Democrats Fear Trump Is On Track For 2020 Win, Democrat Infighting And Lack Of Message Sow Worry
Democrats Fear Trump Is On Track For 2020 Win, Democrat Infighting And Lack Of Message Cause Worry. Democratic governors know their states better than most. Recently at an annual meeting Democratic governors expressed concerns and frustrations with the Democratic 2020 candidates going too far left. They point out that the party is being mired in infighting and has been thrown off message by Trump's media strategies.They warn that most Americans want to talk about healthcare, the economy, and immigration but are spending too much time talking about how 'orange man bad' instead of how they will help the American people. Polls show most people do not favor abolishing ICE, giving healthcare to non-citizens, or giving reparations yet Democrats are increasingly favoring far left and social justice rhetoric.In the end the primaries may force Democrats too far to the left to be able to win.The democratic party is fractured and can't find its base, meanwhile Trump and the republicans are unifying and talking policy and politics.But Trump and his fans should be warned, although his approval ratings is at a near all time high he recently saw an asymmetrical spike in disapproval among polls showing he risks losing the center if his tweets are too bombastic.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democratic governors are sounding the alarm on Trump's reelection.
This is actually good news for Democrats.
Well, it's good news and it's bad news.
The good news is at the state level, the governors are pointing out the weaknesses of the Democratic Party.
They're pointing out Trump's strengths and how he's got them off message.
The bad news is, Trump has gotten them off message, and as the Democratic governors point out, 2020 Democratic candidates are veering too far left in a desperate plea to get the activist Democrat base to vote for them in the primary.
After the primaries, most people will move closer to the center to try and attract the biggest group of voters.
Unfortunately, the activist left has gone so far left, I don't think there's going to be any recovery from this.
Now look, I've made many videos pointing out that the woke Twitter base, the woke Twitterati, is destroying the Democrats.
And here we can see that plain as day.
Talking about abolishing ICE, healthcare for undocumented citizens.
These are things that regular people don't care about.
They want border security.
They want these issues to be resolved.
Trump is tracking the polls.
Trump is reacting based on what American voters and his base want.
He knows he can take certain hits, but It's not all, you know, Trump still has some weaknesses here.
So there's a lot I want to talk about.
But first, I want to go over why the Democrats are concerned that Trump will be reelected.
And I want to show you some data as to why I do too.
I think Trump will be reelected.
I think fake news is playing into this And it's causing damage to the left.
I think the ideas being pushed by the left are coming from fringe activists, but also people pushing fake news in exchange for clicks.
All of this, even with biased media, will play into Trump's hands.
But it could still hurt him if there's a huge turnout from Democrats come 2020.
So let's get started with this story.
Even Gavin Newsom has said Trump is a master of deflection.
He knows the media.
The Democrats are pointing this out.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, just share this video.
YouTube has deranked independent political commentary.
You've probably heard me say it.
They don't suggest channels like mine anymore.
They prefer CNN, MSNBC, etc.
So if you think this video is important, please share it wherever you feel like, or just comment below and tell me why you think I suck.
Let's read.
Democratic governors sound alarm on Trump re-election from Politico.
Outside the Beltway, there are worries the party is losing control of its messaging and forgetting the lessons of 2018.
I would stop right there and say worries they're losing the messaging?
Trump has got them off message for two weeks now!
And he's ex— it's— Trump, listen.
I've gotta say it.
Trump called out Baltimore for being rat-infested and crime-infested.
I don't see the inherent racism in those tweets like the left and the media is shrieking about.
I see Trump calling out a poor and impoverished area.
And if he said the same thing about Chicago, I'd be like, yes, thank you for pointing this out.
We need help.
We need to solve these problems.
Me being a native Chicagoan, right?
I don't live there anymore.
Instead, what do we get?
Virtue Signal articles condemning Trump's character?
Trump has actually gotten the left to defend rat-infested areas at the expense, or I should say the Democrats are defending this at the expense of those who have to live in these situations.
So I will say one thing before moving on, talking about messaging.
Trump wants to tweet about Baltimore.
You have real people who know the problems they experience in these neighborhoods, and you're acting like Trump's bigoted for saying it, but those people who live there know he's right.
Like, the entire district in Baltimore that Trump referred to isn't all bad, but there's a lot of bad areas, and those people know it.
So yeah, they're gonna come out, and many of them probably support Trump for highlighting this issue.
Let's read on.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to that.
They say, with all the infighting and intra-party intrigue in recent weeks, most recently over the prospect of impeaching the president, many Democrats in the states are beginning to worry the party is losing its grip on the message, potentially paving the way for Donald Trump's re-election.
The anxiety reverberated far from Washington this week as the nation's governors gathered here for their annual summer meeting.
Quote, nationally, the focus has been on last week's hearings and quote-unquote oversight, the question of impeachment, the effectiveness of Trump to make it about the four congresswomen who are called the squad.
Governor Newsom said Friday.
That's been the zeitgeist, and so Trump being the master of deflection and distraction, it's been hard for the Democrats to sort of hold that message.
Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak, the governor of an early primary state and potential battleground in the general election, said that going into 2020, his constituents want to look forward, and how are we going to make their lives better?
Certainly saying orange man bad.
for the 56,000th time, isn't going to tell anyone how you're making their lives better.
They say Oregon Governor Kate Brown, when asked if impeachment talks are beneficial for Democrats politically, said, We should be focused on what Americans care about and what Oregonians, for me, care about, right?
Making sure we have good quality jobs, that we have an education system we can be proud of, and that everyone in the state has access to healthcare.
We saw in 2018 that when we talked about healthcare, we won.
And we won handily.
I mean, we kicked their butts.
That's the good news for Democrats.
At least some of them are waking up to the strategy Trump has employed, the victories he's gained in sending these Democrats in a spiral, and how they can actually try and talk to the American people.
Now listen, this is good news for everyone.
Everyone, okay?
Even if you're on the right, on the left doesn't matter.
If we can get more politicians in this country to talk about what makes America better and what makes American lives better, well then we're going to have actual work being done to make things better.
When the Democrats are more concerned with calling Trump the orange man bad, nothing gets done, things get worse.
And while that will help Trump win, I don't think that's the kind of victory we want.
The victory we want is for the best person with the best arguments to win and to make this country better for everyone.
For the common defense, for the common good, to increase the quality of life of everyone.
Be that Trump or anyone else, I just want to see America succeed, and I think many others do as well.
But for too long, the Democrats have either been too concerned with the character of Trump, or actually, I think, they're mostly concerned about the fact that they lost, and they're angry they lost, and instead of just saying, here's how we can win in 2020, they're saying, no, we didn't lose 2016, Trump cheated, it was the Russians, ah, Mueller, and obstruction.
No.
Stop, okay?
Even if Trump didn't win because it was the Russians, fine, you're not going to win by doing this.
Sure, the investigation's over.
It wasn't true.
Stop.
The Democratic governors are right, so my respect to them for saying this, what I've been saying for a long time, and that's kind of been my shtick, okay?
I'm looking for leaders who will make this country better, be it great again or great in general, whatever your perspective is.
But when the Democrats, the left wing of this great eagle, are too busy concerned about losing 2016 and they don't talk about what Americans need, then we are a crippled bird.
That's what someone said to me.
They said an eagle needs two strong wings to fly and the left has been a mess.
But let's read on.
They say, for Democrats attempting to focus the electorate's attention on health care and economic positions popular with general election voters, a second round of presidential primary debates next week is likely to add to their frustration.
Yes!
Thank you!
The party's sprawling field of presidential candidates are outbidding each other with increasingly liberal positions on impeachment, criminal justice, and immigration that are being demanded by the party's base.
No politico.
Not liberal.
Trump's criminal justice reform was liberal.
And I don't mean liberal in left.
I mean liberal as in freedom.
Trump worked on a bipartisan effort over criminal justice reform, and he was praised for it.
But mind-numbingly, people just want to be opposed to him to such an amazing degree, they will reject anything he does.
You don't have to like the guy, or think he's a good person, to be happy when something good happens.
And that's what's crazy to me.
It seems like too many people in this country just want to say Orange Man bad for the sake of Orange Man being bad.
They call his tweets about Baltimore racist, and I'm like, listen man, I don't see it.
Is Bernie Sanders racist?
Okay, I get it, Trump was mean about it, but the substance of their tweets were similar.
Was PBS racist?
We'll get into the Baltimore stuff.
But I'm going to agree with Politico here.
These next debates, I know what's going to happen.
The people I'm willing to support are those who call out the nonsense and stand on principle.
We're not going to see that in the debates.
We're going to see Democrats doubling down and not going liberal, they're going to be going far-left identitarian.
Most people do not hold these views, so props to the governors for understanding this.
And they understand it because they're governors.
They won.
They understand the message that brought them to victory.
And they're saying, you gotta talk about what people want in this country.
I think everybody would be willing to accept—maybe not everybody.
I gotta say, it's mostly moderates and conservatives who would be willing to accept, but liberals too, like some liberals.
There's an element of the left that wouldn't accept any victory, any good for this country if it meant Trump won.
Think about Bill Maher saying, bring on the recession.
Bill Maher actually entertained the idea.
It would be better for this country to fail and for people to suffer, if that meant Trump wasn't president, than to have Trump president with a prosperous nation.
To me, that's crazy.
It's absolutely crazy.
Listen, if Trump was the worst-charactered individual in the country, and everything was good, no war, better economy, well then we're better off, aren't we?
And you can ask for someone better.
That's how I view it.
I'm asking for someone better.
I'm pointing out that Trump's character and foreign policy, I've been critical of it.
It's been bad.
He's done some good things.
The country is doing well.
I can't argue with that.
And I think you're insane if you do.
Instead, we have people who are willing to just burn it down if it means they win.
That, to me, is scary.
So here's what I'll say.
Mostly like centrists, leading center-left to conservative, you know, you've got 60%, 70% of this country saying, you know what, fine.
If Trump wins, fine.
So long as things are better, I'm willing to accept.
A boorish man, a bigot, whatever.
Whatever you want to call him.
I'm not saying he's ill.
I'm saying call him whatever you want.
If the country is doing well, I will accept that and say fine.
I'm not going to argue with people's lives being better, with their jobs coming back, with their kids going to school.
But there are people who will.
So, to get to my point, good on the Democrats for pointing this out.
Now, I'm going to jump ahead because I want to get to some of the key points that I want to bring up in talking about woke Twitteratiism, fake news, and why Trump does what he does.
A recent poll by a leading centrist think tank found that less than 3 in 10 Democratic primary voters support abolishing ICE.
Listen, this is just the Democrats.
It's not the conservatives.
It's not the moderates.
Democratic primary voters Around 30% support abolishing ICE.
That's just your primary base.
So this even refutes the idea the Democrats need the woke left.
