Most American Don't Want Trump Impeached, Think Media Outlets Trying To Stop Trump
Most American Don't Want Trump Impeached, Think Media Outlets Trying To Stop Trump. Several polls have already showed something similar, that most Americans don't want Trump to be impeached. Though most Democrats do, especially far left democrats, moderates sit at only around 39% in favor of impeachment.Interestingly the poll also found Trump had an approval rating of 40% but 59% did not want him impeached meaning that there are many people who do not approve of Trump but don't think he should be impeached.In another poll from Rasmussen we can see that 54% of voters think the media is just trying to stop Trump and they don't trust the news they hear.Which leads us to the big question. Outside of the people who don't trust media, do people think Trump's approval matters more than policy?The question we need to ask is is Trump's disapproval enough to stop his 2020 reelection or is the approval rating for Democrats worse? Will people be more likely to support an unpopular president if the Democratic parties policies are too far left?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
From USA Today, majority of Americans don't want Trump to be impeached and removed from office.
When I saw this story, I got a little confused.
But hold on.
I thought the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of the job Trump's doing.
Wouldn't that kind of correlate with those who want him impeached?
Or is it possible there are people who just think he's doing a bad job but want to let him just finish his term?
I don't know.
It seemed kind of weird.
Or there's another option.
Perhaps the media is wrong.
Perhaps the polls are wrong.
Perhaps this poll is wrong.
I honestly have no idea.
But I look at all these polls, and it seems like nothing makes sense anymore.
You know, there's a poll right now from Zogby Analytics showing that Trump's approval is higher than it's ever been.
Yet at the same time, there's a poll from the AP saying that Trump's disapproval is higher than it's ever been, and they say Trump has never surpassed 50%, but Zogby says he did.
You just can't know for sure.
And that's the big challenge.
So I can give you my thoughts and opinions, and so here's what we're going to do.
Let's take a look at why Americans don't want Trump to be impeached.
We'll look at this data.
I want to show you a couple polls, but the most important one is this, from Rasmussen.
Voters don't trust political news, say most reporters want to stop Trump.
And I happen to agree.
And I want you to know that I agree, and I assume most of you do, before we get into this.
And I'm going to show you why my perspective is where it is.
But I want to stress the challenges in understanding our world right now when there are journalists who just want to own Trump.
So they will put out negative stories, slant them and frame them, and a lot of people think so.
At the same time, they'll tell you Rasmussen is not a credible polling agency.
So who do you believe?
It's an information war.
It's a cultural civil war.
Call it what you will, but boy does it make things tough.
I will say this before we start.
Record economy, in terms of like, you know, the economy, the Dow, the stocks, everything's up.
Unemployment record low, you know, in the black community, in the Hispanic community.
Trump has an incumbent advantage.
The economy is everything.
What did someone say to me recently?
It's the economy, stupid.
That's what people are worried about.
They're worried about, are they going to survive?
And it's great.
Why would Trump's approval be low if things are going so well?
Record labor force?
You know, there's issues.
There are.
But I think when you look at how the economy is doing, I'd lean towards trusting the sources that say Trump is doing well.
But let's not dilly-dally.
Let's get to the news.
However, before we get started, go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, sharing
this video is the best thing you can do.
YouTube de-ranks independent political commentary, so they're propping up CNN, MSNBC, Fox News.
If you think this content is good, share it, because, you know, to be honest, that's how
business is supposed to work, right?
I run a business here, and when you like it, you tell your friends, and then I get more, you know, viewers, and it helps things grow.
I'm not gonna rely on YouTube's recommendation algorithm.
If they don't like it, well then so be it, then it's up to us.
And if you don't share it, I'll just assume you're a big fan of Don Lemon.
I'm kidding, that was a joke I used earlier, but let's just read the news, so share if you like.
From Washington, USA Today, a majority of Americans oppose impeaching President Donald Trump according to a new poll by Monmouth University released Thursday.
The data point, with 59% of those surveyed responding that Trump should not be impeached and compelled to leave office, comes as Trump's approval rating remains at 40% in the same poll.
Now that's so strange to me.
But in the same poll is the important point, and this is great data for us.
Because it shows the same methodology in many of the same people.
We can see there, 19% of people don't like the job he's doing, but not enough to say he should be removed from office.
And I think that's principled.
There are probably a lot of people saying, listen, I don't like the guy's doing a bad job, but he didn't do anything wrong to get impeached.
Like, you know, impeachment typically is from a criminal act of some sort, or a egregious violation of the oath of office, or something like that.
Right?
But I'm curious, because if somebody's doing a bad job of it, wouldn't you want them to be fired?
But perhaps that's their perspective, that impeachment is strong, it's making a statement about criminality or some violation, and Trump may be bad at his job, but not enough to warrant something like this.
This is an important point for one reason.
Well, it shows that there may be a more moderate view on the president.
It shows that there are a decent amount of people who don't like the president who also don't believe any of the hype about the crimes he committed.
19% of people who don't like him still think he didn't commit crimes, didn't obstruct justice, or something like that.
I think that's rather fascinating because it shows that they might still vote for the guy.
They might.
When their approval rating is at 40%, you need to break down exactly what we have, and I think, okay, so we don't have it in here, but there was a poll earlier, I might have it pulled up, where we can see, I do have the polls from the AP, where even though a lot of people disagree with Trump's position on a lot of things, like immigration, for instance, and healthcare, the economy has some pretty strong support, which means some of the people might say overall he's doing a bad job, Well, the economy's doing really well, so they might still vote for him.
This is an important bit of data again, because it's coming from the same poll.
Let's read on.
They say, in the poll there is clear partisan divide on whether the House Judiciary Committee should pursue an impeachment inquiry.
While 72% of Democrats believe such an inquiry is a good idea, only 39% of Independents and 8% of Republicans share that belief.
Let me stress, there is a minority of the Independents who want to see impeachment, or who think the inquiry itself is a good idea.
I'm telling you, man, when I'm looking at this data, like the Harris X poll I showed the other day, or a couple days ago, whatever, I showed it a couple times, that moderates think the Democrats have gone too far left more than they think the Republicans have gone too far right.
We see it again.
It is a minority of independents who think it's a good idea to impeach.
It's like, if I was going to bet, if you were going to put chips down, would you bet on the 39%?
I'm not saying that opposition to it is greater than 50, we don't know for sure.
It's probably around 40 or something, so it's rather even.
But with that uncertainty, I'm not going to place a bet on a 39% chance to win.
Right, so what I mean is, if you're a Democrat, and you're looking at your percentage of who's going to approve of it, 39% of independents, well you need to win them over.
And not only that, 72% of Democrats, you're not getting a strong majority on the Democrat side, but you're not getting everybody.
So it's tough, it's tough.
Because when you're looking at the Democrats trying to pander to the Democrats, they're going full steam ahead.
But when it comes to winning over the middle ground, the people you need to convince, they aren't.
And if the Republicans don't want to see impeachment, I think independents will be more likely to get behind the Republicans.
But moving on, they say that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep.
Jerry Nadler confirmed the launch of an impeachment inquiry by the House panel earlier this month in an interview on CNN.
They go into detail about what they're doing.
They mention Nancy Pelosi has resisted the growing calls for impeachment and all that stuff.
So I'm not going to move on too much from here because I want to get into the real issue.
This is the most important thing, I think, to lead with, right?
Look, my story yesterday was about how we live in Trump world.
It's true.
Trump is the president and the news won't stop.
It is what it is.
But here's the interesting bit here.
Firm as mucin.
Voters don't trust political news, say most reporters want to stop Trump.
And that may explain it.
Why is it that when I go to Politico, when I go to The Hill, when I go to CNN, New York Times, it's Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump?
Because they want to stop him.
Not everybody.
I think it's fair to point out the political sites like You know, like Politico or The Hill, they're going to talk about politics, so the president is right there front and center.
But I think a lot of these journalists, in my personal opinion, I'm going to agree with the people in this poll, I think they're trying to find negative stories to smear the president.
They say, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 32% of likely U.S.
voters trust the political news they are getting.
Most, 54%, do not.
14% are not sure.
They say the survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted on August 20th and 21st, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports.
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.
I know this.
Rasmussen has been accused over and over again of being biased.
And so, when you look at the RealClearPolitics average, Rasmussen has Trump around 50% approval rate, a plus two spread, and everybody else, look, it's minus 13, minus 13, minus 8, minus 12, with a minus 10 average, but Rasmussen has him positive.
And Rasmussen has been criticized for being conservative or being biased and things like that.
Well, what I did was, Concerning Trump, I decided to look to Rasmussen's rating in 2016.
The best I can do is try and break these things down so I can convey to you truth to the as close as I can get it.
Because I acknowledge, I don't know.
You know, honestly, if one poll says Trump is doing great and one poll says he's doing bad, How do we figure out who's right?
The polls are all over the place.
Well, you might find with the averages, they mostly show Trump is doing bad.
You know, he's in the low 40s.
And then you see this Rasmussen, and you're like, is Rasmussen right or wrong?
Well, there are going to be people who will tell you, the media just wants to smear Trump.
And Rasmussen is one of those companies saying, polls show it.
But then you see Rasmussen is one of the only pollsters showing Trump with a higher approval rating than disapproval.
It's all very confusing.
But I will say this.
In 2016, Rasmussen Report's final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2% popular vote lead over Donald Trump.
After all 136 million U.S.
votes were counted, Hillary Clinton led the popular vote by 2.1%, as in 2012, a foreign university study by Dr. Costas Panagalopoulos I hope I pronounced that right.
Compared.
Pre-election polling with the election results from Election Day.
The study ranked 14 organizations, but unlike 2012, chose to omit the results of resumes and reports.
This was later praised by Donald Trump on Twitter, calling them the most accurate election polls.
The reason I'm only highlighting 2016 right now is, you know, there were variations.
They were ranked very low.
In 2012, but they were ranked very high in 2008.
I want to focus on the Trump phenomenon and Hillary Clinton, and it looks like they nailed it.
In terms of tracking the popular vote lead by Hillary Clinton, they were right.
Rasmussen was right in what they expected in the popular vote.
So the reason why I find this statistically significant is that when we're looking at polls, They're tracking not electoral college results, but what people thought.
Who were they going to vote for?
If Rasmussen is doing a poll today, only a few years later, and their methodology is still similar, I would actually trust them as being likely correct.
Recognizing the bias.
When you have all these other organizations, it's possible they aren't.
But I will say that's a really good thing in their favor.
If in 2016 they knew Hillary Clinton was going to get this 2% lead in the popular vote, And they were right?
Then I'd imagine when gauging the popular approval of the president or the president's popularity among the general population, I think they're probably close as well.
