.
		And I'm like, if I post news at 10 a.m., like a news segment about, say, Nikki Haley winning in D.C.
		or something, Nobody cares about that right now.
		The big breaking news is gonna be SCOTUS, but the problem is, you know, I could go live right at 10 with the announcement.
		Sure, it'll go live early, but now I've effectively created a segment which is behind the news, so when this news does break, anybody who wants to watch this video is, they're not gonna get the immediate news right away.
		But it is what it is.
		There's a lot that we talked about, and so we'll put this one up in the, um, In the podcast for the day as we wait the breaking news.
		And there is current chat.
		But we'll take a look because we're about one minute away from the release.
		We'll see.
		Yeah, the five minute warning.
		One individual says most of the justices seemed disturbed at the idea that one individual state can essentially interfere with a national election and decide who gets to run.
		It's a good point.
		If Colorado removes Donald Trump, here we go, it's 10 o'clock, should be dropping any moment.
		If Colorado removes Trump, if a bunch of states remove Trump, Trump can't win.
		Especially states that are split like Maine.
		Maine's where it matters.
	Because Maine doesn't issue all of their electoral votes in one direction.
	It's actually a split state.
	So I think a portion goes to one candidate and a portion to the other.
	It is now 10.
	Time to refresh, refresh, refresh.
	Is that what they're saying?
	Let's uh...
	Let's take a look if they've got up on SCOTUSblog the decision yet.
	Of course, everybody is refreshing the SCOTUS website.
	I thought I had that pulled up.
	No, I guess I just had SCOTUSblog pulled up.
	Let's, uh...
	It is Trump v. Anderson.
	It is pure per curiam.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	So it looks like it's coming in.
	Let me pull up.
	We got it.
	I don't know if I can click on this link.
	I cannot.
	There we go.
	We got it.
	Donald Trump petitioner Norma Anderson.
	Here we go, ladies and gentlemen!
	We are now... I'm sure they're gonna announce... Let me zoom in here.
	Let's get the quick answer.
	I guess everyone's reading it.
	I'm just gonna jump to the bottom.
	Jump to the bottom and say... So it be resolved or whatever.
	And here we go.
	Let's... Uh-oh.
	Okay, so this is Sotomayor Kagan Jackson.
	Interesting.
	Oh, man.
	I am scrolling through this.
	You see, it's very wordy.
	Uh-oh.
	Five justices?
	Oh man!
	Did it go 5-4?
	On writ of cert, uh, Supreme Court.
	Is this the, uh, dissent?
	Alright, Justice Barrett concurring in part and concurring in judgment, Barrett joins Parts 1 and 2 of the Court of Sentence.
	I agree that the states lack the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates.
	That principle is sufficient to resolve this case.
	And I would decide no more than that.
	This suit was brought by Colorado voters under state law and the state court.
	It does not require us to address the complicated question whether federal legislation is the exclusive vehicle through which Section 3 can be enforced.
	The majority's choice of a different path leaves the remaining justices with a choice of how to respond.
	In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency.
	The court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of the presidential election.
	Particularly in this circumstance, writings in the court should turn the national temperature down, not up.
	For presidential purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity.
	All nine justices agree on the outcome of this case.
	That is the message they should take home.
	Here we go.
	All nine members of the court agree with the result.
	Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion provides for reaching it.
	So it's unanimous.
	Give me the simple, Nate, give me the simple, it's very long.
	Can I read the last paragraph?
	All nine members of the court agree with the result.
	Our colleagues writing separately further agree with many of the reasons this opinion
	provides for reaching it.
	So it's unanimous.
	And I believe they're saying states.
	Okay, here we go.
	So far as we can tell, the very object only to our taking into account a distinctive way Section 3 works and the fact that Section 5 vests in Congress the power to enforce it.
	These are not the only reasons states lack the power to enforce this particular constitutional provision with respect to federal offices, but they are important ones, and it is the combination of all the reasons set forth in this opinion Not as some of our colleagues would have it.
	Just one particular rationale that resolves this case.
	In our view, each of these reasons is necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the court unanimously reaches.
	The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.
	The mandate shall issue forthwith, so it is ordered.
	So, uh, that's it, right?
	Are we, uh, here we go.
	The court holds that because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.
	Justice Barrett agrees in part and concurs in the judgment.
	She agrees that states do not have the power to enforce Section 3 against presidential candidates, but would not go further.
	So it looks like, uh, it looks like there it is, ladies and gentlemen.
	Trump cannot be removed individually by the states.
	Interesting.
	They say, usually for per curiam opinions, the writing is handled by one justice or another.
	I'm just going to try and triple check that we have, that we are reading this correctly.
	Yep, there we go.
	That's it.
	Supreme Court rules a unanimous decision that Trump cannot be kicked off the Colorado primary ballot over his actions leading up to the Capitol riot.
	There it is, ladies and gentlemen.
	They say, uh, Justice Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson have a joint opinion concurring in the judgment.
	They, too, agree that Colorado cannot keep Trump off the ballot.
	But then they say, five justices go further and decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this court and Trump from further controversy by announcing that a disqualification for insurrection can occur only when Congress enacts a particular kind of legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
	In doing so, The majority shuts the doors on other potential means of enforcement.
	Cry more!
	Cry more!
	That's it, ladies and gentlemen.
	It's exactly what we thought was gonna happen.
	Of course, we had a little bit of devil's advocate there, but... There's your breaking news for the morning!
	We were able to get that out now.
	Of course, the challenge for those that choose to watch this podcast later... I'll put a chapter in it so that people can click right to the decision right in the beginning.
	So that if people end up tuning in...
	Maybe I should have said that very early on, but Trump wins, ladies and gentlemen, and I think that was fairly obvious.
	Now, I suppose, ultimately, it does make a lot of sense.
	The reason why the justices were not there could be simple.
	They weren't on the bench for the issuing of this opinion, maybe because it's Monday morning, they wanted to get it out before Super Tuesday so that Trump is on the ballot in all of these states in the primaries But, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if there's huge protests in D.C.
	and they don't want to be anywhere near the city.
	And I wonder if Capitol Police and other federal law enforcement told them, when you issue this ruling, the left will act a fool, stay out of the city so that we don't have to deal with providing you security.
	It's gonna get wild, to say the least.
	But while that news has just dropped, there it is, The liberal justices apparently are upset because there still is a five to four component of this in that although it was unanimous Trump cannot be removed from the ballot, it appears that the conservative leaning justices said Congress has to enact something.
	Congress has to decide.
	And so the four liberal justices are like, no, no, no, there should be other remedies for this.
	Uh, no.
	I don't even know if I completely agree with Congress' must-enact legislation.
	I believe that Trump should be convicted!
	There should be an impeach- Look, the idea that you can accuse someone of insurrection, and perhaps- Okay, to be fair, that's what they're saying with Congress.
	It's gotta go through the House and the Senate.
	It's gotta be an impeachment, it's gotta be some kind of declaration, whatever.
	A law, President Trump did this, therefore he can't do this.
