Kamala Harris DESTROYED, Democrats Are So DESPERATE They Call Tulsi A Russian Puppet
Kamala Harris DESTROYED, Democrats Are So DESPERATE They Call Tulsi A Russian Puppet. They have nothing to go on. Their policies are unpopular so what do they do? FlounderBut what happens when Tulsi Gabbard completely obliterates Kamala Harris in the Democratic Debate? RUSSIAThat's right, the go to defense they used against Trump is now being aimed at Tulsi Gabbard. Claiming that she is a russian puppet and apologist for Assad.The reality is that they got nothing. #KamalaHarrisDestroyed has been trending for over 12 hours at this point as a top US trend because lets face it, its true. But following the trend many leftists and far left activists took to twitter to shriek about russians, bots, maga bots, trumpists, etc.Heaven forbid real people across the aisle appreciate a dose of reality at these debates. Conservatives and progressives cheered on Tulsi for calling out Kamala's hypocrisy and the only defense the dems can muster is "but muh russia!"
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Okay, we've seen some interesting policies, like Elizabeth Warren calling out big tech.
What about the last debate?
Where they talked about healthcare for undocumented immigrants, decriminalizing border crossings.
They've talked about reparations.
Americans don't support those things.
I don't understand quite what they think they're going to win on when they go up against Trump.
They throw around, that's a Republican talking point when they don't want to answer a question.
Well, you're going to have to answer that question when Trump asks it to you.
So maybe you can get out in front of it now.
No.
They have nothing.
Here's the thing.
Last night, Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Kamala Harris.
And it was glorious.
And there's an interesting phenomenon happening in response where Tulsi is now being smeared as a Russian puppet, a puppet of Putin, working with Assad, an apologist, and all this other nonsense.
Why?
Because the Democrats don't have anything.
And that's the point.
They tried Russiagate against Trump for, what, two or three years now?
And they got nothing from it.
Actually, they were talking about Russia before Trump even got elected.
And they got nothing.
You know why?
People don't care.
They don't care about your conspiracy nonsense.
But they've been targeting Tulsi with the same smear.
And the reason is, it's actually quite sad.
They can't think of anything else.
They're struggling to figure out what to do now that Russiagate is over.
I got a bunch of stories pulled up I want to go through.
First, I want to talk about this here.
You may be wondering, Tim, why are you showing me Twitter?
Well, did you notice this?
The number four U.S.
trend, Kamala Harris destroyed.
Yes, the crony DNC candidate who is plastic, she is fake, she's authoritarian.
She got put in her place by Tulsi Gabbard.
Well, they're not going to take that sitting down.
So in come the smears.
But what do they have?
Russia.
Seriously, that's it.
I want to go through some of these stories and address a lot of the smears that are hitting Tulsi in the wake of her, I don't know, complete annihilation of the Kamala Harris campaign in what was a truly glorious moment.
And we have this first story.
Kamala Harris destroyed trending after Democratic debate.
But I want to point something out.
One of the big smears they have right now is that it's the MAGA people and Russian bots who are propping up Tulsi Gabbard.
And they say, why would a Trump supporter like Tulsi Gabbard?
You ever stop to think?
Think about the character of Donald Trump.
Think about the character of Tulsi Gabbard.
Now, you may say they're very different people, right?
Yes.
However, they tell it like it is.
I certainly think Tulsi Gabbard has things to be criticized for.
When she said Trump supported Al-Qaeda, that fell flat bad.
And I think she better clarify that.
But I respect her enough to think she didn't just willy-nilly blurt something out.
And she maybe has an idea behind that, but I'm still going to be very critical of it.
You get no freebies from me.
I mentioned this in my first segment on my second channel.
But the point I want to make is, When you have someone like Tulsi just finally break through the fake plastic facade that is the DNC.
That's gonna get a lot of people happy.
And that's why a lot of Trump supporters are gonna be bringing this up.
Now also you're gonna have a lot of conservatives laughing.
at the fourth place, uh, the, you know, Kamala Harris was polling in fourth place, getting
taken down.
But they're trying to act like it's a surprise Trump supporters who like Trump speaking off
the cuff would support someone like Tulsi who straight up called out the hypocrisy and
lies from someone like Kamala Harris.
Let's read a little bit.
Actually, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
Independent political commentary is getting deranked, and as this is very, I guess, relatively pro-Tulsi and anti-DNC establishment, I can imagine the powers that be are not going to be too happy with it.
So if you think it's worthy, please share.
Let's read.
They say, Kamala Harris destroyed trended on Twitter early Thursday after Senator Kamala Harris clashed on stage with several fellow White House hopefuls during the second night of the Democratic presidential primary debates in Detroit.
The term, buoyed mostly by progressives supporting Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, referred to a moment on stage during Wednesday night's debate when Gabbard questioned Harris on her record as a prosecutor.
She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.
Gabbard said during a heated discussion on criminal justice, referring to Harris.
The remark garnered a round of applause for the Hawaii congresswoman.
She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so.
She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.
Bravo!
Harris responded saying that, oh, she's proud of the work she did.
I don't care.
She didn't even bother refuting her points.
But I did talk about this in the initial segment on my second channel, so let's move on.
They say, Harris had a lively performance during Wednesday night's debate, clashing once again with Joe Biden.
Right.
The Kamala Harris destroyed hashtag had disappeared from the list of trending U.S.
terms by 930 a.m.
Thursday.
Wrong.
It's still there.
Harris's spokesman, Ian Sams, responded to the hashtag, noting that at least some of the accounts promoting it appear to be bots.
Oh, here we go.
The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat.
Is that all they have?
They've lost it.
Look, they have no opposition.
There's no opposition research.
There's no strategy.
There's no charisma.
The Democrats are pathetic.
That's what I'm going to say straight up.
I mean the establishment, because Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard killed it last night with excellent talking points, and Tulsi takes the cake.
I don't care who did it, okay?
I happen to be a fan of Tulsi, but I just want to see reality for a brief moment.
We know what's really going on in the world, and we know all of these politicians are spewing total BS.
And then comes Donald Trump.
And what does he say?
He just says what's on his mind, and people love it.
Finally, someone just telling everyone else to go screw themselves.
Now, Tulsi's not the same, but there is a similar aspect.
She's cutting through the BS by banning Kamala Harris, kept a guy in prison for cheap labor.
That is nightmarish authoritarianism.
Thank you for calling that out.
She had some other talking points.
I kind of fell flat.
Her closing statement wasn't that strong, in my opinion.
The Trump-Al Qaeda thing was kind of weak, but I can appreciate her calling this out.
And, look, she's not perfect, but she is principled, and that, to me, is very important.
But here was the response.
First, Kamala Harris.
She calls herself a top-tier candidate during a swipe at Tulsi Gabbard, saying that, what did she say, especially when some people are at zero or one percent or whatever she might be at.
So, I did expect that I might take hits tonight, she continued.
Yeah, take hits.
Take hits in that you imprisoned people for cheap labor, that you had someone on death row who could have been exonerated that you refused to free, and you laugh about how you lock people up for smoke and pot, and then when they ask you, it's funny.
A double standard for the elite ivory tower crony DNC.
And this is my point about the establishment.
Bernie Sanders is the establishment.
100%.
Spewing the same garbled talking points as the rest of the establishment.
Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard aren't.
That's why they're gaining tons of followers.
That's why they command respect from some Trump supporters.
Not all, but a lot of people still respect them even if they disagree.
And then the establishment left says, it's Russian bots.
Because it's all they have.
Heaven forbid there are real people in this country who like a dose of reality from time to time.
Who like real people speaking up against the BS that the establishment tries to spew down our throats.
But then, of course, I can't be surprised.
Look at this story from the Washington Post.
Democrats struggle to figure out next move against Trump after Mueller hearings falls flat.
I love it.
It didn't work against Trump, so now they're going to try and use it against Tulsi.
You must be truly desperate to try and use Russia again after it didn't work for three years.
How pathetic is that?
Absolutely pathetic.
You know, I was thinking about it.
I worked in fundraising, non-profits, marketing, and I'm just wondering, how are they so bad at this?
No, seriously, how are they absolutely just so bad at this?
Take a look at this story.
No mention of Mueller impeachment during second Democratic debate.
Why?
Because the 2020 Democrats at least understand it's not going to play well.
But the rest of these establishment leftists and policy makers, speakers, whatever, they don't seem to get it.
It didn't work.
It's not gonna work.
Now CNN, MSNBC, or CNN whatever, understand.
I don't even think they brought this up in MSNBC, but CNN got it.
They were like, yeah, we maybe don't want to do the Russiagate thing.
That's done.
That's just bad, bad, bad, right?
But they're still gonna try.
So here's where I want to go back in time and see and show you.
They've been prepping this for a while.
These ridiculous smears against Tulsi Gabbard.
And that's what they are.
They're lies and they're smears.
She's not perfect, okay?
But the fake news is the problem.
She is getting similar treatment that Trump got.
Admittedly, she's nowhere near as prominent and famous as Trump is, but this is their line of attack.
Daily Beast.
Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is being boosted by Putin apologists.
The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming a top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood.
Experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.
Now, here's the not-so-shocking part.
The group that's making these fake claims is the same group that was busted fabricating information in favor of the Democrats to smear Trump.
Why?
Well, many conservatives might not be big fans of Tulsi Gabbard.
She is quite a populist personality.
And as I mentioned, there are some similarities.
A dose of reality that people can respect.
Someone who's talking about issues that are bipartisan.
No war.
Someone who flat out said in the debate stage, I will not give college for free to illegal immigrants.
When the last time they all raised their hand about giving health care to illegal immigrants.
Tulsi has principles behind her ideas.
So of course you can't allow that.
The establishment must keep on keeping on.
The pro-war types of course.
Here's the thing.
From The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald.