So a lot of these polls were wrong.
They had large spreads.
The predictions were way off.
And Rasmussen at least got that bit of math correct.
Now there is another bit of math.
This is not included in the RCP average.
Some people criticize Zogby.
Zogby talks about the poor performances of Democrats boosting Trump's approval rating to 51%, especially in the Black and Hispanic community.
Now, I highlight that Zogby Analytics, my understanding is, I'm trying to break down, why do we see this bias, right?
So why do we see this bias?
Why is Zogby saying Trump is doing really, really well?
Well, John Zogby, according to Wikipedia, is a Democrat.
My understanding of what happened, and it could be wrong, is that Zogby Analytics is the recreation of a new company, formerly Zogby International, which was sold, and Zogby is a well-known polling agency.
The reason I'm telling you all this is because I'm trying to really figure out, I really, really want to figure out, do people want Trump in office?
Do they support him or not?
So I won't tell you whether or not these polls showing, you know, here's what I'll say.
Whether or not you trust these polls is entirely up to you.
I'll point out why I think so.
I will point out Rasmussen has been heavily criticized.
I will point out Zogby has been heavily criticized.
And I'll give you some of the background.
Take it for what you will.
Rasmussen is kind of involved in this information war saying people don't trust political reporting.
So maybe that's why all these polls are bad.
Maybe these people are right.
54% saying they don't trust it.
It's a tough world, I gotta admit.
You know, I try to draw an assessment based off all of the things I've read.
I lean towards Trump is probably doing better than these polls show.
Absolutely.
Absolutely do.
It doesn't mean I will overtly trust Rasmussen or Zogby.
But highlighting this from 2016, I think, is really important.
We're talking about one-for-one voters.
If you asked a voter today, do you support the president, do you approve of his job, and they got the popular vote correct, I'd lean towards Rasmussen's probably doing something right.
But I don't know.
It's an absolute bias, because how could all of these other outlets be wrong?
Maybe that's the optimism bias, the assumption that all these different outlets could be wrong, and Rasmussen couldn't possibly be the outlier.
I know Trump supporters are gonna say Rasmussen is right, and they'll look similarly to the 2016 polls and say it was spot on.
Zogby, on the other hand, this is a guy who's a Democrat, or at least listed as one for whatever reason, saying that Trump's approval rating is really high, but you know what?
The people who don't like Trump are gonna say it's just not legitimate.
But let's move on now to the latest poll.
An AP NORC poll has Trump at 62% disapproval.
Now the AP is extremely trustworthy, and this was rather shocking to me, because I do trust the AP, but I gotta say, my personal understanding of the political sphere right now, I really can't believe it.
And that's, so look, I can recognize that bias, but I'll say this.
As I mentioned earlier, in a record economy, with record low unemployment, really this massive labor force, I don't see how Trump's approval could be as high as they claim it is.
And I'll say this too, you know, when you look, it's tough, I gotta admit, it's really tough.
With all this negative press about Trump, right, I made this video the other day called We're Trapped in Trump World.
Where the news is just non-stop ragging on Trump.
That could be why.
You know, the other day I overheard a guy say that Trump claimed he was the second coming and that he was the king of Israel and that's just not true.
It's a challenge, isn't it?
It's not true.
Trump didn't do this.
Trump quoted someone else praising him as saying that Jewish people saw him as the king, they treated him like the king of Israel or viewed him as such and saw him as a second coming and Trump quoted it.
So there's a great distinction of Trump tweeting out praise from somebody and stating he is.
There's also the thing where they claimed Trump said he was the chosen one, they show a picture of him going like this, when in reality it seemed like Trump was telling a joke.
He was like, listen, no, somebody had to go, no, no, no, listen, listen, look, I am the chosen one.
I had to do this.
It seemed like a tongue-in-cheek comment about how none of the other presidents would go up against China, not that he literally thinks.
And then later on, he goes on to say the people chose me and now blah, blah, blah.
You see all this negative news, it's no surprise you would see this disapproval.
So it's entirely possible as well.
It is really tough though.
But my personal opinion, my bias, is that the economy is the prevailing factor in everything.
So I'll show you right here, see?
Economy.
On the economy, his approval is 46%.
And then we can see immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, and gun policy, it's really low.
Maybe.
But if the economy is the driving force, I really don't see how his disapproval could be so high.
How could 51% disagree with how the economy is doing?
To me, that seems odd.
Because the news I see all the time is that it's doing well.
In fact, there was a story maybe a couple months ago where CNN was even praising the economy, saying, record low unemployment, wage growth is up.
How could these people really disapprove of an economy that's doing so well?
It's baffling to me.
I just don't believe it.
But I will stress this.
So there have been murmurs about a recession.
I personally, again, my bias, I feel like a lot of these stories about a recession are just an attempt to paint the present in a negative light, probably because some people have a political agenda, as Rasmussen says most do, or because they want the negative story.
So we can see this from the New York Post.
It's an opinion from John Crudell.
Recession is at the top of Trump haters' wish list.
We've seen Bill Maher say it, bring on the recession to get rid of Trump.
And I find that rather disconcerting, I really, really do.
Come on, man.
Do you really?
It was great to see, I'm forgetting the guy's name, Delaney, I think it was Delaney, who said, come on, he's a more moderate Democrat, saying we don't want a recession, are you nuts?
But there are Democrats who do.
Bill Maher is a Democrat supporter, and he's straight up calling for it.
He's an elite saying we gotta have it.
So, you know, you have people who absolutely want this to happen.
So when I see all these stories popping up saying a recession could come, oh no!
Why?
Well, in my opinion, I think they're hoping for a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You say negative news over and over and over again and get people scared, so they start pulling their money out of the market.
To hurt it.
That's scary to me.
They say, oh, Trump knows.
No, Trump is fighting it at every step of the way.
For sure, he knows a recession is bad news for him.
This says to me, look, all the stories about, you know, Bill Maher, the best example.
Come on, man.
They know they got nothing.
Bill Maher said the Democrats just need to be less crazy than Trump and they're screwing that up.
Yup.
Which means when Bill Maher says bring on the recession, it's because he knows the Democrats have nothing.
Take that into consideration then when you look at these polls.
How could Trump's disapproval be so high when the economy is doing so well and there's nothing the Democrats have to offer that Bill Maher thinks they need a recession to beat Trump?
Now admit.
A lot of people don't like Trump.
Namely me.
But admittedly, it's not like I absolutely hate the guy.
He just puts me off.
You know?
I don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I'm just like, nah, I'm not a fan of the guy.
Come on.
You know?
And so there are a lot of people who are like me who would—actually, I shouldn't say like me because I'm not going to vote for the guy.
It's just never going to happen.
I will stress that point for a lot of reasons.
I vote—I don't vote for Tribe.
I don't vote to one-up anybody.
I will likely write in Tulsi Gabbard if I had to.
I am well aware that there are people who probably disapprove of the job he's doing, but guess what?
It's still better than what the Democrats are offering, and that is the most important takeaway.
For all of the disapproval Trump has, for all of the polls, we can argue the bias, and in the end, do the people who disapprove of Trump approve of the Democrats more?
And I think the answer is gonna be, oh no.
Last I checked, Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was way worse than Trump's, and that's a thing.
You'll find people setting up the election.
You know, I'll say this, right?
I am actually a really good example of one of the biggest problems Democrats have.
My unwillingness to get behind party.
I don't care for your party, okay?
I don't care for Trump, right?
I can recognize, like you did the student loan thing with the veterans the other day?
100% praise.
I will clap for that.
For those unfamiliar, he issued an executive order to forgive student loan debt for disabled veterans.
I am a huge proponent of student loan forgiveness, but I do believe it has to come in the form of something tempered like freezing interest rates.
People have to be responsible, right?
But we do have millennial issues.
I'm not going to react to that whole thing, but I'll point out, Trump has done things and I'm absolutely like, yes, absolutely right move.
However, I'm one of these moderate voters who will not get behind the Democrats and their wacky, you know, wacky open borders nonsense.
And they can say it all day and night, that's a right-wing talking point.
I don't care what you call it.
I literally don't care.
I'm a moderate and I believe you are inching us towards open borders.
You can stand up on stage and posture all day saying, don't worry, that's a right-wing talking point.
Well, you're not convincing me.
So guess what?
When you find moderates who will be like, never Trump or moderates.
I'll tell you this, they won't vote for Trump.
They're not going to vote for a Democrat either.
And that means you like, that's it.
That's still a win for the Republicans.
That is still a win because you lose the vote.
And there are moderates who will support Trump.
There's moderates who will support the Democrats too.
But I think the issue is, as I stated, no matter what the polls say, you can disapprove of the president.
But I saw a story, I made a video about this a couple of days ago, a guy who thought all of the worst things about Trump All of the worst things.
All the orange man bad narratives.
And said, but he's still better than open borders and the Green New Deal.
So we have this story from the Wall Street Journal.
Democrats tweak Medicare for all pitches amid resistance from unions.
There it is.
Concerns that workers could lose generous benefits spurs new messaging by some 2020 candidates.
You don't even have the unions!
The healthcare debate is pissing off unions!
I said this when the Green New Deal came out and the AFL-CIO, one of the largest organizations of labor unions, pushed back saying, no way, it's going to cost us jobs, are you nuts?
And I was like, when the Democrats can't get the unions behind them, You know what, man?
Who are you representing?
Who?
And so all the stuff they pitch on the debate stage just freaked everybody out.
They say, we're going to give government health care to non-citizens.
Well, I assure you, you just lost the 55-plus vote right there.
Because I know older people who get government benefits, healthcare benefits, and they're worried about losing them.
And then what happens when everyone on stage raises their hand?
We're going to give more benefits to non-citizens.
Our benefits are already being strained and you want to give more to people who don't live here?
Are you nuts?
The Democrats know it.
That means, for all of Trump's disapproval, I think it doesn't matter one bit.
Does not matter.
Because, like I said in the beginning, you've got 19% of people who don't want Trump to be impeached, but still disapprove.
Or, they don't want him to... Well, maybe my math is wrong on that, but basically, There are 59% of people, they don't want him to be impeached, and 40% approve of him.
Which means there is a decent amount of people, my math was probably way off in the beginning.
I'm probably confusing myself.
The point is, that means there are people who disapprove of the president.
I think I inverted the numbers.
Somebody correct my math and then make fun of me for it.
But let's move on.
The point is, there are going to be people who don't like President Trump.
But we'll still vote for him.
Because the Democrats are nuts.
And you know what?
Everybody knows it.
The Atlantic.
Trump could win again.
He's unpopular, scandalous, and a bigot.
And we may be sliding into recession, but that might not matter.
