Trump Has "Won This One," Democrats Angry And Defeated According To CNN
Trump Has "Won This One," Democrats Angry And Defeated According To CNN. Jake Tapper reports that several House Democrats are angry and frustrated that they rushed to the defense of far left Democrats known as "the squad" at the whim of Trump even going as far to say that Trump has won.Many people have pointed out that Trump's goal was to distract Democrats and the media and force them to circle the wagons around their more extreme progressive members. Assuming that was his plan it worked, even the New York Times reported that Trump was happy with the results.Ilhan Oman and Ocasio-Cortez are now front and center and while both may be well known an Axios poll shows extremely low favorability. In fact Trump put Ilhan Omar front and center at a rally where he criticized her behavior. According to Axios Omar's favorability is 9%We can criticize Trump's behavior but we have to accept his plan worked out. Regardless of how you feel he is forcing the Democrats to make moves that will hurt them in the long run even if it causes some damage to himself. He knows his base will never fall to social justice rhetoric and is willing to push the limits.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
According to Jake Tapper, there are at least some who are angry and defeated.
And it's not just my opinion when I say this.
Trump won this fight.
Jake Tapper highlights at least one House Democrat saying Trump won.
The Democrats were trying to distance themselves from the far-left squad, Ilhan Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib, and Trump forced them to circle the wagons and prop them up.
Trump even went on to highlight the Ilhan Omar marrying her brother controversial story, whatever you want to call it, making Ilhan Omar front and center for the Democrats.
Now, Elon has said many offensive things in the past, and this is one of the reasons why Trump has singled her out to put her front and center in this debate.
The other night, at a rally, Trump's base in this event were chanting send her back.
Many people are criticizing Trump for this, but there's criticism to go all around, so today, Let's take a look at exactly what's going on with the Democrats.
The response to Jake Tapper's thread showing the Democrats are angry and defeated.
And how is the left responding?
They're claiming Jake Tapper is fake news.
Okay, they didn't explicitly say fake news, but it's the same game.
Whenever press comes out that makes one side look bad, they'll be like, hey, that's not true.
But Sometimes it is.
So let's take a look.
We'll start with Jake Tapper's Twitter thread.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video because YouTube no longer recommends, for the most part, independent commentary.
We've all been deranked.
That means if you think my videos are good, I ask you to share them to help spread the videos, I guess.
So Jake Tapper tweets, House Democrats appear unified in their votes this week,
but I've spent the day talking to a bunch of them and many are extremely frustrated.
All agree POTUS's tweets needed to be condemned.
They spoke under the condition of anonymity so they could be candid.
First, he says, quote, the president won this one, said House Dem one of the Trump V squad showdown.
What the president has done is politically brilliant.
Pelosi was trying to marginalize these folks, and the president has now identified the entire party with them.
I gotta say, I agree.
That's the premise of my past videos.
But let me stress, possibly the biggest story of maybe even Trump's presidency is that he's effectively ending asylum for people who travel through third countries to get here.
Where's the news?
Congratulations, you're playing Trump's game.
And I wanna stop real quick, because my mentions are full of angry leftists making fun of me for pointing this out in my previous video, and I'm shocked.
Here I am saying, guys, the president is ending asylum for Central Americans!
And they're laughing, saying, oh please, Trump isn't playing 4D.
Okay.
He's done it.
They don't even care.
And you know, I'm of the opinion that they never cared about migrants.
It's just about fighting Trump, and Trump knows this.
So he throws out whatever bait he thinks they want, and they go right for it, and they ignore the actual policies.
But let's read more of Jake Tapper's thread.
He says, Another issue.
What are Dems focused on?
Is it what will help the Class of 2018, largely more moderate than the Squad, get re-elected?
The President's words and actions speak for themselves.
We need to focus on the issues that got them here.
Jobs.
Healthcare.
Four.
Instead of the issues the president brings up deliberately, anything that takes away from bread and butter issues is playing into his hands.
And even when they can see it, they can't help it!
Look to the right on the screen, number three trending in the U.S.
I stand with Ilhan.
Trump's done it.
He's got them distracted.
He's got them frustrated.
They are spinning in circles.
And it's unfortunate.
But they can't help themselves.
They are being pressured into this by a desperate and hungry vulture class of media that care nothing for migrants, that care nothing for healthcare.
They only care about hot-button issues that will generate clicks.
And while the Democratic politicians can see this, they are helpless to stop it.
The media is running wild.
And I think the media is to blame for the political divide in this country.
Conservative media gonna do what conservative media does, but left-wing media doesn't care.
They're venture-backed and driven by profit.
And that results in skewed far-left nonsense that plays right into Trump's hands because Trump's tweets are money.
Trump's tweets are outrage.
So they're not focusing on issues anymore.
Let's read on.
Tapper continues, Other House Democrats are conflicted about having to defend the squad given things they've said and done.
House Dems cited talk of supporting challengers to incumbent Dems in primaries, AOC's use of the term concentration camps, anti-Semitic comments by Tlaib and Omar.
This perceived selective outrage rankled some Dems.
Everybody was completely outraged by what the President said, said House Dem No. 3.
And everybody thought it was appropriate to criticize him.
But this was the first time the House had taken action to criticize him in any way.
We couldn't even bring ourselves to have a resolution exclusively condemning anti-Semitism uttered by one of those members, Omar.
But we leapt to their defense here.
A few House Dems noted that Omar and Tlaib just introduced a resolution affirming the right of Americans to boycott perceived as an expression of support for the anti-Israel BDS movement that most House Dems oppose.
So we'll hear a tirade of attacks on Israel from the same group, said House Dem No.
Housetem4 also brought up that bill coming from someone with a history of antisemitism, Omar.
So yeah, it's challenging.
Housetem4 recalls that less than two weeks ago, when members of our caucus were trying to support funds for children at the border, the squad was arguing that we're pro-putting kids in cages, we're against human rights.
So there's frustration.
Tapper goes on.
Others noted that this week, the House Democratic Caucus stood by a group that is not perceived as standing by them.
I can't tell you the number of members who are angry and annoyed about them criticizing us.
AOC in particular, quote, gives her chief of staff license to get candidates to run against her colleagues and to go after them on social media.
It makes people's skin crawl.
House Dem 4 summed it up.
We were there for them.
They should stop attacking us.
Trump has done something incredible.
Ocasio-Cortez has talked about primarying other moderate Democrats.
They are rallying against the Democrats.
They are fighting against the Democrats.
The Democrats have been fighting nonstop.
Trump has now forced the weaker Democrats to stand aside and prop up Ilhan Omar, somebody with a very controversial past who has made anti-Semitic statements.
Yes, I am not exaggerating.
There's a controversy around this with many progressives and people on the left saying she never did.
That is wrong.
For one simple reason.
In the debate over bigotry, it is the victim that defines whether or not the statement was offensive.
And even Ilhan Omar has come out and said, I'm grateful that people have explained to me why what I said was wrong.
And let me just show you some, uh, some... Well, I'm just gonna let her speak for herself, because I don't even want to repeat this.
In wiki quote for Ilhan Omar, Israel has hypnotized the world, Omar says.
May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.
Now let me just stress something.
Why is that considered anti-Semitic?
We can talk about her other quotes, all about the Benjamins and these things.
And many people said that's not inherently anti-Semitic, but let me explain to you the concern over saying that Israel is hypnotizing people because it is an old anti-Semitic trope.
The way I describe this, as a rather centrist individual, is that Ilhan Omar is crop-dusting anti-Semitism.
What do I mean by that?
Well, crop-dusting planes get really close to the ground without touching it.
And that's what I see Ilhan Omar doing.
She gets very, very close to bringing up old anti-Semitic tropes without actually doing it.
And then people get offended because they see it and they're like, we know what you're doing.
More importantly, we have seen progressives on the far left of the Women's March, for instance, outed by the New York Times as being overt anti-Semites, and these people are, as they put it, fellow travelers.
So if I'm going to make an assumption, it's that yes, Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite.
Period.
I don't want to rehash all this old stuff.
But let's bring up some criticism here, something I have no problem highlighting.
Donald Trump's crowd the other day as Trump was criticizing Omar started chanting, send her back.
I find this completely and absolutely abhorrent.
It's awful, completely awful.
I think it was wrong.
And my response to Will Chamberlain, for instance, who was saying that this is classist, that the Republicans and the conservatives who are targeting working, regular, poor Americans who are frustrated is classist.
Well, here's my thing.
Just because the media won't hold the left to a certain standard because there isn't one, doesn't mean the right should be abandoning theirs.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And while I will absolutely, absolutely criticize Senator Beck first, Ilhan Omar is an American citizen who came here legally.
And that must be protected.
If you don't like it, change the law.
If you don't like Ilhan Omar, vote her out.
And I understand many people said they can't.
She's in a district where she's essentially protected.
That's, well, look, it's complicated.
But if someone is here legally, we must respect that.
Even Trump himself has said, let people come here legally.
But, as much as I can criticize this statement, I want to point out it is fair to push back.
And Will Chamberlain says Ilhan Omar demands that others interpret her anti-Semitic remarks charitably, while slandering Republican voters as racist, contemptible.
And so I think the big problem I see here is, well, I certainly will criticize Ilhan Omar all day and night, because I think she's an overt anti, I think she's a subversive anti-Semite, right?
She dances around it, but I think it's fair to point out that her and others, when they target Israel, they do it in a very specific way, where you're like, okay, I get it, I see what you're doing.