NBC News, to claim Russia supports Tulsi Gabbard, relies on firm, just-caught fabricating Russia data for the Democratic Party.
And they're talking specifically about this story.
Thank you, Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald, who is facing threats and potential persecution over his challenging of the Bolsonaro government.
Still willing to stand up for a free press, and many conservatives had his back, including Tucker Carlson.
Because principle matters.
We can disagree on issues, we can not like the same politicians, but we can agree on the rules, right?
This is the point about the Democratic Party that I have tried to bring up time and time again.
They say, Tim's clearly right-wing because he keeps slamming the Democrats.
Let me make something clear.
Donald Trump won.
He wasn't supposed to win.
The Republican establishment did not like him, but guess what?
They didn't cheat.
Bernie Sanders was supposed to win, but guess what?
The Democratic establishment cheated, like they're cheating now, changing the rules.
They removed one of Andrew Yang's polls so that he won't qualify for the next debate.
They are sleazy cheaters.
We know they are.
We've seen the emails.
We know what they're doing.
Now look, you can be critical of Donald Trump, but at least you can recognize, as much as the never-Trumper Republicans didn't like him, they didn't cheat.
He won.
He lit up new voters.
They voted.
Trump wins.
They accepted it.
They've rallied behind him.
What are the Democrats doing?
When you actually have someone who speaks on principle, that is actually likable, and could actually do some good, they do everything in their power to smear her.
And so that brings me to a next little bit, which we're gonna hit this, and then we're gonna jump to another story, though, because I just want to point this out.
This was this morning.
Kamala Harris destroyed is still trending.
Assad is trending above Tulsi.
There's one important thing I want to point out that I did mention in the early morning video, but I have to mention.
Tulsi Gabbard was the most searched for candidate on Google.
So, as much as I don't trust Google, because she is suing them, because they did shut down her ad account after the first debate, we can see that people really want to know a lot about her in every single state.
Here's the thing.
Jack Posobiec pointed out she was removed from the trending list on Twitter.
How strange.
He says, the most searched for candidates tonight, not trending.
Andrew Yang was.
So that's good.
And then he says, 40 minutes after my tweet, Tulsi is suddenly the number to trend.
I saw the same thing.
My friends saw the same thing.
They pulled Tulsi off.
They are cheating.
They are cheaters.
This is the game they play.
They don't want another Trump scenario.
They don't want another real person who's going to upset the deep state establishment types.
I'm using deep state somewhat facetiously.
I don't mean literally like the deep state cabal.
I'm just saying these crony, corporatist, democratic establishment people who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want.
That's the game.
Check it out.
Virginia Heffernan of Wired.
Prediction for Facebook users, certain lefties are going to see the zone flooded with Tulsi Gabbard comms and attacks on Kamala Harris.
That will look weird and may not be exactly homegrown.
Heads up, also for TV watchers in New Hampshire and Iowa, watch for attacks on Harris and a hard push for Gabbard as a peacenik.
And then she links to the fake news pushed by a company that was recently caught fabricating data for the Democrats.
How can we?
Is this surprising to anybody?
This is why I speak out against these people.
I know they're doing the same thing to Trump, and I know they're going to do the same thing to the real principled progressive Democrats who want real change, and can command respect from a bipartisan bunch in this country.
Conservatives actually respecting Tulsi on her diplomacy and her anti-war stance.
Disagreeing on domestic policy.
But hey, we can disagree and still be American, right?
Check this one out.
Grant Stern.
Russian bots are trending.
Kamala Harris destroyed.
But guess who self-destroyed by defending Putin?
And attacking Mueller before his report and testimony were public?
That's right, Tulsi Gabbard.
Because lo and behold, Tulsi Gabbard put out a statement following the Mueller report saying Trump did not collude with Russia and that is a good thing.
And that, to me, showed Tulsi Gabbard.
She's progressive.
She's got left-wing domestic policy.
But she's willing to accept reality.
Trump did not collude with the Russians.
And they smear her for it.
I'd love to see, at the very least, Tulsi in some capacity Secretary of State or something.
That'd be amazing.
I really don't think, even if she gets nominated, she'd win.
That's, like, come on, let's base our, let's talk about reality here.
The DNC cheats.
They cheated Bernie.
Bernie goes full establishment.
He's let me down.
Garbled talking points.
I'm over it.
But we can see that the smears against Tulsi Gabbard, all about the Russian stuff, Assad.
That's what was trending earlier.
They bring up Assad.
Why?
Tulsi Gabbard met with Assad to try and figure out a peaceful solution to the conflict.
That is honorable and respectable.
Look, it's hard to know what to do, but is it right for the U.S.
to send our troops into these foreign countries?
In my opinion, absolutely not, and that's why I support Tulsi Gabbard.
And that's why I recognize she has criticized Assad, but at least she tried to end the fighting.
It was unsuccessful.
But you know, the US, they really, really want this pipeline.
It's a complicated story, I'm not going to rehash the whole thing, but I recommend looking up the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, and how Assad, aligned with Russia, blocked our pipeline for natural gas into Europe, and there's like a gas monopoly in Europe that Russia has through a company called Gazprom.
It's complicated.
But this is all about US interests, and Tulsi is I guess it's kind of like an America First approach.
Let's stop going to foreign countries and wasting money, and spend that money here.
And I agree.
But of course, you can see on Twitter, Russian bots, Russian bots, beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial discord, especially around Kamala Harris.
4,000 retweets.
The Democrats, in my opinion, don't deserve to win because they're insane cheaters.
Because they can't... It's just... The absurdity is palpable.
And I want to make one more point before we move on and I show you some debunking.
Kamala Harris smeared Tulsi Gabbard as an Assad apologist.
It's nonsense, right?
But if they can't see that someone like me is actively looking for a Democrat to vote for, Yang Tulsi, being principled and leaning left, they think that's right-wing, they call Tulsi Gabbard right-wing, hawkish, Republican, etc., Vox called her conservative, then they can't realize they have excised a large portion of the left from their own party.
I just can't imagine they win when they pull off this nonsense.
So I'll just briefly mention this as we move on.
You know, Tulsi is suing Google.
It didn't fit in to where I want it to fit in, but I'll mention it.
So here's the thing.
I did mention this already, but I bring this up now because she mentions the Assad apologist.
This is a story from Freebeacon where Kamala Harris dismisses Gabbard as a 0 or 1% candidate, but then says she's an apologist for Bashar al-Assad.
And this is the bigger story.
Tulsi Gabbard responded, saying, I will never apologize.
Here's the thing.
A lot of people are taking a clip out of context where, when she was asked if Assad was a murderer, she said, it's not about that, and continued.
They snip it out of context and say, aha, she is an apologist, she can't, you know, and they're just spreading propaganda and lies.
No respect for the intelligence of the Democratic voter base.
Just trying to manipulate an emotion with fake news and lies.
And that's why the Democrats do not deserve my vote or any other moderate or even progressive of principle.
I know a lot of progressives who are very pro-Tulsi, and they're seeing the same thing I am.
Tulsi went on to say she does not dispute that Assad has done these horrible things.
It was a longer conversation.
She said, we still have troops in Syria, troops who are dying, that's my focus, that's why I'm running for president, to bring about this sea change in foreign policy.
Well, you know the Democratic establishment, they love war.
They don't want this.
And that's why they don't like Trump either.
Trump also ran an anti-war.
Think about the 2016 debates between Hillary and Trump.
When Hillary was actually entertaining the possibility we'd go to war with Russia and Trump was like, what?
Why?
Why would we do that?
And it spoke to a lot of people.
There was an article from Pat Buchanan to replace John Bolton with Tulsi Gabbard because even conservatives recognize you don't have to like her domestic policy to be like, hey, no war, right?
It makes a lot of sense.
But I want to end this.
One final point.
An article by Michael Tracy.
I think Michael Tracy is fantastic.
He's a journalist, if you're not familiar, and he routinely criticizes the absurdities of the establishment.
The baseless vilification of Tulsi Gabbard.
She's not an Assad apologist.
She simply believes in trying to stop armed conflict through negotiations.
And Michael said he has never found any statement from her anywhere where she apologized, defended, or deflected on Assad.
And even the other day, she straight up said, I don't dispute that when asked if he was, you know, a murderer.
They say Anderson Cooper pushed back on it.
But she talked about how, look, I'll make this point.
They criticize Trump for talking and trying to work with Kim Jong-un.
I won't.
You know why?
I get it.
Trump can't just go and be like he's an evil, evil person because that's gonna hurt negotiations.
Trump has to give a little, even if it is...
Not the right thing to do, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
That's the challenge.
Do we want to condemn Assad and Kim Jong-un for what they've done?
Absolutely.
But we also have to recognize diplomacy requires us maybe holding our tongues.
Trump knows that.
And he was the first president, I believe, to actually cross into North Korea.
That was a great and tremendous risk to himself.
The same is true for Gabbard meeting with Assad.
These are people who, I believe, actually want to end war.
Now, Trump, I think, acts on, is it going to play to his base?
Is it going to be, you know, will people love him for it?
That's one of the reasons I'm not the biggest fan of the guy.
But, hey, look.
A good thing is a good thing, right?
Tulsi Gabbard, I believe, acts on principle.
And she met with Assad to bring about some changes.
But let's wrap this up, because I think you get the point.
What I really want to say is, the Democrats are cheaters.
They're cronies.
They're corporatists.
They're elites.
They're millionaires.
They're playing a rigged game.
And they don't want the real people To make it.
This should show us one important thing though.
They don't control everything.
They're not invincible.
Now they were able to steal it from Bernie because they control it enough.
The Republicans don't play that game.
And you see why people like Trump.
They didn't cheat.
And Trump was able to win.
But the Democrats cheat.
But they are not invincible.
Not at all.
Especially with the internet.