They say, there are many reasons President Trump might lose re-election.
He's deeply unpopular.
They mention everything he said.
Put all this together, it's easy to imagine Democrats riding a big blue wave to the White House next year.
But I fear that it is somewhat more likely that Trump will be able to declare victory on November 3rd.
They want to talk about his approval rating and all that stuff.
I want to move ahead.
They say Trump's persistent unpopularity is not nearly as big a bar to re-election as many assume.
It's striking, for example, that Trump's approval ratings are at this point very similar to those of two presidents who went on to win re-election by resounding margins.
While 42% approve of Trump's job performance, just 43% approved of both Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan at the same time in their first terms.
What's more, Trump actually appears to be more popular today than he was on the day he beat Hillary Clinton.
So I highlight this to stress the point.
It doesn't matter if you don't like him.
It doesn't.
Not at all.
And then I'll add this.
A bunch of Democrats have dropped out.
That's the last point I'll make.
So I'll wrap things up and just state.
There are a group of people who don't want the president impeached.
But there are only 40% to approve of him.
So around, you know, whatever, 19% or so are saying that, you know, they don't like the guy, but they don't want him to be impeached.
Which means, look, Obama's approval rating was similar.
Trump is looking at re-election because the Democrats are weak.
They have no message.
They're hoping for a recession.
Now, the poll argument, you'll have to figure that one out, right?
Because I can't tell you which poll is right.
It's always very confusing.
But I want to stress these two points.
That people don't trust the media.
They don't.
They really, really don't.
And I can pull up a million polls, you know, three or four polls, I won't be hyperbolic, that show that.
But more importantly, whatever we determine on the polls, irrelevant.
Absolutely irrelevant if the Democrats can't pull things together.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
Different channel from this one.
And I will see you all next time.
If there could ever be proof that Gillette knows getting woke drove them to go broke, it is them ending their social justice nonsense campaign.
I have to stress this every time I do these videos because there's the meme of get woke go broke and I know you guys hear me say it a lot.
It's not a law, right?
It's not absolute.
You can get woke and make money if you do it right.
You know, I always throw back to, like, Static Shock, and I think Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse.
You can make, you know, a diverse cast, you can make games, you can make ads that do it right.
You can talk about toxic masculinity, just not the way they do it, embracing this weird, negative view of men.
So now we have the story from the Daily Wire, Gillette shifting the spotlight after losing $8 billion amid toxic masculinity backlash.
And I want to stress, it was a write-down.
So it's not like $8 billion evaporated, it was the value of the brand.
What they're going to be doing, basically, is switching back to masculinity.
Who would have thought if you wanted to sell men razors, you may notice that I actually shaved.
You want to appeal to them as men when selling a men's brand.
You know, it's really amazing because in the Daily Wire story, they reference this other thing Gillette did, right?
About this fat acceptance ad.
And you know, I want to talk about this negative kind of campaigning they do.
But think about this.
They do an ad for fat women and they show this fat woman being really, really happy and they're highlighting a positive about something really, really awful.
Being completely overweight is bad.
I try to avoid being mean about it.
I just encourage people to eat healthy and get some exercise.
My advice to everybody who wants to lose weight?
The coolest thing you can do is probably just go for a walk.
And I really mean it.
It's simple things you can do.
And it's really good for your health.
It's really good for alleviating depression.
It's literally just going outside and walking around for a little bit.
You know, smell some flowers if you don't have allergies or whatever.
But check this out.
This is a negative thing.
This is bad.
This is toxic humanity, right?
Humans are beating themselves over the head with their vices, and they champion it for this.
When it comes to normal male behavior, they say, men, you better do right.
Like, I shouldn't say normal male behavior, but they're essentially coming to men who have done nothing wrong and saying, you know, you gotta improve yourself, men.
And it's like, well, hold on.
You're talking to the average guy and saying, you're bad.
And then you're finding these overweight women and saying, you just be you.
If someone, like, could you imagine if they made a cancer acceptance ad where Gillette was like, don't bother getting treated for something that's causing you physical, like physical harm?
Like, that seems crazy to me.
They're highlighting a negative thing.
We know obesity, you know, can lead to cancer.
We know that it lowers your life expectancy.
Like, there's a lot of really negative things associated with being obese.
And so, you know, my thing's always like, look, you can live however you want to live, right?
If you want to just eat ice cream and chill and not do anything, like, hey man, it's America.
It's great, right?
We have the freedom to do so.
I just recommend not, like, encouraging negative behaviors.
So here's the thing.
Gillette will slam men for toxicity, but then encourage things like this.
You know what?
You gotta get your priorities straight.
Well, apparently Gillette did, and they're shifting.
So let me say this.
This is the best we'll get.
Will Gillette ever come out and say, getting woke was a huge mistake and we lost a lot of money?
No, of course not.
But they are going to say, we've decided to focus on what men do best.
Ah, yes.
You realized that when you want to sell something to a guy, insulting him is not the right way to do it.
Wow.
And you know, you're going to see a lot of people on the left and a lot of feminists and all that saying like, well, men should correct their behavior.
Okay, okay, okay, hold on.
I'm not saying that, you know, the general concept, like the legitimate concept of toxic masculinity doesn't warrant some focus.
You know, the problem with how they focus on toxic masculinity Is that they kind of blanket over all men as if all men are toxic.
No.
Right?
There's toxic behavior period anyone can engage in.
And there are certain things more likely to be male that are toxic.
But it's like a rare thing.
It's like a few people who are bad.
Most guys I know tend to be, you know, like I would say on average.
I don't want to talk about the likelihood of a guy being a dick or anything, but guys tend to be more stoic, reserved, willing to take risks, and protect people around them.
And that's what they should be highlighting.
Because they're trying to sell to all men.
So think about this.
You take an aspect that a small percentage of men engage in, and then tell all men, naughty, you're bad, and what do you think they're going to do?
I don't want to buy your product.
Look, I can order from Dollar Shave Club or from anybody else.
Why do I need to be whacked over the head with your nonsense?
Okay, we should read this because I can rant on this in a second.
Before we dive in, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address.
But of course, share this video if you think it's good.
As seriously as the best thing you can do because as of recent, I mean this sincerely, the deranking is having an impact.
I never want to assume that, you know, I see a lot of people saying like,
oh, YouTube is hurting my channel and everything like that.
But no, you can look at certain metrics and see that, yeah, deranking is a serious issue.
So in order to get past that deranking, then I require word of mouth like any
normal business.
So I'm not going to sit here and complain about YouTube telling my, you know,
saying they're not going to show my videos to anybody.
If my videos are worth sharing, then you guys share them.
Otherwise just read the news.
Daily Wire writes, well, the brand is admitting that it's reversing course on
the social issues messaging, it is admitting, really.
Gillette is presenting its new focus as simply a return to what it's always done.
We will continue to represent men at their best, Gillette said in a statement reported by News Corp Australia.
Instead of the social issue's focus, the brand will begin highlighting positive portrayals of heroic masculinity, as seen in its new ad starring Ben Zeichenheiner, an Australian firefighter and personal trainer.
Wait, so they're literally admitting it?
I didn't think that was the case because I read through this and I thought the issue was literally... So let's see what they have to say over at news.com.au.
We will continue to represent men at their best.
Backflip after toxic masculinity backlash.
Whoa.
They say they are shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes.
People sometimes ask... Okay.
They're talking about the firefighter.
No, I guess they admit it.
I guess they've straight up admitted it.
Wow.
Alright, well there we go.
I guess I missed it.
Because, you know, I admit I had an assumption.
Like, when I first skimmed through it, I assumed it was they're not going to admit it.
But, while the brand is admitting it's reversing course in the social issues messaging, they're presenting the new focus as simply a return to what it's always done.
Gillette's Toxic Masculinity Mess began in January when the brand released an ad accusing men of excusing bad behavior and portraying traditional masculinity in an entirely negative and stereotypical light.
they're going to do a reversal. So at least there's that.
So it's a little bit more than I thought we'd get, which is really interesting to say the
They say Gillette's toxic masculinity mess began in January when the brand released an
ad accusing men of excusing bad behavior and portraying traditional masculinity in an entirely
negative and stereotypical light.
I want to point a few things out. The people who talk about toxic masculinity go overboard
Let's talk about things like bullying.
Alright, bullying is bad.
It's very bad.
But, there are certain, like, it's, you know, there's a fine line between boys just being assertive and trying to find their place and strengthen themselves, And bullying.
Like, we'll see a video on Reddit where, like, a bigger kid will come and start, like, beating up a little kid.
Right, yeah, bullying is bad.
But then we'll also see videos of, like, two kids fighting or, like, you know, in this commercial or something.
Why don't I rehash the commercial?
But you'll see, like, regular kids play fighting or, you know, getting into a fight, and they're like, oh no, separate the kids.
Like, well, come on, man, hold on.
Right, right, right, I agree.
What I'm trying to highlight is, while there are certainly negative aspects of kids and boys getting in trouble, Kids in general need to be strengthened and hardened for the real world.
So while I would never condone something like bullying, I'm trying to delineate between negative, forceful behaviors that cause trauma and weaken somebody, and things that will just typically make kids stronger that parents might be scared of.
You know what I mean?
So not bullying.
I'm trying to, it's a fine line, you gotta navigate this carefully.
What I mean is, kids gotta go out and stub their toe, they gotta fall down and scrape their knee.
Kids have to go on an adventure, they're gonna get into fights, you know, and they've gotta learn how to deal with these things for themselves.
Two kids go outside, they're with their friends and they're with their crew, and then they get into a fight.
It's not a good thing necessarily, but kids have to learn how to take care of themselves
to a certain degree.
And sometimes kids will get into some kind of fight or, you know, things will happen.
And you know, if you're around, you can stop it and you can try and explain to them, but
it's hard to know to what degree kids need to experience hardship, right?
So, I think we have an instinct to be like, the fighting is bad, no, no, kids, you have to stop.
But then the kids never learn to resolve conflict on their own.
And that's the challenge.
When I was growing up, my parents would always be like, when my siblings would get into a fight, they'd be like, you deal with it.
And it was the most frustrating thing ever.
But eventually, I think it was important because you learn how to choose your battles.
It's like, am I gonna waste my time fighting something, or am I gonna go focus on myself?
I think what we see now with a lot of these millennial kids, particularly with like the Antifa stuff, are kids who have had every problem solved by their parents.
So when they got into a fight, the parent would come in and solve it.
So now they're older, thinking, why won't the government solve my problems for me?
And there's someone like me, who my parents frustratingly would never step in and intervene and solve these things, and now I'm older and like, I do not want to waste time fighting with someone over nonsense.
You know, if someone comes up to me and starts saying stupid BS or like on Twitter or whatever, I got so much more important, so many more important things to deal with.