And while I don't like what Trump, what the people at the Trump rally were chanting, I'm not gonna sit here and play a double standard, I get it.
The media is gonna smear all these Trump supporters, What am I supposed to say?
I can criticize it.
I can criticize them.
I will.
But there's nothing that can be done.
Trump supporters will say it's not racist.
Trump haters will say it is.
And the same is inverted.
It's just a game that can't be stopped.
So it is what it is.
I don't know what else to say.
But let's get back to the point because I don't want to make this a pity party for people and highlighting offensive things.
You can all have your opinion and frame it however you want because I recognize the media will say Trump is, the Trump supporters will say Trump isn't, and there's nothing you can really do about it.
People will see that and they're going to hold those views whether or not they like the present or don't.
So I don't know what to say.
I'll criticize all of it.
I think everybody's going nuts.
But here's the thing.
Back to the main point about Trump.
Trump winning.
Take a look at this story the other day from the New York Post.
Trump repeats claim that Ilhan Omar married her brother.
It's a claim.
It's not a con—you know, actually, check this out.
If you can see up top, it's kind of small.
The original title was, Trump repeats false claim that Ilhan Omar married her brother.
But then look at the headline, updated, and they removed false.
They removed false from this story.
And I don't believe in here.
It says that it's a conspiracy theory or fake.
And there's a simple reason for that.
The Star Tribune, which is considered to be left-leaning, has reported on this quite a bit.
Not enough.
Not as much as many others.
And they said it's actually fairly possible.
Now, here's the crazy thing.
The Daily Mail is now reporting on this, and in the story they actually mention that the man that Ilhan Omar married has a father of the same name as Ilhan Omar.
Listen, I'm not here to entertain conspiracy theories or whatever, but when you've got the Star Tribune saying it's possible, when the New York Post apparently, I don't know if they actually did, but the URL says false and false is not here, It's possible, according to the Star Tribune, and the Daily Mail highlights a bunch of really weird things, like her and the guy she married having a dad of the same name is weird.
Listen, it's a weird story.
And I gotta say, at this point, it absolutely does warrant investigation.
It does.
If they have a father of the same name, okay, then what do you do?
And apparently there's more information coming out.
Look, I'd have to do a really deep investigation to confirm a lot of these facts.
But it does sound suspicious and possible, at least according to the Star Tribune.
And if it's possible, I think that's grounds for an investigation.
But you know what?
If we get to the point where the Feds are investigating Ilhan, it's gonna be bad, bad, bad news.
But here's the big point.
Trump wins.
Look at this story.
This was the front page headline story for DailyMail.co.uk, one of the biggest news outlets in the world.
Whether you love him or hate him, they get tons of traffic.
Front and center, a story about Ilhan Omar marrying her brother.
What do you think Trump's game plan was?
Let's go back to this Twitter thread, and what do we see?
This is real time, by the way.
This list is updating in real time.
Number four, 283,000 tweets I stand with Ilhan, and Trump wants to make sure that's what Americans see.
They see Ilhan Omar front and center, trending nationally, and then the story they get, did Ilhan Omar marry her brother?
That's going to make the Democrats look insane.
So let me just get back to the point made by this anonymous House Democrat.
The president won this one.
It was politically brilliant.
What the president has done is politically brilliant.
And you know, it's crazy to me.
Look, I just criticized Trump supporters.
I will criticize Trump over this tweet.
I did.
It doesn't matter.
Simply pointing out Trump is doing this and calling out the left for playing the game, and they're criticizing me for it.
They're mocking me and insulting me.
Fine, by all means.
I don't care.
I don't care for either tribe.
And don't expect me, and listen, I say this every, like, I don't know, I say it all the time.
During Occupy Wall Street, I warned these people on the left.
I am not on your side.
I am telling you what's happening, and I will give you my thoughts.
I'm a centrist.
Don't be surprised when I have centrist opinions, which I can respect when a lot of people do.
Look, when I put out these tweets, very critical of Trump and the sender back, surprisingly, the response from Trump supporters is, Polite, to say the least.
Not always.
But I find that rather surprising.
And I think this is why you end up seeing centrists willing to have a conversation with Trump supporters.
They can certainly call it out and not get beaten over the head by Antifa for it.
And that's what leaves us in a very weird position.
I have never liked Trump.
I never did.
Yet, for some reason, I have Trump supporters willing to watch my content and say, I get it, you don't like Trump.
And sometimes they roll their eyes, but they still tell me, like, well, at least we can have the conversation, right?
And now I bring this up specifically because I want to make a very important point.
It's important to avoid a pyrrhic victory.
Trump, it seems, is willing to damage himself if it means causing more damage to the Democrats, and that can be bad news.
Trump isn't guaranteed a 2020 win.
I certainly think he will.
But you definitely need the moderates, and you can't make the same mistake that the left has made.
So let me highlight some very interesting information.
If I can figure out where I put it.
I believe it was, well first let's do this.
Not Will Chamberlain.
Not this one yet.
Eric Weinstein.
This is what I want to highlight.
Eric Weinstein says even, Donald Trump tweeted this.
The Republican Party is the party for all Americans.
We are the party of the American worker, of the American family, and the American dream.
This is the proud banner the Republican Party will carry into the RNC next summer in the great city of Charlotte.
And Eric Weinstein said, even AOC and Rashida Tlaib do make up your mind.
May I share what I love about our nation, Mr. President?
You have a constitutional right to tell me I can go back to my shtetl in Ukraine, and I have the ability to openly mock your calculated bigotry and baiting with zero fear.
I highlight this to highlight the criticisms coming from someone like Eric Weinstein, but also to point out Eric is an intellectual dark web type.
Dave Rubin said on stage, and forgive me if I'm getting you wrong, Dave, but he said something to the effect of he would rather have Trump than any of these identitarian far-left Democrats.
It's really important because Dave used to be a Democrat, and now he's been pushed away.
These are the voices that Trump will need.
And this language from Trump may be very damaging to Democrats, but at what cost?
And that's something you better pay attention to.
Now the other tweet I pulled up very briefly, and the reason why I highlight it here with Eric Weinstein, is because John Santucci, I'm not familiar with who he is, let's see if we can pull up, his senior editorial producer at ABC News said, So this was planned, okay?
Trump did this on purpose.
Trump's attacks on the squad are scripted to see him do this from the teleprompter and
not off the cuff is so unlike him.
So this was planned.
Okay.
Trump did this on purpose, but there are some, there are some really important points that
I want to make sure I can highlight that.
Uh, well, let's just get into it.
Right?
Right.
The Washington Post said why Trump's tweets probably weren't an effort to distract from migrant camps, and they totally missed the point.
Trump is playing a game, okay?
It's calculated, it's strategic, and it's working!
Even the Democrats are flustered and frustrated, and even the press can't see exactly what's happening.
They got close.
The Washington Post says, Trump wasn't trying, you know, we thought about it.
Trump's not trying to distract from migrant camps.
No.
Trump is trying to distract from this story.
The ACLU sues over asylum rule change.
Lawfare.
This is from Lawfare blog.
Where's the big news?
Where's the breaking story?
Where's the cable coverage?
It's not here.
So check this out.
Back over to the Washington Post story.
He shows this graph.
Cable news mentions of camps and Trump tweets.
Trump's tweet coverage got way more cover— Trump's tweets gets way more coverage than talk of migrant camps, okay?
And they say that the talk of migrant camps has been static.
It hasn't gone up or down.
And this shows Trump's plan worked.
And the Washington Post can't even see it.
You know why?
Trump announced he was ending asylum, for the most part.
You would think talk then would increase.
It's a major breaking story.
But no, it stayed the same.
Trump has flicked off the Democrats and the media, and they are too egotistical to realize that Trump is making massive changes on the other side with his right hand.
He knows what they want.
They want to play a game.
They want to accuse Trump of being all of the worst things in the book.
That's what they want.
So Trump says, you know what?
Give it to him.
And I will get to pass the policy that I want to pass without obstruction.
And here we can see.
You know what, man?
I try talking about the issues that are important, that I think are making big changes, and that's why I keep highlighting this in these videos.
I am not going to play Trump's game.
I'll point out what he's doing.
And you know what's really funny?
There's people on the left that hate to hear they're being played, so they attack me for it.
The conservatives and the Trump supporters are laughing!
They're laughing, saying, haha, Trump is a madman, Trump is a mastermind.
He is!
I don't think Trump is the smartest guy on the planet, but I think he understands basic political strategy or he's got smart people around him.
I'm looking here at possibly the biggest story, at least in my opinion, of Trump's campaign, of Trump's presidency.
Think about it.
He ran on building the wall.
He said, we've got to deal with the crisis.
We've had this nonstop debate over whether or not there's a crisis.
And what happens now?
Trump finally says enough and he drops the gavel.
Bam!
No more asylum.
Effectively ending it, not just for Central Americans.
But think about it.
The rule change is essentially if you pass through a third country and you don't apply for asylum, well then you can't get it here.
What about someone who has to fly to London or Spain or some other country before coming?
Does that count?
I think it'll be an interesting question.
But this is done.
This is Trump saying, enough.
And then just boom, we're done.
Central American migrant caravans?
Nothing.
You're no longer eligible.
The asylum debate over.
Where's cable news coverage?
Where's the activist left?
Trump did it.
It was politically brilliant in more ways than people can even imagine.
And they attack me for it.
Here's the update.
ACLU is suing.
Great.
No one's going to hear about it.
They're not going to get big support behind it.
And there you go.
