Democrats Have LOST Their Polling Advantage, Social Justice Policy VERY Unfavorable
Democrats Have LOST Their Polling Advantage, Social Justice Policy VERY Unfavorable. Bear in mind this is a favorability poll and polling aggregates for vote are different and still favor Democrats (hard to get that in the title with only 100 characters)But what we are seeing is that far left ideology, social justice and wokeness, is hurting the Democratic party as a whole. In 2018 they Democrats ran on a left wing populist message. Increasing wages, improving healthcare, these were the messages that resonated.But whether or not the Democrats can keep the house now depends on the view of their party and those leading the pack. In this case the 2020 Democrats and Donald Trump. With wokeness and far left social justice being so unpopular Trump has a huge advantage. Many people will vote for him due to the increasing ideological push from Democrats.Though economic populism is favorable to almost everyone, the Democrats keep pushing social justice policy positions that Americans don't like.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a new story in the New York Times, they highlight data from Pew showing Democrats have lost their 2018 advantage.
What could they have done in the past year that they've lost the advantage that won them the House?
Why, it appears, embracing wokeness.
Now, typically when I refer to the far left, I'm talking somewhat about economics, but mostly about this weird authoritarian ideology that wants to segregate people based on their identity.
A really good example of the facade is the Green New Deal.
Now, most people actually like the idea of a Green New Deal.
I do.
I actually really like the idea of investing money into developing new technologies and creating jobs that will help create a green infrastructure.
However, the Green New Deal is actually a mask for racial identitarianism, to a certain degree.
It's going to institute massive economic changes, but actually wants to institute policies where people would receive benefits based on their race.
I think that's kind of creepy, and I don't want to have anything to do with it.
When we look at the polling data, when we look at what the New York Times shows us, we can see that a lot of these woke policies, like decriminalizing border crossings and reparations, are widely unfavorable.
And that's hurting the Democrats.
They're actually playing into Trump's hands.
But we do have a bunch of other data I want to go through.
One of the big issues is that economic populism is wildly popular.
If you tell people you're going to bring back their jobs, they're happy.
If you tell them you're going to increase their wages, they're happy.
But if you say you're going to segregate them based on race, they get kind of upset.
And that's the point.
So I think it's important to separate far left from socialist and identitarian.
And I'm going to focus on the wokeness, but I also want to go through other identitarian aspects of this debate.
Why Trump has the support he does.
Who really has the advantage?
That's the big question.
Because the New York Times shows this data.
It's neck and neck.
The Democrats lost the advantage and now they are neck and neck.
But FiveThirtyEight disagrees.
So let's read through this and try and figure out who's going to win in 2020, even though I know it's still very early.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical option.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
YouTube is propping up big corporate channels like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
I'm sure you've heard me say it a lot.
If I'm gonna compete with them, I have to overcome that hurdle.
If you think this video is good, just share it.
And that's the best thing you can really do.
And if you don't think you should share it, then I don't deserve it in the first place.
But let's read.
This is an opinion column from David Leonhardt.
He says, Obviously, most Democrats would say it's vitally important.
Four more years of the Trump presidency could allow him to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
And some other people.
I mean, a lot of these justices are old.
It would worsen the climate crisis.
It could cement his paranoid racism and scoring for democracy as the new American normal.
But I will stress, too, based on the ratings from CNN, I don't think Americans are actually that concerned about climate change.
They want economic policy.
And we have data to back that up.
Given these consequences, you would think that Democrats would be approaching the 2020 campaign with a ruthless sense of purpose.
But they're not, at least not yet.
They are not focusing on issues that expose Trump's many vulnerabilities.
They have instead devoted substantial time to wonky subjects that excite some progressive activists, and alienate most American voters.
Now listen, there's a bit of confirmation bias here, cuz I agree with what this guy is saying, so of course I'm gonna highlight it.
So I always recommend you go and look at other YouTube channels and try and push back on my perspective and find counter-arguments.