So let's, let's, I don't, I don't need to rehash the whole video because you guys, you guys know about the Gillette ad.
I'm not going to assume you don't, but...
Just very quickly.
It's just an ad about toxic masculinity.
It's like talking about men and bad behavior.
So they go on to say, you know, yadda yadda yadda.
We know the gist of the story, so I think we're good here.
But it looks like they're admitting they're going to get away from social justice, which is interesting.
I didn't think they would actually admit that.
Not that they're going to admit necessarily that they lost money because of it, but they lost money because of it.
So I want to stress this next point right here.
The problem with these ads is that what these companies are doing is recognizing we have no discipline.
And this is very scary for our culture.
Discipline is when you recognize eating a tub of Ben & Jerry's at night is not good for you in the long run.
And while certainly Ben & Jerry's is delicious ice cream, We all really enjoy that, you know, whatever your flavor may be, Cherry Garcia, Half Baked, Americone Dream.
Yeah, you don't sit down and eat a pint of it every night.
Because it's a treat.
You need discipline.
It tastes great, but you can't eat it all the time.
As adults, we recognize you might not like the food, but it's good for you.
I know it's kind of a weird thing, like when I was a kid and didn't like certain vegetables, right?
We see that, you know, the kids are like, oh, I don't want to eat my vegetables.
I'm an adult.
I love vegetables.
It's kind of a weird, you know, I grew up, admittedly, my mom was very good at making vegetables taste great.
Steaming broccoli, put a little bit of butter and cheese on it or something like that.
But as an adult, I love asparagus.
You know, I love vegetables.
But I think one of the things, too, is I do often eat foods I know I should be eating.
What tastes better?
Look, look, I'll be honest.
I'll go to a restaurant and I'll see that double bacon cheeseburger.
Well, I don't eat beef, you know, for those that don't know.
But I'll do a turkey burger.
I always do the turkey option.
And I'll do double bacon avocado cheddar dripping with chipotle sauce with a big ol' thing of fries.
And yeah, absolutely.
And then sometimes I'm like, I better go with the Caesar salad.
I better go with the Caesar salad.
I'd love to get the burger, but you know, I understand as a disciplined and mature adult, sometimes you tone things down.
You restrain yourself from just going nuts.
What these kind of commercials do is acknowledge that adult humans just have no discipline and that we should pander to their vices.
And that's kind of scary to me because it shows that we're giving up.
I think one thing we lose in society with these ads, with things like this, is a loss of honor, and integrity, and maturity, discipline, etc.
Things that are supposed to define adulthood.
The ability to protect those around you.
The ability to raise a strong generation to survive.
And we're losing it.
You know, all of this is possible.
All of this social justice stuff is possible simply because the United States, to a great degree, has conquered the world.
I'm being a bit hyperbolic, you get it.
But what I mean is, our borders are, like, we are not threatened with war.
Violence is down.
And because hardship is going away, because, you know, people don't have responsibility that much anymore because we're so wealthy.
You know, so think about this.
It wasn't even that long ago there was disease.
Kids, like, your baby would die and you had to work.
But now we're so advanced and wealthy and food is so cheap.
You don't have to work and kids aren't working anymore.
You know, I can get into the immigration stuff.
I don't want to rehash too much of this.
Maybe I'll talk about it later.
But like, they say nobody wants to work these jobs, and it's like, no, teenagers are supposed to work these jobs like mowing lawns and flipping burgers.
It's not so much that they're supposed to, but these are low-level jobs for kids to hone their skills.
Now what's happening?
Don't work, just go to school.
Be institutionalized.
I assure you, man, a nation of 22-year-old institutionalized adults who have never worked is not a good thing for our culture or country.
And that's what we've created.
So this is why we see things like this.
No responsibility.
I'm not trying to be mean to this woman, okay?
Look, I just completely disagree with the idea that someone like her, who in my opinion has been irresponsible and lacking discipline, and again, it's not meant to be disrespectful, I'm just saying this as a matter of fact.
If you are overweight to this degree, I believe it comes with a lack of discipline.
Absolutely.
I work every single day with no days off.
I've had one day off in the past three years, and it was when I did a shift in how I produce content.
And it was, admittedly, because it's technically not a day off.
We were plotting the formation of Subverse, and it was the one day I just had to do that instead.
So technically, yeah, no days off from work, though it was a day off from producing content.
And it's because of, I don't know, focus, discipline.
I know that every day there are things I have to do that I don't want to do, but I have to do them.
I have to.
To make things right.
And then when I see things like this, it says to me that these brands know they can exploit our irresponsibility, our immaturity, and our laziness.
So, you know what, man?
I'm trying to not be mean.
You know what I mean?
I won't insult people.
I'm not gonna go up to somebody who's overweight and do... There's been a lot of pundits, conservatives, you know, Milo, for instance, will make fun of somebody who's overweight.
It's like, absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
I will tell you, I think, you know, go for a walk.
You can do better.
And there are a lot of high-profile people, who I won't name, who have done a tremendous job of recognizing they can do better, and they've done it.
And I respect that.
But what I see here is not so much about the woman, it's about the brand.
The brand acknowledging a lack of maturity and the embracing of vice.
So here's the final point I'll make about Gillette.
Pure corporatism.
Fake activism.
You cannot simultaneously claim Men have problems they need to fix, and then ignore the problems people need to fix, or women.
Because it shows us, they don't care about doing right by society.
They care about pandering to a faction of lazy social justice activists, the lazy and angry and outraged people who are going to celebrate the fact that some people do nothing and sit around and eat ice cream all day and don't take responsibility for their health and their lives and then simultaneously demand universal healthcare And they're also going to blame men for roughhousing and other things like that.
One of the things in this commercial is like a guy seeing a pretty girl and he goes, ooh, and he goes to walk over and a guy stops him.
It's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, what?
If I see a pretty girl on the street, what am I?
I'm not supposed to introduce myself and say, hey, hey, how's it going?
Uh, new to the area.
Uh, wanted to know if you wanted to be friends, hang out maybe, trying to meet people, you know?
What are you supposed to do?
It's mind-blowing to me that we've come to a point in society where in this commercial they actually say, a guy seeing a pretty girl, he shouldn't talk to her.
Now listen, don't holler ridiculous things, you know, like, like, hey baby, you want to go, you know, and then, right, don't do that.
But what's, what's wrong with seeing a pretty girl and being like, excuse me miss, couldn't help but notice you walking by and I'm, I'm new to the area.
Wanted to know if you'd want, you'd ever want to grab a coffee sometime, maybe get to know each other.
I'm trying to meet people.
Seems like, that's like normal thing humans do.
We meet, we meet, we meet our neighbors.
It's mind-blowing to me.
So, a buddy of mine, Luke Grudkowski, you guys may know him.
He runs the channel over at WeAreChange.
He produced a video years ago.
It's really great.
You should check it out.
I forgot what it's called, but I'll put the link in the description.
And he basically went on the train in New York and talks about how he realized nobody talks to each other anymore.
He's like, you've got all these millions of people in New York and none of them talk to each other anymore.
So anyway, I won't go too much into that because I don't want to make this video super long.
They say that's toxic.
They say, just because the guy's like, ooh, yeah, it's like, okay, and what?
So he clearly thinks the woman's attractive.
Should he not introduce him?
What do they think we should be doing, going on Tinder?
No, man.
You see somebody in the street, I don't care if they're a man or a woman, you say, hey, how's it going?
Trying to make some friends.
You want to, I don't know, grab a coffee, maybe we'll be friends?
We don't do that anymore.
We don't meet people.
I, you know, I used to, when I used to do fundraising, I would just talk to random people in the street all day.
That's what we do, street canvassing.
And so I'd just wave and be like, hey, hey, come here, come over and talk to me.
And they'd be like, uh, what's up?
And I'd be like, how's it going?
I'm just, uh, I'm starting conversations about, you know, issues and want to know if you wanted to talk.
And just be friendly.
It's mind-blowing to me that that is a problem.
That is a problem to Gillette.
But then they don't care that people are morbidly obese.
This, look, I'm not saying this to be mean or disrespectful to this woman, but it is a health issue.
And we need to encourage people to be responsible, to be healthy, and to do right.
And it's inverted right now.
It's completely inverted.
It's mind-blowing.
So I'm ranting on this issue, admittedly.
But look at this!
Boys will be boys.
They will, because of testosterone.
It's a fact.
Now, we should make sure our young men are honorable, mature, responsible, and respectable, and that means we should give them chores.
We should give them jobs at a young age.
Now, the funny thing is, when I say things like, kids should have jobs, you see the left get all angry like, No, they're trying to put kids in factories.
I'm talking about mowing the lawn, dude.
Kids should be mowing the lawn for money.
When I was a kid, we'd go door to door and say, we'll shovel your snow for 10 bucks.
And then we'd negotiate.
And they'd be like, I'll give you five.
And I'll be like, I can't do it.
10 bucks.
And they'd be like, all right, fine.
And then we'd shovel the driveway and do it.
We would mow lawns.
We'd go door to door and say, can we mow your lawn?
And I'll tell you, we don't have that anymore.
Like nobody's ever come to my house and asked to mow my lawn.
No, we have a service that does it.
And that's when it comes, you know, Kids need to learn responsibility.
And Gillette is focusing on the wrong things.
They're focusing on our vices, and they're blaming boys for being boys?
Well, listen, the issue is, sure, the parents should teach a kid what it means to be responsible and to grow up to be responsible.
But what's happening now is like, it seems like a complete breakdown.
Because major corporations know, at the end of the day, people don't care about if they're responsible or not, they care about triggering that dopamine.
So when you see this, this says several things to me.
She doesn't take her health very seriously.
I'm just gonna say it.
I'm gonna call it like I see it.
She does not.
Absolutely not.
Okay?
I do various, you know, kinds of exercise.
I skate.
I've got a balance board that I kind of just, you know, screw around with very, you know, frequently.
I've got VR stuff.
VR's a great exercise.
So much fun.
And there are some people who don't and just lie around and eat ice cream.
By all means, you're free to do so.
But Gillette knows, if they want to sell a product, they got to go for that dopamine.
So for the women, they said, hey, don't worry about this.
It's not your fault.
Just be happy who you are.
To an extent, I can understand that.
But you can't simultaneously then say, boys will be boys.
No, they shouldn't be.
You should tell them they're bad.
OK, I'm sorry, man.
I don't know what you're trying to sell me, brother.
But I'm not going to buy it.
I don't care for your products.
I'll leave it there because we're already at 20 minutes.
But anyway, it shows the hypocrisy.
So anyway, yeah, I'll leave it.
