"I'm Not Sure I'm A Democrat Anymore," Democrats Move Too Far Left
"I'm Not Sure I'm A Democrat Anymore," Democrats Move Too Far Left. A Washington Post reporter tweeted during the Democratic Debate last night that someone said they aren't sure they are a Democrat anymore because the party has moved so far to the left.The data proves it. Time and time again we see polling data showing that the Democrats have taken a far left turn in the past 10 years, so much so that movements like #WalkAway have started to emerge and regular people are shocked by what is being proposed.Last night every candidate offered a healthcare plan for illegal immigrants and even went so far as to say we should not be charging people for crossing the border illegally. This is tantamount to open borders and mathematically impossible.The Democrats have just said they would provide massive incentives and no penalty for people coming here illegally, a move that is sure to encourage more people to take a risky journey.Trump tweeted that this move by Democrats sealed their fate, it will help him get reelected. But I think it will go further and this far left social justice pandering will help Republicans in general.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Rachel Bade, a reporter with the Washington Post, tweeted this yesterday during the debates.
Overheard while watching the debate just now, quote, I'm not sure I'm a Democrat anymore.
Democrat next to me complaining about how far left the party has moved.
And it has.
And many people feel this way.
And Trump's even tweeting the statements of the Democrats embracing open borders or some kind of weird form of it is securing him re-election.
Yes.
The other day, Joe Biden said we should not focus on deporting undocumented immigrants who have committed no major crimes.
This is not like direct open borders, right?
Open borders would be like what Europe has in the Schengen zone.
Or open borders is like Illinois to Indiana.
You just drive back and forth.
No one stops you.
That's a complete open border.
But what we're talking about right now is a Democratic Party that says not only do they not want to deport illegal immigrants, they also want to provide them with health care.
That doesn't make sense.
If you're not going to deport people, and you're offering them healthcare, well they'll just come here and get free healthcare.
We already have a problem with trying to fund universal healthcare as it is.
How can we then open up to the entire world, to anybody who wants to come here?
And naturally then, you will see people saying, quote, I'm not sure I'm a Democrat anymore.
And we've got data to back this up.
Now I've shown you charts from a while back showing Democrats have veered far left, Absolutely true.
We have new data from a new group published in the New York Times.
The first thing I want to do, however, is highlight the statement from Joe Biden.
Undocumented immigrant without criminal record should not be focus of deportation.
Before we get into all of the news, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is like, comment, or share the video.
Recently, I was told YouTube will not be sharing my videos to the suggested feed anymore through suggestions, so I rely on you to share my content if you think it's worth listening to.
It's also available as a podcast on all platforms around every day at 630.
Let's get back to the story.
In the Wall Street Journal, they highlight this specifically.
The candidates are now answering the questions of what they would do with those seeking asylum in the U.S., a question that has taken on new urgency this week after a photo emerged of a Salvadoran father and his young daughter who drowned while trying to cross the southern border into the U.S.
Kamala Harris says she would take executive action to furnish legal status and a path to citizenship for young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children.
We get it.
They're called DREAMers.
However, the focus should be on Joe Biden's statement, which, you know, they, so I guess they already highlighted it, so they move on to everyone else.
Asked whether an undocumented immigrant with no other criminal records should be deported, Joe Biden chose his words carefully.
That person should not be the focus of deportation.
So let me make one thing clear.
He's not saying we shouldn't deport them.
He's saying they shouldn't be the focus.
So what?
After we deport all the criminals, then we'll get to the undocumented immigrants?
Listen.
I've said it time and time again.
I would love to help everybody.
I would love to open up the borders to everybody.
We can't.
Okay?
Resources are finite.
Our education systems are strained.
Our plumbing systems are strained.
The infrastructure of New York City is strained.
So yes, we need a legal immigration process to make sure we don't destroy the infrastructure and communities of certain areas because communities are designed, economies are built around the amount of people and the needs of the people.
A massive influx of people unchecked could be devastating.
Now let's talk about Medicare for All.
Almost everybody supports it in some form or another.
That's the ultimate goal, they say.
Though some disagree on how you get there.
Think about this.
California has already offered up... I have some polls, maybe we'll get to.
They're going to be providing healthcare to illegal immigrants.
Look, we can't afford universal health care in the United States for citizens.
How would we expand that to include undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants?
What will end up happening is you'll have people in Mexico saying, just hop the border.
It's not a criminal offense to do so.
And you get free health care.
That is maximizing the incentives for people to come here illegally in the first place.
You're not going to stop the problem, and you're not going to prevent people from taking the dangerous journey and losing their lives.
You will encourage it.
So here's what I want to show you.
This is from the New York Times.
And once again, another example of Democrats going off the rails, okay?
I'm probably around here.
So for those that are listening to the podcast, we have two lines, a blue line and a red line.
We can see that in the year 2000, there was a pretty big divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Up till about 2008, they actually moved closer together, with the Democrats shifting to the right quite a bit.
But something happened between 2008 to 2012 to 2016 that has sent the Democrats to the
so far left. It's absurd. The Republican Party as of 2016 is slightly to the right of where
they were in 2000.
I don't think that's a good thing.
I think we could go for a slight shift to the left.
I'm someone who's center-left, so I recognize that.
But you know why I'm center-left?
Because in the United States, not talking about Europe and foreign countries, talking about American politics, the Democrats have gone off the deep end.
I was probably a firm leftist back when Obama was getting elected.
But today, where Obama is, is further to the right than where the Republicans... So let me try and reframe this, make it easier to understand.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans in 2008 is smaller than the gap between Democrats in 2008 and Democrats in 2016.
The swing is ridiculous.
It's also really funny what the New York Times did.
So let me show you what the New York Times did here.
We can see this, uh, this is a graph.
We're seeing a left to right, and we have the furthest right is like Party for Freedom and the Swiss People's Party, and the furthest left is the left in Germany.
They claim the median is around Social Democrats.
This, however, is comparing the U.S.
to a bunch of different foreign countries.
I have no concern about the Conservative Party in Canada being somewhat to the left of the Republicans, or the Conservative Party of Britain being in the center in between Republicans and Democrats.
To me, that's irrelevant.
We're talking about the American cultural shift, not European cultural shift.
What they're doing is comparing the Democrats to Europe, and then saying the Republicans are far right.
By that logic, Democrats in 2008 were far right.
That's insane.
But now you know exactly why they're claiming people like me, who are like Democrats were 10 years ago, are far right.
It's insanity.
It's complete insanity.
The Democrats have shifted so far to the left, they're now openly embracing open borders and healthcare for illegal immigrants.
The next story we have is from RealClearPolitics.
All Democrats at Maine Debate agree illegal immigrants should get healthcare coverage.
How?
I mean it seriously.
I'd love to give all of the goodies in the world to everybody.
I'd love everyone to have healthcare.
I do not agree with the statement, healthcare is a human right, because I feel like that's a nonsense statement meant to placate your tribe.
Let's be real.
Human rights involve abstract concepts.
The right to self-expression.
The right to freedom of movement.
The right to defend yourself, etc.
Sometimes rights can be curtailed if you violate the rights of others.
It's a complicated process, but it's a legal system.
Healthcare is a service and resources provided by other people.
You can't guarantee services and resources as a right.
You would think food would come before healthcare, wouldn't it?
Or water.
Is water a human right?
The answer is...
No.
While I certainly don't believe anyone should have a right to restrict access to water for the most part, for a lot of reasons we have to do this.
Because some people might do gross things in the water that hurt everybody.
And there might be a finite amount of water for a small community and we can't just let someone come in and take it.
So it can't be a universal right.
But the air, it's complicated, right?
The air is something in which we breathe, so it's not black and white.
How can we guarantee healthcare to people when someone has to invent the technology, produce the drugs, and provide the service?
It's nonsense.
However, I do believe that as a great civilization, a great society, we can do more to ensure healthcare to all, because you can't have a civilization where people are walking around and just collapsing and getting sick.
And, you know, the example they gave in the debate, which I do agree with, is, I think it might have been Kamala Harris, said that your child is sick with a fever, and so you call 911, they say, bring him to the hospital, and you're sitting in the parking lot with your hand on their forehead.
To me, the scenario I imagine is, Do we go in and have to pay a massive bill?
Or are we going to be okay if we don't?
That to me is terrifying.
So I think there's a potential for like a base level of coverage plus private insurance.
It's a really hard problem.
I don't have the answers.
I don't want to see people suffer, but it requires hospitals, it requires bedrooms, it requires tools, and you can't just give it away.
But let's say for a moment we entertain the notion that as the United States we decide to jack up taxes and provide health care to everyone no matter what.
Okay, that's an argument I've heard, and I'm told by everybody, we can't pay for it.
In fact, even Ocasio-Cortez, citing an accounting error, said that a $21 trillion accounting error would only account for like 60% of Medicare for All.
How would we then add more illegal immigrants to that healthcare plan?
You wouldn't be able to.
It's not possible.
It is delusion.
This was a stage full of people, and yes, I will include Andrew Yang, of which I have supported, who raised their hand saying, illegal immigrants should get health care coverage.
And they're talking about undocumented immigrants, they're talking about universal coverage.
Bernie Sanders apparently has a quote, where someone asked him if undocumented immigrants should get coverage, and he said, last I checked, health care was a human right, and they were humans.
Sure.
But Bernie also said recently, there are too many poor people, we can't have open borders.
Let me make it clear.
You've got people saying, it was Sally Khan I believe tweeted, anybody who's arguing that decriminalizing illegal immigration is open borders is lying to you.
Is that a joke?
Listen, I'm not talking about, there's a bunch of different ways to define an open border.
What they're talking about is creating a permanent underclass.
A servant class.
It is... It is terrifying.
Think about it.
You're allowed to come here.
Well, you're not allowed to come here, but we're not going to arrest you for it.
We're gonna hang the Sword of Damocles above your head.
We're gonna let you cross the border.
We'll even give you healthcare if you do it.
You won't be the focus of deportation, but we could still deport you.
You are asking people to come here as second-class citizens, like, they're not real citizens, but they'll be an underclass of people in this country, working in secret, with a sword of Damocles above their head, because at any moment it could drop, and they'll lose their lives.
And who prospers?
The wealthy industrialists and the privileged elites of big cities, who are gonna live off the backs of the less-than-minimum-wage underclass who comes here in desperation.
That doesn't sound progressive to me at all.
Well, let's look at this.
We got a poll here from Rasmussen.
This is from June 18th.
Voters give a thumbs down to California's new health care initiative for illegal immigrants.
They say California is set to become the first state to give full health care benefits to young low-income immigrants living in the United States illegally.
