Everybody is freaking out freelance writers scramble to make sense of New California law, a law that was proposed, pushed by a Democrat and signed into law. By a Democrat, the goal be to protect union jobs in the newsroom and to protect the gig economy workers, but in turn it may have affected Lee ended freelance journalism, as we know it. This individual, the woman who wrote this bill, wanted to incentivize newsrooms to hire on staff instead of just bring on cheap freelancers gig economy, essentially and then firing their union staff. Well, they don't realize is that technology she has changed and the value of an article has diminished. Newsrooms are laying people off shutting down. Yesterday I reported on Huffington Post being put up for sale. Vice news merging with vice land. It is the end of an era. These companies are collapsing and some of them only get by because they're willing to hire people who work

freelance and many of these freelancers work very very hard to make a living. The law sets a limit on Mount of articles of freelancer can write two hundred and thirty five, and they believed that incentivize. The newsroom to hire them no, it will probably incentivize newsrooms not to hire anybody at all. Now I covered this yesterday, but there has been a dramatic esque. There are now journalists on twitter going after this Democrat, who insists they must protect unions and preventing in busting. But in the end I believe this may be one of the greatest strikes against the news industry and pass Probably the most blatant sign at the news industry is on the verge of collapse. Seven thousand two hundred layoffs this year so far in news media, and now this bill sending journalists into a panic.

There's a lot to go through I'll start with a little bit about the Hollywood reporter and how people are freaking out. But I want to show you a ton of the comments made by these journalists to the Democrat and why they're angry at their not being listened to before we get started head over to timcast dot com, slash on it. If you'd like to support my work, there's a Paypal option in Crypto option a physical address, but the best thing you can do share this video, I'm competing with the likes of CNN Msnbc, Fox NEWS. It's that are up and I certainly don't have a marketing budget. The only way I can grow and do more, is, if you share this video it wherever you think it should be shared. But let's read from the Hollywood reporter everybody is freaking out, freelance writers scramble to make sense of New California law. Now I know I covered this yesterday, my second channel, I will be brief and move on to the crux of the escalation. A new bill that caps freelance submissions may make writing financially unsustainable for many worker.

Even though the legislator behind the law, insists that the goal is to create new good jobs and a level sustainable wage job. Now this has sparked an ongoing controversy. The bill was meant to protect, get a condom it workers like uber and lift drivers. It was something called the dynamax decision which that restrictions on what makes someone employee versus a gig economy worker. In it there was an exception freelancers. You can be a for answer, but if you're right more than thirty five articles in a year, you must stop. The idea was that weekly columnists working part time should be hired on full time. But here is something important right away. If I'm, if I'm hiring somebody or I'm sorry, if I want a weekly column, that means one day where you write an article, I'm not going to pay you Monday through Saturday, just so that you can work on Sunday now throughout the week. You may do some work in writing your column and just investigation and stuff, but it's certainly not a full time gig. It is just paying someone for a product.

What's interesting about this law, is that it's trying to determine two things which I believe are unconstitutional telling someone? They can't freely trade, a good, putting a hard restriction on the amount of those goods they can choose to sell right. First, if I created- and I want to sell that- to accompany how Can you say I can only sell thirty five per year? It's my it's my product. I can sell it to who I see. However, I see fit. Secondly, though, it's probably a violation of first amendment telling a news organization, a journalist, freelancer otherwise, and the organization itself. You cannot say a certain amount of things. I don't think that will pass muster and I think it will eventually fall apart, but in the end I should say the time being it means that journalists are in serious trouble because already, although the law hasn't gotten gone into, affect many people are on

already losing their freelance gigs. That means that people may be expecting to bring a thousand two thousand dollars this month or just told straight up we're letting you go. So, let's start with some of these tweets- and I do have a lot to get into because we're going to talk about the general demise of media, but first some of the criticism one twitter account. I'm sorry, this tweet shows you the kind of precarious situation. Back in July, someone tweeted disappointed to see freelance writers exempted from eighty five as layoffs in the news industry occur. More and more publishers are switching to freelancers as cheaper labor to sustain their business. This individual was actually angry say that these news rooms are laying people off and they're hiring cheap labor to replace them. You should not exempt freelancers, they should not be allowed to do this. The lawmaker is L'Arena Gonzalas, a progressive Democrat in California. She said it's not a full exemption. We tried to balance the ability of workers to submit freelance work with protecting newsroom jobs. This woman respond

Would you be able to quickly summarize the writer exemption at this point? In July she said twenty five submissions. It's now been raised to thirty five, but I show you this, so you can see before the bill was signed into law. Newsroom journalists who had been laid off or have seen layoffs were outraged, saying don't exempt freelance journalists and it period, but now that the bill was signed into law, freelancers are pushing back, showing a major rift in the journalism community itself over what this law should have been. And now the ire is focused specifically on the Democrat herself Yashar Ali, who is considered to be a well respected. Journalist, says Califa Assemblywoman Lorena S Gonzalez has launched a direct attack on press freedoms with their bill.

I'd say she should be ashamed of herself, but knowing her shame is not a sensation she's familiar with who heartburn Yashar Llerena said, I didn't realize we had met for background. We worked for months with a coalition of freelancers, do create what we thought was reasonable relief from Dyna MAX while protecting staff, media jobs, it isn't perfect, but the coalition we work with said it was okay. Molly knight, I believe, is a sports writer said a former freelance writer here your bill is horrible and will hurt the people you said you're trying to protect now that there's a lot of this, I'm not going to read through literally every single thing, but there are some important points we have here, Sonny Bunch who calls this out as a Pro union Bell sang I had just kind of assumed the anti freelancer bill in California was bought and paid for by unions, but it's nice to get confirmation and he highlights one of the tweets

Ali. She said I suggest letting freelancers right as many pieces as they want. My industry is hemorrhaging full time jobs, because people expect to read content for free on the internet, not because of scabs. There are no jobs, the bill it chokes off. Only the safe the bill chokes off the only safety valve. The Democrat responded freelancers can write, however much they want, but should we let say the LA times higher as many Answers as they want to bust their union or weaken their great new contract or keep folks from organizing freelance from organizing freelancing can hurt staff jobs. While study bunch is making the argument bought and paid for by unions. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's an important point to bring up, because right now we're seeing freelancers do not want to be in a union or or or maybe they do, but for the most part are doing work in the doing the work that can be. That can be afforded. Look at this way. Take writing off the table.

Let's say: they're willing, little robots out of sticks. If I make little rowboat, you know if I win little robot out of a stick, I can make as many as I want and sell as many as well as I as I want, and if somebody buys them from me that sells them. How can you tell me I'm not allowed to do that? Your demanding that my buyer hire me as a staffer freelancers are their own bosses. They pitch a product and sell that product. The democratic bill in California has effectively ended or try, or I guess, they're, trying to end the private transaction of a of a good from a writer to a company that would like to buy that product and then sell no, there is. There is an alternative here. There are some push back some people, notably well as some people believe this is a good thing outside the journal.

I'm committee, for one reason what we see with freelancing is not got a news. Organizations were desperate hiring what they can, but the expansion of content mills, their websites that produce trash articles loaded with with with tracking software ads. Your is your girls want one of those websites where it says, like the twenty five celebrity, you know ugly photos and every time you click next, it's a new photo they're targeting that, because you could argue, each page is a new submission, or how do you quantify that? But more importantly, companies hire cheap freelance labor to write cheap garbage articles and mass produce them, because the idea is quantity over quality. There's one argument that by telling news rooms you can't all I I should stress, California, if it wasn't clear, but there's one argument that by cutting off freelancers, you will force newsrooms to hire on staff who are writing quality over quantity or, at the very least, creating a cohesive work structure. And while it's really bad news

for these freelancers and as you can see, there are many many people who are outraged. Well, some people still argue in the end. It is a good thing. I I don't. I don't know what the the the I don't know the right outcome should or shouldn't be other than I do think. What we're witnessing is part of the demise the news industry as a whole. What you need to understand, more importantly, more than anything is that, as of September 18th, two thousand and nineteen seven one thousand two hundred people have lost their jobs in a media landslide. It is one of the worst years ever for journalism. The billing, California weather it's good or not, will have one big impact. It will mean more people in media can expect to lose their financial stability, their income. I don't want to quit their job, but their gig,

say you know, a company, like vice, for instance, is going to contract fifty articles this month from you and you can keep writing away and submitting them and they pay you for them. Can't do that anymore. You get thirty five and you're out and if they couldn't afford to hire you the first place they're not going to. They may hire one person to write a substantial amount of articles. So here's what I think we can expect freelancers California are done. Companies are going to avoid this at any cost, because they're going to tracking the article someone's writing and it's easier just to hire a low wage college grad to just crank out articles also going to result in the journalists who are currently working with companies being overworked. Otherwise, what can they do if they need to maintain certain content, or, I will say something substantially worse- it could result in the total collapse of the remaining news industry. Now. This is just California mind you, ok, so this

this can still contract freelancers outside of California, but if the dynamics decision laws like this expand, where they basically say you are not real answer, your employee. Therefore they must hire you or cut you off. Then you can expect that many of these struggling digital media outlets look they're, trying to sell Huffington Post. Think about that. I guarantee you. A ton of Huffpost content is not staffed, or I would assume I know from my experience working advice. Most of the content they put out a list of my understanding came from submissions from freelancers. They struggle to make money off that content, as it is imagine if now saying you can't have that content at all. Well now they're going to be put in a deficit position, they have no content and they're already struggling well now, they're going to completely collapse, this up this list from business insider about seventy seven thousand two hundred people losing their jobs is periodically updated. It

article I cited over and over again, but the layoffs keep getting worse and worse and worse and they show us every time it happens. They've been updating it check this out. This is an article from July Journalism. Job cuts haven't been this bad. Since the recession reporters become bartenders and baristas while for work, this is this is huge. You can understand why so many journalists are outraged and for their you know, and and Yasser for instance, for his calling out of the Democrats were pushing as long. This will push this law and if I did it, he is being smeared and attacked their calling him names their insulting him. There telling him to get help, but in reality we can see that there are many men. Journalists. Calling this out saying you are wrong. You are not helping those in need. You are simply

damaging the news industry and this will backfire. So, in the end, I think it's fair to say everybody is freaking out. You know. Perhaps it will be a good thing. Perhaps the content mills in the rage bait will officially come to an end. We've seen several companies collapse in this past year, notably splinter. I mentioned this Actually I did mention this yesterday. Splinter news, the remnant of fusion, where I worked officially ended well if there, shutting themselves down. You have to understand. In California at least this industry is coming to an end. Maybe it's what we need. Let me let me let me leave with one more thing. When it comes to news, we have mass production due to the lowering of the cost in the production of the news, and then you have where it used to be expensive to do it on the ground report. You now have people simply recycle stories. If we get rid of that, maybe we'll have a lot less news saturation. This will result. A much slower or uh,

