The Donald Trump / Bernie Sanders Media Double Standard Exposed By Baltimore Tweets
Media Outraged Over Trump's Tweets, Ignores Bernie Sanders Similar Statements. Over the past week we have been embroiled in another Donald Trump Tweet story pertaining to Elijah Cummings district in Baltimore and we know the media loves running wall to wall press about Trump's tweets.Interestingly, however, Bernie Sanders has similar tweets and statements which never caught the ire of the media and the left. Perhaps this is because Trump is much more bombastic and aggressive, but even if that were true, the media, left, and far left are now arguing about the substance of the tweet and not the character.|If Bernie and Trump both say Baltimore is bad for many reasons then why would the media ignore Bernie's presumably incorrect assessment but call out trump for being wrong?To me this shows the clear bias against the president but mostly it shows the desire for the coveted 'Trump Bump.'The media knows they get a ratings boost when they complain about the president so they take any opportunity to go after him, even if they know its a distraction from bigger issues, even if they know Trump is playing them and they are taking the bait.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If I told you the media was biased against Donald Trump, your reaction would depend on which tribe you're in.
Conservatives and Trump supporters are gonna say, well, duh, what else is new?
And the left is gonna say, that's just silly.
But the reality is, they really are biased against Trump.
Now, this doesn't take away anything from Trump being a dangerous media mastermind.
That is a quote from CNN, not from me.
They've said Trump, he plays the media, he knows what he's doing.
But the media is biased against Trump.
Trump plays them up.
He does it on purpose because it distracts from bigger issues.
Yesterday I did a video about Trump winning a Supreme Court ruling which will allow moving forward on funding the border wall.
In it, I mentioned Trump started tweeting about Baltimore and Elijah Cummings and triggered this huge wave of rage and here we are once again in a news cycle based on Trump tweeting.
But here's what I'm going to do today.
You may have seen many of the tweets.
You may have seen what Trump said.
You may have seen some of the articles.
Today, I want to go through something I find very interesting.
The bias against Trump and the ignoring of the same thing from Bernie Sanders.
Let me rephrase it.
That was kind of weird.
The media will take something Trump says and go to town 24-7.
Trump is bad, bad, bad.
Bernie Sanders will say something and they'll say, yeah, so what?
Whatever.
When Trump tweeted about Baltimore, people called it a race-driven... I don't know how to describe it.
They were saying that even though Trump said nothing about race, he was implying it because he was using the words like infested and things like that.
Bernie Sanders has said similar things, albeit not as bombastic, but very critical of Baltimore.
People immediately started saying, hey, remember when Bernie Sanders says Baltimore is like a third world country?
How come no one called him out for that?
But it's worse.
I actually have many, many stories that I can pull up showing Bernie Sanders and Trump are very, very similar.
There are estimates that in the 2016 election, around 12-18% of Bernie voters voted for Trump.
And now you're going to see why, as I explain to you how the media will go after Trump and accuse him of being the worst possible, and ignore Bernie doing similar things.
Now admittedly, I'll say this.
Look, Trump is definitely bombastic, and he definitely tries to be More aggressive than Bernie does.
Bernie will pull back when confronted and try and, you know, I don't know, try and bow to the media.
Trump doesn't.
So I think the bias more has to do with that.
Even though Bernie has said offensive things, they don't care because when challenged, Bernie will be like, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
And he'll try and apologize for it.
Trump, not so much.
So I have this story from the hill.
Trump doubles down on attacks against Cummings and the Baltimore district.
But before we get started getting into all this and the bias, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, share this video if you think it's important because YouTube has deranked independent political commentary.
And the only way this channel grows now is if you share it because you think it's something people should hear.
And if you think people shouldn't hear it, don't share it, and then comment below as to why you think no one should hear anything I have to say.
I'm kidding.
Let's read the news.
The first story, the update from today.
Trump is doubling down, they say.
President Trump doubled down on his attacks against Rep.
Elijah Cummings and his Baltimore congressional district, saying that it's sad that the longtime congressman has done so little for the city he represents and accusing Democrats of playing the race card.
So sad that Elijah Cummings has been able to do so little for the people of Baltimore.
I'll just read it.
Statistically, Baltimore ranks last in almost every major category.
Cummings has done nothing but milk Baltimore dry, but the public is getting wise to the bad job he is doing.
Trump did not expand on what statistics he was referring to.
He defended his position again early Sunday, saying there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Cummings has done a very poor job.
The Democrats always play the race card, when in fact, they have done so little for our nation's great African American people.
Elijah Cummings has failed badly.
I agree.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Trump calling out a bad place.
Baltimore is not one of the best places in this country.
I believe it has the highest per capita homicide rate.
So it does have its issues.
Just because Trump is talking about this doesn't mean other places aren't worse.
And I will also point out, many of the people responded saying, Kentucky is really, really bad.
Where's Mitch McConnell?
Pointing out that, look, There are a lot of places that are bad.
Trump obviously takes things on tribal lines, like most people do.
So when I see him tweet about this, I say, yes, it's politics.
What else is new but the media?
Oh, the media turns into the biggest news cycle ever.
Now I believe Trump knows this.
I believe he's, look, he has to have known it by now.
No matter what he does, they're going to go nuts.
And what do we have?
Two big stories.
His win on the border wall and his safe third country agreement with Guatemala.
These are huge moves that will benefit Trump towards immigration policy.
But what do we get entangled in?
Trump tweeted again.
Well, look, the big news was yesterday.
I covered it.
So I want to dive into this and show the hypocrisy.
How they will ignore what Bernie says, admitting, you know, Bernie is bombastic, but I still think there's a double standard.
They'll ignore what Bernie says and slam Trump.
So first, I'm not going to read through all these, but I'm going to show Some of the tweets Trump has put out.
He says, someone please explain to Nancy Pelosi, who was recently called racist by her own party, that there is nothing wrong with bringing out the very obvious fact that Congressman Elijah Cummings has done a very poor job for his district.
He says, now we have the lowest unemployment in history for the black community.
We have this other tweet here.
I'm looking for the one where he said it was rat infested and disgusting.
And that was the one where they used to claim that his language was meant to be, you know, played on racial lines because he said it was infested, crime infested.
But he did say no human being would want to live there.
So where did the big news come from?
Well...
Actually, we'll get to it.
It's the Victor Blackwell thing.
But I want to highlight very quickly that Trump has then retweeted these videos.
This one from Kim K Baltimore.
She says, more trash, more concerned residents.
People live in the home with the silver van.
This is Rep Cummings district.
This has nothing to do with race.
Let us all pray the city removes the trash and installs cameras to catch individuals
dumping on this property.
So we have videos from Kimberly Classic of Baltimore.
Millions of views now showing, yes, Baltimore is in dire straits and they need help.
What does the media do?
They grandstand on mortal grounds.
Look, I believe you could approach this with, here's how I'd say it.
Trump is targeting Elijah Cummings' district because Elijah Cummings has targeted Border Patrol.
That's my opinion.
And I think it's fair to point out that his district is not faring too well, but it's also important to point out there are many other districts as well.
It's fair for Trump to point out the problems, and just because he's called out one problem doesn't mean other problems don't exist.
In fact, that's quite literally the Black Lives Matter argument.
During Ferguson and Black Lives Matter, I was on the ground, a comic was going viral, that showed houses on fire, one with a small fire and one
with a big fire. And the point they were making was that the black community needs more help than
the white community when it comes to police brutality. That doesn't mean they're dismissing the
problems of the white community.
The point is the narrative now flips when Trump points out it is in fact a black community that
needs help. But of course, the narrative is more about smearing Trump. So we're going to get to all
the weird and wild that's going on.
Now, I'm going to do this as an aside for two reasons, this next story I want to mention.
This is from the Daily News, Trump's NYC eateries written up for live mice, other critical health code violations in recent months.
I want to highlight this for two reasons.
This story is from a while ago, but many people are sharing it now for the obvious reason.
That is, Trump calling a place rat-infested.
But, so, so this is getting a lot of traction.
Once again, it's, it's from February.
But hey, it's, it's, look, just because Trump is pointing out Baltimore doesn't mean you can't point out his restaurants.
It doesn't mean Baltimore is doing good.
It doesn't, right, it doesn't take away from Trump's criticism.
It just means, great, I'll criticize Trump too.
I don't think he's managing the day-to-day operations of his businesses, but I also kind of feel like Elijah Cummings isn't managing his own community enough either.
They can both be criticized.
Two things can be true.
So by all means, criticize Trump all day and night.
It does nothing to take away from the fact that Trump isn't wrong.
Baltimore has problems.
We can then say, sure, so does Trump's eateries.
Great, fix them both.
I hate this argument.
Look, whataboutism can make sense in some capacities for some arguments, right?
What about X?
Fine.
But not in the effort to dismiss the initial criticisms.
Where are the people saying, you're right, Baltimore is bad?
No, they're saying, aha, well, Trump's a bigot, and so his restaurants aren't good either, so who is he to talk?
Well, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
Even if the pot and the kettle are both black, they can still point to each other and say, hey, it's time to get cleaned up, right?
Let's move on.
The next story I have has to do with why people think Trump's tweets are bigoted on racial lines.
Well, according to this poll from Esmussen, 32% of Democrats say any white criticism of politicians of color is racist.
Well, there you go.
So that explains that.
Moving forward, this is the Victor Blackwell story, which I don't want to spend too much time on.
I'm going to go through each of these things I've pulled up, but trust me, we're getting into the Bernie Sanders stuff.
That's the crux of what this video is going to be about.
I don't know why I criticized this yesterday, so I wanted to re-highlight it because it really pushed this story forward.
CNN putting a guy on camera who cries, I'm not, I don't think it's the right thing to do.
Now, the big update is that yesterday the Baltimore Sun criticized Donald Trump saying, better to have a few rats than to be one.
The thing that's funny about this is that they're saying they have rats, like admitting you have a rat problem to own Trump.
Okay, fine.
But let's get to the real issue here with the Baltimore Sun.
For one, they do have a ton of articles about Baltimore and Trump's comments.
Of course they would.
I'm not concerned about that.
I'm concerned about what Bernie Sanders said, because now we're going to talk about the double standard.
In 2016, Bernie Sanders tweeted, Residents of Baltimore's poorest boroughs have lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea.
That is a disgrace.
I don't disagree.
Was there media outrage when Bernie says this?
No.
Granted, it's not the same thing.
Trump was very bombastic and talked about rats and everything.