I'll leave it.
Rant over.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I will see you all then.
The Huffington Post is being sued for fake news, and one of their reporters, apparently, Mississippi professor who went to Georgetown prep with Brett Kavanaugh, is suing the Huffington Post because, believe it or not, the Huffington Post does write fake news.
And I've got a good example for you after this.
So let's dig in.
This has to do with the Brett Kavanaugh story, apparently.
You know, all these weird accusations were swirling around.
Julie Swetnick claiming there were, like, gangbang parties and women were being drugged and that's just not, that's just insane.
But hey, man!
You gotta love the media pumping out crazy fake news for the sake of, uh, you know, I don't know, fighting the Orange Man, I guess.
But let's, let's, let's just dive right into the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, sharing this video is the best thing you can do, because YouTube deranks independent political commentary.
They much prefer to hear from the likes of Don Lemon.
So if you really, really like Don Lemon, then don't share this video.
And actually, I'll put it this way.
If you don't share this video, I'll just assume you really... I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
I know most of you probably don't like Don Lemon.
I just thought it was funny, because I think he's pretty bad at what he does, but... Alright, jokes aside, let's read the news.
Let's get serious.
A Mississippi man is suing the Huffington Post on defamation allegations because of an article the news website published last year accusing the man of helping to supply drugs to fellow students at Georgetown Preparatory School while U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a student there.
Derek Evans, a professor and community advocate, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in U.S.
District Court in Gulfport, Mississippi, against Huffington Post and the author of the article, Ashley Feinberg, the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger reported.
The lawsuit claims Feinberg and Huffington Post repeatedly defamed Evans and Douglas Kennedy, a classmate of Evans and Kavanaugh, by stating that they helped purchase and supply cocaine at the elite private school.
Now, I do wonder, because I don't think they get into this, I wonder if this guy, what is his name, Evans, gave a warning to the Huffington Post, right?
And sent them a letter saying, hey, you need to take this down and correct this because I've done that a lot and they ignore you.
And, you know, we are in trying times, to say the least.
I have to fact-check basically every single story I read.
It's insane.
That's why I am really grateful for NewsGuard, which, again, is not perfect, but at least gives me, you know, when I see a story from an outlet and it's not certified, It gives me pause and I dig deeper.
I, you know, double check.
So, so, you know, I do like that.
But I gotta say, man, I, I, my personal opinion, and I'm gonna do a segment on this for my main channel, I do believe the media just wants to run stories to get Trump.
They're not, they don't care about telling you the truth.
They don't care about letting you decide for yourself.
They just want to win.
They want to, ooh, they want to feel that victory at all costs or by any means necessary.
They say.
The article also stated that drugs may have resulted in the 1984 death of David Kennedy, who was Douglas Kennedy's brother and the son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, according to the Clarion-Ledger.
The article has since removed any reference to the Kennedy brothers or Evans since it was published in September 2018 in the midst of Kavanaugh's Senate hearing to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
These statements were not only false and defamatory, but outrageously so, and were published by
defendants with knowledge of the actual falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth for
the apparent purpose of creating a salacious story designed to drive internet traffic to
HuffPost's website, the lawsuit said.
Ow!
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
It's just the confirmation bias in my brain.
It's like all the dopamine just got released hearing that and I talk about this all the
They're driving traffic.
They just want a salacious story.
They just want traffic.
So they will lie, cheat, and steal.
Listen, here's what they do.
Did you know that reportedly Hillary Clinton was running a child trafficking ring?
Reportedly.
That is confirmed.
Reportedly by Alex Jones, right? You see what you see the point is you can say reportedly it's how they drive traffic
It's what they do. They will say Reportedly white supremacist reported by who the homeless
guy in the alley behind my building Yeah
and then when you're sued they'll be like well it was reported to us by a homeless guy in an alley behind my
building and They're gonna be like
Now obviously that won't pass a laugh test A judge will be like, nice try, get out of here.
But think about it.
You can have someone, like, you know, if I said something, you could claim, reportedly, X is true.
And then say, well, Tim Pool's got a large channel and he reported this.
I'm very careful with how I phrase and source things.
Whenever I make a claim, I will back it up with a source that is certified by a third-party agency.
You know, whenever we see these stories about Trump in Charlottesville, it's like, okay, well, did you do a simple Google search to see what Trump actually said?
They don't.
They don't.
They write these op-eds.
They say these horrible, horrible things about the president that are just not true.
Why?
I think you've got two problems.
A lazy and inept news media and people who know they're lying.
They know.
So when I see this, I'm like, yep, ding, ding, ding.
Internet traffic makes perfect sense.
Let's read on.
Defendants had no sources to support their outrageously false and defamatory statements about Derrick Evans and Douglas Kennedy, nor did defendants make any effort whatsoever to contact Mr. Evans for comment before accusing him of not only committing a crime, but of being responsible for the death of David Kennedy.
The lawsuit continued.
Indeed, if Ms.
Feinberg or her HuffPost editors had done even the most basic research of publicly available sources, she and they would have known, if they did not already know, that Mr. Evans actively assisted law enforcement in identifying and prosecuting the individuals who actually sold the illegal narcotics.
The suit is seeking damages against Feinberg and HuffPost, but it does not state a specific amount.
It alleges Evans has suffered emotional distress and harm to his reputation.
Teenage use of alcohol was a focus of Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing to become a justice on the Supreme Court.
It also included testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of attempting to assault her at a party You know what, man?
It's fake news.
high school, of which she didn't know where it happened, when it happened, she didn't
know how she got to the party, she didn't know how she left the party, there was no
evidence and she claimed to be scared of flying but then admitted to flying frequently.
You know what man?
It's fake news.
It's fake news all the way.
And we are in trying times, I will stress.
You know, for those that aren't familiar, this has been this thing going on.
I am a sponsor of an event that's taking place in the Philadelphia area, because I live here.
And it was right by my house.
And they pump out lie after lie after lie.
If I can't host an event for people to have a conversation about how we end racism, violence, and authoritarianism because they accuse us of being racist, you've got some problems.
You've got some problems.
You go to them and you say, we want to put an event called Ending Racism.
We've got a couple of controversial speakers, but we've got people on the left and we've got people on the right, and they say no.
Because activists said so.
Well, then we got a serious, serious problem.
They pump out lies.
That's what they do.
I do not believe—well, I'll say this.
Christine Blasey Ford came out with an accusation.
I believe that she remembers something.
But all that really matters at the end is you can't—there's no proof.
I don't even believe there was probable cause for Christine Blasey Ford.
Like, you know, can the police actually launch an investigation based off someone saying, hey, this happened 30 years ago?
You know, that sounds kind of crazy.
I see a Health Post spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.
So, you know what, man?
I will stress, for all of us who are smeared and slandered and lied about, We have to fight back.
And so I will stress, we'll see what happens with this event in the Philly area and them trying to shut us down.
Because it's already been announced by one of the organizers in the Philly Enquirer where there's going to be a legal battle.
I will not back down.
And I will not I will not back down.
You want to come at me with lies, slander, and fake news?
I will sink every ounce of my resources, of my being, to going after the people who publish fake news to destroy the lives of others for ridiculous political agendas.
Check this out.
In this story, Proud Boy's leader admits their rallies are for fighting and wasting money.
Yeah, that's technically true.
That's technically true.
So I'll just jump straight down and say that Enrique Tarrio said it's like a hidden camera or something.
It's a pure optics operation if you're looking for your fourth degree, which is when they fight Antifa or somebody.
This is not the event to do it.
This is not new.
It's not a new information, right?
We've known that their goal, and they said it publicly before this, Was to go to Portland to draw everybody out and leave.
A year or two ago, Mike Cernovich said to me in an interview, we're just coming down to Berkeley so that Anti becomes Axe of Fool and then we leave.
And it's for the press.
It's not a secret.
But they mentioned something about, like, the Proud Boys released a press statement, I think?
A press release?
The Gathering was never about bringing carnage or violence to the city of Portland.
It was about financially crippling the progressive hotbed until they take action against Antifa, the gang said in a press release.
So this is what I want to stress about the Huffington Post.
They are unwell.
What did they say?
They said he told his gang members.
What did they say?
Let me find it.
They admit it was fighting.
The Proud Boys, for years, have helped organize street fights in Portland, Oregon.
Yeah, well, when someone comes and fights, you don't be surprised.
Now, I'll admit, I think Proud Boys know full well they're gonna go on March, Antifa's gonna come and fight them.
But that's not the... That's still... It's on the fault of those who initiated the fight.
Granted, the Proud Boys did get in trouble in New York City for initiating a fight.
Well, there you go.
But they say, uh, I want to find the... Well, you know what?
You've seen it, right?
That's the point I wanted to make.
Like, this story from the Huffington Post does not tell you the truth about anything.
It rehashes something everybody already knew.
It makes it sound more nefarious than it was.
He admits their rallies are for fun.
Well, what do you mean?
In a press statement?
In a press release, the Proud Boys said that their intention was to draw out resources.
Okay.
You see how they frame these things?
They say that, you know, they call it a gang over and over again.
Here we go.
As the rally kicked off, Trident was caught on video ordering his gang members to forego fighting.
His gang members.
On this day, nobody would be earning their fourth degree.
This is a pure optics operation.
Yeah, yeah, alright.
Well, you get it.
The main story is, Huffington Post is being sued by this guy for fake news, and you can see how they play this game.
The Proud Boys are not a gang.
Okay, I guess you can technically get away with saying something like that.
But framing is the game they play.
They're not telling you the truth.
They're not helping you to understand the complexity of the situation.
The Proud Boys want to draw up the resources from Portland.
Because Portland won't deal with Antifa.
We know that.
They've said it a million times.
It's not some secret expose.
The Proud Boys aren't necessarily a gang.
Certainly you could make the argument, but it's disingenuous when trying to explain what's happening, because then you'd say Antifa is a gang.
And then people say, but Antifa is decentralized.
Listen.
There are branded cells of Antifa.
It would be like... I'm not gonna name actual gangs, okay?
I'm from the South Side of Chicago.
I know my gangs.
And guess what?
They operate like Antifa.
They do!
When you meet... I'm gonna avoid saying gangs because I do not want to draw the ire of any of these gangs.
There are a lot of them.
So, there's... How can I say this without getting myself in trouble in Chicago?
On the south side, there's a group, and we'll call it X. And X is the back end of their name.
They go by Gang X. However, there are different cells that will add an adjective, like the Fury X, or the Rage X, or the Lightning X. They put a describer in front of it, but the X is their overarching gang, and they do work together when they have bigger operations, but control small territory.
Just like Antifa does.
You see the game they play.
I wouldn't call Antifa a gang.
That's silly.