And that's why Tulsi was removed from trending, in my opinion.
You can't call that a coincidence, man.
She was just off the trending list?
How does that make sense?
Yet Assad was trending?
Google suspended her ad account after she was the top searched candidate in the first debate?
I don't believe these are coincidences when we see how the establishment acts to protect itself.
But you know what?
I'll just say this.
I don't like playing the conspiracy theory.
I don't know why she was removed from Twitter.
It could have been a technical glitch.
I don't know.
Jack Dorsey maxed out his contributions to Tulsi Gabbard, so it would be weird.
But it happened.
For whatever reason, it happened.
A big tech company, for some reason, removed Tulsi Gabbard from the trending list, and she reappeared like an hour later.
For some reason, Google suspended her ad account.
I think it's political bias.
I think they don't like being challenged.
I think they're trying to maintain control, and Trump threatens that, and so does Tulsi Gabbard.
So they both get the Russia treatment.
Anyway, thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
A different channel from this one, and I will see you all there.
I've talked to a lot of Trump supporters in my day.
I went around during the campaign and I heard a lot, particularly from young people, that they were sick and tired of political correctness.
But I also heard a lot from people that Trump was saying it like it was.
It's actually something we've heard about a lot of presidents in the past, that they finally feel like someone's breaking through the PRBS.
PRBS.
Anyway, I remember that one moment where Hillary Clinton says, you know, thank God we don't have someone like, with the temperament of Donald Trump as president.
And then Trump says, because you'd be in jail.
And everyone starts screaming and clapping.
That was the kind of talk people were looking for.
Trump didn't appear to be playing this fake game.
Now, maybe he was.
Maybe Trump is just so good at manipulating the media, he knows how to come off in this way.
But for me, watching that, I bust out laughing.
Bust out laughing.
Because it's... I don't literally... I never really thought Trump was gonna, like, call the cops and arrest Hillary.
As much as he said, lock her up and all that stuff, I'm like, yeah, right, that'll never happen.
But it was funny to see him kinda just like take a sledgehammer to the mold.
So here's what I wanna do in this video.
Why do I love Tulsi Gabbard?
Why is she the best?
Did you guys watch the debate last night?
When she, oh man, she just crushed Kamala Harris with this line about her prosecutorial record imprisoning people for marijuana, keeping people in prison beyond their sentences to use as cheap labor, Withholding evidence that would have exonerated and freed a death row inmate until the courts forced it to do so.
And did Kamala Harris refute those claims?
Nope.
And it was at that moment, my Twitter feed was lighting up left and right.
Tulsi!
Oh, man.
Wow.
I was shocked.
I was sitting there staring at the screen like, wow.
I can't believe she actually did that to Kamala.
Kamala Harris, the way I see her, DNC crony, constantly trying to throw it at Biden.
It was as plastic as they come.
Dare I say it?
More plastic than Beto O'Rourke.
And so, you know, this is why I hate the Democrats.
I've never been a fan of the Republicans, but, you know, it's like they're just not, they were never in my world.
But I view them much the same way, right?
They're all the stodgy politician types.
It's more about just politicians and politicking.
It's just nonsense.
But Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
Andrew Yang, wow!
Amazing night for the two of them.
Even, I think O.J.
Simpson was praising them.
Yang really did shine.
I was so impressed.
He was able to articulate why he thinks the UBI plan can fit all these different circumstances.
But he actually addressed healthcare the right way.
How it will impact businesses and the benefit to small business, and that was brilliant.
Because we need to have conversations that aren't playing to tribes.
We need to actually, you know, one of the things they keep doing is, that's a Republican talking point.
Yeah, well how are you going to answer it when the Republican's debating you on stage?
So anyway, we'll get to all that stuff.
I got a lot I wanna go through because, look, I'm stoked.
Tulsi, she had a few really shining moments.
I'm gonna throw some criticism at her when she said Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda.
No way.
You're gonna have to clarify and correct that.
I don't give freebies to anybody.
So as much as I do really, really love Tulsi Gabbard, what she stands for, her principle, that's a strike right there for me.
You gotta explain what that means, okay?
ISIS is being decimated.
Trump backed off from going after Iran.
Good.
Not perfect.
Could be better.
But I'm glad, you know, I'm glad.
And I think Tulsi should be too.
And even with North Korea going into the DMZ, these are good de-escalation steps.
So, if she's gonna say that Trump was supporting Al-Qaeda, you gotta clarify that, because that is not winning me over, and I'm gonna criticize that straight up.
Granted, I respect her enough to give her the benefit of the doubt, more than I would anyone else, when they say, like, orange man bad.
No, no, no, no, no.
I don't believe they actually mean that.
I think Tulsi might actually have, like, an argument, but she's gonna have to present it, so I'm not gonna give anybody a freebie.
Let's read a little bit of the story, and I wanna go through some other issues, too, because, look.
Even though Tulsi just, man, laying it down on Kamala Harris was one of, I mean this sincerely, it was one of the greatest things I've ever witnessed in my life.
I have traveled the world.
I've seen revolutions.
I have been to the far reaches of, I don't know, I've been to crazy places with crazy things happening.
But to finally see a Democrat lay down some reality on these crony DNC, the corrupt, just awful plastic people, It was worth every penny I've donated to Tulsi to see her do that to Kamala Harris.
Because Kamala Harris is one of these just awful, authoritarian, fake, corrupt... Think about it.
Kamala Harris.
What did Tulsi Gabbard say?
Kamala Harris locked up over 1,500 people for weed, and then when she was asked about it, she laughed.
Saying like, oh, I smoked weed in college.
It's the same thing with Barack Obama.
Barack Obama talked about doing drugs.
And it's like, that is complete and total BS, and I reject that 100%.
We cannot be a country where we have presidential candidates laughing about doing drugs.
Meanwhile, they were lucky enough to not get caught, or privileged enough, wealthy enough to get off.
Meanwhile, young poor kids, South Side of Chicago, are getting locked up for smoking pot.
Not so much anymore, but when I was growing up it happened.
You can't have this double standard, where they flaunt their power from their ivory towers about how they get to break the law, and it's no big deal.
But I'll tell you this.
Think about Kamala Harris, California.
Tulsi Gabbard said that she was keeping inmates in prison beyond their sentence to use as cheap labor.
What is that?
I mean this.
I don't feel it's hyperbolic for me to say.
That's slavery.
Kanye West brought this point that he tweeted out something about repealing the 13th Amendment and everybody like, you know, flipped out saying like, what do you mean?
I think it's the 13th.
The point Kanye was making is that The constitutional amendment that ended slavery has a provision allowing it so long as you're in prison.
And that's the game.
Okay, fine.
We'll still keep you for cheap labor if you're convicted, you know, by a jury of your peers.
I think that's wrong.
Because you can see how the corrupt wield that.
Prison should be rehabilitation.
We should be working to stop spending money on prisons.
We should be working to give people a chance to reform.
Some people are You know, I hate to say that some people are beyond reform, but some people are just unwell in the head, okay?
So I don't know what you do about that.
But most people, in my opinion, who are committing crimes, we can do something about this.
And I've read studies about people in, I think it's like Scandinavia, where they have like an island where you have to survive on your own.
They'll give you resources and stuff, but you've got to start your own fires, you've got to take care of yourself, and this helps people get back into a personal responsibility mindset.
The point being, we need reform.
We need to fix our prison system.
Kamala Harris is the kind of person that will imprison someone to force them to work.
Isn't that kind of creepy?
But here's the bigger story.
Tulsi Gabbard crushes Kamala Harris.
And we have all of these really hilarious tweets I want to get into.
First of all, Look at this.
Before the debate, these were the top searches.
Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Cory Booker.
After the debate, Tulsi.
You know that Jeb meme where it's like Jeb and the whole country is yellow?
I just imagine Tulsi, like, eyes glowing.
Whole country, Tulsi Gabbard.
You know why?
Because people finally saw something real up on that stage.
Cory Booker, you know, I'll say this because people probably don't like it, but he's really close to being likable in private.
If you've ever seen Corey talking in private, he sounds like reasonable and calm.
But then whenever he goes up on in the public stage, he sounds like he's made of plastic.
And you go to all the rest of them.
Kirsten Gillibrand's made of plastic.
I don't know that one guy's, Bennett was his name.
That guy sounded like Mr. Mackey and I felt kind of bad because he's not like a bad guy, but he's just, I just don't see him being up there.
Joe Biden rambles.
Ramble, ramble, ramble.
And Kamala Harris would just keep trying to go, Joe, you did this.
The problem with Yang is that he's talking smart, man.
And you can see it.
You can hear it.
Now, whether or not his UBI is the true solution, the point is, I actually disagree.
It's hard to say where I am.
I'm on the fence with his plan for a dividend taking tax, you know, a VAT tax from big companies, because I think there's massive cultural, it's a massive and dramatic cultural shift that we can't necessarily predict, but I support Yang because he's talking smart.
He's talking about these issues.
He's not playing silly political games.
He's saying straight up, listen, this is a problem we're facing.
When you look at a factory in Michigan, it's full of robots.
And it's kind of funny because he's the guy warning of the future, but somebody has to.
I don't think Yang will win.
I don't think Tulsi will win.
But it's about the debate.
It's about having them on stage telling the country at least pay attention to this.
Now, I'll be honest.
I think Kamala Harris will be the nominee.
I do.
I do not like that woman and I will not vote for her.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
It's still pretty early, but she definitely seems like the DNC favorite.
So anyway, here's the thing.
Tulsi Gabbard dominated Google search.
But you know what was weird?
She wasn't Twitter trending.
She wasn't trending on Twitter.
That sickens me.
I'm absolutely shocked and disgusted by that.
And I'll tell you this, I truly believe that Twitter took her name down for one simple reason.
Well, for two.
Let me just stress.
