Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 18, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:14:58

Canada AND UK Warn Of US CIVIL WAR In November If Trump Goes To Prison Or Democrats Try To SECEDE

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 Canada AND UK Warn Of US CIVIL WAR In November If Trump Goes To Prison Or Democrats Try To SECEDE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:11:52

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:31

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Become a member at TimCast.com by clicking join us to support the work we're doing and to get access to the uncensored TimCast IRL call-in show Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m.
		You don't want to miss it.
		Now, let's get into the news.
		A story that has gone particularly viral is that Canada is preparing for the U.S.
		to descend into civil war.
		Ladies and gentlemen, we're back here at TimCast with another civil war story.
		We did talk about this a little bit last night on TimCast IRL, but now there's a lot more news popping up around the prospect of a second American Civil War.
		I don't know exactly what it would look like.
		I have some ideas and some theories, but I will stress to all of you, as often as we do talk about it on this show and on TimCast IRL, which is not literally all that often, but it does come up quite a bit, It is all based on this.
		I have for you what I think six mainstream corporate press or activist outlets warning that a second civil war may be coming from different perspectives.
		First, we have Snopes trying to debunk the notion that Canada is scared of this, but Politico did report that Canada put out a research document about what to prepare for, and though they think a civil war is improbable, it is possible, and they're concerned about it.
		More importantly, however, the Telegraph says we are lurching towards a civil war, and the Financial Times suggests investors need to start preparing and thinking about what a civil war in the United States will mean for their investments.
		Oh boy!
		And then I have an activist source for you that argues it's actually the right and Donald Trump that are trying to foment civil war.
unidentified		In fact, it's already begun, they say.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now I do love this from Snopes because they're desperately trying to downplay what's actually happening.
		Canada preparing for second U.S.
		Civil War?
		There's no question mark.
		Politico has the story.
		Canada's big worry, a U.S.
		Civil War.
		Justin Trudeau probably won't ask Joe Biden if the U.S.
		is headed for a war between the states, but a report from within this government says it's time for Canada to get ready.
		I will stress, as I often do to everybody who pays attention, I do not believe a war between states makes any kind of sense.
		It made sense before we had a strong federal government.
		And the First Civil War was basically more akin to World War I, pre-industrial scale.
		World War I. It is still a bit different, but each state effectively was its own sovereign nation.
		Effectively.
		Many of them had their own currencies, but back then, they had their own banks.
		And, you know, we traded with each other, but there was a period where states had their own currencies, of course.
		They had their own police, their own jurisdictions.
		The federal government was very weak.
		So when the federal government made moves that were viewed as overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, the states basically said, to war it is.
		The story of the Civil War is particularly more complicated than that.
		Basically, southern states were concerned Abraham Lincoln was going to ban slavery, so they decided to draft their own Constitution, which allowed slavery.
		And we can get into more of the details in the first Civil War.
		First, haha.
		But this is basically states being like, look, we are sovereign states, we'll be left alone.
		Now I tell you, The interesting transformation that occurred after the US Civil War.
		They say it goes like this.
		Before the Civil War people would say the United States are.
		Meaning each state was a united, it was a plural.
		But afterwards they said the United States is.
		Meaning it's now singular.
		But the greatest example Of how you can tell that we went from a nation comprised of sovereign states to a nation with, I don't know, county jurisdictions, you can call them, is West Virginia.
		West Virginia, of course, was a part of Virginia.
		They seceded from the Union.
		West Virginia seceded from Virginia to join the Union.
		Afterwards, Virginia sued to get the territory back into Virginia, and the Supreme Court said no.
		That's right.
		What was supposed to be a sovereign state was now subjugated and denied its own territory following this conflict.
		The federal government now reigned supreme.
		That was interesting.
		Well, let's get back to the news, and I'll show you where we're at.
		What's fascinating, we talked about this last night, Canada is worried about a U.S.
		Civil War.
		But what's more interesting to me is, from the Financial Times, the sell side obviously isn't talking about a second U.S.
		Civil War, should it?
		The case for a case Oh yeah.
		They're basically saying, this is amazing.
		Investors, have you considered what a second civil war can mean for your portfolio?
		Texas is talking about launching its own stock exchange.
		I kind of feel like we're gearing up for severance.
		Now, I don't know that it is a planned thing that people intend for it to happen.
		They want it to happen.
		I'm just saying it looks like it's underway.
		Let's start here with the story from Politico Magazine.
		They say, when Justin Trudeau meets Joe Biden at the G7 Summit in Italy this week, and mind you, that already happened.
		This was a week ago.
		Trudeau will probably not ask whether the U.S.
		is at risk of erupting into a civil war in the next few years.
		Next few years?
		Some of these other sites are saying it's already happening or it's going to happen by November.
		A think tank housed within Trudeau's government is already pondering that question.
		In a spring report titled Disruptions on the Horizon, a quiet office known as Policy Horizons Canada proposed American Civil War as a scenario that Ottawa should consider preparing for.
		This hypothetical was tucked into the middle of the 37-page document, which sketched the possibility in 15 spare words.
		U.S.
		ideological divisions, democratic erosion, and domestic unrest escalate, plunging the country into civil war.
	It's an unsettling thing to find out your immediate neighbor is getting nervous about the possibility of gruesome violence in your home.
	There has been no shortage of apocalyptic forecasting about Trump-era American politics.
	Since the 2016 election, left-leaning nonprofits, political consultants, and academics have indulged in endless speculation and role-playing exercises, ostensibly to help them defend democracy.
	I love how they say that.
	In practice, much of this has amounted to self-indulgence.
	One hysterical episode in 2020 involved a war games simulation that ended with Biden and his allies encouraging the entire West Coast to secede from the Union.
	Now, I tell you this, my friends.
	They say, Tim Pool talks about civil war.
	The bots and the trolls say Tim Pool wants civil war.
	Despite the fact, I say over and over and over again, no national divorce, no civil war, none of this.
	We get libertarians that come on Tim Kester and they're like, I think a peaceful national divorce is possible.
	It is not possible.
unidentified		Impossible.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It won't happen.
		You will get some kind of regional violence, resource wars especially.
		Considering, I don't know, nuclear weapons are all over the place and people are... I mean, that could be a deterrent, I suppose, but that means new power structures will form.
		And I don't know how you handle a problem like that.
		The Policy Horizons report struck me as different.
		Not dark fan fiction from American partisans, but a sober branch of a friendly foreign government contemplating our national crack-up.
		So how seriously should people take this on the other side of the 49th parallel?
		Well, they say that it's considered to be an ultra-high-impact event, but improbable.
		They ranked it as improbable, but ultra-high-impact.
		Improbable.
		To what degree?
		Is 49% improbable?
		I'd argue, yeah, but it really depends on what you mean.
		49% is lower than chance, but still very likely to happen, right?
		Improbable.
		Does that mean 10%?
unidentified		20%?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		30%?
		5%?
		We don't know.
		I don't know what they're looking at.
		But this is what's going around now.
		I love this.
		From Snopes.
		Canada preparing for a second U.S.
		Civil War?
		They say mixture.
		Mixture.
		They literally are.
		I don't understand.
		They drafted a report in which they said, though, it's the things we need to be prepared for.
		I suppose you can say they're not preparing at all.
		They issued a report saying we should prepare for these things and they went, OK, who cares?
		I'd argue the creation of the document itself, the warning, though improbable, of a potential U.S.
		civil war is the beginning stages of their preparation, analyzing the problem.
		They say, in April 2024, the Canadian government did publish a report saying the country needed to be prepared for a potential civil war in the U.S.
		What's false?
		The document did not say any preparations were underway.
		It also describes such an event as under-anticipated and listed it alongside seven other under-anticipated disruptions and ten more probable prominent disruptions.