I can only argue for what I see and what I think is right.
And because I agree with this guy, that's the story I've chosen.
There's my bias.
And I've got more bias coming up in just a second, don't you worry.
They say, the good news is that the campaign is still just getting started.
Many Americans haven't yet paid much attention.
The next phase starts Thursday night with a debate in Houston featuring the 10 leading candidates.
But not the one I like, Tulsi Gabbard.
He says, Before I get into the polling, I want to make it clear that I'm not making the argument that some centrists and conservatives have made.
By now you've probably heard claims that Democrats are hurtling towards socialism and instead must return to the triangulation of the Bill Clinton years.
The evidence doesn't support that view.
I actually agree with this.
Economically, people like hearing about populist positions, be it left or right.
Trump won majorly, bigly, big league, whatever his word is, because he told people, I will bring back your jobs.
And that played well in Midwestern and Rust Belt states.
But Bernie and people like Andrew Yang are playing up the left-wing economic populist angle of say, you know, universal basic income or increasing the minimum wage, which is a lot of Democrats, a lot of Democrats are pushing.
But let's read on.
He says, over the past few decades, incomes for most Americans have barely grown, median wealth has declined, Americans are frustrated, and a majority supports a populist agenda.
Higher taxes on corporations and the rich, expanded government, health care, and financial aid, a higher minimum wage, even a Green New Deal.
That's left-wing populism.
Trump's is ending the border, you know, the free trade agreements, tightening the border, bringing back jobs.
They're both a populist agenda.
You're telling people, I will personally benefit you.
And there's good reasons for either side.
I happen to lean more towards the populist side.
I do not like the elitists, though I recognize their purpose.
The Democrats are on solid ground, substantively and politically, by pushing all of these issues.
They should be casting Trump as a plutocrat in populist's clothes.
I agree, but they don't.
They don't.
Who has used the presidency to enrich himself.
I don't necessarily agree with that.
It's a caricature that has the benefit of truth.
When pundits yearn for economic triangulation, they're the ones confusing their own policy preferences with good political advice.
I'll tell you what, Andrew Yang had the best advice.
I'm not a big fan of UBI, but I do like Yang because he's actually talking to moderates and he's bridging that divide.
Although the $1,000 a month thing does seem kind of gimmicky, it's going to play really, really well to people who don't know better.
Hey, I'll take free money, right?
Promise someone money, they might vote for you.
But in reality, while I understand the negative aspects of UBI, Yang presents things from a more moderate perspective.
When he talked about healthcare, he says, let's stop talking about emotions and rights and talk about businesses.
It would be so much easier to start a business if you didn't have to worry about healthcare.
And he's right.
It may not be 100% correct, it may not be the right way to go, but at least he's bringing up business in the conversation.
So let me clarify that.
It's nuanced.
It's not like there's one thing that's going to solve the problem or be a good argument.
I think health care on the backs of businesses is a bad idea, but it doesn't mean his solution
He goes on to say this, the mistake that Democratic candidates have made is thinking that just
because they should activate their progressive ID on some issues, they should do so on all
issues.
There are two main examples, both of which have received a lot of airtime during the
presidential debates.
The first is the idea of decriminalizing border crossings so that the illegal entry into this
country would only be a civil violation.
Most top Democratic candidates, I'm not going to read through it, support the idea.
If illegal entry weren't a crime, they say Trump couldn't lock people in cages.
How absurd.
Supporters of the idea make intricate, technocratic arguments about how decriminalization won't make the border less secure.
But most voters tune out.
They don't buy the long explanations for why the policy doesn't mean what it certainly seems to mean—less border enforcement.
In an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll, 67% of registered voters called decriminalization a bad idea.
Check this out.
Now we get to the meat and potatoes.
Out of step.
Most of the Democratic Party's agenda is popular with the public, but several ideas being pushed by the 2020 presidential candidates, including the end of private health insurance and the decriminalization of border crossings, are deeply unpopular.