At the time when she was crushing Kamala Harris, she was trending.
All of a sudden, she wasn't.
Everyone else was.
Even, you know, Jay Inslee or whatever his name is, and Bennett.
All of the candidates were the top trends.
Except for Tulsi, who just had this massive PR moment, who is the top Google search name, where was Tulsi Gabbard?
You wanna know what was trending though?
Assad.
The only reason anybody was talking about Assad is because they're trying to smear Tulsi.
Which means, almost every tweet I looked up said, Tulsi, Tulsi, Tulsi, Assad.
How can you not have Tulsi trend, but Assad can trend?
Because the game was rigged from the start.
We got Mr. Jack Posobiec with the evidence here.
Check this out.
He says, Tulsi was the most searched candidate across America tonight, but somehow isn't trending on Twitter.
And there it is, number one, Biden, Dem debate.
Yang, Democratic debate, de Blasio, Bennett, Inslee.
How is Inslee or Bennett trending up and Tulsi Gabbard isn't?
And then Jack said, 40 minutes after my tweet, Tulsi is suddenly the number two trend.
Number two after Biden.
Because let's be honest, if the DNC played by the rules and was fair, and Tulsi was given a fair shot, she'd be number one.
It would be her and Yang.
And you wanna know, I can actually show you this is the case.
Dan Diamond of Politico says, how many new Twitter followers each candidate's campaign account gained?
Yang, 10,486.
Gabbard, 8,616.
Get this.
The next biggest was Booker with 2,939.
Look at the gap between the real human beings on that stage with real principles and real ideas versus the crony DNC establishment.
I'll tell you this, man.
This is why Donald Trump won.
He shattered the mold.
He was outside of the establishment.
He spoke to the people.
He spoke in a way that says I'm not playing their game, and it worked.
I can respect that.
Never been a big fan of the guy, but I can respect and understand why what he's doing is working, and I understand why people like that, because I agree.
I am sick and tired of the fake BS, of the rigged system.
I am sick and tired of Twitter taking Tulsi's name off the trending list.
When you ask the people, What are you interested in?
What do we see?
Massive support for Yang and Gabbard.
So you ask.
Tim.
Some people said, how is Tim supporting Yang and Gabbard when you look at all his videos and he's very critical of the Democrats and the left?
Except supportive of Yang and Gabbard for most of their policies.
Now let me be clear.
I'll criticize Tulsi for saying Trump supported Al Qaeda.
Nobody's perfect.
Nobody is perfect.
There's never going to be a perfect candidate.
But I'll say if a Gabbard-Yang ticket isn't as close as I've seen.
But of course we know the game is rigged.
It'll never happen, will it?
I'm glad they're on the stage.
I'm glad I donated to them.
Because they're saying important things.
For one, Tulsi took a sledgehammer to that mold in a very similar way that Trump did.
Now, it is very, very different in a lot of ways.
She's not as bombastic.
She just cut through that BS like a hot knife through butter, pointing out Kamala Harris's dirty record.
She talks about war, which is very important, and she's willing to meet with people to actually negotiate and end the conflict.
And for it, they smear her to no end.
I can't believe it.
I saw people on Twitter that I've known for a long time calling her a right-wing war hawk.
And I'm like, what is this fake news?
That is the...
You have real, real progressives, the real progressives, saying Tulsi is right on war, and even conservatives saying, well, at least she's right about that.
Conservatives, I see, tend to disagree with her, like, minimum wage stance, and, you know, some of her other left-wing policies, and Medicare for All, stuff like that.
But real people who actually pay attention and understand the world and read the news are like, she's right about war.
A conservative article, Pat Buchanan writing, replaced John Bolton with Tulsi Gabbard.
And I'll clap for that.
The reason I think Tulsi would make a great president is because the role of the commander-in-chief is you're the leader of the executive branch in the armed forces.
Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the National Guard.
Let me show you something that I absolutely love.
Let me see if I can...
Find the correct image.
So that's... Oh, please tell me I pulled up.
There we go.
Kamala Harris says, I challenge you to make decisions under fire.
And here's another thing that I love.
I love about Tulsi.
Look, she's on the left on a lot of her policies, and I agree with a lot of them.
I do.
Look, I don't donate willy-nilly.
I've gone through her website as well as Yang, and I'm like, this is good.
I like what they're doing.
Let's get them on the debate stage.
But I think everyone in America with a rational mind will respect this image.
Tulsi Gabbard being deployed, going overseas because she truly believed in America.
She has real experience.
She has strength, charisma, combat experience as a medic.
You want to talk about decisions under fire, Kamala Harris?
You're locking people up for smoking pot while Tulsi Gabbard was saving lives in a war zone.
I'll just throw a couple more things out here because I have some other posts, but I think, you know, I kind of made my point.
On the Tulsi subreddit, they're talking about how she was trending number two, and this was after Jack Posobiec mentioned, you know, she was removed.
And other people are saying, not on my Twitter feed, they are literally hiding Tulsi from the trending list.
But Jack Dorsey endorsed her.
I would be surprised if that was the case in this instance because of that.
Jack Dorsey praised Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard in much the same way I did.
They've got good ideas.
They're talking about things that need to be talked about.
They're not pushing these crony establishment talking points.
Get them on stage.
I agree.
I'll end with one more thing.
I love the Republican talking point defense.
And by love, I'm obviously being sarcastic.
It is the most ridiculous thing.
And you know what they say when they're like, stop with the Republican talking points.
Oh, please.
And you know what?
I'll give Marianne Williamson credit because when this was brought up in the debate the other day, she said, you've got to answer that question to Republicans.
I don't care if it's a talking point.
She's right.
You know, Ben Shapiro tweeted, Republican talking point really means legitimate question the Democrats have no answer for.
Can't disagree.
Because Kamala Harris responded to some, you know, I'm pretty sure, someone said something and she goes, that's a Republican talking point!
It's like, oh please dude, I don't care whose talking point it is, answer the question.
Because if you can't answer the question to your own Democrat, you think Trump's gonna let you walk past this one?
Nice try.
So anyway, let me end by saying this.
I don't agree with everything Tulsi does, or believes in, but to me, she is, she puts her money where her mouth is.
She served this country, what now, like 22 years, 16, in the armed forces, overseas, actually in conflict, understanding the true cost of war.
She's principled.
She stepped down from the DNC when they screwed over Bernie.
Now, Bernie's an establishment candidate.
I've lost faith in him.
But Tulsi stood on principle in that regard.
She's fighting back against Big Tech.
She's being censored by Big Tech.
She's repeatedly defended free speech online.
She's called for everybody to unite to combat the threat that is Big Tech.
She's gone on Tucker Carlson's show.
She's gone on the Joe Rogan podcast.
Dare I say it, her and Yang might be the only human beings The only real human beings running for the Democrats.
And you know, I'm honored and it is an honor and it is a privilege as somebody who thinks these, you know, Tulsi and Yang are the best candidates.
It is an honor and a privilege to me that there are conservatives who will say with principle, I disagree with their policies, but you're right, they are good people and I can respect and understand why you've chosen them.
And that's, here's the last thing I want to say when it comes to like Yang and Gabbard.
I was thinking about this the other night, and I was just thinking, imagine if we had a president who had respectful disagreement, respectful opposition from either liberals or Democrats.
I don't care if it's the president, you know, Republican or Democrat.
Imagine if we elected a Republican, and the response from the left was something like, they're a good person, but, you know, I really disagree with their policy, but I'm willing to respect them and hope they can lead this country.
Imagine if that was the response.
Imagine if we got a president that was a Democrat, and the response from conservatives was very much, you know, I really disagree with a lot of their policies, I'm gonna reject them and vote against them, but I can absolutely respect that they're being honest and truly passionate, that they're doing the right thing.
Imagine if that was the response.
And I look at how conservatives and moderates react to Yang and Gabbard, and I'm like, that's why I truly think they would be a fantastic president.
But let me make one thing clear.
At least as of today, what I've seen, I have seen the conservatives willing to extend the olive branch and express that respect.
What do I see on the left?
And again, people are going to be like, oh Tim pointed the lift again.
I'm being honest.
I saw people I've known for years smearing Tulsi Gabbard.
For what?
She called out the cronies.
She's standing on principle.
I don't get it.
How is it the conservatives are going to be like, I would never vote for her, Trump is the president, yet still say, I can understand why people would, and defend her, approach her positions honestly?
It's not the Trump supporters calling her an Assad apologist.
It's not.
It's the left smearing her.
So, you know, I'll say this.
As much as I think it'd be great to have a president everyone respected, even if some disagreed, I don't think it's going to happen because I think the left is collectivist and tribal-based.
And no matter who the Republicans ever get, even if it is someone respectable, they're going to smear them anyway because they smear their own.
It's a circular firing squad.
And that's the truth.
The left is in a difficult spot.
Whether any of these people want to admit it.
Tim Pool ain't right-wing.
Sorry.
If you can't recognize that I support these Democratic candidates for their policies, for their principles, and would prefer them over Trump, you can't- that means you don't see the fact the left is fractured.
And you've lost my vote.
Someone who voted for Obama, you've lost my vote.
Now I'm gonna vote for Tulsi or Yang.
That's what I'm going to do.
And then invariably when the DNC cheats them out of it, I'm not going to vote for the crony establishment.
I vote on principle.
I'm not going to vote for Trump because Hillary is worse.
I'm not going to vote for Hillary because Trump is worse.
It's never going to happen.
I'm going to look at a candidate and say, do I think this person is good?
And I will vote for them.
Because I truly believe if everyone stood on principle, we would have a better nation.
We would have better leaders.
But we get the leaders we deserve.
So, I'm gonna vote in the primary.
It's a tough choice.
It really is, between Yang and Tulsi.
But I'd probably have to go for Tulsi.
Because I believe she would make a better commander-in-chief with her experience in the armed forces.