		Yeah, it included biological weapons and other very serious and terrifying things of which you'd probably beg for a civil war over, I don't know, like a biological weapon being released.
		Now, whether or not Canada is correct, I don't know.
		I don't care.
		But this one, this is where you start to pay attention.
		What are the investors saying?
		What are the investors doing?
		Financial Times reports the sell side obviously isn't talking about a second civil war.
		Should it?
unidentified		Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
		See you on the tour!
		Here we go!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sell-side research does the heavy lifting for investors seeking to quickly get up to speed on a whole range of issues, be it expectations for a firm's quarterly results or the forthcoming euro-clearability of Korean government bonds.
		In theory, any topic that is salience to investors and financial markets is fair game.
		But is that the only limitation?
		Does the street ever worry about looking a bit silly?
		Consider the U.S.
		election.
		Careful analysis has begun to land, picking apart the potential economic and market implications of different configurations of presidential and congressional power.
		A recent note from Goldman Sachs is a good example, concluding that, in the grand scheme of things, the election won't have a big impact either way on stocks, but that dollar and bond yields could be flung around by large tariff increases.
		It's an interesting big-picture stuff.
		Is the analysis complete?
		According to Goldman, no.
		They're right.
		We do not explicitly consider the tail risks from geopolitics.
		This sounds like an acknowledgment of tail risks that could matter to investors.
		Why exclude them?
		Maybe Goldman doesn't want to waste resources fussing on things that they strongly believe will never happen.
		Or maybe they don't want to write about things that would make them look alarmist.
		I want to stress this.
		What they're saying is, in their analysis about the election stocks and bonds, they're saying, we do not consider the tail risks from geopolitics.
		Geopolitics absolutely will play a role.
		They're not factoring that in.
		They're plugging their ears and saying, no, no, no, no, no.
		You know what I want to tell you guys?
		Optimism bias and normalcy bias.
		Normalcy biases, things like that never happen, so they can't.
		And optimism biases, no, no, that's crazy, that'll never happen.
		And that's exactly what people are doing right now.
		In about a month, we are going to find out if they are putting the frontrunner for the U.S.
		presidency in prison.
		And we know there's no crimes.
		They go on Twitter and they say, a jury of his peers have found him guilty.
		No, they didn't.
		Shut up.
		No they didn't.
		There's no argument.
		I don't care.
		You can say literally whatever you want.
		You are wrong.
		Your worldview is predicated upon garbled nonsense.
		I can argue 876 billion different ways you are a psychopath.
		Statute of limitations expired.
		Misdemeanor charge upgraded without an underlying crime known to the public.
		Spare me.
		Make any argument you want, you're not convincing anyone.
		And they're going to say, Trump supporters are insane, the jury chose.
		Well, we're not morons.
		I can only suppose that people on the right tend to be higher order thinkers than people on the left.
		People on the left will say things like, well, the jury said he's guilty, therefore he is.
		No.
		If you can't understand higher-order thinking, and you can't understand the subtleties and nuances of geopolitics, and you think, but the jury said so.
		That's low-order thinking.
		High-order thinking is like recognizing that everything exists within a system.
		And that in New York, for instance, you have individuals who ran, like Bragg, explicitly on going after Trump, Letitia James, and then they did.
		And that they changed the rules to go after Trump.
		So we don't consider that legitimate.
		Bye!
		There's no fixing that.
		Some people are just too dumb or they just don't care.
		They want to win by any means necessary.
		And here we are.
		I'm not a diehard Trump supporter.
		I am a Trump supporter.
		I do think Trump is great.
		But there are a lot of people who would support wholeheartedly the same thing in the other direction.
	That is, if Trump was president, and they were changing the rules to prosecute Democrats, there are a lot of Trump supporters that would cheer for it.
	Just like there are Democrats that cheer for it.
	Me?
	I'm a realist.
	I care about functioning governance.
	I care about what is actually happening in this country.
	And that is, I didn't vote for Trump in the first place, in 2016.
	And then throughout his first term, I was the, stop making me defend Trump guy.
	No, he did not just arbitrarily do that thing.
	No, he did not call white nationalists fine people.
	You've made that up.
	That's a lie.
	And they say, you're right-wing, you're a Trump supporter.
	I'm like, why?
	What are you talking about?
	I don't agree with him on these issues, but you're lying.
	That's where I am now.
	Barisma?
	They lied about it.
	Hunter Biden?
	They lied about it.
	They lied about the Hunter Biden laptop.
	They said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
	Then they come back and say, we're liars for saying Biden appears to have frozen on stage and Obama pulled him away.
	It appeared to have.
	It was seven seconds, seven or eight seconds.
	It's not the first time he's frozen up.
	So I find it reasonable.
	They say you lied about him pooping during D-Day.
	There is more evidence that Joe Biden pooped his pants than the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.
	I'm not saying he pooped his pants.
	I don't know!
	I have no idea.
	Maybe he did a weird squat thing that doesn't seem to make any sense and they can't explain he was trying to sit down but then decided not to.
	What?
	Or he's an 80-year-old man suffering incontinence like many 80-year-old people, that's why they sell diapers.
	But I don't know, maybe he didn't.
	I'm just saying there's more evidence he pooped his pants than there is the Hunter Biden laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.
	I try to live in a world of reason where I base my decisions off of the probability of things being true so that in the long run I have a high EV, as we call it, expected value.
	Yo, that's how I operate.
	If there's a 20% chance Biden pooped his pants, I consider that.
	Which means I'm not going to weigh it very heavily, but I don't know, maybe.
	They just lie about everything.
	This is where we are at.
	They're trying to put Trump in prison despite Trump not breaking any laws.
	But the jury of his... Get out of here.
	Misdemeanor beyond the statute of limitations.
	Even if it were true, and I don't believe it is, Trump signed a bunch of checks that proves it.
	No, it doesn't.
	It proves literally nothing.
	But unreasonable, stupid people just go, but the jury said so.
	Well, here we are.
	Financial Times says, What sort of tail risks could fall into this category?
	Concerns that a chain of events will lead to China invading Taiwan are not unheard of.
	And despite Nigel Farage getting Trump to commit to staying in NATO, fears that Putin would use the opportunity of a Republican victory to invade Estonia continue to crop up.
	No way!
	Trump wins the presidency, the war is over.
	Okay?
	I'm being a little hyperbolic there, but Putin ain't gonna be invading a NATO nation under Donald Trump.
	What likely will happen is Putin will offer a ceasefire and Trump will agree to it.
	Putin will seize the Donbass.
	He will maintain control of the Donbass region stretching down into Crimea and the war will end.
unidentified		At least I hope so.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And they say, uh, but maybe the most tale, uh, risky of all tale risks that we've heard from at least one fund manager publicly discuss is the prospect the election kicks off a second U.S.
		Civil War.
		Let's imagine you're a hungry young analyst for whom the second American Civil War is a topic you need to cover.
		How do you persuade your boss it's worth the time and reputational risk?
		Again, people don't want to say it.
		They don't want to say it because they think it sounds unreasonable.
		Don't know, don't care, shut up, and leave the room because the adults are talking.
		I have no problem suggesting that if I see the signs, the experts, and historical rhyming, I guess we can call it, things that are indicative of civil war based on what we've seen in the past, I'll put it that way, I've got no problem saying, I think it's possible we've fallen into civil war.
		But many of these people at these institutions are like, no, no, no, that's crazy.
		You can't say that.
		Why?
		Is a civil war likely in the U.S.?
		Take a look at this.
		Over the next five years, Rasmussen reports, 40% believe it is either very or somewhat likely.
		The Economist shows slightly greater, around 42%, thinking in the next 10 years it is very likely or somewhat likely.
		Now here's the fun part.
		A smaller percentage think it's not likely.
		You have roughly 35%.