And repealing Obamacare only has 45% support with 50% saying it's a bad idea.
Now let's look at this.
Majority support.
Free public college.
Economic populism.
Minimum wage increase.
Economic populism.
These are all the more favorable positions.
Gun background checks has really wide support, with 88% in the polls.
They talk about a pathway to citizenship.
63% support.
Taxing the rich.
A Green New Deal.
Now here's what scares me.
I like the Green New Deal.
But this is why we have to be really careful about the Democrat position.
The Green New Deal, as it's presented now, is not what they claim it is.
It's an economic transformation, but it also instills racial identitarianism.
Every new deal, as it's presented now, is not what they claim it is.
It's an economic transformation, but it also instills racial identitarianism.
Take a look at these two charts.
Decriminalizing border crossings is social justice.
It's wokeness.
Slavery reparations, also wokeness.
Those are two of the least popular ideas, and they're the two ideas that are on the face, social justice.
Everything else, private insurance and Obamacare, those are economic populist ideas.
It's more socialist, it's more to the left, but it is not identitarian.
You can see what people really, really don't like.
Let's do this.
I want to talk about what's really going on with economic populism, and I'm going to give you a bias alert.
You guys know I'm a fan of Tulsi.
But when you take a look at these plans, which people think are a good idea, regulating drug prices, Medicare for All, you know, Green New Deal, minimum wage, it's all about the money.
The problem is, people don't like it when the government misspends or wastes money.
Tulsi points that out.
Tulsi Gabbard says, Americans get pissed off when government squanders money.
That's not a conservative thing.
And she's right.
While people certainly do like the idea of being told the government is going to help them get by, the bigger concern that I think affects moderates and conservatives is that when they hear this, they hear government bloat, overreach, and a waste of money.
The Green New Deal, for instance.
However, I will stress, Trump comes out and says, I'm going to bring back manufacturing.
We're going to shut down NAFTA and his other arrangements.
I don't know if that's the right idea, but it is the populist idea, telling people we are going to reverse policy to fix these problems.
It doesn't matter in the end if it's populist or not.
It matters if it works.
So if Trump pulled it off, he's going to see huge gains.
It's going to help him out moving into the future.
However, when you come out and start playing reparations and border crossings, you're just going to make people say, no way.
Look, there's a reason why Bernie was popular, and I can tell you this as somebody who's a big fan of him.
It was the economic populism.
And you know why I don't like him now?
He just brought on Linda Sarsour.
Sorry, she's an anti-Semite.
I'm out.
He's talking about racial identitarianism, talking about white people and being poor.
He said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
Sorry, that's where you've lost me.
I'm not a big fan of free public college or a $15 minimum wage.
I am a fan of addressing these issues and trying to work towards these plans.
I'm a fan of forgiving student loan debt in a certain capacity, not just paying it all off and giving all the money away, but something like freezing interest rates.
So I definitely lean more towards a left-wing populist view on a lot of these issues.
It's the identitarianism that has soured the Democrats.
And I can tell you that Me personally, that's the big issue.
My policy positions are very much so leaning left.
I've talked about, yes, tax the rich.
I've talked about a Green New Deal, a real Green New Deal, not a racial-identitarian socialist thing, but an actual investment in green technology.
And I've talked about solutions for the minimum wage and how to increase it.
So I have a bit of a moderate approach, leaning slightly left, as you can all expect.
Let's do this.
They say the Democrats have lost their advantage.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Actually, I have to show you the most important part of the story, which I brought up in the beginning.
Here's the image.
In 2018, favorable.
Democrat, 53%.
Ten points higher than Republicans.
However, by 2019, it is neck and neck.
You know what, man?
Like I said in the past several videos, there are a group of people who favor left-wing economic populism, who have said, you know what, whatever, and they're going to vote for Trump because they are sick and tired of the authoritarian far left.
Why won't they call out Antifa violence?