But a majority of the U.S.
don't support a similar initiative in their own state.
They say 31% favor it, 55% opposed, and 13% are not sure.
So who are the Democrats pandering to?
Not to Americans.
And you know what?
Donald Trump has taken notice.
Here's from Fox News.
Democrats' health care stance for illegal immigrants will help me win re-election.
He's not wrong.
Trump tweeted, All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited health care.
How about taking care of American citizens first?
That's the end of that race.
I'm in a weird position.
Look at this chart from the New York Times.
Yeah, the Democrats have just veered off and they're talking nonsense.
The math doesn't add up.
Trump's right.
We have a homeless crisis in Los Angeles.
And they're giving healthcare to illegal immigrants?
Listen, man.
I don't discriminate based on where you come from, okay?
I'm more than happy to break bread and have a drink with anyone from any country, even if they came here illegally.
But I'll tell you this.
We have finite resources.
We are particularly a wealthy nation.
But you are asking middle-class Americans to pay more taxes so that healthcare will go to people who are not citizens of this country.
That is not a social contract.
That is social extraction.
That is the extraction of the nation.
It was, I believe, Dylan Radigan, who said that the country was being extracted, and I think he was referring to outsourcing.
All of these jobs are being shifted overseas, and that's sending a portion of the American economy to low-wage workers in foreign countries, shifting our money away.
You have foreign countries investing in American property, buying up more property than even the citizens.
This kind of thing, it happens.
But regardless of those arguments, let's put it this way.
If ten people come together and say we're all going to pitch in ten bucks for pizza, And then those same 10 people agree.
We're also going to give pizza to anybody who just shows up and walks through the door.
Do you think you will get your money's worth of pizza?
You might as well give the pizza away.
I mean, some people might be okay with that, 100%.
But some of those 10 people are going to be hungry and wanted pizza, and they pitched in so they would all get pizza.
But then you decide anybody can have it.
So actually, look at it this way.
Let's say you're on a street corner and 10 people order pizzas on the table.
And you're eating pizza, and then, you know, five of the people are like, we're gonna vote to allow anybody who walks up to have pizza, and you're like, hey, wait, I paid for this, right?
It's for us.
Or how about you've got friends who don't have any pizza, and you're like, I think we should give my roommate food before we give the strangers outside food, right?
I think I'm beating a dead horse by talking about this story, so let's move on.
Interestingly, Michael Moore then says, the old Dem Party is hopefully dead.
For the first time in my life, I've watched Democrats fight to be more progressive.
I believe that Democrats are too obsessed in dealing with emotional reactions and virtue signaling.
They're speaking in Spanish, which for the most part is fine.
I know a lot of people who are outraged.
I take much less of an issue with that than probably the outraged Twitter.
It's silly.
I get it.
They're pandering.
That's my criticism of it.
I actually have respect for those who would try to speak Spanish in the debate.
Again, there are a lot of people in this country who speak Spanish, and more power to you.
But the issue I take with it is the pandering, the obvious pandering.
Okay?
We get it.
We get what you're doing.
But here's the thing.
They're talking about the immigrant children.
Who blocked the humanitarian aid package?
It wasn't the Republicans!
Okay?
The $4.5 billion that was supposed to go to border funding, it wasn't Republicans blocking it, it was them asking for it.
It was the Democrats.
And now we have this story.
House passes border funding bill after Pelosi reversal outrages progressives.
This has been a ridiculously absurd political debate.
Trump says there's a problem at the border.
Everybody calls him a liar.
The media says it's manufactured.
CNN says it's manufactured.
All of a sudden, people actually start paying attention, and it becomes impossible to ignore.
No, it wasn't manufactured.
The Democrats obstruct, but finally cave in.
Then we get AOC, the far-left Democrats, obstructing.
Finally, Nancy Pelosi reverses, and now everyone's on board.
Let me ask you this.
How did we get to the point where all of the major Democratic contenders are saying they want healthcare for undocumented immigrants, and they want to decriminalize illegal border crossings, and don't even want to focus on deporting them, and then just providing $4.6 billion to funding border security?
Because they're lying.
Because it's just emotional virtue.
It's virtue signaling and emotional responses.
It's like, Someone comes to you and says, why should I make you in charge of this office?
If you make me in charge, I will give everyone pizza.
What about the homeless people outside?
I'll give them pizza too.
Do you think they really will?
No, they won't.
They're just saying what they think you want to hear.
So they can get elected.
Because their plans literally make no sense.
You know what, man?
Here's my problem.
I, like many other people, are politically homeless.
Because I would put myself probably, for those listening on the podcast, to the left of Democrats in 2008.
Young upstart leftist.
But now I'm further to the right of the Democratic Party than the Democratic Party was to Republicans.
It's a point I've made time and time again.
That when I look to my right, I see Republicans who aren't that far away.
And when I look to my left, the Democrats are just driving off the cliff as far as they can go.
And that's why it's really funny to see this.
The first comment I highlighted while watching the debate, I'm not sure I'm a Democrat anymore, is the quote.
And what's really funny, someone responded, that person was never a Democrat.
And someone said, denial worked for Hillary.
I'm sure it will work this time too.
Yep.
The truth is, Americans are absolutely concerned about illegal immigration.
It is one of the most pressing problems, according to several polls.
I've got a few polls pulled up, so let's, I don't know which order I have them in.
So, this story shows Americans see illegal immigration, the border wall, and political compromise.
So, Democrats absolutely think illegal immigration is not a problem.
Republicans absolutely do.
But as we've seen, Democrats have shifted very far to the left.
This story, um... I'm not going to get into this one.
This one talks about, um... Oh, okay.
This is a more complicated story from Pew Research that talks about illegal immigration, so I'll just read this one page.
I don't want to get into too much of the nitty-gritty in the polls.
They say, Illegal immigration is the highest ranked national problem among GOP voters, but it ranks lowest among the 18 issues for Democratic voters, 75% and 19%.
The new national survey by Pew Research Center conducted What year is this?
This is from last October.
Finds the majorities of GOP voters view several issues as either very big or moderately big problems facing the country.
For example, so okay, you get the point, right?
I don't want to go too far into a lot of the poll stuff.
I don't want to get crazy in the nitty-gritty.
I want to keep it to the main points that I'm trying to make.
The issues I see are that if you are someone who is concerned about, what are we at, like 400,000 illegal immigrants coming into the southern border this year alone, 144,000 in one month, you're concerned about the people who have died trying to cross the border, you're concerned about the crowded detention centers, the answer isn't to offer free healthcare and open the borders.
That makes no sense.
That will encourage more people to come.
The answer is to secure the border, make sure we tell people there's a legal process to go through, otherwise we will increase the problems.
What ends up happening then, when the Democrats all say this, and once again I'll say it too, Yang included, who I've supported and I will be very critical of in this regard, are going to offer up these incentives for people to come here illegally.
What do you think is going to happen?
This is open borders.
Okay, let me finalize this video with the statement on open borders specifically.
If you have A border with no security, and you tell people there is no penalty for crossing it.
You then tell people we'll give you healthcare when you come.
It's not open borders by some definitions, because they will say, like, the Schengen zone in Europe is open borders.
No.
It is.
And it's a weird, twisted version that makes sure you have people who are permanently beneath US citizens, but somewhat welcome to be here, and they can get away with working under the table.
And that is the most insane thing I've ever seen.
The pure delusion of the Democratic contenders to say, Undocumented immigrants get healthcare, and there's no penalty for coming.
Congratulations!
Now the cost of universal healthcare is going to go up to $40 or $50 trillion.
And I'm going to say one more thing before I finish off this video.
Bernie Sanders recently said there are too many poor people in this world, they'll all come here.
But then he says that we should give healthcare to them?
He's contradicting himself.
I don't trust these people.
They disgust me.
They're liars.
None of them are telling the truth.
I've got a couple more really important points to highlight.
Andrew Yang had his microphone cut off during the debate last night.
I'm not exaggerating.
I tweeted out this video where you can see Andrew Yang talking and there's no sound.
He even said afterwards he tried butting in a few times and his mic was cut off.
It was not on.
So yeah, the Democrats and the media are crooked people.
They cheated Bernie in 2016.
Of course they did.
They're still doing it to a certain extent today, and now they're doing it to Yang.
Welcome to the game.
And this is why I am completely unsurprised to see a Washington Post reporter quote, I'm not sure I'm a Democrat anymore, says someone complaining about how far left the party has moved.
The Democrats won't stop going far left.
They are endorsing open borders.
They've lost the plot.
Thanks for hanging out.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Let me know what you think in the review, you know, leave a review on the podcast if you're listening on the podcast.
You can support my work at youtube.com slash, I'm sorry, timcast.com slash donate.
And more videos to come at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
I'm frustrated by the Democratic debates.
I mean, the first night was weird, boring.
I'm really impressed with Tulsi Gabbard though.
I'll end by saying this.
The two candidates that I've openly supported, Yang and Gabbard, I do think they hold policy positions, in terms of the United States, that I disagree with.
Look, you're never going to agree with a politician 100%.
Andrew Yang, to me, has the most comprehensive domestic policy platform, he comes off as a reluctant politician, and to his own detriment, he wasn't aggressive, pushy in the debates last night.
Though he did try to butt in, his mic was off.
That's insane.
Tulsi Gabbard went on Tucker Carlson the other night talking about the problem of the wars, bringing our troops out of the Middle East, and preventing war with Iran.
And she is one of the only people addressing the real foreign policy position.
And I am impressed every day when I see Republicans saying that, you know, Yang and Tulsi are the only common-sense Democrats, though they disagree with them.
I completely agree.
And I have tremendous respect for those people.
And I received a message today from someone saying, Gabbard did an outstanding job She was speaking truth when talking about foreign policy and she stood up to the Washington machine and good on her for going on Tucker Carlson on Fox News and addressing these issues.
And that is why I have tremendous respect for Gabbard and Yang.
I will be critical of Yang raising his hand saying he's going to give health care to illegal immigrants.
That, I think, is ridiculous.
I'm still willing to hear what he has to say, but that is a huge strike.
It comes off to me as like, dude, are you actually doing the math here?
Like, Andrew Yang says he's a math guy.
Okay, the math doesn't add up.
As for Gabbard, I do think she probably falls into a similar camp.
By all means, worthy of criticism.
But when it comes to America's foreign policy, the endless wars, and trying to instigate something with Iran, she's right, and she will keep my support so long as she keeps talking about that issue.
Beyond the foreign wars, I think everything else is stamp collecting.
I'm being facetious, but what I mean is...