	It'll never happen.
	I wonder, I think that's the way it should be, but I wonder what the liberal justices were actually expecting to happen.
	There's there's no conviction of having committed a crime.
	How could you remove someone arguing they did?
	More importantly, I think they should have just outright said Trump has already been acquitted of this.
	He was impeached.
	This is the process by which they seek to determine the president engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.
	Impeachment means indictment, meaning Congress agrees that there is cause here.
	It goes to the Senate, okay?
	You need a simple majority in the House to bring an indictment.
	Here's how it works in crime.
	A grand jury is not seeking to find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
	They are seeking to find a preponderance of evidence.
	If it is such determined, they say, okay, well, let's go to a criminal trial then.
	Now, You go to an adversarial court.
	Grand juries are non-adversarial.
	The prosecutor comes in and says, here's what happened.
	Here's why we think it happened.
	Here's our evidence.
	Here's testimony.
	If you agree, we want to take this to a trial so that they can defend themselves against these charges, but we think they should be criminally charged for this process, etc.
	And the grand jury says, sure.
	That's impeachment.
	After that, it goes to a trial, which is much, much more difficult.
	In the House, you get a simple majority.
	You're impeached.
	Senate requires a two-thirds majority.
	They did not get it.
	They got 57.
	Okay, good number, but we're not talking about a majority here.
	Like, we're not talking about winning a conviction through a majority.
	It's got to be more than that.
	Trump was acquitted.
	And the reason why this is so important Well, the reason why it's so important is also extremely important to the process itself.
	That is, we are not talking about a jury of your peers to determine whether or not you as someone who committed a crime should live in their community and be free to go or whatever.
	The people versus insert person.
	We're talking about the nation and its political views and the fabric for which holds it together.
	If you were able to tell 49 state senators that a president is guilty and is to be removed You're talking about half the country!
	And the reason why many of these provisions are as they are is because of the Civil War.
	And because we don't want that to happen again.
	I believe, I always get the date mixed up, I think it was 1876, where the President was determined based on committee.
	They couldn't figure out who won.
	It was the Reconstruction Era.
	Southern states were sending their delegates, their electoral votes, and then they were like, we don't know who actually won.
	We're on the verge of another Civil War.
	Let's just not do this.
	And so they said, okay, here, we'll cut a deal.
	End Reconstruction, we'll give the presidency in this direction, not otherwise, and then we'll just resolve this.
	And this gave the South a lot.
	It gave them a lot of, um... It gave them a lot of leeway.
	We started with the end of Reconstruction especially.
	And so, when you're looking right now at a president who may be deeply unpopular, the idea that a simple majority would remove him from office risks civil war.
	When the Civil War started, it was seven states that seceded, prompting Lincoln to quell the rebellion, as it were.
	You do not need half the country up against half the country.
	You need only a few states to ignite something worse.
	And so we want stringent, strict policies on this.
	No, no, no, you got to really, really prove it, man.
	It's got to be beyond a doubt that this country is sure this president is guilty of a crime.
	But that being said, Trump was accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, for which he was acquitted.
	How, then, could you try to remove him from the ballot?
	That is laughably insane.
	And while we're here, this fine morning, with this, uh, opening segment, let's, uh, as we're basically wrapping up, I'll check to see if there's any, uh, any updates here.
	Uh, that's it.
	I mean, the Supreme Court has ruled Trump will be on the Colorado ballot.
	This is going to impact all of the other states.
	States may not unilaterally disqualify Donald Trump from the ballot.
	Supreme Court rules unanimously.
	Only Congress can decide.
	And of course, they're not going to be able to because there are still Republicans in Congress.
	That being said, don't be surprised if a few traitors, defectors from the Republican Party who are a uniparty establishment side with Democrats to pass a bill saying Trump did it and he can't be on the ballot.
	Then what happens?
	Then it goes to Congress.
	Then Congress is split.
	Kamala Harris ties the vote.
	Or breaks the tie.
	And there you go.
	It's not over yet.
	It's mostly over, and it's probably over, but certainly something else could happen.
	We'll grab a couple more of your Super Chats before we head out here and begin to work on the rest of the show for this morning.
	Alright, let's see.
	Kyle Miller says, Tim, are you going to cover the New York Times story protecting Hamas?
	I am looking into it.
	It may be something for IRL tonight, but definitely interesting.
	Basically, for those that aren't familiar, in the New York Times newsroom, there was a story about very serious... Hamas did horrifying atrocities, and there are progressives who are trying to block the reporting from happening, so it's causing some kind of... You know, it's causing an upset in the company.
	Well, you know, I'm just going to grab a couple more because I really, we, we, I do need to get back on track for recording more.
	We did a special live this morning.
	Molly says, yay, you went live.
	I'm in rural Illinois biting my nails.
	You know, very, very good.
	Jason Dixon says, Bitcoin is worth $66,000.
	I'm rich!
	Yep!
	Man, Bitcoin's gonna break its record, all-time high.
	I think it'll probably, not financial advice, don't talk to me about it, I'm just saying, I think it'll hit $200K.
	The price target is $200K and then it drops down to $80K and stabilizes at $80K for the next couple of years.
	This is the trend pattern if you look at Bitcoin based on how the industry of Bitcoin production works and based on previous exchanges.
	The one thing to consider that's difficult is the adoption of ETFs and there are more companies that are putting Bitcoin on their balance sheets will have a significant impact.
	But the halvening, they call it, is happening.
	Rewards for Bitcoin miners, those who produce Bitcoin, It's really simple.
	to be reduced, which means their costs will double, which means they'll have to sell for
	higher rates.
	And really, it's really simple.
	A lot of people, like in El Salvador, they don't need to, as of right now, while they're
	still fiat attached to Bitcoin, which will, it will change eventually.
	But right now, the issue is this.
	If you get 10 bucks, and you're like, I'm gonna buy 10 bucks with a Bitcoin, you're gonna buy it for whatever Bitcoin's at.
	So long as there is less supply and more demand, the price is going to go up.
	But people are going to use it as a utility, so I think, you know, in my view, the price will go up.
	But we'll see, we'll see.
	All right.
	Damage controlling says, in before Amy Coney Barrett views with the other women and gets him removed.
	No, no.
	They all agreed.
	They all agreed.
	Uh, let's just say, uh, Elle says, uh, thanks for all you do, brother.
	What you do for your hands.
	Have a great week ahead.
	It's going to be a good week.
	My birthday is this Saturday.
	Maybe I should do a big become a member at timcast.com for my birthday.
	Maybe we should do, uh, we're opening, I believe, the skate park construction at Freedomistan will be done on Saturday.
	Uh, just in time for my birthday.
	So that'll be fun.
	And then we're doing the opening party probably a month from then, because while the skate park is done, we still have to stock the fridge, invite guests, and get it all ready, so that'll be a lot of fun.
	Alright.
	All right, I'll just grab a couple more.
	Looks like the news broke, and then we're gonna get out of here.
	Waffle Senses says, take the victory lap, boys, and prepare for the next assault on Trump and our system.