Listen, the Democratic debates show us how in the primary they're desperately trying to attract the activist base to win.
But even the activist base only makes up 30% of primary voters, not general Americans.
But 64% of those who tweet at least once a day do support abolishing ICE.
The alarm for Democrats is that the gulf between those presidential primary voters and the general public is quite deep, said Lynnae Erickson, senior vice president for social policy and politics at The Third Way.
Listen, Twitter is not real life.
It really isn't.
There are certainly things we can call out, things that are bad, from wokeness to whatever political faction find, call it the bad stuff.
But when even the primary voters don't agree with abolishing ICE, and they come out and say they're for it or support it or some of these other wack-a-loon positions, it's just Twitter driving you insane.
If it sounds like Donald Trump is the only one who cares about keeping our country safe, that's bad politics by Democrats, Erickson said.
What voters want to know is that Democrats also care about knowing who is coming into our country and following the laws and making sure it's not a free-for-all.
But that part is much more difficult in a Democratic primary.
Completely agree.
The Democrats just are off-message.
And Trump, listen, there are some pros and cons to Trump's strategy.
There may be people who say, Trump is such a mean guy, I'm gonna vote against him just because he doesn't deserve to win.
Even if it means watching the country burn.
Like Bill Maher said, he wants that recession if it means getting rid of Trump.
To me, that's nuts.
Okay?
Trump can be mean and nasty all day, and I don't care if it means people are living better lives.
That's the goal, right?
So, I can accept there's a guy I don't like who's in office because the economy is doing great.
Why call for impeachment over nonsense because you lost?
But here's the thing.
Let's talk about some other issues I'm not happy with.
I absolutely, within every cell in my body, oppose the death penalty, even for the most nightmarish and horrifying people.
I do.
But I recognize Trump is taking action based on what the people want.
In this story from June 11th of last year, public support for the death penalty ticks up.
I don't believe my morals trump yours.
I don't know what the right thing to do is.
I personally think it's wrong to kill someone when you've already restrained and they're no longer a threat.
I also understand it's very expensive to keep them locked up, but I don't know the right answer.
I just don't like the idea of the state killing people.
I don't know.
I don't.
But I can recognize the majority, according to Pew, 54% support this and only 39% oppose it.
So you have a majority who are for it, and then you have a decent amount who don't know, and 39% who oppose.
While I can respect those who support and oppose it, I personally oppose it.
I know why Trump is doing it.
He can see that support for it is going up.
So this is why Trump takes action.
It was said to me recently, Trump just wants to be loved.
Right?
He puts his name on buildings.
He wants to be on TV.
He wants to be Trump.
He wants his name in lights.
He wants people to love and respect him.
And I was talking to someone recently who said if the left just played flattery to Trump, he'd be willing to work with them on a ton of things.
He'd give them a ton of what they wanted if it meant they were giving him respect.
They don't.
So Trump says, I'll play to my base because they always give me the love I want.
I believe that's true.
I believe Trump is the kind of person who wants everyone just to know and love and respect him.
And that means he will take action based on what he thinks will generate the most love and respect.
So here's the point.
You can say Trump says things that are mean and disgusting and he tweets these things, yes.
But look at his support base.
He knows he's lost the media so he doesn't care anymore.
He knows he can play up these things on Twitter because were his tweets about Baltimore racist?
They weren't!
It's crazy to me.
Like, coming from, I'm gonna say it, coming from the second generation of mixed-race families from the South Side of Chicago in one of the most racially diverse parts of the city and the country, I don't see it.
And you know what?
You can accuse me of being ignorant.
Fine.
You have to explain it to me.
But I don't see it.
And Trump knows that.
He knows the woke Twitterati are nuts.
He knows the political sphere is nuts.
Look at this poll, I'm telling you again.
64% of those who tweet it once a day believe in abolishing ICE.
But not even the majority of Democratic primary voters agree with it.
Those are the Democrat activists.
They don't even agree with you.
So were Trump's tweets racist?
I don't see it.
I just see the media going nuts.
So when Trump moves to bring me the death penalty, while I disagree with it, I get it.
I am in the minority on this one.
I don't know how to respond to that other than to voice my dissent and vote.
But the majority is for it.
And it's not my decision to impose my morality on other people.
But let's move on.
Someone said to me something interesting.
I tweeted about this.
I said, 2020 Dems need those activist votes in the primary, but these far-left extremist positions will make them unable to win in general.
This person responded, because milquetoast centrism did so well in 2016.
Ah, what a foolish, foolish mistake.
Frankie here, Amadeus2123, excellent tweet by the way, saying, Hillary was center left, which is why she won the popular vote.
It's fascinating to me people think going further left will get you more votes, it will not.
And not only that, the places Trump won are not far left areas, they are moderate areas.
The swing states flicker between left and right, they are not far left, they are in the middle.
The Democrats have lost if they think far-left positions will win them Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio.
They don't care.
It's almost like they're sleeper Republicans trying to drive the Democrats as far left as possible by pretending to be anti-fun the far left.
I'm kidding, by the way, but I'm making a point.
These people don't realize Hillary Clinton won the majority.
Because she was center-left.
But she was arrogant.
She was a corporate elitist.
She wasn't milquetoast-centrism.
She was everything I think is wrong with the government and would refuse to vote for.
I wanted to vote for Bernie.
And I know a lot of people who are Bernie or bust.
I can understand it, absolutely.
Trump and Bernie had a lot in common.
A lot in common doesn't mean everything in common.
But on free trade, on borders, they did.
And that meant a lot to the working class in this country.
Bernie has now become an establishment candidate.
I can't support that, right?
I disagree with that.
The point is, moderate left-wing policy would have won.
But Hillary Clinton was an arrogant corporate war hawk, so she did not have what she needed.
More importantly, though, outside of that, she didn't campaign where she needed to, and Trump played strategically and won based on those reasons.
But to stress, even with Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate, she still got the majority, the popular vote.
That's not what you need to win, but it does show more people in this country were willing to go that direction.
It could be, however, A lot of Republicans in the blue states just don't vote.
And I think that's fair to point out as well.
And because the blue districts are condensed in cities, I think you're going to find way more Republican voters in blue states than you will find liberal voters in red states.
Take it for what it is.
I think, all in all, Trump would have beat Hillary if she did play a similar strategy Trump knew he was doing.
But let's move on.
I've got a few things I want to address.
We'll be a little bit long on this video.
Politico says Trump's good week.
For a few days at least, the president was on top of the world.
Yes, because they're talking about the distractions, they're talking about impeachment, the Mueller hearing.
This is Politico, okay?
Politico is kind of like a moderate political website.
It's not like, you know, they're pro-Trump or anything.
I wanted to point this out.
They do go on to say that Trump is facing challenges, okay?
They say the president slated to travel to Cincinnati next week for a rally.
The latest major poll of Ohio voters shows him trailing I don't trust the polls.
But I'm just pointing out, don't let arrogance get in your way because that's a big mistake anyone could make.
If they think Trump's got it in the bag, don't be surprised when you lose.
I think Trump is slated to win.
I do.
I really do.
But hey man, I'm not a mastermind.
I'm not a genius.
I don't know everything.
I can just see what I see in the media.
Now let's talk a little bit about Baltimore real quick.
The Daily Wire publishes, Trump called racist for saying Baltimore is rat infested, but PBS aired documentary confirming Trump's comments.
And I read through the story, and I talked about how there's a double standard in the media.
They let Bernie say, like, Bernie says all these things, no one cares.
Trump says it, now he's racist.
I just don't understand.
PBS ran a documentary where you heard the mayor, I believe it was in this documentary, saying you can smell the rats.
There are videos from local residents saying Trump is right.
Well, what do you want me to do?
Okay, Trump called it out.
My response would be, if it were Chicago like I mentioned earlier, thank you for highlighting the problems my city faces and maybe now with the attention we can get something done to solve it.
Check out this story.
I want to point out these two things that I think shows how the media is harming the Democrats.
BuzzFeed News.
Trump's latest racist comments included calling a majority black area a disgusting rat and rodent infested mess.
The president's own housing secretary, Ben Carson, lives in the district.
BuzzFeed News writes, President Donald Trump went on another racist rant this weekend.
What did he say?
He said it was a disgusting rat and rodent infested mess.
Where no human being would want to live.
Hyperbolic.
Aggressive.
Bombastic.
Not— I would say the second part of that, I wouldn't call correct.
I'd say it's an opinion.
But rat-infested?
It is.
There's documentaries about it.
I don't understand why they're now saying it's wrong for him to point out what— For all you know, Trump watched PBS.
And then called it out.
And now he's a bad man for it.
This is what brings Trump to victory.
The media is trying to get these clicks.
So they're saying all this stuff that people can't see.
I assure you, there are going to be people in middle America who are like, I don't understand.
There will be people in Baltimore saying, what do you mean he's racist?
He's calling attention to the plight.
Now, I'm sure there'll be people in Baltimore who are like, hey man, don't you talk about my city that way, right?
Sure, the point is, can you really call Trump racist for pointing to a problem highlighted for years by other outlets?
Simply because the population is a minority population, that makes no sense.
If I can't criticize my own neighborhood because it was mostly made up by minorities, what does that mean?
I don't even understand.
If I said my neighborhood on the South Side was gang infested, had rat problems, well I don't think it had rat problems, but it was gang infested and drug infested.
Is that racist for me to call up my own neighborhood in that way?
I don't understand it.
I really don't.
And then they say, if you can't see it, you must be racist.
Okay, thanks.
And it's really funny how it's always these white progressives calling me, the non-white high school dropout from this area, calling me out for that.
I just don't see it.
And that is going to be good news for the president.
It really is.
But take a look at this.
Aaron Ruppart tweeted, Trump suggests that he was a 9-11 first responder.
That's the tweet.
How many retweets?
Let's see how many retweets.
It's got 623 retweets.
He's got a ratio to us, but let's listen.
Trump suggests he was a 9-11 first responder.
What did Trump say?
I mean, he literally says the opposite of what you tweeted.
Quote, and I was down there also, but I'm not considering myself a first responder.
I'm really at a loss for words.
To me, what I heard from that was Trump saying, look I was in New York, I was down there too.
Don't call me a first responder though.
That's, he said, I don't consider myself a first responder.
I don't see it as him trying to be like I was.
He literally said he doesn't consider himself to be, but he was down there a lot.
I'm pretty sure he was down there a lot.
In fact, interestingly, I think he wrote a book about it a couple of years earlier that he wrote a, there was a passage in a book where he said that, you know, we have a serious threat from Osama bin Laden, things like this.
I don't know the full details.
The point is Trump loved New York.
You don't have to think he's a nice guy, but he did a lot of work in New York.
Of course he thought it was an issue.