I don't know, but I'll tell you what, the more they don't, and the more the media supports it, the more people say, I don't care about any of this.
Unleash Trump.
I've talked to people who are lifelong Democrats and they just say, you know what, I don't care anymore.
A lot of people on the left will say, how could you abandon your principles and the policy positions you've held and support someone like Trump, who you disagree with?
And it's simple.
You know, for me, it's not the case.
For me, I very much do care about these policies, and I want to make sure I stand my ground and fight for candidates who I think are going to do the right thing.
But for a lot of people, they've seen a Democratic Party go so insane decriminalizing border crossings, open borders calls from the DSA, that they're like, no, no, no, no, no.
Just unleash Trump.
Let Trump solve the problem.
They've gone that direction.
That's why I think they've lost the advantage.
There are certainly people who like this, who like the left-wing populist position.
The Democrats are too busy talking about other nonsense, as this guy points out.
So let's look at this.
538 asks, are Democrats or Republicans winning the race for Congress?
And according to aggregate polls they've collected, the Democrats have a near 7 point lead.
As of today, I don't know if that means anything because there's an idea of the secret Trump voter.
It's hard to know if the polls are going to be right this time.
It's hard to know what's exactly going to happen.
But here's what I want to do.
Let's break down some of these polls to try and figure out who's right.
This shows, 538 based on the polls, that the Democrats have a clear advantage as of right now.
But according to the New York Times, they don't.
According to the New York Times, it's actually neck and neck.
Here's some stories we can look at.
First, from the Washington Examiner, Trump troubles 21% GOP to vote against the president, 52% for all voters.
Trump has lost a lot of the established Republicans.
But we all know it.
The Never Trumpers don't like the guy.
Their Maddie took over.
However, this is coming from Rasmussen.
And Rasmussen favors Trump.
So it's interesting.
Let's read a little bit.
They say, According to Rasmussen reports, 52% of likely voters are more likely to vote against Trump.
And among GOP voters, 21% are also considering voting against him.
The key phrase in the poll was against, with many voters saying that they were not voting for a Democrat, but against Trump.
That's important.
It means Trump may have lost establishment voices.
However, as I pointed out in a previous video I did on my second channel yesterday, Trump has changed the party.
And a lot of people have mentioned this.
They talked about it all through 2015 and 2016, that Trump was lighting up parts of the country that didn't vote before.
I met many people at Trump rallies who said they were independents who never voted, or they were for the first time going to vote for Trump.
So Trump is getting moderates and he's getting new voters.
Even if he loses these GOP voters, it doesn't mean it's all bad news.
But let's move on.
Let's talk a little bit more about some of the things From the New York Times, this is a story from July 15th I covered, but I want to highlight here it's important.
Huge turnout is expected in 2020, so which party would benefit?
Democrats typically gain from a broader electorate in presidential races, but that pattern is not assured in the Trump era.
Basically, what this story says is, the Democrats are playing to the far-left economic populist and identitarian sect, the progressive sect.
But their hope is they're going to light up new voters in the same way Trump did with his populist message.
But the Democrats are going to sacrifice the center to the Republicans.
Even if they get a new progressive voter, they're going to lose a moderate voter or send moderate voters to Trump.
That's basically what they're saying, that in the end, new voters may actually end up benefiting Trump because different areas with low voter turnout aren't necessarily going to vote left.
They might end up voting right.
We're expecting record voter turnout.
And no one knows for sure what's going to happen.
But it may be that Trump wins, probably because I think you have a lot of disaffected liberals and moderates who just don't care anymore, or more importantly, One poll I love citing shows that moderates feel the Democrats have gone too far left more so than they feel the Republicans have gone too far right.
But what about the secret Trump voter?
Check out this story from 2016.
I can't tell my friends who I really voted for.
It's very common.
I did a whole segment talking about the secret Trump supporter base.
But let's present some counterpoints.
We'll do a little back and forth here.
Rasmussen reported, on August 2nd, Trump voters are likely to be more public this time around.