But okay, let's move on.
Bernie Sanders likens West Baltimore to third world country in 2015.
Once again, did we see any great outrage?
Was there big press?
No, not really.
No one really cared.
And Bernie was running for president at the time.
I believe he was running for president around.
I mean, that's why they probably started talking about it.
But yes, Bernie has been very critical.
I shouldn't have this one open.
This is a rehashing of the same story from Baltimore Sun.
But now let's get into Bernie Sanders is very similar to Donald Trump without the media criticism.
And you can very well say it's because Bernie is more polite.
Fine.
It doesn't take away from the principle of the issue.
If Trump says Baltimore is, you know, filthy and rat-infested with crime, and Bernie Sanders says people are living less than under North Korea and it's a third-world country, it's similar criticism, but one gets ignored.
Why?
Because phrasing was better?
I guess.
The problem then comes to be people ignoring the actual problems of Baltimore because they're more concerned about Trump being mean about it.
So, again, I will say Bernie is more polite.
Fine.
Trump is more bombastic.
But we still have some examples to go through that kind of lend some evidence here.
In this story from 2015, Bernie Sanders tells Jorge Ramos he absolutely can beat Hillary Clinton.
Now that's not what's important.
What's important is that Jorge Ramos asked him about how he sounds like Donald Trump.
He says, you were recently asked about open borders and you said it was a right-wing idea
that it would make everybody poor in America. But one article said that you sounded like Donald
Trump. Bernie responded, that's you know this is. Jorge Ramos says.
But that's a suggestion that immigrants would take jobs away from Americans.
No, no, no, Bernie responds.
We have to be very careful about this one.
Yes, we have to.
The point here is, I'm starting light.
But even Jorge Ramos has said, you've been criticized for sounding like Donald Trump.
He has, and I have many examples.
Where's the criticism?
Now, again, I want to make sure I'm very clear.
Bernie pulls back right away and says, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay, okay, okay.
I'm just saying, you know, we gotta, we gotta, he tries to walk it back and not be as bombastic.
Trump, on the other hand, says, nah, get out of here, you're fake news.
And they take it personally.
As Jon Stewart said, they're ego-driven.
So Bernie is playing it right.
Let's move on.
Here's Real Clear Politics, March 6, 2016.
Sanders echoes Trump at debate vs. Hillary.
How stupid are these trade policies?
Just another story where Bernie Sanders sounds a lot like Donald Trump.
You're beginning to see why people who voted for Bernie then moved on to vote for Trump.
Here's the next story.
NPR, five ways Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are more alike than you think.
I'm not gonna go through it.
I'm just showing you once again, February 8th, 2016, comparisons between Trump and Bernie.
And they were both populists.
They both fought against trade agreements.
They both called out bad immigration policy.
Bernie still does to this day.
And you can see that there were similarities between the two.
Where is the media slamming Bernie Sanders?
Don't worry, I got a great example for you coming up.
Here's a story from this April.
Bernie Sanders says U.S.
can't have open borders because poor people will come from all over the world.
Once again, sounding an awful lot like Donald Trump.
No criticism.
Sure, Bernie's more polite.
But the criticism about Trump isn't often about the fact that he's not being polite.
It's about the substance of what he tweeted.
So here's what I'm saying.
Because Trump is mean, they act like his argument is wrong.
I do believe, to an extent, Trump does it on purpose, because then when regular people enter the conversation, they'll look around and say, wait, hold on, Baltimore is kind of messed up.
Are you saying Trump was wrong about this?
Yes.
That's basically what Victor Blackwell was saying on CNN.
He's like, you're saying no human would want to live there?
Well, I grew up there.
Okay.
Trump was being bombastic hyperbolic.
But now it sounds like you're arguing the substance as opposed to the character.
Bernie's substance is very similar to Trump's substance.
He says open borders are bad because too many poor people come.
Trump?
Trump?
I don't even think Trump has said something to that effect.
Trump has said no to the criminals.
Bernie straight out called out poor people.
Well, hold on!
Shouldn't we be calling out Bernie because poor people need our help?
Well, socialists did.
They did.
But for the most part, no, there's no media calling out Bernie Sanders condemning poor people to the worst parts of the world.
How dare he?
We have people from Africa flying to Brazil, coming up through the southern border to the U.S., and the media calls out Trump as being kind of nuts for saying it's a problem.
But Trump is mostly concerned, most of his conversations is focused on MS-13 and other gangs and crime.
Bernie Sanders actually called out poor people.
But again, Trump is bombastic.
They don't like him.
We get it.
Now let's get to the big juicy part.
Here's the best one.
This is from PolitiFact.
And boy, you're gonna love this.
Donald Trump said on Friday, June 10, 2016 in a speech that the unemployment rate for African American youth is 59%.
PolitiFact ruled this to be mostly false.
They go on to say that although Trump did have a statistic that showed it would be 58.5%, it's not really how unemployment is calculated, so it's mostly not true.
Interesting.
What happened when Bernie Sanders made a very similar claim?
Bernie Sanders said that African American kids are unemployed or underemployed to the tune of 51%.
Well, that was mostly true, even though Bernie Sanders wasn't using the same standard statistics people use for unemployment.
He was using a special study, they mentioned.
Sanders' camp pointed us to research published in June 2015 by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-of-center think tank.
The numbers in the report match what Sanders said at the debate.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Donald Trump also had, look, they said, the Bureau said the unemployment, they were talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics called the Unemployment Population Ratio.
Trump absolutely was citing real stats.
But because it was the wrong stats, they said it was false.
When Bernie Sanders cited a study, which was the wrong stats, they said it was mostly true.
Okay, okay, hold on.
Maybe it's because they trust the left of center think tank more than, what was the other organization?
Okay, fine.
Let's throw this one out.
Maybe you're saying, you know what, Tim?
Statistics called, so you have the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
They said that's not true.
That's the wrong stat.
Bernie used a think tank.
That is okay.
Okay, fine.
Let's throw this one out.
Maybe you're saying, you know what, Tim?
Maybe they just don't trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you know, how they framed
it.
Maybe this is not an example of bias against Trump.
Maybe they're just saying there's nuance here.
Okay, okay, I'm hearing you.
Except you'd be wrong!
Because when the RNC used the exact same study to make a similar point over the past eight years—Black youth unemployment is up—using the same study It was labeled mostly false.
The Bernie Sanders story says, The Institute didn't just look at employment status for
people between the ages of 17 and 20, it limited its reach to high school graduates who were not
enrolled in further schooling.
And two, EPI counted not only unemployed workers, but also those who are working part-time due
to the weakness of the economy and those who are marginally attached to the labor force.
And interestingly, when they claimed the Republicans were mostly false,
they cite the exact same research.
The RNC is cherry-picking and misinterpreting old research by the Liberal Economic Policy Institute, specifically a chart that tracked the high school graduates aged 17 to 20 who are not enrolled in further schooling.
According to the chart, the rate rose from 44.8% in January to 51.3% in March 2015.
But unemployment is not underemployment?
Well, hold on!
Didn't you just say that Bernie was right when he said- Oh, okay, okay.
I'll give them this one.
Bernie said unemployed or underemployed.
I think it's fair to point out.
I'm not trying to accuse them of wrongdoing.
Maybe they're basing this simply on the fact that Bernie also added the word underemployed.
But I think you can at least see there is a potential for bias when Trump and Bernie do a similar thing.
Trump cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics with actual data.
He rounded up by 0.5%.
They say it's mostly false.
Bernie used a different study that was left of center and mostly true.
It sounds to me like, you know, in the end, Bernie Sanders is ignored and Trump is condemned.
Now, I want to make sure I reiterate to a great degree Bernie is not the president.
He is a politician.
So there is scrutiny to point at in Trump's direction.
However, like I mentioned, the criticism towards Trump, it's the substance of his tweets, not the character of his tweets.
In which case, if we were going to judge Trump on policy and substance and Bernie the same way, It's not happening in the media.
But let's move on for this.
There's a couple more stories to go through.
How about this one?
Sanders, joined by Rust Belt Democrats, praises Trump for nixing TPP.
Well, good on Bernie Sanders.
It's a principled move, I gotta say.
But where was the condemnation when in 2017 Bernie Sanders actually praised Trump?
The point I'm trying to say is...
There are numerous stories we've seen over the years where Bernie and Trump are very similar.
I'm not saying this is bad for either of them, just that the media doesn't care when Bernie says something like this, and even praises the president for his plans.
Granted, nixing TPP is not the same as criticizing a jurisdiction.
But I don't see, in the end, how because Trump was bombastic and talking about rats and crime, that makes him a bigot.
It just means he's bombastic and mean.
Does it mean what he's saying is wrong?
In fact, many people are coming to his defense.
When you moralize instead of actually addressing the argument, it makes it really hard to move forward.
And look, Baltimore does have problems.
Mayor's corruption scandal further fuels Baltimore's cynicism about politics.
How about this story?
What the wire got right.
Corrupt politicians in Maryland.
A corrupt mayor.
How about this story?
From April, Baltimore suffers after decades of mismanagement.
We see it over and over again.
And I'll tell you why this is.
It should be very obvious to everybody.
Ask yourself, why does the media chase after Trump's bombastic tweets?
The ratings bump of Donald Trump from Forbes 2018.
You've heard of the Trump bump.
Bad stories about Trump do really, really well.
I think at this point Trump has really figured it out.
So you have these big wins on immigration for Trump and he wants to make sure the Democrats do two things.
Stay off message and don't fight back on the border front.
So Trump gives this string of tweets where he targets a Democrat, and he gives the media exactly what they want.
They then claim everything he tweets is racist.
Fine.
They ignore the substance of what he's saying.
People then come out.
The argument ensues over Baltimore.
And once again, Trump has successfully distracted the media from his actual policy victories.
Well, there you have it.
I'll end by saying this.
I'm not trying to claim that in every single instance, when Trump says something, the media will play up to it.
Or in every single instance, they will ignore what Bernie says.
The media doesn't like Bernie either.
They drag him all the time.
They don't want him to win.
You know, the DNC doesn't want him to win.
I'm not saying Bernie is invincible.
I'm just saying you can clearly see there's something weird going on with the media.
I don't think it's a grand conspiracy.
I think it's just how our society reacts.
Trump, we have a routine in play.
So, you'll probably find many examples of the media not criticizing Trump and criticizing Bernie.
I'm just showing these particular examples to make a point that a lot of people are highlighting.