Yang, I think, is a smart, smart man with great policy ideas.
But when it comes down to the primary, that's what it is.
Now, in the end, I assume neither of them will actually, you know, will actually be the real nominee, the Democratic nominee, and I accept it.
I'll probably write their names in, because I stand on principle, and that's just what I'm going to do.
So anyway, this went long, but good.
I'm happy to have seen Tulsi take down Kamala.
Like, that was fantastic.
So anyway, stick around.
Next time it will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
A lot of people don't understand how big tech bias actually works.
Now, there are some overt instances of bias where we see like a leaked email from Project Veritas where someone at Google refers to Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Prager University as you-know-who far-right extremists.
That's overt, that we can see.
There have been instances where there's a clear bias in who gets banned from certain platforms, say Twitter for instance, Learn to Code, it's all very obvious.
Interestingly now, we're actually seeing the media finally loop back around to reality and admit.
Are Google and Facebook censoring conservatives?
The problem is more widespread than that.
And they're correct.
Saying, the social media giants say they don't want to regulate political speech, but they already are.
This article is actually pretty good.
And I'll tell you why.
The bias of big tech has to do with the targeting of words and ideas, not individuals.
I pointed this out on the Joe Rogan podcast.
I said, your rules to Jack Dorsey are biased against conservatives.
And he said, how?
And I said, the misgendering policy.
And he said, oh, but we look at studies and it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what you look at.
More than half the country disagrees with you.
You have chosen a rule set that is at odds with the worldview of the other half of the country.
You're not looking at conservatives and going, aha, him, ban him.
No, you're saying that idea held by you and your group for the most part, eliminate.
That's how the bias works.
And I'll give you some examples before we read the story.
A really great example would be this story.
Google tried censoring gun shopping searches.
It backfired.
February 27, 2018.
Let's talk about the bias against conservatives.
Who is more likely to be shopping for firearms and firearm accessories?
Not liberals, who tend to be in favor of gun control.
Now, admittedly, there are a lot of liberals who are pro-gun, for sure.
Or, I hate saying liberal, but leftists and liberals.
But for the most part, you're gonna find it falls onto the conservative base who are pro-2A.
Which means, when Google decides you can't search for the word gun, It is primarily affecting conservatives.
Google decides that a certain politician's stories shouldn't emerge in search, and they censor the auto filter, you know, the auto search, that is a bias, in favor of, say, the Democrats.
Now, we don't know, necessarily, in terms of that, who they're doing it to more, but we do know Google is in Silicon Valley, they tend to be on the left, they're a massive, powerful corporation, and they do little things like this all the time.
They filter search results.
They remove certain people.
They spread lies.
They favor CNN.
We know how this works.
If CNN chooses to show- I'm sorry, if Google chooses to show CNN in searches one-fifth of the time, well, CNN is politically biased.
There's third-party fact-checking organizations that say CNN falls on the left.
They're not centrist.
And they push a lot of the same far-left rhetoric as many of these digital outlets.
But let this be the perfect example for you.
It's not so much in the broader sense that someone at Google is like, we must get rid of every conservative.
It's that they're saying guns are bad and should be banned.
Well, guess what?
Guess which political party tends to favor gun rights?
And that's how the game is played.
Now, interestingly, the Washington Post actually talks about this.
They say, the White House recently hosted a social media summit inviting about 200 conservatives and right-wing activists to discuss their allegations that Facebook and Twitter censor their messaging.
Also, they also invited a small handful of liberals, because I wasn't the only one.
The summit capped a year of charges by the right that Silicon Valley tech firms have a liberal bias.
But these charges come in the face of considerable evidence that conservative news outlets outperform others on social media.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic presidential candidate, filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google, alleging that a temporary account suspension infringed on her free speech.
More importantly, That suspension infringed on a presidential campaign.
That is the nightmare reality that is Google.
But I want to stress something.
They like to... I don't know if they do that here or if it's another article where they're like, clearly Tulsi Gabbard being suppressed flies in the face of the conservative narrative.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
The narrative is, yes, they're biased against conservatives.
It doesn't mean they're not biased against Tulsi Gabbard.
It just means they're biased against conservatives.
Guess what?
Two things can be true at the same time.
Because as I've stated over and over and over again, you know who the real bias is against?
Anyone who doesn't hold the identitarian left-wing pro-war establishment view.
Veritas revealed live-action, a pro-life group, but also the anti-media.com anti-war.
And now here's the kicker.
Guess what?
Guess what other big base happens to be anti-war?
Trump's base!
Remember when Trump was gonna strike Iran and Tucker Carlson said, don't do it or something to that effect?
And so, Trump decided not to.
Something happened, and I don't have the details, because it was like a couple weeks ago, where something like Tucker Carlson said something to the effect of, if you go to war with Iran, you will not get re-elected.
Something like that.
Trump's base does not like war.
Though they do support the president when he does engage in a lot of these things.
Long story short, I think the real issue is the war machine.
Is what they're trying to protect.
And now here's the thing.
When you have these left-wing intersectional types, they don't care for war.
They will smear Tulsi Gabbard all day and night because she's the only one up there saying no, no, no.
So that's how the game is played as far as I'm concerned.
But let's read on.
They say, Our research reveals one likely reason.
Facebook and Google don't make clear either their guidelines or reasoning for accepting or rejecting paid political content or the process by which they make those decisions.
This lack of transparency may lead outsiders to believe the worst, especially when tech chief executives make political statements that don't accord with their prospective customers' beliefs.
But they go on to say, Google bans inappropriate content, such as intimidation and discrimination,
but it says nothing about what these things mean in practice.
So when you start talking about, I think they actually get into talking about
weapons like AR-15 in particular, but let's read.
They say, over the past two years, we interviewed former employees of Facebook and Google and
political practitioners from campaigns, political organizations, and digital political consultancies.
We also analyzed email exchanges between Facebook and campaigns to investigate how these firms moderate paid political speech, such as campaign advertising.
We focused on advertising or paid content, the domain where these companies are likely to have the most formal policies and transparency around their decision.
Here's one example.
Political practitioners told us that advertising that focuses on the politics of assault rifles, for or against, might run afoul of Google's rules.
At Google, algorithms vet most advertising for inappropriate content.
When an algorithm flags an ad, it then goes to human reviewers.
If reviewers reject the ad, they give very little explanation, failing to clarify, for instance, why an ad about the politics of assault rifles counts as inappropriate content.
As a result, Campaigns don't know how to design ads that meet the standards.
That limits the range of political topics on which politicians can campaign.
Yes.
Think about what Twitter did to Donald Trump saying they were going to put a flag on tweets that break the rules.
They're saying, today, keep in mind, if you speak like the president, you will never be president.
They're saying the president technically isn't allowed to be on their platform, one of the biggest public discourse communications platforms in the country.
That is a psychotic precedent to set.
They say keeping the rules vague allows these firms maximum flexibility to interpret their own rules.
The campaign staffers we interviewed reported that company representatives generally do not explain or justify these decisions.
Journalists, researchers, and individuals who have an interest in how platforms moderate political speech remain largely in the dark.
So think about Google, who bans the word gun from search results.
Now think about someone putting an ad up that is pro-gun.
Anti-gun control.
Saying, we have a Second Amendment right.
It gets flagged because it has the word gun in it.
It goes to a human reviewer who sees it and sees them saying, you should go buy guns.
You should be allowed to own them.
It is your right under the Constitution.
And they think, whoa, whoa, whoa, it's promoting gun use.
We've already banned guns from the shop.
We're not going to allow the word gun in advertisements.
Delete.
But then think about the inverse, where they're like, guns are bad.
We shouldn't have guns.
Google says, that's exactly why we banned the word gun from search.
We agree.
You see how the bias works?
It's not that they're going to conservatives individually and saying, get rid of them.
Though they are.
But like, in the broader context, the rules are being set.
The tracks are being laid.
And if you don't deal with this today, in 10 years, there will be no ads For pro-life, for guns, for any conservative position.
unidentified
Now, many people would say, well, is Tim defending the conservatives?
Because for one, I believe in the right to free expression and fair and honest elections.
I don't believe my morality trumps anyone on the left or the right, for the most part.
Or I should clarify this.
I certainly think I have better opinions than everyone else, as we all do.
But I don't believe I have the moral authority to impose my will on anyone, be it far left or far right.
Though I think we can come together, argue for our ideas, and win, in the long run, to establish societal norms and what is right and wrong, I don't believe that I should be able to shut down someone else's expression because I have more authority than they do.
That makes no sense.
However, there are a lot of people that do, and they use systems in this way that grant them that power.
More importantly though, Conservatives, whatever.
Whatever.
Okay, fine.
Let them be banned.
And you know what comes next?
Tulsi Gabbard.
And that is the most important point.
I will absolutely stand up for those who are having their expressions stripped, who are being accused of hate speech or whatever.
Because I know what happens next.
The people I like are standing in line to be pushed off the cliff, same as everybody else.
There was a famous poem.
First they came for, we know how it goes.
They're gonna get rid of conservatives, and then they're gonna come for the anti-war left, and that is what we are seeing.
So, they try and make this seem more about how it's policing speech in general, but let's be real.
As I present it to you, when it comes to a pro-life ad trying to explain why they think it's wrong and show images, for instance, of what happens in an abortion, of course Google's gonna reject that.
And there you go.
The conservative view will be restricted, whereas the pro-choice people will just speak on emotion and the rights, and they'll show images of women smiling.
Those images aren't, you know, controversial, and they'll be accepted.
Thus, the soft, safe space room with pastel walls and stuffed animals is what will get approved every single time.
And the harsh realities of the world will not be approved.
So anybody campaigning Anybody who holds ideas that are controversial but that still need to be heard, you will be left out and your ideas will cease to exist.
That is the bias of social media.