They are a decentralized militant movement of violent individuals who tend to be communists.
There are branded cells.
I will describe a branded cell as a militant group of far-left extremists, not a gang.
A gang typically refers to something different.
But you see how they play this game.
I'm not gonna dwell on this.
You get the point.
So anyway, there it is.
Huffington Post is being sued because they're a trash blog who writes fake news.
And I'll stress, they're certified by NewsGuard.
And that's why I use NewsGuard.
Because I disagree with them.
So it's a check on my own bias.
Noting that NewsGuard says they do not handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly.
Yes!
Like this article right here.
So at least I can appreciate that.
Anyway, stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Tim Cassett is a different channel.
And we're going to dive in.
We're going to be diving into some of the polls showing that Americans do not trust the media.
They believe the media just wants to get Trump.
And I agree.
Stick around.
The Democratic establishment built a machine that is rigged in favor of what they want for when they want it.
And we know it.
We know it was rigged for Bernie Sanders.
We know it's rigged now.
So, take a look at this story.
Tulsi's 2020 campaign urges DNC to adjust debate criteria as she sits just shy of qualifying.
What you may not know— Okay, so actually, hold on.
Before I say that, Tulsi needs four qualifying polls of at least 2% and at least 130,000 donors.
She has 160,000 donors and two polls at 2%.
And now many people have responded with, it's just too bad, Tulsi.
You're not polling high enough.
Sorry.
Actually, she has 26 polls showing her above that threshold, but for whatever reason the DNC doesn't certify them.
So what does that really mean to me?
Well, I don't know what it means to you, but to me it sounds like the DNC rigs the game so they can control who the candidates are and who will actually be allowed to be in front of the American people.
The system is rigged.
It was rigged from the start.
Now look, it is no secret that I am a big fan of Tulsi and I am supporting her, And I'll give you my few reasons because it is not an issue of tribe.
For one, no regime change war and very opposed to foreign intervention in general.
That is a very big issue for me.
Second, private prison reform.
I do not like the idea of private prisons.
You can disagree with me.
Let's have a conversation about it.
A lot of people, you know, it's There are good arguments for and against, but I lean towards we need prison reform in general.
So Trump's criminal justice reform was a great thing, but I do believe that we need a better system for our prisons, and we shouldn't have a profit motive behind what should be rehabilitation.
Tulsi is for that as well.
There's a couple other things.
She's suing Google for free speech violations for violating her campaign.
Love it!
She's actually challenging Big Tech, which is a huge problem.
She has defended free speech on numerous occasions and in an interview with journalist Michael Tracy said that identity politics is divisive and it's bad for us.
So those are just a few reasons on top of my head why I do like and am supporting Tulsi Gabbard.
So of course, I'm going to be angry because the DNC is, in my view, cheating.
And you know what's funny?
You want to know why I just don't care anymore about... Like, oh man, look.
In 2016, I was all for Bernie.
I'm really upset, and I feel let down by him today, because he's putting out insane, ridiculous tweets.
It's like, he tweeted that, like, fossil fuel execs or something should be imprisoned, and I'm like, dude, come on!
We don't just take business leaders and throw them in the gulag!
I'm joking.
But, like, this idea that we can have a system that's legal, and Bernie's like, prosecute him anyway!
It's like, dude, they're...
It's like Wall Street bankers were different, right?
There's a question as to whether or not they knew their lending practices would result in a financial collapse.
It's another thing when you have people running a legal business, which we need because everybody uses them, and we have a political issue to deal with, right?
So Bernie, to me, has gone off the deep end.
But Tulsi is very principled.
You know, I recently watched Dan Crenshaw and Joe Rogan, and it was amazing.
And you know what I was thinking about Dan Crenshaw is like, I really disagree with him on the war stuff, but I do know he's been over there, right?
He has way more experience than I do.
So I think about character and trust.
And although I disagree with him, he is somebody I would trust.
You know, when I listen to what he's saying, I believe he's being completely honest and good faith and he's doing the best he can.
But there are a few times I'm like, oh, I disagree with you.
I disagree.
And that's really it.
I think my two favorite politicians right now are probably Tulsi and Dan Crenshaw.
And I disagree with Dan Crenshaw.
But it was really cool to see him on Rogan where he was like, Tulsi's cool.
You know, we just disagree.
And I'm like, yeah.
If only that's what politics was like.
So let's read this story from the Daily Wire.
And I want to go through the polls and show you, like, it's total BS.
The DNC could snap their fingers and be like, yes, 26 national and early state polls are certainly good enough, like The Economist and the Boston Globe, but no, it's fake.
It's all fake, man.
The Bernie Sanders thing was fake.
Look at this.
From November 2017, Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile both now agree the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged.
And I will also admit, I want to make sure this is clear, like, the degree to which I'm willing to support Tulsi is, like, a tiny bit over a line, right?
You know, like, getting me to be like, okay, okay, I'll do this, I'll do this, I'll say I like this candidate.
Because for the most part, I just disagree too much with almost everybody, and that includes Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm liking Yang less and less because he just called Trump a buffoon, and I'm like, dude, no.
That's not wha- That's exac- It's one of the principal reasons I'm not a fan of Trump.
The bombastic boorishness.
So look, if I have a choice between, you know, a guy who's gonna, you know, yell and swear and whatever, and another guy who's gonna post mean tweets, it's like, what?
But admittedly, look, I'm not gonna get triggered by mean language.
Like, I'm more concerned with policy.
And that's why it's like Trump can say all these nasty things, and I get it.
I don't like him.
It is a factor.
But, you know, I really like that he did the student loan forgiveness thing.
That was absolutely spot on.
And you know what the funny thing is?
TikTok, okay?
How long until the left comes out and says, student loan forgiveness is wrong because Trump did it?
Right?
I think it was brilliant of Trump for a lot of reasons.
For one, it was the right thing to do.
These are disabled veterans, for one.
I believe we should go further in, but I think Trump is, you know, strategically taking on an issue that is very favorable with young people, and it was smart.
So let's read about Tulsi.
They say, While Gabbard has already met the fundraising threshold, she still needs two more qualifying polls before she will receive an invitation onto the debate stage.
Gabbard's campaign, however, took issue with which polls the DNC seemed certifiable and called on the organization to revise the list of which polls would be considered.
Check this out.
The DNC set a threshold that candidates must meet at 2% in four DNC-certified polls in order to qualify for the third and fourth Democratic primary debates.
However, the DNC has not released their criteria for selecting the 16 polling organizations they deem certifiable, so we don't know why they think these are the good ones.
Gabbard has exceeded 2% support in 26 national and early state polls, but only two of them are on the DNC's certified list.
The campaign continued.
Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC-certified polls.
So what is the criteria for certifying a poll?
I don't know, maybe it's that they fall in line with the DNC and what they want.
Is that it?
Look, I'm not going to allege a conspiracy theory on the polls and how they certify, but I have to stress this point, okay?
When we know the game was rigged in 2016 because Donna Brazile admitted it and the Washington Post covered this, why am I going to ever believe anything put out by the DNC?
Why am I— When Tulsi Gabbard has 26 national and early state polls, we know she's polling high enough.
We know that she is a formidable candidate.
We know she's got the experience.
She is somebody who has been on the stage for a long time.
I mean, like, the public stage.
She absolutely should be up there.
She was the most searched for candidate after the first debates, and Google locks her account down.
So we know Tulsi is saying something important that people are listening to, and she should be on the debate stage.
Admittedly, I don't think she's going to win.
I don't want to be unrealistic, okay?
But I do believe she is someone who is of great principle.
She's a real person, and she should be on that stage talking about issues America needs to hear.
It's a powerful position.
But the DNC, it's a rigged game.
Now, however, however, however, I kind of do lean towards maybe the DNC might open this up.
Maybe, Gabbard's saying, listen, they might actually listen.
Because after 2016, they've lost a ton of faith of the Democratic base.
I mean, when Donna Brazile is accused of like feeding questions from CNN to Hillary to help her out, Now, Elizabeth Warren, they say, update.
Elizabeth Warren, who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, just told CNN in response to Brazil's op-ed that she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged.
The elevation of the issue by Warren, a possible 2020 contender, will certainly turn heads.
This was a couple years ago.
But here's the thing.
What do you think young people are saying right now?
Millennials.
People like me.
I'm saying it to you right now.
I don't trust the DNC, and I don't want to play any of their games.
So either they let Tulsi under the debate stage, or... I mean, I'll put it this way.
I already have no faith in them whatsoever.
And I will tell you this.
I have absolutely more faith in the RNC.
You know why?
And I'm not saying I agree with them, but Trump won.
Trump was the upstart, crazy candidate who didn't fit in.
And he won.
And that says to me, the Republicans did not rig the game.
They did not like that man, and he won.
And you know what?
When he won, when he won on election night, I was laughing.
Because I'm like, the establishment got what they deserved.
The Democrats got what they deserved.
You know, look, a lot of people say like, it's so selfish, Tim, all of the people who are going to be negatively impacted by Trump.
It's like, listen, man.
Every president does something that negatively impacts somebody.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Everybody has a different worldview, and it's hard to balance these things.
But I assure you, I am not a crazy... Like, there are crazy people who think Trump just wants to hurt people.
It's insane.
I really do think Trump is trying to maximize good.
I think he just kind of makes... He's just not... I don't want to go into that.
Like, you know, his foreign policy stuff, all presidents do it, so I blame the office for the most part.
But I think Trump could do a better job in his communications if he's trying to uplift and, you know, do a better job.
But I'll admit the media comes after him.
And I do think, you know, I don't believe people... I don't think Trump's evil.
I don't.
I just... I think he does what he thinks is right, like most people do.
I don't think Antifa, for the most part, is evil.
I think they're just dumb.
You know?
So anyway, the point is...
On election night, Hillary Clinton got what she deserved.
Trump won.
The Democrats got what they deserved.
Trump won.
They could have played it straight.
They could have let Bernie take the popular position, but they didn't want it.
The establishment said no.
And then, that's what happens.
So I'll say to the DNC right now, Tulsi Gabbard is very popular.
160,000 donors.
Way better than a lot of other candidates.
They say the campaign further pointed to a RealClearPolitics article titled, Gabbard victimized by DNC's dubious debate criteria.
In it, author Michael Tracy contends that the Hawaii Congresswoman is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd.
I agree.
If she's got all those polls saying she's good to go, then there you go.
More importantly, 160,000 donors?
I'll tell you this, man.
I know Tulsi is interestingly popular with conservatives for two reasons.
Standing up to big tech and calling out war.
And so it's really funny when I see the responses to videos like this and on Twitter where they're like, it's too bad she's a leftist because she's principled and it's like, right, right, right.