		I'd say it looks about 35% saying, there we go.
		We can actually put the numbers.
		Uh, let's see.
		35% nailed it.
		Think that it is not likely.
		And then you have, we have a 29% and 14.
		29% and 14%.
unidentified		So, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, what are we looking at, 43?
		I was off by one.
		I don't know that it actually happens.
		I don't know what to tell you.
		In the Rasmussen Report, around 50%, looks like 48%, 49% believe it's unlikely.
		In the YouGov, you've got 22% not sure.
		Not sure.
		percent believe it's unlikely. In the YouGov, you've got 22 percent not sure. Not sure.
		Scary thought, isn't it?
		They say, we all know that people can answer polls weirdly and hilariously, so it's arguably
		irrelevant if Hoy Poloi report to pollsters that a civil war looks more likely than not
		over the next few years.
		That said, the prospect of an upcoming civil war does seem to worry some elites.
		You don't need to search hard to find politicians warning a civil war is a real possibility.
		They're going to mention Ray Dalio, the founder and CIO mentor of the biggest hedge fund in the world, giving out interviews saying there's a maybe 40% chance of civil war.
		That's surely going to persuade your firm that this is research clients will want to read.
		What a civil war would mean for markets.
		We at Alphaville would love to see investment banks churn out a report with that name.
		This is partly because we can laugh at them when they turn out, in retrospect, to be alarmist, but also because there shouldn't really be taboos around putting thought to and publishing tail risk scenarios.
		How about this one?
		This is from The Telegraph.
		This is from a couple weeks ago.
		The United States is lurching towards civil war.
		November's election is now a referendum on whether Trump should go to prison or the White House.
		Here we go, baby.
		Common Dream says, You know why I would tell you I think civil war is coming?
		Prominent Democrat, progressive activist personalities write things like this.
		What are Republicans doing?
		inside the government and their influence through social media to subvert fundamental
		democratic institutions.
		You know why I would tell you I think civil war is coming?
		Prominent Democrat, progressive activist personalities write things like this.
		What are Republicans doing?
		What are Republicans doing?
		Nothing.
unidentified		the next video.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Nothing?
		Meanwhile, you've got a guy who worked in the DOJ going to New York and working with Bragg, who campaigned on locking Trump up, bringing up charges that are beyond the statute of limitations, that took place after—they say Trump influenced the election, but the crime was committed after the election already happened.
		They're charging him for it.
		They went after his businesses, claiming he was fraudulently submitting financial documents, despite the fact the bank said he wasn't.
		His lender said, he did a great job, we made money.
		All of that is happening.
		Steve Bannon is going to prison.
		Peter Navarro is in prison.
		Trump's staffers are being targeted and imprisoned.
		The J6ers, some of them are in pre-trial detention now.
		One guy, for over a thousand days, pre-trial detention.
		No, no trial.
		They just, they've indefinitely detained him without cause.
		And they say, but the Republicans are doing this.
		This is a clever psychological tactic.
		They have begun to wage lawfare at every facet to destroy their enemies without this going hot.
		And their first assault, of course, is the legal system.
		Their second assault is to cover it up through the media by accusing Republicans of being the ones doing it.
		As anyone knows, Republicans are doing very little of anything.
		They can barely keep a speaker in the House.
		The New Republic.
		Are our oligarchs going to drag us into civil war?
		The billionaires who own the GOP are now actively promoting the same sort of revisionist history the Confederacy did.
		That did not go very well.
unidentified		Ha ha ha ha.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Very laughable.
		Very laughable.
		But we're here.
		We're looking at Financial Times, which I believe FT is British, isn't it?
		I could be wrong.
		I think it is.
		No, maybe not.
		I don't know.
		Let's double check.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Because we know that Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		is lurching towards a civil war.
		I don't care, you do whatever you want, okay?
		You ignore me, that's fine.
		Maybe the election happens, Trump wins, everyone claps, Biden walks up and says, you put up a heck of a fight, Donald, and I congratulate you on your victory.
		Do you really think that's gonna happen?
		Sure, I guess.
		A lot of people are moving to El Salvador.
		For real.
		You know, it's the gamble.
		I've asked this question before.
		At what point does someone flee their country?
		And with what's happened to Bannon, Navarro, Trump's CFO, Allen Weisselberg, Trump himself, Trump's lawyers in Georgia and now Wisconsin, they are criminally charging Trump's lawyers for providing legal service.
		Jenna Ellis, the spineless coward, cries on camera being like, Trump tricked me!
		That's nuts.
		I mean, some people got no spine, I guess.
		Bannon's got balls to steal.
		That dude's going to prison.
		He won't back down.
		But look what they're doing.
		Look what they're doing.
		What happens if Biden wins?
		I think a lot of people flee.
		Not to compare everything to World War II, but you know everyone does.
		But there's a good question that's brought up.
		A lot of Jews fled Germany early.
		And they made it to other countries safely.
		And many who stayed behind were summarily executed in camps.
		Why did these families decide to leave when they did?
		They started to see the signs being demonized, and they got worried and said, maybe we should leave.
		I was reading one story about how wealthy Jews who stayed behind, when it got really bad, offered to give up all of their possessions so they could leave and, like, be allowed to leave.
		Because at that point, Germany was rounding them up, and they said, wait, wait, don't take us, take our stuff, and we will peacefully go somewhere else.
		And they're like, okay.
		Because I guess the idea of being in the wilderness and living in a mud hut is better than an extermination camp.
		Now, that was an extreme circumstance.
		We didn't learn about the Holocaust until after we got there.
		There had been rumors, but that wasn't the reason for U.S.
		intervention.
		Once the U.S.
		got there, the U.S.' 's policy was document as much of this as possible to let people know, like, this is what they were doing.
		There's a lot of history that people don't like to accept for political reasons.
		Like, the nuances of the Civil War in the United States are not just like, it was slavery so we fight!
		It's like, dude, the Confederate soldiers in Virginia weren't fighting because of slavery.
		Only 5% of the South actually owned slaves.
		Slavery was a major component, but they were fighting because their homes were invaded.
		In Germany, yeah, Hitler singled out and targeted Jews, but there were also communists, Poles, gay people were all targeted as well.
		But of course, his major scapegoat, and if you ever listen to one of his speeches, that dude was bonkers.
		I think everyone knows that.
		But there were nuances there in who he targeted as well.
		So there were a lot of Polish people who were not Jewish who were put in concentration camps as well.
		These things are important to understand.
		As we're looking at what's going on today, nobody will accept it, nobody will believe it.
		Nobody wants to say that stuff will come here.
		And then it might.
		And what if it does?
		The question then is, at what point do you flee?
		It was funny because someone asked me on IRL, they're like, when was our crystal knocked?
		And I was like, the summer of love 2020.
		Come on, let's go baby!
		Come on!
		Crystal knocked, of course, that people went around smashing up Jewish-owned businesses, and they were like, what do we have?
		We had BLM going around the country in the biggest riots in 50 years, smashing and burning down businesses!
		David, uh, who was it?
		David Dorn?
	Was that his name?
	Cop got shot and killed.
	People were just destroying everything.
	There was a guy who's a firefighter and he wanted to open a sports bar.
	They ransacked it.
	He's in there crying, being interviewed, being like, they destroyed everything I've dreamed of and worked for.
	They were robbing him on camera.
	The next night, they burned his building to the ground.
	Then people say, you really think there's gonna be a civil war even with Summer of Love?
	January 6th.
	Come on.
	Dude.
	At what point?
	I gotta tell you, man.
	Those who... I know for everybody who, like, listens to all of my episodes, it's... I'll stress this to you guys.
	Not everybody who watches my show watches every single video.
	I know that.
	And so people often say, I repeat myself too much.
	And I'm like, that's because you watch every single show.
	But if I don't explain something, that means the average person will be left confused.