I'm sure he was active.
I don't know.
It doesn't mean he's a good or bad person.
It just means he was doing it.
And then he said, I don't consider myself a first responder.
This is how the media does it.
This is how they frame it on Twitter.
When the Democrats chase after this narrative, I'm going to end with one thing.
A warning.
Arrogance.
Trump's really putting himself at risk with these strategies.
He really is.
Look, with his Baltimore tweets, he's effectively gotten the woke Twitterati to defend the rat problem.
I can't believe it.
I can't believe it.
We know Baltimore's dangerous.
We know it's got a high murder rate, it's got crime problems, it's got poverty, it's got garbage and rats.
It doesn't mean anything about the people.
It means we need to help them.
So, look, I don't know what I'll say other than, like, I have friends who live there and I'm like, yeah, let me know, man.
I'm down to help.
There's people organizing a cleanup now to go down there.
Trump supporters.
Here's the thing.
Check out this RealClearPolitics average.
In the past week or so, we have the polls going from the 21st to the 23rd, the 23rd to the 25th, the 15th to the 25th is the average.
Trump's disapproval has gone up a bit.
Here's what's interesting.
Trump's approval rating is still looking at a near 2-year high.
He's enjoying a very high point in his presidency.
Look at this.
It's higher than it's been, basically, ever.
Except for right when he got elected.
Interestingly though, even though in the past few days it's gone down around like, you know, .4 of a point, like about a half a point, not too bad for the President, it has gone up a bit from a low of 51.6, now shooting up to 53.6, so a couple points gained in the disapproval.
What that says to me is something interesting.
Trump's base mostly is unfazed.
In fact, in some of these instances, his tweets were followed by support.
When Trump tweeted this stuff about the squad and all that, his approval went up.
So it's flickered up and down just a little bit.
His disapproval, however, went up.
I'm curious as to how his disapproval goes up more than his approval rating.
It says to me that his base is unmoved by the fake news and the smears, and there are people now who are uninitiated who might not like him.
So this is the warning.
If Trump activates moderates to vote against him, people who normally don't pay attention to the polls, who don't care about the polls, who don't vote, are now saying, I do not like this man.
He might wake up moderates and either make them go independent or not vote.
And he needs to get the centrists to win.
You can't make the same mistake the Democrats made.
The Democrats seem to think that going far left is going to win, but that's not how the game is played.
You need moderate voters.
If Trump loses that...
It's trouble for him, so I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
From The Guardian, politicized trans groups put children at risk, says expert.
They also make it incredibly difficult to even talk about the issue, which seems like nonsense because we need to talk about these issues.
They say simply presenting the argument is to deny the existence of trans people and things of that nature.
There are many trans people who are sane, rational individuals who know that this is ridiculous, that we can't have a conversation.
Blair White is a prominent transgender individual, conservative, and talks about some of these things, and there are many LGBTQ people who also understand this, but I think it is fair to point out This is true, at least from what I've seen.
Now, keeping in mind from the stories I've read, from what I've tracked, it does seem like there are politicized trans groups that do put children at risk for a variety of reasons.
In this story, it says counselors and other mental health providers fear being labeled transphobic.
Now you can call me any name you want, I don't care.
But can you get me fired?
Fortunately for someone like me, the answer is mostly no.
However, politicized trans groups have gotten rule changes implemented on major tech platforms, making it impossible to have a conversation.
This results in a certain individual, who will remain nameless, filing human rights complaints against females who refuse to wax male genitalia.
This person also got several high-profile individuals banned from Twitter for misgendering.
If somebody wants to expr- So here's one important thing I will say in terms of the politicization of this.
I've got a bunch of things I want to go through in terms of trans kids.
You have these platforms that are telling you you have to speak a certain way or else.
Now look, it's one thing for Twitter to say you can't say X, but what about when they say you have to say X?
What about when the law says you have to speak?
It's a really interesting thing that I was recently asking a lawyer friend about.
How is it that the government Can compel a business to speak?
It's interesting.
Well, it's got precedent in civil rights law discrimination.
But we're getting into really murky and dangerous territory because politics is trumping science and it's, in my opinion, very, very dangerous.
The trans individuals in the world are a very, very small percentage of the overall population.
Very small.
Less than 1%.
The argument presented by the intersectional left, by the political trans community, is that There would be a higher number of trans individuals if they felt safe coming out.
And now that there's more acceptance, you're seeing the number go up.
While many other people argue, it's called rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
That social media is driving this.
Kids don't know what they really want.
I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I have all the answers.
I think there's a compelling argument for both.
There's probably a lot of people who their whole lives have been trans and are terrified of coming out because of the implications and what it'll do to their lives.
Admittedly though, I do think there is a strong probability a lot of young people, at least according to the science, are just believing what they're being told. There's a lot
of science, at least some science, that says when children are allowed, even if they express
gender dysphoric ideas, once they go through puberty, it typically goes away. Now,
the big challenge here is how do you know? How do you know the child is actually
trans or just talking about what they heard on the internet or saw on TV? And if you don't help
that individual before puberty, it can and suck for the rest of their lives.
But what if they're not actually trans and then you damage their bodies and it sucks for the rest of their lives?
This is where puberty blockers come in.
Because you have these two different overarching ideologies.
Leave the kids alone, let them develop.
The trans community in the left then saying, yeah, but what if they really are trans?
So now they talk about doing puberty blockers.
So I'm not going to go through each and every one of these stories.
I just want to highlight these and kind of talk about the issue for a little bit.
In this story, they talk about Marcus Evans, a psychotherapist and ex-governor of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, whose Gender Identity Development Service is the only NHS clinic to provide gender counseling and transitioning, said many experts were living in fear of being labeled transphobic, which was having an impact on their objectivity.
The main point, no matter what you believe, if you think kids should be put on puberty blockers and parents should listen to them, or you think kids should be made to develop, the point is, the political trans community has a major advantage in this argument because they're getting people banned from social media and they're making it impossible to talk about this.
Of course, I am not saying every single trans person, right?
There are several individuals who are trans, who are prominent, and who speak up against the overt politicizing of this
stuff and challenge some of the dangers of forcing the ideology without the science to back it up.
But in the end, when you see people like Megan Murphy banned, whether you agree with her
or not, we need to have a conversation about this.
When you see Lindsey Shepard getting banned for, you know, so basically the Lindsey Shepard scenario is a trans person insulted the, I don't know, the genetic formation of Lindsey, so she insulted back, but she got banned.
This shows you the power disparity.
Now, Jack Dorsey said to me, we did studies and found the suicide rate is really high and we're trying to stop that.
And I said, but what gives you the right to determine someone's, you know, one group is worthy of protection and another group isn't, essentially?
Why can a trans person belittle and insult someone's genetic abnormality, and when they push back, The person who was insulted in the first place gets banned.
You're creating specialized classes of people who have the right to insult and degrade and belittle and spread this idea to kids, which could be dangerous.
We need to know the science.
Or at the very least, who prevent the science talk from happening.
Why create that specialized protection?
And then, of course, you see the left saying, oh, Tim is arguing for the right of people to be transphobes.
No, get out of here.
I don't even care.
Call me whatever you want.
Okay?
I'm trying to figure out how we protect kids to make sure, if they are trans, they get the treatment they need, and if they're not, they're not being subjected to medical experimentation.
And I do mean that.
Because, first, we have this story.
We have another story.
Parents reveal both of their children are transgender after they decided to transition aged 5 and 7 and insist they're happier than ever.
Maybe they are.
But the likelihood that, you know, we're seeing these families where all of their kids are trans, where the parents are LGBT, it's a statistical anomaly.
Of course, there's an argument that because of acceptance, people now are willing to come out, and so these things do exist, of course.
I'm not gonna say they don't.
And people have a right to affirm themselves.
The challenge comes with how do we deal with kids?
But the point is, we have this story from back in March.
NHS Transgender Clinic accused of covering up negative impacts of puberty blockers on children by Oxford Professor.
And this is related to the initial story.
It's the same, you know, Child Identity Development Service.
It's the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
So there was actually a story where they were accused of covering up the negative impacts.
There's also been studies about rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
Where they believe social media was pressuring mostly young girls to transition, and it was resulting, and it was presumably not correct.
They were saying that these kids aren't really trans, they're just trying to fit in and it's a fad.
But these studies got taken down.
Which is where it gets scary for me.
You know, for the longest time when it comes to the climate change argument, you had accusations that big corporations and the right were fueling and funding research and trying to stop research because it could be bad for their industry.
That's just as bad.
Science needs to do what science does.
It's not about what's morally right or wrong.
For the most part, we have moral and ethical limits on what science can do.
We're not going to do overt human experimentation.
And that's why this is getting so tricky.
If we're hearing now that there are negative impacts of puberty blockers, if we're hearing now that these services, these, you know, counselors and mental health providers can't actually do the right thing because of politics, we are going to end up with many, many people in 10-20 years who are upset and angry at being permanently altered by chemicals at a young age when they didn't know better because you had political groups pushing ideology instead of science.
So here's one thing I want to show.
We have this story, and this may be the- I have two stories, so this is the right one.
Now this is just one individual, but this is from November 14th, 2017.
There's a lot of stories like this, and I'm just showing you this one, so take it with a grain of salt.
But I want to point out something interesting.
We've seen the story, and actually I will read through this a little bit next, but I want to just highlight this before I move forward.
This is from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, the ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Okay, this is a government website.
And they say, they talk about gender dysphoria, they talk about a young individual who had presenting female behavior since around three years old, and then when they tried putting the child into therapy to make the child present more male and act like a boy, didn't work, and eventually decided to do puberty blockers.
The interesting thing Is that it seems like the puberty blockers caused damage to the development of brain matter and lowered IQ.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't have done this.
It's not my family.
I'm not here to tell you what is morally just and ethical.
It's for you to decide.
But I hope this information helps you come to an understanding of what's happening.
At least in this one circumstance.
And again, it is one circumstance.
You need to do this thousands of times to know what is or isn't.
And it becomes... Here's the thing I need to say, man.
We need more data.
The problem is, people are just doing this.
And I guess there's no real way to truly understand the data unless it's being done.
But I can't necessarily agree with all of these kids being subjected to treatments when they don't know the long-term effects.
But then again, what do you do?
It's akin to human experimentation, in a sense.
If we don't know what's gonna happen to these kids, we're making assumptions about what will happen.
That's us collecting data on children being put on these drugs, and it's kind of scary, if you ask me.
But they basically go in and say this.
According to the results obtained through the cognitive evaluations, the patient presented a decrease in their overall intellectual performance after the onset of pubertal block, pointing to immaturity in her cognitive development, noting that the her is actually a biological male.
So let's read this a little bit here.
And just figure out, I'm not going to read too much of this.