Trump's plan, it's exactly what he wanted.
So maybe there's one more point I can bring up.
The last thing.
I mentioned the pyrrhic victory.
Most Americans call Trump's tweet targeting the squad un-American.
But there's one important caveat.
They say in USA Today, let me zoom in a little bit, more than two-thirds of those aware of the controversy, 68%, call Trump's tweets offensive.
However, among Republicans alone, 57% say they agree with the tweets that told the congresswoman to go back to their countries.
And a third strongly agree with them.
That's the overwhelming majority.
Trump's base doesn't care.
They like Trump.
They will support Trump.
They especially love that Trump is playing this game, and they can see it.
I didn't see it at first.
It was Trump supporters saying, Tim, you missed it.
Trump's playing, he's playing them for fools.
And I was like, wow.
I didn't see it.
And they were right.
And the Democrats are even saying it was politically brilliant.
But even though the left knows it's happening, they refuse to accept their victims of Trump's silly manipulations.
So they insult me, they attack me in my mentions, and they say, Tim is wrong.
I don't care if I'm right or wrong.
I don't care if Trump is right or wrong.
I certainly am not a fan of the guy.
I will criticize him.
I will criticize these chants.
I will criticize Ilhan Omar.
Because it's one-upsmanship.
It's people saying, well, if you did it, so can I. None of that's going to help us.
But in the end, Trump is winning.
I don't know if he will win 2020, but I certainly think so.
If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on it.
People didn't see it coming in 2016, but I will stress, if you think you've got this one in the bag, Trump supporters, you're wrong.
One of the reasons Clinton lost is because her supporters were just so arrogant they didn't show up.
You better damn well believe a lot of people are going to show up now.
They're expecting historical voter turnout.
Well, Trump's trying to incite his base.
He's trying to rally them.
Maybe incite is the right word.
He's trying to incense them.
He's trying to inflame them and say, this is it.
It must be done.
They want to do the same thing.
And that's why they don't care about migrants.
They use it as an issue to rally support on their side.
And that's how the game works.
Trump knows this.
So he says, give them what they want.
Give them what they want.
But I tell you what, Trump's playing the long game, okay?
In a few months or a year when Trump's asylum rule is done and unchallenged and out of the media and no one cares, the numbers will start dropping, Trump will have policy on his side, and he's going to say, I did what I promised.
And you are not seeing it on the left.
The Democrats, even when they do, they just think they'll get away with it.
I think it doesn't matter.
I guess they don't care.
Plain and simple.
So let me just stress the few final points.
If you're on the right, and I imagine I don't have many of the far left people watching my videos for the most part, You're not going to win without the centrists.
Absolutely not.
Because a lot of people are going to come out for Hillary.
They absolutely will.
And so you best be careful with these send-her-back chants.
You can think you're justified in doing it.
I find them detestable, distasteful, and gross.
Absolutely.
But you know what?
I'm not going to vote for Trump anyway, so you're not going to win me for the most part.
I mean, look.
Something could happen that could make me vote for someone like Trump.
I'm not a crazy person, but for the most part, I am just like, no way, right?
It's just not what I've got in me.
But I'm certainly not voting for these identitarian Democrats either, so I'm basically out of the game.
I'd probably vote independent.
But I would stress, there are moderates who don't know where to go, and that's who you need to sway.
The left makes the mistake of thinking they can attract the far left to pick up misplaced moderates.
They can't.
There's a poll from YouGov showing that the biggest voting bloc views themselves as moderate.
While there are more liberals and more conservatives, the biggest individual group is moderates.
And that's the group that needs to be convinced.
Trump's language and those chants?
Not gonna help.
So I think Trump's trying to... It's like this.
Trump's willing to take damage to his side with these chants.
And look, I will stress Trump himself didn't say it and many people have pointed out he'll
probably walk it back later.
Whatever.
I find the chance bad, but here's the thing.
Many people will find those chances distasteful, but Trump is betting a refugee congresswoman
who says anti-Semitic things and may have married her brother is a bigger turnoff than
We'll see.
But I would always stress, as a moderate, my allegiance is to moderation and to rational thought and sound policy that can move us forward.
These are the reasons why I wouldn't vote for Trump.
So, fine, if you don't want my vote, sure.
But if you're going to attract people in the center to go to the Republican side, as many people are trying to do, it's not this way.
But again, Trump—I'm not going to act like I know better than him.
Even the Democrats are saying he's won this one.
If you're on the left and you're too blind to see this, well, then you deserve to lose 100%.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
For those on the podcast, the order is different, but thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment.
If there's one thing Donald Trump is good at, it's distracting everybody from what's really going on.
With his left hand, he flicks off the Democrats, and with his right hand, he's signing bills.
And the media and the Democrats are sitting there going, how dare you insult us?
And that's the point.
So at least I will still talk about what's going on with migrant issues.
And well, it's not just me.
I mean, there are a lot of people who are still talking about this, but I think it's a serious issue.
And the story we have here from the Washington Examiner, Majority of Mexicans favor deporting migrants waiting to enter the U.S.
Let's understand that all of these Central American migrants that are coming up to the U.S.
and the African migrants, they're all coming through Mexico and they're waiting on the border.
It's causing problems.
It was months ago.
I think it was maybe like eight months ago now.
There were people down on the Mexican side of the border and there was filth, there was disease, there was needles.
People were sick and Mexicans were upset by it.
So now, you know, there's a lot going on.
The Mexican government is working with Trump in some capacity.
And even people in Mexico are saying, at least the majority, it's time to deport these people.
So let's take a look at the story.
And then I have another one I want to briefly mention.
This is from The Daily Caller.
Words matter.
Democratic congressman wants to officially abolish the words illegal alien.
Because words matter.
Yes.
But let's start with the first story.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
If you'd like to support my work, there's a monthly PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, Just share this video because YouTube has deranked independent political commentary in favor of corporate commentary.
So if you like what I do, I rely on you to share it, or just don't because you hate me.
That's fine.
You don't have to, but let's read the news.
From the Examiner, they say.
More than half of Mexican nationals are not sympathetic to migrants traveling through the country on their journey to the U.S.
and support the deportation of unauthorized persons waiting to gain entry to America, according to a new study.
The study conducted by the Washington Post and Mexican newspaper Reforma found that 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans.
Wait a minute!
I thought this rhetoric was racist.
I thought when Americans, be it liberal or Republican, said this, they were racists.
Obama deported, what, 3 million people?
And now they've just forgotten because they've gone off the rails.
Let me point something out because I've mentioned this before.
The New York Times published a story not that long ago showing that the left has veered ridiculously far to the left.
To the left!
Of the center in Europe.
Europe is very, very left-wing.
So if they're not even centrists by European standards, the Democrats have gone far, far left.
And what they're saying, it's not backed by any sound logic or precedent.
It's just ridiculous, insane virtue signaling on Twitter.
And the Democrats eat it up.
And then they repeat it.
And now they're spiraling out of control.
I'll tell you this, man.
Americans, and even Mexicans, agree illegal immigration is a bad thing.
They're taking benefits.
So, look, let me, like, I try to explain it very simply.
It's, it's, it's... You and your friends are pooling your resources.
You have a community.
And you all, you all want to pitch in for an Xbox or PlayStation, whatever.
And then someone randomly shows up and takes time out of your, your guys's allotted schedule for playing the PlayStation.
You're like, dude, we all paid for this.
That's the problem with mass illegal immigration.
Everybody in this country is paying taxes for benefits.
People will come in and then... It's actually really simple.
Look, let's get outside of healthcare, outside of the benefits.
We'll put it like this.
If me and all my friends, we'll do the roads for my libertarian friends.
If me and all my friends pay a hundred bucks to build a little road and then random people keep walking on it even though we paid for it, it's going to fall apart.
And then we have to pay for it again.
So actually think about infrastructure in this country, how many people it's designed to hold.
And look at the problems we're facing.
So let's break it down even further.
In Los Angeles, we have a homeless crisis.
More people is bad because we're already struggling to provide resources for the people in Los Angeles.
I don't understand why people don't seem to understand this.
And that's why more than half of Mexican nationals are not sympathetic.
Because they can see this.
Let's read on.
They say, the post-reforma survey finds 7% of Mexicans say their country should offer residency to Central American migrants traveling through Mexico and trying to enter the United States, the report said.
That's almost the same amount as progressive activists in the U.S., so I'd imagine it's an overlap between those who think we can just give away resources.
Another 33% support allowing them to stay temporarily while the U.S.
decides whether to admit them.
But a 55% majority say they should be deported to their home countries.
Since the beginning of the year, hundreds of thousands of people have been traveling from Central America by route of Mexico in an attempt to gain entry to the U.S.
and seek asylum.
I think that's, you know, I'm really surprised a lot of conservative outlets claiming they're trying to seek asylum when they're not.
Plain and simple, they're not.
Like, listen, I can certainly respect that there are asylum seekers and refugees who need safe haven, and I think we should give it to them.
But I can also point out that if you're from Honduras, Mexico is great.
I can say it a million times.
So Trump recently enacted a policy that says if you pass through a third country on your way
here that's safe, you will be ineligible for asylum. This is being challenged,
I believe, by the ACLU. It's being completely ignored by the media because, of course, what do
they care about? Trump flipped them the bird. That's why Trump insults the press.
It's why he insults, you know, it's why he's insulting the Democrats, and he insults the press, because he's flicking them off with the left hand, signing the bills with the right, and they're not looking at his right hand.