	Let's roll!
	There it is, ladies and gentlemen.
	Become a member at TimCast.com.
	Buy Casper Coffee.
	This has been a special live morning segment with the news breaking.
	And, uh, that's it.
	That's the big breaking news.
	And, uh, we'll get a chapter in here so those can always jump to the point at which the news broke.
	Which I believe would be just around the 47-minute mark.
	We're really at an hour and a... Oh, that's wrong?
	Why is it saying that?
	No idea.
	Yeah, we should be about 47 minutes in.
	YouTube's got the wrong timestamps.
	Anyway, I'm gonna wrap it up there.
	Subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
	We'll be back at 1 p.m.
	on this channel.
	You can follow me at TimCast.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	Twitter has quietly reinstated its misgendering policy, and admittedly, I took this one personally.
	Not literally personally, but I was deeply offended that they would do such a thing.
	And for several reasons.
	Now, Elon Musk has responded to the blowback.
	He's saying they're gonna fix it.
	What happened is, there was a court ruling in Brazil which required a rule in the platform that if you misgender or deadname someone, there would be some action taken against you.
	I do not accept that wholly.
	I do accept that I think Elon Musk agrees generally on classically liberal principles, anti-establishment and anti-woke principles.
	I think he's doing a pretty good job.
	And I think for the most part, he's not running the day-to-day operations of X. He's dealing with a bunch of companies.
	And in his soft leadership, As opposed to when he actually took things over and was running it.
	Now that he's sort of moved away, he is overseeing it, but he has other people handling the heavy lifting.
	They have begun to screw things up.
	Now, the reason why I take issue with this is I announced last week that I would be suspending all ad buys and the pro account for the Timcast company over this.
	I will say this as of now.
	I regret reacting so harshly and so quickly as if to imply I didn't expect... I should have stopped and thought about it.
	That Elon Musk will take action on this one.
	He will seek to correct this.
	And the issue is that there need not be a misgendering or deadnaming policy because you can just block people.
	But let's slow down, let's slow down.
	The issue is this.
	X quietly reinstated a rule that says if you use a pronoun for someone who does not identify with that pronoun, you will be deranked shadowbanned.
	If you refer to them by a name they no longer go by, you will be shadowbanned.
	Now, of course, they're arguing it's only for harassment, but this is what they claimed way back when I went on Joe Rogan's show and confronted Dorsey.
	It's about harassment.
	No, it's not.
	I've been getting tons of people posting at me, tweeting at me, saying, here's a screenshot of me getting banned.
	Tons of screenshots of people saying things like, you know, one was, you know, men are not women, and they got a flag saying hateful conduct flag.
	One said, I'm not going to use the pronouns for these people.
	He is this, he is that flagged.
	They're not even directly targeting these individuals.
	They're posts to someone else about an individual.
	This is a problem.
	Now, I'll tell you why I got upset about this and why I announced that I would be suspending ad buys.
	When all of these big companies began pulling their ads off X, I, along with many others, announced that we would be launching ad buys to use X. And it's really about two reasons.
	One, the ads are great, they actually work.
	Seriously, they do.
	And that's awesome.
	And two, if the platform is working, we gotta support it.
	And Elon Musk reinstating people, even Alex Jones, has been tremendous.
	With all that being said, Friday when this was going down and I'm looking at the policy, I got pissed off.
	I said, you know what?
	I'm done.
	I'm punt.
	I shouldn't have done that.
	And what was mostly embarrassing is, you know, Elon Musk goes up on stage and says, if you're gonna try and blackmail me with money, F go F yourself.
	And I'm like, Okay, I probably should have thought about this first, because I don't mean it like that.
	I don't mean it to say, Elon, unless you instate the rules that I want, I will give you money.
	I meant it more like, you promised your business would handle things certain ways, and for this, I decided to buy in.
	It's different from a big advertiser who says, we want to advertise on all these platforms, finds out that Elon's doing something they don't like, and says, you know what, we're going to pull our ads because you do a thing we don't like.
	Similar, but different.
	Mine was, Hey, you announced you're no longer doing bad things, so I'm going to support you.
	Hey, wait, you brought bad thing back.
	That kind of violates the tenant, the contract, not literal contract, but like the social contract I had.
	Because you did good, I support.
	Now that you are pulling that back, I pull back.
	So it's a positive versus a negative thing.
	That being said, Elon says he's going to be fixing it.
	I'll read this Daily Wire story.
	But I do want to point out where we are right now.
	Let me, let me, let me pull this up.
	MissGenderingPolicyX.com.
	Make sure it's still there.
	In their hateful conduct policy.
	Uh, let me see if I can pull this up.
	Dehumanization.
	Uh, let's see.
	Gender identity is protected under the dehumanization.
	But, uh, I don't really, I don't really care all that much about, uh, let me find the news article on this one.
	Ars Technica has it, The Hill has it.
	I wonder if there's a link for it.
	Um, let's see.
	They all just link to each other, that's the silliest thing.
	Ex quietly revived anti-misgendering policy that Musk dropped last year.
	And, uh, Here we go.
	Is this the policy?
	Here we go.
	Updated policy.
	Let's see if it's still there.
	I want to say this.
	As of right now, here's my compromise.
	The TimCast corporate account will remain active.
	I'm not going to cancel that, but I did cancel an ad buy.
	That was a $25,000 ad buy.
	You may have watched me set that up live on the TimCast IRL Uncensored Show.
	Become a member at TimCast.com if you want to watch.
	And it was, what did I tweet?
	Something like, democracy should be illegal, and then I promoted it.
	Oh, that was funny.
	And $5,300 of the budget had been spent when I canceled the campaign.
	We're preparing a $100,000 ad buy.
	And the total spend for the month of March was aimed to be around $250,000 or so.
	250 or so thousand dollars. That's on hold because I don't want to put money
	onto this platform if that's the case.
	And, you know, the challenge is, I don't want to come off like I'm telling Elon Musk, you better do as I say, otherwise you're not getting any money.
	My money's not that significant.
	It's more of a, when you announced you were doing a thing that I liked, I said, okay, I will get on board with that.
	It was in response to those who were pulling ads off the platform.
	But kind of what pissed me off is, you go to these big corporations pulling millions and millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, because of, you know, hate speech or whatever.
	So Elon says, go F yourselves.
	I'm like, wow!
	This guy's sinking a lot of money by not bending the knee.
	I'm gonna put money onto that platform.
	We need the ads.
	We have a marketing plan as it is, but I'm gonna go heavier on this one because this guy, I think, is running his business better.
	He then reinstates this policy.
	Not he, but his company does.
	Now it feels like... Hey, hey, hey, hold on.
	You are bending the knee to this ideology.
	You don't need my support.
	By bringing this policy back, you should be able to walk in the front door of all these big companies and say, hey, look, we brought back your leftist policy.
	We want your money again.
	You don't need it from me.
	It feels like a double dip, you know what I mean?
	You were losing money here, so me and a bunch of other people stepped up.