They say, an Oxford University professor has accused the NHS's only specialized clinic for transgender children of suppressing negative results while undertaking experimental treatment on adolescents.
Dr. Michael Biggs, an associate professor at Oxford's Department of Sociology, claims the Gender Identity Development Service has been giving puberty blocker hormones to children without robust evidence as to the long-term effects.
It comes after the governor of the clinic based in London with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust resigned last month in protest at its blinkered response to doctors who had raised the alarm about woefully inadequate care.
There is also another center in Leeds.
Declaring the trial a success, the clinic has continued to treat over a thousand children with the hormones, but Dr. Briggs' research suggests that after a year of treatment, a significant increase was found in patients who had been born female, self-reporting to staff that they deliberately try to hurt or kill themselves.
Parents also reported a significant increase in behavioral and emotional problems, and a significant decrease in physical well-being in children born female, he claims.
According to his research, there was no positive impact on the experience of gender dysphoria, the diagnosis given to those who are described as feeling intensely uncomfortable with their biological sex.
It sounds like, when you actually looked at the science, these kids weren't better off in the long run.
And this guy's calling it experimentation.
Well, now we have... I guess this is a different guy.
Marcus Evans is a different person, I believe, right?
Yes, it's a different person now saying that political groups are putting these kids at risk because they don't care about the science, they care about winning.
Or perhaps...
You have people who are already depressed.
Perhaps you have people who don't understand why they feel unwell being told they're gender dysphoric when they may not be, when it might be something else.
There have been stories about this, and it's very contentious.
It's a very difficult subject to approach because of the politics of it.
I'm sure I'm going to get flagged for even talking about it.
It's that difficult to do, but I'm going to talk about it because I think it's important.
But you have people who have detransitioned, and said it was wrong, and they were confused, and they were pressured by internet communities, they were pressured by social media, and you have people who say that's few and far between, and we need to protect trans individuals.
But I will say this.
There is... It's extremely difficult to figure out what to do.
If you take someone who is experiencing a bunch of symptoms, and then you say, yep, there you go, you're a gender dysphoric, and it may be something else, you could end up hurting these kids for their entire lives.
In a quote from Evans, he said, I believe the trans political agenda has encroached on the clinical environment surrounding and within the Gender Identity Development Service.
Young people need an independent clinical service that has the long-term interests of the patient at heart.
To some extent, this requires a capacity to stand up to pressure coming from various sources.
From the young person, their family, peer groups, online, and social networking pressures, and from highly politicized pro-trans groups.
I'm not gonna, uh, they talk about one individual, Dagny, who says that they were very influenced
by Tumblr.
I'm working on a report.
I believe that social media is creating bubbles where people rile each other up, share more
and more outrageous content, and then push ideology, and it's different based on platform.
Tumblr is very, very much so pro-trans, and I think it may be a social manipulation as opposed to an actual experience.
The unfortunate thing is there's real trans people now who are going to be hurt by this.
So, honestly, I don't know what the solution is other than I think social media in whole, outside of any of this argument, is just making people go nuts.
In the end, the main point I want to make here, there is data to suggest pubertal blockers are bad for young people.
There is data to suggest that without treatment, many of these kids overcome these initial feelings.
What's the solution?
I honestly don't know.
But I find it very disconcerting that we're hearing more about this.
We're seeing studies taken down.
We're seeing people say that the political trans group is essentially shutting down the science and putting kids at risk.
And then we're hearing about these really anomalous situations where parents are finding all of their kids to be trans It may be media.
It may be rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
So, in no way am I trying to say in any way to disrespect the trans community or anything like that.
Simply put, how do we protect kids if they are and aren't trans?
If we put kids who aren't trans on drugs and hormones that damages their brain development because we want them to be safe, well, that's not helping the kid.
When I was little, when I was a little kid, I said I wanted to be a rock to my family.
Like, I don't have a concept of what was and what wasn't.
It's just, you're young, and it's not until around 24 years old your brain is fully developed.
Kids say they want to be a bunch of crazy things.
Kids want to pretend to be animals.
So, how do we know we're actually helping or hurting?
I honestly don't have the answers.
But I do know, what I do know is the political aspect of this is extremely damaging.
It's damaging to the science, it's damaging to the kids, and it's dominating social media.
If we can't talk about it and solve the problems, we never will.
And we're gonna end up, I'm genuinely concerned, we will end up with a large portion of the next generation.
Just feeling angry?
Like, manipulated?
Permanently damaged?
I mean, if brain matter is decreased, okay?
And I'm not an expert, I'm not a scientist, I'm just saying.
This is why the conversation needs to happen.
So that we can protect kids, but... It's not going to, so long as social media networks outright ban any conversation.
I think YouTube is the better of the two, but I've had posts removed from Facebook.
And people have been banned from Twitter for even daring talk about this, but the stories keep popping up.
Here you go.
The Guardian.
They're talking about it, okay?
We've got this story from The Telegraph about potential cover-ups.
We've got scientific research saying brain matter decrease.
immaturity and cognitive development. We are going to have, even if it's the right thing to do, fine,
know this. There is data to suggest, maybe it's wrong, maybe it's just one anomalous,
but seriously consider it, that even if someone does take pubertal blockers,
they will be left behind compared to their peers and at a massive cognitive disadvantage.
And I find that very worrisome.
So you know what?
I don't have all the answers.
But I know I'm going to get flack for even talking about it.
So I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
And next segment will be at 1pm on this channel.
And I will see you all then.
I absolutely despise the phrase grifter.
We hear it all the time on Twitter and the culture war.
They'll say this person's a grifter and this person's a grifter.
If you're not familiar with what this means, it's somebody who pretends to hold political opinions in exchange for money.
There are people on the left and the right who are grifters.
Naturally, I can point to many people on the left who are grifters more so than I can on the right.
But I assure you, there will be people on the left who would say the inverse, which is why I hate the term.
I look at some people and I'm like, there's no way they believe what they're saying.
That's BS.
And they say the same thing about me.
And how do you figure out who's right or who's wrong?
It's just about who you trust.
So I try to do a good job of using verified sources and trying to be intellectually honest in representing the opinions of various groups, but you know what?
Because of that, there are some people who think I'm not being honest because there are secret motives behind some groups.
What are you gonna do about it?
Here's the thing.
We have this story here from The Daily Caller.
$12,000 a day.
How white liberals profit from pushing white privilege.
It's actually $12,000 for two hours.
I kid you not.
They said in a day, yes, but they go on to say this woman did a lecture for two hours on privilege and social justice and got paid $12,000.
Here's the thing, though.
I don't like the accusations of grifting, although it is a lucrative industry.
I want to break down what's happening and what I see, and there's pros and there's cons, and I'll even be critical of myself in this capacity.
But, I think it's crazy when you hear someone say, like, a lot of people will accuse Candace Owens of being a grifter, and I definitely think Candace Owens falls into that more than any other person, but it's insane for you to think she isn't actually a true believer.
Now, the reason I say, you know, potentially, is because she did, like, the American flag thing, you know, like, you can't burn the flag, and then a lot of people were like, I thought you were just calling out censorship.
So that's why I think there's some criticism there.
But the main point is, and look, don't get me wrong, there's many, many people on the left.
I'm highlighting this as a specific example because she was accused of grifting because of that.
But I still think that's decently unfair.
Because how do you know she's not a true believer?
How do you know she's not just a die-hard believe-whatever-Trump-says?
It's crazy to me to think that the first place you go to is, you can't possibly believe the American flag should be protected by, you know, No, I literally believe there's a ton of people who are like, the flag should be exempt from, you know, expression and speech and all this stuff, and I've heard the arguments.
And I believe they're being honest.
I don't think people are making up that they believe the flag shouldn't be destroyed or desecrated.
And this is true for people on the left, too.
There are a lot of people on the left I've seen who push this stuff, and I'm like, I really want to say they're grifters, but You just... You can't, man.
They probably believe... They believe their own BS.
Like, that's... What are you gonna do?
More importantly...
If you go around accusing someone of just doing it for money, it's an ad hominem.
You're not challenging the idea, and you're not advancing the argument, and you're not going to win.
It's a cheap tactic.
So let's read this story from The Daily Caller.
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.
Of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video if you think it's important, but I will stress, by all means, don't support me at all.
I think it's rather hilarious that I'm talking about the idea of grifting and making money and then immediately go to, and you can give me money too!
So feel free not to.
I do this because I have ideas I want to express, ideas I want to talk about.
I'm an individual.
What we do over at Subverse, I always point behind me because it's in the other office down the hall, is completely news, straightforward, it's more expensive, it's less lucrative.
and it's not about making money. These channels where I produce this stuff, it's really just like
I see an article, I think it's important, I see a tweet, I think it's important, and I want to
talk about it. So I actually want to push back on this article a little bit. While it absolutely is
lucrative to push social justice ideology at college campuses, colleges pay a lot.
The bigger issue we're seeing here... Let's read a little bit more.
But the bigger issue here is that colleges are way too expensive, are manipulating young people, propagating this weird nonsense, but overpaying for it.
It's crazy how much they pay people.
It's nuts.
The Daily Caller writes, White liberal academics can earn more in a day lecturing
about their own white privilege than the median black household makes in three months,
public records obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation and U.S. Census data show.
Left-wing academic Robin DiAngelo is renowned in social justice circles for crafting the
white privilege checklist and coining the term white fragility.
Listening to her speak comes at a steep price.
D'Angelo, who is white, charged the University of Kentucky $12,000, not counting travel expenses, housing accommodations, and meals, for a two-hour racial justice keynote and breakout session in March, according to a copy of the speaking contract obtained by the DCNF through public records requests.
She also goes on to say if phone calls are deemed necessary, it's 320 bucks an hour.
Supply and demand, baby.
Welcome to capitalism.
She's not doing anything wrong by expressing her ideas in exchange for the market rate.
I disagree with her ideas.
I believe her ideas are wrong, but I don't think she's a grifter.
I think she's a true believer.
I believe 99% of people are true believers.
I can point to a few people left and right who are worthy of criticism for questionable principles, but that doesn't mean even in that capacity it's hard to say they're not true believers.
What we really see here Over the past 10 years, left-wing identitarianism has become extremely popular and acceptable in the mainstream, partly because of universities, but also because of the media.
Think about this, and I'm currently working on this report, which I've mentioned.
You have two articles.
One article says police brutality.
Another article says trans black lesbians are being, you know, attacked by police.
This is all about Black Lives Matter.
Those stories might be the same thing, but one stuffed with keywords.
All those different keywords come together and are more likely to get propped up by algorithms because they're more prominent keywords.
I am of the opinion, and this is being explored, if it's true, you know, we'll publish it, that In all of these different articles that were being propped up by Facebook from these various outlets, intersectionality was bound to win because it combines all of the keywords into one article.