They're just like, why is Trump flicking us off?
How dare he?
What a bigot!
And Trump's like, keep looking at my hand, keep looking, keep looking.
I'll save this for later, because I've got a bigger story to break down, but let's read on.
They say Border Patrol officials said they encountered a record 144,000 undocumented immigrants in May alone.
This week, President Trump's administration moved to tighten restrictions on migrants seeking to enter the U.S.
One of the new mandates requires migrants to apply for asylum in another country before reaching the U.S.
That's if they're passing through there.
Trump has threatened to close the southern border with Mexico if the country did not do more to curb illegal immigration into the U.S.
But let's check out, just for a little bit, this other story.
Because it seems like we have two extremes.
And actually, I shouldn't even say two extremes.
Look, Obama was deporting people.
It's people in this country that think we should have border security, and that includes Bernie Sanders.
So you know what?
I'm gonna stop right here.
I'm gonna say this.
You want to talk about right-wing commentary, right-wing opinion?
Not here.
Not on this channel.
I firmly agree with Bernie Sanders on two points.
In 2015, when he said, Open borders is a Koch Brothers proposal, and he opposed it.
I agree, Bernie.
I agree with you.
I also agree with him when he said only a few months ago, we cannot allow all of the world's poor to come through our southern borders.
I agree with you there, Bernie Sanders.
And I agree with him back when he was campaigning in 2016, saying these free trade agreements were a bad thing for America.
So, no, that's far-left rhetoric, but of course, they're all on board with the insanity.
And now you have this.
This is Joaquin Castro.
He is the twin brother of, I believe, Julian Castro, who's running for president.
And he says, let's get rid of the words illegal alien.
You know what?
Everything is offensive all the time, okay?
We come up with words that are supposed to be sensitive, and they just gradually- and then eventually that word becomes offensive.
And George- George Carlin has a great segment on this, where he talks about how we increasingly make phrases complicated as if that makes them less offensive.
He says we used to use the word invalid, and that was just a way to describe something.
And then everyone got offended.
So we changed what it was, you know, differently abled.
And now it's still, that will eventually become, you know, now it's a person of disability because saying someone is disabled is offensive.
The cycle continues.
Getting rid of illegal alien will do nothing.
It's not going to change what an illegal alien is.
It's just a legal language to describe what someone, what, you know, to describe who they are and what they're doing.
So, what do they really want us to say?
Undocumented immigrant.
Why?
What's the difference?
It just describes the same thing.
Oh, but illegally.
A person can't be illegal.
I don't care what you call it.
Now we have like the AP and other outlets calling them unauthorized immigrants.
Let's read a little bit of this story.
They write, Texas Democratic Rep.
Joaquin Castro wants to strike the words alien and illegal alien from the government's legal code, arguing that the terms are hurtful to the immigrant community.
Words matter.
It's vital that we respect the dignity of immigrants fleeing violence and prosecution in our language.
See, there's the game.
They want you to believe literally everyone is an asylum seeker.
Even the people who told Vox.com, yes, the left-leaning Vox, they wanted Buffalo Wild Wings.
Sorry, that's not asylum.
They have Buffalo Wild Wings in Mexico City.
And this is the game they play.
He says, the words alien and illegal alien work to demonize and dehumanize the migrant community.
They should have no place in our government's description of human beings.
There's no middle anymore.
There's none.
What do we have?
We have the left that's denying being for open borders.
Don't even play.
You know what, man?
There's no center.
Think about it.
Every article says you're either far-right or far-left.
I purposefully will call someone left, far-left, or Democrat, etc.
I try to make those distinctions properly.
But what do we get?
When I went to the White House summit, they said I was right-wing.
No, I'm fairly obviously centrist because I'm supporting Democrats, believe in left-wing policies, but I'm very critical of the Democrats.
That's plainly centrist.
Heterodox, to say the least.
My policies lean to the left, but I'm very critical of the Democrats for going too far left and not giving me an option other than the right.
I don't want the right.
I'm in the middle.
I lean to the left.
But there's no center anymore.
There is... I mean, at least Vox in one article said the center and the right were aligned.
That I can appreciate, but for the most part, you're either left or right.
Okay, so I look at the Democrats and what do they want to do?
They don't want the phrase illegal alien.
They want to decriminalize illegal border crossing so anyone can just cross the border, which makes no sense.
We have legal ports of entry on purpose.
We don't want criminals and drugs.
That's ridiculous.
They offer up government health care to illegal immigrants.
And I'm sitting here like, well, hold on.
I think Trump's rhetoric is over the line.
But who am I supposed to vote for now?
And this is the kind of insanity that just leads me to believe it's only going to get worse.
I do not see this becoming... I don't see it getting resolved.
I don't.
The rhetoric is getting more and more extreme.
On both sides.
Admittedly, it feels like the right has been moving much slower in terms of escalated escalation.
In terms of increasing escalation.
But we did see the Trump rally the other night, where they were chanting, send her back.
I'm gonna get into all this later, so I don't want to go too much into it.
It's just like, I feel like I'm stuck in the middle, and everything's going insane.
So, look.
When you've got Mexican citizens, like more than half, saying we should deport these people, are they racist?
No, they're clearly not.
There are regular people who are concerned about their communities, plain and simple.
So, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Quite possibly my favorite fake problem is manspreading.
A problem that doesn't really exist, that no one really cares about, and is inflamed by grifters and liars on the internet.
One of my favorite fake outrage videos comes from Vox.com, in which they just overtly lie about everything happening as they explain to you what manspreading is.
They wanted to cash in on outrage.
It worked.
I kid you not.
Go check out this video.
It's from Vox.
It's, like, heavily thumbs down.
And there are sections where, you know, the woman hosting it says, This man blocked these women from sitting by manspreading.
But when you- you can actually see that train's, like, empty.
The women who are standing just chose not to sit down where there are open seats.
It makes no sense.
So yes, manspreading is fake, but it's a really good example of how getting outraged on the internet can affect the real world.
So while we can all joke about how Twitter isn't real life, The reality is, it does have an impact.
We've seen advertisements in New York talking about manspreading.
You don't see them talking about fembagging, which is the phenomenon where women put their bags on seats, more so than men.
But in the end, there's a couple simple reasons for why manspreading exists.
For one, guys have things down there, and they like to give them air.
The other thing, though, is I read something about, it's called the Q-angle.
And because of the angle of the femur and the muscles, it's uncomfortable for men.
They just naturally sit with their legs spread.
Now, of course, if you're gonna, like, put your legs out full splits to block chairs, yeah, you're being a dick.
But for the most part, guys have, you know, they sit with their legs slightly open.
Women sit with their knees together.
And it's just because men, it's just what men are.
But here's the story, let's not waste time.
The end of manspreading?
University student fed up with men infringing on her public space wins National Design Award for creating chair that restricts how they sit down.
Yes, she won an award for making a chair in which it is harder to manspread.
Let me explain something to all of you.
Well, actually, everybody who watches me already knows I'm just preaching to the choir half the time.
But I just want to stress, When a guy sits with his legs open on a train, the last thing he's thinking about is enforcing the patriarchy.
In fact, he's probably not thinking about his legs at all.
He probably just sat down.
That's it.
But it's really weird how you have all of these feminists and women and male feminists who believe that, like, men lurk around the shadows desperate to reinforce patriarchy.
Most guys don't know what patriarchy means.
All they know is, I got sweaty junk and I want to sit down with my legs open.
It's a hot day or something like that.
Period.
So let's take a look at this chair.
Actually, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, share this video.
YouTube is de-ranking independent commentary and propping up big corporate players, which means The only way my channel actually gets growth is if you guys think it's worth being shared.
If you don't, leave a comment explaining how much you don't like me, and we'll move on.
From the Daily Mail, they say, a university student has won a national award for designing a chair that stops men from manspreading.
Oh, good for her.
Layla Laurel, sounds like a superhero name, 23, created the, or a villain name, created the piece of furniture to stop men from widening their legs and encroaching on other people's personal space.
Two bits of wood are cleverly positioned on the seat to physically stop whoever is sitting down from moving their legs apart.
But hold on.
There are two chairs.
One of them forces you to manspread?
I don't quite understand.
And so this one, it's shaped weird.
It's completely unnecessary.
Oh my, it's so unnecessary.
Seriously.
It's shaped in a way so where it's like this.
So when you sit down, your legs can't go...
It's just the silliest and stupidest thing.
For one, it's not a problem.
And what is this?
I just sit in that chair.
There's like a peg in between your legs.
It says, Lila Laurel Left has created an anti-manspreading chair, pictured right, which forces men to keep their legs together while also designing a chair for women with a wooden block strategically placed to make it less attractive to men.
What is that?
What?
How big do you think my junk is?
Hey, it's not bad, but come on, I can sit in that chair.
I, like, it's, it's, this is just such the, it's so fake.
Like, why, why is this a part of our reality?
It's just complete fake nonsense.
So let's, let's, let's scroll down.
I see University of Brighton student who is graduating next month
won a design award for, uh, for work, for her work, which is part of her 3D design and craft degree.
So let's take a look at this.
First, here are the two chairs.
She says men wouldn't want to sit in this chair because of this wooden block.
That's literally a man-spreading chair.
Like, a guy will sit back and spread his legs.
It sounds like she purposefully made a man-spreading chair.
The female chair pictured left allows women extra space and to sit more comfortably.
So she made a chair that forces women to manspread?
Do we call it femspread?
I have no idea.