Bernie Sanders has criticized these places, too.
Is that racist?
No.
Why?
Because he wasn't mean about it?
Is that really it?
Let me know what you think.
Stick around.
The next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
I'd actually have much preferred to do this video on my main channel, but I can't because of the precarious nature that is YouTube's rules.
And I think, you know, even though I'm at risk talking about this stuff, gender in particular, I figure I'll make the video anyway.
We'll put on the second channel.
The reason I say, well, there's a couple of reasons why I'm not going to do this for my main channel.
My main channel, I try to keep it as like top news.
geopolitics, like what's really having the big impact on the election cycle and things like this.
This doesn't, but it does have a huge cultural role to play in the election. And that's why I think,
uh, you know, I was even, I even did a video about left-wing fascistic ideologies, because it's not,
my main channel isn't always, but I try to make it very important. I believe this story is one of
the most important stories of the past year or longer, or I don't know, it's a very, very important
story. For those that aren't familiar, Jessica Yaniv, I'm not sure how to pronounce your name,
apologize, is a trans woman who has been accused of some horrifying things, talking to underage
girls, talking about wanting to do adult things to children, that these are allegations.
But Jessica Yeniv is prominent right now for a few reasons.
First, I believe it was the argument with Yeniv that got Megan Murphy, a feminist band, as well as Lindsay Shepard.
Lindsay Shepard has since been reinstated on Twitter.
The bigger story, though, is that Yaniv has filed, I believe, 16 or so human rights complaints against waxing salons, primarily women, who refuse to wax Yaniv's male genitals.
Now, here's the thing.
Most people, it seems right now, are not getting behind Yaniv, and this is why the story is so important.
We have this story from The Guardian.
The Guardian is very left, okay?
They say it's not a hate crime for a woman to feel uncomfortable waxing male genitals.
16 complaints filed by Canadian trans women make a mockery of the hate crimes committed against trans people every day.
Does it?
Yaniv has a sound legal argument, has actually won several of their cases.
I'm trying to avoid, like, listen, I know people are already going to slam me for saying there and they, but I'm going to use there and they because if I say him, I'll get attacked by one group and I'll get banned, and if I say her, I'll get attacked by another group.
They is where we stand.
I think everyone can be okay with that.
I'm trying not to make a hard, ideologically biased assessment of what's happening.
And I hope this can be a rational look at legal, from the way I see it, as well as the cultural ramifications of the gender stuff, so this might be a little bit long.
But I hope you can appreciate I'm trying to dance the line so that anyone can watch this video and understand the current crisis we are facing with these laws.
It is more complicated than you realize.
This writer, Arwa Madawi, basically writes very shortly that a woman should not be forced to wax male genitals.
And I think any rational, normal person in Canada, the US, the UK, most Western countries would probably agree the state should not force a woman to touch the privates of a male.
However, Yaniv actually probably has a sound legal argument, and I think Yaniv might actually win this one.
Because increasingly we've seen laws being passed saying you cannot discriminate in a public accommodation based on gender, identity, sex, etc.
Here's the kicker, okay?
First, The first story I'm bringing up is that Yaniv got, you know, like, I don't know, wigged out on this journalist, Dan Dix, called 911, the police showed up, it was a big fiasco.
I'm not super concerned, this is just the latest news.
I get it.
People, you know, freak out, and these things kind of happen all the time.
This is TMZ gossipy stuff, so whether or not this matters, I don't think this matters, okay?
Yaniv did it, Dan Dix filmed it, and it's gossipy and doesn't get to the core issue, so I don't want to focus on this, but I did want to make sure I at least highlighted it, because this is the more recent news.
The story here from The Guardian is interesting because it seems like there are people on the left who are saying, now, wait, wait, hold on.
We are not going to allow someone to be forced, you know, to be forced to do this.
But we have a big conundrum.
A serious conundrum.
I was recently on the Glenn Beck program, and we were talking about this, and I said, look, I've always been of the opinion that the baker should bake the cake for the gay wedding.
Okay?
And the reason is, my argument is simple.
We should never assume the speech of the baker is, um, that he's requested to write on a cake is his speech.
It was the speech of the gay couple.
But more importantly, so he's, so, um, I don't think it's necessarily about the First Amendment.
I don't think the baker is speaking when he does it.
But if you run a business, this is a more general take, if you run a business and you are using public infrastructure in all its forms, be it the fire department, police, common defense, plumbing, sidewalks, street lights, all of this stuff, unemployment, And there are other people in your community who are paying into that system we all share, then you should be required to service the public.
And I think this is true for—I don't think you should be discriminated on many issues.
I don't know where the line is, though.
So admittedly, I will say this.
I feel I may now be pushed to my limits and may be approaching an ethical breakdown on the issue because of this.
And I think we can see their—this is kind of a wake-up call for the left.
When I first heard the story about the baker in Colorado, I thought it was a guy saying, get the hell out of my bakery.
I then learned later, upon doing research, that was not the case at all.
He said he would absolutely provide them a cake.
He just didn't want to write a message.
And it became an interesting argument because I, you know, a lot of people said, you can't compel him to speak.
And I thought about it and said, well, it's not him speaking.
He's just writing something that they are speaking.
It's their presentation.
So it's still an interesting argument, but he wins.
I believe he has a First Amendment defense.
So it is complicated.
But I've always kind of just leaned towards, look, there's one of two options.
It's one cake for some people.
I don't think it's a big deal if you write that.
Or it's one baker.
You can find another bakery.
I'm kind of in the middle, but I do lean towards where the left was on this until now.
And it's because I operate on principle, okay?
I don't operate based on how I feel about things, which I think people on the left are now doing.
When I saw this story about Yaniv, I said, whoa, whoa, I am not okay with the government telling a woman, either close your business down or touch this man's privates.
I'm being hyperbolic, I know people are going to get mad at me for saying men.
You have a transgender male, okay, a transgender male is a trans woman, I'm saying biological male, now seeking government protections to force a waxing salon, a female, to touch his privates, and I think that crosses a serious line.
What's interesting here is that you have the Guardian agreeing.
It seems like many people on the left are now being forced to reconcile that the government intervening in a private business over protected categories can result in some extreme things.
There's something—so basically, I'll put it this way, just to wrap this idea up.
It's really easy for me to say, oh, it's just a cake, you know?
Like, I know you might not like it, I can respect that, but you're gonna write a few words, 15-20 minutes, and it's their speech.
It's really easy to say that when you're talking about icing.
It's not easy to say that when you're talking about a woman shutting her business down and the government saying, you have to wax these genitals.
Whoa, whoa, we're crossing a line here people have a right to interact or not with other people in these ways So I think what we really see is You know, there's a line, and it's not a blank check, okay?
So when the government says, you must do X without discrimination, you cannot discriminate based on this, it makes no sense as a one-size-fits-all.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't.
Because again, the cake, most reasonable people are going to be like, oh, it's just a cake.
Okay, well the same law protects this transgendered male Getting their male parts waxed by a female who's refusing to touch male parts.
And now all of a sudden we see the Guardian going, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, right.
The one-size-fits-all policy has crossed the line.
Now here's the thing.
When it comes to the argument, you will hear a lot of people on the right say, it's a slippery slope, what about X?
And for the left, I guess it only changes their opinion when they actually are encountering the real scenario.
Case in point, this Guardian article saying it is not a human right.
Well, hold on.
According to the laws pushed by the left, it is.
Yaniv has legal standing.
But get this.
At least in the United States, protections on the basis of sex have existed, my understanding is, since 1964.
I believe the 1964 Civil Rights Act was national origin, religion, sex, and, uh, was it race, I believe?
But sex was one of them, which means, when that law was first passed, people said, we're obviously not talking about forcing a woman to touch a man.
Or a female to touch a male.
We're talking about if a female is trying to get a job, you can't discriminate.
And society agreed.
And although there are probably people saying it's a slippery slope, there are a lot of people saying, look, we understand as a sane and civil society, we're not talking about this.
So I'll give you another really quick example I read.
And I don't have a citation for this, so definitely fact check me.
But I was reading a story about public drinking laws.
And it was something like about how New, it was a New York Times article about this cop
who went to Central Park and started handing out tickets to people, white people who are drinking wine.
And his reasoning was the police come to my neighborhood and give out tickets to families
and guys hanging out in their stoop drinking a 40.
I'm gonna go to Central Park because the law is the law.
He got in trouble.
But what was interesting is they said when the law was first proposed,
the politician said, we're gonna ban public drinking because of public drunks and homeless people peeing all
over the place and we don't want them doing that.
And he even said something to the effect, obviously no one will ever construe this law to mean that someone can't have a beer with their lunch while sitting at a picnic table.
And that's exactly what it did.
Because the law became more literal and verbatim as time moved on.
Of course there was a cultural understanding.
So in 1964 this law was passed and we have these protections.
Today, you have an argument based on a decades-old law that, yes, if I personally went to a salon only for women and demanded they service me, that I would have the same argument as Yaniv.
So, Yaniv isn't arguing on any new laws or any new grounds.
This is not an encroachment based on gender identity or anything like that.
The law already existed.
Well, hold on.
I don't know about when the law came into effect in Canada, but I want to point out this story with Yaniv isn't a new thing.
It is.
It is not like all of a sudden we're realizing we've gone too far.
No, no, no, no.
This law was passed a long time ago in US by US standards.
OK, so this could be happening across the board and probably winning.
Now, here's the thing.
There are a lot of strange laws that are problematic, in my opinion, being passed.
And I asked a lawyer about it and they said, oh, will it pass the laugh test?
Meaning, if you actually went to a court and said, hey, this is what I believe and I'm being discriminated against, will they laugh you out of court?
I think what we're seeing now in at least Canada with Yaniv shows that we're crossing a line where the laugh test won't protect you.
Now let's get into the really complicated stuff.
I want to go back to New York's human rights law.
This law actually exists across the country in very similar fashions.
First, what you're seeing on the screen is a list of 31 genders protected by New York City.
We can see they strangely repeat some, so like female to male and FTM are both considered different even though FTM stands for female to male.
We have gender bender, we have gender blender.
I'm not sure with what the person of transgender experience.
Androgynous.
But I want to focus on just one of these.
Agender.
Agender is defined as without gender.
A, the prefix meaning without.
Agender, literally, if you look it up in the dictionary, Google, whatever, it says a person who has no gender.
Okay.
Now let's go here to the latest story.
This is from just today.