We can debate all the domestic policy all day and night.
We can argue about the right way to ensure health care.
But how about the first thing we do is bring back our warships, stop flying drones and bombing foreign countries, and supplying weapons to foreign civil wars, and shore up our national defense, and not be isolationist, do trade, have agreements, but stop being this overly aggressive, warmongering country.
And that's why I really like Tulsi Gabbard.
The Democrats as a whole though are freaking me out.
And I'm at a point now where...
You know, look, I don't think they're gonna let Tulsi... Tulsi is not gonna be the nominee.
They're not gonna let it happen.
And neither will Yang.
They cut his mic off, for heaven's sake.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
But what I was really hoping was that Tulsi Gabbard would get on the debate stage and say exactly what she said, and I clap when I hear it.
Those are my politics.
When she talks about ending war and refocusing all of this money towards US infrastructure and resources, I'm like, hey, great, that's good for everybody.
Yang has great domestic policy ideas and he didn't even get to talk about it.
Other than that though, I think the Democrats are virtue signaling and they're going nuts.
And the data shows it.
The data shows it plain as day, over and over again.
The Democrats have shot to the far left so quickly.
The Republicans are kind of, they're not that far right of where they were 16 years ago, 20 years ago.
Not at all.
And it's completely ridiculous.
The Democrats are going off the deep end.
This quote.
I'll end, finally, with this.
I'm not sure I'm a Democrat anymore.
You know what?
I don't disagree.
Although I never really considered myself to be, like, a Democrat.
I found my politics mostly aligned with, like, urban liberals.
We'll see what happens, though.
Just because the Democrats have said crazy nonsense doesn't mean I'm gonna be a fan of Trump.
But I gotta say, as I've explained time and time again, take an average American and give them two choices.
Someone who says undocumented immigrants can just come here freely with no penalty and we'll give them health care, and someone who says maybe we should take care of Americans first, I'll tell you who they're gonna vote for every day of the week.
Donald Trump.
Stick around.
I'll see you at the next segment.
Last year, we heard the story of a couple that wanted to prove that the world was kind, that humans are kind.
And unfortunately, they were killed by some very bad people in Tajikistan.
Now, I want to make one thing clear.
I did a video about this.
Upon further investigation, it turns out They weren't trying to prove humans were kind.
They genuinely believed humans were kind.
And so this American couple, they were going to ride their bikes around the world.
They were riding through Tajikistan when they were rammed by a car.
And a bunch of terrorists jumped out and murdered them and some other people.
A lot of people were touting this story as an example of naivety.
Of like, you know, liberals who believe everyone is happy and safe and you can go into these various places.
And it is kind of that story.
But the framing they have here on Pluralist is wrong, so I'll make sure that's clear.
They say, So this story is about, it's an update essentially.
out to prove humans are kind, the terrorist who kills them disagrees.
So this story is about, it's an update essentially.
The New York Times apparently got an interview with the man who killed them.
First, they weren't seeking out to prove anything.
They were just going on a bike ride.
But they did write that evil is a make-believe concept.
So yes.
Naive.
I have been around the world and I have been to some very dangerous places.
I have done training for these scenarios.
And you have to understand one thing.
While the average person is not crazy and does want to be left alone, they were riding their bikes north of a conflict zone.
Of an active war zone.
Okay, so it's one thing to go to a country and think people are gonna be nice to you.
It's another thing to think you're gonna go just north of a war zone and be safe.
Okay, that's- that's complete- complete idiocy.
And you know what?
I'm- I'm not trying to be mean, it's sad these people lost their lives, but- but at some point, you have some responsibility for not riding your bike near a war zone, plain and simple.
So, before we get into the- the nitty-gritty, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
I ask because, as many of you may be aware, YouTube has recently made changes to reduce the amount of suggested videos from my channel.
So that means if you like my content and think it should be shown to people, then I ask you to share it.
Let's read the news.
They say in a video interview released Sunday, a New York Times reporter challenged an Islamic State terrorist on why he had killed an idealistic young couple as they traveled through his country on a bike trip around the world.
who reports on ISIS for the Times, was able to speak with Hussein Abdusamadov while he serves a life sentence in Tajikistan for leading the deadly attack last year.
She pressed him on why he had targeted Jay Austin and Laura Goigan, noting they had never killed anyone.
They firmly believed that if they were kind to other people, other people would open their hearts to them, she said, and for the vast majority of their trip, that was the case.
But, Abdusamadow made clear that he did not see his victims as fellow humans.
He killed them because they were non-Muslim Americans.
He explained matter-of-factly, We received an order and followed it.
We didn't have plans to ask them questions or talk to them.
They said they were Americans and laughed.
Americans had to be killed.
Evil is a make-believe concept.
To make the trip of a lifetime, Austin and Lauren, both 29 years old,
left behind lives and careers in Washington, D.C., Austin, a vegan, had worked for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
A vegetarian had worked in the Georgetown University administration's office.
As they biked across country after country, they shared their experiences and thoughts on Instagram and on a joint blog.
Their posts captured the open-heartedness they wanted to embody and the acts of kindness reciprocated by strangers, Calamici said in an August eulogy of the couple.
You read the papers, and you're led to believe that the world is a big scary place, Austin wrote from Morocco.
I don't buy it.
Evil is a make-believe concept we've invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different from our own.
He added, he continued, by and large humans are kind, self-interested sometimes, myopic sometimes, but kind, generous, and wonderful and kind.
Now that's not wrong!
I agree with that sentiment to an extent.
Evil is not a make-believe concept, though I do believe it can be subjective.
It's hard to know for sure.
You know, you have people who have a faith-based view of evil, and evil is a part of a religious worldview.
It exists.
For me, I think it's philosophical.
But if I'm looking at this story, I would argue that the man who killed them was evil, for one reason.
He had no intention of doing anything to benefit himself, okay?
You can call it the banality of evil, whatever you want to call it.
In this circumstance, the man and his crew, who attacked these cyclists, didn't do anything to benefit themselves.
It was literally just pointless killing of unrelated innocent people who had nothing to do with anything.
So, he goes on to explain, you know, they were ordered to do it, and because Americans kill Muslims, they kill them back.
That's not justification for anything.
That is quite literally doing something that isn't self-interested, but it makes no sense.
It is just causing harm to others for no reason.
I think I made that clear, right?
They say, Austin and Giot- Do they have to use- Okay.
When they arrived in Tajikistan last July- I'm sorry, that last name, I just can't- I can't read.
Just over a year into their trip, they were biking in southwest Tajikistan, a region that borders ISIS territory in northern Afghanistan.
When a car rammed them, five men got out of the car and stabbed the couple to death along with two other cyclists, one from Switzerland and the other from the Netherlands.
After the attack, which made international headlines, Tajikistani security forces quickly killed four of the perpetrators and arrested Abdusamadow.
He is in prison in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, where he spoke to Kalamichi for the latest episode of The Weekly, the Times' new Hulu show.
I formed my own group here and committed the attack.
He recounted.
And you know how that works?
Then you're gonna hear people say, when they stop killing us, we stop killing them.
Yeah, it never ends.
So I'll call this, I guess, the banality of evil.
A man who met people apparently said he met him at a gas station.
So let's read this.
Asked how he selected them.
He said he met them at a gas station just prior to the attack.
I talked to them, he said.
I asked them where they were from.
I asked them what nationalities they were.
And they told me they were Americans.
You know...
Look, this is a story about a naive, liberal couple, vegan, whatever, that thought they could go just north of ISIS territory and be safe because humans are kind.
And I'm sorry, that crosses a line for me.
I went to Venezuela.
I'm an American.
I had an American passport in my pocket.
Okay, in my bag or whatever.
I'm being, you know, hyperbolic.
And I had people keep coming up to me, hearing me speak English, asking me where I was from.
You know why?
Because Venezuelans do not like Americans.
Not all of them, but many of them.
And I knew that if I crossed the wrong person and said American, they would attack me.
And it would become very dangerous.
In Venezuela, there are men who ride around on motorcycles with guns and they kill people.
So you know what I said to him when he said, where are you from?
I said, oh, I'm from Vice.
Get it?
And he said, no, what country?
And I said, oh, Vice is a Canadian magazine.
Because everything I said was true.
Where am I from?
I thought he meant what news agency?
No, no, what country?
Oh, right, the news agency.
It started in Canada.
And then he walked away.
Because I'm not stupid enough to go to a country that hates Americans and start talking about how I'm American and laughing about it.
I would never go to Turkey.
I've been to Turkey.
I'm not gonna go there.
I'm not gonna go north of ISIS territory and be like, ah, I'm an American.
And it goes on to say, the meaning of the millennial bikers killed by ISIS.
Before their adventure ended in tragedy, their travels often bore out their idealistic worldview.
Their blog posts documented numerous acts of human kindness, including a man giving them ice water on a sweltering day in Botswana, and a couple in Morocco offering them a room for the night and sending them off with a loaf of homemade bread.
However, as Kalamachi reported in 2018, they also noted flashes of cruelty, such as groups of men trying to push them off a mountain pass, and a driver nearly running Austin over in traffic.
Ultimately, Kalamachi noted their murders held a worldview as diametrically opposed as imaginable to the one Mr. Austin and Ms.
Geoghin were trying to live by.
Their decision to travel to Tajikistan did not seem particularly risky at the time.
Snopes pointed out in a thorough fact check of a pluralist headline, the U.S.
Department listed the country as Level 1 travel advisory, which comes with advice to exercise normal precautions.
Yet given their stated views, some conservatives have read Austen and Geoghegan's as a cautionary tale, not just about the perils of travel, but about liberal naivete.
In their telling, an overly generous understanding of human nature is behind much of today's progressive movement, from calls to radically scale back immigration enforcement efforts, to efforts to crack down on firearms, not to mention
growing democratic support for socialist-style economies.
Since the millennial couple was killed, ISIS has expanded its footprint in Afghanistan
and has been blamed for additional attacks in Tajikistan.
The State Department has raised its threat evaluation of the country to a level two,
saying exercise increased caution in Tajikistan due to terror.
So I'll add a few things before signing off on this.
Millennials are pampered.
They grew up in this beautiful golden age.
Most Millennials, not all of them.
They had everything they ever wanted.
Think about the path people took, especially with student loans.
You didn't have to work to receive.
And now they're shocked after getting out of school that they have loans to pay back and they have to work.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Okay?
So if you live And you don't work, but you're given food.
The bill will come due at some point.
To quote Mordo in Doctor Strange, the bill comes due always.
These young people spend up to 24 years of their life where everything is being taken care of for them.
Naturally, they don't understand responsibility.