	Now you're putting the policy back in place.
	What, you're gonna try and go back to this ad dollars?
	Okay, well I feel swindled.
	You know what I mean?
	Not from Elon personally, I think he's doing the right thing.
	So that's why, okay, so what we're gonna do.
	I won't cancel the Timcast account.
	It feels smarmy, it is what it is.
	But I'm not going to buy a big ad campaign on a platform that's a misgendering policy.
	If someone hasn't, look, people go on X all the time and they insult me like crazy.
	Over my appearance.
	Over things they make up.
	And they don't get banned for that.
	That's allowed.
	But misgendering is protected.
	No.
	I don't care they're insulting me.
	I ignore it.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Whatever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I got a job.
		I'm not following these people.
		So why create a specific policy for this?
		Shouldn't exist.
		Elon Musk responded to you.
		He agreed.
		Targeted harassment.
		Let's see if they still have this up.
		Unwanted use of prior names and pronouns still exists in their March policy update.
		Where required by local laws, we will reduce the visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves, or that use a previous name that someone no longer goes by as part of their transition.
		Given the complexity of determining whether such a violation has occurred, we must always hear from the target to determine if a violation has occurred.
		I'm not gonna buy any ads on the platform.
		Okay, look.
		This is not an issue of hate speech.
		It's an issue of We're required by local laws.
		Elon said it's about Brazil.
		I don't care.
		No beef.
		I don't care what Twitter does or doesn't do.
		I'm not going to buy ads on a platform that has this policy in place because it's a nonsensical ideological policy.
		There's a viral video going around now where it's like a workplace harassment video and a guy says that he doesn't believe in using someone's preferred pronouns and he is told is wrong.
		You cannot bring your personal beliefs into the workplace.
		And it's like, you know, the pronouns thing is your personal belief.
		You see how they're trying to flip the script.
		We're required by local laws.
		Why is there a broad English page rule affecting the United States for a ruling in Brazil?
		I got a solution for you.
		Axe, here's what you do.
		br.twitter.com And then in Brazil, you're in compliance.
		And Brazil... I mean, look, we got an issue.
		If Axe is making the argument that Brazil can issue a court ruling that pertains to the United States, I reject that wholly.
		This is where we're currently at.
		The story goes...
		Elon Musk offered assurances on Saturday to podcaster Tim Pool over how X, formerly known as Twitter, contends with users who identify as transgender.
		Of course, I tweeted to 41,000 likes.
		Wow, I don't even, jeez.
		I gotta be honest, I'm kind of embarrassed because I just tweeted that.
		It's got six point, it's got five million views.
		People were posting videos like, Tim Pool's boycotting X, and I'm like, eh, okay, you know, I was just pissed off.
		I will be terminating all ad spend commitments and verified accounts over X reinstating the misgendering policy.
		Where I will leave it right now is, we'll keep up our verified accounts, but I'm not going to buy ads so long as the policy exists, because I only agreed to do these big ad spends to support Elon Musk, who is defying the woke establishment.
		Like, it's really that simple.
		I don't view it the same as Disney.
		Disney was like, screw you, Elon, we'll burn you to the ground.
		Elon said, I defy you, and I said, I'm gonna defend the guys defying the machine.
		But if X bends the knee to the machine, I'm out, baby!
		I'm a big fan of Elon Musk.
		I'm a Tesla shareholder.
		I've got several hundred shares of Tesla.
		I am livid over what's going on right now with these court rulings.
		The law firm trying to take $6 billion from Tesla.
		I'm super pissed off about this.
		I'm gonna lose money on that Tesla investment because they're taking the pay package from the CEO.
		If Elon Musk gets his pay package of shares, it reduces the availability of shares, increasing the value for everybody.
		I want that to happen.
		I want the CEO to be incentivized.
		I want the CEO to say, this is where I store my value and it makes me wealthy to protect that.
		Scumbags in Delaware, man.
		So I'm actually, seriously, who do I sue to get his pay package reinstated?
		Disgusting.
		Pool said in a separate post he had deleted a $25K ad campaign and noted plans for $200K in March.
		Full disclosure, I posted the image of the ad campaign that had been deleted.
		The $200K in March $100K had already been allotted, fact, for the Culture War podcast.
		Under the TimCast account, we were preparing an ad buy for $100K on Axe promoting Friday's 10AM Live Tenet Media on YouTube.
	The Culture War Podcast, which is my conversational, non-topical show.
	It is relatively topical, it's more thematic, but last week we talked about the Roman Empire, and so it's a free-form discussion on a wide range of issues and sometimes debates, as opposed to Tim Cast IRL, which is topical news commentary.
	We were gonna do a $100,000 ad spend on X. That's... We're pausing it.
	Maybe we'll put it somewhere else.
	I still... You know, look.
	I'll still probably... Like, here's the reason why I'm still doing the verified accounts.
	I do not want it to be like, I am pulling all my money because Elon.
	Ooh, how dare you?
	No, no, no.
	Here's what makes sense.
	We had verified accounts.
	We were paying for this when Elon was taking over.
	I was like, we're gonna support this.
	I respect Elon for tweeting at me saying they're gonna fix and look into it.
	I have tremendous respect.
	I am humbled that the CEO of this major tech company and one of the richest men in the world would actually take the time to address this issue to me when I don't spend anywhere near as much money on the platform.
	And so again, I tremendously respect that.
	That being said, so we'll keep the verified accounts operational, which is thousands of dollars per month.
	Seriously, it is.
	It's expensive.
	But okay.
	That matters.
	We're getting something for that.
	We're getting the functionality.
	As for the big ad buy, I just can't do it because the ad buy commitment was based on Elon defying the woke machine.
	And if the company now is bending the knee to it, I don't want to put money into that.
	We do put money on YouTube, we did for the last song, and I think it's a fair point to question that even right now.
	Um, because YouTube does have similar policies, uh, pertaining to misgendering and all that stuff.
	However, my friends, I gotta be honest with you, Twitter's policies and enforcement, it's substantially worse.
	It really is.
	Everyone wants to complain about YouTube, YouTube does strike people down.
	But there are people on X who are getting tweets removed or shadow banned when they're not even directly addressing someone.
	The issue with YouTube's rules as it pertains to misgendering, targeted misgendering, is you have to say the person's name, point to them, call them out.
	With X, they say it's the case, but there are people who are having conversations amongst themselves who are getting shadow banned for this.
	Surprisingly is worse enforcement.
	That being said, I do think it's fair to question where we spend any of our ad dollars because of this.
	When we've bought Physical Billboard, we have not had that issue.
	We've actually been able to run ads that, you know, my conversations with these physical ad buyers are like, don't know, don't care, it's a billboard, nobody comes complaining to us.
	I do think, um, I'll put it this way.
	I am neutralizing my current spending on Axe over this.
	Meaning, we may run ads.
	Just the commitment that was made because Elon Musk was defying the woke machine, I'm putting a hold on that.
	But we'll still probably buy ads in some form or other.
	In fact, I'd much prefer to buy ads on Rumble.