Illinois government signs gender neutral bathroom bill.
Specifically, it is not gender neutral.
This is a mistake.
You need to clarify this.
The bill actually says all bathrooms should be single occupancy, all gender.
Okay.
Now, here's the thing.
All gender is not inclusive of agender.
Now, a lot of people immediately think it's silly, or, oh god, what are you, you know what we mean, no, no, no, no, no, hold on, hold on.
Definition of agender means without gender.
Okay?
I don't care how you want to define what it is, it is not gender.
Meaning, an all-gender restroom or a gender-neutral are restrooms that apply to people of gender.
If you, under the law, state that you are without gender, they do not have a bathroom for you.
In which case, you could argue they are in violation of New York City human rights law, and that is a $250,000 fine.
It may be $125 because the $250 fine is for a willful discrimination.
It was an accident, we didn't know this, so it might be $125.
The point is, I asked a lawyer, what if I went to a new building in New York, because all new buildings have to have bathrooms for all genders, and they have a gender-neutral or all-gender bathroom, But I'm agender.
And he said, I think a judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.
They'd be like, look, the bathroom's clearly accommodating everybody.
And my response was, but hold on.
If a judge can laugh at my gender and my experience, why can't he do that to an actual trans woman?
So we can increase from here.
The actual law in New York City says that gender identity is the internal deeply held sense of one's... Let me zoom in, sorry, so you can probably see it better.
It's really small.
Gender identity.
The internal, deeply held sense of one's gender, which may be the same as or different from one's sex assigned at birth.
A person's gender identity may be male, female, neither, or both.
Non-binary or genderqueer.
Gender identity is not the same as orientation or expression.
Terms associated with gender identity include, and they go on, et cetera, et cetera, but the point is, in the actual resolution in New York City, they state, gender identity is essentially self-expression.
So, there's also gender expression, but they can't discriminate based on these characteristics.
They protect essentially any and all non-binary or genderqueer.
They do have 31, but I pulled up the laws before and my general understanding is that...
You can just say whatever gender you want, like a Tumblr gender.
So I asked this question to a lawyer.
What if I said, you know, I was some random word, like a Tumblr gender, like, you know, HydroGender, which literally is a Tumblr.
There's a list of a thousand genders.
HydroGender is one of them.
If I went in and said, do you have a HydroGender bathroom, what would happen?
And they would say, well, any new building would have an all-gender bathroom that would include you.
And I'm like, but agender, they're like, right, that still would include, you can try and sue, they'll probably laugh you out of the court.
I said, okay, hold on.
What if I went to a place of business and I said my name, because you can say your name is anything you want, one's name.
What if I went into a place and said my name is, I don't know, some kind of, some really offensive word.
Starbucks writes on a cup your name and then calls out your name when your drink is ready.
What if I said my name was a swear word?
Would the employee be legally obligated to pick up the cup and shout that swear word out because they do that for everyone else?
And I was told they will laugh you out of the courtroom.
Hold on.
If they can laugh at me because they think my name is stupid or offensive, why can't a judge feel that a biological male calling himself Jessica is also, you know, wouldn't the judge then be able to say that's offensive and stupid too?
Perhaps.
And that's the judge's discretion.
So it's an interesting conundrum that shows the law isn't perfect.
But we will see, in my opinion, a continuing worsening of the exploits of these laws.
And it's unfortunate, because I don't know what the solution is.
As I pointed out, 1964, we had a societal understanding of what it meant, and we all kind of agreed, and we didn't see any of these problems.
And now it's 2019, and now we're seeing a biological male wanting to get female services, and being denied.
Again, that's in Canada.
I don't know when they passed their discrimination law, but in the U.S., this could have been happening since 64.
It's only today now that we're actually seeing people exploit the law in ways we never thought possible, which means these good-natured bills will eventually be exploited in the exact same way.
So, Right now, I think the strongest argument someone could have is to claim that a gender-neutral and all-gender bathroom is not protecting agender people.
And I really, look, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, I'm saying straight up, from a legal argument standpoint, maybe it's wrong, maybe you'll lose, maybe New York will say agender, while it means without, is legally listed under gender, Then I think you have an argument against the law, because agender is someone without gender, meaning there needs to be a bathroom for no genders.
Now, there's clearly a solution to this.
Don't put anything on the door, just put bathroom.
And then, you know, don't even label it a bathroom.
Be like, oh, in that room is a toilet.
We don't care who uses it, right?
There's also been signs that say whichever, but all gender specifically, I believe, will be opened up to exploit.
Now, I want to point out, all of these laws can be exploited in many different ways.
And the issue is whether or not a judge will protect the interpretation and the spirit of the law versus the literal interpretation.
And therein lies the challenge.
In Canada, a biological male is trying to get a female waxing service and arguing, and I think they have a sound argument based on the precedent, if you are running a business that provides pubic waxing, should you be obligated to be trained in both male and female?
That's essentially the argument.
And right now we can see the left has reached its limit.
Saying, no!
Absolutely not.
You cannot compel a woman.
Whoa, we're getting into turf territory.
You know, this is gender critical feminism.
Jessica Yaniv is playing by all the rules set forth by intersectional feminists and put forth in these laws.
So I'm not going to blame Yaniv for taking advantage of the laws these people have put forward when they now get upset by it.
Granted, I think it's wrong.
I don't think a woman should have to touch a man like that, but therein lies the problem.
So I won't make this one super long.
Long story short, The point I often bring up, and there's a lot to go through here because... Actually, let me bring up one more point.
In New York City, the human rights law requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title with which a person identifies.
Requires.
That's interesting.
I'm confused as to how the government can compel me to speak.
Wouldn't I have a First Amendment argument that they shall make no law respecting speech, etc.? ?
How can they say, I will be required to speak something specifically?
Don't know.
Perhaps it's up for legal challenge, but I'll leave it there.
By all means, I think Jessica Yenov is ripe for criticism, and there's a lot of really weird things going on with this individual.
I'm not trying to make this video about Yeniv personally.
I'm trying to highlight the precedent being set and the dangers it presents.
While today, we may see that people uphold the spirit of the law like they did with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but in 50 years, who knows what?
Someone's going to walk in saying there's some absurd, nightmarish gender that requires ridiculous things.
And the judge is going to be like, well, the law says it.
And then what do we do?
At a certain point, we need to recognize that we need to either clarify, update, remove.
I don't know what the solution is.
I'm just saying people who exploit will exploit.
It may not be today.
Judges might stop it today.
They might laugh you out of the courtroom.
But if they do, they set precedent.
They can laugh anyone out of the courtroom and strip those protections.
Not a lawyer.
If you are, comment below.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
The next video will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you next time.
The YouTubers Union.
Something of which I am not particularly a fan of, though I commend the efforts of the people running it.
I mean them no disrespect.
I am just not a banding type person.
Though I understand the value of collective bargaining, I don't want to be involved in your thing.
I want to be left alone, okay?
When I play video games, Magic, Warcraft, I'm a rogue.
I don't want to follow your rules.
I don't want to tell you what to do.
Don't tell me what to do.
Because I've found in my life, as an individual, I'm able to function quickly, more efficiently.
And while I could give you guidance to improve your system, I don't want to deal with why I should explain to you why what you're doing is bad.
So here's the thing.
The YouTubers Union is actually serious.
They actually have some serious power that's going to be leveraged against YouTube in Europe, I kid you not.
Two big important points, taking away from their recent announcement, is that if YouTube doesn't come to the union, which does have some big creators, like 15,000 channels maybe, I don't know, we'll wait through this, they are going to go after YouTube from the GDPR, which basically states, this is their argument, Under this new law in Europe, you have to give any data you have on an individual to the individual if they request it.
So if someone gets demonetized, that report as to why must be shared so they're in violation of the GDPR.
But more importantly, Under European law, and because of what we're seeing with Uber and all that, YouTubers might be considered falling under false self-employment.
This is their argument.
Regardless, it seems like the YouTuber's union is not messing around.
Now, this is going to have massive consequences for the YouTube community, and I'm going to say straight up, I do not see this working for a few reasons, and one of them is exactly why I would never be involved in a union.
I'm successful.
I recognize that.
I also work very, very hard.
And one of the reasons why I can appreciate the idea of collective bargaining, but don't want to be involved myself, is that I want to plan for myself, take care of myself, and not have to worry about 15,000 other people I don't know, who I might not share values with, and who may actually cause me harm.
One of the biggest problems here is with bigger YouTubers, Successful YouTubers, what do you want me to do to protect someone who may have done something wrong that I don't know anything about?
I am not going to give up my independence to someone else and cross my fingers that it helps me.
I think we should just make sure we're planning outside of YouTube, and this is one of the big problems with YouTube.
Too many people treat it like a job.
It's a business.
If you only produce on one platform, well, you're gonna be in trouble.
My content appears on many different platforms, and it's an hour and a half long podcast every day on all podcast platforms.
Though the bulk of what I do is on YouTube, I have made sure to keep all my eggs in one basket.
Thus, I am not an employee of YouTube.
I just use their system.
While I certainly think YouTube has a lot to be criticized for, and they have some great arguments, man, I would never want to be in a union like this.
But let's read to see what they're doing, because whether you like the idea or not, it's going to have a massive, massive impact on what YouTube does moving forward, at least in Europe.
But it may trickle out into the US, and I also want to stress...
This may actually, there are some pros and there are some cons in terms of censorship because they've proposed like a community standard thing that's like multi-company wide but I'm not too sure they're going to be for defending American style free speech as they're mostly European and this could create more problems for us here.
But let's read the story!
From MotherboardVice.com, the YouTubers' Union, a community-based movement fighting for the rights of content creators and users, has joined forces with IG Metal, Germany's largest union and Europe's largest trade union.
Together, they have launched a joint venture called FairTube and sent a letter of demands to YouTube accompanied by a video explaining their concerns, demands, and plan of action.
The move is one of the most significant organized labor actions taken by creators on the platform.
And put some actual union power behind what has thus far been a nascent and disorganized movement.
In recent years, YouTube creators have consistently spoken out about changes to the massive platform.
that they say are rarely consulted on that affect their ability to make money. For example,
YouTube has repeatedly changed how it handles copyright takedown requests.
YouTube has also controversially demonetized or issued content warnings to some innocuous channels.
One of the creators leading the unionizing charge is Jorg Sprave.
Has had his popular slingshot videos removed by YouTube.
And so it's no wonder that he has led the charge here.