I'm going to say, will result in slower escalation of the culture war, but it may actually result in a retraction of what's happening in the culture war. One of the things people do to create articles that make money, so they can keep selling is push outrage. In fact, Brian Stelter of CNN did today talking about the shock cycle, saying it's not a new cycle anymore. It's a shock cycle every day were shocked by something more and then something happens, and I don't I wouldn't tvs to pretend to be shot. Buy it, and then someone else is shocked by their shock and the outrage over outrage continues. The president says something everyone is outraged, then the president retracts it and everyone is outraged over their attraction and that the media cycle has become a shock.

I think Brian Stelter would do well to recognize. The criticism poured himself a bit more, but at least he does recognize the media's role in this role playing the same game in the end. If we shut down these freelance articles, perhaps it would be a good thing and there will be an incentive not to mass produce shocking articles that escalates put attention but to produce real quality journalism because you have to pay for it, but in the end I think the the the end result may be. I believe the end result may actually may actually be worse because think about it. If they can't afford journalists as it is, if journalists are already freaking out, the tensions are going it worse. The desperate plea to stay on Stafford to get hired will result in more shocking content, a faster and harsher escalation. These people know that

the competition now has become fierce. There's a small handful of staff jobs, fertilizer getting cut off. I got up the anti. I got up my game and they're going to write the most hyper, partisan, hyperbolic nonsense, desperate to win out against everybody else. I can't tell you the future will hold. What I can say is this may be the biggest slash to the news industry we've seen thus far. Is it is it? Is it? Is it a death blow? Not necessarily it's just California, but if trends like this continue, if Democrats keep pushing laws based on to the dawn of dynamics, to say that gig workers need to be brought on staff under certain conditions, then you can expect to see many of these digital media outlets ceasing to exist there already collapsing. Even big newsrooms are already collapsing. Local news is dying,

And now digital media is dying, and this was a major major strike against digital news. It will see if this expands but I'll leave it there thanks right now, stick around next segment will be coming up at Youtube: dot com, Slash TIM Cash news at six hundred pm and see you all that Laura Loomer was banned from every major social media platform. I I believe, all of them and yet, according to view Park Times, Florida congressional candidate, more Loomer out, raises incumbent Lois Frankel in third quarter. How can that be? I was told that deep platforming works if, if, if not third platform, this idea that by banning someone from social media or by stopping their speech, you will shut them down and they won't be able to do their work. Now, obviously, to a certain extent, yes, obstructing someones work can be inhibit their progress, but will it work in the long run it? No? I would actually state

This is proof that by D Platforming, Laura Loomer they've made it harder to track her and figure out what she's doing and now she's actually raising more money. So congratulations. All you've done is given her cover. Here's the thing Laura Loomer is on social media. She will tell you what she's working on an activist who don't like it can challenge it. Now they can't 'cause. Now they have no idea. What she's doing you see that you see the problem here, I'd like to point like Miley, Annapolis and say, but that proves it, but I can debunk that as well D, platforming does not work, this might be a little longer than normal. I got a bunch of sources to go through, but let's read the first story from the epoch times now before we get started head over to timcast dot com, slash donate. If you'd like to support my work, there's multiple ways: you can do it. Of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video. If you think I make a good point and you think other people should here, I have to say I'm deserving of it- share the video. Otherwise, let's redone they are epoch times. Reports Laura Loomer, who is running for AUS House,

seat in Florida, has outraised incumbent, Rep, Lois Frankel, a Democrat in the third quarter. Loomers candidacy has attracted attention outside of the state because she's one of a growing number of people who have been banned from multiple platforms such as Twitter and Paypal, an effort by big tech companies that is brought increasing criticism from federal lawmakers and officials, including Donald Trump, Fec Car Federal Election Commission Records Show Loomer raised a hundred and fifty four thousand three hundred eleven dollars in the third quarter, despite being with out a platform on major social media. But that's how can that be? How is she? How is she doing this? Perhaps one these people. These activists don't seem to understand is that Twitter is not real life and while I fully fully believe that they are dominating the commons taking over town hall in the water cooler, and we should fight back against it. You also have to realize that a unit exists outside of social media and there are still grassroots tactics, getting attention and raising money and all

you do when you ban someone is cover what they're doing listen, you look at cancel culture as a whole, and there is there is. There is something good, in this concept, and it's that we can now see what people think on a regular basis. Back in the day, you could only hear what someone someone thought for a few minutes or a few seconds in a sound on tv, and you didn't really know what they were all about. Now we have a clearer picture, because people tweet all the time and that means when Laura Loomer tweet stuff, if you agree with it or disagree with it, you can see that their fear. I guess on the left is that she rallies a base because of it, but she could do that anyway. Think about it. If I go door, the door, I only have to say positive things about myself and who's going to say otherwise. Show media. You can show hey

at this thing. They said that you might not like I'll put it this way. If I'm running for office and there's the we like riding bicycles and we like skateboarding, both different sides of town and they both hate each other, skateboarders and bmx, or so it's a fierce rivalry- could not not really by making it major I can go to the skate boarding side and be like I, too dislike skateboarders those rapscallions and the biking. People would be like that, cool now sign my petition or donate. Then I go to the skate boarding side and I say you know those bikers man, there pegs destroy ledges and we gotta do some but that is K for sale and it's on you see. The thing is on social media. If I wanted to tell the world what I think I can't play that game, because it's going to be available for everyone to see immediately. This is the benefit to society, but it's also a detriment and that you might say something and then years later, all of a sudden there's no skateboarders anymore. All the Bmx Yrs then see you regular Bmx Yrs in there like how dare you challenge our bikes? So there's a good thing.

In that social media has democratized and opened up our ability to speak, It also allows us to expose those. We don't like. Let's redone, they say, Frankel Seventy one raised about one hundred four thousand dollars in the third quarter. Frankel is raised four hundred and thirty five thousand one hundred and ninety one. Since the beginning of the year, Frankel represents Florida's 21st. She has been in Congress in two thousand and thirteen, which is a member of the Florida House of Representatives from nineteen eighty seven to ninety three and ninety five to three loomer: twenty six, a political activist and journal unannounced her run for Frankel seat on August. Second, they say the fund raising total indicates. Loomer is the top republican candidate in the race, Michael Bloom, Ling, junior combat veteran came in second in fund raising on the on the GOP side, but managed just twenty thousand nine hundred and thirty seven look at law

raising one seven times more than seven times what this, what a second place contender raised, all without social media, so I I think there should be fair. It would be. It would be absolutely fair to say we can see here batting her did not stop her anyway she's raising tons of money. She still has tons of support, and now there is nothing nothing to challenge her. You have made a grave error activists now I understand you know: Laura did rely on these platforms in a lot of ways and she was mainly angry at being removed, because she has opinions that these tech companies don't like I'm not here to talk about her politics or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out that! Well, yes, you know getting banned. Is massively detrimental? There is an advantage she now has. They have effectively thrown a cloak over Laura, providing her with a stealth cover and they can't track what she's doing anymore so listen in the end, its pros and cons, ok, ultimate

I think the LOS of the social media platforms is substantially worse and just because you know Laura is able to get by through kind of means doesn't mean she is not being inconvenienced in facing a large challenge. It's possible. She could have raised more money if she was on social media, but the point is now: they can't do anything about it again. What do you can't ban her from real life? No she's going to raise money, she's going to go add or she's going to person to person and she's going to do things. Guess what like regular human beings, something like eighty plus percent of America is not on twitter. The only thing, you accomplish. When you ban someone or d platform them particularly from twitter, is you take them out of the press is what's funny right? I was thinking about this D. Platforming and because twitter is primarily like the big one of the biggest communities is journalism sense. Twitter is great for news and sharing and things like that when someone's on twitter

journalists see them and then assume it's important and they write about it when that person is not on they're. All of a sudden they're, like oh, my god, they're gone, take a look at my low when Milo was banned from twitter, they say over and over again we D platforming Milo, worked, and it's like the dude had millions of followers on Facebook and I'm like no he's still doing the same thing. You just aren't paying attention because you live on Twitter. Well, then, Facebook Ban, Milo among RN, Laura Ann parts of Watson at and you know Milo, has has expressed. You know, he's been upset about it and there is bigger news in the Milo side. They try to claim. This is proof once again that d platforming works, but I can easilly debunk this. First, we can point to Laura Loomer. She basically kind of money. Ok, now it's not going to even know where she is or she's talking to or watch what she's planning. Congratulations. You've just just put her out of sight. You can do anything, I get it. I understand that getting band is a serious problem check this out