And there you have it, left-wing identitarianism.
Now, also interestingly, white identitarianism, the alt-right, is horribly unacceptable.
In my opinion, so is left-wing identitarianism.
We should treat people based on the content of the character, not the color of their skin.
We should be judging people for who they are, not what they are.
We can still respect, to a certain degree, identity politics and the importance of it, like the civil rights movement, but to have this overarching segregation being pushed by this idea, and to target people based on their race, saying that their character comes from their race, is entirely wrong, in my opinion.
It's overtly racist.
However, the mainstream left finds it acceptable, and thus, because it's in high demand, because these articles do really, really well, Identity grifting, as Lindsay Shepard would call it, I guess.
Because it does so well, we can see that these people can charge ridiculous amounts of money to go and speak about it.
Here's the thing.
There are certainly people who believe in transpecism, who believe they were born as the wrong animal, and some people believe they're mythical creatures in the wrong universe.
I kid you not.
Otherkin or whatever.
They're not speaking at universities for exorbitant fees.
So the issue is, I'm not trying to say that I guess the Daily Caller News Foundation is acting like they're grifting, necessarily.
They're saying it's profitable, sure.
But it's just the market.
There is hot demand for this kind of stuff.
You know, there are many feminist speakers, big YouTubers, who went on tour speaking about these ideas because young people liked it.
It's a combination of algorithmic pressure.
These different keywords, outrage, justice, these things get shares.
And then when a million people are familiar with it, and someone says, hey, how about Robin DiAngelo?
Then all of a sudden, everyone's like, I've heard of her.
Okay, yeah, great.
Ooh, she can talk about privilege and fragility.
And then she does.
And she gets paid a lot of money for it because of demand.
That's capitalism.
And hey, it's also free speech.
So there certainly is money to be made, but you can't act like, I don't know, people are just doing it for money.
Of course she's going to take whatever she can get, right?
Who wouldn't?
Capitalism.
Although I do think it's funny that a lot of this narrative on the left with left-wing identitarianism does still align with socialism.
And you'd think she'd give that money up to the less privileged.
She would recognize her privilege and say, I'm going to take this money and then donate it.
Maybe she did, I don't know.
Let's read a little bit on.
They say, D'Angelo's fee for the event was more than a quarter of the annual median income for black families, which is just over $40,000 according to U.S.
Census data.
The description for the two-hour event said D'Angelo would be talking about her book, White Fragility.
Why is it so hard for white people to talk about racism?
It's actually really easy considering most progressives tend to be wealthy white people.
So, I think your assumption is wrong.
Unless you're talking about poor people, but yeah.
I think then the actual argument is poor white people are confused as to why you're calling them privileged when they actually live with lower quality of life than urban everyone, which includes white people too.
Her website defines white fragility as a state in which even a minimal challenge to the white position becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive responses.
These responses function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and maintain white control.
Truly, a delusional paranoid state.
No, I do mean that.
It's paranoid delusions.
Like, there was a quote I saw, I think it was on Twitter, they said, I can't remember where this is from.
When a man of the club is trying to pressure a woman into, you know, hooking up, he's not doing it to reinforce the patriarchy.
He just wants to get laid.
And that's why I think it's truly paranoid delusions.
Do you know what targeted individuals are?
I think I'm getting this right.
There are people who really believe the government is out to get them.
And they constantly believe, like, that van over there must be someone targeting them.
It's like, dude, you're making this up.
It's in your head.
It's not real.
They're doing the same thing.
White privilege.
Patriarchy.
These things are rooted in simple concepts, but have become psychotic and insane.
So, white privilege.
I understand the concept, and to an extent, it makes sense.
What it's really called is in-group majority privilege.
If you are in an area Where the majority is Asian, and you are Asian, congratulations!
There is an in-group bias among all races, except for white liberals.
It's ridiculous.
So they truly do live in this paranoid, delusional state where they believe everything being done and every challenge and every principled opposition is actually just the fear of whiteness breaking down.
And it just makes no sense.
The idea of whiteness doesn't even exist to most white people.
So anyway, I don't want to get into that.
I wanted to basically go over the idea of grifting.
Um, and I just basically state, listen.
Here's the real problem.
Not that she's making this money.
It's because, well, technically.
The problem isn't her ideas.
Although her ideas are problematic.
The problem is universities pay ridiculous amounts of money to hear people come talk about things.
And it's bad for college students.
It's a waste of money.
It's jacking up tuition rates.
It contributes to all of these problems.
And then you do end up with people who have bad ideas living very exorbitant lives.
So, in the end, here's what I try to do.
I try to be fair, okay?
I won't call someone a grifter because they call me a grifter.
And I'm like, well, I know I'm not.
I'm just a dude talking about what he thinks and looking at various sources.
I try to have my sources be balanced and fact-checked.
When I look at stories from the Daily Caller or other outlets, I try to actually look at their source material.
In this instance, because I'm slightly critical of how they're framing this, I will straight use the Daily Caller.
Oftentimes, I try to find the source to avoid a biased approach, and I've recently called it out.
There's a story not too long ago about a woman who went to Somalia, and it was framed by Paul Joseph Watson and Pluralist as a journalist who went to Ilhan Omar's home country, you know, ended up getting killed.
And then my response was, well, looking at the source of the story, it turns out the woman was born in Somalia, and, you know, she was a journalist, so there is some merit to the idea she wanted to go to Somalia and show the beauty, but it's not, you know, you gotta be careful about framing.
And I try to make sure I'm doing a good job.
And of course, they will then say I'm a grifter for even entertaining a concept at all.
In which case, I think the argument is a waste of time.
Complete waste of time.
But you know what?
I gotta say, who ends up saying who is a grifter?
It tends to be a left-wing argument.
Look, you can call me biased, whatever you want.
I find that the left is loaded with ad hominems and the right is somewhat.
I've noticed that a lot of the left-wing commentators today are super focused on individuals instead of ideas.
I'm not focusing entirely on Robyn D'Angelo, I'm focusing this video on the concept of grifting and making money at universities.
She's just an ancillary character in the concept.
But look at the progressives online.
There are some of them who talk about ideas, but I can't help but notice many of them just talk about people.
Now, of course, there are anti-SJW types and conservatives who just talk about people, too, but I don't find them to be that prominent.
I'm specifically referring to high-profile progressive YouTubers with hundreds of thousands of subs who are obsessed with Dave Rubin.
I don't care.
I don't care.
Talk about the ideas, and they make fun of him as a person.
Not interested.
I can throw some shade towards anti-ICWs for doing the same thing too, but it's not... It was, you know, maybe...
Some of these people still exist, for sure, criticizing individuals.
And I will say, in the past, they did more so.
But where I'm at today, when I go on Twitter, I follow a wide range of people.
I see more ad hominem, more attacks of character from the left than I do from the right.
Of course, it exists on both sides.
But the point is, the left is calling the right an independence and centrist grifter, saying we're lying.
They say that me and Dave Rubin are lying about what we think.
No, we just are kind of focused on the ideas we think are important.
And more importantly, my main channel is focused on, like, modern politics for 2020 coming up.
So, yeah, I'm gonna be talking about what these centrist websites are talking about.
And they don't like that I, as an individual, find it important to talk about the failures of the Democrats.
Well, that's what I like talking about.
That's what I think is important and worrisome.
I'm sure Robin DiAngelo believes everything she says.
I'm sure she thinks the most important thing.
I think she's wrong.
She thinks I'm wrong.
Congratulations!
Let's argue the ideas and keep it about the ideas.
While I will point out $12,000 a day is insane!
Welcome to capitalism, because it's worth it to these people.
The culture war is valuable to everyone.
You know, they come out with these ideas, people push back, and then people fund both sides.
What are you gonna do?
I'm not gonna blame her for having support.
Of course she does.
Just means you gotta really do your best to be honest, have integrity, target the ideas, and try and win people over with your ideas if you believe you're right.
Same goes for anybody.
I'll leave it there.
I hope you're ready for a contentious and offensive segment on children and family.
This story from the Daily Mail.
Sex and the City writer Candace Bushnell, 60, admits she regrets choosing a career over having children, and she is now truly alone.
Candice Bushel 60 says she regrets that.
Sex in the City creator said after not having children, she is now truly alone.
The TV series is based on a writer who chooses independence over motherhood.
Interesting.
It's kind of about her.
Boy, is there a lot here to go through.
Should people have kids?
Do you need kids to have a fulfilling life?
And what is the deal between progressive and traditional?
Oh man.
Here's the thing.
I will take the liberal position.
And I mean, like, the literal definition of the word, not left-leaning.
If you want to have kids, have them.
If you don't, don't.
But don't ignore the science, and don't ignore your elders.
The difficult thing here is that most people before us, as millennials, had kids.
My parents had kids years before, and they were in their 20s.
I do believe it has something to do with feminism.
It has something to do with cultural shifts.
But here's the thing.
Whether or not someone knows they should have kids is difficult because everyone's had kids.
How many people can you ask who didn't have kids if they regret it?
And then you'll never really be able to know for sure until you decide to take that step in your life.
Now, there are a lot of problems going on.
I don't necessarily want to talk about this.
I think we got the gist of the story.
I have a lot I want to say.
We'll read a little bit at the beginning, because they do go into a lot about her life, but I want to highlight just the key points they're referencing.
I don't think it's, you know, this woman's necessarily unhappy.
She's wealthy, successful, famous, but she does regret it.
I want to read a little bit about this, and I want to talk about some of the problems I see with our generation, with having families, purpose, morality, etc.
Let's start.
They say.
Her best-selling book and the racy TV series it inspired taught a generation of women they could have it all.
But Sex and the City creator Candace Bushnell, 60, has admitted that she regrets choosing a career over having children as she is now truly alone.
The TV series starred Sarah Jessica Parker as a writer in New York who famously chooses her independence over motherhood.
Ms.
Bushnell pictured divorced her husband, ballet dancer Charles Askingard, in 2012 and said it made her realize the importance of starting a family.
The former columnist, who is worth around 18 million pounds, told the Sunday Times,
When I was in my 30s and 40s, I didn't think about it. Then I got divorced and I was in my 50s.
I started to see the impact of not having children and of truly being alone. I do see
that people with children have an anchor in a way that people who have no kids don't.
Speaking to the Sunday Times magazine, Candace explained that she didn't feel like dating after
her 2012 divorce from husband of 10 years.
Moving to Connecticut after her divorce, she admitted she went without sex for five years.
It's not that long when you get to my age.
I know women who have gone longer, she said.
The writer, who has now returned to New York, lives between her partner's penthouse suite in the Upper East Side and a house in the Hamptons.
But I believe at this point she can't have kids, so she never will.
So let's talk about this.
Was it the right thing for her to do?