His channel, if you've never seen it, was the Slingshot Channel, I believe, and he made fun toys that launched things.
I guess technically you could call them weapons, because they were fairly powerful.
But he was just a gadget hackery channel, okay?
He was making interesting gadgets and gizmos.
He wasn't intending on hurting people.
It was just cool wooden machines and slingshots and, you know, throwing blades and stuff.
Yeah, it's dangerous.
And this is why the arbitrary rules of YouTube are a problem.
And so I can understand why he's looking for union power.
But I can also understand that he's looking for union power because he was negatively impacted by YouTube.
Which I can understand.
Now, keeping in mind, I've also been negatively impacted by YouTube in various ways, and I completely disagree with his approach to it.
We'll get into union stuff in a second.
I will talk about how I feel about unions.
We aren't demanding things that cut into profits or are unrealistic.
We want fairness. We want transparency. We want to be treated like partners.
And we want personal communication instead of anonymous communication, Sprave told Motherboard.
In the video announcing the move, IG Metals Vice President Christian Benner.
Sprave said the partnership meant a completely new time begins.
It is no longer the case that we are helpless against YouTube with the IG Metal.
We have a strong, strong partner, Benner added.
We know from experience that together we can achieve a lot.
So, let's read on because I want to make sure I get to the point where they have actual vectors of attack against YouTube.
And I don't mean metaphorically in terms of labor organizing.
They have actual legal grounds to win.
It's kind of interesting.
Sprave traced the origins of the problem leading to his recent move back to changes in YouTube's relationship to advertisers following 2017's adpocalypse.
In 2017, major advertisers organized a boycott of YouTube after learning their ads were running alongside extremist content videos and demanded that Google-owned platform implement brand safety controls.
While the changes kept advertisers on the site, they also changed YouTube channels to make money from ad revenue.
According to Sprave, the door was now open to more threats of advertiser boycotts as a tactic to gain leverage over YouTube.
Advertisers want control over content that they are displaying against, like in magazines, Sprave told Motherboard.
YouTube previously did not allow this, but caved in after the companies threatened to leave.
Yes, thanks to the likes of people like Motherboard.
This year, another adpocalypse looms.
We get it.
We've seen this stuff.
I want to get to the union stuff.
They say, TikTok, the clock is ticking.
They're giving until the end of August for YouTube to enter into negotiations.
Otherwise, they're going to take legal action, which could have damaging repercussions for everybody.
The one thing I will tell you right now, because I have to say it, the one thing I despise, among all other things that unions do, is they force you to join the union.
No way.
I would, I would refuse the job if at any point, I will say this, if at any point a union was implemented and an agreement was made with YouTube that would force YouTubers into that union, I will delete everything.
I will, I will delete it all.
I refuse because that bothers me to no end.
I have, I have, I'm not going to rant on this stuff.
I will get to it in a second.
Let's read the story because I'm going to go on for a long time.
They say.
Even before the apocalypse, the top 3% of YouTubers got close to 90% of all traffic and even then their average income was around $17,000 a year, according to a study by Matthias Bartl, a professor at Offenburg University.
The combination of threats by advertisers that have empowered them To change who gets monetized, the increasing inability to make a living, and the opaque nature of how these rules are being constructed have left YouTubers feeling that the golden age of the platform is long over.
And it is.
And I don't know what to tell you other than it's going to be harder for smaller creators to get onto YouTube.
That's a fact.
And I rely on your word of mouth now to support this channel.
But I also think about What was the world before YouTube, and what should be done about it?
I think regulation makes sense, only because the political ramifications of what YouTube does, Twitter, Facebook, etc., and I know that could be damaging to my business.
Don't care, principle comes first.
When you look at how, it's mostly Facebook and Twitter, mostly Facebook, but YouTube does play a role, a bit.
Now, YouTube's much, much less of a big player in how politics are being shaped in this country, but they do play a role.
So, regulation is different, in the sense that protecting free speech, removing restrictions, is what I'm more interested in.
This seems like implementing restrictions, like, well, I guess technically you could call the regulation restricting YouTube from banning people, but the general idea is to make the platform more open, not less.
I'll get into the union stuff.
Here's the quote.
The rights provided to people under the GDPR are all about their relationship between a data subject and a controller, about what rights the subject have and what responsibilities and obligations a controller has.
IG Metals Project Secretary said, The right to be informed if a controller is storing personal data about you and what they're doing with it.
The right to receive a copy of all the data they have about you.
The right to have that data corrected or forgotten.
Silberman said that thanks to a recent court case, judges confirmed that people have the
right to communication to the person in an intelligible form.
This is important for a host of reasons.
If the case can be made that YouTube's categorizations for creators constitute personal data, then
the list of demands by FairTube, which is what they call their union, would have to
be met in full.
Part of this is going to depend on if they say it will be our approach to do the minimal
amount possible to be compliant with the law, or if they will take the attitude that we
care about YouTubers and care that they are having a severe mental health problem as a
result of living under algorithmic management.
No one told you you have to be on YouTube.
No one told you you have to try to be successful.
And no one told you you have to operate a business at a loss.
YouTube exists.
Use it or don't.
I think there are problems with the way YouTube operates.
I get it.
Some people are cut out and others aren't.
This sounds to me like an attempt at cutting off the tall grass.
People like me who are able to function completely fine, although I've faced problems for sure, and I think YouTube should be called out, But I have no problem working 12 hours, 7 days a week.
It's fun.
It is relaxing.
This is therapeutic.
I am not stressing.
I am not panicking.
I'm not sweating bullets.
It's actually giving me a way to vent what I see and experience with politics.
It's good for me.
You can tell.
I can talk forever.
Imagine what it's like when I wasn't doing this.
I'm sitting there in the room muttering to the wall for 5 hours a day.
I'm kidding.
That's the joke.
This for me is my outlet.
It's what works for me.
There are now a bunch of people who are angry and are trying to force YouTube to change the system because what they do doesn't work on YouTube.
I think that's the wrong approach.
I think if you sell a product and eventually your product becomes something people don't want or There are issues relevant to the changing of the product or changing of the space you're in.
I don't think you should then force the system to stagnate because you are unhappy.
There are problems here.
It's a double-edged sword, okay?
Listen, I don't like the fact that YouTube is propping up big corporate players, but I will adapt.
And here's what I say in most of my videos.
Share this video if you think it's important.
If you don't think it's important, I don't deserve to be shared.
We know right now the big corporate players have existed for decades with massive power and they will continue to.
YouTube used to be a place that propped up the independent creator and now it doesn't.
What do you do about it?
Play smart.
I don't like the idea that someone's going to come in, rally a bunch of people, tens of thousands, and then tell YouTube to lock down and change in a way that may be detrimental for YouTube because they can't figure out how to adapt or they don't want to.
I fully recognize there will come a time where the YouTube algorithm changes and my content doesn't work anymore, which is why I produce content for other platforms.
The last thing I'm going to do is say, hmm, I'm really successful on YouTube.
A combined million plus subscribers on this platform.
Between two channels.
Three channels.
Mostly two channels.
So what should I do?
I should get a bunch of people together and put our pressure on YouTube so they can't make changes that would hurt my money-making venture.
No, I don't think that makes sense.
I do think there are problems.
I don't know how to solve them.
But I will never, never, never support or join a union like this.
That negatively impacted me, Dave Rubin, Kyle Kalinske, David Pakman, Steven Crowder, all of us.
My response?
If you like the video, share it.
There you go.
And I'm going to keep doing what I do.
I am not going to say, you guys should come to me, so we can force YouTube to exist in the manner we see fit, so that we, the current iteration of successful YouTubers, can survive.
Think about all the YouTubers who've come and gone.
Think about the people who operated a business and then retired from it.
People had YouTube channels and then eventually said, it's not what I want to do anymore.
The treadmill is speeding up not necessarily because of what YouTube is doing, but because of market competition.
And that I recognize, and so I diversify my business.
I have other plans you can't even see.
I've done tech consulting.
I've done marketing consulting.
I know that this... things change, and they change fast.
So anyway.
The GDPR argument is actually really, really interesting.
I do think what's going to end up happening is, I think they may actually gain ground.
The false self-employment rule they've presented is really interesting.
And they've got one of the biggest unions, if not the biggest, I think they mentioned, the biggest union in Germany now behind them.
Let me make sure I can get this right.
It's IG Metal.
So, where's the link?
Germany's largest union and Europe's largest trade union is behind the YouTuber's union.
That's power.
They're not playing around.
They're gonna have the resources to play this game, and they're gonna come at YouTube hard with the legal assets to take them on.
And they have, what I've seen, two really great arguments.
Self-employment and the GDPR.
That's gonna hurt YouTube, and it may impact us.
I can't blame them for doing it, but I'll tell you this.
They're gonna do it, I see, go for it, I got no beef, I'm gonna be over here doing my thing, and I'm going to be preparing for the fallout of when this comes through.
While I'll admit, there may be good things gained for everybody on YouTube by what their union does, there could also be some massive unintended consequences.
Like YouTube saying, you know what, we're axing the partner program outright, that way no one can be in this union anyway if they've got complaints and we don't want them.
They're not employees.
We're not employees.
You can make the argument you might win.
So YouTube's response?
Okay.
You don't make money anymore.
Only select creators can make money, and fine, they'll be employees.
But YouTube has already been taking action to get rid of the majority of the people in the Partner Program.
People are being removed every day, and people are struggling to even get in it.
And there you go.
And it may be due to this.
They may be staring and saying, oh, we do not want to play that game.
We don't want people with ads on their content we can't vet.
And we don't want them claiming to be employees.
Just get rid of them.
It's not worth the 10 bucks they would have made this month.
Now granted, he talks about an average of 17,000.
But you got to recognize there are a lot of channels that are making a ton of money.
And most of the money is coming to the top creators.
In fact, I think most of the money comes to the top 40,000 out of like 65 million accounts.
How many of those need to be in the Partner Program?
Well, YouTube's getting rid of most of them.
I'm worried if they move forward with this, YouTube's response will be, alright, we're shutting down 80% of the Partner Program outright.
Problem solved, right?
YouTube doesn't need to worry about all of these smaller channels when they've caused a headache for them to begin with, and they've been trying to get rid of these channels anyway.
So that's what I see happening.
I see... Here's what I see.
And I'm trying to be nice.
I like this guy's channel.
I respect what he's trying to do.