You know what, man?
You know what I look for in a commander-in-chief?
Experience, service, poise, strength.
And outside of the things I mentioned in the beginning, you know, I don't like private prisons.
I personally do think we'd be better off with universal healthcare.
I just think we have to be pragmatic about how we approach it, and we can't just snap our fingers and abolish private healthcare.
No, it's a process.
And I admit, too, universal healthcare isn't going to be, at least in my opinion, like, there is, like, I view it as there's got to be a base level coverage as well as private insurance.
So, for those that work hard, you get the private stuff that covers, you know, a lot more, but base-level coverage, you know?
Like, a kid with a fever needs to go get a fever checked, and you got a parent who's trying to figure out if they can go to work or not.
It's bad for the economy, so it's hard to find the balance.
But anyway, I do like a lot of what TULSI stands for, but one of the best things is that She's a major in the National Guard.
That says a lot.
And again, it's one of the reasons why Tulsi and Dan Crenshaw are some of my most, probably my two favorite politicians right now.
Because I looked at them both as confident, charismatic, rational, sane, smart.
And though they disagree, they both served.
And I do hold that in great esteem.
You know, I will stress the point.
I don't think that the actions taken by the U.S.
and the armed forces are always correct, but I do hold a lot of respect for people who have, you know, served overseas and have experienced, you know, they have real grit.
That's the thing, right?
Grit, right?
I've got to keep these segments short, so I'll wrap it up.
But for me, you know, Tulsi and Dan are people who are tough.
And that means you've got a tough, stoic, smart, rational person and that's who we want to be leading the charge.
So they're not perfect, neither of them, but Tulsi is my preferred candidate for one simple reason right now, the big reason.
She's anti-war, the regime change stuff and intervention stuff.
And that says a lot to me because she is a major and when she stands up there with all
those other Democratic candidates, I see somebody who's going to be the commander-in-chief.
I mean if she were, hypothetically, because I really don't think she'll beat Trump.
But I find that highly respectable and I believe it's damn near a prerequisite for
For me, at least.
I understand.
What makes this country great is the fact that anybody can be president, so long as you're born here.
It has other rules.
But I really do like the idea of having a president with experience.
So I'll wrap it up there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Oh no.
Oh no, no, no, no, no.
He did it.
He did it.
Okay?
If you've clicked the link, then you know what he did.
Democrat congressman says US needs illegal immigrants to mow our beautiful lawns and do jobs Americans are not willing to take.
A lie often repeated by weird, creepy urban ivory tower elites, and it is disgusting.
Now look, there's greater context in the conversation.
But he said, he actually said it!
Remember when that Osborne lady on TV said, like, who's gonna clean your toilet?
Whoa, dude!
Dude, not okay!
It's almost like they really do want a permanent underclass.
Think about the trajectory these people put kids on.
Go to college, get a degree, work a great job, and don't worry, the migrants will clean the toilet for you!
Listen, do you know who's supposed to be doing these jobs?
Doing the jobs that nobody wants to do?
Young people.
And I talked about this earlier.
Like, when I was a kid, we'd go door-to-door and be like, hey, I will mow your lawn for ten bucks.
And then you mow the lawn, you get ten bucks, and we're like, yes!
And then we go to Blockbuster Video, and we rent the latest installment of whatever game.
There was one game I rented where it was like you're a raccoon wearing armor, or no, no,
you're a possum.
It's like a possum wearing armor and like throwing something like a boomerang.
I have no idea.
The point is, when I was a kid, if I wanted candy, if I wanted nachos from 7-Eleven, we'd
go around and we'd try and find money.
One thing we would do is we would go to, I don't know if you guys know Aldi, but when
you get a shopping cart, you put a quarter in, and then when you put the shopping cart
back, the quarter pops back up.
So we would go up to people and be like, hey, we'll bring your cart back for you, and they'd
And then we'd keep the quarter.
And then we'd make stacks of quarters, and then we'd go buy Pokemon cards.
Guess what?
We were doing trash, menial work because we were young, with little skills, and we're trying to make money to buy toys and candy.
Today, they're saying it's a good thing we're outsourcing entry, like base-level, basic jobs that people actually do want.
I'm not even talking about mowing lawns.
I'm talking about those chicken factories, right?
Check this out.
After Mississippi ice raids, Job Fair draws hopeful workers.
And this is the lie.
It is a lie, okay?
Look, I think immigration is a great thing.
Legal immigration.
And there's a reason why I say legal, because we're trying to monitor and maintain a functioning system.
Could you imagine if your car had open fuel borders, with like nothing monitoring what was coming in, and you get like different octanes, you get different kinds of fuel, and then eventually your car breaks down?
The point I'm trying to say is, when we regulate for who comes in and when and how many, it's to protect everyone, including the immigrants.
But for some reason, they say things like, who's gonna mow our lawn?
I don't know, my 15-year-old neighbor who was just trying to earn a couple bucks to go buy a game from GameStop or something?
What happened to having young people do work?
I remember there was some video that went out a while ago.
Where a politician said, kids need jobs.
And all these people on the left were like, eat that!
And I'm like, but kids do need jobs.
I'm not talking about a factory where they're covered in grease.
I'm talking about selling lemonade and mowing lawns, the jobs you Americans aren't willing to take.
Well, guess what?
People showed up.
So these factories in Mississippi had a ton of illegal immigrants working there.
I think it was like nearly 700.
And the ICE comes in and arrests these people.
And then you hear the same lie from these people saying, but who will do the job?
Well, I don't know.
Whoever showed up.
There were interviews with people.
One guy said, I could really use the job, you know, I've been out of work.
One guy's like, it pays better than fast food, you know?
And I'm like, there were people who needed work.
And when they were told they could come, they came.
So why do they hire illegal immigrants?
Let's read this story and see what he said.
He said, A Democratic lawmaker told constituents that undocumented migrants were needed to mow our beautiful lawns, care for the elderly, and do other tasks American citizens were too elitist to do.
What, like you?
Come on, man.
Democratic Representative Tom Malinowski was speaking at an event in the wealthy New Jersey suburb of Hillsboro when he made comments.
You see where it comes from.
Rich elites in urban centers.
Well, guess what?
You know why my view is different?
Because I'm from the South Side of Chicago.
And what I saw was people who needed work who were willing to take it.
But not just that.
We're taking away opportunity for young people to learn responsibility and face, you know, grow and become mature.
When you go out and you work, you earn your keep.
What do we have now?
Think about it.
Kid goes to school.
Free.
They pay for nothing.
Nothing.
Maybe their lunch.
They go to high school.
Free.
Then they go to college.
Not free, but somebody else signs that loan check, hands it to them, and they got money.
All of a sudden now they have a standard of living they've never earned in 22 years.
They have never earned anything.
And they graduate, and they're thinking, now I should get a job where I'm gonna get paid X salary.
And then they don't.
And they get all angry, but it's not fair.
Everything's been provided for me by the state my whole life.
And what happens?
They're weak.
There's weakness.
They don't know how to earn a living, they don't know how to be responsible, and they complain and vote communist.
There you go.
They say, the politician is running for a second term in New Jersey's Swing 7th District, which has a long history of sending mainly Republican lawmakers to Congress.
Okay, this guy, I can't imagine him winning after saying that.
Mr. Malinowski, who took the seat in 2018's midterm elections, told those gathered at Café Brio on Tuesday, That there were a lot of jobs illegal migrants were doing that Americans would not do.
I beg to differ.
We have this story here.
They say days after immigration agents arrested 680 Latino workers in a massive workplace sting at seven chicken processing plants in Mississippi, job seekers flocked to an employment fair Monday in hopes of filling some of those now-empty positions.
Coke Foods, based near Chicago, held the job fair to recruit new workers at one of its Morton plants after ICE agents on Wednesday arrested 243 workers suspected of working without authorization.
By 10 a.m., a crowd of dozens was on hand, and a steady stream of people came and went.
Most were black and spoke with accents from the American South.
A few appeared white or Hispanic.
While the raids at Seven Plants were unprecedented, chicken processing facilities are normally plagued by heavy turnover and ravenously seek employees.
Koch spokeswoman Jim Gilliland said Monday that job fairs are a frequent occurrence.
They are part of normal efforts to employ.
In this environment of relative full employment, most businesses are looking for qualified applicants.
Coke is no different.
I'll tell you what.
Too many workers?
Raise your prices.
Welcome to how the economy is supposed to work.
Instead, they hire people who are not authorized to work here, and it weakens the economy.
It's good!
It is good when there are more jobs than workers.
It is a good thing.
It means everybody is doing some kind of task.
And it also means wages have to go up to attract To compete in the market.
That's how wages go up.
That's how you increase the value of an hour.
Instead, we get these companies hiring illegal immigrants and we get people like this guy being like, well, someone's gotta mow my lawn.
It's like, uh, dude, let me give you some advice, brother.
Even if you are wealthy and can afford to hire someone to come and mow your lawn, why don't you have, I don't know, your kid do it?
Like, you know, make your kid do chores before you go out and go, you know, play the Pokey, man.
Make sure you mow that lawn.
Teach them responsibility.
They're not.
They're putting them in school saying, my child will be an engineer.
And then they become entitled.
They're institutionalized their whole lives.
Everything is provided by someone else.
And when they graduate, they don't understand why it's not just being handed to them.
Why can't you just tell me to lift the rock and then give me what I need?
Because in the real world, you have to solve problems to survive.
They say, he said, there are a lot of jobs in our community that, like it or not, for better or for worse, Americans are not willing to take.
That is a lie, an elitist lie by the uber-privileged.
Look, this guy's got a family.
I don't know, who are these people?
Is that Nancy Pelosi's family or something?
They say, Tom Malinowski during a ceremony swearing in on Capitol Hill in Washington earlier this week.
This week he told constituents.
So I don't know who these other people are, but I assume the guy's got a kid.
And I'm not going to have my son mowing lawns.
It's an elitist mentality where they want their kids to not have to lift a finger and
they have soft hands.
It's like, no dude, hand them the, what do you call it, what's that thing, I don't even
know what it's called, not a hoe, but it's the thing where it's got the little wheel,
the sprocket wheel and you, hedge trimmer.
It's been a long time since I've done lawn maintenance because admittedly now I don't
do my own lawn, right?
But I don't have kids either, so... I think it's interesting, though, that, you know, in my neighborhood, for instance, there's a service that basically just does everyone's lawn.
Like, it's like an automatic thing, almost.
And then you get, like, a letter in the mail.
It's really cheap.
The point I'm trying to say is, I don't believe we should be sitting here acting like we need a migrant underclass to take care of cleaning the toilets.
I think anybody willing to do it should do it, and guess what?