from last month, Milo Yiannopoulos says he's broke, I can't foot poop. I can't put food on the table this way and many people on the left say this proves it because uh before they said my Lowey Opolis is collapse, shows that no platforming can work. No, it doesn't you're wrong, not doing your research vice box, all you. After do is a Google search, but you know what it's all about the politics: man they don't like Milo look, I've got, I've got criticism for my little I've said over and over again, notably that he was fat, shaming, a guy in a gym like dude, you won the guy agrees, he's working hard to fix himself, stop ragging on him. Ok, but the problem with Milo It's not that it was the platform to, although that does have an impact. I fully understand that Milo has eight hundred and fifty six, I was in subscribers on Youtube,

you gotta tell me that his woes are due to dipping the platform to an extent sure, but if Milo wanted to, he could actually just start making more videos. Let me tell you something this video he made. Is milo- and I on free speech tv one month ago, got twenty one thousand views the video before that was just a one minute. Promo, it's forty seconds, then a one minute, Promo He did an hour and thirteen minutes straight pride parade thing with ninety three thousand views Milo and Sargon three hours. One hundred and ninety thousand views most of the videos he produces look at this one. He made a parody of Ilhan Omar for ten minutes and got two hundred and sixty seven thousand views. You know the cp Slash M S on Youtube are, like I think the average like four or five dollars. You would have made a decent amount of money if he kept doing this. The issue with Milo has nothing to do with the platforming it has to do with Milo and if Milo started, producing regular to content yeah, he beat not p b e be fine. The issue is not the platforming and you can it's. It's evidenced by the fact that, while

Milo, is apparently saying he's broke. He still is nearly one million followers on Youtube. While Bloomer, who doesn't have any platforms raised one hundred and fifty four thousand dollars, so you want to act like the platforming. Is this big, powerful thing in the end? It's and I'll tell you this. I I just decided to look this up. Ok, how can we deradicalize people? Is it true that d platforming is better because of radicalization? No, let me tell you secret: it's not really a secret, I'm kind of being facetious. Several years ago I was invited by Youtube to a meeting of a bunch of creators. It was very progressive because all of the thing youtube doesn't invite people down it's progressive and surprise. Surprise Youtube's invited me to several originally on, but it to a to a handful of very progressive social justice themed events. I couldn't go because I work too much. What do you do frequently invites me these to these things?

the one the the the one I went to menace is years and years and years ago I am, I maybe twenty twelve or thirteen. They were trying to figure out how to de radicalize people on Youtube and stop the expansion of extremist content and all of these people had this idea of trying to tell the people. They are wrong and I said no wait. Wait. You can't do that. You can't go to somebody who's radicalized and say you were radicalized. You were wrong. You must listen to me, they're going to be like what no and whatever and say you know what, whatever whatever they believe. There is a you're trying to trick me your. I don't believe you or you're wrong, or you don't know, what's really going on things like that, so I said it's actually quite simple. The way you do radicalize people you treat them like people, you, don't you don't post them as though they are a different strange other. You don't silence them, you don't punish them.

You treat them like you treat everyone else. You bring them into society, because when you take a small group of people with crazy views and bring them into a larger, more welcoming space, they slowly start to adopt the wider culture of it doesn't mix to a certain degree. But for the most part, larger culture consume smaller. When it's complicated, I know that's going to spark a whole bunch of debate. Point is cornerforeignpolicy dot com see what they said back in November, and it's been repeated over and over and over again there's that famous story of the Westboro Baptist Church woman, who was the radicalized by being on twitter because she was exposed to ideas she was not exposed before and in this they basically say the same thing: you need a you need a cognitive opening. You need a space for self, that's what they say. They say radicalization of radicalization studies. David Kohler argues that d radicalism.

It can only happen when an individual has a cognitive opening and an environment that supports personal reflection in this kind of environment. A program could then initiate the radical by applying an engaging what psychologists and researchers term the significant significance quest theory, as one component of the radicalization process now admit: I'm not going through this whole thing and it may. It may disagree to an extent with my views and be more specific. That's fine! The point I'm trying to say is you know when I went to these meetings with Youtube and the first one was interesting is this is back in, like I think, two thousand and twelve right, and there was one person who had the absolute correct way to normalize and deradicalize and they said make a show showing these people and showing them do normal things and interacting in normal ways. In a humorous context, that's relatable and opening environment. Like I said- and I said that's it- for people who uh.

Both sides, you might hate each other. We need to show the humidity and bring people together and find commonality when you start treating people specifically with the dividing line. Well then, you're strengthening the divide and you're building a barrier while demanding they get pulled on your side and they're going to say you can't make me do this, I went to another event a few years later. That made me extremely angry because it was supposed to be about the same thing, but there was a great evolution at you too, but this was, I think, twenty six, where they said we're going to end hate and all that and what do they do? They just made fun of Trump supporters all day and I got angry. I said I don't want to sit here and have you claim your ending hate and then you just mock and belittle people. You don't like or don't understand. That is the opposite of what I want to do. I want to bring people together. I want to under and and respect them, and not everybody is deserving of respect. There are there left,

writing personalities who deserve none who deserve nothing but disrespect? Well, I shouldn't say that actions of the for the for the most part. You know I think you can dislike somebody, but the best thing you can do is at least try to give them some respect in some capacity. If you want to communicate with them effectively- and I look- Daryl Davis Famous for deradicalization, because he was willing to give despicable people the human respect and dignity and it and they respected him back any helps pull people back and that's the perfect example. So let me write this up it. Doesn't it doesn't need to be for long if Milo wants to not be broke, can start making? he has a massive platform on Google channel has more followers more subscribers than I do. You know I understand combined my channels have at one point, five million or whatever all of you accomplished, though, when you ban someone from Twitter is that news stops talking about them, so maybe that's a good thing for them. I suppose, but it doesn't mean they're, not working and it doesn't mean they're, not successful. I would argue Laura Loomer raising this money shows that

her her her her ability to generate attention has not been diminished even after well. I wish that it has. I obviously her ability to to grow and and and and and become successful, has not been finished. Following the not been stopped following D platforming, while they may have restricted in many capacities and made it harder she still in their face, succeeding. Well, congratulations! Congratulations! You're! Not solving the problem! You're, not you're, not engaging with people you're, not creating dialogue, and you know what I'm not going to tell you what you should and shouldn't do, I'm just going to tell you that d platforming doesn't work. My low is not an example of the platforming box. You are incorrect. He has a massive you two platform. He just doesn't use it. Okay, more loomer doesn't have these these these resources and she isn't broke. She

just raised more than seven times what second place raised. Ok, so I'll tell you what man a world exists outside the internet and you are not making life better by advocating for censorship and the restriction of these people in fact you're making it so that their segmented off to a separate space you want that will never bring people together. You are strengthening the divide and making it harder for us to resolve the political divide in this country. Well, there you go well, I guess Laura is proving them wrong. Regardless of what you think of. Are your opinions? I don't you know, I don't care about. Any of that. Do platforming didn't stop her congratulations and then stop Milo either as much as you want to think that it didn't you need whatever I'm done. Next segment will be at one hundred pm on this channel. Thanks for hanging out, then I will see you all. Then Donald Trump float an idea. I believe last year that the next g7 could be held at Trump Doral,

a golf resort in Miami that's owned by his company. Well, eventually, they announced that would be the case. An trump said that the general idea, I guess that was released in the press- was that you know each delegate. She is going to have their own unit. It's going to be very beautiful, he's going to know how to host them. Trump supporters defended this as a home field advantage that Trump was leveraging his assets in statecraft and there a lot of people who agreed. However, it seems that most people most people seriously, even some trump supporters, were questioning whether or not this was appropriate. Now Trump announced he will no longer be holding the g, seven at the golf resort and they they say it's it's it's all it's. It's unfortunate troubles blame the Democrats and their allies in media for putting pressure on him and agreed to do it. It's also that's look. First of all, I've been quite a,

on Twitter over this decision- and I you know, I think it's a fairpoint to make that it was not not appropriate to choose Trump Doral, given Trump's explanation and I think you can see there is a legitimate reason why it would be beneficial. Unfortunately, I think we have conflicts of interest to deal with. So let's do I'll give you all my thoughts on it. But let's read the news first and talk about you know why Trump thought this would make sense and ultimately why he agreed to cancel it. I believe Trump has done the right thing in canceling, the use of Durelle. I know a lot of people are upset and there's been a back and forth, but in the end I don't think it's about the media and the democrats- and I think Trump realized that and listen. I know a lot of people want to defend Trump, no matter what he does, but you've got to recognize. That. Even Trump knows. When he's made a mistake and he's going to rectify that when it came to the IRAN strike, you had the media screw watching. Oh you know, you know you so bad. He ordered the strike in the first place. Don't give him credit, no no hold on stop, stop stop penalty racers

Trump ordered a strike on IRAN. He cancelled it halfway through and said. We consider the loss of life to be too great good as I will always say, when someone does the right, does the right thing encourage that behavior accept it and say you've done right, but for some reason, they're still bring this over Trump and attacking him over it, and- and admittedly, I see myself kind of in the middle because their terms who are telling me I'm wrong for criticizing trump. Over doing this now, I believe Trump was We choose to row and he was he was right and he recognized it was the correct move to find a new location. I believe pencils, heavy racers and I respect his willingness to say the pressure is great. Let's move, but let's talk about the ramifications. Let's talk about what it means for Derral. Wider l was his choice and ultimately, why he cancelled from the daily daily mail. There's a president Trump is announced that Trump National Doral will no longer host the G7 summit in twenty twenty.