But to me, I see a guy who had a big channel, who built a career on it, had his career negatively impacted, and it's the result of assuming you can run a business through one distribution method.
Think about that.
Think about if you produced widgets, and there was only one road servicing your factory.
One factory in the middle of nowhere with one road, and one day, there's an earthquake.
And now there's no road.
And now you're mad, and you demand the government come and fix that road, and they're like, we'll get to it.
You shouldn't have had just the one fact.
Once you get to a certain point, you gotta diversify.
Explore other platforms, create a website, create other shows, sell those shows.
With his level of notoriety, In my opinion.
I don't know, maybe he did.
He should have approached Discovery Channel and other networks and created a package and a program and say, what can we do to distribute this and sell it on other networks?
I'm doing that.
Okay, the alarm went off.
I'm gonna end the video now.
Stick around.
Next video at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast and I will see you all next time.
As an addendum to my main channel's video, I want to go over some of the more recent updates on what's happening with Trump and his comments about Elijah Cumming in Baltimore.
And the theme of this video will be once again how everything is fake.
I don't trust anybody and I'm just so sick and tired of everyone pretending.
I think Trump is, I'm gonna agree with the intercept on this one, that he's simultaneously the most honest and least honest president we've ever had.
Least, maybe least honest isn't necessarily, oh no, maybe that is the right word.
Here, let me just start over.
Donald Trump will just say things that shock people.
Like, he'll just tell you the truth.
Like, he's got no filter, he's like, boom, and people love it.
But then he'll flub the details on a lot of things.
So whether or not that's intentionally misleading, I think, citing The Intercept, Trump is accidentally or on purpose the most honest president we've had.
And that's why I think it's easy for people to jump on to criticizing him because he just doesn't care.
He'll just say it.
So I guess he's selective in what he's misrepresenting.
But anyway, it's not just about Trump.
I'll criticize everybody.
For just being fake.
Bernie Sanders, fake.
And then who else do I have?
Victor Blackwell, fake.
I don't believe any of this.
It's all just nonsense.
And I want to start with, you know what?
I'll go over this a little bit.
But I really want to lay into CNN.
Bernie Sanders criticizes Trump for his racist comments about Baltimore four years after he compared the city to a third world country.
Hahahahaha.
Bernie Sanders, great.
I get it.
Fake.
Nobody, I don't believe any of this.
You know, I thought Bernie was being honest back in 2015 when he said open borders no way.
When he was saying, you know, gun rights, urban versus rural, I'm like, whoa, he's talking truth!
Now he's just playing this stupid game, and I don't have anything to do with it.
Okay?
What he's trying to do is signal to the biggest base possible to win.
Okay?
The ends don't justify the means.
You want to play that game?
I'll vote for somebody else, and you know what?
Fine, I get it.
Maybe they'll never win, and maybe I'll never win.
My politician, but fine.
I don't care.
I vote on principle.
So Bernie Sanders, for you to come out and do this, I love how the Daily Mail is kind of, you know, playing him.
Look what you're doing.
But let's talk about this.
Let's talk about Victor Blackwell crying on camera because I mentioned it a couple times in the past two days.
But I really want to focus on what CNN is doing here by having their anchor near tears, pause and I live there!
Okay, okay, okay.
Before we get started, though, head over to TimCast.com.
If you'd like to support my work, there's a crypto option, a physical option, a physical address, and a PayPal option.
But of course, just share this video if you like it.
YouTube is deranking us in exchange for big corporate media players, so if there's going to be any growth on my channel at all, I rely on you guys to share the content.
Now let's talk about the world of fakeness.
CNN host breaks down in tears on air defending his hometown of Baltimore after Trump said it was a disgusting, rat-infested mess where no human being would want to live, while Nancy Pelosi blasts the president's racist remarks.
You know, I was thinking about this, and I started thinking about where I'm from, the South Side of Chicago.
And if Donald Trump tweeted, the South Side of Chicago is a rat-infested, gang-ridden mess where there's an extremely high murder rate, no human would want to live there, I would laugh.
I would laugh.
I just don't believe that you can come from a place like Baltimore or the South Side of Chicago.
I guess, look, there are a lot of people, you know, I guess, that if you ragged on Chicago, they'd be like, hey, don't you talk about Chicago like that.
They exist.
I imagine being from the South Side, it's mostly like the Bridgeport, like South Side Irish types, who are gonna be like, I'll defend my neighborhood no matter what.
I'm from the South Side, man.
Southwest Side.
South Side, whatever.
And if you told me that my neighborhood was bad and there were gangs, there are.
And there were drugs?
Lots of that.
And people are overdosing?
Yup.
Some of my friends, when I was a kid, dead.
I got a story about one of my friends watching someone drag a carpet with feet hanging out of it.
Yeah, welcome to Chicago.
I drove around one night, and we covered, I think, like, what, five murders in one night?
In one night?
It was ridiculous!
And it was crazy, too, because, like, one of the stories was a drive-by, but it was different apartments or something?
Like, I could be getting the story wrong, but it was, like, two stories, and they were mad at the person on the first floor, so they shot the person on the second floor.
If someone's gonna come out and be like, yeah, Chicago sucks, I'd be like, you don't even know the half of it.
How many governors of Chicago went to prison, like the past three or something?
I can't even remember.
Maybe it's not three, maybe it's two.
But then you look at Baltimore, and Baltimore's got corrupt mayors, they've got crime, they made a TV show about it, The Wire.
I've never actually seen it, even though everyone's, now I'm gonna get all the comments, be like, dude, you gotta watch The Wire, it's so good.
I get it.
But there are even articles from before Trump talked about this saying that certain areas of Baltimore are falling into disrepair.
Bernie Sanders himself calling it a third world country.
Great.
So let's talk about CNN.
The point I'm trying to make here, not to just rehash everything I've already said, This guy, Victor Blackwell.
In this segment, you can see it.
He freezes up and he's about to cry, and I just feel like it's an act.
I do not believe, for one second, he actually cares.
Now look, of course, maybe he does.
But I'm pretty sure I can go to any one of my friends on the South Side, and I could say, hey, Chicago's... The South Side of Chicago is a rat-infested mess, with gangs and drugs, and no human would want to live there, and they'd start laughing.
Yup!
That's where we're from!
Let's read a little bit about this.
Daily Wire writes...
A CNN host from Baltimore grew emotional on air as he defended his hometown after President Donald Trump called the city a disgusting, rat-and-rote, and infested mess.
Man, I've seen a lot of rats in Chicago.
Anchor Victor Blackwell, a Baltimore native, teared up as he rebuked Trump for his remarks earlier on Saturday, criticizing Rep.
Elijah Cummings, whose district includes much of Baltimore.
Blackwell blasted Trump for using the term infested.
Come on!
Crime infested is a common phrase.
Saying the president often uses the term to criticize non-whites.
Okay, look.
He's referred to what he said, he said nasty things about San Francisco.
That's not, that's mostly white.
Trump doubled down on his comment Saturday night, taking to Twitter and writing, so sad that Elijah Cummings has been able to do so little for the people of Baltimore.
Statistically, Baltimore ranks last in almost every major category.
Cummings has done nothing but milk Baltimore dry, but the public is getting wise to the bad job he is doing.
Brian Stelter of CNN did a segment Calling Trump racist and saying we've gotta call out the inaccuracies and I'm like, you're only doing this because it's Trump.
You ignored Bernie Sanders when he did it, you don't care that he did it.
And I gotta admit, CNN didn't like Bernie Sanders.
Actually, hold on, hold on.
Maybe CNN did, okay?
I don't wanna mischaracterize, but I'm curious why it's not being brought up now, okay?
Why is it okay for Bernie to mischaracterize Baltimore?
More to the point, I want this not to be about rehashing the video I just did, but to point out, I do not trust Victor Blackwell's assessment.
I do not trust his emotional outburst.
It felt like an act.
It felt fake.
I honestly don't know anybody from any city who would react that way.
Do you?
Is that normal?
Maybe it's because I'm from the South Side of Chicago, and we just have no pride in the problems the city is facing, and would welcome the president calling it out.
The last thing we'd do is probably cry about it.
Seems weird, but it seems like great television.
Because this went viral, and even today people are still sharing the clip.
Even CNN's propping this up.
Let's pull up how many views this has on YouTube.
I'm not gonna play it.
Half a million views.
I don't know if that's good or bad.
Right?
But I can tell you this.
CNN's ratings are plummeting.
Is straight news valuable?
It really isn't.
Okay?
It really isn't.
I know this to be true, and it's unfortunate.
Presenting straight fact is so... This is not valuable.
Okay?
Tweets carry a lot of breaking news because most breaking news stories are very small, right?
If like, you know, the CEO of a company resigns, we just put CEO John Johnson resigns from Fortune 500 company.
He is said to be leaving with a severance package of X. The resignation comes three months after the stock dropped 17% due to bad decision making.
End of story.
And you can get all of that in a tweet or a post, and so people don't care.
You can get it in a headline.
Oh, the guy resigned.
Moving on.
Now, this is bad because a lot of headlines are misleading.
But then when it comes to actually just saying, here's the news, nobody cares anymore.
And so it's a huge problem.
It's one of the reasons I'm trying to make sure Subverse survives.
So we have, you know, look, I do commentary, and the commentary leads, and then we have a separate entity.
It's a totally different company.
Yes, Victor Blackwell goes on CNN and cries.
Sure, I go on YouTube and criticize him for crying.
Yes, Victor Blackwell goes on CNN and cries.
Sure, I go on YouTube and criticize him for crying.
We're doing the same thing.
Except CNN is the most trusted name in news, and Tim Pool is a news and political commentary channel,
which is, well, I'm not going to cry, but it's my opinion for the most part.
I'm doing assessment and analysis.
I'm not going to claim that this channel is where you come for straight, hard news.
I try to make sure my facts are straight.
I try to make sure I'm using verified sources.
But in the end, you are getting my opinion on these issues and my perspective.
Subverse, on the other hand, is what we're trying to do on the other side of that, which is straight news across the board, period.
So sure, sure, I get it.
Opinion content leads, but is this an opinion show?
Does Victor Blackwell lead an opinion show?
No.
But I'll tell you what, him crying is great television, and that's why I don't believe it.
Everyone I know from Chicago, if I said what Trump said, The worst I think I'd probably get from those people is probably like, well, I mean, it's bad, but, you know, it's like, downtown's alright.
Lincoln Park's pretty cool.
There's a lot of hipster neighborhoods with, like, good food.