Here's the thing about how ridiculous and stupid this chair is.
You want to make a chair where guys can't manspread?
It doesn't need to be shaped like a triangle.
You can literally just make a chair and put railings on it.
And then guys would have to lean forward if they wanted to spread their legs.
Or they can sit in and there's armrests.
So let me just stress, a chair with an armrest solves this problem.
In fact, chairs like this exist everywhere.
This does nothing.
God, everybody is so nuts.
They say the word manspreading was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2015 following an online campaign against the practice since 2013.
The dictionary definition is the practice of a man sitting on public transport with his legs wide apart, taking up more space than he needs, and preventing other people from sitting down.
And let me just explain to you the very simple solution.
We need not make new chairs.
We need not put advertising campaigns up.
We need only say, excuse me, Problem solved.
Here's the bigger problem.
Can we come up with a word for passive-aggressive behavior from women where they don't just simply say, excuse me?
Is that not normal?
Do people have such social anxiety disorder they can't walk up to a person and be like, do you mind?
I've been on- I've- I've taken trains all the time.
Why are we even still ta- Oh my god.
The fact that someone would win an award for this, and that people would write about it, and then I would comment on it... I- I think it's funny, by the way.
Like, the only reason I'm really doing this is because of how absurd it is, and it's funny to talk about.
I don't want you to think like this is some grand-scale problem.
No, it's funny.
It's absurd.
Our world is crazy, and there's nonsense every day.
No one is going to put these chairs anywhere.
These chairs are meaningless.
They'll never be implemented.
It is just complete absurdity, and it's a waste of time.
And let me just stress, this is what your kids do when you send them to college.
Learn anything interesting in college, my dear child.
Any great philosophies?
Did you study some great thinkers in past battles?
Did you develop a cure for a disease?
No, I made a chair that will never be used by anyone to make some point about a made-up problem.
And how much did that cost you?
Oh, I'm in debt $40,000.
Congratulations, college.
Everything you could have hoped for, for your children.
Let's read on.
They say, Ms.
Laurel, who graduates in 3D Design and Craft from the University of Brighton later this month, has been commended for her innovative creation.
There's a famous story.
I don't know who said it.
It was like the head of the patent office in 1899 said, everything that can be invented has been invented.
I think that's it.
I could be getting it wrong.
But I really so desperately just want to say something like that because this is where we are.
And I kind of feel like, you know, I feel like I understand exactly why someone would say that.
Because when you have, like, an award-winning, college-educated designer putting together these chairs, which literally do nothing, if a guy wants to, he can just put his legs up over the little side bumps.
They get an award for it.
Congratulations.
Your degree will help you do nothing.
Let me stress, if I was going to hire somebody and I asked them, like, oh, what's your highest level of education?
They said they went to college.
I'd be like, interesting, what did you learn?
And they showed me this chair.
I'd think they were, like, less qualified.
I'd be like, ooh, you shouldn't have told me that.
Like, it's actually bad.
Like, that's what you did?
Look, man, let's be honest.
If I'm going to hire somebody to do a job, I want them to have experience in something legitimate, not making silly chairs that will never be used for no reason.
Let me stress this.
This chair on the right, for those that are watching, it's shaped like a triangle pointed forward so that men can't spread their legs, but they could quite literally just lift their legs.
There's like little bumps on the side.
Not only that, a regular chair with armrests solves the same problem.
She invented nothing.
She made a silly chair that does nothing.
She wasted her time in college.
This is one of the biggest problems with college today.
Man, I feel really bad because I know a lot of people... Let me tell you a story, okay?
We get it.
Manspreading is ridiculous.
Let's read a little bit more.
She won an award for emerging talent in the design industry called the Belmond Award, which calls for imaginative and cleverly presented ideas.
Speaking about her inspiration, she said, it came from my own experiences of men infringing
on my public space.
Have you ever considered?
Oh, excuse me.
Has that never crossed anyone's mind?
With my chair set, I hope to draw awareness to the act of sitting for men and women and inspire discussion about this.
The student said she was shocked, happy, and honored.
I too am shocked that you won an award for this.
A solution for manspreading.
When I was like 19, I was hanging out with some, no I think I was like 20, I was hanging out with some younger people who were like 17, and they were talking about what they were going to go to college for.
And one of them, it was like my friend and a bunch of her friends, and one of them said like, what are you going to do when you graduate college?
And I was sitting there with like my skateboard and my skintight jeans and I was like, I'm not going to college.
I didn't even finish high school.
And then one of them says to me, like, what are you, stupid?
You're gonna, like, work at McDonald's.
And I was like, is that what you think the world is like?
And then this one girl says something about taking, like, a design class, or, like, I don't know what she was taking.
And she was like, I'm gonna graduate, and I'm gonna be making, like, $70,000 a year, like, in my first year.
And I started laughing.
I'm like, you think when you graduate college, you will just get a job like that that pays $70,000 a year?
And she was like, remind me, something to the effect of like, tell me how things go for you with no high school
diploma.
And I was like, sure, here's the best part.
So they were a few years younger than me.
By the time they had graduated, I was a director at a non-profit.
Admittedly, not making a ton of money doing this, but it was a passion thing.
I wanted to work for non-profits.
I felt like I was good at it.
And it was a low salary of around $36K a year.
So admittedly, not $70K, but I was like $22K, $23K at the time.
Yeah, maybe I was 23 or 24.
I think I was 23.
But one of these kids was working at Starbucks, okay?
They graduated college and they got a job at Starbucks and they were making like 10 bucks an hour.
And I'm like, admittedly not the person who was gloating to me.
It's not that epic of a story.
It's not that that happened.
It was a group of people and one person was mean, but in that group of friends, a couple of them had gotten like fast food jobs and stuff like that.
And I'm not trying to be a dick.
Like, I'm not trying to rehash this old thing and, like, poke fun and laugh, but my point is—my point stands.
Look, when you graduate, you have no real-world experience.
You have none.
And so when you go—and this is the craziest thing to me, because I remember...
I was looking at all of these job postings, trying to find a job, and they all talk about how they wanted a college diploma.
Well, guess what?
I was a director at a nonprofit with no high school diploma.
Because I'll tell you this, when it comes to a business, when it comes to my business, when it comes to any business, all they want to know is, can you do the job?
Now, some people say a college degree shows initiative.
No, it doesn't.
I'll tell you what a college degree shows.
It shows a woman who made a nonsense chair that does nothing.
Is that going to benefit my business in any way?
What if I made, like, staplers and had a management job open?
Admittedly, not what someone like this wants to do, but I need someone to design new staplers, which requires creative design.
Am I going to be impressed by your triangle chair for your made-up problem?
No.
Not at all.
But I'll tell you what, that kid who worked in his garage and built weird and wacky things is going to be like, oh, I got a good idea.
We could do X, Y, and Z, A, B, and C. Because I used to do that in my garage.
I'd be like, this is the guy.
Or the lady.
Let's not play into their tropes.
The point is, Look at what you get from college.
And admittedly, I don't want to act like, you know, so here's a picture of a guy sitting with his legs forward.
He could just lift his legs up if he wanted to.
I don't want to act like college is completely useless.
It's just mostly useless.
If you want to be a lawyer, a doctor, or actually work in academia, well then go to college.
But if you want to run a business, if you want to design things, what are you doing wasting your time?
Pull up Adobe, pull up whatever program you use, CAD, I don't know what you designers use, and start designing stuff.
I learned how to do video editing.
I didn't go to school for it.
I do all of my graphics, all of my design work.
I didn't go to school for it.
I just started using the programs and tried doing things.
And as time went on, I got better at it, tried to figure out how to improve things, and found designs I liked.
And now I have a bunch of templates that I built that are actually kind of complicated.
But what do you get?
Congratulations!
If you put this chair where the woman is sitting with the block, does it like...
What do they think?
Do they think, like, oh my god, I don't know, it's just, welcome, welcome, oh man, the internet has made everyone psychotic, everybody's nuts, but thank you for the laugh, I greatly appreciate it, and what a, what a stupid, what a stupid news story.
Stick around, the next segment will be at youtube.com slash timcast coming up at 4pm, it's a different channel from this one, and I will see you all there.
I always start off videos like this by saying that I believe climate change is a serious problem, and I defer to the scientific community when they say that humans are causing climate change.
And there's a very specific reason why I do this.
The left is embracing more anti-science rhetoric.
In this story, demoted by university for views on gender, professor sues.
In fact, it appears he was forced out, they say.
Does that mean he was fired?
We'll read the story.
But I always open these segments because they'll always try to claim, oh, the right is anti-science and things like this.
And not here.
Not on my channel.
Because I'm moderate, leaning left.
I defer to the scientific community.
I don't think I know better than they do.
And that means even on issues of gender, I'm not going to defer to ideologues.
I'm going to defer to scientists.
People like Dr. Deborah So, who is much more of an expert than I.
While there are certainly arguments to be made in terms of the, I believe it's called, bimodality, bimodal nature of gender and sex, arguments on, like, you know, recognizing a million or infinite genders are where things kind of break down.
But let's read this story, and we can talk about science, and this person, I believe, he's not just a professor, I believe he's a psychiatrist, but let's see what they have to say.
Now, before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
Or just share this story.
In fact, just share it regardless because YouTube deranks this kind of content.
They're propping up CNN, Fox News.
You've heard me say it several times in each podcast, but it's true.
So if you like what I have to say, then please share.
Otherwise, don't, but let's read.