And you can look at the trans debate.
Look at Mario Lopez.
Mario Lopez said, parents should decide for themselves, you know, but I just think kids aren't old enough to know.
And then they attacked him for it a month later.
And he apologized.
How insane is that?
So you wanna talk about bias?
I think the fact that Mario Lopez apologized shows you the real bias.
He knows what he has to do to survive in media.
What do you think comes next?
That's all I gotta say.
That's what it's gonna be like.
Here's a good example, actually, of some more.
When Elizabeth Warren called out Facebook, they say, shortly after, Facebook removed her ads that called for the company to be broken up, claiming the ads violated rules against using the Facebook logo.
After an outcry, Facebook restored the ads.
So let me make it clear.
It's conservatives today, it's the anti-war tomorrow, and it's anyone who dare oppose the big tech oligopoly.
That's why we cannot allow them to continue.
And yes, they are biased.
The reality is they're biased against everyone but themselves.
If they could just make themselves rich and powerful, that's what they would support.
As long as the left defends their authoritarian policies, they're not going to go after them.
But conservatives challenge it, so they increasingly say, enough.
We're not going to allow you to speak.
Anyway, I think it's interesting that Washington Post wrote this article, now admitting the problem is actually worse than just censoring conservatives.
They don't do a good enough job in my opinion, but at least they bring up a very important issue.
Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, whatever.
They don't need to say in the rules conservatives are banned.
They can say something like, no red hats.
What if that was a rule?
No red hats allowed!
Has nothing to do with conservatives!
We just think red hats are bad!
Well, there you go.
Trump supporters out.
You see how they can play the game.
Anyway, stick around.
I'm going to be expanding a bit on this, the smear campaigns against Tulsi Gabbard, coming up at 4 p.m.
And yes, I'll be talking about tech, so that will be at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you there.
Many of you may have heard the story about Mario Lopez, who appeared on the Candace Owens podcast, which is a PragerU show, and said something to the effect of, you know, I'm not gonna tell parents how to raise their kids, but I just don't think three-year-olds can really know if they're transgender.
A completely reasonable position.
He didn't tell other parents what they shouldn't, shouldn't, or shouldn't do.
He simply said he didn't think so.
And he got attacked for it.
A month later, the comments resurfaced, and for some, Mario Lopez apologized?
Three-year-olds don't even know what left and right is.
They have very little concept of anything in physical reality.
His comments weren't even telling parents what to do, so why apologize?
But it's been a fun and nightmarish past couple of years with the weird psychosis that is happening in the press and in the media.
And look, the psychosis I'm referring to has nothing to do with individuals and trans people in the trans community.
I'm referring to those Who can't seem to say anything that makes sense, and then when they're attacked for it, they try and invert their position.
Basically, the point is, you can't go out and be like, here's how I feel, and then someone be like, I think you feel wrong, and then they go, yes, that was wrong of me.
What?
You think Mario Lopez actually changed his opinion on anything?
No, he's bowing to the mob.
It is psychotic to believe anything good will come of this.
But here we go!
I hope you're ready for a deep dive into one of the most bizarre stories I have ever read.
From The Daily Caller.
Model admits she lied about being transgender after getting death threats over past comments.
Model Carissa Pinkston admitted she lied about being transgender earlier this month after getting death threats over her past comments that were transphobic on social media.
Hold on!
Daily Caller, what are you doing?
Daily Caller says they were transphobic.
No, they weren't!
It all started back in May when Pinkston, a model for the Savage X Fenty lingerie line, Posted a series of posts on Facebook under the name of Risa Danielle, per NBC News, in a piece published Wednesday.
That is her opinion.
Like, the argument over the word woman, fine.
you a woman. It simply makes you transgender," the model wrote in one post. That's her opinion.
Like, the argument over the word woman, fine. But here's the point. Wikipedia defines woman
as an adult human female, period.
Okay?
You get these people who for political reasons are saying trans women are women.
Fine, if that's your political opinion.
I'm not going to tell you mine.
I'm just going to tell you that Wikipedia says a woman is an adult human female.
The reason I bring that up, if she agrees with that, that's her opinion.
It's based on Wikipedia.
I'm not saying Wikipedia is the best source in the world.
I'm just saying, it's not like she's made it up one day.
It's not like she's part of a secret cabal of transphobic bigots.
No, it sounds like she's someone who's read an encyclopedia and said, that's my position.
But it gets better.
Oh, trust me, it gets better.
In another, she wrote, Transgender people want to be perceived as male or female.
In a biological context, there are males and females.
That is 100% correct.
Now, I love science, and I'm entirely open to the possibility of new science emerging, because I'll be honest, I've never actually looked at a cell under a microscope to tell you what it is or isn't.
I recognize that my opinions and beliefs come from other people that I trust.
But so long as the scientific community has not undergone a dramatic overhaul where new sexual cells emerge, well, I'm gonna keep my opinion of the scientific community.
Same as I do for climate change.
Apparently, you got factions of people who don't believe in science.
But what do you think this model does then?
When she's losing her job or being threatened for saying basic facts?
Well, first of all, it's ridiculous that this model would lose work over this, but welcome to 2019.
It gets better.
When people called her out for being transphobic, she didn't apologize, and then compared a person labeling themselves as transgender to reclaiming their virginity.
Screenshots of those since-deleted posts resurfaced on Twitter last week, and soon after, the model was fired from her agency, Elite Models.
Pinkston then wrote an Instagram post on July 22nd that she just wasn't ready to come out, and then claimed that she was, in fact, transgender.
Now I want to show you something.
Here's a picture of the model, I'm assuming.
And let me show you this other picture.
Interestingly, she does have rather masculine features.
And I believe a lot of people may have actually believed she was transgender.
Except for the fact that she has been naked around people.
And she is a biological female, it would seem.
Why did she think this was the right thing to do?
I don't know, but I'll put it this way.
She criticized trans orthodoxy with science, that male and female exists, and she lost her job over it.
So she did what seemingly made sense.
Be trans.
Then you'll get more work, right?
No.
Because people know the truth.
It didn't work.
But think about what this means.
Someone actually thought it would be more lucrative and beneficial to their career to pretend to be transgender.
Things are getting weird!
I'll say that.
I wasn't ready to come out yet, but today I got fired and I've been receiving hate mail and death threats ever since, so I'm forced to tell everyone the truth.
I'm transgender, she said.
However, shortly after her big reveal, fellow models called her transgender declaration a lie.
I have seen baby pictures of Carissa.
I've seen her fully naked.
I've been around this woman long enough to fully know her.
Elise Wilson, a fellow model, wrote, We have many trans friends.
This conversation would have definitely been brought up.
Meanwhile, a gender non-conforming trans model named Erin Philip tweeted, I know this person IRL and she is so cisgender.
Imagine being a model who got exposed for being a raging transphobe, saying extremely transphobic s in the past and then resorting to lying about being transgender online for clout in an attempt to save your career.
That last part?
I'm right there with ya.
However, raging transphobe, let me just say something now for everybody.
There are two biological sexes that we know of, at least as it pertains to humans and mammals.
And my general understanding, and I could be wrong, is that there are, there's male and female, sperm and ova, and there's not like a third cell that then interacts, which exists with a third biological sex.
Which means, gender is bimodal.
That's how it's been described by many people smarter than me in this field.
That 99 point, you know, 98 point something percent of people will fall into one of two, you know, bell curves, but there is a small overlap.
There's intersex and other abnormalities, but for the most part, there are two.
So yes, in most circumstances, the overwhelming majority, around 90% of the time, you will be discernibly male or female.
There are then people who will be not discernibly male or female, but still functionally male or female, and there are some people where they're just kind of in between.
But there is no third bell curve of a different gender that we don't, like, doesn't exist.
So yes, if you're born male, for the most part, you will never be female.
Period.
I mean, unless of course we have like some kind of, I don't know, magic, technology, I shouldn't say magic, but like technological development that actually allows like body swapping, or like cellular conversion, or complete cellular manipulation, for the most part.
After, you know, however many years you've been alive, your body has developed to either male or female, and with some exceptions, intersex and other, you know, but 98%-ish, okay?
So, I would say this.
You are not a raging transphobe for pointing out, typically, people are going to be male or female, and you can't change that.
At least not now!
Perhaps in the future when we get, you know, new technologies, You can, but right now we don't.
But I will go on to say, WHY WOULD ANYBODY PRETEND TO BE TRANS?
So then she goes on to say, I apologize for any transphobic remark I've ever made
towards the trans community, the model wrote.
I thought if I came out as trans that I could somehow make things better for myself,
but it appears I've only made things worse.
You bet you did!
In an interview Tuesday with BuzzFeed News, the model shared that people don't know the entire story,
and that at times she did feel like a trans person in a way.
In high school, I was really bullied.
Is that a joke?
People don't know the entire story.
Everyone was saying my original comment was transphobic.
But you can't expect everyone to know everything about a culture or movement if they never have taken the time to be fully educated on it.
I completely agree.
And that's a really interesting thing.
I've come across several people who are non-gender conforming.
And I mean, like, there are some people in my area who I can't tell if they're—they look biologically female, but maybe have transitioned, maybe a trans man, maybe just be a lesbian.
Because you never know if you're gonna get one of these people who's gonna shriek at the top of their lungs and insult you or attack you.
And I understand.
The freaky weirdos are few and far between.
Most people will just politely be like, actually, I go by X, right?
And then I'll be like, oh yeah, no problem.
However.
Do I want to risk being in a situation where all of a sudden now they're accusing me of being a raging transphobe because no one told me your pronoun?
It is a weird, weird game.
So you know what?
I'm just gonna make my own pronouns up.
I'm gonna make up like... I was actually talking to a friend and I'm like, I'm just gonna say XC and XX.
Right?
There you go.
Are you X-y or XX?