	So I'm gonna say this now.
	In revolutions, When you watch the Syrian Civil War, you look at the videos.
	There's a guy walking down the street carrying grocery bags.
	Rubble and gunshots.
	Rubble everywhere.
	Buildings destroyed.
	Gunshots going off.
	Even in war, people still keep living.
	That means when you get into the thick of the conflict with the real potential for civil war or something to that effect, you're still going to be living your life.
	You're still going to watch TV.
	People don't get it.
	When I was in Egypt during the second revolution, It was actually really scary.
	I was in the Hilton and reports came out that journalists were being rounded up and arrested live on TV.
	Apparently it was just Al Jazeera at the time.
	I'm not... I think it was just Al Jazeera, but it was outlets that had been sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood were getting raided by the government.
	People were watching TV as if nothing was happening.
	It's like, here's the news.
	People were going to the grocery store eating McDonald's.
	There was a revolution happening.
	APCs driving through the streets.
	People were jumping on them and riding them and screaming and cheering.
	And most people in the country were sitting in their houses being like, no idea.
	People don't understand.
	They think that when a revolution happens, everyone everywhere is running around screaming.
	When revolutions happen, 95% of the people are sitting in their houses eating stew, watching the TV, listening to the radio, reading the newspaper, talking to their friends and family.
	In fact, back in the day, many people wouldn't have even realized their government collapsed.
	They'd be out tending to the garden one day and a guy would ride up on horseback and say, I'm in charge now.
	And they'd go, whatever.
	Okay, I guess.
	So who knows?
	Who knows?
	But I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	New polling out of Iowa is tremendous for Donald Trump, leading Joe Biden by double digits.
	And this may be a predictor of what's to come in November.
	Now, FiveThirtyEight has revised their simulation model a couple times.
	About a week ago, they said Donald Trump was the favorite, switching from Biden being the favorite.
	But as of right now, it is 50-50, which I will just tell all of you suggests Joe Biden will win.
	A lot of people are very excited at the prospect of a Donald Trump victory.
	I believe that if the election were held today, Donald Trump would win.
	But I believe we are looking at a shadow campaign.
	I do not believe it's fair to say that Democrats are just sitting by, ignoring the polling, and they don't have a plan.
	I think it's fair to say that Democrats know the plan is not what they put in front of your eyes.
	Republicans consistently play this game.
	Win the argument, win the polling, and Democrats consistently play the just focus on what the rules are and win through exploitation.
	That is to say, you can call it cheating in the spirit of things, but perhaps it is just, well, I think it's fair to call it cheating, I do.
	Let me break down, I want to break down what that means.
	Let's say that, ooh, you know, there's a really great viral video where it's Speed Ice Skaters.
	And the way ice skating works is they all go slow in the beginning, slowly start speeding up, and then go really fast and try and finish the laps faster than anyone else.
	In this viral video, the Chinese team, which has two racers, right in the beginning, one of the Chinese speed skaters falls back a little bit from the crowd, giving her enough space to boost up and lap the entire group.
	She is now in first place, but drafting behind the other skiers, making it easier for her to maintain her speed without having to be, and maintain her speed in first place without being in front of the pack.
	What ends up happening is, the, I guess the raft, whatever you call it, calls final lap, and the skiers, I'm sorry, the skaters think, they think they're about to win.
	They actually have one more lap to complete.
	The Chinese racer hits first place, and the other teammate who knew the strategy keeps speeding around while all the other speed skaters stop.
	Basically, exploiting the rules.
	It's a little complicated if you don't, you need to watch the video.
	But basically, doing something that was well within the rules that broke the spirit of a race.
	What's a race?
	We go as fast as we can, we see who's the fastest.
	That's not what they did.
	The comments were divided!
	They said it was cheating!
	Others said it's strategy!
	The reality is, there's the spirit of the rules, the spirit of the game, and the actual written rules.
	And what we see with Democrats is that they don't care for what constitutes a body of people.
	They care for what is written down that you are willing to enforce against.
	Republicans operate in this world of a constitution of people.
	Democrats operate in the world of a written constitution.
	What does that mean?
	It does not mean that Democrats believe that what is written in the Constitution is how they must abide.
	It means that however they can exploit the language, you will bow to.
	Whereas Republicans operate under this premise, and the right, I would say, of what makes up the body of people and what they generally believe to be true.
	That is to say, we have a First Amendment, it's written in the Constitution, we all agree with free speech, and the Democrats go, right, except hate speech.
	And you say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Constitution says free speech, and they go, right, but hate speech is different.
	What they're doing is they're exploiting language.
	That's the game they play.
	When it comes to the elections, like in 2020, what do we see?
	Republicans say, in the spirit of an election, I will challenge you to a debate!
	I will then make arguments as to why I'm justified, and I will convince as many of you as possible to vote for me.
	I'm not gonna be wrong.
	Republicans do have lawfare, too.
	They have lawyers.
	Democrats say, yeah, I don't care what you think.
	All I gotta do is get a piece of paper.
	And it's probably the right approach.
	You know, I'll put it this way.
	When it comes to making money, there are a lot of people in this country that think making money is about getting a job.
	It's actually really simple if you break it down to its rudimentary functions.
	Making money is about convincing someone, through legal means, to hand you money.
	That's it.
	There are rich people, people who make six figures, they make 500k a year, and what do they do for society?
	Nothing.
	They convince someone with money that they have a service that's worth the money.
	And the person willfully hands the money over.
	Now, fraud is when you lie about it.
	But if you went to someone and said, oh, here we go, check this out.
	I got this cool little thing that someone sent me, right?
	It's a little me on a skateboard.
unidentified		Little bobblehead, you know, knitted thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If I said, This could be sold for a million dollars and someone bought it for a million dollars.
		There's no fraud there.
		I just convinced someone to give me the money.
		Take a look at Hunter Biden's paintings.
		The world Democrats live in is a world of exploitation.
		They stay within what is written down that they can bend and manipulate so that you, the right, will accept what they are doing.
		But long story short, getting non-citizens to vote, mass mail-in voting, ballot harvesting is cheating.
		But it's allowed.
		Is it strategy or is it cheating?
		In my view, it's cheating because we're all playing a game.
		Actually, you know what?
		I got another example for you.
		For those that are familiar with poker, you already know what I'm talking about.
		For those that don't, it's called angle shooting.
		So I'll give you an example.
		Angle shooting, and you don't need to know about what poker is, is when, in the game, you engage in a behavior that looks like you made a mistake or something, but it's not against the rules to trick the other player.
		It's frowned upon, but allowed.
		An example is, so if you've ever seen a movie with, you know, poker, you know that someone will be like, I bet $100!
		Well, one example of angle shooting is when one player is supposed to make a bet, fold, or check.
		Meaning, like, let's say you bet $10.
		This guy then goes, Uh, one example would be, he'll go, okay, and then he'll grab, instead of two $5 chips, two $25 chips, throw them in the middle and go, oh no!
		Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to put in $10, not $50!
		Aw, jeez!
		Not against the rules.
		I just made a mistake.
		Sometimes players do this to make it seem like, oh no, now I'm gonna lose, oh geez, please don't put your money in, but they're really tricking you into thinking they screwed up and now you can exploit them.
		That's how Democrats handle elections.
		That's what we are seeing with all of this.
		They're angle shooting.
		They're acting like they're playing the rules so that you agree with them, but they are violating the spirit of the game and making it unfun for everybody because they want power.
		Let me break it down.
		We'll actually get into the news now.
		The New York Post, how non-citizens are getting voter registration forms across the U.S., and how Republicans are trying to stop it.
		Welfare offices and other agencies in 49 U.S.
		states are providing voter registration forms to migrants without requiring proof of citizenship, leading Republicans and conservatives to call for swift federal action to stop the handouts.