The secret Trump voter made sense in 2016 because people were scared.
They thought he was going to lose, so they hedged their bets and just said nothing.
Today, we can see that many people are much more brazen and willing to come out and say they support Trump.
You have the walk away campaign where people are saying, you know what, I'm walking away and I'm going to publicly announce it.
That's what they're saying.
Trump's base has grown.
So even if Trump's secret voters are now being public, so you might be saying, hey, look at the polling data.
It's down for Trump.
It's bad news.
They're neck and neck.
That means they are accounting for the secret voter.
Maybe not.
Check this out.
The New York Times says don't assume Trump's approval rating can't climb higher.
It already has.
Another story I highlighted before.
Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do.
So consider this.
Yes, Trump supporters may be more vocal today.
But if Trump's base is bigger than it was, and we're still seeing a neck-and-neck race, I think it's fair to say a lot of Trump supporters are still hiding.
We saw a poll the other day from College Fix.
73% of college Republicans hide their political views.
These people are going to come and vote.
These young people, they're going to come out and vote.
They're going to vote for Trump.
However, there's still the counterpoint that young people on the left, because they're being activated by social media, will come out and vote.
It is a difficult position.
It's so hard to predict what's going to happen.
I got to stress that point.
There's so many factors here, but let's read on.
The Trump voters who need for chaos obliterates everything else.
Political nihilism is one of the president's strongest weapons, another op-ed from the New York Times.
This makes everything uncertain.
The chaos vote.
People on social media forums who make memes and support the president, not because they like him, but because they love the absurdity and the insanity and the chaos.
And you can't count on these people in the polls.
The chaos vote may be the vote that gets Trump the win.
Look at the Democrats.
Their establishment.
Their mainstream.
Their squares.
Their unhip.
The chaos vote wants something to shake up the system.
The real estate reality TV president.
That's as chaotic as you can get.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
But some people don't necessarily want to watch it burn.
They just want to see it get shaken up a little bit.
Change things.
Life is boring.
Let's see something interesting for once.
They don't think Trump is really going to burn everything down.
They think he's going to come up and just wipe the slate clean and shake things up a bit.
But here's another really important point.
From the same author, we aren't seeing white support for Trump for what it is.
A crucial part of his coalition is made up of better-off white people who did not graduate from college.
They like to claim Trump's base is made up of people who are uneducated and poor, impoverished.
But what they fail to see is that just because people don't go to college doesn't mean they're poor.
A lot of his support may be coming from people who are self-made entrepreneurs and business people.
There's a poll down here I want to show you.
They say this.
Republican support was 50% white, no college or less than a college degree, and 40% white with a college degree.
In 2018, it was 59% no college and 29% white with a college degree.
But these are percentages.
What they don't show you is that Trump's base is bigger.
Trump recruited people who haven't voted before.
He has lost some people who voted GOP 21% or so according to that one poll, so maybe.
The college-educated people have said, I refuse to vote for Trump, but his base is still bigger.
So what we don't know is the relative proportions.
Just because the percentage is up doesn't mean that Trump is losing.
It could be that Trump has activated a large portion of voters who haven't voted, and we know that's basically the point.
So here's kind of the point I'm trying to bring up.
In the first story, we can see that wokeness and the far-left ideology, not necessarily economics, is hurting the Democrats at least to a certain degree.
We know that Tulsi Gabbard has pointed out, it's not a conservative thing to get mad when the government wastes money.
But in the end, the question is, who is going to win?
And I gotta say, I think Trump will.
But who will reclaim the House?
I'm not so sure.
While 538 says the advantage is held by the Democrats, I'm not entirely convinced the polls are right for several reasons.
Notably, the chaos vote.
People who don't answer polls, and the secret Trump voters, and the expansion of Trump's base.
As I stated yesterday and the day before, people who come out to vote for Trump are going to check all across the board, and perhaps we're not tracking them properly.
