Tim Black misconstrued the reasons for Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote on the impeachment resolutions, which ignored Trump's war crimes (highlighted by Gabbard in a censure resolution), and didn't have a well thought-out rationale for why he thought a "yes" vote was appropriate. Below are some links to articles and videos I cite in the video or think are relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaKrDKSiEKs Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote unpacked. This is the video that this video is a response to. https://twitter.com/RealTimBlack/status/1209011706535514112 Tim responds rather dismissively to those who criticized his video, accusing them of just being "livid because I disagreed with Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore" instead of acknowledging and responding to the substantive nature of their comments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtHxJTFhljQ A video Tim put out this summer that I thought was a very thoughtful and detailed look at an activist's protest of Kamala Harris that was criticized by a lot of people. Tim broke down video of the incident and interviewed the protester (Aidan Cook). https://medium.com/@jeffmelton/beyond-optics-the-trouble-with-liberal-privilege-checkers-1a8c84fb4026 I wrote an article also defending activist Aidan Cook's controversial protest of Kamala Harris; Tim's video was one of the sources I used. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf Transcript of Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, a central piece of evidence in the Democrats' impeachment case against Donald Trump. One can see that there's improper soliticitation of foreign intervention in US political affairs there, but no threat against the Ukrainian President, as has been alleged took place, is evident. https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-house-censure-president-putting-personal-political-gain The text of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's resolution censuring Donald Trump, which Tim did not mention/discuss in his video. https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-12-19-tulsi-gabbard-releases-statement-impeachment-president-trump A more detailed explanation from Tulsi Gabbard of the reasons why she did not vote "yes" or "no" on impeaching Donald Trump. I would have presented things differently, and brought up the hypocrisy of a corrupt party impeaching a President on conduct similar to that in which they themselves have engaged. I would have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of the Democrats voted for Trump's "defense" budget and border wall and for renewal of the Patriot Act. But the point she makes is valid, and the same one made by Rep. Jerry Nadler when Clinton was impeached--this is a highly partisan affair, and impeachment proceedings shouldn't be that way. https://twitter.com/leftyvegan/status/1209515103273603076/photo/1 A summary of Tulsi Gabbard's legislative record and issue positions. Does this look like a "centrist" to you, as Tim implied that she was? https://twitter.com/leftyvegan/status/1209141121059901440/photo/1 Though this is only one of many polls with varying results, the fact that Trump is ahead of all the Democratic challengers in head to head matchups is pretty telling about the counterproductive nature of Dems' efforts first to accuse Trump of conspiring with Russia and then to try to impeach him over dealings with Ukraine. Trump's popularity has never been higher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY Joe Biden brags about pressuring Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor, who was apparently involved in investigating Burisma Energy Company. Below: four articles I didn't get to, three that reveal a lot about the corruption and hypocrisy of the Democrats, and one that takes a more extensive look at Trump's impeachable offenses. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/26/what-isnt-mentioned-about-the-trump-ukraine-scandal-the-routine-corruption-of-us-foreign-policy/ https://www.thenation.com/article/impeachment-democrat-pelosi-doomed/ https://nader.org/2019/11/26/nader-and-constitutional-scholars-push-for-12-articles-of-impeachment/

Recently, there has been a great deal of controversy over videos on The Joe Rogan Experience that, according to critics, have spread misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Following an open letter from medical and scientific professionals and educators detailing the misinformation and demanding that host company Spotify adopt some sort of policy for moderating misinformation, musician Neil Young had his music removed from Spotify in protest, and other members of his former band (Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young) as well as other artist followed suit. In this episode, I take a detailed look at the information presented about COVID and vaccines on Rogan's show as well as another popular podcast, The Jimmy Dore Show, and demonstrate that both shows have indeed presented misinformation, yet up until recently (when Spotify announced that they would add a content advisory to any video that addressed COVID-19 that linked to medical information published by scientists and physicians), no action had to my knowledge been taken to moderate the content of either show. In contrast, I and several podcasters or journalists I know have had videos taken down by YouTube for supposedly sharing misinformation of various sorts even though no misinformation was presented. Last week, I shared a video on YouTube (which is also available here on Odysee) entitled "Are Vaccine Mandates Fascist?" in which I made the case that they were not only not fascist, but a necessary tool in increasing vaccination rates so as to better combat the COVID pandemic. I presented information from the New York City Health Dept. and the CDC showing that vaccines were effective in reducing the likelihood of COVID infection as well as hospitalization and death from COVID. Despite the fact that I presented data from these sources in accordance with the general scientific consensus on COVID vaccine efficacy, YouTube removed my video, claiming that I had violated their "medical misinformation" policy, and denied my appeal of their decision. It is hard for me to believe that anyone at YouTube actually watched my video and arrived at such a conclusion, so the only plausible conclusion is that the "decision" was made by a poorly-designed computer algorithm. It appears that YouTube/Google arbitrarily censors shows like mine with small audiences that don't earn it advertising dollars, claiming that they present misinformation or otherwise violate YouTube's Terms of Service even when they do not, whereas shows that earn YouTube large sums of revenue such as Jimmy Dore's show face no such penalties even when they engage in clear violations of YouTube's rules. How is it at all helpful to the goal of presenting accurate information for YouTube to moderate content in this manner? Clearly it isn't. At the same time, I argue, even people who consider themselves free speech absolutists do not REALLY believe that people should have the right to say anything they want to anyone, anywhere, at any time. There is such a thing as speech that is harmful, such as if we yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, advocate driving drunk, yell racist or homophobic epithets in someone's face--OR share medical misinformation that could, if believed, result in bodily harm or even death. Physicians are required to commit themselves to a set of ethical guidelines which in some paraphrased form include the famous dictum: "Above all, do no harm." Words that misinform people can do harm, and we all, whether we are doctors or people in any other walk of life, have a responsibility to society to not say or do things that can cause harm to others. Others may or may not literally prevent a person from making such utterances (i.e., censor them), but they can be expected to react in some fashion intended to discourage people from doing so when speech they deem harmful occurs.