		Every state but Arizona, which recently passed a law barring the practice on state but not federal forms, gives applicants for either welfare benefits, driver's licenses, or in some cases mail-in ballots, voter registration forms, without demanding proof of citizenship.
		So here's what happens.
		Democrats say, non-citizens can't vote, so who cares?
		Then, I don't know, a hundred thousand non-citizens all register.
		They show up, they cast ballots.
		When has there ever been an audit of the vote to check against citizenship?
		It's Trump claims.
		In 2016, there were millions of illegal immigrants who were voting, and they said, ah, he's full of it.
		There's no real check.
		They don't look up, you know, John Smith to see if he's a citizen or not.
		They just, here's the ballot, have a nice day.
		This is what Democrats do.
		It's not against the rules to hand someone a voter registration form.
		It's illegal for them to vote.
		They fill out the form, They're registered to vote.
		They still didn't vote, and they still say, yeah, but it's not... And then, if one or two vote, okay, sure, maybe we catch that.
		What about when it's a million?
		Then what?
		Check this out.
		White House announces mass amnesty plan for illegal immigrants married to U.S.
		citizens.
		It is not going to be... They're covering their bases, and people aren't paying attention.
		This story from the National Review from today.
		The Biden admin announced on Tuesday sweeping executive action to provide legal protections to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are married to US citizens.
		I called this.
		You called this.
		We all called this.
unidentified		I am not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When I say I called this, I'm not trying to say, look how smart I am.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I saw this one coming.
unidentified		We all did.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We all saw it coming.
		We all called this.
		We knew Joe Biden would begin to offer up amnesty.
		This is the plan.
		It's why they bring in millions of illegal immigrants.
		This is the play.
		Now, this is blatantly unconstitutional.
		So is DACA.
		The idea is this.
		The president is the head of the executive branch handling law enforcement.
		The president can simply say to his federal agencies that handle immigration, don't enforce it.
		Stand down.
		Stand down.
		Now, people will still break the law, but he won't enforce against it.
		He has a duty to, but the argument is, well, you know, there's a legitimate reason, and here we are.
		We are now going to see, they say, an estimated 1.1 million illegal immigrants are married to U.S.
		citizens, and Biden's new program referred to Parole in Place would benefit nearly 500,000.
		They are going to do everything in their power to bolster their numbers.
		Polls don't matter.
		Because they're not polling new migrants and illegal immigrants the same way.
		The demographics are changing.
		Ladies and gentlemen, oh boy!
		Biden to give legal status to undocumented spouses of U.S.
		citizens.
		Work visas for DACA recipients.
		Now, the first part we just read.
		The second part, work visas for DACA.
		Once again, unconstitutional.
		A violation of our laws.
		And then when Texas tries to enforce immigration, they say you're not allowed to.
		So what does that leave us?
		Illegal immigrants flood this country.
		The states are incapable or unwilling Those that do try to stop it are attacked by the federal government who will not do its job under the Constitution.
		I don't know.
		Civil War?
		How does this resolve itself?
		Do you think Texas just says, we are totally fine with having our border be overrun?
		They're clearly not.
		We're seeing what's happening.
		Will the federal government intervene to stop them?
		Will it matter?
		They're going to steal power.
		This is what they do.
		And they're doing it through strategic exploitation of the rules that are in play.
		Nobody's going to go and check.
		I'll tell you another poker angle shooting trick.
		And this is, again, what the Democrats do.
		Make this analogy.
		Especially because I love poker.
		Y'all know it.
		Y'all know it.
		When you're playing at a table with poker, and there's like eight, maybe nine people, depends on the kind of table you're at, it comes down to two people that are playing against each other.
		They call it heads up, head to head, right?
		You both are looking at your cards.
		You're trying to get the best hand.
		There have been many instances.
		I've witnessed this.
		It's amazing.
		Most of you probably know the basics.
		A straight is five cards in a sequence.
		So, it's a pretty good hand.
		Then there's two pair.
		That's when you have, maybe in your hand you have like Ace-King, and the five cards on the board is also an Ace-King, so your hand is two pairs.
		I was at the casino, and this guy made a bet.
	The other guy called the bet, showdown.
	One guy goes straight.
	Without showing his cards, and the other guy goes, and throws his cards into the muck, it's called.
	The dealer takes the two cards and shuffles them away into the garbage.
	The guy who said straight then flips over a hand that was not in fact a straight, and he goes, four cards at least!
	He had nothing, absolutely nothing.
	The other dude immediately loses, said, I had two pair!
	I won!
	And they're like, you threw your cards away, you lose.
	And he's like, you lied!
	Welcome to the poker table.
	And the old guy started chuckling and laughing with his big old beer belly as he shoveled all of the money into his stack.
	And he was like, there's a lesson for you, kid.
	The kid got super pissed, threw his money, and got up and left.
	It's a trick.
	Everybody says, you wait until the cards are flipped because these people will lie, cheat, and steal to take your money.
	Welcome to the real world, kid.
	He had the winning hand, but the dude lied about what was in his hand.
	This is the game being played by Democrats right now.
	They're going to let illegal immigrants vote.
	There will be no challenge to who these voters are.
	This is why I use that analogy.
	You're going to have Republicans... Let's say Republicans have 100 votes.
	Democrats, in the end, they'll say 110.
	Democrats will then look at the Republicans and say, 110.
	Republicans will go, ugh, you got me.
	Throw their cards away, and then Democrats will flip over to reveal, oops, 20 of these were actually non-citizens who illegally voted.
	We win anyway.
	My point is, no one's gonna check.
	They're gonna, let me pull this up right here.
	HAVV, you guys remember this one?
	The Help America Vote Verification System?
	Let's pull up, here we go, June 1st, 2024.
	What do we have here?
	Pennsylvania.
	104,000.
	That's fascinating.
	87 of them were dead.
	Single match found alive.
	We have 97,563.
	What is this?
	What is this?
	Here we go.
	6,500 non-matches.
	What?
	How does that make sense?
	Let me explain to you, for those that don't know what HAVV is.
	It's Help America Vote Verification.
	I'll tell you what it's supposed to be.
	This is a system by which, when someone tries to register to vote, if they do not have a license or ID, they can put down their Social Security number.
	The form is then submitted to the DMV, or Motor Vehicle Administration, whatever you call it, MVA, DMV.
	They then take those forms, and if there's no ID, ask the Social Security Administration if the number exists matching the name.
	The SSA then logs how many they get.
	In one week, Pennsylvania got 104,250 voter registration attempts with no ID.
	6,582 did not match a social security number.
	So who tried registering to vote without a social security number?
	Let me stress that again.
	6,582 people in one week who don't have social security numbers tried to register.
	Who are these people?
	The dead ones I get.
	Let's play the game.
	H-A-V-V says, and this has been an ongoing scandal that's never been addressed.
	What is HAVV?
	They outright say that states are required to verify the driver's license number against the MVA database only in situations where no driver's license exists.
	May the state verify the last four digits of the Social Security number.
	The state submits the last four SSN name, date of birth, the MVA for verification with the Social Security Administration.
	In addition, SSA is required to report whether the person is deceased.
	Only in situations where no license exists may the state verify.
	They say the state must submit the applicant's name, date of birth, last four.
	So they outright, they say, when an applicant for voter registration does not have a driver's license, the state may request a verification.
	Nowhere does it say they are allowed to do voter roll cleanup with old registration forms, which they've archived, and existing people in their database to SSA for voter roll cleanup.
	Many have argued the number is... it must be so high because they're cleaning up their voter rolls.
	Okay.
	Let's play this game.
	Pennsylvania, one of the most important states, 6,582 people did not match the SSA database.
	That would imply these people don't have social security numbers.
	So people without social security numbers, 6,500 in one week tried to register to vote.