Chicago has great food.
Like, I think that's the worst I'd get.
I don't think anybody from Chicago would be like, hey man, don't talk about Chicago that way.
That just seems weird.
I can't imagine anyone I have ever met from Chicago crying over me tweeting about how bad the South Side is.
Or the West Side, or the city in general.
I mean, there's a lot of bad places all over the city.
So, long story short, it's theatrics.
It's reality television.
And you know what?
I will blame Donald Trump.
To his detriment, to his benefit.
Mostly to his benefit.
Trump knows America loves WWE.
He's in the WWE Hall of Fame.
I'm pretty sure.
There's that gif where he's beating up CNN.
Trump knows what the public wants.
To act otherwise, to deny that, would be to bring about your own loss in politics.
Trump knows.
CNN's learning from him.
So, Trump made a good show, a good reality TV show of politics.
It worked out.
And now his supporters love him for the policies he's enacting.
So, whatever.
There you go.
They don't care if Trump's offensive.
They like when he's offensive, actually.
Well, CNN responds in kind with a crying anchor.
Congratulations.
This is what we get.
We get the politics and the TV we deserve.
That's all I can really say.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes though, so stick around and I will see you shortly.
I believe America is in the midst of a cultural crisis.
Not just America, but the West in general.
We have no great mission.
We have no great war.
We have no cultural objective.
In fact, we don't really like each other all that much.
The politics, at least in the US and in Western nations, is dividing among more than just two lines.
Although we typically refer to the factions as the left and the right, it's actually kind of different.
It's really funny when I hear people say things like, some conservatives have said, the real culture war is nationalist versus globalist.
Then you hear other people say that it's capitalist versus socialist.
Then you have some people say it is authoritarian versus libertarian.
I believe it's authoritarian versus libertarian.
I wouldn't consider myself a nationalist.
I think that given a long enough period of time, we will have a global one-world government or culture of some sort.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't.
I think it's inevitable.
And that's why it's important to make sure we have protections against the rise of authoritarianism.
And some people have said to me in response to that it's about authoritarian globalism.
And I'm like, okay.
Okay.
Anyway, here's the story.
American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts.
And I saw this last week.
It's almost two weeks old now, this story.
And I was thinking about recording on it, but I didn't.
And then I said, I really should.
Because I had a conversation about religion.
The importance of religion.
I, when I was younger, grew up Catholic.
I then became hardcore far-left atheist.
Hated the religious people when I was in my early teenage years.
And then had kind of a profound moment when I was like 18 or 19 that made me realize there probably is something important about religion.
I've told this story before, but I'll tell it now.
I met this, like, well-known skateboarder, and so I was, like, really excited.
I thought the person was cool.
And it was me as, like, a young person hanging out with some older, more well-known skateboarder.
And I went to his house, and he had a picture of Jesus on the wall.
And I immediately, as the, you know, anarcho, left-wing, atheist, what do you have Jesus on your wall?
Are you a Christian or something?
And he was like, no.
And I was like, then why do you have Jesus on your wall?
And he said, I just thought a story about a guy traveling around, you know, helping people was kind of cool.
So, of course, I've always been like, you know, there's a lot of bad things that have come from religion.
The reason I bring up this story is that was a moment for me where I started listening to other people's worldviews instead of just assuming they were idiots.
And then I learned a lot and allowed me to be kind of, you know, I guess, decently smart.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I've got an edge in some degrees.
And I think that the advantage I have is not necessarily that I'm smarter than anybody, but that I'm willing to listen because of moments like that.
There are some other really, like, interesting moments I had arguing with people who are religious, and maybe the reality is I've always been willing to listen, and that's why.
But I do think it was there was somebody who was like a left-wing individual who I thought was, you know, who I thought was, you know, respectable.
All of a sudden, now, bringing to me a religious argument, in a sense, that was very light, very simple, and meant something.
Now, here's why I bring up the religion in the context of this.
For the longest time, as a culture, we are predominantly Christian.
We still kind of are.
It's like 73% of people in this country, according to Gallup, believe God played a role in creating human life, be it creationism or guiding evolution.
So religion still plays a massive role in this country.
But there was a cohesive moral set for a long time.
Like, we were really very much aligned.
We're not so much anymore.
Morals are dramatically different and changing every day.
And we have a left now that is defending Antifa and far-left extremism because they believe their morals are superior.
And because of this, you know, here's the point I'm trying to get to.
There are people who are driven by do good, protect your family, work hard, protect others, etc.
A lot of this is based in Judeo-Christian values.
It really is, whether anyone wants to recognize it or not.
I'm not saying you need religion to be moral, but a lot of our morals do come from religion.
Over time, we've gotten rid of the bad parts, we've reformed, and now these values have led us to the point where, most notably, I bring this up, Innocent until proven guilty.
Blackstone's formulation, which is rooted in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I read about that and I was really like, that's kind of amazing.
We came up with these concepts, we refined them, and it's led us to a moral society.
Jonathan Haidt's research says that, you know, I could be getting this wrong, but conservatives are concerned about protecting and maintaining a moral society.
And that includes justice and fairness, but it also includes loyalty, sanctity, and authority.
Some things that the left doesn't see.
The reason I bring this up in context to the astronaut question is because our culture in the United States is having a cultural and morality crisis.
Most young people in the United Kingdom and the United States want to be YouTubers.
They don't want to be astronauts.
Why be a YouTuber?
It's very simple.
Because people will love you.
Well, what these young people don't understand, I guess as they look up to famous YouTubers, is that an equal amount of people will hate you.
Maybe not an equal amount, but a decent amount of people hate you.
A lot of people hate me, you know, it is what it is.
Being an astronaut is being something great.
You're accomplishing something, you're risking your life, and you're one of the few, the best of the best of the best, who has made it to be able to survive and work in those conditions to help advance the cause of humanity.
That is a tremendous and powerful adventure and mission and passion Chinese children have that we don't.
So this says something to me.
As a culture, the reason I bring up religion is that without purpose, we become depressed.
We're seeing people commit suicides are going up across the board a lot.
I could be wrong about that, but that's just my general understanding from what articles I've read.
Why?
No purpose.
So what people search for then is some kind of validation when there is no guiding principle.
I'm not saying you need religion for this, but I do believe religion filled that gap for a lot of people.
They had a mission.
They had a purpose.
It was faith in the Lord.
As we become more atheist, more agnostic, even though we're still not entirely, we see the rise of secular religions like intersectionality.
There's original sin.
There's dogma.
There's no real rules.
It's just faith to the system.
Join or die, they say.
They attack people in the street.
They accuse them of being another.
It's very much so like an archaic religion.
Interestingly, Christianity grew out of the more beat-the-people-who-don't-agree-with-you phase thousands of years ago through the modern reforms.
I think there's things that tie this all together, especially with this story, for one.
There is a mission in China.
They do want to be great.
They want to be astronauts, teachers, musicians.
We mostly want to be vloggers on YouTube.
Look at me!
I'm literally doing that right now.
I never planned to be.
It's not something I wanted to be when I was younger, but I admit that I've talked a lot in my life, so here I am.
But this goes in line with what we're seeing with the rise of the secular religion of intersectionality, in that a lot of what drives intersectional feminism, which I believe is a secular, it's a non-theistic religion, Is likes and shares and attention.
People go on Twitter, and they'll post a silly hot take, right?
Recently, someone complained that when they ordered clothing from, I believe it was Forever 21, they got a free protein bar.
And they got angry because they ordered plus-sized clothing, not realizing the protein bar went to everyone.
It was an Atkins protein bar, which is still just a protein bar, but you know Atkins is associated with weight loss, so here it comes!
And there it was.
The faux outrage.
Were they really mad they got a free protein bar?
For real?
You give me a free anything, I'm gonna be like, cool.
You can give me free lipstick, I'll be like, don't know what I'm gonna do with it, but hey, cool.
Free stuff.
I'll give it to somebody else, they'll be happy about it.
You find a quarter?
Hey, it's just a quarter, but hey, free quarter, right?
No, these people are outraged.
No, they're not really outraged, is what I want to say.
They're pretending to be outraged to get clicks and get attention.
Without purpose, we see people become depressed.
They then crave attention.
How do you get attention in the past?
You achieve something great.
Maybe you become an astronaut.
How do you achieve attention today in praise?
Be a YouTuber!
Because there is nothing left.
Our culture doesn't promote any kind of adventure, any kind of morality, any kind of common good.
And that's going to lead to our, I guess, destruction in the end, at least the way I see it.
Because when you have a generation, 30% of young people who just want to be YouTubers when they grow up, well how many YouTubers do we really need?
You certainly don't need me or anybody else.
At least I think so.
I gotta admit, I'm really surprised and grateful that so many people want to watch me talk about my feelings.
I just turn the camera on and it's kind of therapeutic.
I can vent about how I feel about, you know, and what I see, but I guess a lot of people find value in it, so that's a good thing.
But what I do is kind of, it's not the biggest market.
Political commentary is important.
I'm talking about the issues and the problems we face, and I can recognize that, critical of myself as I might be.
But a lot of the YouTubers and vloggers are people who just walk around doing nothing.
And I mean that.
Casey Neistat makes amazing vlog content, or he did daily for a long time.
But a lot of his content was just him doing his life.
Like, you know, I think Casey pulled ahead in terms of being a vlogger because he was interesting and was doing, you know, great things.
Even though most of his content might be like, I saw one where he went to the grocery store.
So think about the kids who want to be that.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
A guy at a grocery store who films himself.
You ask the Chinese kid, what do you want to be when you grow up?
And they say, I want to go to the stars.
I want to colonize other planets.
I want to work in the International Space Station.
That is greatness.
That is being historical, being valuable.
But you know what?
Our culture is... This is why I am not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism.
Because when you let capitalism run wild, what do you get?
You get people who just want to be YouTubers.
I want to be famous, they say when I grow up.
I'm not advocating for socialism or communism.
No, I just think there should be some kind of cohesive cultural force, and I don't know how or what it is.
The point is, for the longest time, it was religion that kept us as a community.
We were like, these are our values and our beliefs, we must protect them.
For a little while after that, it was about our country, America, nationalism per se.
And now we don't even have that.
So what do you get?
A bunch of narcissistic kids spitting in ice cream because they want to get clicks on the internet, while the rest of them go around with bike locks bashing people over the head because they just have no purpose and they're depressed.
And so they think Trump is the only thing that gives them purpose.