A child psychiatry expert at the University of Louisville is suing the school for forcing him out after he publicly expressed skepticism about transgender ideology, which allows gender-confused young people to select the gender of their choice and which has been rapidly gaining acceptance in the world of medicine.
Failing to toe the politically correct line on gender can be costly nowadays.
A New York human rights law banning so-called gender identity discrimination imposes fines of up to $250,000 for failing to use a person's preferred personal pronoun.
That is, in an instance of public accommodation.
So, if you run a restaurant and someone says, from now on, you must refer to me as this, and you don't, you will be fined $250,000 for willful violations.
Now, they have to file with the city.
The city will investigate, determine if a violation took place.
But how strange, I might add.
One of the biggest problems with what's happening in New York, kind of as a sidestep, we will revisit this, is that their law says that gender identity is self-expression, meaning you can literally say you're whatever you want and the business has to accommodate you.
We'll come back to this.
I've talked about it in the past.
They go on to mention that social media giant Twitter bans users from misgendering.
We get this.
I don't want to.
Let's get to the story.
Professor Alan Josephson, former head of the university's Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, asserts in a lawsuit initiated in U.S.
District Court in Louisville that he was discriminated against, demoted, and effectively fired for his now-unfashionable scientific belief that sex is immutable based on objective facts, binary, i.e.
male or female, which is chromosomal, and fixed in each person at the moment of conception.
Josephson, who publicly opposes transgender ideology, has said children shouldn't be allowed to use bathrooms based on their own self-selected gender identity, and that parents should listen empathetically to their children and then guide them to align with their biological sex.
At a Heritage Foundation panel discussion in 2017, Josephson shared his views on gender dysphoria and the medical danger of gender ideology for children, views that until a few years ago had not been regarded as controversial.
University officials reacted with horror, taking away his department chairmanship and giving him the boot by stating they would not renew his contract of employment despite years of exemplary performance reviews.
Now let's get to what's very challenging and disturbing about this.
For one, science is often wrong.
So even if scientists today say something is true, it doesn't mean it will always be true, and I can respect that.
That's why I only tend to defer to the experts, because I'm not a scientist, so I can only really go with what the scientific community thinks.
Recognizing that science historically has been wrong.
That's how it works.
We improve our knowledge and move forward.
The problem here is that science is being heavily impacted by politics and people are being fired from their jobs because of politics.
Do not believe that the scientific community is immune from this.
The same is true for climate change.
If somebody works a job and the school receives a grant from a foundation or from an organization, they risk losing that if they don't fall in line with what is considered socially acceptable.
Only now, there is a stark divide between what is or isn't socially acceptable, with the center and the right saying, this guy should be allowed to express his opinion and talk about these issues, and the left saying, no, he's a bigot.
But let's talk about New York for a second.
Actually, no, no, no.
We'll get to New York.
We'll get to New York.
Let's read a little bit more.
According to the legal complaint filed in the case known as Josephson v. Benaputi, Josephson has become concerned that new treatments for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria didn't promote their long-term health interests.
He has expressed concerns about a controversial new treatment for youth experiencing gender dysphoria that involves accepting the young person's self-asserted gender identity, prescribing puberty-blocking medications and cross-sex hormones, and ultimately guiding the individual towards various surgeries.
Josephson had consulted previously with Alliance Defending Freedom, his lawyers in the new lawsuit, in cases, quote, involving youth experiencing gender dysphoria who demanded to use the showers, restrooms, and locker rooms opposite to their biological sex in the public schools.
He also served as an expert witness in federal litigation in 2016 over North Carolina's birth sex bathroom law.
A Christian legal interest group, the Alliance Defending Freedom, is based in Scottsdale, Arizona.
ADF says it was created to defend religious liberties from the ACLU and its allies, which have used the courts to drive out public expressions of faith and to radically change America into something the Founding Fathers never intended.
In a recent interview with National Review, Joseph Sin expressed worry that political pressure which led the WHO to remove Tinnitus Phoria from its catalogue of mental disorders could cause the publishers of the DSM, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, to delist the illness.
We are very close to that now, Josephson told the National Review.
There are now over 50 gender clinics in the US.
These were unheard of 7 or 8 years ago, and they're set up almost like a restaurant, where a person comes in and orders a treatment.
Doctors have always said, you give me the symptoms, and I'll help you with what I think is going on for the diagnosis.
But that basic process is being short-circuited by this, this is my diagnosis, this is what I have, approach.
And literally, they're asking for hormones, and amazingly, doctors are going along with it in many cases.
Here's the important, uh, there's an important bit here.
If the DSM delists gender dysphoria, that means trans people will not be able to get treatment in many circumstances because gender dysphoria would not be considered a mental illness.
And if that happens, when they go to a doctor, the doctor can't give you a medication unless you have some kind of ailment.
If it's removed, they won't be able to get it.
But let's talk now about...
New York City a little bit, because I always try to keep these segments a little bit short.
There's a lot to go through.
In New York City, they recognize, I believe, it's 32 genders.
And here's the important thing.
The civil rights law in New York says that gender identity is part of self-expression.
That basically, they define gender as self-expression, which means you can put on a cape and call yourselves vampire gender.
Now, I've talked to many lawyers about this, and what I was told is basically, will it pass the laugh test?
That means, if you go to court and claim you're vampire gender, can the court throw you out and laugh at you and say, you're not?
Now here's where it gets tricky.
If a court can determine who is or isn't actually of a particular gender and laugh at someone out of a courtroom, then why can't a conservative judge tell a trans person they're not trans?
Therein lies the problem with this.
It is completely exploitable, and there is no clear-set path towards actually protecting the trans community.
The law as it stands will allow someone to claim their, I don't know, cement gender and then walk around carrying bricks or something, or something weird that makes no sense.
And you can go into a restaurant and demand to use the brick bathroom.
And if they don't have one, you can claim that's not fair.
Now things get even more strange.
I went to a restaurant.
And I asked them about laws.
It was a new restaurant in New York City.
This was several months ago.
And according to the law, they have to be able to accommodate all genders.
I believe.
I could be wrong, but my understanding was they did.
So new buildings, new restaurants, typically have unisex bathrooms, or they'll say something like, all-gender restroom.
Well, I asked, do they have a no-gender restroom?
Because agender is recognized in New York as well.
A bathroom that has all genders is not a bathroom for no genders.
In which case, could you sue?
And if you can't, because the courts would laugh at you, why does the court have a right to determine what is or isn't a gender if the law makes it clear your self-expression, you can be whatever gender you want?
Therein lies the problem.
I think we will eventually see a case in New York where someone claims to be, like, hydrogender or one of these weird Tumblr genders, and someone will tell them to leave.
We can't accommodate that.
Let me tell you a funny story.
It's actually, I believe it was Joe Rogan podcast where he brought this up, that furries went to a hotel and demanded litter boxes.
Okay, well technically, I understand it seems like a stretch, but in New York, you could claim that as, you know, a furry gender, you need a litter box to use, and it's discrimination if they don't provide it.
And if a court can tell you that's silly and no, why can't they also tell that to a trans person?
This is dangerous precedence.
And the reason I think it's important to highlight is that I, for one, think we should be protecting trans people.
I believe civil rights are paramount.
And we can do these things in sane, logical ways that help keep people safe, legitimately.
Think about the law as it stands today.
If they say we recognize literally every gender, well then you end up with these problems where someone could create the possibility that a court could reject an actual trans person's claim that they were discriminated against because they can't legally protect, you know, furry gender or something.
It's actually really simple.
They need only define transgender as someone who doesn't conform to how they were assigned at birth.
In which case, if the courts recognize two biological sexes, then trans people are protected.
But what they're doing now is this very open and vague, broad terminology that can result in an actual breakdown.
So, as I've explained before, the more you try to protect everybody, the more you actually lose protections for everybody.
But I'll leave it there. The university hasn't commented. I guess the point is the suit is
happening. There's not really much outside of this. It's not the first time we've heard a story like
this, but it's not the last time we'll hear it either. So it is what it is. Leave your comments,
let me know what you think. I certainly believe this professor shouldn't be removed for having
professorial beliefs, being an academic and holding views in the scientific community. But
hey man, this stuff keeps getting, it's escalating.
Let me know what you think.
More stories to come in a few minutes, and I will see you all in the next segment.
The other day at a rally, Donald Trump was criticizing Ilhan Omar when the rallygoers broke out into a chant of, send her back.
And immediately, many people criticized Trump and criticized the rallygoers for this.
Well, many people are saying, well, Trump didn't say it himself.
He didn't stop them.
And of course, now everyone's screaming, oh, it's the coming of World War II, et cetera, et cetera.
It's the Weimar Republic.
Trump's a fascist, yada, yada, yada.
Well, let's hold our horses, but let's, you know, listen.
I heavily criticized the chant, I feel like things are getting crazy in this country, and just because the left is not being held to the same standard doesn't mean the right has a pass to break the rules.
One of the things that is essentially creating this alliance between moderates and the right right now is that the left has gone off the rails and they aren't being held to account.
You take a look at what happened with the ICE attack.
And Sean King, prominent, over 1 million followers, praising and calling for more.
And we ask, where is justice?
Where are the standards?
Well, here's the thing.
While I criticize the president for this, we can now see that Trump has disavowed the chant, said it didn't make him happy.
Perhaps he could have disavowed it stronger, but I will say this.
In today's day and age, nothing matters.
And I learned this.
I learned this.
When you come out and try and apologize, they don't care.
Nobody cares.
Did Trump say it?
No.