X or X-y?
I don't know.
The point is, because everything is offensive all the time, what are you supposed to do?
Now, this person's a weirdo.
I have no idea why they would pretend to be trans, but heck of a story!
It just goes to show you how insane everything's gotten.
The fact that you can't point out that male and female are things that are real and people are typically one or the other.
The fact that it is more lucrative for them to pretend to be trans than to just stick up for their fact-based belief.
Mind-blowing.
So I'll say this final thought.
Mario Lopez, you should have never apologized.
Gross spine.
But they don't want to lose their jobs, because that's more important, right?
Man, people are, uh, losers.
Uh, Mario Lopez, I have no respect for you.
Okay?
I get it.
You're scared.
You don't want to lose your job.
But until someone steps up and says, No, I'm not gonna apologize!
And no, I don't care!
Period.
You know what?
If you want, you know, I can't be fired.
That's kind of why I'm allowed to say the things I say, and that's why I would never want to work for any of these companies.
But I'll tell you what, they come, they ban my channel, whatever, I got no problem going and living in the woods, building like a mud hut, just hanging out, looking at the stars.
Yeah, sounds pretty peaceful, doesn't it?
More peaceful than this psychotic behavior.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
This is the moment I have been waiting for.
The sweet, sweet, glorious moment that the Democrats of the past two terms realize the current party is insane.
Check this out.
Biden, quote, bizarre that Democrats attacked Obama's policies at debate.
Yep, because Barack Obama is a Republican, at least by today's standards, and they hate everything Obama did.
And that's why Trump won, and that's why Trump is going to win again.
Because even Joe Biden can't quite figure out what is going on with the Democratic Party.
Sorry Biden, you're a relic of, well, Three years ago!
It was just three years ago!
We had Obama, deporter-in-chief, and today, we have Biden running, and they attack him with, they say it's right-wing talking points, or Republican talking points.
So the first thing I want to show is this story, which is very funny.
Uh, Joe Biden is surprised.
He says, I was a little surprised at how much incoming there was about Barack, about the president.
I'm proud of having served him.
I'm proud of the job he did.
I don't think there's anything he has to apologize for.
I do!
Maybe, you know, extrajudicial assassination, and the indefinite detention provisions, and prosecuting whistleblowers, and yeah, okay, you get the point.
Let's, let's move on.
The point is, yeah, Obama has things to be criticized for, but not his regular Democrat policies.
Oh well, Barack Obama's a Republican by today's standards.
That's something Biden's gonna have to contend with.
He changed the dialogue, he changed the whole question, he changed what was going on, and the idea that somehow it's comparable to what this guy is doing is absolutely bizarre.
In fact, Trump ended family separation!
The facilities holding kids were built by Obama, I think, or at least he used them.
So, Biden, I hate to say it, but...
Obama was a Republican.
So here, okay, so it's funny that Joe Biden is shocked, but check this out.
CNN opinion.
When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
That's the question I've been asking because I've always been a little to the left of Obama on some issues.
Like healthcare, Obama was for universal healthcare, okay?
I'm on board with that idea, but whether it's possible is an entirely different story.
In which case, we should probably negotiate like a public option or something that we can get conservatives on board for instead of just screeching into the wind and calling Trump and saying orange man bad.
But this is great.
I absolutely love this story.
Let's check it out.
When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
I'm asking because according to some folks in the debate stage in Detroit, support for policy positions like the public option, comprehensive immigration reform, and trade agreements are now dismissed as, quote, Republican talking points.
The same applies to asking practical questions about how proposals would be passed or paid for.
That's not only a sign of how far-left Democrats are moving, but also a warning about how liberals risk reinforcing Donald Trump's re-election playbook.
They're not liberals!
They are not liberals.
Tim Pool is a liberal.
Now we don't have any of that.
discussion and reasonable debate.
And I imagine like somebody tweeted about Crossfire and how Tucker Carlson would sit
with like a liberal, I don't even know who did that show, but Jon Stewart said it was
bad for the country, the liberals and the conservatives debating.
Now we don't have any of that.
MSNBC wouldn't even let Glenn Greenwald on the air because he wouldn't push the Russiagate
nonsense.
Well, let's read on.
I'll see you next time.
Of course, all this is absurd.
Obama is the Democratic Party's most popular ex-president in living memory.
Despite Republicans' relentless and often unhinged attacks on him as a socialist, and worse, it's now clear that he was a responsible center-left leader.
Man, I gotta say, the Democrats are making me miss Obama, and I wasn't a fan.
I voted for him the first time, not the second time.
I was mad at him for a lot of his policies.
But I gotta say, I'd love to have an Obama on that stage.
I'd be willing to bet conservatives even miss him.
Well, actually, I take that back.
Obama won, so I'm pretty sure conservatives are glad he's gone, and the Democrats look insane.
But let me just stress, you know, we need a good counterbalance.
It is healthy for Trump, it is healthy for Obama, it is healthy for whoever is running to have a strong opponent.
And Trump doesn't have a strong opponent.
He needs one.
After inheriting the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Obama actually reduced the deficit in his second term and backed bipartisan reforms on stubborn issues like immigration.
Many of his policy outreaches to Republicans were rebuffed, and it's because of the reflexive demonization of Obama that many Democrats today are saying that it's useless to reach out to Republicans.
I understand their frustration, but still, the ability to work with Republicans is the third quality that a CNN poll shows Democrats want most in their next president.
The first being an ability to defeat Donald Trump, and that requires more than a purely play-to-the-base strategy that ignores independent swing voters.
I got a special treat for you.
I got something even better than this.
We can talk about Obama all day and night, but how about we one-up the insanity and go straight to, all of the Democrats are right-wing!
Yes.
And I'll throw it to everyone's favorite, Ocasio-Cortez.
Take it away, Ocasio-Cortez, who says, But you may say, Tim, this story has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
Israel and she agrees with radio hosts that the country is criminal.
But you may say, Tim, this story has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
Oh, hold on.
In the interview, I'm not going to play it because I don't want to risk copyright issues,
Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly makes statements accusing or insinuating the Democrats who
have criticized Elon Omar's statements as anti-Semitic are right wing or pushing right
wing talking points.
And she repeatedly says the right and right-wing and Republicans.
And I'm sitting here thinking like, listen, Ocasio-Cortez is far left.
She's at odds with the Democrats.
At first I thought, maybe she's just purposefully omitting the fact that it's Democrats who are criticizing Ilhan Omar over anti-Semitism.
And then I thought, it actually makes more sense that Cortez being far-left assumes the Democrats are right-wing.
I mean that seriously.
I can't interpret it any other way.
I'm not going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's just targeting Republicans.
That's what she's doing.
No, it was a bipartisan effort to condemn Ilhan Omar's remarks.
And in this video, she says, Isn't it weird how, like, when you criticize Israel, the right will call you anti-Semitic?
And I'm like, Well, the Democrats did that.
Here we are.
Whether or not it was her intent, we can kind of see things coming together, huh?
We can see how Ocasio-Cortez lumps the Democrats in with Republicans.
We can see how on the debate stage, they rag on Barack Obama's policies and basically act like he's a Republican and call him Republican talking points.
Barack Obama saying we need secure borders is not a Republican talking point.
Bernie Sanders did it 10 years ago.
Chuck Schumer did it 10 years ago.
What is going on?
Well, poor old Biden.
Poor old Biden is just sitting there confused as everyone rags on him and they move further and further and left.
But let me just tell you, the end result of this insanity is going to be a Trump landslide.
You know why?
Because Biden isn't wrong.
It is bizarre they're acting like Obama was a Republican.
Obama won twice.
People in this country still like the man.
They still agree with his policy positions.
So what's going to happen now when the people on the debate stage are saying Obama was bad?
Everyone's going, but I voted for him.
They're either not going to vote or they'll vote for Trump.
They go on to talk about Obamacare.
Obama essentially adopted a Heritage Foundation proposal that was first implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, did not stop Republicans from absurdly attacking it as government takeover of healthcare.
And that's understandably fueled a lot of cynicism among Democrats, who say they might as well now propose what they see as the real deal, an actual government takeover of healthcare.
Republicans' bad faith arguments have created the thing they feared, but I want to point this out too.
That was the old Republican establishment.
Trump came in and just kind of changed everything.
So call it what you want.
By all means, I'm not here to defend Republicans.
I do think it's funny to point out Mitt Romney had this, you know, Romneycare, and it was the basis of Obamacare.
It doesn't necessarily mean it was implemented in the same way.
Now, I personally thought the individual mandate was an authoritarian step of the line, forcing people to buy private insurance if you can't afford it.
I just thought that was silly and ridiculous.
It was Obama failing to get anything done.
He couldn't get a public option.
He couldn't get universal health care.
So what does he do?
Well, then just force people to buy insurance.
Oh, that solves the problem.
Ridiculous.
They say.
Actually, let's just read the conclusion on this one.
A political party needs both wings to fly.
Thank you.
And if the policies of Barack Obama, a person who is still America's most admired political leader, are being castigated as Republican talking points, that's a sign of how unmoored our political conversation has become from reality.
That's vital to note, because beyond winning the nomination, the primary responsibility of the next president will be reuniting the nation.
Here's the point of the primary.
The primary is supposed to find the candidate who will beat the opponent.
However, the opposite happens today.
You take all these candidates, put them against each other, and those with the merit win.
They then run in the general.
Today, something else is happening.
The Democrats are pandering to the far left, trying to get those votes, and they're speaking nonsense and saying it's Republican talking points in reference to Obama's policies.
So in fact, they're not going to choose the person best suited to defeat Donald Trump.
They're going to choose someone who gives them good feels, you know, makes them feel good.
They said the things, they said the right things, and I'll vote for you.
And then when it comes to general, regular people are gonna be like, I don't, I don't, I'm not gonna vote for those crazy people.