And if you don't understand responsibility, you're going to assume you can gallivant about the world and nothing bad will happen to you.
They weren't seeking to prove that humans were kind.
That's hyperbole.
They were documenting how humans were kind.
And they were, to an extent, trying to prove human kindness, and even saying evil is make-believe.
They've done the opposite.
They have proven evil does exist.
They have proven there are people in this world who don't care who you are, what you believe, all they care about is you're an other, and they will end your life for literally no reason.
Did this couple have anything to do with war?
Of course not.
Did this man who ended their lives stop and think about the ramifications of his action?
Absolutely not.
He said, I was given orders.
I killed them.
We've heard that before, and yes, that is called evil.
Just following orders.
And here we have...
A young, idealistic couple thinking they can just, you know, travel and nothing bad will happen.
I'm sorry.
You know, I was preparing a trip from New York to LA.
And I was going to be by myself.
So I looked into self-defense.
Because even though I understand that most of my fellow Americans are good people, I recognize that sometimes people do bad things.
You just don't know.
And that's why people believe in the right to self-defense.
Because you don't want to be in a situation where someone can just end your life in this way.
I think, you know, I wonder, what would have happened?
They were rammed, okay, by a car, so I'm assuming, this is a horrifying story, they were on the ground and injured.
But what if they did have some kind of self-defense?
Could they have survived if they were armed?
The answer is likely yes.
They were killed by knives.
Imagine if they got hit, the guys ran out with knives, and they stood up and pointed a gun.
I'm not a gun person.
I don't own one.
I'm just bringing up a point about self-defense and the disproportionate amount of power in these kinds of circumstances.
And when you see stories like this, I don't need to question why someone would want to own a weapon.
Especially a woman.
You think about all these stories, and this is what really blows my mind.
The people who are for, you know, gun control and, you know, harsh litigation against, like, you know, stopping a criminal, they live in big cities.
You look at London, there's an old man, some guy's broken into his house, so he stabbed him with, like, a knife or something, or it might have been a screwdriver, and he got arrested for it.
This is a joke we hear time and time again.
Like, I can't remember which movie it was, but a guy, like, broke into his house, cut himself, and then sued the homeowner.
These kinds of things exist.
It's big cities with police departments that want to take away people's right to self-defense.
But the people who live in the middle of nowhere understand that sometimes crazy people do crazy things.
And you'd think, living in a big city, you'd recognize that too.
Especially Chicago, where you have a lot of crazy people doing a lot of crazy things, and a lot of them have illegal guns.
So, you know, I'm not trying to turn this into a 2A video or anything like that, because I'm pretty centrist on the whole gun issue anyway.
But I bring this up because you take this millennial mentality.
The world is safe.
We can do whatever we want.
Okay, great.
Now these young people have lost their lives.
That same mentality is bred from an urban big city pampering.
If you spend all of your life with your resources provided to you, you're not going to understand what it takes to survive.
And if you grow up in a big city where you've got a police force always, you know, available, not even, you know, like, you've got a police force, it's not perfect, but I lived in a rural area where there weren't police.
So if you're in a rural area and you understand the only one who will keep you alive is you, you're not going to find yourself in a situation like this.
Honestly, I would be shocked to find a story about a conservative who went to just north of ISIS territory and then was talking about no one being evil.
It's just not the case.
You know, and so I want to make sure we avoid the extremes.
We don't want people to say everyone's evil always be on guard.
Like, well, No, everyone's not evil.
Evil is rare to a certain extent.
But you shouldn't be on guard.
You shouldn't blanket trust that you can ride your bike anywhere in the world and be safe.
You can't even do that in New York City.
Someone might attack you and rob you in New York, and New York is safe.
So if you think you can go to Tajikistan, north of ISIS territory, and you're going to be safe, You know what?
I can't say I'm surprised this happened, and I'd be surprised if any insurance company would pay out on something like that.
But it goes back to the mentality, I'll say it one more time, the mentality of urban liberals and, like, progressives when they say, teach men not to X. Great.
If we could convince, if criminals just needed to be told, hey, you know, you can't do that, it's bad, and they stopped, we wouldn't have jails, we wouldn't have police, we wouldn't even have weapons.
Because throughout history, you would literally be like, excuse me, man with sword, did you know it's wrong to hit someone with that and you shouldn't do it?
And they would go, oh gosh, darn it, I'll put the sword down!
That's not how the world works.
Unfortunately, there are bad people out there who do bad things, and sometimes you need to teach people to protect themselves and not enter dangerous situations unless they understand the risks.
So I'll say one more thing.
Perhaps they did understand the risks.
Fine.
They acted like everything was great and happy, but they had people try to push them off a cliff?
Maybe they should have realized they were entering really dangerous parts of the world.
You know what?
I hate to rag on the dead because it's a tragic story, but I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I got more segments coming up later today.
The next will be at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
If I were to say that feminists and most women prefer masculine men and strong men and not feminist men, I would get a ton of people on the left slamming me and criticizing me.
However, we have anecdotes that prove this to be true, and there's actually some data.
Now, we often hear from, I don't know, whatever incels, like, you know, the nice guys, I guess, that women like jerks.
Women don't like jerks, okay?
That's not true, right?
The nice guy personality who says, like, I'm nice to you, therefore, X. That's not nice, okay?
That's being a jerk.
Women like strong, confident, assertive men, for the most part.
You know, people have individual choices, I recognize that, but women tend to like men who are assertive, and traditionally masculine, and tend to be dominant.
It's actually not that big of a swing, though.
It's not like 99% of women feel this way.
I looked at a bunch of data, you know, I've constantly looked at these stories, and it's something like 65 to 70 percent of women prefer dominant men versus submissive men, but there are a decent amount of women who like submissive men.
Perhaps then it's these women who turn out to be feminists.
Woman married to perfect feminist man wishes he would cheat on her.
I'm so bored.
I'm gonna do something first, though.
I tried digging into this a little bit, and as it turns out, I think Pluralist is editorializing that this guy is a feminist because he's a co-parent in terms of domestic work.
Nowhere in this woman's actual article does she talk about feminism.
Nor on her Twitter account.
I didn't find any.
Maybe she is.
Okay.
But this woman's story is that her husband is Mr. Perfect, he's morally good, he takes care of the housework, and she's bored.
And she wants him to cheat on her.
And she wants someone more traditionally masculine.
She does talk about how, you know, like, betrays her feminist side and stuff like that.
But I don't think she actually ever explicitly says feminist.
Though pluralist, I think, makes that association.
So let's look at this story, but I also have some other examples, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, talking about how... You know, look, man.
In my personal experience, the feminist women I know, they don't like feminist guys.
So I have this Washington Post and New York Times story.
And one's like an anecdote, and one looks at data that shows that, for the most part, women do want more dominant men, and feminist men are not that.
For the most part.
You can be a traditionally masculine man and respect certain concepts, like certain aspects of feminism, but not the way male feminists tend to be.
You know what I mean?
Like, let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option with PayPal, cryptocurrency, physical address.
But of course, share this video if you think what I talk about is worth other people hearing, because YouTube doesn't want to suggest my videos anymore.
It is what it is.
They say, a female journalist complained in an op-ed last week that her selfless and attentive husband leaves her so bored she wishes he would cheat on her.
Writing for The Sun, Claire O'Reilly, 40, said she calls her spouse, John, Mr. Perfect.
She described him as the stuff of feminist co-parenting dreams.
If I told him on Friday I was spending Saturday chilling at a spa, he'd probably drop me there so I didn't have to drive, then take the kids to their clubs before making sure the house was tidy.
O'Reilly hinted that in her English household, stereotypical gender roles are flipped.
Just last week, he went out with a friend for a long planned pint, and I was in a foul mood before he went because I had to put the washing away and make the kids packed lunches, she said, suggesting her husband usually handles such domestic tasks.
Kind of.
You're being a little hyperbolic here, Mr. Pluralist, but we get the point.
What this really is about, I think it's fair to say, remove the assumptions about feminism.
We have a woman who has split gender roles, and that's fine.
I'm not someone who's super hardcore into traditionalism, right?
So if a guy wants to do dishes, I really don't care.
And I actually think it's really important that men, that fathers do some of this work and set a good example for their kids.
So this isn't necessarily, in my opinion, you know, Make it overtly feminist.
But what we are seeing is a woman who is upset that she's doing, you know, flip gender role stuff, and how she's bored by it.
But let's read on, and then we'll go on to the actual, you know, other anecdotes.
She says, John's ridiculous moral compass has come to be a bone of contention.
Don't get me wrong.
I love him, and this year we celebrated 17 years together, 13 married, but I'd wish he'd lie, cheat, defame, or slander just once.
So that I could feel better about my own less-than-perfect character.
Simply put, I'm bored of being married to a paragon of virtue.
Interesting, huh?
To explain why her marriage has nonetheless lasted, she turned to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in August.
And this says that when one partner is conscientious, the coupling can actually work better if the other is less so.
But, they say, is Claire O'Reilly surfacing a broader issue about who women are drawn to?
They say that other research has confirmed anecdotal reports that women tend to be less attracted to respectful men than to bad boys.
But let me clarify this.
It's not so simple as to say, like, respectful.
Respectful, in my opinion, is submissive.
It's agreeable.
And that's, I think, is a better way to describe it.
Look, you can be respectful to someone and be negative.
In fact, I think if you lie to placate someone, you're not respecting them.
Like if I see a woman, and she's carrying a bunch of bags, and I go, milady, how about I carry your bags for you?
That's not respect.
Not in my opinion.
The way I see it is, hey, you're an adult human.
Carry your own bags.
I respect your strength.
You do it.
I'm not here to lift heavy things for you.
I'll open a pickle jar.
I'll get the door if you need me to get the door, because it's a polite thing to do.
But there's a difference between respect And like, coddling.
You know what I mean?
If you're gonna make the assumption that someone is weak and needs your help, that's not necessarily a sign of respect.
So we can say it's not so much that you're a bad boy by being like, carry your own bags.
It's just like, regular people.
You know, I've talked to some like, guy friends that are like, nice guys that I've known.
In the past.
And they have this mentality about how to treat women.
I'm like, dude, why do you act like women and men are like to be treated as two different species?
Look, I get it.
Men and women are different.
Of course.
But I know nice guys who are like, when they're hanging out with dudes, they have no problem getting drunk and making jokes.
unidentified
When they hang out with women, they're like, my lady, you're such a beautiful prize.
That's just like, you know, I'll talk to a woman the exact same way I talk to a guy for the most part.
While recognizing, Duke can likely open a pickle jar.
You know what I mean?