And this is true for people, for millennials who support Trump, too.
That is their purpose.
That is their fight.
But at least their fight still makes sense.
At least saying you support the president still makes sense, even if the president is a bad person.
If that's the opinion I'm saying for the media claiming he is.
Well, at least they're saying I have a mission.
Antifa, the far left, social justice, is just about getting clicks in traffic, and it's about a delusion the world is ending.
Whereas the Trump supporters' mission is, we're having fun, and we're poking fun at the establishment, and they like the president's policies, even if he says bad things from time to time.
In the end, I think Trump isn't the solution we need as himself.
If Trump institutes some kind of cultural program for going to the moon, whatever, he's talking about it.
That's what we need.
That's a good thing.
Elon Musk also does great in this regard.
I don't know what the solution is, but I'm going to end it by saying this.
Unless we as a country, as the Western world, actually start fighting for something great, we're gonna have a bunch of narcissistic children who don't fight for anything.
Stick around, one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
In a new poll that may surprise absolutely no one, the Mueller testimony did literally nothing, not only that it had terrible ratings.
This story from Vox says, New polling finds Mueller's testimony didn't change Americans' mind on impeachment.
Democrats hoped for a watershed moment, but new polls find few Americans have been swayed on impeachment and Russia.
Not only that, the polls show nobody cares about Russia.
They kind of do.
It's like a passive thing.
I'm interested in it.
But look, I'd be willing to bet the amount of Americans that care about Russia are the entirety of Rachel Maddow's viewership.
What, 2 million people?
If that.
What we learned from this is something we could have predicted.
In fact, we didn't even need to poll to show it.
For one, the country is divided upon tribal lines.
Democrats are like, oh, we should impeach Trump.
The Mueller testimony.
Republicans are like, this is a stupid waste of time.
Predictable.
Here's the thing.
I think the centrists are with the right on this one.
I am right now planning on voting Democrat.
Tulsi Gabbard, most likely.
Maybe Andrew Yang.
I don't think they're going to win.
Whatever.
I like them on principle and I'm not going to go through all their things because that's not the point.
I do this all the time.
I go through their policies.
I don't need to do that.
The point is I am looking at Yang and Tulsi.
A lot of moderates absolutely are as well.
A lot of people on the left, progressives, have praised Tulsi Gabbard.
So there is a left that likes this woman and thinks she is going to be a great leader, but we don't think that they'll let her win.
But also, at the same time, as someone like myself who does support, actively, a Democrat, I was not swayed by the Mueller testimony.
In fact, if anything, Matt Gaetz's statement on the origin of the Russia collusion hoax, yes, it's fake news, there was no evidence of this, was never investigated.
So, at the very least, I, as a moderate leaning to the left, have now been pushed away from any idea.
I mean, look, I'm not for impeachment anyway.
I think it's stupid.
Even if Trump maybe could have obstructed, he didn't.
And so it's—my only thing is, like, they're not doing anything for America.
So why should anybody care?
More importantly, though, it didn't move the needle at all.
It's not doing anything.
The viewership was down.
Nobody cares.
Enough.
We're done.
Move.
On.
Please.
They won't.
There was an article from the Washington Post that said Democrats are struggling to figure out what their next move is because the Mueller testimony fell flat.
He gave nothing.
They've got nothing.
What policies does a Democratic Party have?
It's nonsense.
There's a couple things I can point out.
A couple.
Elizabeth Warren's stance on big tech.
I appreciate that.
Tulsi Gabbard's stance on war.
Private prisons.
And I think Warren and Bernie and most of them are opposed to private prisons.
I agree with that.
Okay.
Gabbard has defended free speech.
Has anybody else?
Uh, Yang did.
Tulsi has also called out big tech.
Spot on.
But when you look at the bulk of what they're proposing in the Democratic debate stage, Undocumented immigrants get healthcare?
Come on.
Let's read this story, because I could just rant on the Democrats all the time.
But the debates are coming up, so that'll be a lot of fun.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
You get it.
Share this video if you like it.
Big D rank independent political commentary.
Let's read the story.
Vox writes, despite high hopes from Congressional Democrats that special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony would clarify the conclusions of the Mueller report for the American public, new polls show that the hearings changed few minds about the report's contents and that a partisan split remains on questions of impeachment and presidential wrongdoing.
And I believe it was Nancy Pelosi who said no to impeachment for two reasons.
You're not going to get it to the Senate.
And it's divisive and bad for the party.
It's going to make you look like whiny losers.
Come out right now and say, you know what?
Fine.
We're not going to impeach the president.
We're going to challenge him on his stance about X, Y, and Z. But they're not.
They're saying the wall is immoral.
Not an argument.
I don't know what that means.
How do you propose we solve this problem?
They're not proposing... Look, as a party, they're off-message.
I understand Elizabeth Warren has some ideas.
I think some of them go too far.
I personally think we need to figure out how to solve the student debt problem because it's turning young people into socialists.
Literally is.
I don't believe straight forgiveness is the answer, but I do believe perhaps freezing interest rates on student debt so they can now be paid off more easily makes a lot of sense.
We need some kind of program to alleviate the problem.
Because I'll tell you this, man.
I can't tell you how many people I meet say they want to live in a van.
Now that sounds fun, because I built a van too.
But I also own a home.
And these young people don't.
They're saying they don't want to buy houses.
What happens then when the housing market bottoms out?
We need to figure out how to solve this problem.
I don't know.
I'm getting off on a tangent.
Let's read on.
An ABC News Ipsos poll found that Mueller's testimony did little to change voters' minds on the issue of impeaching Trump.
In response to the question, did Robert Mueller's testimony make you more or less likely to support the impeachment of Trump?
47% of Americans said hearing from Mueller made no difference.
Although 48% of Democrats polled said they were more likely to support impeachment following Mueller's testimony, just 3% of Republicans said the same.
The testimony seemed to convince Republicans that grounds for impeachment do not exist.
It doesn't.
You can argue he tried to obstruct, he didn't obstruct.
I guess attempted obstruction?
Is that a crime?
I honestly don't know.
You know, if somebody tries to trip me... Actually, they didn't even try to.
Trump... Well, I guess you could argue he tried to, but you could argue he also didn't.
He told people to try and do things that may or may not have even been obstruction.
A majority of Republicans, 54%, said the hearings didn't change their views on impeachment at all.
However, as did 44% of Democrats, a similar partisan split was found on the issue of foreign election interference.
But I want to stress, a lot of Democrats probably already want him impeached.
A lot of Republicans probably already don't, and they're not going to be changed based on whatever Mueller says.
Confirmation bias is at play.
Democrats only want to hear what they think will benefit them.
Republicans want to hear what they think will benefit them.
But I gotta stress, The data shows.
Conservatives read liberal and conservative news.
Mostly conservative, but a decent amount, around 35% of their news is from liberal sources.
Moderates, about the same.
Moderates get their news from the left and a little bit from the right, about 60% from the left, around, oh no, I'm sorry, it's like 60-40.
Liberals, however.
95% of their news comes from left-wing sources.
So, what ends up happening then is, the left will hear all of these soundbites, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, they'll get worked into a tizzy, and then moderates in the right will hear a little bit of both.
The same narrative.
We heard from Jack Dorsey that liberal journalists only follow liberal journalists and conservatives followed both.
This was in 2016.
This, to me, presents a huge problem, but it also shows why the center and the right are more aligned today.
We're getting our news from more sources.
So, let's read on.
The point I was trying to make is that's why moderates are going to be pushed away from impeachment and from the left.
Because they're not seeing what the left is... The left is in a bubble.
They say, Donald Trump has made it clear, he sees Mueller's report, as clearing him of any and all wrongdoing.
The phrase, no collusion, no obstruction, is true, has become a mantra for the president and supporters.
The report did not absolve Trump, however.
Yes, because prosecutors can't!
There is literally, I don't, is there a legal body in the US that can literally absolve you of a crime?
Exonerate is the appropriate term.
Investigations don't exonerate anybody.
You are always innocent unless they can prove otherwise.
Trump is innocent, period, because that is the legal standard of innocent until proven guilty.
There was no, there's, look.
Even if you have some evidence, you're still innocent.
Even if there's some evidence, you don't need to be exonerated because you're innocent.
Okay?
Listen.
You can have a crime scene, a robbery, and I could find the special candy bar on you.
That is evidence, circumstantial, that may lead to you having committed the robbery.
But there's a bunch of other circumstances too.
That's why we presume your innocence.
Maybe someone handed you the candy bar.
Maybe someone handed it to someone who handed it to someone who handed it to someone who handed it to you.
Maybe the person who got robbed actually dropped the candy bar ten feet before.
The point is, if someone says someone stole my candy bar and you're found with it, it doesn't prove you're guilty.
It's one bit of evidence.
It's decent, but you're still innocent unless they can prove otherwise.
The exoneration thing is so ridiculously silly.
I am absolutely disgusted by what Mueller has said.
I am.
And he will get no sympathy from me on this issue.
Prosecutors, investigators do not exonerate.
They don't.
And he even said it.
successful in doing so.
The poll found 35% of voters believed the special counsel had exonerated the president,
while 41% believed the opposite.
I am absolutely disgusted by what Mueller has said.
I am.
And he will get no sympathy from me on this issue.
Prosecutors, investigators do not exonerate.
They don't.
And he even said it.
So you know what?
The point of this video is the partisan difference is not going to change.
Nobody's going to back down.
But I will say what I see from this is moderates being pushed towards the right over and over and over again.
Because I'm reading news on the left and the right, okay?
And I'm seeing the nonsense standards.
You don't exonerate people.
That's not how it works.
The Mueller testimony's ratings were down.
Nobody cares anymore.
All you're doing, every time they do this, is they're taking moderates and saying, go right.
Go right, everybody.
Just right this way.
Here you go.
And the left is helping.
The left is... This is what I've said in the past.
Politics flows in one direction.
If someone hangs out with a conservative, they're called conservative.
If a liberal hangs out with a conservative, they say, aha!
This proves a liberal is right-wing.
But the right-winger is never called liberal for hanging out with a liberal.
Thus, politics flows in one direction.
They're feeding everybody down the pipeline to the right.
They're saying, hey, we're gonna do a big nonsense hearing that nobody cares about.
Seriously, it's like 0.5% of people think it's a top issue.
And then once we're done, nothing gets solved and moderates are just confused to what happened in the first place.
So in the end, the Mueller testimony was a huge waste of time.