I'm gonna vote for this guy.
So the primary is, in effect, not doing what it was designed to do.
It's doing the opposite.
Where will that end up?
Well, I don't know, man.
But look at AOC.
They've called it the future of the Democratic Party.
I don't think they're wrong, but I'll say this.
She acts like Democrats and Republicans are all right-wing.
Whether it's her intention or not, Democrats and Republicans condemn the antisemitism.
Well, actually, I'll take that back.
They've all criticized it, but they failed to actually, you know, sign a resolution against Ilhan Omar.
But Democrats have condemned it, too.
They must be right-wing.
And that's your future, where Ocasio-Cortez claims to be in the middle, and they keep moving the needle.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
Lena Dunham sexually assaulted Brad Pitt.
I'm being kind of hyperbolic, but it's actually a fair interpretation that many people would state.
Take a look at this photo you see on the screen for those that are watching.
It is a picture of Lena Dunham making face contact with Brad Lip on the lips.
It looks like she's trying to kiss him.
The story is, Lena Dunham surprises Brad Pitt with a kiss at Once Upon a Time in Hollywood premiere.
Did she have permission to run up to Brad Pitt and try and kiss him on the lips?
I'm going to go ahead and bet the answer is no.
But maybe she did.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic in my presentation, but I want to point something out.
Look at the way this story is framed.
Look at Lena Dunham.
Look at Brad Pitt.
We will read a little bit of this, but I'm going to show you a photo of Lena Dunham.
I am not in any way trying to, I don't know, body shame her, but I want to make a point.
You can see she has a double chin.
You can see she's quite portly.
Again, not trying to be mean.
And you can see Brad Pitt is tall, chiseled, and fit.
The point I'm trying to make with this is I want you to invert the genders here.
Imagine a short, portly, double-chinned man running up to Angelina Jolie and trying to kiss her on the lips.
Do you know what would happen if a man like that tried doing something?
I mean, heck, even if Brad Pitt ran up to Angelina Jolie and tried to kiss her on the lips, there would probably be some problems.
I'd be willing to bet security would walk up, slam the guy to the ground, and smack him a few times with some kind of baton of some sort.
Because you can't walk up to people and place your lips on their face.
Look, I'm going to be honest.
I'm not trying to be mean to Lena Dunham.
But she is not attractive.
At all.
And I'm actually kind of disappointed to see her in, you know, portly and overweight because in the past, there were photos of her working out.
And she was made fun of for that.
And that makes me angry.
There are photos of her exercising, covered in sweat, and paparazzi types took pictures of her, they went online, and everyone made fun of her.
And that is not the way you encourage people to do better.
So that, shame on everybody for ragging on somebody who's trying to exercise and actually get fit.
But now here we are, and for whatever reason, she's not fit, she's portly, and she is jumping at Brad Pitt's face.
I think that's wrong.
I think it's wrong based on the standards we're seeing in today's era.
They say, Lena Dunham has balls of steel because she grabbed one of the hottest A-listers in Hollywood and planted a big fat one on him.
So you're saying, Yahoo, that she sexually assaulted Brad Pitt?
Dunham grabbed a surprised Brad Pitt and kissed him on the red carpet of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood during the premiere in London on Tuesday night.
The actors are both in the newly released Quentin Tarantino film, and Dunham was very strategic how she went about the kiss.
Here is she separated from Pitt by several of the co-stars.
He appears to be talking to Tarantino, Leo DiCaprio, and Margot Robbie, but that didn't stop the former Girls actress from keeping all eyes on him.
And there it is.
Dunham, who plays one of Charles Manson's cult followers in the film, bypasses her co-stars and heads straight for Pitt's unsuspecting lips.
Putting his arm around her as if to give Dunham a hug, she's clearly ready to go in for the kill.
Ooh, look at that.
And it looks like in this photo you can see she kissed him on the lips.
She appears to have drifted lips and maybe gets half-mouth contact before Pitt turns his cheek.
It's a ballsy move for the star to comment the Oscar winner so aggressively, but it's no surprise because just days ago she admitted that flirting with him on the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood set was a career highlight.
It's not every day I get to wear a muumuu, go barefoot, flirt with Brad Pitt, and join a cult as a job.
In the film, Pitt plays Leo DiCaprio's character, Stunt Double, who ends up at Manson's Ranch, where Dunham and other cult members are staying.
Spoiler, she doesn't seduce him in the film either.
Double standard, right?
Complete double standard.
Well, I have another story here, and I think it kind of fits, and I want to bring up this point and segue into the Me Too era.
Take a look at this.
Millennials are reluctantly staying single because they can't afford to date and Me Too has made men more distant, study says.
Yes, the Me Too movement is leaving many men confused about what you can or can't do.
Because let me point out, men, you can't do this.
You cannot walk up to a woman and kiss her on the lips, no matter who she is, wherever, at any time, for any reason.
No.
Not even your wife.
And I really mean this.
Think about it.
There might be a woman on the corner or at a bar or something, and it's your wife, and you're like, I'm gonna surprise her.
So you sneak up, somebody watches, and you go up to kiss her, and then somebody else might freak out and be like, hey, yo, what are you doing?
When you're trying to be romantic and spontaneous.
Now, obviously, that's a bit hyperbolic and extreme, but you never know.
There are creepy stories about, like, dads with their daughters being stopped and questioned about whose kid it is, and the dad's like, it's mine.
There are creepy stories about men on airplanes who are asked to move because they don't want men sitting next to children.
Where is the rulebook?
Because apparently there isn't one.
Where's the outrage that Lena Dunham did this?
There isn't any.
I'm not even really outraged, to be honest, okay?
Because I just don't really care.
The point I'm bringing up, though, is what I do care about is the media double standard.
Look, does Brad Pitt care?
Is he gonna say anything?
It doesn't seem like he will.
But now we can see the Me Too era is having a real impact.
For instance, it's making men more distant.
People are dating less.
But they're casually dating less.
People are looking for serious romantic partners.
It's really interesting.
Gen Z is actually quite traditional when it comes to relationships, according to the study.
So let's read a little bit about this, and we'll talk a bit about Me Too and double standards.
Stay safe.
Thousands of U.S.
Millennials are priced out of the dating market, a new study has shown.
Researchers found that a third of Generation Y are reluctantly single because they can't afford to pursue love.
According to the data, financial instability is hampering their ability to find the one because it's forcing them to budget.
Meanwhile, a quarter of respondents even said they would happily have sex with a human-like robot, but this would still be classed as cheating by half of partners.
I gotta point out, now, Daily Mail, you need a copy editor, and so does Yahoo, okay?
But let's scroll down, and we can come back to this later, maybe.
I wanna get to the Me Too part.
They say this.
The new research also found that the Me Too movement has caused more than half of all men to act differently with women, being more reserved and distant.
It's not all bad news, though.
59% of participants admitted to falling in love with someone they didn't expect to.
Aww, how sweet.
The average single person also wants to have the define-the-relationship conversation after four months of dating, which suggests they're serious about finding a partner.
So this comes from a website called Singles in America.
And I want to talk about this Me Too impact on dating.
So, looking at the Lena Dunham circumstance, think about how men try to court women and things like that, right?
And now we'll go to the Singles in America study, and it's kind of long, so I don't know if I'm going to be able to, like, actually dig through this and find... It has a lot of data here.
But what I want to point out is that it is a ridiculously small amount of women who will make the first move.
I will point out this.
Only 11% of Gen Z and Millennials date casually.
That's really interesting, even though they're not getting married.
But there's a feminist section of this where they talk about, so here's one part, they say, 75% of men are cool with a woman saying hi first, yet only 19% of women often take the lead.
90% of men are happy to have a woman ask for their number, only 14% of women do.
They add, 67% of men are fine with a woman offering to split the bill, only 24% of women offer.
As for the first kiss, only 15% of women make the first kiss.
Here's the important point.
If men are being told they can't make a move on a woman because it's invasive or offensive, they won't.
They'll be standoffish.
But women also don't make the first move either.
It is a tiny minority, 19%.
That means 81% of women are waiting for the man to make a move, yet men are told saying hi is creepy.
A viral video, 10 hours in New York, you know, as a woman, and there's a guy saying, have a nice day, and they're like, oh!
She sexually assaulted him, as far as I'm concerned.
They're not in a relationship.
He was surprised by it.
He turned.
That is inappropriate behavior, and it is hypocritical of Lena Dunham, who frequently talks about Me Too and these other issues.
And there is the point that I want to bring these things together.
When you see that happen, Lena Dunham, do that, and the media doesn't care.
What's a guy to say?
A guy is to say, you know you are not allowed to say hi to a woman, to kiss her, without risking being smeared and slammed by the media or by your friends.
Heaven forbid you have a career that, you know, somebody is jealous of and they'll come after you.
Yeah, Lena Dunham.
No problem.
So these feminist women type, like Lena Dunham specifically, not all feminists, just I'm referring to her specifically, will preach and preach and preach about Me Too and feminism, and she doesn't actually care.
She's just a creepy weirdo who wants to be famous.
She writes books about abusing her little sister and other weird, creepy, gross stuff.
But this is the point I wanted to bring up.
Dating is becoming harder for guys because guys are being told you can't make the first move.
And I mean that literally.
You are told if you walk up to a woman and say hi, you are creepy.
Now go back to the first point I made and I'll write this up.
Linda Dunham is short and portly and not particularly attractive.
And she just ran up to one of the hottest celebrities in the world and kissed him.
Imagine if you were a man, and you were short and portly, and you decided to run up to a beautiful woman and kiss her on the lips.
And then imagine yourself in prison or in jail for assault, your career destroyed, because you're not allowed to do that.
Now let's back that up.
Imagine you simply walked up to a beautiful celebrity and said, hey, how's it going?