	I got some questions here.
	Now let's play this game.
	No, no, Pennsylvania is simply doing voter roll cleanup.
	They're doing voter roll cleanup?
	That means, on their voter rolls, there were 6,582 people who were registered to vote who didn't have IDs and didn't have social security numbers?
	That's even crazier!
	I don't buy it.
	So the question is, why are there 100,000 people who had IDs trying to register to vote?
	We don't know.
	Now when you get a work permit you get a tax ID number, you get what's effectively a social security number.
	The fear here that these people are non-citizens being registered to vote through federal programs.
	West Virginia sued saying we will not accept registrations in West Virginia from people who are registered by the federal government because that's what Biden's been doing since 2021.
	since 2021.
	203,000 is the total number.
	Missouri had 19,000.
	1,654.
	1,654 didn't match.
	Makes no sense.
	Take a look at Maryland.
	2,618 attempted registrations.
	2,534 had no match.
	Who are these people trying to register to vote who aren't in the Social Security Administration's database?
	And who's paying attention to it?
	Illinois had 9,000.
	Same problem.
	1,392 didn't match.
	Georgia with 6,000.
	What is this?
	Arizona with 29,000.
	I gotta tell you, the big concern here is that there is an unprecedented attempt to register illegal immigrants or even just, you know, permanent residents who have no right to vote so that Democrats can win.
	I have no idea.
	We don't know exactly what is going on.
	What we can say is this has never been answered for.
	It's never been accounted for.
	We can jump back.
	Let's go to, let's go to, not the 18th, let's go to May 4th.
	I want to, because Texas's numbers have always been wild.
	Texas that week only had 7,000, but take a look at this.
	North Carolina with 74,000.
	Very interesting.
	Here's Missouri with 68,000.
	4,000 didn't register and 419 were dead.
	Missouri said it's voter roll cleanup.
	Well, first, perhaps.
	But that would mean they're exploiting the game.
	H-A-V-V is not supposed to be used in this way.
	It says it on their own website.
	Okay.
	It's not against the rules.
	It's just not explicitly stated, sort of.
	So, they're just doing it.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	Exploitation and angle shooting.
	Who's doing this and why?
	Now I don't buy it for a second.
	Why?
	How would it be possible that there are 4,107 people registered to vote in Missouri who don't have IDs and are not in the SSA database?
	I don't buy it.
	What does make sense is 4,107 people tried to register to vote for the first time without an ID and they are not in the SSA database.
	Now to be fair, now to be fair, It's important to mention that some of these may be that they wrote the number down wrong.
	Their date of birth was inputted wrong, and so non-matches could come back because someone made a mistake.
	I do not believe that we are really seeing 8% of these applications people typo-ing their names or numbers.
	Take a look at this.
	In North Carolina with 74,000 registrations, 30,000 came back with no match.
	Bull-ish.
	I do not believe for a second 30,000, 31,000 people accidentally wrote down the wrong number.
	Who are these 30,000 people with no ID and no social security number?
	I want to know!
	We're not getting answers.
	I think the Republicans need to be investigating this.
	They ain't doing it.
	So, my friends, good luck.
	People think Trump is going to win.
	They're excited for Trump going to win, but if you're not paying attention to what the game actually is, then you lose.
	I think we need to call on Republicans to get answers for this.
	Because if we don't, you may end up with a million-plus illegal immigrants voting, and no one is going to check.
	Because it's so granular and so massive.
	How would you do it?
	I say this.
	Good luck.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	This is a perfect example of the game played by the corporate press.
	A story that claims YouTube algorithm more likely to recommend users right-wing and religious content research finds.
	What they do is, they set up a game to destroy you, then lie about it to the public to make it seem like you are the beneficiary of their scheme.
	The reality is this.
	Right-wing content is being shuffled, funneled, tiny-roomed, shadow-banned, etc.
	They then claim, because YouTube is trying to silence people on the right, actually they're helping the right.
	Why?
	Because they're funneling everyone to Fox News.
	This is the game.
	Let me read this for you and break down how they lie to you.
	NBC News reports.
	YouTube has a pattern of recommending right-leaning and Christian videos even to users who haven't previously interacted with that kind of content, according to a recent study of the platform's suggestions to users.
	The four-part research project, conducted by a London-based non-profit organization that researches extremism, called the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
	Oh boy, here we go.
	Explored Video Recommendations served two accounts designed to mimic users interested in four topic areas.
	Gaming, male lifestyle gurus, mommy vloggers, and Spanish language news.
unidentified		Quote.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We wanted to, for the most part, look at topics that don't generally direct people into extremist worlds or anything along those lines.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Said Aof Gallagher.
unidentified		Aofi?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How do you pronounce that?
		The project's lead analyst.
		Researchers created accounts and built mock user personas by searching for content, subscribing to channels, and watching videos using those accounts.
		After having built personas for five days, researchers recorded the video recommendations displayed on each account's homepage for a month.
		The study noted that YouTube's recommendation algorithm drives 70% of all video views.
		That is true.
		In one investigation, the most frequent recommended news channel for both child and adult accounts interested in male lifestyle guru content was Fox News, even though neither account had watched Fox News during the Persona building stage.
		Instead, the accounts watched Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and searched for the term alpha male.
		Quote, this suggests that YouTube associated male lifestyle videos and creators with conservative topics, the study said.
		Wrong.
		This is the lie.
		I'll come back to this in a second.
		They say in another experiment, researchers created two accounts interested in mommy vloggers, mothers who make video diaries about parenting, that they trained to have different political biases.
		One of the accounts watched Fox News, and the others watched MSNBC.
		Despite having watched their respective channels for equal amounts of time, the right-wing account was far later more frequently recommended Fox News than the left-wing account was recommended MSNBC.
		A MommyVlogger account that the left-leaning user had already subscribed to was the most recommended channel.
		These results suggest that right-leaning news content is more frequently recommended than left-leaning.
		The study said, both accounts were also recommended videos by an anti-vaccine influencer, so that seems to be neutral.
		Alright, let me break down how they lied to you.
		It's actually quite simple.
		Individuals who had watched Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, two channels that cover cultural and news topics, Joe Rogan more so than Jordan Peterson, were recommended Fox News.
		What is actually going on?
		Several years ago, There was a report put out, this is around 2018, called the Alternative Influencer Network.
		It was a fabrication.
		A woman had grossly misinterpreted data to smear people, falsely accusing people like Chris Ray Gunn, who was a video game vlogger, and like comedy content, of having collaborated directly with Richard Spencer, the most prominent white nationalist at the time.
		These men had never met, and were so far apart it made literally no sense.
		Following this, the YouTube algorithm changed.
		All of a sudden, anybody listening to this report saw their recommendations drop massively.
		These videos were doing really well.
		People were making content that wasn't white nationalist or anything.
		I mean, my content, for instance, was just general news.
		My recommendations dropped as well.
		What people saw instead?
		They stopped recommending my videos and started recommending Fox News.
		They stopped recommending Joe Rogan, they started recommending Fox News.
		They stopped recommending Chris Ragon, they started recommending Fox News.
		What was actually happening was the shuffling of people away from one group, one network, into a controlled corporate press narrative.
		Fox News.
		We call this the pressure release valve model.
		Nothing I want to say.
		But when the mommy vlogger, two of them, watched Fox News or MSNBC, the one that watched MSNBC did not get recommended MSNBC all that often.
		Why?
		This is exactly what's happening.
		If you are... When we saw this shift, what did we see?
		If you're the Young Turks, if you're David Pakman or Kyle Kulinski, they were not affected at all.
		Their approach to the news was mainstream media acceptable and did not defy the narratives from MSNBC.
		So it doesn't matter if it's MSNBC or any other channel that shares that political worldview.
		They weren't being censored.