Blaming the media and democrat crazed and irrational hostility. That's a quote. Trump bemoans that vision to no longer consider his own property for the massive summit came after he was blasted by intense criticism from the two parties. It wasn't just one side. He added. We will begin the search for another site, including the possibility of Camp David immediately. Thank you. Well good good for you trump like you. Don't then don't understand is my criticism. The choice of drill is not seated in I need just furious raids struck at the president, I'm not going to all. I I'm not a big fan of the guy, but I'm not going to pretend like everything he does is pure evil and wrong, and I'm not going to pretend like every he does his right and should be justified. If I have some criticism of him, I will absolutely state that, and that will be the case, and so I did on Twitter numerous times. So Trump has now done the right thing great. I think we're done right. Can we move on from this,

but now this is now still being treated about there still lording it over him saying I can't believe it's a violation of the monuments clause on hold on. You said: hey Trump, don't do it. He said bouquet. Like the do do what you want, what we what we have said about, let's run the move, followed a furious backlash over the announcement. The g seven would be held at one of his own businesses, chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney had previously touted trumps all or claiming it was vastly cheaper than other venues, because president was offering it quote at cost. He did not mention the benefits that the prestige of the event and the connections it could afford his property have on his business. Now I'll stop there, and I want to push back on some of these on some of these. These argument, watch a little bit more. You turn just thirty minutes after he tweeted his reasoning for wanting to host to summon his own grounds

he said he said it would be near them. The Miami International Airport, every delegation have their own. You know fifty to seventy units building and that is actually great and I and I think Trump was actually right. I believe that offering the Trump morale at cost is is widely NFL, taxpayers. I think it would have been a very comfortable experience for the delegations and I think Trump so that if you want to argue that Trump was seeking to enrich himself, I kind of I kind of don't. I don't agree with that, because listen they're talking about first of all, he was offering it at cost, so he's not seeking profit. That's fine, they're, saying that it still would have offered up great connections and prestige. This is sort of true but come on man like the last person who needs press attention. An connections is Donald Trump. First of all, he was a Celebra

billionaire before becoming president and now he's the president? If Trump wants to get someone on the phone, I don't think he's going to have a hard time with it. I do believe that I'll put it this way, I don't see reason to argue that Trump was seeking to enrich himself. I think it was just a bit tactless in that. I don't think Trump thought through the potential student and I have the cape ramifications of choosing to route. One of the arguments I saw from Trump supporters was that derail offers up a home field advantage and a discount for the taxpayer and that's fine, but I'm thinking about long term ramifications, I'm also thinking about optics right now. We have a controversy surrounding Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and we want to get to the bottom of whether or not there was corruption there. I believe that is warranted an important and right now they're lording, that over Trump saying he was chasing a conspiracy theory and biting did nothing wrong. Ok! Well, if you want to win that argument, you certainly can't award a contract to your

company, regardless of your seeking profit. I do think the arguments they've made about all about prestige is absurd. Come on man, the dude's got his name on top of buildings around the world. I don't think he's concerned about needing connections and the proper things out the window. Now I have some fair. Chris is I've. I've criticisms, I believe, are actually more fair. The issue is president. First, all they say was a via a violation of the emoluments clause, because I'll be mine, as close as the president can't accept gifts from foreign leaders, and if you got an argument there I mean it's it's it's a bit of a stretch to say that a no profit at cost or zero cost event is going to be a gift to the president himself. The bigger concern I have is the conflict of interest in that the president should the what was on property period simply because it's not that I thought that is. His reasoning was incorrect. It's that I believe there should be a very wide space between a government

contracts, and you know a government actor and their companies. The same is true for anybody in Congress or otherwise. I don't like the idea somehow. All of these Congress, people on salary of one hundred and seventy four thousand dollars a year are worth 10s of millions of dollars. Yes, they absolutely do leverage their political power for personal gain within their within their families, and everything like that. So if you want to find the president over this you've got to consider a few things, first of all, cost is irrelevant. Put it this way. If Trump Derral is vacant, he still has to pay for staff. He still has to pay for electricity. He still has to maintain the ground.

And at cost helps prevent a loss, so there is still some benefit. Not Trump says he was willing to do it at zero cost, in which case that would have been a net loss for Trump's company and I still think it's ice. I still think it would be not not not a good idea in that think about what comes next now. You've got people arguing that Trump and and and Ukraine, and all the stuff and they're saying we got to think about what happens after the president's. No, no, no, no, let's think about what happened before the president. With with you YA, Ukraine. You know the political story about the Dnc about Joe by in this transaction. This use you use of leverage quid pro quo in Ukraine. Let's think about that and where we are right now- and I wouldn't know what happened- I've argued shouldn't. We investigate the president is more important on and on and on. This was for the past several years in a nightmare spiral of Russia, conspiracy, nonsense and now we're getting wrapped up in it all over again. My big criticism for the most part is how could trump not see

that this was going to cause a major outrage? Outrage considering what's going on Hunter Biden, I think it was. It was a terrible move, terrible, terrible, terrible move. I I don't think it's a it's going to solve any problems or benefit our country they're, trying to give the president of trying of of trying to enrich himself when they do literally laughed his billion dollar, his billionaire celebrity Karere reduced his salary to basically nothing as president. I think it's absurd when people trying to argue Trump is trying to enrich himself off the presidency, especially when you look at every past president, who entered the president He not millionaires and left as millionaires trump is the opposite of that. You don't like trump there's this immediate, immediate insinuation that everything he does is based on evil, malice or corruption, and I don't think that solves any problems. I certainly don't think it communicates to Trump supporters, how we set boundaries and how we decide what we're,

they are moving forward. Now I am concerned about what comes after Trump. I talked about biting all that to make a point that it's fair for Trump, in my opinion, to want to investigate the origins of the twenty sixteen collusion conspiracy, nonce whether not in Ukraine or otherwise, fine look into it and we haven't navigation with, I believe, John Deere, so so good. Now we can look at what comes after the President if the President does award himself a contract for his own business. Even if he's genuine, we have to be. Yeah, but the precedent it sets because there still are ways people can benefit an we could potentially create a loophole. I think we need to set a hard hard barrier and say even if your intentions are good, even if you believe Trump is doing right. We can have that argument, but at the end of the day, you should not be

in a conflict of interest, and you know what that may mean that to the taxpayer will spend more money. I I understand that and I and I think that it does kind of suck. Yes, to say the least, if Trump was able to benefit this country using his own properties as leverage and and you know, taxpayers pay less he's a home field advantage. I recognize that. Morally and ethically I say you know what I know, I can't speak for everybody else, and I know of course, I'm a rather moderate on the issue. I'm not shrieking and stuff on my lungs about Trump is evil and impeach him over this now come on Trump change his mind. He did right. There was a lot. This is a many said. Okay, so good, good, good right is this supposed to be at. It is not how it's supposed to be I'm concerned about Trump Leaving office It's somebody else who comes in has some kind of business. Maybe it's an analytics firm, maybe it's data or something- and they say: oh, don't worry, we're doing, data tracking it costs, and it's like no, no, no! No! No! No! No right! So I don't know see this as the worst possible thing in the world. I wasn't crying

and shrieking and punching walls. When Trump announced a row I was laughing and I was like oh come on. You know like here's. The thing end of the day, if you're going to award your own company this contract, regardless of what anyone believes your you know, what what? Whatever the reason is for you can't do it the same time we're trying to figure out what happened with biting and hung. You can't do it. Ok, so you know. Ultimately, I guess all I guess it's all irrelevant right. I know they're still going to be a lot of Artrage Trump supporters who are adamant. That Trump was correct, choose to Ralph and it should be allowed to, and you know what you're allowed your opinion you are, but in the end look at this while Trump may be upset.

I blame Democrats in the media, he's begrudgingly doing the right thing, and so here here's the big, take away. I get from this IRAN doing the right thing. Did he have a bad idea with the strike in the first place? I believe he did. Yes, I believe it could have lead to catastrophic consequences. Apparently he talked to some thought, leaders and the conservative side and he changed his mind. The left attacked him for this and they were like don't defend him. It was his idea in the first place and like no. No, no, when someone makes a mistake, you can you criticize it respectfully to the best of your ability, not always, okay, I'm not perfect either, but when they, when they say okay, you know what fine. I will do something that you agree with. Then you you accept it, and you give the respect that decision to service. You know that they talk about people being flip flop wearers. I was one of the most most annoying things. I've seen when they're, like this politician, used to believe accent. They believe why gray

so you're saying they change their mind, not supporting something that we like, if they flip to support something you don't like call them out for not liking it not for changing their position. People evolve and we need to accept that pencils have you racers. This has been one. The biggest points I've made over and over again, especially with people like Joey Salads, Joey salads, the you tuber did wrong and at first I was like I was very and I was like nah nah screw this guy and then I've had a a kind of a if any. I was like wait a minute if I don't accept someone doing better and give them respect for making the right choice and, along with Do it only get worse so anyway? The point is, I disagree with Trump's choice of Derral, but I think in the end this show

do that, Trump is absolutely trying to do, in my opinion, right by Americans to the best of his ability. Even when it's the Democrats and the media, the prop were primarily leading the charge against him, especially in this regard. Now I do think because of conservative pressure is why he ultimately said okay, okay made this was was step too far, but but think about the end result. If you don't like it, so I think Democrats just plain don't like Trump and they want to get rid of him, no matter what so they're going to use against him, no matter what and that's disingenuous and that's bad faith. If You want to see us pull out of whatever it is we're in then. What you need to do is let the pilot fly the plane and, if he's doing something you think is battling a hard bank and you say: hey stop this and I want to place a stop and it is okay. Fine. I won't do that again. We say thank you for listening. Thank you for for understanding,