Does she regret it?
Well, she didn't have kids.
So there's an interesting philosophical perspective conundrum here.
Some people have kids and say they regret having kids.
But they wouldn't know what life was like without them.
Is it the right thing to regret?
I regret almost nothing.
Obviously everybody has some regrets, but I try to think ahead and plan ahead, and I listen to my elders.
I think that idea of cherishing your elders is more likely to be a conservative idea.
Because, I mean, you have a lot of rebellious punk young people, typically aligned with left-wing ideology, but there is, you know, religious tenets about respecting the elders.
I'm not saying liberals don't, I'm just saying it'll probably tend to be, based on religious reasons, being more conservative.
But you really do have to listen to those people.
And I told a story the other day about how I sort of like started listening when I was 18 because of my rejection of religion and then some interesting stories from atheists.
I'm not going to rehash the whole story.
And it made me realize I should make sure I listen to people because, you know, you ignore good advice and you could end up regretting not having kids and being truly alone.
So, This woman, Candace, contributed, in my opinion, to... It's one of the factors in why Millennials aren't having kids.
Hearing these stories, being told you can truly have it all, when you probably can't.
It's difficult.
Now, I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, right?
I take the liberal approach.
Hey, live and let live.
Do whatever you want, man, as long as you're not hurting or infringing on the rights of others.
But it's hard to know what you should or shouldn't do.
Now, that being said, I lean towards you probably should have kids.
People lack purpose.
And I really do believe, based on the advice of others and the stories I've heard, that your perspective and your mentality changes when you have kids in a way you probably couldn't have understood before.
In a way I don't understand.
But here's the thing.
I've listened to those who have had kids who have said as much.
And it makes me think there probably is something within you that changes when you do.
The important thing to realize, every single life form, I'm not talking about humans, going all the way back from your parents, your parents, parents, parents, parents, parents, et cetera, et cetera, all the way back to the tiny little single-celled microbe at the bottom of the ocean or volcanic dust, whatever, wherever it came from, reproduced.
Eventually, through evolution and a long period of time, every single life form for billions of years successfully reproduced.
You are the product.
You are a miracle in that all of those factors came together to produce something profoundly unique you.
That is why I think there is something within us where we need to have children.
I'm not saying have 50, have 2, have 1.
The point is, the life that procreates is the life that survived and brought you to this point where it's probably something that will fulfill you or provide you with a sense of belonging and purpose and security.
So speaking to this woman, I think what's really interesting is...
Where is she going to be in 10 or 20 years?
She does mention this.
She says she's going to rely on her girlfriends to take care of her.
But your girlfriends are the same age as you.
What do you... I mean... You know, one of the interesting things is that some people live for a cause.
But I think most people would find they can live for family.
But millennials today aren't having families.
So let's talk a little bit about why.
For one, like I mentioned, she contributed to this narrative that became pervasive and persistent that you can have it all.
And then you have women working in careers past their prime age, which is their 20s, into their 30s.
Now, women in their 30s can have kids.
But I did read some studies saying that the older a woman is, when she has a child, the lower lifespan that child will experience.
So by all means, you know, you can have kids at a late age.
But women do have a clock that men don't.
Whether or not you want to accept there's biological reality or not is besides the point.
I don't care what you call yourself.
You can call yourself whatever.
You can say you're a man, woman.
You can make up a gender.
I don't care.
If your biology is of a particular phenotype, you are likely going to experience similar things to that phenotype.
I think I'm using the right word.
I'm not a scientist.
But I've looked at the science of people like Deborah So and Brett Weinstein and people much smarter than me.
Who say that gender is bimodal, meaning there's an overlap.
It's not like every single woman will experience the same things, or every single man, but they tend to.
So, that being said, men, they can wait, right?
I can have kids when I'm 40.
Like, what is it?
I'm not gonna name anybody, but there's some celebrities who are really old who have, like, young kids, but they're men.
Women go through menopause.
Women have to carry the child.
And in a lot of ways, people say that is a privilege that women have that men don't.
Women get to experience creating life within you.
Men don't have that.
And depending on your perspective on the world, that's a good or bad thing.
But regardless of what your perspective is, in the workplace, if a woman is pregnant, she will be disadvantaged.
There's going to be hormonal swings.
There's going to be sickness.
And there's going to be time off, even if a short amount of time, to actually birth the child.
Beyond that, there can be parental leave, paternal or maternal.
That's a political argument.
The point is, from a biological standpoint, it is much more difficult for women to have it all than it is for men.
This is resulting in my experience of what I see.
I've told this story before, but there was one person that I was dating and wanted to have kids.
She worked too much.
We never saw each other, and then it just fell apart.
We were traveling all the time, and that was the end of it.
For me, if I'm going to have a family, it's going to have to be with someone who is passionate about having a family and not working.
Because I work all the time.
I wouldn't ask a woman who has a career to stop her career for a family.
We just break up.
Because I'm a rather liberal or rather... I'm a left-leaning individual.
So that means when I dated these women, and they were like, I don't want to stop my career, I'd say, Don't.
Be happy.
Do your thing.
And thus, no family.
No kids.
It's becoming increasingly difficult, in my experience, to find women who want to just straight up say, I would rather be at home and you pay the bills.
And I'd have no problem with that.
I'd be like, sure, whatever.
I've actually talked about an idea of like, Not necessarily paying a salary, but saying, if I'm going to have you focus on this, homemaking as your career, then you should be learning, you should be applying this as a skill and evolving that skill into some kind of practical business, and then you should be compensated for taking time out.
That's a rather liberal thing to say, I guess.
But I look at the way society is structured.
Divorce, alimony, and all these things.
And it seems like these were attempts at rectifying the problem of female independence, but making no money while raising a family, and then the man choosing to leave, or the woman choosing to leave, and then the woman has nothing.
So I try to figure out how that can be solved.
But what I want to really get to is, let me wrap this up.
Whether or not you'll regret not having kids, I honestly don't know.
Like, factually, my opinion, you probably will.
Absolutely.
And, to women, by all means, you choose how you want to live your life.
Don't take my word for it.
But I do believe that you are more likely to be happy having a family.
I look at stories like this.
It's anecdotal.
It's not definitive.
That's just my opinion.
You, by all means, call me wrong.
That's fine.
I don't know.
I'm not a woman.
But I've seen the stories, and I personally feel, as a man, I would absolutely regret not having kids.
Though, I have the luxury of waiting.
So now let's talk real quick about dating apps, because I've got to keep these segments short.
I was talking to someone recently about dating apps, and I think this also plays into another crisis of marriage and relationships, and it's that they say, okay, I'm not a scientist, women are attracted to status because when a woman gets pregnant, and we think of this from an evolutionary psychology, from that standpoint, A woman is vulnerable when she's pregnant.
A man can get many women pregnant.
Thus, a woman needs to make sure the man will stick around and defend her while she is pregnant.
She's not going to be able to run as much.
She's going to be, you know, vulnerable to protect her and the baby.
So status is important.
Can the man provide?
Men, however, just need good genetics.
So men are attracted to appearance, women to appearance, but also status.
And so this ends up presenting an interesting problem with dating apps.
Twenty years ago, before dating apps, women in college would be surrounded by men in college, and so the best available man for them would be someone in their sphere of their friend and social sphere.
Today, because of dating apps, though, a woman can log on and immediately have access to successful career men.
Right?
So guys who are in their 30s, who own a home, who might have a boat, who might have a big salary.
So younger men are having less of an opportunity to actually form relationships with women.
And this is creating a relationship problem.
We have speed dating.
We have one night stands.
Man, I remember when I was a teenager, there were a ton of one night stands, but they were still kind of frowned upon.
And now with Tinder, it's hookup culture.
It's just go out, no relationship.
This ultimately, in my opinion, benefits men.
And it's extremely damaging to women's rights, integrity, and happiness in the long run.
Again, not saying women should have to do anything.
I'm saying, With the most available and attractive men having no obligations and having a pick of the litter of the youngest, most attractive women, men have no requirement now to provide anything for these women.
So by all means, do whatever you want.
But in the long run, women do have a clock.
And I'm not saying that to be mean.
I'm saying this is just a biological fact.
Men don't.
These young guys have all the time in the world to figure out if they want to have a family, and they can sleep around with no problem.
Women don't have that same luxury.
Not a societal thing.
It's biology.
I don't know if there's something that can be done about it.
I'm just making the point.
So in the end, there is always going to be a disparity between the biological sexes.
Men can go on dating apps, sleep around, do whatever they want with no strings attached, no restrictions, and no concern.
But women who do that need to be aware that there's a certain amount of time before you're not going to be able to have kids anymore.
Think about this woman.
I'll end this here because I can't go too long.
Candace Bushnell is 60.
She, in all likelihood, can't have kids anymore.
A 60-year-old man can.
And so that luxury from dating apps and modern society is a massive benefit to men and a detriment to women, unless you just don't care about kids, which is your choice.
Don't get me wrong.
My opinion?
You're probably going to want to have a family.
I'll leave it there, though.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
The Guardian gets so close to actually talking about biological reality.
Now, as I laid out in the previous segment, you can look at the actual academics and scientists who will tell you the honest interpretation of biological sex today is bimodal gender, meaning the overwhelming majority of people will fall into one of two categories, male or female, but there is an overlap.
There are intersex and there are other conditions, so it's bimodal.
And this means there is a peak where people are very, very similar, but you can have more and less feminine individuals.
In the end, though, biology is a real thing.
Men and women are different.
If you told everyone in a room to line up from tallest to shortest, you will find that it starts with the men and then goes down to the women with some mixed in between.
Because that's just reality.
And I think most people get that.
But there's a group of people who don't.
So here's an interesting thing.
Guardian writes this story.
Not one of the Fortnite World Cup's 100 finalists was a woman.
Why?
The esports industry must attract female pro players to avoid replicating the sexism that blights other sports.
Oh, man.
Let me ask you a question.
Sports.
Is it sexist that there are no women in the NBA?
Is it sexist that there are no women in, I don't know, the NHL?
Is it sexist that there are no women in the MLB?
Where's the complaint that not enough women are playing pro football?
Some women have tried to be kickers.
My understanding is these sports have no rule against men or women playing.
It just happens that out of the hundreds of millions of people in this country and around the world that we recruit, the best of the best, which ends up being in the hundreds or thousands, are men.
They're gonna be taller, faster, physically stronger, can jump higher.
I then wonder why, even in video games, women aren't being represented.
In chess, even.
Although there are some pretty great female chess grandmasters.
I think the issue comes down to testosterone.
Aggressive behavior.
Drive.
They get so close to getting this right in this article.
Although they then claim it's because cultures are unwelcoming and women could be better if they wanted to, perhaps.
I don't think that women lack the capability to play video games.