		The censorship was only on the right, which meant, if you watch TimCast IRL, fact, they were telling you to watch Fox News instead.
		Why?
		Well, Fox News follows a conservative but still corporate line.
		Many people on the right are not fans of Fox News and haven't watched since Tucker Carlson left the network, and many even before that.
		You'd go onto YouTube, you'd watch TimCast IRL, real, long conversations with news articles, NewsGuard-certified New York Times, and we'd criticize them, we'd fact-check them.
		And they started recommending anyone who watched our videos to go watch Fox News instead.
		Yet if you watch David Pakman, they recommend more Pakman to you.
		They recommend more Young Turks to you.
		They allow the independent left voices to maintain their presence and grow.
		Now they lie.
		Twisting what is actually happening to make it seem like, but Fox News is getting recommended!
		Oh, how dare they?
		What YouTube is actually doing is making sure they silo all of us.
		It's called the tiny room shadow ban technique.
		You make sure that these people can only stay in this one place, and if you're in this one place, you might get recommended this content, but what do they do?
		They recommend Fox News.
	That's the only exit.
	The more of these videos you watch, the more you'll be recommended Fox News and be pulled away from that room.
	Tiny room basically means, if you watch my videos, you might see them recommended, but any new user comes to YouTube will not see my videos recommended.
	They'll see Fox News.
	This is the corporate press trying to control the narratives that exist in the mainstream.
	They don't want to ban channels like mine outright, or Crowder for instance.
	That would create a big splash, and generate a lot of attention, which would bolster these channels.
	They put you in a tiny room, and they slowly pull people away by recommending only Fox News, the approved conservative narrative.
	They're going to say Jeff Daniels, Jesse Daniels, sorry, A professor of sociology at Hunter College, part of the City University of New York, and the author of a 2018 article titled, The Algorithmic Rise of the Alt-Right.
	So the project's main findings were in line with her previous research.
	She's examined the rise of the internet in the 1990s, and how the far right saw an opening to share its beliefs with larger audiences by bypassing traditional media gatekeepers.
	The same is true for the left.
	YouTube doesn't seem to have a problem with that.
	Daniel said she believes the findings suggest that YouTube has made continued engagement and profits its top priorities rather than concerns around reinforcing existing political biases or echo chambers.
	Videos with religious themes, primarily Christianity, were also recommended to all the accounts even though none of them had watched religious content during the persona building stage.
	The account interested in mommy vloggers, for example, were shown videos with Bible verses.
	Why?
	This country is majority Christian and those videos overlap.
	That's it.
	Liberals are less likely to have kids.
	That means they're less likely to be watching children's videos.
	And so, mommy vloggers are going to more likely be conservative because conservatives have kids.
	The researchers also found that YouTube recommended videos including sexually explicit content to the child accounts and videos featuring influencer Andrew Tate.
	Uh, even though he is banned from the platform.
	This is a general AI algorithmic issue that affects everything, and they had no reason to single out Andrew Tate for this.
	Heading into the years, presidential race concerns about the spread of election misinformation on social media are only growing.
	In 2022, a study by researchers at NYU found that after the last presidential election, YouTube recommended videos that pushed voter fraud claims to Trump supporters.
	One of the main issues that we're seeing is polarization across society, and I think that social media is contributing an awful lot to that kind of polarization.
	This isn't the first time YouTube has faced scrutiny for its algorithm.
	Researchers have repeatedly found that YouTube has recommended extremist and conspiracy theory videos to users.
	The problem?
	What does the media think is a conspiracy theory?
	The Hunter Biden laptop story was not Russian disinformation.
	That's a lie.
	It's actually his laptop.
	They said anyone who believed it was a conspiracy theorist.
	COVID origins.
	Lab leak.
	They said you were a conspiracy theorist.
	The media lies.
	All.
	The.
	Time.
	As they're doing right now.
	Let's see who wrote this.
	This is NBC News' Victoria Fang.
	NBC News is notorious for writing fake news.
	They are a captured institution.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	They go on to say, This isn't the first time YouTube has faced scrutiny for
	its algorithm.
	Researchers have repeatedly found that YouTube has recommended extremist and conspiracy theory videos to users.
	We welcome research on our recommendation system, but it's difficult to draw conclusions
	based on the test accounts created by the researchers, which may not be consistent with the behavior of real
	people.
	That's true.
	YouTube said, YouTube's system is trained to raise high-quality content
	on the homepage, in search results,
	and the Watch Next panel for viewers of all ages across the platform.
	We continue to invest significantly in the policies, products, and practices to protect people from harmful content.
	Their goal here with this article is to create mainstream pressure on YouTube to force YouTube to push more leftist content.
	The reality is, a researcher around eight or so years ago put together this big map that proved left-wing content was recommended more than right-wing content.
	Viewers of right-wing content are more likely to be recommended centrist and left-wing content than any other way.
	This means that if you watch a right-wing video, over a long enough period of time, you will be recommended more and more left-wing content, and you eventually might find yourself watching I don't know.
	The Young Turks or Jimmy Kimmel.
	That's true.
	This?
	It's a lie.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	Mark Cuban, always sparking controversy on X, said, I won't vote for anyone that doesn't believe climate change is real.
	Which leaves us with two scenarios.
	Mark Cuban is evil, believes climate change is real, and is doing everything in his power to destroy the planet.
	Or, he's lying, he doesn't actually think climate change is real, and he's gonna enjoy his ocean view property.
	A lot of people pointing out that there were a few big stories.
	One, he has a private jet collection.
	And that he also recently bought in Laguna Beach ocean view property.
	I mean, it's ocean front-ish.
	They say it's on the beach, but he says not really.
	It's got a good view.
	I'm gonna lay it down and make it simple for you, okay?
	So I tweeted in response to this.
	Mark Cuban said, I won't vote for anyone that doesn't believe climate change is real.
	And I said, I don't listen to anyone who claims climate change is real but owns oceanfront properties that by their explanation would be underwater in 20 years.
	And so, let's break this down.
	I got a map for you.
	First, we have this from Medium.
	Now, of course, X is filled with many low-cognition people.
	I am not saying I don't believe in climate change.
	I absolutely believe in climate change.
	I believe there are many contributing factors to climate change.
	in front property in Laguna Beach that he plans on using as a vacation home.
	Now of course, X is filled with many low cognition people.
	I am not saying I don't believe in climate change.
	I absolutely believe in climate change.
	I believe there are many contributing factors to climate change.
	I've read quite a bit about it.
	There's a big debate as to whether humans are the sole driver of it, a moderate driver of it, a small contributor, or not at all.
	Many people talk about ocean emission levels for CO2 are massive, substantially more than humans, but I do believe it's fair to say humans are dramatically altering the landscape of this planet.
	What that means, I can't tell you because vague predictions.
	We don't know.
	The garbage in the Pacific Ocean's a bad thing, microplastics everywhere is a bad thing, but we are seeing bacteria evolve that eats the plastics, so it's hard to know what this becomes.
	I don't think pollution's a good thing.
	I'm concerned about colony collapse disorder among bees, dead zones in the ocean where there's no oxygen, and of course, windshield phenomenon, where people are noticing the bug population's collapsing.
	It's concerning.
	That's the bottom of the food chain for us here on the surface, and it could lead to catastrophe for humans.
	Now, what do we do about that?
	Honestly, I can't tell you.
	I mean, we don't know.
	Let me break this down.
	I said I don't listen to people who claim climate change is real but only own oceanfront properties.
	I am not directly saying Mark Cuban, but there are many people who do own oceanfront properties, literally, on the beach that will be underwater.
	Barack Obama's property, Martha's Vineyard, will lose a ton of its value and submerge over the next couple of years.
	Now they say by 2050, NASA says it could be about an inch, I'm sorry, a foot, up to 12 inches.