I'm not saying women can't open pickle jars.
I'm joking.
God, I'm gonna get all these people yelling at me.
I can open a pickle jar!
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Let's move on from this story.
I want to highlight this real quick.
I looked up this woman's name.
It's not a feminist article.
You know, I get it.
It's clickbaity to call it feminist.
But the reason why I'm framing the story in a certain way is because I want to talk about the bigger issue beyond this one article.
So I want to make sure that's clear because I do intend to title this about feminist women versus male feminists and what they want.
This story is an anecdote that plays into it.
She never said feminists, but I'm assuming she likely is.
I'm just trying to make sure that's clarified.
So, the reason I bring this up is that Pluralist does link to the story from the Washington Post that says, I'm a feminist who's attracted to manly men.
I'm not going to read through this whole thing, but she just talks about how, you know, she's dated a bunch of different guys, she's a feminist writer, and she understand- Okay, okay, okay, hold on.
Check this out.
Feminist writer.
And she said, on a date with a guy, he put his hand firmly on her butt, pretending to usher her through a crowd.
He didn't ask, but for reaching over to rub her shoulders as though he had a right to touch my body.
And then she talked about how she liked it.
That's the point that I want to make in this video.
As a feminist writer, I understand that these behaviors denote male entitlement and indicate that he might not respect women.
No.
And yet I was turned on.
I have always been attracted to... She goes on to say that she... I'm not going to play this out of context game.
She goes on to talk about how she is attracted to dominant men.
In my experience, I have found this to be true.
In fact, I would say...
The only legitimate relationships I've ever had have been either, like, moderate left to, like, full-on feminist women.
And this is what I try to explain with all my videos, like, dude, my friends are all left.
They're not far left.
I do have some friends who are far left, but that's kind of, like, created a really bad rift because they're going off the rails.
Most of my friends are, like, default left, right?
They're just, like, urban Democrats.
They have pretty urban Democrat opinions.
They don't really know a whole lot about news, nor do they care.
They're very passive.
And then I have some friends that are very left, that are for gun control and all these things, and we have these conversations, but they're good people.
They're my friends.
And they're not all, you know, so dumb that they can't have their minds changed.
They just fall into that spectrum, and that's cool.
They're not regressive.
Actually, I'll say this.
Some of my friends have become, like, overtly regressive, and that freaked me out.
And that's really sad.
I had one friend who has gone so far left, pro, like, trans rights activist, she's advocating conversion therapy.
Like, that, you know, somebody who is a male body should date someone with a male body.
They just need to get used to it.
And I'm like, whoa, wait, hold on.
Full stop.
Anyway, I digress.
The point I'm trying to make, I have been with women who, like, I've had, like, flings and relationships with women who are full-on, like, radical feminists, like, intersectional, talking about all these things about guys and the patriarchy, and I'll tell you what, I have nothing but respect for my fellow man, if you, you know, you earn it, you earn respect, and I'll sit down and talk with them and say straight up, yeah, you're wrong and here's why, and guess what?
In these circumstances, these are women I've, like, dated.
Who have, like... So, the point I'm trying to make is, I know that's anecdotal, but when I see stories like this, a feminist writer flat out saying she liked that a dude just grabbed her?
Uh, on the butt?
Okay, what do you think that message sends?
Look, I don't think you should touch women, right?
It's... We're in such a precarious era today.
Where you've got feminists writing about how they like it, but if you do, you will likely get arrested.
Well, not necessarily.
Like, if you're on a date with a woman, and you make that move, I believe in most circumstances, the move would work.
It depends.
You really gotta understand cues.
But I think also that some women will tell you not to do it.
But here's the point I'm trying to make.
First of all, don't.
Just don't do it.
If you're on a date with a woman, just do not touch her.
Mad Magazine has a famous, long-running segment called A Mad Look At.
And it's a series of comics about some topic.
One of them, a long time ago, was called A Mad Look at Public Displays of Affection, or something like that.
Like PDA.
I can't remember exactly what it was, but there was a cartoon where it was this beautiful man and this beautiful woman, and they're kissing, and the woman's got her foot up, and all of these people are standing around going like this, aww, it's so cute.
The next panel was a fat guy and a fat woman kissing, and the woman had her leg up, and people were angry, like, grrr!
And I think they make a good point.
A lot of people will say that the line between creepy and charming is how attractive the guy is.
And you gotta admit, there is some truth to that.
If some like, you know, chiseled six foot five dude with like muscles and like a beard and like slick back hair and tattoos walked out with a smile and was like, hey pretty lady, what can I get you over at the bar?
They'd be like, oh confident, oh my god.
Now imagine like a short, fat, bald guy walking up and going like, hey lady, what can I get you at the bar?
They're gonna be like, oh creepo.
So it's, it's, the point is, We're in an era today where I say, just don't do it.
You're gonna get in trouble.
Even if they write that they like it, well, that's too bad.
You know, we're in this era where Neil deGrasse Tyson literally took a woman's arm and looked at her tattoo,
and she then later says it was, you know, it was inappropriate assault or something.
And then he gets in trouble for it.
And then you see Keanu Reeves doing hover hands.
I don't blame him.
I don't even dare do hover hands, okay?
Like Keanu Reeves has his hands around a woman and his hands floating.
Nah, look at the photos I've taken with people and there's a nice gap in between
because I don't play that game.
Not for these like public, If I don't know you, I'm not touching you, period.
I don't care if we're on a date or otherwise.
I have my friends I've known for years.
I have, like, past flings and people I date.
Yeah, we can act like normal human beings, but this stuff gets crazy, man.
So anyway, this video is going long because I think this is a bigger issue.
I could make, like, a three-hour long, like, you know, keynote presentation about these concepts and ideas.
We have this story from the New York Times that was also brought up by Pluralist.
Does a more equal marriage mean less lovemaking?
I don't know.
I guess the answer is yes.
But these stories are old, but they follow a similar thread.
That...
I think Jordan Peterson said something about feminists secretly desiring a dominant culture like Islam and he got, like, really attacked for it.
Because I think that's a bit extreme, you know?
I'm not a psychologist, maybe he knows better.
But I would just say that I think there are a lot of guys that pretend to be male feminists because they want to, like, weasel their way into, you know, the bedroom with women.
And then you have guys who don't care and will say exactly what they think and exactly why while still being respectful, and that's true confidence.
And in my experience, the feminist women I've talked to like that have enjoyed my company, and I've enjoyed theirs.
By all means, you can tell me all your hopes and dreams.
That's great.
I wish you the best, and I will help you achieve those things.
And I'm gonna do my thing and say what I think, and I don't care what else.
I'm me.
You're you.
End of story.
You'll never see me doting, you know, oh, my lady, or anything like that.
No, no, no, no, no.
Don't, uh, to quote Homie the Clown, homie don't play that.
That's not how I, that's not, that's not what I'm all about.
And so I think this ultimately brings us to, let me make like the final point.
We are now in an era Where you have feminist writers who have written about how they enjoy men grabbing them without consent.
And it turns them on.
Not all women.
It's just, I'm talking about one feminist writer on the Washington Post.
We have data that talks about similar things.
Women want assertive, confident men.
And you have a woman who's saying, I wish my husband would cheat on me.
I'm so bored.
I kid you not.
That's the actual, look at this.
The sun.
It's exhausting.
I'm bored of being married to Mr. Perfect.
I wish he'd cheat so I could feel better about myself.
Mixed messages!
Ultimately, I think what we're seeing is the media has run wild with insane stories.
And so now you have men and women trying to fit in socially, acting like they believe things or feel things they don't.
I have no problem being honest.
I wish everyone else would be too.
Okay?
I think there are a lot of women, and I'm not saying most, but I'm saying there's a lot of women who would prefer to be housewives and have kids, but they feel like they can't.
And that's not my opinion.
I'm not a woman.
It's because I have talked about this with a bunch of women and found anecdotes.
And anecdotally, there are many women who say, you know, I feel like if I wasn't doing this, I'd be shamed or ridiculed.
I don't, I can't rely on a man and all that.
And I've met, look, I have met women I have dated who have said, I really wish I didn't have to work.
There's more extreme rhetoric around these issues, where you get people like Gavin McInnes saying, like, all women would be happier in the home with babies, and I'm like, nah, nah, nah, nah.
The margins are not that high.
The difference between preferring career and preferring home, it's not that big of a difference, okay?
It's like, Usually you'll find that it really is close to 50%.
What I mean is, it's not 90% of women.
It's probably a small percentage of women who are conscious about what they want to do, and the majority just kind of go with the flow.
Now, I could be wrong about that.
I'm just saying, I'm talking about anecdotes.
But in the end, None of it matters.
If someone tells me they would rather be at work, that's fine by me.
Don't... I'm not gonna argue with you and I can tell you what you should or shouldn't do.
I am a liberal.
I believe live and let live.
So if today feminists, women, and all that want to do career stuff, then why would I doubt that?
I will say though, the point I'm trying to make, I know many women who are friends of mine who have said explicitly they would prefer to just be at home with kids or something like that.
More power to them!
You know, I think you choose what you want to do.
And there are guys who want to do the same thing, be stay-at-home dads.
More power to you as well.
That's the point.
The issue I want to bring up in the end, because we're going long, is that we see these stories and it sends a mixed message.
So, I don't know.
I'll leave it there and just let you comment and let me know what you think.
I don't think... I don't think... I'll say this.
I think a lot of what people do in their lives is based on social acceptance.
If you wanted to be someone who raises a family, if you want to be a husband or a wife, you need to do things that are socially acceptable to be accepted by a potential mate.
That means you will likely get a career if you have to, and you'll be actively pursuing that.
But there are a lot of people who say, at what point do you stop to have a family?
I don't know.
Complicated issue, but I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash Timcast in the podcast.
It's in the beginning.
So podcast is available on all podcast platforms every day around 630.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment.
There's been an ongoing battle between anti-fascists and right-wing individuals who were set to hold a free speech rally when the Antifa activists started putting up posters around D.C.
and they were doxing certain individuals.
I believe Tucker Carlson and Stephen Miller had their, I did, I saw the posters, their addresses on them.
And I'm told that this Antifa account, All Out DC or All Out District, tweeted out an image that had Tucker Carlson's address.
This apparently got taken down, and then following a campaign by Jack Posobiec, apparently a bunch of these Antifa accounts have been deleted.
So we have a big update here.
Ford Fisher tweets, it appears Jack Posobiec has managed to turn Twitter against DC Antifa.
Antifa just sent out a press release stating that not one but five of their and their friends' Twitter accounts, including All Out District, were removed after a reporting campaign by Jack.