	And so, we'll actually look into all that.
	Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that homophobic slurs were punishable by prison after it determined homophobia was a crime.
	I got an answer for you.
	Twitter just needs to put, if you engage in criminal activities, your account may be suspended.
	Done.
	Mission accomplished.
	Poole shared a link to The Hill about a quiet update, and I showed this.
	They still have it.
	The page on the website was updated January 2024 contains a section of use of prior names and pronouns.
	The section claims that it will reduce visibility of posts that purposefully use different pronouns to address someone other than what that person uses for themselves.
	I'm livid.
	I reject this, okay?
	I absolutely reject it.
	I said, I tweeted, hateful conduct, X is the woke mind virus, I hope this gets resolved.
	Elon responded saying, fixing.
	An individual said, male and female, there are only two sexes, male and female, and no amount of gobbledygook is going to change that, and he got flagged for this.
	Eric Weinstein even came out and said, you must understand, I agree with you.
	Eric Weinstein has been very good on the issue.
	He had an interview where he was trying to be compassionate, I suppose, to the gender social argument, and it did not go off well.
	He has come out saying, no, no, no, you're right, you're right, you're right.
	I agree with you on this one.
	So I can respect that 100%.
	But you can see here these flaggings happened.
	Elon said he was fixing it.
	The question is, is he fixing that one post or is he fixing the whole thing?
	To which I responded, I should always wait because you always seem to do the right thing or try your best.
	Massive respect.
	And that's when I was like...
	It's kind of embarrassing to throw a temper tantrum on X and just be like, I am pissed off.
	You know, look, it pissed me off because Elon defies the woke machine.
	I say, I'm going to put a quarter million dollars on it.
	Not an easy thing for us to do.
	That is a lot of money.
	We may have money.
	That is a lot.
	And it's a heavy commitment.
	And then X turns around and enacts this misgendering policy.
	Yo, I argued this to Jack Dorsey five years ago.
	I can't believe it's been that long.
	It was 2019, right?
	Five years ago, I argue this.
	And it's back?
	Come on.
	You know, I was like, I'm gonna throw money down.
	It's not easy for me to do because we're holding the line.
	But this is not holding the line.
	Mad respect to Elon Musk reaching out and addressing this for sure.
	I said, actually the only platform where the owner treats you like the customer and tries to engage to make it better.
	Thank you to Elon Musk.
	I do.
	I do thank him for doing that.
	But I must stress, Rumble has a much stronger position on free speech right now.
	Even getting shut down in some countries for refusing to comply.
	It is not an easy world and I totally get that.
	When I said there's no reason of misgendering or denaming policy, Elon Musk said, I agree.
	And I respect it.
	So, look, as of right now, the challenge for everybody is... I'm gonna play... I'm gonna try to understand things from Elon's perspective.
	One.
	He can't run X 24-7.
	He sets things in place.
	He hires someone and says, do a good job.
	A lot of people were concerned.
	He's handling issues with Tesla and SpaceX as well.
	I'm also a Tesla shareholder.
	I'll tell you why.
	The value of Tesla, it's gonna go up.
	I'm not giving you financial advice, don't buy things based on what I'm saying.
	What I'm saying is, I saw the price of Tesla, I saw the ubiquity of Tesla chargers, the releasing of what they call the North American Standard, and I said, these vehicles are the best short-range vehicles.
	If you can afford it, not everybody can.
	You get a gas car, you get an electric car.
	Why?
	When we drive locally, we only drive electric, and it cuts our gas cost in half.
	Granted, I know not everybody can afford it, but Elon also reduced the cost of the vehicles.
	It cut them in half, basically, so now they're becoming more affordable.
	There are issues with security and shutdown and all that stuff, but your cheaper version of a Tesla that you can plug in at home, when we go to get groceries, when we're running errands, it's almost free.
	With the gas vehicle, you gotta fill it up and it's getting expensive.
	But for longer range trips, no question.
	The gas is where it's at.
	That being said, Tesla is greatly improving this.
	So what do I see?
	I see the value of Tesla skyrocketing.
	So what I did, well, let me see if I can actually have the date of when I bought.
	Because it was like a year ago or something like this.
	And I have been doing well, but since this insane court ruling, I'm losing money.
	Do I have the date on here?
	I'm up a decent amount of money on this, and I'm pissed off what they're doing to Elon Musk.
unidentified		It looks like... Where is this?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Wait, really?
		Oh, I might have had shares in Tesla for a long time, actually.
		Uh, how do I see this?
		I may have had like one or two or something.
		No, I don't know.
		I think it was like a year ago that I bought.
		I'm not entirely sure.
		But the reason that I buy is I look at what Elon Musk is doing and I'm like, this guy's hitting it out of the park.
		He's gonna make money.
		For that reason, this investment is good.
		A good company with good leadership.
		Then some dude sues.
		Now a judge has blocked the pay for the CEO and that puts my money at risk and now the stock is way down.
		What is the stock down?
		Let me pull this up.
		Since that stupid ruling.
		Man, it just dropped like... It's down 6% today.
		That's ridiculous, man.
		I'm annoyed.
		I mean, it's still up a couple percent, but I believe we are being held back by this.
		Anyway, look, long story short, I think Elon Musk does great work.
		I think he's a good dude.
		I think he's a smart guy.
		I think he's on the right side, and I think it's very, very difficult for him to manage all of these businesses at once.
		There's got to be a solution to the misgendering thing outside of ideology.
		I am not... Here, let me stress this point.
		You want an inversion?
		You want the conservative?
		Okay, how about this?
		Elon Musk, in state, bringing a policy, in state a policy that says, if you use a preferred pronoun, you will be banned.
		How about that?
		That would be what the right wants, right?
		If someone is male, and you call them female, if somebody is male, and they want to be called a female, and you agree with them, you will be banned.
		That's the inversion of the policy.
		Using someone's preferred pronoun if it's factually incorrect is a violation and you'll be suspended and be deranked for it.
		Why not that?
		Why not that one?
		Instead, they enforce the leftist worldview.
		That if you don't use a preferred pronoun, that makes... I'm sorry.
		I'm not even asking for either of those.
		I'm saying outright, just don't have one.
		Just say if you feel harassed, block the person.
		How about this?
		If a person engages in illegal activity, as per their locality, your account may be reduced in visibility.
		Problem solved.
		Misgendering policy removed.
		We carry on.
		You satisfy all legal requirements.
		I think that's the way it should be done.
		Well, I'm gonna leave it there.
		We got more to talk about.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
		on this channel, and I will see you all then.
		So we got a wild one.
		Libs of TikTok posting this image of a young person on TikTok.
		And they asked, would you hire this person if they showed up to an interview like this?
		Now, I don't know what the job is, but this individual apparently went in for a job interview and was surprised to find the position had already been filled.
		Now, everybody knows what that means.
		If you apply for a job and you show up for your interview and they say, the position's been filled.
		They're saying, we legally can't tell you we won't hire you, but we won't hire you.
		I wanna play this video for you guys.