But Trump did essentially tweet they should go back to their home country, so now we're seeing this rhetoric be, you know, expanded upon.
And I gotta admit, it's bad for Trump because a lot of centrists are coming out saying, nope.
And there are, look, if Trump wants to win 2020, he's gonna need moderates.
So he's gotta be careful.
A pyrrhic victory may damage the left, but you gotta be careful about damaging yourself too much.
But in the end, I will say this.
Once again, we can see the right Pulling things back while the left doesn't.
No, seriously.
Ilhan Omar said how many things that were considered offensive by many people.
Whether or not you're—like, there's a lot of progressives saying, she did not say anything offensive.
No, it's not up to you, okay?
There's a lot of people, Democrat and Republican alike, who condemned her, but they couldn't even pass a resolution, you know, calling her out, but they could do it for Trump.
And here it goes.
We see what happens with ICE.
Where's the media?
Honestly, I have no idea.
When something happens with a fringe wacko on the right, everyone condemns it.
There's no problem.
When some fringe wacko on the left comes out and does it, people say, what?
What did Sean King say?
Defended it?
Called for more?
So there's the big problem.
And that's why the center and the right are essentially aligned for the most part right now, even though centrists disagree with a lot of Republican policy.
I believe it was Melissa Chen who said, I am more afraid of telling my liberal friends I have conservative views than my conservative friends that I have liberal views.
I can talk to conservatives all day and night about my liberal views and they'll argue with me.
I talk to my liberal friends about a potentially conservative view and they will not be happy.
So here we can see the story as it plays out.
Everyone was mad that people were chanting this and Trump calls it out.
I'm not surprised.
I certainly don't agree with a lot of Trump's rhetoric, but hey, good on him.
As I said, With people like Joey Salads and like Joe Bernstein from BuzzFeed.
When you say something or do something wrong and then come out and say, I shouldn't have done that or that was bad, I will give you it.
I will say, okay, good, good.
Do the right thing and I will praise that behavior.
So Trump deserves credit for saying this.
Now, I certainly think Trump could have been a little bit stronger in his condemnation, but hey man, I'll take what I can get.
Because now you have a lot of Trump supporters saying, okay, okay, okay.
Because they're going to follow the president on this one.
A lot of Trump supporters had no problem saying, I don't agree with that.
Right?
You can agree with the policies the man is bringing forward while still disagreeing with these more extreme things.
So now we are seeing the right is willing to pull some things back.
Criticize the president all you want.
Criticize his rally goers.
But at least they're taking the step.
Encourage more of this behavior.
Right?
That's the right thing to do.
Well, of course we're not seeing it.
We're still seeing the left go after him.
They're not going to care that Trump apologized.
But at least I can say this.
Centrists will.
Absolutely.
I'm gonna say good on him for doing it.
I wish he was a little stronger, but hey, you know what?
I understand.
He's a conservative.
He's not gonna give me everything I want.
But at least he's doing this.
Where was Sean King's apology?
Nowhere to be found.
In fact, The Intercept still has the article up on Twitter that Sean King, I'm assuming, was forced to delete, where he called for more.
Let's see exactly what Trump had to say.
From Politico.
Oh, actually, we'll do this.
Before we get started, timcast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
I always shout it out, so you probably get it by now.
There's multiple ways you can donate, but just share this video if you like it because YouTube is de-ranking me and many others.
Politico writes, President Donald Trump claimed Thursday he was not happy with the crowd at his campaign rally in North Carolina the previous evening for chanting, quote, send her back after he had goaded the audience with a fiery attack on Ilhan Omar.
Quote, I was not happy with it.
I disagree with it.
But again, I didn't say that.
They did.
But I disagree with it.
Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, adding that he started speaking very quickly in an attempt to silence the rally attendees.
It was quite a chant.
And I felt a little bit badly about it, Trump said, later hailing the crowd size inside the packed arena at Greenville's East Carolina University and boasting of the tremendous support and great energy enjoyed by the Republican Party.
I say there is far more energy on the right than there is on the left.
I personally... Well, I can agree with that to a certain extent.
When it comes to the right, there's a lot of energy focused in one direction, and on the left, there's way more energy, but it's all random, and they're like fighting each other, and it's just totally crazy.
Uh, he says, adding, I think we have far more support than they do, and I think we have far more energy than they do, and we're going to have a very interesting election, but I was not happy when I heard that chant.
The chant has been condemned by a growing number of Republican lawmakers, with House GOP leadership conveying their concerns to Vice President Mike Pence during a meeting earlier in the day.
But the disavowal from Trump contrasts sharply with days of similar racist rhetoric he has leveled against Omar and three other freshman Progressive House Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib, beginning Sunday with his tweets urging the U.S.
citizens and women of color to go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.
Those incendiary posts resulted in the House approving a resolution Tuesday formally rebuking the president.
But you know what?
I have this debate all the time.
That's the end of the story, by the way.
I have another story I want to highlight.
But it is rather frustrating.
Whenever I talk to people that are staunchly on the left, I'm like, why won't anyone call out Antifa?
Just because there are fringe crazes on the right doesn't mean the left gets a pass.
And that's the game everyone plays by, and I will call it out.
Okay?
Just because the left and Ilhan Omar can say offensive things doesn't mean I'm gonna sit by when a Trump rally starts chanting, send them back.
I'm not okay with it, and I'm gonna say that.
I am not on your or anyone else's side.
If it's wrong, it's wrong, and I'm gonna say it.
But at least, at least Trump could do this, okay?
Because Sean King's praising the guy.
Man, I'm just, it's so frustrating to me that I can predict it.
I can absolutely predict it.
And this double standard from the media, in my opinion, is precipitating all of the escalation.
Because Trump supporters are saying, you know what?
After all of these years of Trump being called every name in the book, you're now mad that we chanted something?
That's what they're saying.
Well, what am I supposed to say to that?
Like, yep, you're right, it's a double standard on the left.
I don't think that gives you a pass.
But because the media will not call out, the Democrats couldn't even condemn Ilhan Omar, who for years has said these things.
Claiming that Israel hypnotizes the world?
We know what that means, man.
We know who she hangs out with.
Linda Sarsour, Tablet Magazine, New York Times, they exposed this behavior.
And what do they do?
Nothing.
At least Trump could do this.
Okay, I wish he did more.
Fine.
But what did they do after the ice thing and Washington?
Sean King praises it.
Calls for more.
That's a mainstream, left-wing, high-profile personality doing the opposite of what Trump has done here.
Trump didn't do enough.
Fine.
But at least he did this.
And now here's the next little story I want to go through just very quickly.
From the Washington Times, roughly 50% of voters say racist charges against Trump are politically motivated.
Yeah, I agree.
I think they're just trying—you know what?
Hold on.
I agree, and Trump knows this, and this is what I stressed in my main segment today.
Trump knows this, and that's why he's doing—he's making these tweets.
Do I think Trump is racist?
Honestly?
A little bit.
But racist—like, the way I view things is like, I don't think someone either is or isn't racist.
I believe that people are racist to varying degrees.
Like, think about it.
If someone thinks, like, Asians are cool, but they don't like Mexican people, they're still racist, but they're not racist towards one group.
If we were gonna play it like racism was black and white, you'd assume that, like, a white person hated literally anybody who wasn't white.
But let's be real.
Things aren't black and white.
I certainly think Trump has prejudices, but I think most people do.
I think Trump is a little worse than most people, but I think it's silly to levy accusations against him for the most part.
Reason being, let me clarify what I'm saying right there.
Most of the time we hear about these accusations, it's specifically because someone is trying to earn points.
Trump will do something and they'll say, that was racist.
Like, oh, hold on, hold on, man.
Like when Trump criticizes a religion, he's not being racist.
Okay.
Especially when it comes to Islam.
They're like, if you don't like Islam, you're racist.
Like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on.
Come on.
If Trump said something specific about a specific race, right.
I would say that's racist.
And I think Trump has done some things.
It's complicated, to say the least.
I'm not someone who's going to stand behind this man.
I'm not a fan of his.
But I'm certainly not someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So while I can look at these things critically and agree, yep.
I think almost all of the times Trump's been accused of racism, it's politically motivated.
Because I'm not crazy, right?
I can certainly criticize the man and things he's said.
I can criticize, listen, straight up, the tweet saying go back to your countries, you know, and fix them up.
I think...
Man, it's tough, right?
I don't want to say it's overtly racist because the target isn't, but it's got a racial, um, I don't know, component to it.
This idea that people come from other countries, and while Kellyanne Conway's trying to make the point that, you know, you can tell a white person to go back to their European country, nah, come on, man.
Like, let's not play that game.
But in the end, it's why I'm in the center.
I have repeatedly called out Trump, and I have repeatedly criticized him for this, but you know what?
For the time being, the left has gone insane.
And I can see the same thing many people on the right can see.
We agree.
The rational people in the middle, who, you know, agree with some conservative and some liberal policies, are looking at conservatives going like, what's going on with the left, man?
Like, Trump didn't do anything, like, you know?
But here's the point I'm gonna make.
Send her back, I really find disgusting and distasteful.
But you know what?
Trump disavowed it.
Not perfectly.
So while I can certainly think that Trump has, he crop dusts, it's similar, this is a good way to put it when I talk about like, why I think Trump might be racist.
Not that he's overtly racist, like you'd expect him to be a white supremacist, I think that's ridiculous.
But I think he's an older guy, and he crop dusts certain issues that get close, and you're like, what are you trying to say by that?