And so we have these three images where they're playing silly games, claiming that, oh, you know, we didn't put the posters up, but we appreciate who did.
The posters say All Out DC on them.
Your Twitter account is All Out District.
Well, apparently there's been a bunch of accounts that have gotten banned.
So let's see what Antifa has to say.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, if you think I deserve it, I request you share the video because YouTube is removing suggested feeds from my and other channels.
So I could use your assistance, but by all means, feel free not to do anything.
In their press release from AllOutDC at RiseUp.net, they say, for immediate release, Twitter bans AllOutDC mobilization Twitter account, slash alt-right trolls get anti-racist Twitter accounts banned.
They say on June 24th, the Twitter account of AllOutDistrict was suspended from Twitter for apparent rules violations.
I can confirm that the posters put up that read AllOutDC did have, did, did, uh, they did dox.
Uh, Tucker Carlson and Stephen Miller.
Whether or not they tweeted them, I'm not entirely sure.
They did tweet some images where you couldn't make out that the address was on it, but I've seen the posters, the address was on it.
So that's doxing.
That's against the rules.
They say this suspension was due to alt-right leader Jack Posobiec's mass false report campaign against All Out District and four other leftist social media accounts.
All the accounts were suspended due to the sheer amount of reports and not due to the validity of Mr. Posobiec's allegations.
After pressure from far-right trolls connected to pro-Trump circles, Twitter suspended six accounts run by anti-fascists and pro-migrant groups.
These accounts included Shut It Down DC, Baltimore Antifascists, 202 Antifa Antifascists, Block the Wall, and NarcoAnon.
These accounts have been critical in promoting demonstrations against Trump's attack on migrants and asylum seekers at the border, as well as mobilizing for antifascist and antiracist mobilizations across the East Coast, such as against Unite the Right, and you know the rest.
Jack Posobiec, prior to the deletion of All Out DC, tweeted a dozen times in several hour periods, asking his Twitter followers to essentially mass report them.
Then they have a link to a bunch of the tweets, and you can see it's not just him, there's also Tara La Rosa.
They say Pacific alleges that All Out District posted the home addresses of alt-right pundit Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump's right-hand man Stephen Miller.
They say that they have never posted the personal information of either of these men on the internet.
We tweeted pictures of fantastic posters that were found around D.C., but none of these pictures contained any addresses.
Completely false.
I've seen them.
Can confirm, I've seen them.
I can't share those photos because it's someone's private address.
But yes, the address was absolutely on there.
We make it a priority to abide by Twitter policy and guidelines.
Overt lies.
In DC, you can see them.
The addresses are on the posters.
We are not saying that we disagree with doxing fascists.
We are simply stating we bear no responsibility for the exceptionally made posters that have popped up around D.C.
spreading the word about their invasion.
Now, here's the thing.
The posters say All Out D.C.
on them.
So, somebody just happened to use your name just before your Twitter account came into existence and then you tweeted the pictures?
They say, we tweeted pictures of fantastic posters.
Yep, some of those posters did have addresses on them.
Pesobic has also- they're going to say that he's also been connected with both the alt-right, which is just- it's silly nonsense.
And yes, there's a lot to criticize Pesobic for for past tweets.
However, I haven't been able to confirm the past tweets from Pesobic with what they accuse him of.
I've seen screenshots, but look, I've had people fabricate fake screenshots from me, so I gotta take that with a grain of salt.
They talk about echoes and look, I'll say this man, you're free to criticize Posobiec.
I'm not here to defend the guy. He can stand on his own two feet. But the point is,
I've seen the posters. They are lying about not doxing Tucker Carlson and Stephen Miller.
So I'm not going to trust anything they say. They go on to then smear Posobiec more. I really don't
care what they have to say against him. If they broke the rules, they broke the rules and Twitter
took action against them. They go on to say that they're a collective of longtime activists,
anti-fascists, etc. and they're trying to end white supremacy.
Fine.
I have this tweet here from Jack Posobiec himself.
This is from June 23rd.
Antifa DC has also doxed U.S.
government official Stephen Miller and posted his address up around the city.
In this picture, you can see the bottom left is blacked out with red.
That is where his address is.
I have confirmed this.
The address was there.
Jack, when he posted his version of the poster, he redacted that information.
Otherwise, he too would be doxing.
We then have Jack Posobiec tweeting, Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization of smelly losers who slither out of their parents' basements to attack the families of American patriots, veterans, and Christians.
Doxing, swatting, and assaults have no place in American politics.
So, this is about, there's a free speech rally that's supposed to take place in DC, and it's not necessarily, it's definitely not alt-right.
And I wouldn't call it alt-light either.
It's hard to place.
It's kind of new, right?
You know, it's really hard to describe what these groups are, you know, who Jack Posobiec represents in terms of, like, his political space.
Maybe just Trump supporters is a good way to put it.
But there's not going to be, like, Stephen Miller and Tucker Carlson have nothing to do with the event.
And this presents a bigger problem.
This group, All Out District, is straight up lying.
They did dox these two individuals, and these people aren't even speaking at the event, so why they put up posters around acting like they had anything to do with it, I don't know.
It was an event for free speech.
It was related to the hashtag Stop the Bias.
And as we know, censorship is a serious and legitimate concern.
But I will say... Actually, hold on.
Before I move forward, there's supposed to be some big event tomorrow in Portland people have been hitting me up about.
I want to say that activity from Antifa has kind of waned in recent time, which is great news.
And for the people who fight them.
There have been some street battles.
There was one instance not that long ago where some Trump supporters were out on the sidewalk and someone came up and got out of his car and started fighting with them.
So we have seen street violence for sure.
But it seems like we're on the back end of the bell curve of this like Antifa versus Trump supporter groups.
At least for now.
I think in the fall we may see more things light up.
And my understanding Is that tomorrow, there's going to be another one of these Portland Patriot Prayer Proud Boys events.
I'm not entirely sure what's supposed to happen, but Antifa is going to show up as per usual, and Portland tends to be a hotbed of this activity.
But for whatever reason, maybe it's because there's not really a lot of Trump rallies, maybe it's because Antifa is losing its appeal to young, like, I don't know, extreme individuals, we haven't seen a whole lot of activity.
But, the reason I bring this up, and the reason I want to highlight this information about Antifa doxing, is that for one, Antifa went to the house of Tucker Carlson, and it's contested as to what happened.
Tucker says they broke the door.
I don't think it means they kicked the door in while shrieking, but they were probably, you know, apparently banging on it and left some damage.
Fine.
Tucker's wife apparently hid in the closet, not knowing what was happening, so yes, don't do that.
In fact, my understanding is it was investigated as a hate crime.
But the reason I bring this up outside of that, election season is here.
The debates are here.
We're going to get to a point in the next year where Trump starts holding more rallies, and the last time Trump ran, I've been to, I was at dozens of his campaign stops, his rallies, and violence was alarming.
I was in San Jose, I filmed a man getting whacked in the head, just minding his business, walking down the street, and they whacked him in the head.
I believe that Antifa will only be emboldened by the years following Trump's campaign where more Antifa came out and got more violent, and so I'm concerned that even though I can say it seems like there's kind of a waning, We're still seeing Antifa action, and it's very likely that I think we're gonna see, it's gonna get really, really bad outside of these Trump rallies.
I can't speak for the Patriot Prayer stuff, like that stuff tends to happen all the time.
We've seen some Proud Boys stuff in New York, but this is gonna be different, okay?
The Proud Boys go out and do their things, Patriot Prayer does their things, Antifa goes and fights them.
It's been happening.
But what happens when you have thousands of people across the country showing up to rallies for Donald Trump again?
When it comes to the election and the debates, you're going to see protests, you're going to see people lose control, you're going to see Antifa come out, and you're going to see them dox, and then you're going to see activists using that information to target the families and the homes of these people.
So, look, I'm not 100% behind the legal requirement for free speech, and this is a really good example.
While I think, and let me explain, I guess.
Some people argue you should be allowed to post anything you want unless a court order says take it down.
That's Jordan Peterson's platform, ThinkSpot.
That's what he said.
I completely disagree with that.
Doxing is a red line.
If someone posts my address, I want that down, okay?
I don't know if you can do anything to stop it, but that's kind of worrisome.
That someone's like, here's your address, and then you have to hire security.
So, I don't know what should be done.
Maybe I'm wrong and it should be allowed.
I don't think it should.
But if someone walked around with a sign with your address on it, what are you going to do about it?
If they put up posters throughout D.C.
with your address on it, what are you going to do about it?
It's hard to know.
I'll leave it there, because I've got a couple more stories I want to go over.
Stick around, more segments to come, and I will see you shortly.
The mainstream media and the Democrats are cheaters.
They were cheaters in 2016, and they're cheaters again.
Andrew Yang in the debates last night.
I was so excited for this.
I briefly mentioned this a little bit on my main channel video.
Super excited to hear Andrew Yang.
And the reason for it is not because I agree with everything he says.
I do agree with a lot of what he says.
But Andrew Yang is a common sense individual running as a Democrat.
I have tremendous respect for him.
He seems like a cool guy who's genuine and honest.
He's crossed party lines.
You know, he's had conversations with Ben Shapiro.
He's gone on Joe Rogan.
And I think he's really interested in having a legitimate conversation about what he thinks is important.
That, I will always give respects to.
Because too much of our world is fake, and you'll hear me talk about it.
Every PR statement's nonsense.
It's a lie.
People are li- There's so many liars and cheaters who succeed because guess what?
Cheaters win.
They'll want to tell you it's not true.
They'll say, no, cheaters don't win.
Yes, they do.
Andrew Yang is not a cheater.
Andrew Yang, at least to me, comes off as a genuine guy who wants to present his ideas, and if you don't think they're good ideas, you are in your right to do so and challenge him.
I don't think every one of his ideas is a good idea either, but I think he's genuine.
Well, guess what?
Andrew Yang says microphone was not on at times during the Democratic debate.
I'm going to say straight up, I watched it, I noticed some weird stuff, and I would be willing to bet a lot of money his mic was cut off.
And there's video evidence that suggests that may be the case.
Of course, there's always weird, you know, it's potentially something else.
Now, people are claiming it's a conspiracy theory, but there is a video where Andrew Yang is talking and you hear nothing.
And it's really weird.
Many of the Democrats interjected and butted in, when Andrew Yang tries, you hear nothing.
Apparently, Andrew Yang gave a statement to supporters after the debate.
People were upset he didn't talk enough.
I was upset watching the debate because Yang didn't seem to be chiming in, and they weren't going to ask many questions.
And so I'll say this.