		And there's nothing overtly political in it.
		But the individual, if I was gonna make a guess, is a fairly lefty, you know, non-binary type.
	I don't know for sure.
	But the piercings are a bit intense, so depending on what the job is, I can certainly understand why you would not get it.
	But, um, I'm gonna go and make some assumptions here.
	And I will fully admit to bias.
	First, I don't know who this person is.
	I don't know their politics.
	My assumption is they're probably a trans man, non-binary individual.
	They are presenting very male, but have a female vocal, uh... Well, let me play the video for you, and then we'll talk about it.
	And I'm not saying they'd be mean.
	Not at all.
	But I do think it's important that people who want to apply for jobs can hear from someone who owns a company, and I can explain my thought process on hiring people.
	Let's play the clip.
	Can we play the clip?
unidentified		On the interview I just had.
		Here's the update on the interview I just had.
		So I walk in and this older guy is at a desk and he looks me up and down and I go, hi, I'm, you know, full name.
		I'm here for the interview.
		And he goes, your full name?
		And I go, yep, that's me.
		He seemed a little disappointed for some reason, but I was trying to keep it cheerful and, you know, see if I still have my chance, I guess.
		Um, but no, it turns out all of a sudden he actually hired someone and had this whole elaborate backstory for this person that he supposedly just hired and is giving a try.
		Um, but if that elaborate, totally real person doesn't work out, guess who's getting a call?
		That's right, me.
		I'm the second choice that's totally gonna happen when this very real person doesn't work out.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, uh, the first thing I want to point out is this.
		Let me play the video for you again.
		For those that are just listening, I'm gonna have to explain it, but for those that are watching, see if you can catch this.
unidentified		Here is the update on the interview I just had.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		The individual just appeared to display some kind of tic.
		Uh, this individual, I-I believe is female, uh, and I'll explain this for a few reasons, says, here's the update on the interview I just had, and then does a, uh, de-desynchronous?
		Eye blink?
		Twitch?
		I don't know what you'd call it.
		Um, the left eye and then the right eye do like a compression, it's not a blink, but it looks...
		It doesn't look like you're well.
		You know what I mean?
		And so, right off the bat, the individual has two nose pier- uh, three nose piercings.
		One on each side, plus one in the septum.
		As well as, uh, looks like three, uh, uh, bottom lip piercings.
		As well as ear gauges.
		The individual, uh, uh, appears to ha- uh, uh, sounds to have a vocal fry.
		Which is indicative of a female, as well as prominently displayed upper teeth, which is indicative of females as well.
		You can actually notice this when you watch videos.
		I learned this in reading marketing.
		It's a great story.
		It's a picture of a smile.
		And it was for a male product.
		And apparently what had happened was the marketing guy says, I need a picture of a guy smiling.
		And they brought him a smile and he goes, that's a woman's smile.
		I said, get me a guy.
		And he said, how can you tell?
		When women smile, you can see their upper teeth.
		When men smile, you can't.
		Uh, not always, but typically when men are smiling or talking, you do not see the upper teeth.
		When women are talking, you do see the upper teeth.
		Don't ask me why.
		I'm not a scientist.
		But also, you can see the, uh, there is the, the, the bridge of the nose is more pronounced in males.
		So, here's, here's, I'm gonna make an assumption.
		This individual comes in with piercings.
		Eye twitch thing going on.
		Is presumably a non-binary individual.
		Or trans or whatever.
		And so you've got a lot of red flags going off for a business.
		I'm not saying they're legal red flags.
		I'm saying the employer probably saw this person and said, LAWSUITS!
		Stay away.
		You will get sued if you go anywhere near this person.
		And so, this is why they say, the position has been filled.
		Because it's the only legal way to stop someone from suing you.
		If somebody came here, and we've had this happen before.
		Comes to TempCast.
		And, uh, average person.
		Applying for a job, and so the way we do hiring here at TempCast is, it's quite fun.
		Most of our jobs are specialty jobs.
		We don't really hire people for, um... We don't have, like, cashier, so it's not like you show up with a resume and an interview.
		What we do is we seek out talent for the talent position we need.
		We take a look at their body of work.
		If their body of work is good, we ask them to contract for us to produce some jobs.
		And if they are good people, displaying no violent tendencies or criminal actions or anything like that or desires, and they can do the job, that may turn into a job opportunity.
		So, usually we'll say something like, We want to make a short film.
		Do you want to come and help us?
		They do.
		If it's really, really great, we'll say, would you like to do more of these?
		Because it's worked out really well.
		And if they keep doing, we'll say, how would you like a full-time salary position?
		Just work on this whenever you want.
		We don't do the, you know.
		But I'll tell you this.
		If someone showed up twitching and shaking, I might have concerns about their mental well-being and the safety of my staff.
		That being said, It's really about, can you do the job?
	And when it comes to individuals like this, you know, I don't know what the job is.
	It could have been Taco Bell.
	And so, I think this person is deserving of a job.
	I think whatever the job may be, you know, there are jobs available for this person.
	I don't think you just fire someone because you don't like the way they look or whatever.
	The concern, however, is let's talk about the practical versus the legal versus what people think they learn in school.
	And let's talk about what's legal.
	You can't fire someone or choose to not hire them because of their identity or things like that, and I don't think that's a good criteria anyway.
	We have friends of the show who are trans, post-millennial.
	There's a writer who is trans who works there.
	Clearly, that's not an issue, and there's no reason to not work with someone based on that.
	However, the question is, will these people lie and claim these things to sue you to damage your company?
	In which case, everything... You know, the whole system is busted.
	I gotta be completely honest.
	The whole system is busted.
	We put these laws in place.
	I don't think many of these laws should be in place, um, because some of them get a bit convoluted.
	But what ends up happening is everybody gets it.
	This person makes a video saying I walk in, and the guy at the desk says, you're so-and-so.
	Uh, the position's been filled.
	Have a nice day.
	Like, come on, everybody knows what happened there.
	Everybody knows.
	Everyone knows.
	The dude took one look at this individual and said, Woke leftist.
	They will sue me into oblivion.
	It's going to cause a lot of problems with the other people who work here.
	Do not hire.
	Nobody thinks that's not the case.
	Maybe there's a possibility the position really did get fired, and this person is just playing the victim.
	But I actually agree.
	They're probably right.
	They walked in, face piercings.
	Now here's the thing.
	Libs of Ticket says, would you hire this person if they showed up to an interview like this?
	Depends on the job.
	It really does.
	You show up with a septum piercing, and nose rings, and lip piercings, and your ears are gauged, and the position is, like, um, roadie for shows?
	Yeah, I don't care!
	Dude, if this person was like, I would like to set up amps and plug in guitars, I'd be like, yeah, I don't care, you could have face tattoos, you could show up just like a dragon, I don't know, you're gonna be backstage loading things, just do the job.
	But here's the other factor here.
	I bet this boss saw the piercings, heard the voice, and thought, with this person comes a whole bunch of human rights legal complaints that we cannot win.
	The only move to be made in that point is, the position has been filled.