I'm not playing the stupid dog whistle game, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying he comes from an era long since past, and while Trump has accolades and awards for helping minority communities, that's why I'm not saying he's an overt racist.
I think everybody has prejudices within them, and to varying degrees hold some kind of racist views.
But, I don't know.
It's complicated.
Let me just end by clarifying everything by saying, for one, it's complicated, and two, I agree that almost all of the charges against Trump about racism are politically motivated, and I will give Trump credit for walking back those comments that I disagreed with.
Plain and simple.
One more story coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The House has just passed a wage increase federally to $15.
And it's one of the biggest issues we've seen Democrats debating about.
Of course, conservatives tend to be opposed to the minimum wage, and many on the left are for it.
Many activists and union activists have been calling for a $15 minimum for a really long time.
But interestingly, Vox.com notes that because of this, we could expect to lose up to 1.3 million jobs.
So I've talked about this quite a bit, but you have to recognize that a lot of businesses can't absorb that big of a difference in paying their staff in a short amount of time.
It's going to drive up base costs, like apples will cost more, anything requiring, you know, like labor.
is going to go up in cost. What they're really saying is not that they're going to pay someone
$15 guaranteed, they're saying everything will cost $15. It's another way to look at it.
Now, I certainly think people should get paid more. We should do better to increase the standard of
living for a lot of people. I don't know what the right thing to do is.
So let's read a little bit of the story from Vox to see exactly what's going on with this $15 an hour increase, and we'll just jump right in.
Actually, before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, just share the story, share the video if you like it, and we'll read on.
Vox writes, The House passed a bill on Thursday that would double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.
This would mark the first increase to the rate in more than a decade and the highest increase ever.
A total of 231 members voted in favor of the Raise the Wage Act and 199 opposed it.
Only three Republicans voted for the bill.
Now, I have to imagine it's not going to get past the Senate anyway, so it's kind of pointless.
Passage of the bill is a victory for fast food workers who have been pushing for a $15 minimum wage across the country for more than five years.
It's long overdue.
It's what we really need and what we really deserve.
Okay, okay, hold on.
Look, I have sympathy, empathy, and respect for the people doing these jobs, but we're on the verge of automation in the fast food industry.
If you're telling a business that we're going to increase their yearly cost per staff member from like 20 to 30k per person, well then they're gonna say let's just invest the 30k in a kiosk, right?
You still need people to flip the burgers, but We're accelerating towards automation in this field.
And there's another reason why I'm a fan of Andrew Yang, because we need to have this conversation, but let's read on.
They say the Raise the Wage Act would have a huge impact on working families like Douglas'.
Yeah, by getting them fired.
The bill is expected to boost pay for 27 million workers, lifting 1.3 million households out of poverty.
That's not how it works.
It's just not how it works.
It's not how anything works, okay?
You have to think about someone's salary as someone else's cost.
So if you say, we're gonna make everything cost $15, you know, all base labor will be $15 per hour now, well then all costs are going to go up across the board, and the individual wage increase will do nothing because, listen, If you make $15 an hour and you have to hire someone to do a job, you have to pay them $15 an hour.
The value of an hour of labor will not change based on this law.
And Vox even notes, The income boost may come with a cost.
The Congressional Budget Office says it could trigger 1.3 million job losses for low-paid workers like Douglas.
Most recent academic research suggests that's unlikely and would lead to few if any lost jobs.
Passage of the bill follows months of debate between moderate and progressive House Democrats about how high to raise the minimum wage.
In the end, to appease moderate lawmakers, House Democrats amended the bill to phase in the $15 wage over seven years instead of six.
But I ask you, As many people have.
Why 15?
Why not 20?
Why not 30?
The real issue here is not how much money we pay.
It's the value of an hour of labor.
How do we increase the value of an hour?
I honestly don't know.
I don't.
What I can say is Many industries, the restaurant next door to this building I'm in right now, they've got many staff members.
They have profit margins.
They have plans.
The people who run these businesses aren't rich.
I don't know what the assumption is that the guy who runs the deli next door is making a million dollars.
Let me tell you something.
A lot of small businesses, they're making like 50k a year running the business.
They're making comparable, you know, similar wages to what their staff are making.
I'll tell you who this does benefit though, McDonald's and Starbucks.
Because they don't care.
They could absorb the cost.
But the small businesses that are the backbone of this country, the people who run these businesses, their profit margin is slim, and they're probably not making that much money.
Now, of course, there are medium-sized businesses that do well, and they're going to struggle a little bit but be okay, but this will hurt small businesses.
Listen, I want people to live better.
I want to figure out how to do it.
I don't think just throwing out a random number and being like, here we go, let's do it, is going to change anything.
There are arguments to be made in favor of the minimum wage, and I certainly will make them.
For instance, foreign and imported products.
If everyone in this country is making more money, and the cost of a product overseas costs a certain amount, the change will come slow.
The inflation to their product will be slow.
But so long as someone needs to buy something from the US in order to make something overseas, maybe like rock maple, for instance, skateboards, We will see everything end up higher in the long run.
So it's like a short-term gain for a long-term loss.
It doesn't solve the problem.
It's a band-aid on a bullet wound.
So fine, you know what?
Go for it.
It's just gonna make everything inflate, but sure, in the end, the value of an hour will stay the value of an hour.
Period.
Let's read on.
They say, the Raise the Wage Act does more than lift wages.
It will tie future changes to the minimum wage to changes in middle-class pay, and will go far in boosting paychecks for underpaid workers at a time when employers refuse to do so on their own.
It's not like this will happen anytime soon.
After all, the chances of passing a $15 minimum wage in the GOP-controlled Senate are slim to none.
Even so, the bill's passage in the House is a major step forward for low-income families.
For a short amount of time, right?
They say the current $7.25 minimum was set in 2009 right in the middle of the Great Recession.
Since then, America's lowest-paid workers have lost about $3,000 a year, when you consider the rising cost of living, according to calculations from the Economic Policy Institute.
In January, House Democrats introduced the Raise the Wage Act, which would eventually raise the federal wage to $15 an hour by 2024.
The law would also tie future wages to changes in median workers' pay.
So if middle class wages go up or down, so would the minimum.
That's actually a really good idea.
If average wages go down, you can lower the base cost, like the base wage, then that actually makes a lot of sense.
So it's not all bad.
Maybe this will be a good thing, because I'll say this.
Even if you increase wages, like I mentioned, it won't change the value of an hour.
So in the end, where are we?
So, it's not all bad.
just normalize and everything stays the same and nothing changes.
But if the bill will tie the minimum wage to the median wage, well, then maybe that
makes sense.
So it's not all bad.
I think my issue is mostly about how there's no depth toward the argument.
Tell me what you think is the right thing about it and why it will work out.
You're essentially saying employers are making enough money to pay their staff but refuse to.
Some, absolutely some, Starbucks for instance, right?
Yeah, okay, we can make that point.
They want to squeeze out every penny they can get towards their profit margin.
But not the small businesses.
This is going to put undue strain on them.
And I told this story before, I'll tell it again.
I was talking to an accountant who said that they represent hundreds of businesses that are panicking over this, because they're talking about a 30-50% increase in costs in the span of these few years, and they don't see that.
So here's what'll happen.
Wages will start going across the board.
Products will all go up in line with this because the cost of labor to produce the product will be there.
It's federal.
So imported products might remain down for a little while, but they'll eventually catch up as well.
And then what happens?
Everyone will be in the same position.
I don't know how you solve this problem of increasing the standard of living while, you know, combatting inflation.
I really don't.
But I don't think that this, it's like, Here's what I think of when I see these bills.
Let's just give everybody more money.
That'll solve the problem, right?
No.
It literally won't.
The economy doesn't work that way.
So far be it from me to be an expert, to be the expert.
It's just my opinion.
I'm not the smartest person in the world.
Don't take my word for it.
But I find it interesting how Vox has this story where they claim... Let's actually see what they're... They've got two sources.
One claiming there'll be a 1.3 million job losses.
So they say, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed a bill to double the federal wage, and its findings show a higher risk of job losses than recent academic research.
And then, and this is from this month, and then they push back saying, actually, that's not true.
A new study says it won't.
So, so, you know what?
Fine.
We don't know.
Let's put it this way.
Vox has two sources.
One saying it will cost us 1.3 million jobs, and the other source saying it might not.
That means the risk is that it will, and the best we can say is we don't know.
Why take the risk?
Maybe it's better to say $10 an hour?
I don't know.
I really don't.
I want people to live better, but I don't see a solution here when even Vox can't say it will be a net benefit.
If left-leaning Vox is telling us we don't know but maybe we'll lose a million jobs, perhaps it's the wrong thing to do.
But I guess when it comes to virtue signaling to the left, all that really matters is that people say, you know, we're going to do something, we're going to give you more money.
It's the easiest thing they can offer.
Nothing will change.
So really, I honestly don't care that they're increasing the wage.
No, seriously.
If we lose jobs, okay, that's bad.
That's really bad.
But maybe it won't?
I don't know.
In the end, nothing will change.
Because the cost of an hour will stay the same.
So whatever, let me know what you think.
Let's see how they end the story over at Vox.
It's actually kind of long.
I don't think we need to.
They say it will face stiff resistance from the GOP-controlled Senate.
As Thursday's vote showed, fewer Republicans want a $15 minimum wage.
But it will be hard for them to persuade their working-class constituents that doubling the wage is actually bad progress.
No, it won't!
It won't.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10am on this channel.