Much respect to Kirsten Gillibrand for butting in as much as she did.
I detest her politics so much.
She is an identitarian.
She has tried riding the wave of identitarianism to get ahead.
It doesn't work.
I think she's... Look, I'll leave it there.
I detest her politics.
But she pushed back, and she was right to do so.
She wasn't even in the top individuals getting a chance to speak, but she jumped in whenever she could to speak.
I respect her for that.
You need strength to be a president.
So again, much respect to Kirsten Gillibrand for stepping up.
Even though I disagree.
I wish Andrew Yang would have pushed a lot harder than he did.
But it seems like when he tried, what happened?
No sound came out.
And so he said to supporters, That he tried chiming in, and literally nothing happens, I don't hear anything, and he goes, oh, F, like, this is happening.
My mic's not on.
Swear to God.
Check it out.
From the Hill.
It's getting a lot of shares.
Andrew Yang was trending number one in the US, and earlier today, number two.
Hashtag, let Yang speak.
Because they cut his mic off!
They deny it, but they're cheaters, okay?
I'm not surprised.
The Hill reports Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang claimed his microphone was not on a few times when he attempted to jump in during Thursday night's Democratic debate in Miami.
Miami.
There were also a few times, FYI, where I just started talking being like, hey, I want
to add something here and my mic was not on, Yang said while speaking to supporters after
the event.
And it's this sort of thing where it's like, if you started talking, it takes over the
conversation.
It's like I was talking but nothing was happening and I was like, oh F. So that happened a bit too.
The allegation from the tech entrepreneur comes as an analysis by the Hill shows Yang had the least amount of speaking time of all the 20 candidates who participated in the two nights of debates that took place Wednesday and Thursday.
We get it.
You guys want to put Warren and Joe Biden up front and center.
And Bernie Sanders.
Okay, but I want to hear what Yang has to say.
He's a true outsider who has a bunch of unique ideas that need to be heard because, listen.
When you follow a path with no diversity of thought, everybody just agrees with each other and says the same nonsense.
Yang truly comes in with something out of, you know, just out of left field, as it were.
Let's hear him speak.
I want to hear him address these same policies.
Now, for sure, don't get me wrong, Andrew Yang raised his hand to saying he'd give undocumented immigrants healthcare, and I think that's pandering absurdity.
It makes no sense.
Plain and simple, it makes no sense.
Fine.
But I want to hear him challenge all of these other notions.
He's not a politician.
Okay, he's an entrepreneur.
That puts him kind of in a similar space to where Trump is.
I want to hear what he has to say.
They say NBC later pushed back on Yang's claim, telling The Hill, at no point during the debate was any candidate's microphone turned off or muted.
Oh, really?
So are you saying it's an elaborate hoax that Andrew Yang was speaking like he was just mouthing words and he wasn't trying to talk?
There's video I have where you see Andrew Yang go, Okay, for those that are listening, basically, I'm lifting my hand and then mouthing words without making sound.
It works really well on video.
I really doubt Andrew Yang pretended not to speak so he could later claim that his microphone was cut off.
In fact, some people claim you can actually faintly hear him from the other microphones.
But you've seen it throughout the debate.
Kirsten Gillibrand jumps in, and you hear her perfectly.
And they start arguing, your time is up, we'll get to you, and she keeps talking again.
I have tremendous respect for that.
It's not a debate.
We know it's not a debate.
They're doing it for the ratings, so you've got to claw ahead if you want to get any airtime.
And I respect the strength.
I wish Andrew Yang did the same, but apparently what he tried didn't work.
So they pushed back.
The Hill says, Yang clocked in at just 2 minutes and 50 seconds of speaking time. Former Vice
President Joe Biden, the frontrunner in most polls, had 12 minutes and 53 seconds. Kamala
Harris had 11 minutes 37. And then they say Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg were the only
other candidates to top 10 minutes. Maryanne Williamson, bless her heart,
her Twitter account is incredible if you haven't looked at it.
People are surfacing tweets from Marianne Williamson, and they are some of the funniest hokey crystal wearing things you have ever heard.
There's a viral tweet right now, it's hilarious, where someone said, Step 1.
Marion Williamson was kind of, you know, was definitely not boring during the debate.
Wow, she's still here.
She's definitely pushing through.
Something like, wow, you see her on Jimmy Fallon tonight?
She's really got a presence.
I have reservations about President Williamson's crystal tariffs.
Because, uh, her tweets are like, there's one where she said, um, uh, your life is like a lamp and let God's light fill your lamp and pass through you.
Just like a bunch of weird self-help hokey crystal wearing kind of stuff.
Anyway, I've got some stuff I want to show, so I don't want to prattle about Williamson.
Uh, I'm not trying to be mean to her.
They say Eric Swalwell, respectively, clocking in at 4 minutes 50 seconds.
Uh, 24 seconds.
So they updated with a statement from NBC claiming that no, at no point was his microphone cut off.
I might get a copyright claim for this one, but this is really important context.
This is a video posted by someone named Alacrity Thief titled, proof Andrew Yang's microphone was muted at Dem Debate.
So, you know, I'm not going to play this because I do not want to deal with MSNBC.
Look, they file fake complaints all the time.
And we're in a really precarious situation on YouTube.
But I will say this.
I've tweeted this out.
You can go check it out.
What we're looking at right now is the debate stage, and we can see Andrew Yang's hand is up.
Basically what happened was, someone made a statement, and you can see right here, his mouth is open, he was talking.
You know what, I'm just gonna play it.
Actually, no no no, I'm sorry guys, I can't risk, they'll do a copyright strike takedown or something.
They took down live streams of people who were streaming the debate and having conversations about it.
It's better that the video stays up and I can explain what they did to Yang, then it gets taken down and no one knows about it, so I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, you know, I'm not gonna play it.
But, you can see in this paused clip I have, Yang does have his mouth open, and I assure you, no sound came out.
So when Yang says, there were a couple times I tried speaking, and his microphone was off, I doubt he had this elaborate plan.
I made the joke on Twitter, he's playing 4D chess.
By saying nothing and not being called upon, Andrew Yang secured himself as the top US trend.
Yang was trending and Marianne Williamson were trending.
I don't know why she was trending.
But Yang was trending because they cut his mic off.
So we have this video from him where he said... Some reflections on my first debate.
First, very glad to have the chance to represent on stage.
Truly a privilege and thank you for making it happen.
Second, I feel bad for those who tuned in to see and support me that I didn't get more airtime.
Will do better.
My mic being off unless called on didn't help.
And glad to have another opportunity in July and afterwards.
They cheated Bernie Sanders in a variety of ways, and there's clever ways you can do it.
I believe that... Here's my position.
Andrew Yang is a common-sense Democrat.
He is on the Democrat side, he leans left on a lot of his policy positions, and for that I support him, because I agree with some, but mostly that he has a very comprehensive domestic policy plan.
Incredible.
Better than anyone else.
Go to his website and you're like, dude, I can't even read.
I don't even have time to read all his positions.
He's really thought about this.
I think he really cares.
Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, is one of the only people addressing the foreign policy position in a way that I think is principled and makes sense.
That's why I threw my support behind them.
It doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.
You'll never agree with every politician.
I absolutely, you know, contest his raising his hand for providing healthcare to undocumented immigrants.
But, my position to my friends was that Yang is going to explode in popularity.
You know, when Bernie was running against Hillary, there was like three people.
So Bernie ended up getting a lot of the limelight.
With Yang, there's a huge field.
But I believe Yang is a genuine individual with real principles, and he's going to rise in popularity because of it.
But, they're going to steal it from him, and from Tulsi.
They're both very popular, and they have a certain charisma about them.
Tulsi is incredible.
Like, she has presence, she is poised, she has practice, she is a major in the National Guard, I believe.
She served overseas.
She's got the resume, and she's got the principles.
So of course, they're not gonna call on her, and she was the only candidate to get directly attacked.
They directly attacked her on the stage in the first night.
And Yang, of course, an outsider, who's bringing new ideas and a real comprehensive policy package, they're gonna cut his mic.
So look.
They deny it.
We'll call it an allegation, but I assure you I tweeted this video out.
You can see it.
It's hard... Look, here's the conspiracy theory from the people who are denying it.
Do you really believe that Andrew Yang pretended to try to speak so that he could later claim they cut his mic off?
That's insane.
You can see the man speaking and you can hear nothing.
The Democrats, the DNC, the media companies, they're going to cheat.
They cheated last time.
Why wouldn't they cheat again?
I think Biden's going to lose.
I do.
I don't think he's going to get the nomination.
I think he's there as a representation of old guard.
They're going to prop him up so that every Democrat can see him, but then tear him down with someone like Kamala Harris, like they did, so that all of the old Democrats who know Joe Biden and would vote for him will be like, oh, that's why I'll vote for Kamala.
But I'll end by saying one thing.
Two things, actually.
Like I pointed out in my main channel video, a Washington Post reporter overheard someone say that they weren't sure if they were Democrats anymore.
I can respect that sentiment.
I don't know who I'd vote for.
Tulsi?
Look, my position was to the left of the Democrats 10 years ago.
It mostly stayed in a similar position, but the Democrats have veered so far left, I'm now to the right of them, even though I was to the left of Obama!
It's a really weird position to be in.
So yeah, I do respect and agree with a lot of the positions that Tulsi Gabbard takes, though I am more of a moderate, right?
I am more of a... only slightly to the left.
Actually, I'd probably say I moved a little to the right in the past few years, and a little down closer towards libertarian.
It's a weird position to be in.
But I think when you grow up and you learn and you research, your opinions start to shift a little bit.
I gotta make sure I don't take this one too long.
But I will say this.
Andrew Yang got the short end of the stick.
Tulsi Gabbard did as well.
But I will give advice to every candidate.
And Gillibrand is the only one who recognized this.
You have to take it.
They're not gonna give it to her.
She's polling really low.
They put Bernie and Biden front and center and gave them most of the questions.
So you know what?
If we're gonna have anyone have the ability to stand up to Trump, And all the Trump supporters know this?
None of these people have the strength to do it.
None of them.
But I will say this.
Kirsten Gillibrand at least showed she's willing to push back and take the reins.
She's probably... I disagree with... Actually, you know what?
Let me do this.
I think Bernie is okay, but I believe he's lying and pandering.
I like Yang better than anybody else on the stage.
Gillibrand is closer to the bottom in terms of whose politics I might agree with because she goes full-on identitarian.
But regardless of that, being president is about more than just your political positions.
It's about being strong enough to lead the country.
None of these people showed any real strength, in my opinion, except for Gillibrand.
And that's shocking because I've criticized her heavily.