and even if you're mad about it at least I mean look, you got what you wanted right. You do accept that people can make mistakes. Okay and- and- and I I I I I just can't- stand the assumption- that literally everybody is evil all the time. I'm not just talk about trauma talking about activists to their evil people. They exist. Okay, you might not like the president, you might not like Hillary Clinton, you might not like well actually Heller. Kindly let let let me put let me get rid of that one, because I really don't like her, but there are people that I I think are very very wrong and dangerous. I don't inherently think all of them are evil. Now Bay role as a whole. Other thing I think Bay does super evil. I guess I should just wrap this up in the point. I'm trying to make is Trump didn't stop his feet. And say no. I don't care what you say. This is not a tyrant would do. This is literally what a populist would do when people said hey. You know this. He said fine, ok, we're done! Congratulations an there! You go hopeful

in the future when Trump takes a serious action, which is popular criticism. He also then say: okay, okay, I won't do this, so you know in in the end. I think it's a good sign. I I I do. I think it was a mistake. I think Trump rectify the error and and and it should be end of it, but but but I don't be surprised if you see a lot of people left, weaponize this towards in peace and so I'd yeah and that that's about it. That's my take on the the the Trump around thing so anyway, stick around that segments coming up at four pm: Youtube dot com, slash him cast, and I will see you all there. I'll just start this video by saying yes, obviously I I read my own Wikipedia page. Obviously I google myself, I am I I have a brand people write stories about me and I try to be aware of. What's going on, I get Google hurts when people write stories about me and I also have people sending me things about me and giving the updates it's not because I want it to be that way. It's because sometimes people write fake things about me in an effort to harm me and that's the point of this

yeah. So it's about smears, it hit pieces and the facilitation of a hit piece, an how note for one thing they weaponized Wika Pedia, but I also want to into this idea of I've been thinking about in terms of how the press functions and what they choose to write about, and what is Important. I think it's fair to say that I have accomplished some things this year that are particularly newsworthy and I've got. I've got a kind of trusting story about. What's: what's happened between me and the press? Long story short: I made a mess. The jet banks to most of you guys who watch there was a major milestone with sub verse was rejected. Just over one million dollars in less than a day. At a time when media is collapsing, works spending, nobody wanted to write about it, but I do have that I'll talk about this. So, as many of you know, I've referenced my Wikipedia page on several occasions because over the past several years it's been a nightmarish piece of trash. I used to be a huge fan of Wika Pedia until I became more

what's known as the Gallmann amnesia effect, those not familiar, the Gelman him Nisia effect is basically when you read something and you're, not an expert. You assume it's true you read something, and you are an expert. You then start to say wait what that can't be true, because we're only experts in in certain fields, we assume most of the press were consuming, is fact based well I'll. Tell I'll give you the perfect example of this Wikipedia is the best on it best way to understand gal man amnesia and why I no longer trust any article that I read for the most part, and this and then you know Wikipedia is an aggregator but I'll give an example. I I know that I'll say this too. Every time I talk about my Wikipedia page, naturally, because it's on of yours. It goes into a battlefield and changes emerge. People then, are amazing

where are the page existing and then controversy erupts in people arguing and whatever happens. So, first of all, let's talk about Gallmann Amnesia, Timothy Daniel. I I wish it were. The focus of this is the head piece, the smear, and how how activists weaponize fake news to smear you and I can debunk some stuff. They say that Import Paul was born March, ninth, one thousand nine hundred and eighty six in american Youtuber journalists and political commentator. He is best known for live streaming. The Occupy Wall Street protests in twenty eleven I'd stop right now and say this. Why did you guys know that I did a famous live stream of Occupy Wall Street? I do willing to bet most of my subscribers. Don't know that I'd also be willing to bet that most of my, Ivers, don't know that I chose the first North American, a drone collection testing facility for drone regulation, meaning when the US government was working with with universities to figure out what kind of laws should exist with drones that I went down to, and I was the only

one there at first and then one other guy from the AP showed up and that none of these other organizations showed up and it was it was me basically we had a conversation, we discussed the testing facility and ultimately that was like the extent, but I bring it up because I did a ton of work with drone technology. I believe I did the first ever live broadcast via drone during Occupy Wall Street, when consumer drones were first relation, we hacked it to stream with the drum was seeing could be wrong about that and I could be wrong because nobody writes about it, and this is one of the things I want to bring up the anatomy of a smear I'll. Tell you what they do right about. Let's, let's do this down at the bottom. There is a political positions section on my Wikipedia page media matters for America, a left wing media Advocacy Organization's classified pool as a far right commentator and conspiracy theorists his play doh. Commentary has been variously described as progressive and conservative that I love I mean I

I agree with that that spot on right get give so Wikipedia if it does work. Here's the thing, though I don't think, there's anything inherently nefarious with the pto other than the people who care the most are the people who will edit it and a bunch of stories are omitted. More importantly, if the press doesn't write about it, how can it ever become public record, and this is where the nightmare scenario emerges and you start realizing how screwed up everything really is so lily. I raised one million dollars for sub verse through all of you, the viewers who contributed and invested it's not any or all is it you think that would be news worthy. I pitched that too many people that hey check out. We got a press release. We just did this record breaking thing at a time when these media companies are collapsing- and I was told yeah interesting- pass- not interested what that's that's. That's that it's a record

right. We did so they don't care I'll. Tell you what, though you'll certainly be able to find articles calling me a conspiracy theorist. Well, I was. I was actually surprised by that conspiracy, theorist, milquetoast fence, sitter Timpul, pushing conspiracy theories at the at the at the at the most I'm debunking and telling everybody they're wrong and refuse using to take that leap of faith. So much so that I have been criticized for when Jacob Wohl first claim there's an accuser for Robert Muller. I said I need evidence. An I was smeared for that they said Turnbull believe Jacob uh. No, I said they gotta. Give me evidence. If he's making a claim his apartment exists, then I'm going to wait for him to show me the person, I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. I detest conspiracies. Well. How, then, did I end up as a conspiracy theorist according to wikipedia- and here is the smear

The citation is media matters and it's this story. A baseless smear targeting Ilhan Omar made its way to trump thanks to Fox, and these far right figures. Oh heavens, I'm far right now they say well, certainly I guess according to according to them But if you watched my video the other day on I'll just search, my name If you watch my video the other day, my political compass, I'm actually kind of far left, but here's what they said. Tim Poole falsely claimed STAR Tribune. That will more may have married her brother, oh is that is that so, oh heavens, they say TIM Pool, comma, a Youtuber with connections to multiple white nationalists and far right figures, comma. What they never talk about my connection to Hollywood celebrities, Antifa activists, the migrant shelter all the channels, everyone else I've interviewed, so you can for it. You can see now how they're they're trying to frame this with a lot uploaded a June twenty three video falsely claim.

And the star Tribune showed Omar Quote- may have married her brother. Oh that's interesting to TIM Pool. Do that, let's, let's open this, what happens to Temple? What is this as far left Democrat Ilhan Omar may have married her brother, such Pulitzer winning Mainstream newspaper. Three hundred and forty three thousand views and there's this article. It says new documents revisit questions about Rep, Ilhan, Omar's, marriage, history wait so TIM Poole lied. He falsely claimed this hold on. Let's pull up the story and what is that? Let's pull up the story and see what the STAR Tribune actually said. The star treatment said: new investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering quest about the marital history of Rep, Ilhan Omar and whether a c'mon c'mon reading here and

where she once married a man, possibly her own brother to skirt immigration. Las wait, wait hold on hold on so there arguing that my interpretation was incorrect. I would contend that there actually saying there is fresh life to lingering questions that Ilhan Omar may have married a man, possibly her own brother and will focus on this, possibly her own brother. Let's first breakdown. Carfax. She did marry this man right. Star Tribune said it's possibly her own brother right great. So am I wrong to say the STAR Tribune She may have married her own brother, no, it's literally the opening paragraph. So how can media matters claim that I falsely claimed something that is in the opening paragraph and in fact the video? We arguing against it in the funny. The video is me saying we don't have evidence, don't jump the gun it's in

interesting, that STAR Tribune is saying this and I was highlighting it for critical effect to talk about it. This is what's hilarious. They claim that I'm pushing the conspiracy that I'm far right simply for talking about it in a critical content while mentioning a mainstream publication is now entertaining the possibility. I draw no conclusions, I'm milquetoast better on most things well, media netters, writes it and then activists put it on Wika Pedia and now the context is stripped and no knows the STAR Tribune article is what they're referencing literally exists. I was semi critical of the concept and adjust enters Wika Pedia as far right conspiracy, theorist, amazing. Well I will I will give credit to Wika Pedia 'cause. I have no idea for the most part how they decide what they decide. It says its little comma has been variously described as progressive and conservative. I actually I respect that. That's true, I just don't

fact that media matters somehow takes precedent and becomes prominent on my page, and I fully understand that simply by talking about this, I know there's going to be another wave of people going and I don't care this is trash. You know, I'm sorry they do mention the the the the modified toy role. Control paired air ground offer life should be a system called the drone strange that that that's cool they mention my work with Google Glass, but it staying late. You know there are a lot of articles that come up about me and they don't make it in here and so that so the so the issue, I guess is for one. I don't think I matter really. I I I I don't I I think there's like I'm like a weird ancillary character in this great story. That is the universe I met her enough, however, to smear me as a far right commentator, but not enough to write about my ground breaking records. Smashing sub verse news crowd investment, so this is crowd fund insider, basically, just rode up our our press release nobody! One of the coverage- I don't know this website is what they they wrote.