I think it's an issue of, are you being hormonally driven to be better than everyone else?
Maybe?
I'm not a scientist.
But I do want to say, if they even mention in this article, Fortnite was open to anybody, but women didn't qualify, ask yourself why.
They defer to society.
I kind of think it has to do with drive, but we'll read this.
From The Guardian.
This weekend, the best Fortnite players in the world gathered at Flushing Meadows in New York to compete in the game's first-ever World Cup Finals for $30 million.
Tens of thousands of spectators packed the famed Arthur Ashe Stadium to watch the action live, and many millions more viewed on Twitch and YouTube.
Fortnite is, after all, one of the biggest entertainment brands on the planet.
plagued by hundreds of millions.
Amid all the hype and fanfare around the finals, however, one depressing fact remained unvoidable.
Not a single one of the 100 finalists was female.
You ever look at the Bell Curve for male intelligence and physical ability?
Women, average women, are smarter than average men.
I mean in the middle of the bell curve.
However, there are more male geniuses and more male idiots.
That's at least what the science says today.
Maybe it's wrong, but that's where we're at.
So we're going to take the scientific community's word for it.
Same thing I do with climate change.
Take their word for it.
If you then have hundreds of millions of people in this country, and then you whittle it down to a hundred people, you have the cream of the crop being men that are—there's more men.
It's this simple.
If you have a hundred male geniuses, then you have ten female geniuses, because there tends to be more male geniuses, and then you try and get the best of the best, it's very likely going to be just men.
The number one person will probably just—because there's a bigger pool to choose from.
Let's read on.
Despite the growing popularity of professional gaming throughout the world, the audience figures for competitive gaming have reached 450 million this year.
Female competitors remain scarce.
There certainly are high-profile examples of female pros.
Trans woman Sasha Scarlett, stop!
No disrespect, trans woman is not female.
Trans woman is biologically male, identifying as female.
We need to make sure we get this right.
We can talk about respecting an individual's personal pronouns and identity, but female and male are distinct biological characteristics that tend to be bimodal, with the overwhelming majority falling into one of two camps.
We don't need to play any games to try and act like there are female pros, because what they're really saying here now is, there are no biologically female pros.
They say Sasha Scarlett Hosen is one of the most successful StarCraft 2 players in the world.
Catherine Mystic Gunn is the industry's highest-paid female pro-gamer and won the SyFy Channel's reality TV show WCG, Ultimate Gamer.
And Fortnite has stars such as OneShotGirl and Loeya.
But you could watch a year of big tournaments, whether it's Call of Duty, League of Legends, or Hearthstone, and count the number of female competitors on the fingers of one hand.
That's exactly what I said, right?
If there are more male geniuses than female, This makes perfect sense.
Because out of 100 men, let's say you have 100 geniuses.
You end up with 80 of them being men and 20 of them being female.
You then say we're going to take 10% of the best players.
Let's say you have 100 geniuses.
You end up with 80 of them being men and 20 of them being female.
You then say we're going to take 10% of the best players.
You now have 8 men and 2 women.
It seems to be even less because we have over 100 of the top male players and only a small
handful of the top females.
They say this isn't because women and girls aren't playing games.
The latest figures from Entertainment Software Association show that 46% of gamers are women, a figure reflected in several other recent studies.
What are they playing?
One of the biggest concerns is that this includes women playing Candy Crush.
Let's read on.
The female audience for eSports is also growing.
Figures collected by Nielsen suggest that almost a quarter of the pro gaming female is audience, and in some parts of the world is much higher.
So why aren't we seeing that reflected in the Fortnite World Cup?
The easy answer is because no women are qualified.
The heats were entirely open and held online over 10 weeks.
More than 40 million players competed with no restrictions on age or gender.
The pro gaming scene likes to present itself as a meritocracy, where pure talent is all that matters.
This may be true in terms of the abstract qualifying rules, but the real issue goes deeper and it's about why women are underrepresented across the esports spectrum.
Partly.
It's down to the culture of hardcore video game communities, which are overwhelmingly dominated by young men and as a consequence often unwelcoming to women.
Trash talk is a standard in most online competitive games and can often cross over into misogynistic insults.
I gotta stop here.
I gotta tell you a story.
I was on a trip once with a handful of people.
It was like, I don't know, six guys and three women.
We were all in a big van, and we were all shouting over each other, arguing about politics.
One of the women was arguing with us, and two of them weren't.
After we got out, one of the women expressed to us that it was really hard to be a woman because none of the men would let her talk.
And I said, what do you mean?
You had every right to speak whenever you wanted to.
No one was stopping you.
And she said that people were shouting, and she couldn't even speak if she wanted to.
No one said she couldn't do the same thing, but for some reason she was upset, we didn't stop and say, would you like to speak?
The issue here is that I believe men tend to be more aggressive, which means we're more willing to assert ourselves, stand up and say, no, you're wrong.
Men are, in my opinion, more arrogant, more egotistical.
That's a part of testosterone.
Men are like, I'm gonna risk it all, and they jump off a cliff with a parachute and then die.
Men take these crazy risks.
They tend to take more risks than women.
So I think about why a community like this might be unwelcoming to women.
Well, hold on.
I get trash talked all the time.
I don't care.
Are they saying that women are more sensitive than men?
That sounds bigoted.
Which is worse, the argument that women are just not interested, or the argument that women can't handle what men can handle?
That's a tough question.
In my opinion, I think mostly women just aren't interested.
They're looking at other things based on society.
We can see YouTube-based makeup channels.
For whatever reason, women want to watch makeup channels more than men, and men like politics and gaming?
Don't ask me, I don't know.
It's just what we see.
But if that's the case, I'm not gonna expect women are gonna be having a good time getting yelled at.
So they just choose not to do it, perhaps.
But it sounds like they're saying, Women are more sensitive than men and can't handle insults.
But they also say that trash talk is a standard, meaning men deal with the exact same thing.
So to reiterate, it sounds like they're saying women can't handle it.
Is that fair?
I don't know.
They say Rare is the female gamer who plays with unrestricted voice chat.
Even when they're simply playing online with a group of strangers, women players are sometimes belittled and objectified, their abilities constantly questioned.
Meanwhile, the sponsorship and marketing of events is highly focused on male viewers, because they make up the majority.
It's all energy drinks and ads for ridiculously macho gaming joypads, keyboards, and mice with names like Viper and Hyperion.
When women do compete, they can find themselves under disproportionate and unwelcome scrutiny.
In June, a 15-year-old girl entered a tournament in New York based around the Nintendo game Super Smash Bros.
and promptly beat a top pro player.
She was subsequently hounded and bullied online by his fans.
Tweeting under her gamer tag, Bochi, she claimed to be considering leaving the tournament circuit because of the abuse she received.
She says, you won't be able to find me as Bochy.
I'm sorry to everyone who looks up to me and likes me, but I can't do this anymore.
All this stress, all this torture, just because people like me, and it's a game.
I'm sorry.
Goodbye.
Here's the challenge.
According to Pew, women do receive more stalking and sexual harassment than men by a small margin, but men receive the overwhelming majority of harassment in general.
I don't know if what she experienced was unique to her, or actually less than what men would receive.
My Twitter is permanently locked at 99 notifications.
I'm inundated with harassment, harassing letters, insults, threats.
I don't care.
I really don't.
I made a video about memes, and then the left is like, we're gonna troll them, and it was like, I don't care, you can't really troll me, man.
You know, like, I'm rather self-reflective, and when people, like, when I got triggered, like, someone pulled my hat off once, I got really angry and said some dumb things, and then I had to own up to it, and I'm like, eh.
What are you gonna do?
We gotta grow up, we gotta move on.
Kids are gonna yell on the internet, and they're gonna say mean things to me, and it is what it is.
They post mean and nasty pictures of me, they make fun of me for having no hair, they make fun of me for having crooked teeth, they make fun of me for all sorts of reasons.
Welcome to life.
I'm over it.
I've got more important things to worry about.
Is it possible that Bochy received more than the average person in terms of harassment?
Absolutely.
Harassment is wrong, period.
But the question I'm asking is, Am I resilient to it?
Or is she weak to it?
Or is she getting more than me?
I kind of doubt that she gets more harassment than I do.
I do.
I could be wrong.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
But I've been doing this for years.
I've been inundated, physically attacked in the street.
I almost had activists in the U.S.
send fake news to Venezuelan pundits who then Should I have quit?
Was I stressed out?
to be hunted down and people with the it's a complicated story but I had to flee the
country because of death threats inundated with thousands of messages saying they were
coming for me.
Should I have quit?
Was I stressed out?
I gotta admit when I encounter these things, the challenge, I don't feel pain, worry, regret.
I feel excitement.
When I get challenged, I feel excited.
Bring it on.
I want to win.
I'm going to beat you.
And that's the other guys that I know who are, you know, pro skateboarders.
They say, I'm better than you, and I know it, and I'm going to win.
They're arrogant.
They're driven.
They're passionate.
When I encounter even the smallest thing, like I'm trying to return a product, and the store says something like, we refuse to take that.
I'm like, oh, it's on, buddy.
I'm going to return this monitor, and you'll see who wins this battle.
And they're like, dude, chill.
It's like a monitor.
We'll take it back.
And I'm like, ha ha, I've won.
I'm kidding.
But you get the point.
I'm not trying to disrespect her.
I think the harassment of her was absolutely wrong, especially when we do want women to be playing video games.
I think most guys who game would love to have more women playing because there's a big pool of people who can be friends and hang out and guys like girls and girls like guys, and that's a great thing.
I'd love to have a significant other, a girlfriend or a wife, who skateboarded and played video games.
Hard to find, for whatever reason.
Now, I can't say- I'll say this.
Here's what I don't think.
The real reason women aren't gaming is because of bullying.
Skateboarding is one of the most welcoming communities.
Women can skate, and yes, they do receive, like... Like, guys can be creepy, man.
Let's be real, you know?
There's a lot of guys, a lot of guys are trying to... But for a lot of women I know, they're in a clique the same as me.
Like, when I go skating, I have a handful of friends.
We go skating, right?
And there are sometimes... There are some women I've known, and they've had no problems, and they were treated equally and respectfully the same as the rest of us.
But why was there only one?
Why was there only one female skateboarder who skated with us?
I don't know.
They just didn't want to do it.
Well, I'll tell you this.
The opinion expressed by this particular individual today is that they don't like it.
They don't like getting hurt and they don't like competing.
So, you know what?
I gotta keep this video short.
I'll end there and just say, I honestly don't know.
I think there's just not an interest in it.
I don't think women like the kind of trash talk that men engage in.
And men think it's funny.
Women don't.
That means women don't want to do it.
I don't know how you solve this problem.
You can't tell guys, stop having fun.
Then they'll get angry.