If we don't have people like illegal immigrants coming and cleaning toilets, we'll have to find someone to do it.
And that's, like, one of the big things I pointed out.
Like, let's say I have to leave and I can't mow the lawn.
So I go to the neighbor and say, hey, do you know anybody who can mow the lawn?
And they'll be like, no, sorry.
And I'll be like, nobody?
I have no choice.
I gotta get somebody to do it.
How much do you want?
If you came out, you got time?
No, I don't have time.
I'll give you $100.
Whoa, $100?
Now I'll mow the lawn.
You see how competition works?
You see, that's how it's supposed to be.
Or like, hey, your kid won a hundred bucks, I'll mow the lawn.
That's really expensive for mowing the lawn.
The point is, I'm trying to use a ridiculous number to make a point about how when you have no choice, the market drives wages up.
Instead, instead of paying more, they say, just reach into the pool of poor people from the other side and bring them in illegally.
And that's what's causing problems for our economy, at least one factor.
So, I do want to keep all these segments short, so I'll end there.
Stick around, and I've got one more segment coming up in a few moments, and I will see you shortly.
You may remember the story, when it went viral.
A transgender woman went into a store, maybe like a 7-Eleven or something, we'll go through to make a convenient store in Sydney, with an axe, and viciously attacked people trying to kill them.
This person was, uh, okay it wasn't 7-Eleven, was sentenced to I believe something like nine years or seven years, but they recently, the prosecutors appealed, and this person is now getting more jail time, I think like a double almost, 14 years.
What's interesting about this is the claim from prosecutors that the reason for the attack, or at least one of the reasons, was that this trans woman was upset nobody was attracted to to her.
This is a confusing thing, right, especially when it comes to the issue of trans rights and all that.
There are people who will tell you that, you know, she, her, use a pronoun, say woman, and Buzzfeed certainly takes that approach, saying a woman who hits strangers.
I think this is a really, really unfair thing to do.
I understand you want to have the argument saying a trans woman is a woman, but in this instance it's important to point out it's a biological male swinging an axe at people's faces, shattering the skull of a woman.
It's important because men have more muscle mass on average.
I can't speak for this individual, you know, as a person, on their own, but I can say on average, a transgender woman, biological male, will have more muscle mass or more fast-switch muscles.
It's complicated.
It's complicated.
But that's a factor.
When people hear stories of women abusing people, they often downplay it.
There's videos where you see a man hitting a woman, and then people rush up and grab him.
Then they'll do the same thing where the woman hits the man, and everyone points and laughs.
The assumption is a woman is too weak.
You can call it patriarchy or whatever you want, fine.
The point is, this is a biological male, and they should be treated as such when reporting on a story about them swinging an axe into the face and skull of other people.
So, at the very least, it's fair to say a trans woman.
But Buzzfeed, of course, is very woke, so let's read.
A trans woman who hit strangers with an axe in a Sydney convenience store will spend at least eight years in prison after her sentence was drastically increased on appeal.
Evie Ahmadi was 24 when she launched an axe attack on unsuspecting customers at a 7-Eleven in the suburb of Enmore in the early hours of January 7th, 2017.
I will stress this thing, okay, because I don't know if you've seen the video.
They saw this person walking with an axe.
If I saw somebody carrying an axe around for no reason, I'm gonna GTFO.
I'm sorry.
If I see someone carrying a gun, I'm probably gonna be fine with it.
You know why?
Because a lot of people carry firearms for self-defense.
And it's a normal thing in this country.
Now, if I saw someone walking into a store, you know, with their hand over the trigger and they were, you know, holding the gun down and wearing body armor, it's a different story.
I see somebody with, like, you know, a holster or whatever.
I don't care.
I see cops like that all the time.
But an axe is not normal.
If I see someone like that walking around with an axe, I'm gonna be like, I'm getting away from that person.
So, uh, let's read.
The blows she dealt to Ben Rimmer and Sharon Hacker with a 4.5 pound axe caused the pair serious injuries and were captured in graphic CCTV footage released by the court during the trial.
A third man, Shane Redwood, narrowly avoided getting hit on the street outside using his backpack as a shield.
All three victims were strangers to Ahmadi.
Prosecutors argued at trial that Ahmadi had launched the attack out of rage after coming to believe that a woman she had met on Tinder had rejected her on the basis of her being transgender.
say women.
It's interesting.
Prosecutors argued at the trial that Ahmadi had launched the attack out of rage after
coming to believe that a woman she had met on Tinder had rejected her on the basis of
her being transgender.
This is a weird thing.
This is what's called a transgender lesbian.
So, a biological male, attracted to females, but wanting to be female.
Now, don't ask me, you know, about this particular instance, but I think it's fair to point out, this individual, according to the story, is mentally ill.
Now, I know there's gonna be a lot of people saying, like, ha ha ha, tell me what else is new, you know, no no no no, but like, actually having, like, some other, like, diagnosable mental illnesses, hence they walked around with an axe and bashed people in the face with it.
A jury deliberated for two days before finding Ahmadi guilty in August 2018 of wounding Rimmer and causing grievous bodily harm to Hacker, with intent to murder them, and of attempting to wound Redwood, also intending to murder him.
In January, Ahmadi was sentenced to 9 years in prison with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months by District Court Judge Mark Williams, who presided over that trial.
Prosecutors appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate.
On Monday, the Court of Criminal Appeal agreed and added five years, resentencing Amati to
14 years with a non-parole period of eight.
Court of Appeal Justice Peter Johnson wrote in the decision that the case was unusual
and described the CCTV footage of the attack as chilling and confronting.
He wrote that there was a powerful set of subjective circumstances to take into account, and described Ahmadi as an intelligent person with a troubled history which has given rise to mental health issues and presented her with clear difficulties in her life.
So let me stress, this person is mentally ill.
According to the story, and I think it's apparent, but to anybody, watching an axe-wielding individual trying to crush the skull of a woman.
And that's what you see in this photo.
This guy got bashed in the face.
Man, it is brutal.
Like, yeah, let's just read.
Apparently she had a knife, too.
They said, Johnson found Williams had been diverted by these circumstances and as a result handed down a sentence that did not properly reflect the seriousness of Ahmadi's crimes.
She armed herself with an axe and a knife, Johnson wrote.
This is not a case of violence by way of assaults or even more serious non-homicidal attacks.
She came upon two complete strangers in the convenience store and made concerted efforts to kill each of them with that being her intention.
In reality, the aggregate sentence did not recognize in any real way the harm done to Mrs. Hacker and Mr. Redwood, who were victims of these serious crimes.
Can you imagine this?
You go to 7-Eleven, and you're just standing there, and then all of a sudden, the next thing you see is just coming straight at your face, an axe head, just cracking your jaw, shattering your teeth, splitting your face open.
Sorry if I'm being big graphic on that one.
But I feel bad, you know, like, look, getting hit in the face is bad, but this Ahmadi was bashing a woman on the ground with an axe.
So, look, I don't know how much time is enough to rehabilitate someone.
I honestly think a few years would be.
But is the issue just to keep a dangerous person off the street?
Let's read on.
They say.
The decision also outlined the substantial impact of the attack on Rimmer and Hacker, who suffer ongoing physical and psychological difficulties.
The blow to Rimmer's head cut open his face and fractured his eye socket and nasal and cheekbones.
The base of Hacker's skull was shattered into multiple fragments.
Look, this was in Australia, but we better take mental health seriously, you know?
The three-week trial in 2018 traversed several issues—gender dysphoria, mental illness, and psychosis—and the effect had on Ahmadi by a complex combination of seven different substances in her blood at the time of the attack—alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, antidepressants, and hormone medication.
Crown prosecutor Daniel McMahon told the jury that Ahmadi had acted out of a deep-seated anger with the world connected to her feelings of rejection and discrimination of being transgender.
So, you know, here's the thing.
We see a text by incels, and they blame inceldom.
They say, these young men are misogynists.
Okay.
Well, the court said this person was upset over rejection at being transgender.
Are we going to blame transgenderism?
No, that's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
Now listen, did it play a role?
Well, according to the Crown, it did.
Does being an incel play a role?
Yes, obviously.
But the core issue that needs to be talked about is people who are, yes, mentally ill.
There is something else going on.
You can't just be like, oh, that person happens to be transgender.
That's the reason.
No, it's obviously not.
The person was hopped up on a bunch of drugs like amphetamines and drunk.
So yes, there was a lot of stuff going on there.
I think being transgender was incidental.
It was just an attack.
It was an attack by a crazy person.
And we could say the same thing for a lot of these mass attacks, but they always defer to identity.
They'll say, a white male did this.
An incel did this.
OK, great.
We're not going to say a trans person did this.
Oh, well, in this case, they were on drugs.
Yes.
Yes, a lot of these kids are on antidepressants and other drugs.
We should be focusing at the pattern and what's causing this.
So, there are going to be people who push back and say, well, they're all white men most of the time.
It's like, no, no, like, listen, I don't care.
I think it's silly to ascribe this kind of thing to someone based on their identity instead of looking for causal factors like drug use, antidepressants, or even ideology.
Plain old ideology.
He said Ahmadi had lied on the stand about experiencing psychotic symptoms that night, including hearing voices and feeling her vision narrow.
Was she experiencing any of those things at all, or was it plain old anger?
He also said her intent to kill was clear in messages about killing people she sent to her Tinder date and in a Facebook status posted just 25 minutes before the attack.
He read the post out to the court, noting it's perfect grammar.
Humans are only able to destroy to hate, so that is what I shall do.
Defense barrister Charles Waterstreet argued Ahmadi was not guilty by reason of mental illness.
Okay, well, you know, I'm willing to entertain that, but come on.
Basically, Ahmadi argued that she blacked out.
She told the court her last memory of the night was sitting on her balcony smoking cannabis and crying
Before a voice in her head started telling her to kill people and a sinister smile was plastered across her face
She couldn't control. Amadi will be first eligible for release on parole January 6, 2025
I don't care. Like, you know, I know people are gonna jump on identity issues on this one
Let's talk about mental health issues.
I believe the issue here is whatever made this person take drugs and antidepressants and amphetamines and hormone medication is, it's not being transgender, it's something else.
And I think it's important to draw those distinctions.
Why did someone commit an action?
We need to look at all the things in their lives and try and figure it out because it's not always the same thing.
Maybe sometimes it is.
Someone's a misogynist and they go after women.
Maybe sometimes they are.
They hate the world because they're trans and people don't like them.
Or maybe there's something beneath both those issues.
Maybe the reason a guy is an incel is because something's wrong with him, a social anxiety problem.
Maybe this person was depressed and kept looking for solutions and couldn't find it and then snapped.