But I can respect that have quotes from us and they say that we million just twenty two hours. You think that would matter Stan Cially more than the one time I made a passive comment about an article that was semi critical right. This is how the media functions first, yes it's true. There will be activists who are going to purposefully, seek out negative information and write negative things about you, and you know what that's unfortunate but you can also see that the media is not interested in milestones that not interested in changes to the system I reached out to dozens or or maybe doesn't a handful of journalists that I knew that cover this kind of stuff, and I said big NEWS,

we've done and the response from most of them was kind of like so what I'm like. So what dude? Isn't it big news that we're watching the collapse of digital media- and we just pulled this off- that we're expanding revenue is up? Everything is going great and they don't want to write about it. But I'll tell you what does get written about me all the time smear pieces attacks on my character, and I think this is a sign of what media is currently at today, dumb. You know I'll give you another example: James O'Keefe, someone but we did this. I have deleted the tweet I retract the statement. This is a response to James O'Keefe, threatening to sue, because someone pulled erroneous garbage from Wika Pedia at James O'Keefe said you copied and pasted erroneous garbage from a comedian. I will sue you

and the journalist retracted. So what happens now? If someone cites Wika Pedia calling me a conspiracy, theorist referencing, an article that doesn't call me a conspiracy theorist is so I'll give you another example. They say media matters has called Pula far right commentator and conspiracy theorists the citation they show just says. I made a false claim: ok at the very very minimum. Can we just say Temple is wrong, that's about it! I, incorrectly interpreted the first content of that paragraph. Why, then, on Wika Pedia? Do they say I'm a conspiracy theorist? Well, I believe, first and foremost, most people don't care who I am I'm not controversial enough. I don't have very strong opinions. I just talk a lot and for some reason, people listen

but there are some people who don't like me, because I'm critical of their political faction, I'm not talking about the left and the right, I'm talking about the more extreme factions. So there's two things: one. There are conservatives who are adamant about trying to frame me as a conservative. Sorry, I donated a decent amount of money to Tulsi, Gabbert and agree with, a lot of work or policy positions. I have criticized her stance on nuclear energy. I have criticized for stance on reparations. I under and she's not parse, not perfect, but there's a lot of things about her that I find very important, particularly her stronger positions on private prison reform, the war on drugs and ending regime change war which, as you probably know my biggest criticisms of almost everything in polish

is american foreign policy, because I was for a long time, a journalist covering conflict in crisis. I have been overseas. I have seen some of these urban conflicts and I do not like the idea that you s or otherwise is a staging these things, and so that just means I live in my own bubble. I'm not thinking about a lot of the things Tulsa is proposed because I, like everybody else, have a perspective bubble and I think foreign policy and culture are extremely important. It's. What I see is what I hear. And I'm not perfect, not perfect at all, but so I bring this up because they are conservatives who want to say TIM Pool is a conservative simply because we agree on free speech non sorry. It's not good, I mean, although I, say all sides. Com has now said it's a right wing position. So I think it's fair to say then that, based on the evolution of modern politics, calling me a progressive and conservative is absolutely absolutely spot on, but there's a simple word for this: according to Allsides dot com, TIM Pool is

in the centre. Yet because I agree with some conservative things and agree with some progressive things. Most of my core policy positions lean left somewhere far left. I run my business in a rather left wing kind of way. I believe in a lot of left wing, core principles and I'm in favor of the expansion of civil rights and social justice. Just I, I oppose the authoritarian tax at tactics, cancel culture and communism. So I'm not gonna, say I'm you know I I I jokingly referred to myself the communist law. I think I think a lot of ways idealistic clean, principally I'm rather far left limit. I know it's it's a weird thing to say, but but look in the end, I wonder why? Who who interviews me? Who talks about me and the work? I've done reason: dot com, libertarians

don't you see smears of me see accusations against me, and this is what they you know. So so, let's, let's you know I've I've gone long on this, but I really think it's him. It's it's a something on my mind. The media doesn't write about the fact that I gained over a million subscribers in six or seven months. They don't write that I've gained hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter, nearly four hundred thousand in only a span of a few more. They don't write about. Don't interview me on my support for certain politicians. My political views they just, smear me and accuse me of being far right or of being friends with people. I'm literally, not friends with. Let me tell you something man, all of my friends. All of them are on the left. Okay, I talk about look your very best friend of mine she's, a center right kind of person. I would say that will chamberlain a friend of mine he's an art and a trump supporter, I'm friends with with a lot of people, but I am not friends with extreme well, actually, I'm not friends with anyone on the far right, I'm not going to talk about Anarcho, libertarian types and are capitalists. I think I know like one,

but I actually do have friends who align with progressive, far left. It's I'm a skateboarder. I grew up in that community. But they try and live and- and you know what I think- there's a there's- a big problem in the media's refusal to address things that maybe actually note worthy right. Look, I'm not gonna sit here, pretend everyone should be. Writing about me now. I really really really respect John Stossel. It was an amazing. You know interview. I ok did you refers to me as leaning left and having supported Bernie Sanders. Thank you it's true. People say like yeah, but you talk about. You know you have right wing talking points and so did Tulsi Gabbard and so did any club which are so did Bill Maher. Okay, politics today is weird, but the media I'll give you the wrap up on this. Okay, I hope, If this is a bit narcissistic, I suppose, but I I'll say. There was a bit of frustration in the constant attacks on my character and refusal refusal to acknowledge anything good that I've done, and it makes me once again

the media is slimy, it's just it's all about outrage and shock and I'll give credit to Brian Stelter for pointing this out. Today, credit where it's due. He said it's an outrage. It's an outrage cycle, yeah I'll, tell you what media matters, of course, they're going to smear me, but there have been like vice tried. You know, align me as right wing and it's like why, because I'm talking about certain things You know when I talked about Trump Doral earlier. I didn't agree with the president. I disagreed with what he did when I talked about Tucker Carlson in diversity. I disagree with Tucker Carlson, Tucker Carlson and talked about diversity. Being They ignore every single time. I bring up something that I believe to be true about my policy. They ignore it and they seek out and out of context moment to try and claim I made it up when it right here where the Strip and says she possibly married. She married a man that was possibly her own brother. I didn't make it up. I was actually surprised that

the mainstream press. I said: okay, it started with supporting it. I think I should talk about it and they don't have an account. You know that's what they write about. That's the smear. They never talk about the good things. People are doing, and that's I'm just sick of all of it I think everything is insane you know, but I won't give credits to surprisingly Becca Lewis. You know you may be familiar with Becca Lewis. She wrote the alternative, influencer network report, which I believe was incorrect in many ways and misleading. In many ways she followed up with an article, That was predominantly about me and I find it pretty shocking. It was about me Dave, Rubin, Blaire White, but mostly cited my commentary and my videos in my underground and actually have substantially more respect for her having for one that she did a ridiculous amount of work to assess my content, I'm seriously impressed by that.

Like one hundred and fifty hours or more of all of my content to draw conclusion. I disagree with some of our assessments. However, I bring this up because of all of the media that doesn't care about anything. I've done. They don't care about what I believe or who I am. They just want a caricature of nonsense. Fake news, and they don't care about new ones. Here you get somebody who, although I had strong disagreements with actually came to a simple conclusion. I don't know when they said period, periodic reminder that Joe Rogan has given his massive platform to white supremacist. Stefan Molyneux proud boys, leader, Gavin, Mcinnis, professional harasser saga, cotton, Andy know and Steven Crowder, multiple members of the intellectual dark web and whatever TIM Pool is. I said that I I laughed when I saw that I'm like I got to say you dedicated all, is so much of your time to absorbing my content and you're right and and your final conclusion was whatever he is. I

Respect that tremendously. I think it's fair to say I don't know. I think it's fair to call me a centrist based on independent research and community feedback with a medium confidence level. All sides calls me center center. Does it mean that my politics are all in the middle? It means that I sometimes agree with conservatives sometimes with progressives, and that's actually what Wikipedia said. So. I can respect that too. I absolutely do not respect any of this, because it is a false sphere using an organization designed to smear people. So, in the end, I'm sorry for making this video so long. My ultimate conclusion is man. I I apologize making a video about myself in this capacity, but it's it's frustrating how you know I've, I I I do. I do so much. I work so hard. I've made tremendous growth gains and succeeded in so many ways and the media does not care. They do not care at all. They don't have to. I got it, but it's frustrating then, when all they care about is saying bad things about me. Our society is sick.

Our news industry is trash. I know I play well. I know we're all playing the same game. I try my best. I wish news organizations actually took interest in writing things that are potentially interesting, but I gotta admit writing that TIM Poole, formerly of ice and fusion has just shattered a crowdfunding record to launch a new digital media outlet. At a time when media is collapsing, probably won't get you as many clicks is calling the far right conspiracy, theorist and that's world we live in and even even when I reach out to journalists, I know saying: do this is a big deal? Ok, I know I worked in these companies, they say whatever I don't care. Instead, what do you see? Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy media reporters for CNN used to cover. You know. Actual media issues talk about fake news. Now, it's all trump, all the time Oliver Darcy he interviewed me in the past and now I see him tweeting petty nonsense at Dave, Rubin and I'm like here we go. We have devolved to this degree. I do my best to avoid petty squabbles. I do my. I am not perfect, I'm not perfect I'll all of

drone apology to Becca Lewis, because I absolutely uh would state that's when she wrote that aim report, which I completely disagree with and believe, was incorrect. That's fine! I got. I got mad about it for sure, and so I dedicated energy to it and it it and and it's it's complicated, it's kind long story short. I decided it was a mistake and I've made many mistakes in my life and I should be dedicating energy to this nonsense and, if somebody's opinion about me, I really don't care. I just wish we had a media at a community politics that actually cared about the state of our country that cared about making things better. That cared about real accolades in a calm. Which meant an advancement developments, and I know it exists. Ok, I'm just saying when it comes to politics and media, it is media versus media. One of the reasons they want to write about. It is because who wants to write, who wants to dig their own grave, essentially MIKE