And then you get backlash.
Let me know what you think.
The point is, final thought, The Guardian got so close to pointing out when they said no woman qualified.
Well, isn't that the most important reason?
Anyway, you let me know what you think.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
I do believe the left is going insane, because they're being taken over by the woke Twitterati, truly unhinged and unwell individuals.
We can look at how Twitter favors certain groups over other groups, and we can see who gets banned and who doesn't.
Notably, Lindsay Shepard gets banned for insulting a trans woman.
The trans woman doesn't get banned, even after saying and doing really creepy things.
The point I've made a long time ago, or not a long time ago, but recently, I've said it often, is because Twitter bans the right, just like willy-nilly, the crazies of the left are running around.
The Lindsay Shepard story should tell you everything.
So those aren't familiar.
Lindsay Shepard was arguing with a trans woman named Jessica Yeniv.
Yaniv insulted a genetic abnormality that Lindsay Shepard has.
Shepard responded by insulting the body of the trans woman.
Lindsay Shepard got banned.
Lindsay is the more rational, albeit got into a heated argument, sure, but Lindsay is a rational, centrist kind of personality, IDW type.
She's the one who got banned.
The trans woman, on the other hand, wasn't.
That's all you need to know.
Okay?
Jessica Yaniv is bombastic, eccentric, accused of a whole bunch of really creepy things, and involved in a huge scandal where Yaniv wanted females to wax Yaniv's male genitals.
So, think about that.
Think about who gets banned and who doesn't.
Think about the rules.
What ends up happening, then, is what do we see when we go online, and what do we see as Twitter trickles down into the media?
We see a clean-cut, suit-wearing conservative saying, well, you know, my thought on the whole immigration debate is actually, the president does have the legal authority, but... And then what do we see on the left?
A purple-haired, you know, half-head shaved, with big nose rings, wearing crazy clothes, burning a free speech sign, screaming racism over and over again.
And I'm like, that one looks crazy, that one looks sane.
And then where are the moderates?
They're being drowned out.
Which brings me to my story from the Daily Wire.
Mourning Joe Guest.
Trump's Baltimore rhetoric could lead to horrible civil war.
It could lead to some sort of horrible civil war.
And I love that the Daily Wire put a picture from a reenactment with a guy holding the Confederate flag.
Excellent choice of photo, Daily Wire.
They say, America may be on the verge of a horrible civil war because President Donald Trump criticized a crime-ridden major city that has exclusively been run by Democratic mayors for decades, according to a guest on Morning Joe.
But no one thought Bernie Sanders' statements when he got up at a press conference or whatever and said, it's like a third world country in this city that is unacceptable or something like that.
Nobody cared when Bernie said that.
I get it.
Trump's bombastic.
Trump's aggressive.
Trump is boorish.
But it doesn't change the substance of what Trump said.
PBS does a documentary.
This is a rat-infested city.
Trump says, ugh, what a rat-infested city.
And they go, oh, Civil War is coming!
No one thought Civil War was coming when PBS put out the documentary a year ago.
Nobody thought Civil War was coming when Bernie Sanders criticized it in 2015 and 2016.
So can we please bring back sanity?
But I'll tell you what the problem is.
Social media is biased against conservatives, in effect, to the greater detriment of the left.
I really think this is the case.
You look at the main channel video I did today, where, for those that didn't see it, they said, 3 out of 10 Democratic primary voters favor abolishing ICE.
So let me reframe that for you.
70% of the Democratic primary votership, those are the activist Democrats, Do not believe we should abolish ICE.
Yet.
64% of the people who tweet once per day do think we should abolish ICE.
You can see how disproportionate it is?
Twitter isn't banning the crazy whack-a-loons on the left, and so they're becoming more and more prominent.
Sean King tweeted out overt support for terrorism and called for more.
And Twitter didn't ban him!
That's, to me, truly insane.
That the Proud Boys can be blanket purged.
Individuals who broke no rules got swept up.
But Sean King can tweet out a call for terror, support and praise of terror, and advocacy for more?
No problem.
And there you have it.
This is an example of the insanity affecting the left.
They think Trump's rhetoric is that bad?
Seriously?
They say over the weekend, President Trump tweeted, we get it.
He said the district is a rat and rodent infested mess.
I'm sure you heard the story.
If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous and filthy place.
After accusations of racism piled up, the president doubled down on his remarks and even accused the Democrats of playing the race card.
He even called out Nancy Pelosi, who was recently called racist by those in her own party.
There is nothing wrong with bringing out the very obvious fact that Congressman Elijah Cummings has done a very poor job for his district and the city of Baltimore.
Just take a look.
The facts speak far louder than words.
The Democrats always play the race card.
Always, but they do often, right?
Okay, I'll walk it back and say, always, no, come on, come on.
He's being hyperbolic, I get it.
Don't take him literally.
They do it a lot, though.
They do.
It's like, everything Trump said, it's like, that's racist because of this.
It's like, okay, but he didn't say anything about race.
What makes you, well, it's because the crazies dominate the narrative.
You get rid of the crazies on the right, and all that's left is a mainstream conservatism that looks, I don't know, looks appealing to regular people.
You leave the left alone, and you get crazy people defending terror and wearing all black and bashing people with bike locks.
Let me make this clear.
Twitter banned the crazies on the right.
They're gone.
What we have now are people like, you know, Will Chamberlain, who is called as extreme as vanilla yogurt.
He is a suit-wearing, regular old conservative who supports the president.
He is one—and Jack Posobiec, suit-wearing host on a relatively pro-Trump network.
Nothing particularly extreme about what they're saying, defending free speech.
You look at the people on the left and you have Sean King calling for terror.
You have these crazies ranting and you have Antifa.
The Proud Boys are banned, Antifa isn't.
That should be the easiest example.
They will let Antifa advocate for terror and violence and they...
What do you think's going to happen then?
I kind of feel like Jack Dorsey is secretly a conservative.
He only pretended to donate.
He donated Tulsi Gabbard so everyone would think he's actually a progressive on the left, when in reality, he's doing everything in his power as CEO to make sure the left loses and looks psychotic.
Look at AOC's followers.
She's not representing America.
Let's read on.
Speaking on Morning Joe, Chief Public Affairs Officer for MoveOn.org Karen Jean Pierre said that Elijah Cummings is everything Trump is not, and suggested the President's attack attacked him out of fear.
Donald Trump is upset because Congressman Cummings is everything that Donald Trump is not.
He is calm, he is smart, he is thoughtful.
He actually works for his constituents.
He is a good public servant.
He is the example of the American Dream.
Jean-Pierre's suggestion that Cummings is calm and thoughtful appears rather dubious.
Below is a video of Cummings acting neither calm nor thoughtful.
Okay, okay, okay.
I want to see about the Civil War stuff.
Here we go.
Donald Trump put his hand on the Bible, technically two Bibles, and took the oath of the presidency to be president for all of us.
And since that day, since that moment, every hour, he seems to just prove that to be wrong.
He is not a president for black people.
He's not a president for women.
He's not a president for brown people.
He's not a president for the LGBTQ community.
He chooses to just double down and triple down on bigotry and racism.
Unemployment in the Hispanic and Black community is at like an all-time low or like some ridiculous low point in the past 50 years.
So don't take it from me, but I will say this.
Brown people.
I don't necessarily know who gets to call themselves brown.
But in terms of people who are off-white, I actually think Trump has done a fairly decent job economically.
I can criticize his attitude and his foreign policy and still think the country is doing well.
So is he a president for mixed-race people?
At least a little bit.
At least a little bit.
The way I'll put it, I defer to Fleca's talks, if you guys know Fleca.
Trump's not that bad, right?
He's kind of bad, but he's not that bad.
And that's a reference to how the media portrays him as literally the worst possible thing.
They call him worse than a racist.
No, he's definitely not worse than a racist.
Racists are really bad.
As someone who comes from the South Side of Chicago, I think Trump highlighting these issues is a good thing in terms of gangs and violence.
We need the media focused on that.
But actually, let me flip that around.
It's actually a bad thing Trump talks about Baltimore and things like Chicago.
I don't know when the last time he talked about Chicago was.
Because then the left just acts like Trump's wrong, and I'm like, but he's not wrong.
Like, Chicago is really bad.
Baltimore has problems.
You can criticize his character, but that doesn't mean he's not a president for anybody.
So they're just doubling down on the rhetoric, but you know.
So I guess they end by saying this well, I guess okay according to Jean Pierre Trump's rhetoric regarding Baltimore will continue until the 2020 election Which she believes could lead to civil war.
She's right complete.
I agree.
I agree with that statement Trump's gonna win 2020 I'd be I'm I will tell you this I'm not someone who's smart enough to make a prediction.
I thought Republicans would sweep the midterms.
I was wrong.
And it's funny because, like, even though I'm like, I think they're gonna win, people are like, aha, Tim was wrong.
Well, of course I was wrong.
I'm wrong all the time, dude.
I'm a guy on the internet who reads stuff and then tells you what I think, and I'm wrong a lot.
I'm probably greater than chance, but I'm not going to act like I've got a massive, wonderful track record of being right.
I just think, based on what I see today, here's what I think is going to happen.
That's my opinion.
I take things into context.
I try to.
But I do believe Trump will win.
I do.
I think even Democrats agree.
As my main channel video talked about it, Trump can lose.
Arrogance can be his downfall.
Same as Hillary.
But the Democrats are worried that Trump's strategy has worked.
He's got them off message.
He's got them fighting each other.
And it's going to result in people not wanting to vote for that.
But when Trump wins, how do you think the left will respond?
Think of the rhetoric these people are saying.
None of it is substantive.
Okay, listen, I'm someone who operates based on principle and fact.
Substance.
Saying Trump is a bad man, I don't care.
I literally don't.
You got me.
You got me, Democrats.
Democrats on the left.
Let me say this to you.
When you say orange man bad, I go, yeah, he's bad.
He's not that bad.
But yeah, okay.
So what?
So what?
What is that going to do for me and my family?
How is that going to improve society?
How is that going to ensure I can retire?
How is that going to make sure my kids in the future will have a job, will go to school, will be better off?
I get it.
Great.
I'll agree with you on that.
Orange man bad.
Okay.
And?
Seriously.
So yeah.
Trump's gonna win.
I can make that point a million times.
You get it.
I don't need to say it now.
He's gonna win and they're gonna go nuts.
I don't think Trump's rhetoric on Baltimore will lead to a civil war.
I think she's saying that Trump's winning could.
And I think so too.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on this channel.
Podcast every day at 630 p.m.
If you haven't, check out the podcast.
It's Tim Pool Daily Show every day at 630 p.m.
Sometimes it doesn't load properly.
I don't know, but check it out.
You can listen.
The full hour and a half of every day's content will be there.