	And there's other estimates that it could be way lower than that.
	I don't know.
	We'll see.
	But if you're gonna come to me and say, we gotta do something about climate change, I'll say, okay, what can we do?
	And they go, you gotta stop flying on planes.
	You gotta stop driving so much.
	Get an electric car.
	I'll be like, Okay, great, what are you gonna do?
	And they're gonna say, me?
	I don't know, I got a bunch of private jets, a massive yacht, a beachfront property.
	And I'm just like, okay, dude, you're lying to me, alright?
	The dude's sitting there, shoveling down a big ol' pile of nachos while claiming nachos kill people.
	I'm not gonna listen to you, dude.
	Like, if you come to me and you say, you can't eat seed oils because seed oils are bad for you, and then you're sneaking Big Macs, I'm gonna be like, my friend, I don't know how much I'm interested in believing you, you don't actually think it's that big of a deal.
	Luke.
	I'm just picking on Luke.
	But no, I mean, seriously.
	I get it.
	You know, you might say, hey, don't eat this food, it's bad, and then someone eats it, and it's like, do as I say, not as I do.
	Sure, seed oils can be bad for you, but it's hard to avoid all the time, and sometimes you have some seed oils.
	I don't get this idea where it's like, quick, climate change!
	We gotta stop it!
	And then it's just like, simple flying, inside Mark Cuban's private jet collection.
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is from seven months ago.
		Mark Cuban is a huge fan of his aircraft collection?
		Are you kidding me?
		He owns two.
		He's got a 757 and a Gulfstream G550.
		Look at this, man.
		Now, my friends, you guys know I am a flyer of the PJs.
		Many a controversy has emerged over my flying on private jets.
		Spare me, dude.
		There was this big thing that happened where Patrick Bette David, Valuetainment, reached out to my team asking me to do the Cuomo debate.
		And my team said, it was Saturday morning, and they're like, Tim's doing the show Friday night, so he can't fly.
		There's no way he can make it.
		And they were like, what about Saturday evening?
		And my team was also like, that's still, like, incredibly tight.
		And so my PR person said, is a private jet an option?
		Because if it is, then he can make it.
		And they said, yeah, I don't know if we can do that.
		They said, okay, well, thank you anyway.
		They got so bent out of shape over there.
		I was like, dude.
		We have been flown for big events, like I've been flown on private jets.
		We've booked private jets.
		From here to New York, round trip is $13,000.
		If we have nine people, and we're gonna spend $13,000 to $15,000 round trip, we can leave whenever we want, no security, we get there, we get the job done, we do the show, that's what we did.
		It makes sense.
		Like, this is a big show.
		We're putting on an event in New York that costs $200,000.
		We have, you know, I don't know, $50,000 in ticket sales, plus sponsorships.
		Yet, we're not going to waste a day dealing with commercial travel for an entire crew when it's like, effectively, nine people, like, I think it was seven or eight people we had, and the cost was $13,000 round trip.
		And it's like, you do it.
		It's like, we're gonna fly commercial, it's gonna waste way more time
		and cost about the same thing.
		Don't get me wrong, if you're gonna fly private coast to coast, it could be $100,000 or more.
		You wanna fly to like Florida, it could be like 30 grand.
		So yeah, that's when things are getting like really pricey.
		But if you're a company that has eight or nine employees flying on a single flight,
		you're looking at four to $5,000 if they're all traveling.
		So, for twice the cost of the plane tickets, you don't got to deal with security.
		You can travel at any time you want.
		You land right where you need to land in the small airport with a car waiting for you.
		Sometimes it makes sense.
		Now, so I get that.
		I get that.
		But the planes we fly on, I'm telling you, they're like turboprop, small, junk planes, no bathrooms.
unidentified		Alright?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's private flight.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Dude, a Gulfstream.
unidentified		Whew!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's some amazing stuff right there.
		And then he's got a 757.
		Y'all have been on a 757.
		You probably got a bedroom in a plane like that.
		Bro.
		I gotta say.
		I don't know why you need two private jets like this.
		He got it.
		The Mavericks Boeing.
		Okay, so it's the Mavericks jet.
		But I get it, I get it.
		Your entire team and your staff, you're gonna fly them on a private jet.
		I just gotta tell you, man.
		We get it.
		I get it.
		I ain't gonna come down on you because you wanna put your team on one plane and fly them where they need to go.
		Makes sense.
		They gotta fly in for a game.
		They gotta fly out to the next city for a game.
		They gotta fly to the next city.
		And you don't wanna wait.
		You can't have them all going through security.
		It would take too long.
		They're gonna be uncomfortable.
		They're athletes.
		They need to be sleeping well.
		Totally get it.
		But don't come to me and preach about climate change and tell me what I gotta do and vote for a president who's gonna cut back on my rights because you think you're special and you get to fly in your own private jet.
		Okay?
		I ain't gonna rag on a guy who's got a private jet who needs to use one for whatever he wants.
		I don't care if he has a private jet.
		I care that he has private jets, oceanfront property, and a yacht while he's ragging on the rest of us talking about climate change.
		Get outta here, dude!
		I got it right for ya!
		There's Laguna Beach!
		Let's zoom in on the beautiful Laguna Beach.
		I have here the Sea Level Rise viewer from NOAA.
		So, in the next 20 years, we're talking about... I mean, look at the impacted areas.
		It's crazy.
		Massive impacted area.
		But, for the most part, his property's probably fine.
		I don't know exactly where his property is.
		He says it's not beachfront, but it's got a great view.
		It's probably up high, then.
		See?
		Homie's probably planning for this.
		You raise the water by 10 feet, and you can see what gets wiped out.
		Laguna Beach actually ain't that bad.
		Now, the bigger issue is high-tide flooding.
		Basically, everything is going to be impacted by high tide flooding where he is.
		Now, I will say this.
		I'm not here to single out Mark Cuban specifically on the properties.
		Look at this.
		You see this line where they indicate sea level rise is going to have a big impact?
		Miami's totally wiped out.
		I'm not here to say Mark Cuban specifically.
		I'm here to point out the individuals who talk about climate change and then they buy beachfront property that is specifically at risk.
		Here's Martha's Vineyard.
		We've done this one several times.
		Okay?
		Obama bought Martha's Vineyard properties, which are going to experience severe damage.
		I mean, look at this.
		By 2 feet, the whole area is now dealing with massive flooding and sea level rise.
		So we're talking, in the next 50-200 years, by certain estimates, it could maybe get that high.
	I gotta ask why they include up to 10 feet.
	That wipes everything out.
	10 feet of water is nuts.
	I don't really think that's a reality here.
	I just think they're full of it.
	I think they're lying.
	I don't trust them.
	With one foot sea level rise, Miami is basically wiped out.
	Look at this.
	One foot, and look at all this damage you get to Miami Beach.
	Massive.
	Two feet.
	They're still buying it.
	All this right here is flooded at one foot.
	So we're talking, we're talking in 20 years, you've got massive damage all over the place in Miami.
	Look at this.
	All wiped out.
	Flooded completely.
	I don't buy it, man.
	You click high tide flooding, It's like everything!
	People want to live... Look at this.
	Wow, that's massive.
	Key West is gone.
	So the people who are buying properties here, and I'm not blaming all of them, I'm just saying don't come to me and complain about climate change when you actually don't care about it.
	But as for Mark Cuban, you got no ground to stand on talking about climate change flying around in private jets.
	That's just it.
	Get a tour bus.
	Oh, we can't do it.
	Okay, I don't care if you can or can't do it.
	You can't have it both ways.
	You can't be like, but our basketball team needs to fly around.
	It's their business.
	Okay, well then you are actively saying you're burning the planet to the ground for your business.
	Scumbaggery.
	Spare me, dude.
	And all the rest can, too.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
	over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