	Because then this person can say, they didn't hire me because of this, that or otherwise, and the guy's gonna say, we had people come in for an interview already, we had the resumes, and we decided we were gonna hire this one person.
	By the time they showed up, we told them that it had been filled, we appreciated that they were coming, and they're overreacting.
	But you still gotta pay, you still gotta, it's just absolutely nuts.
	The reality is this.
	Everybody knows, but they pretend.
	And it is stupid how this system works.
	If the dude really wanted to, it would be greatly beneficial if this person walked in and said, I'm here for the job, and he says, OK, those face piercings aren't going to work here.
	You're going to piss off our customers.
	What's with the voice?
	Look, I don't think you're going to fit in with the culture here.
	I think it would be very bad for you.
	I think even if we tried to accommodate you and try to make things comfortable, other people are going to be upset, and it's going to be just a negative environment you don't want to be in.
	I don't want to put you in that position, and I don't think it's worth it for you.
	Thank you and have a good day.
	You can't say that.
	You can't tell someone that.
	You'll get sued.
	They will turn around and say, I was told explicitly because of this that or otherwise, and then you get sued.
	So they lie to you instead.
	Look, man.
	Leftist is not a protected ideology.
	Not a protected class.
	Except in Washington, D.C.
	In D.C., you can't discriminate on the basis of someone's political affiliation.
	But I think if they're a communist, you might still be able to do it.
	I think affiliation has to do with, like, political parties, but I'm not sure.
	But, uh, alas!
	You can fire someone for politics.
	And therein lies the issue.
	If we were going to hire someone who was based AF and was trans, I don't care that they're trans.
	Can they do the job?
	Certainly, Blair White is very, very successful with media, and Blair White is the token, go-to, successful, right-leaning trans individual, so Blair, we always give you a shout-out.
	Uh, there are others, but Blair being more public-facing, you know, shout out Blair, I think it's, it's, you know, it's easier than putting the spotlight on someone who may not want the spotlight on them.
	But, uh, yeah, I have no problem hiring a trans person.
	I don't care about any of that stuff.
	But when someone shows up, and they attach with them an ideology, now you have concerns.
	Are they going to try to burn my company to the ground?
	Are they going to demand higher pay than they're worth?
	Are they going to make up fake reasons?
	Are they going to falsely accuse someone of rape?
	Holy crap, it's not worth it!
	Not at all.
	So, my friend, when you show up looking like a leftist, businesses are going to run for the hills, and they're going to lie about it.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment is coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
	over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	We'll see you all then.
	It is the end of CNN.
	Their ratings have been in the gutter.
	They can barely muster up anything in the key demo, and their average viewer age is like 62 or 65 years old.
	No beef to anybody who's older, but CNN, if you're not attracting younger viewers, you will eventually cease to exist.
	And now we have this massive report.
	Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, and other big names may be on the chopping block.
	This is the end.
	A new report claims that multiple big names at CNN could be let go as the network puts financial stability over famous faces.
	The report in InTouch says Anderson Cooper, Chris Wallace, Wolf Blitzer, and Jake Tapper could all be axed as CEO Mark Thompson prepares a radical plan to cut costs.
	Quote, Anderson knows he's on the chopping block because he makes a whopping $20 million a year.
	He's already started looking for a new gig.
	Chris Wallace takes $8 million and he's, uh, $8 million and figures?
	Oh, and figures, he's likely a target too.
	There you go.
	The source said, noting with $15 million for Blitzer and $8 million for Tapper, the cuts could make a major dent in CNN's host.
unidentified		Just think about how insane this is!
unidentified		Jake Tapper, is he getting 8 million dollars?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's so wild, man.
unidentified		That's absolutely insane!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Everybody knows the focus on cutting costs.
		No one is safe.
		The report said most contracts for major CNN hosts will not expire until after the election.
		CNN is trying to keep up the news landscape and become a digital first provider.
		It makes sense for them to pursue anchors who have already established a presence there, especially if TV becomes history in their portfolio.
		I'd like to point out, the history is here before us, ladies and gentlemen.
		Look, it's podcasting right now.
		And it will change.
		And it's entirely likely that we, too, go the way of Blockbuster Video and CNN.
		And I got no beef.
		I'm not ragging on CNN for aging out, but they did fail to adapt to a market.
		And that's it.
		That's the end of it.
		Change is never easy.
		But I've been struck blah blah blah blah blah.
		Bye bye!
		Thompson sent a memo to staff about changing economics of television and the need for a more sustainable economic footing for CNN.
		Anderson Cooper's style of video doesn't work, and it won't work on the internets.
		Here's the reality.
		Anderson Cooper could succeed on YouTube because YouTube will prop him up, but you put Anderson Cooper in the fray and he will be annihilated.
		First of all, the left is not going to support him, and the right is going to prove him wrong.
		That's just it.
		CNN's had their moments.
		They've called out Democrats sometimes.
		They're trying to.
		But they struggle to crawl out of the pit they have dug for themselves under that psychotic sucker.
unidentified		Did that guy really burn that network to the ground?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He said, reality TV is the way to be.
		That's how we're gonna make money.
		Setting fire to it.
		Destroying CNN.
		It's a five-point plan, it makes sense, said sources.
		In other words, there is no plan.
		But we are really planning to make lots of plans, and rest assured, there are lots of people overseeing the plans, blah blah blah.
		I'm gonna play a video for you.
		And I wanna explain to you exactly why it is that CNN is imploding.
		Okay, Will.
		Will Ripley.
		I'm sorry.
		This is the stupidest thing.
		I'm gonna play this for you, and I want you to tell me what the story's about.
		Here we are.
		Actually, let me jump ahead, uh, so we can get to the point where Will begins talking.
		And here we go.
unidentified		It's a good time to be Taylor Swift, Sarah, but Singapore's culture minister is saying that he's bound by a non-disclosure agreement.
		Nonetheless, he is moving swiftly to deny rumors that there's this exclusive love story, $3 million per show, according to some rumors.
		Singapore's saying the actual figure, not as high as Sparks Fly, but Singapore was fearless in luring Swift, and they went into this with their eyes open, looking at Taylor's huge fan base.
		Flights to Singapore reportedly packed With Swifties this week, it's like welcome to New York in the skies.
		And this is not exactly the great war between nations, but there is some bad blood between especially Singapore's neighbors, Thailand and the Philippines, both of them saying to Taylor, you belong with me.
		But Singapore saying, shake it off, guys.
		This likely won't be Taylor's last kiss in Southeast Asia.
		Not a blank space in the house at those six sold out shows this week in Singapore.
		If you do have tickets, you are the lucky one.
		Okay, uh, that was mostly incomprehensible.
		Now, I read the news so I know what the story is basically, but let me explain to you what you just listened to.
		the concert over the weekend said they were screaming a little too loud, a 12-year-old
		girl screaming the lyrics of every song in a non-musical way, but I told him, hey,
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		this is what you came for. Okay, that was mostly incomprehensible.