But I will say straight up, Joe Biden got torn down by Warren.
By Kamala Harris, she tore him down.
But she didn't do it in a way that I thought was strong.
She used her time to make pointed emotional attacks.
Not gonna work on Trump.
So, look, Democrats, you've gotta figure out how to play the game.
And Marianne Williamson did say this.
You think policy positions will get you past Trump?
Never gonna happen.
Trump doesn't play that game.
That's one of the reasons he won.
Democrats better wake up and learn how to actually present strength at the debates.
I don't think Gillibrand has the strength to beat Trump, but at least she showed something better than the rest of them.
I hope Yang can stand up I think one of the problems, too, is Yang doesn't have the same, you know... He's not gonna throw a fit.
He's not gonna yell and interrupt.
You gotta do it, man.
You gotta step up.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more video coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you there.
So this video is going to be a special segment where I want to throw a special thank you to everybody and warn about the perils of censorship and just talk more about censorship.
I do have a story pulled up about how censorship backfires and we'll segue this into, I don't know, a general future dystopia because there's so much stuff I want to talk about.
But here's the first thing and the most important thing.
With your help, I have now become a top 100 podcast on Apple Podcasts, basically like iTunes.
I am ranked 73, I believe.
So what we're looking at right here is, this is from 50 to 100 Apple Podcasts on Chartable.
We've got, uh, at 51 you have, I'm not sure, Jay Shetty, on purpose with Jay Shetty, he's falling a little bit.
We're gonna scroll down here and I'm gonna show you what you guys have helped accomplish.
You know, I can't do it without your help, and this to me is a bigger deal than YouTube, but number 73 is the Tim Pool Daily Show.
The Tim Pool Daily Show brings you breaking news from around the world and commentary on top news topics in the culture, war, politics, and global conflict.
Number 73.
A top 100 podcast.
I couldn't have done it without you.
I've said in the past few videos that all of this content you're hearing is available as a podcast, so if you want to check it out, it's on Apple, it's on Google.
The reason this is important is that it's not just a special thank you to the success of the show, but I want to make sure that my content exists on as many platforms as possible.
I am doing really well on YouTube.
You guys watch my content, you apparently are interested in it, and thus YouTube recommends me in certain ways.
But here's what's scary.
Recently we learned, through a Project Veritas leak, that my channel, Dave Rubin, PragerU, others, have been removed, for the most part, from suggested videos.
That means, when you watch a video on YouTube, where 90 plus percent of my viewership is, at the end of that video, they'll suggest something.
They no longer suggest my content.
On the homepage, they do.
But this ultimately means that even though my channels are growing and succeeding, YouTube has essentially taken a whack at, you know, one of the wheels of my vehicle to kind of, you know, slow things down.
Because of this, I rely on you guys to share content, and I ask you to do it.
If you think I deserve it, then please share it.
I think this is step one.
Look, 2020 is coming up, and they're not going to stop with conservatives.
They're going to go after anybody who dare oppose them.
So, um, I will say one more time, it really does mean a lot to me.
You know, I woke up and I saw an email that said, congratulations, you know, you broke the top 100.
And I just kind of, I, that means a lot to me.
I guess I'm successful.
Top 100 podcast.
Apparently it's a big deal.
It doesn't mean too much.
It means that there's like a massive growth in the show.
So I'll leave it there.
It's just, uh, you guys, you know, um, your support has made me feel like what I do is worth it.
But here's what I'm concerned about.
And here's what scares me.
We'll talk about censorship now.
Twitter recently announced that they're going to allow tweets that break the rules to stay up from people if it's in the public interest.
For the most part, politicians.
I believe it's exclusively politicians.
I could be wrong.
They explained that if Trump breaks the rules, they will show a note saying, this tweet breaks the rules, but we'll leave it up because it's publicly valuable.
Think about what that means for our future, and think about what YouTube is doing to my channel and Dave Rubin's.
So, my recommendations, like general recommendations, are up.
But my views are up, my subscribers are up, my suggestions are down.
It doesn't mean that, it might not be political bias, I believe it very well could be.
I believe it's because of smear campaigns and attacks.
But what both of these things represent is a cutoff point.
What YouTube and Twitter have basically said is that people who have succeeded from this point on will be allowed to continue, but no one else will.
Think about it.
I have enough prominence, now with your help, being a top podcast on iTunes, to tell people, subscribe, follow me on other platforms.
That prevents them from just straight up unparsoning my account and erasing me.
What Twitter announced is basically this.
Imagine if you tweet identical things to Donald Trump.
Donald Trump tweets something.
He's the president.
They will ban you and not him.
You do not have the same advantage to become president.
That means from this point forward, anybody who wants to run for president who shares similar views to Donald Trump will not be able to have the advantages of a massive social media platform, one of the most prominent.
And for YouTube it means Big channels who have been, you know, crippled by this YouTube change will still be able to succeed with calls to action, but new channels won't.
It is an ongoing change within YouTube.
They try and play games, you know, they say like, oh no, it's not political bias.
We've seen the emails.
We know what's happening.
And it is affecting other people, not just the right.
After the Vox Adpocalypse, a bunch of left-wing channels did get stripped, academic channels.
So this is what they're doing.
They're coming for everybody.
And it's because Trump wasn't supposed to win.
We heard what the co-founder of Google said.
Sergey Brin said he was offended by the election.
Do you think that doesn't translate into actions on the company's policy?
Think about it this way, too.
The rules on Twitter, they will allow someone like Donald Trump to talk about misgendering.
That will influence a massive wave of conservatives who already believe similar things.
And then they'll ban those conservatives for repeating what the president said or agreeing with him.
They are flat out telling you that, like, you know, here's the thing.
Do I believe that Eric Swalwell will break the rules?
No, because the rules are set up by progressives who are likely to agree that someone like Sarah Jong can say things that are hateful and bigoted, but it's okay, right?
Now, I'll stress this too.
I did a segment just a few minutes ago where Twitter did take down Antifa.
So I'm not saying that they're completely biased.
They're biased enough and they don't realize it.
Jack Dorsey said to me his rules weren't biased.
I explained the misgendering policy.
They are.
So now what we're seeing is that they specifically highlight Trump breaking the rules and they're gonna let him do it.
Doesn't that mean to everybody that if the President of the United States, a Republican, is being told he's breaking the rules, they're telling every other Republican you can't speak?
How is that not clear evidence of political bias?
In every circumstance they talk about this.
They say, yes, we understand Trump's breaking the rules, but it's in the public interest.
How often have they said Tulsi Gabbard broke the rules, but it's in the public interest.
They don't.
They're referencing Republicans and Trump when they make this rule.
They are telling Republicans, what you say is against the rules.
In 10, 20 years, there will be someone who is similar to Trump who wants to run, but they won't have a Twitter account.
Look at Carl Benjamin.
Carl Benjamin is running for office.
They banned his campaign account.
Isn't that in the public interest?
Twitter is editorializing.
They're acting like a publisher.
It's literally a publisher position to say, you people who have the same ideas, who said the same thing, either you can or you can't be on the platform.
So I'm going to jump over here to the story from earlier this month.
And then come back and talk about the podcast stuff in a second.
From The Daily Caller, liberals cry censorship after YouTube demonetizing frenzy hits SPLC content.
This is from Max Blumenthal who said, in YouTube's political purge, my video report for the Southern Poverty Law Center exposing a guy they don't like.
We'll leave it there.
I don't want to get too much into detail.
This purge has already gone well beyond its stated aim.
It's a carpet bombing style censorship.
And that's how I framed it.
YouTube isn't just going after conservatives, and this is why I want to highlight this, and it's also why I want to explain why it's so important that you guys follow me at Mines.com slash Timcast, follow Mines.com slash Subverse M-I-N-D-S.
I am trying to make sure I am on all platforms.
I'm definitely going to make sure the focus is on YouTube.
Don't get me wrong.
But we do have to make sure our eggs aren't all in one basket.
What the establishment is doing is getting rid of anybody who opposes the corporate machine.
That includes people on the left who oppose war.
It includes people like Tulsi Gabbard.
We have seen many left-wing personalities suspended, censored, or otherwise.
Here's some important context.
When Project Veritas revealed information on Pinterest censoring conservatives, It wasn't in his focus, I wish it was, but the anti-media was included in that purge as well.
They are a left-wing progressive anti-war outlet.
They're small activists, a small activist organization that challenges US war overseas.
Why were they banned?
They're woke!
It's because the establishment is pro-war and they use wokeness as a cudgel to take out people who oppose them.
Why?
Trump's base?
Mostly anti-war.
Anti-war media left?
Ban them all.
Here's the thing.
Republicans have done a good job of circling the wagons to protect themselves.
But the left isn't going to defend the small group of anti-war activists on the left.
So it does predominantly affect the conservatives.
In the end, what needs to happen is existence on other platforms.
YouTube is a great place for growth.
You know, YouTube did help me get where I am.
We'll see what happens.
But you might be sitting there thinking, you know, you watch the media and say, oh, it's a conspiracy theory, there's no bias against conservatives.
I'm not a conservative.
I'm actually a moderate.
I've defended social justice.
I've explained in great detail why I'm pro-choice.
I'm pushing back on the Democrats moving to the far left and calling for a more moderate Democrat policy.
Why are they taking away my suggestions?
It's not a conspiracy theory.
They're targeting people who challenge the establishment.
Apple will do the same.
Google and Spotify, these tech giants, they will all do the same.
But for the time being, I will diversify.
The goal of this video.
Thank you all so much for following my podcast, following my content, supporting me.
You can support me at timcast.com slash donate.
I just, you know, I guess the main point of this video is I woke up and I feel like what I'm doing matters.
When I see this, this is success, right?
Apple might remove me at some point, but there's a lot of people in front of me, and that's why I'm willing to defend their right to free speech, because I know, first they come for them, then they come for me, etc.
With your support on all these different platforms, it's making a difference, and it's securing my ability to do the work that I do.
To everybody who donates through my website, TimCats.com slash donate, I want you to know that you are providing the safety net that should my channel get purged and demonetized, I can still do the work that I do.
So again, thank you all so much.
Thank you times a thousand whatever.
And for those that aren't familiar, it's the Tim Pool Daily Show on all podcast platforms basically.
I'm pretty sure most, I don't know, it's on Google, Spotify, iTunes, and a bunch of others.
And because you guys have subscribed, I know many people have asked for it, you have now put me in a position where I'm in a top 100 podcast, so I guess that's a great thing.
It matters.
Thank you all so much.
I will see you tomorrow at 10 a.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews or every day at 630 p.m.