He is failing, and this too is taking off. When I write a story about it yeah I don't. I don't blame them, so it's it's and I'll admit part of it's. My fault, it's my fault, because since I've started this career, I have been extremely critical of the meat yeah and their failures. I once at a major news conference on stage that everyone of you should be fired and they did not like that, and I sense because the technology has changed too much and you don't know what's happening or why it's happening. So in the end, I think it's partly because the media is always hated me at all for being the the the disruptor who's coming to take away their jobs and that's still the case. You have a po literally charged media digital media sphere and when I left ice chewing the injection of politics. So of course, they're going to smear me across the board. You cannot have someone in your ranks, come out and say yeah, I'm blowing the whistle you've done wrong because it damages your bottom line at

time when your ship is already sinking and there it is, and that's what the media. Today long video, sorry it stick around next time will be coming up in a few minutes and I'll see you all shortly. Following up on my last segment, I also want to talk about another particularly frustrating problem when dealing with press the issue is I'm ahead of the market. I've always been. I was told by a journalism professor. I have the unfortunate privilege of being ahead of the market. Does that mean it means when I talk about things, they say TIM you're, wrong, you're, a conspiracy, theorist and other nonsense, and then a couple, this later or a couple months later they realize I was right and then the story becomes mainstream. So maybe instead of trying to be in front of everybody I'll, just hold what I know for a few months until someone else says it check out the story. Facebook isn't free speech, it's algorithmic amplification optimized for outrage. When did I talk about that along time ago? When was I ignored along time ago? Well, I get it. I know that you all who watch me probably think I do

the job, because I usually have a bunch of thumbs up on my videos, but when we get this narrative about Youtube radicalization, what they ignored was Facebook radicalization. So I've been talking about this for awhile. I say nothing when I tell them that your claims about you, too, bye are are incorrect based on the data they ignore. It well give it a few months, because the data is clear: they're wrong, you've got people fabricating nonsense, but this story is important story. Talks about the radicalization of of of Facebook. Facebook is a radicalization engine. We give a simple understanding. First. Is it possible that you too can open the door to new ideas and lead you down a rabbit hole? Well, of course it is. However, you

Shoes you have to choose when you go to youtube dot com you see up on out on average between. I believe it's ten fifteen videos on your front page. You will choose one of them afterwards. There is auto play an auto play randomly chooses. Now that I can understand, but auto plate would impose would mean is, is is what you you turn you do when you walk away some people do, but in the end, well, there is the possibility of being radicalized by Youtube. You ultimately choose what you want to watch. If you watch a video about Superman and then it auto plays a video called. I hate, Superman and he's dumb you're not going to immediately hate super you're going to see that you're going to be like dude, no you're going to exit out or back once. I don't want to see that in fact, that's what we here all day and night Moses. More recently put this thing about how people were you know given suggested videos, they didn't want to watch and they chose not to watch them. Let me tell you how it's different with Facebook. Facebook gives you a feed of content where you see

in post at a time, and you can share them directly. So when you see an outrage, video on Youtube and you click it, you might have Youtube share with you. Some content and I admit it exists, but it's not. They have a deal because ultimately people might see something. I don't see it but and when someone you know, shares something with you and it appears on your front page. It says shared by and it's a video and an auto place auto place the front page. Your facebook dot com, you didn't choose, you had one video place right in front of you starts playing. What ends up happening is that companies realized what works rage

outrage. We get inundated with social justice content, and then we saw the media say this makes money. This gets shared roll with it. It took off, let's read the story from Techcrunch. They say this week. Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech in which he had in which he extolled, giving everyone a voice and fighting to uphold a r, a Y definition of freedom of expression as possible a wide, as definition. That sounds great, of course, free to

Expression is a cornerstone, if not the cornerstone of liberal democracy. Who could be opposed to that now? I know: there's always people who get angry about the phrase. Liberal democracy, liberal democracy refers to individual liberties and democratic institutions, not left, leaning, direct democracy. The problem is that Facebook doesn't offer free speech. It offers free amplification. No one. No one would much care about anything. You posted to Facebook matter how false or hateful, if people had to navigate your particular page, to read your rantings as in the very early days of the site, and there it is face. Put it front and centre. Now I can. I can criticize Youtube as well, but face books worse when you go to youtube dot com. It might show you video, where you're like hey, I hate that don't click it. You click the when you do like, or You can actually highlight it and say I don't like this on Facebook. You can too, but there's like two or three posts. You see in your feet at a time

But what people actually ran Facebook is what's in their news. Feed and its contents in turn are determined not by giving everyone equal voice and not by a strict chronological timeline. What you re on Facebook is determined entirely by Facebook's algorithm, which allows much sensors much if you wrongly, think the news feed is free speech and amplifies little. What's what is amplified two forms of content for native content of the algorithm optimizes for engagement. This in turn means people spend more time on Facebook and therefore more time in the company of that other form of content which is amplified paid. Advertising. Of course, This is an absolute as Sucker Burg notes in his speech. Facebook works to stop things like hoax is an medical misinformation from going viral, even if they, otherwise, even if they are otherwise anointed by the algorithm.

Yes specifically decided that Facebook will not attempt to stop paid political misinformation from going viral. I personally disagree the decision, but I think it's something about which result reasonable people can disagree. Thank you are perfect. I do disagree. However, are I I I I agree with Mark Zuckerberg decision. I disagree with you, but I think it's very it's reasonable. However, I find it deeply disingenuous to claim that this is somehow about defending free speech. If someone were to try to place a blatantly false political ad on any plan

our network, what anyone seriously consider decision not to run that had an attack on free speech? What what? What what of course not and they shouldn't take the converse argument seriously either some networks do run attack ads, knowing so you're incorrect here. I do think it's fair to point out. Well, I disagree with individual. I think it's important to bring up this. This conversation. There's a solution, eliminate the algorithms seriously reverse chronological order for everything. Stop favoring anybody seriously. Just we're done Youtube Twitter, Facebook. Everybody wants to optimize for time on site, stop apps what we need to do, and it's been it's been propose, I believe, by Republican, eliminate ing, algorithmic feeds, and you know I thought about in the past when I first saw it was actually impressed by it was like an older. I can't member who proposed it. So I don't expect anything, but I think that's it. If I You see my tweet, I tweet! That's it timing, do

if you are outside yelling about Donald Trump and I'm at work. I can't hear you if you start yelling around the time. I I drive past you. I can that's normal, that's the real world, the album's che! is this the algorithms make it so that when you're yelling about Trump, they purposefully find you and bring you to my work. So I can see you write a place. I wouldn't normally be it. So the point I'm saying is: if I go to youtube dot com, I shouldn't see what you think I want to see. I should just see what happens to be there at the time. That's what this means bad news for me, because the algorithm treats me well in a lot of respects. You know Youtube has, has, has direct this channel and suppress certain, but my main channel I get it, but for the most part, Youtube still chooses my videos over others on the front page. When people are coming at any given time,

would it make more sense if my video only appeared at four hundred pm technically? No, it would be bad bad bad. For me, some people get on Youtube at seven hundred pm, so I'm at eight. They would have to specifically choose to come to my channel to see my videos, but you know what it's probably the best thing you can do. That means that no one would be able to game the system, Facebook or otherwise. You couldn't create content, you knew would generate outrage. Actually. This would still affect Facebook in a certain degree, because shares can happen all throughout the day, but think about it right now. People can gain the Youtube algorithm because, because the algorithm exists, but they try to make shocking content, they try to make contact with a long retention time and, admittedly, there's a format that works. My channel an my commentary, doesn't just work because I am who I am and I think what I think it's because, to a certain degree there

think about the time frame, the structure that you to blacks. I honestly don't know entirely what that is other than ten minute long. Videos are preferred because I watch the game with you about it, and so I said okay, you know, but everybody knows about a ten minute thing and more importantly, I gotta admit I just talk for twenty minutes. I try to keep my videos shorter. You know I I try not to go over, so I've actually missed my my main channel videos shorter today on purpose, but here's the thing if it was all just time based you post a video appears or notifications, you would solve all of those rabbit hole problems, but guess what Youtube and Facebook would lose money and that's what they don't want to do. So, let's, let's push back on Mark Zuckerberg and let's push back the far left theory about rabbit hole, radicalization on Youtube and say? No, no, listen! All that needs to happen for everybody get rid of the algorithm, bring it back to Merritt. Do I deserve to have your attention honestly? Don't know, I'm just a dude with some ideas.

And that's why in and many of my videos, I say: if you support my work, consider sharing the video. If you go to a burger shop- and you like the burger, you can then go to your friends, they do do do this. Burger is really great. We gotta go, try it out. Congratulations. You have shared the ideal, someone organically on magic. If we had a an algorithmic city in which, because people started going to in and out more than what a burger or whatever it's called, they started to literally the end up closer to the downtown area. Now there are to an extent certain natural algorithms in that capacity, and if you open a burger shop, downtown and the foot traffic is there, but nobody buys your burger, you got it. You got a business. Someone eventually opens a business that works, but that's organic and over time it would be strange if I made a great business, so the city moved a business out,

have a good location and put mine there. We would accept that. So perhaps the solution to all of these problems, to polarization to the exploitation of social media by these companies and the incentive to create smear pieces and controversy and outrage, would be get rid of algorithms, because then you can't game the system for the most part. Outrage would still work. People would still share those things, but you couldn't force it down someone's throat on Facebook and extent on Youtube. If a video hits those nerves, they share it for you, Stop Facebook from choosing what to share with everybody and just show reverse chronological order, but you know it will never happen because they make too much money so I'll leave it there sticker. I got one more video coming up in just a few minutes and I will see you all shortly. Let me know what you think