		Now, I read the news so I know what the story is basically, but let me explain to you what
		you just listened to. Will Ripley.
		Holy crap.
		This is CNN, the most trusted name in news, where instead of just telling us what happened, he smiles as he reads off a list of Taylor Swift songs.
		I've never wanted to punch the screen more.
		Dude, I have no idea what the story is!
		That's so annoying.
		Bye-bye CNN!
		Fire all these- Look, he's so happy!
		He's like, ahh!
		Dude!
		Okay.
		The general idea, I guess, is Taylor Swift got paid a lot of money to perform in Singapore.
		Other countries are upset about it?
		I think?
		I don't get it.
		Other countries are mad because they couldn't afford it or they bid too much?
		I don't know.
		Will Ripley at CNN could have come out and said, if this is the story.
		Hey, you can still say bad blood, right?
		between various Pacific Island nations after paying Taylor Swift reported $3 million for her
		show, her heiress tour in the area. This was outside the pay capability of other countries,
		generating bad blood. Hey, you can still say bad blood, right? These other countries are upset
		because they can't afford to pay Taylor Swift that amount and they were effectively outbid.
		Now, the reason why I don't know that makes sense is there's a lot of things they can't afford and
		I don't get it.
		What's the story, dude?
		He didn't explain it.
		He just said a whole bunch of Taylor Swift titles.
		That's what CNN is.
unidentified		Haha.
		Will Ripley, I don't know how much time you spent putting all of those song titles into your live shot, but that was incredible.
		There will be no bad blood.
		Fifteen.
		Fifteen Taylor Swift puns.
		I heard every single one of them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I didn't.
		All I knew is, like, some of it made no sense.
		I'm assuming the things that made no sense were Taylor Swift songs.
		Not as high as Sparks Fly, but it's like, welcome to New York in the sky.
		And I'm like, what does that mean?
		Are you saying that the reported rumors of $3 million aren't really as high as that she actually got paid?
		But what does it mean not as high as Sparks Fly?
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want CNN to burn, figuratively, business-wise, because of that segment and nothing else.
		Everything they've been wrong about, everything they've lied about, is nothing compared to that ridiculous... I'm kidding.
		I'm kidding, by the way.
		But that shows you exactly what they're dealing with.
		Anderson Cooper getting fired.
		I mean, that's massive.
		And I wouldn't be surprised.
		But so be it, man.
		You expect to make money.
		Who are you targeting?
		Do you... This is... You know what, man?
		I'm just gonna say it.
		Look.
		You got a bunch of old fogies at CNN.
		Have no idea how to run a business.
		Their demographic is in their 60s.
		They are desperately trying to attract new viewers.
		So they're like, can we get Swifties to watch?
		Okay.
		It's the same mistake they made with Trump.
		When Trump was in office, they found their ratings went up when they insulted Trump.
		So they excised all of their core audience.
		It's the stupidest thing in the world.
		You know what the stupidest business decision a person could make is?
		Pandering.
		There are a lot of channels.
		I'll tell you this.
		I put out a series of tweets.
		Let me pull up my tweets.
		Because I am a Twitter troll.
		I don't care.
		I'll do whatever I want.
		I will always do whatever I want.
		And so be it!
		But I put out two tweets, which sparked hilarious reactions, and I'm very happy about the results.
		Here you go.
		Let's talk about what I do.
		Here you can see that on March 2nd, I tweeted, "'It should be illegal to not believe in God.' Followed this up about an hour later with, "'Believing in God should be illegal.'"
		Contradictory tweets.
		I've done this tons of times, where I post two things contradictory to prove a point.
		The left will only grift off of certain tweets and they'll ignore the other ones.
		Same with the right.
		However, most people who follow me, who are following me, see both and will laugh about it.
		This is the issue.
		I tweet something like, believing in God should be illegal.
		Right after I tweeted, it should be illegal to not believe in God.
		It's a contradiction.
		The point is, All these leftists are now sharing only one of these posts.
		And some, there are people who made videos being like, I can't believe Tim Pool says it should be illegal to believe in God!
		It's not even a funny joke!
		How dare he!
		And I tweeted an hour later.
		You didn't miss it.
		They're just grifting.
		This is the worst business decision you can make.
		I have an audience, so I'm going to say whatever they want to hear.
		Now, I've had numerous instances where we've lost subscribers, I've lost followers, because I've said, no, here's what I believe, don't know, don't care.
		And then people will chat and be like, Tim thinks he's right all the time.
		I'm like, well, I trusted myself enough that if the audience is mad at me, but I really do believe it, I'm going to keep saying it.
		You know why?
		The worst thing you could do is pander, and I'll tell you why.
		CNN panders to the anti-Trump crowd.
		What happens?
		People like me stop watching.
	Then Trump loses in 2020.
	And you can argue that Trump actually won.
	My point is, he's not in the White House.
	Whatever the battle was, Trump did not get the power.
	Okay?
	Now that Trump is no longer in the front of everything, CNN desperately tries to maintain that Trump narrative, but it doesn't work.
	Nobody cares anymore.
	It's not the President.
	He's just a regular guy.
	And then they started bleeding viewers.
	Why?
	Well, they'd already lost all their moderates, all their honest, rational people, and now that there's nothing to pander to, they all started leaving as well.
	I would rather have an audience of people who disagree with me periodically, tell me that I'm wrong, but watch knowing that I'm saying what I truly think and believe, despite the fact we may disagree.
	I would rather not have a group of people who think, Tim's only saying this to get views, he doesn't actually believe it, he's a liar, and then not want to follow the show.
	If I were to pander, and just, I could have just tweeted, it should be illegal to not believe in God, and say, come on, Christians, come on, conservatives, come join the show.
	What's the point of that?
	I don't actually believe that it should be illegal or illegal.
	I think God exists, but I was making a point about, you know, how people react, and how they choose to isolate their bubbles.
	Now there are two different versions of Tim Pool that exist in two different spheres.
	It's fascinating.
	Not to mention, I pointed out, I'm trying to beat Jack Posobiec in his own game, where he made the joke that we almost ended democracy on January 6th, and I was jealous, I was like, how did Jack get all that press attention?
	These people are nuts.
	Anyway, my point is this.
	CNN dug their own grave.
	So be it.
	I'm looking forward to seeing them collapse.
	There may come a time when Tim Kast no longer exists, and that's a reality.
	Because this company that we have is very heavily built upon the personality of me.
	We have other projects.
	Other things do make money.
	Kastbrew.com, for instance, sells coffee and is doing very well thanks to all of you who buy it.
	And we sponsor...
	Guess who he sponsored?
	Alex Stein!
	Primetime Stein!
	He's got his own coffee blend, two times caffeine, and we sponsor his show on The Blaze.
	We're happy to do so because we're big fans.
	And, uh, you know, we're building this thing out.
	But this is, uh, this is the new world, man.
	If Anderson Cooper really wanted to succeed, he could start his own thing.
	We'll see if he ever does.
	But that's it, my friends.
	CNN.
unidentified		Bye-bye.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
		on this channel.

▲