You may have seen a tweet from me if you follow me on Twitter and I was pretty mad and I swore yep that's right. There was a swear word in that tweet and I basically said Tulsi Gabbert Progressive she's always been a progressive and she gets attacked, relentlessly by the left. What does that say about our current state of politics and what Let's say to us: people have historically voted Democrat. Being smeared by the left as well. What the f do you want from us and, of course the response for most people was total submission and they're, saying it sarcastically like that sarcastically, but like that's what they want, they want total submission from you and I agree. I'm sorry. The left is falling apart. It's not my fault, I didn't make it happen and saying so doesn't make me a conservative but I'll tell you what we gotta couple stories I want to highlight in that vein and then we'll talk about it. Trump defends Tulsa. Takes on Clinton over russian conspiracy theories man. You know the name of the two

arms link and I'm like Tulsi Gabbert supporters. Donald Trump supporters linking hands over being smeared as russian bots and assets. I feel you man, there was there's that mean blowing around where it's James, Franco, tamago hat on a noose and it says being serious. Oceans and he's like first time and it's like I'm not not not not not not really mean, because I've on defended Donald Trump in many ways. I've criticized in in many ways I I lean towards you know not like him so much, but I'm not a crazy person right. So I find a lot of the media. Attacks are disingenuous and frankly strange, so they call me a russian bought. Are they they? They? They love the accusations, not not so much against me right for the most part, but up against many people who legitimately support the president's a russian bought summary is not true. There's like

but very very tiny amount of actual russian bots. It's all exaggerated conspiracy nonsense, but now, as Tulsi Gabbert fans can really really revel in Hillary Clinton, smearing us well, they smeared her. She called her a russian asset, she's being groomed and the bots are supporting her and things like that was like an indirect but listen man, I'm not, but there's no apparatus behind me supporting me through the Russians. That's ridiculous! I put an event. People showed up. You know. I actually did think I'm like man. What if it was the case that all my views were faking, it just Russia

and it makes no sense. That's a conspiracy insanity. Nonsense is far from the simple solution to imply that I got in the straight recognized all the time people come up to me. I take their hands and, and it's it's just reality- the reality is Paul. Trump won the election. The reality is disaffected. Liberals, moderate types like me support, Tulsi Gabbard, even though tulsi does have positions, I do not like she's against nuclear energy and Antes corporations, and I disagree with that. However, I I have a lot of respect for her character, wise and I think she's doing what she can do to be amicable to those who disagree with her, and that is probably one of the most important aspects of of what we. What we must point things we need right now well

really this man. I will give my respect to Trump for defending Tulsi Gabbert, because this is the kind of left versus right. We should be having someone living weird conspiracy theories against Chelsea and Trump coming out and saying none of that now. You can criticize Trump for the writer he's used against other politicians and personalities, and I believe that would be fair, but I think back to John Mccain and Barack Obama, there was a town hall meeting where someone called Obama a Muslim and John Mccain said no. No, no, no! He is a Goodman, a good Christian the family, I just happen to disagree, and that was incredible. It was a great. I know. I know people don't like I'm looking for a lot of reasons. I agree. Warhawk right come on. If you don't, you know, you're talking to all, I got not a criticism, because I gave him respect in passing and that has more to do with

human decency, as opposed to like I don't like John Mccain. You give me crazy he's like the epitome of Warhawk. You know, but the point is John Mccain was still for all the things I don't like about. Him was still willing to give respect to Obama and what happened right? What happened? Now? I mean with Hillary Trump's: are Russia and the whole time and Trump's like what can Trump gave it right back? I fully admit that, but I like this,

I like the idea that truck defense policy over Clinton's conspiracy theories so that there's a little bit more read a little bit of this and have another story because of some updates toll sees issued another statement about Hillary, so Trump tweeted. So now crooked Hillary is at it again. She is calling Congressman Tulsi Gabbard, a russian favorite and just on a russian asset, as you may have heard, I was called a big rush, a lover also. Actually I do like russian people. I, like all people, Hillary's gone crazy, are do they have the next week from them. I don't know he he he he in another. Another point where he said: Jill Stein is a renowned environmentalist being smeared. They say they are. It's no surprise Trump weighed in on the ongoing test between congressman told seat at

former democratic presidential nominee after spending months, embroiled in controversy over at months years. You mean Clinton. After all, made it known that she suspected Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin, had a hand in her two thousand and sixteen LOS to trump. Just days after the results of the presidential election became final. This is it. We have conspiracy, Thierry former Democrat former democratic candidate. The most prominent figure in our party pushing conspiracy in Sandy, welcome, welcome to conspiracy, two thousand and twenty. Now, fortunately Van Jones, even Beto O'Rourke defended Tulsi Gabbert, I'm sorry, Hillary you're out people have think you've gone nuts. People believe now that you've gone nuts. They say you know. Last week, Clinton said: Gabbert was russian asset Gabbert fired back. We saw that stuff. Marianne Williamson chimed in much respect for her to marry and they say Yang to that. Gabbert deserved much more respect and thanks,

Yang Yang's good did Merion Williamson. The democratic establishment has got to stop sneering women, it finds inconvenient, Rourke, told reporters Saturday that told C isn't is not being a grilled by anyone. She has her own person. Obviously I serve. This country continues to serve this country uniform in Congress as a candidate for president seat. So I think those facts speak for themselves and I, if there's anybody I could say I hate it's been a rock, but I will give him respect for that statement, because when you do good you'll get my respect, and I will I will I will. I will admit that fully. I have no problem being wrong. I have no problem giving you know. A credit to people were credit is due. I, I am not super concerned about some ideological nonsense. They say the Clinton hasn't spoke further on the smear instead pulling out of a planned event where she would shared the stage with Gabbert Gather, on the other hand, has only benefited from her spent the Detroit NEWS reports that Gabbert's sky rocketed to fame in Iowa, where voters can now identify

Here, by name and no details over Background Donald Trump, I would like to give Donald Trump thanks for giving recognition to Tulsi GAB our, and this is where that that the Trump supporter Gabbard fans come into play. I know the heart trouble borders really don't like toasty, because toss is a bit far left yeah. I do like to see, I think, there's there's grounds to have a conversation with her on the policies. I disagree with her on that respective character. I respect her willingness to do

find people when they've done right when Trump was cleared of wrongdoing. The more investigation policy ever part of it is in the city good thing and we need to move on respected. She said impeachment. She shouldn't have flip flopped on it, so I'm gonna criticize her for that. But at least you said it took it, people to stop fundraising off of it and being so divisive and hyper partisan. When it comes to the inquiry, I can respect the position actually. Thank you thanks. We we have to check presidential authority if we have to, but you need to calm down and stop you know being so divisive about this. I disagree with her on you know. For the most part, I can respect the opinion I don't think she's being for the most. For the most part, I think she's being a principled, though I do think some of this may have to do with pressure from Democrats, because they all want the the impeachment but think about it. What trump just did right here helps Tulsi Gabbard, I told the help herself told the statement was huge and it was praised by the left and the right, and you can't even Beto O'Rourke Yang Merry once in the coming toward defense, Cory Booker put a tweet like whoa. Does he pull no punches, so she

she did it yourself. You know told C propped herself up, but here's the thing a tweet from Donald Trump is substantial and tulsi Gabbard is going to get a ton of name recognition, because the president has acknowledged her. The funding may not be a good thing. I think a world in which we have Donald Trump and a Democrat at disagreeing and and and told the governors had choice, words very negative words for Donald Trump and Trump still came out defender. I think it's politically expedient for Trump to do so. I think he would like to prop up close together. I say this: if you think, if you think for Allah, I don't think you can win a majority me, and I I really do I'm a big fan of I'm a donor. I so I I I I believe in her and and and and and a lot of ways, and I really really love these big high profile smackdown. She doesn't establishment, I don't show when okay and I and I and I know what I'd be better off lying and being like. Of course, you can win. Jenna come on man, I'm a realist, and I don't try to I don't try to.

I don't try to pull the wool over everybody's eyes are trying play games for the sake of winning. I understand that if you get enough people believing show when it probably would help her, but I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna play that game. Okay. However, I think it's very important policy gabbard becomes more and more prominent gains more mainstream appeal among Democrats and among the american people, because, regardless of what her position is on Trump, we need to have politicians who are willing to say okay and sit down. I'll. Tell you this. The Democrats, media and yes, even me, were critical of Donald Trump sisters on the route from back down, Trump backs down, doesn't always back down, but at least you did this time. As I say, okay, you made a mistake because of the racers. This means something important. It means when the people loud enough Trump backs down 'cause. I think the reality is Trump wants to be loved by everybody in the left. May disagree they're like no trump, no, no listen. Man Trump has always been this person who wants everyone to

so his name and he wants them to respect and love him, and then everybody does not. Everybody does. In fact I remember who said this may have been like Steve, Bannon or something that Trump is going to hate running for Prez, because it's a big celebrity now that everyone loves, but as soon as you run, they will tear you apart and, and that's the that's, that's a fact yeah. So there are some people now who probably like trouble now just despise him. I think Trump is somebody who, if, given the choice to be loved by everybody, he would you be a centrist. I really do believe it, and I remember us some was talking about how he he was pushing forward like second I'm in control of gun control, stuff and the conservatives got mad at. But the other Democrats didn't give him the praise he needed to call him to the center. So it's a fine anyone with those he's on the bigger crowd of people waving cheering formats. We went I think Trump is a populist, I think is intention is to cater to that as many people as he can, and I think Trump wants to be loved by many people as he can.

So hell be nice to you. If you think it's going to it's, if, if you're going to you given the mentor spect, so I think Trump is going after what you think will get in that respect, I think Tom recognize the media will always hate him. The left will always hate him, and so because of that, he just fine. He goes to the right. If we can create a world where you have tulsi gabbard on the left. Where you have Democrats actually getting behind her, although many don't want to get behind her for stupid reasons, 'cause they're pro war, I guess, but if the dominant personality in this country were trump and tulsi, we would have two politicians coming closer to the center and catering to the majority of Americans, Anne, creating something.