In the end, the only thing I think is really important to point out is that the Democrats can win if they get away from the wokeness.
If they get away from this and they talk to people about how they can make their lives better.
I don't think they will though.
That's why I think in the end, advantage Republicans.
Now look, the data says neck and neck.
So okay, that's fine.
I'm biased a little bit.
We'll see what happens though.
But I do think Trump is going to win.
I could be wrong.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews and I will see you all there.
Soylent Green is people.
I'm sure you get the reference.
It's actually being proposed now that cannibalism may be a solution to climate change if humans start eating other humans.
That's really gross.
I would never do it.
And I actually, I gotta admit, they play it up as though it's a conservative mentality to not want to eat human flesh.
Okay.
I will accept that, and I will never eat human flesh.
However, it's not just these climate change people.
It has been proposed in the past that humans could eat other humans, and it's a weird cultural taboo they claim.
Although I think eating people is wrong, I think we should avoid doing it.
From a pure, objective point of view, they're claiming there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Okay, this is a really weird subject, and I will probably die on the hill of not eating people.
I think most Americans would agree.
But the argument they kind of present is that Human-grown meat or eating other humans can help stop climate change, and that eventually, by tasting it, people will overcome their moral objections to eating other people.
I certainly hope that's not the future, but I don't know.
I mean, here we go.
Let's read the story.
Scientist wants to end conservative taboo against cannibalism to fight climate change.
That's the kind of progressive I think we don't want.
Let's read.
From Pluralist, they write, Swedish behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund said last week that humans must awaken to the idea of eating human flesh as a way to combat the effects of climate change.
Now, naturally, when I hear that, I think of, like, ravenous zombie-like people tackling others in the street.
Yeah, but wouldn't that be like stringy and old meat?
Of course, it's not what they're saying.
I don't know what it is they're saying.
And what would you want to do?
Like wait till someone dies and then eat them?
This is a really ridiculous and kind of screwed up subject.
I got to be honest.
At what point do you eat a person?
Söderlund, a researcher at the Stockholm School of Economics, advanced the idea of
eating people after they die.
Yeah, but wouldn't that be like stringy and old meat?
Come on.
Tuesday, on Swedish TV 4, he had earlier in the week held a seminar on the subject at
the Gastro Summit Fair in Stockholm.
According to Söderlund, as climate change makes food sources increasingly scarce, people will have to learn to eat things that are now considered disgusting, including pets, insects, and most of all, human flesh, the Epoch Times reported.
Uh, no.
I will eat bugs.
I have no problem eating bugs.
You know what's always funny to me?
Watching Fear Factor, and they're like, you, if you want to pass this round, must eat this piece of an animal!
And I'd always be like, so your challenge is to eat food?
Like, I get it, man.
I'm not particularly grossed out by eating things that people eat.
Nah, and that's just me.
I know a lot of people get squeamish when they eat things they're not used to eating, but I've always found that kind of ridiculous.
Maybe it's a kind of... I don't know where the mentality comes from, but it's kind of a philosophical approach to what food is.
I wouldn't eat a person.
That's messed up.
But eating bugs?
No problem.
Chocolate-covered crickets?
Don't care.
It's food in most of the world.
So why would I be grossed out because it's food?
You know what I mean?
So watching Fear Factor, they're like, you must eat the eye of this animal.
It's like, okay.
I've eaten many parts of many animals.
Literally don't care.
I get it.
A lot of people are squeamish, though.
That's why the show worked.
Now take the average viewer of that and tell them the climate change people want them to consider cannibalism and see what their reaction is.
Yeah, you know what, man?
Maybe it's just a conservative view, but I would probably die before eating a person.
But I will stress, I've made the point before, when people are starving and they're desperate, you'd be surprised what they'd do.
You know, we all know the stories of people who are lost and starving and they eat other people.
It happens.
Me?
I'd probably die.
Maybe it's a force of will thing.
I'd probably just eat dirt or bugs.
Whatever, let's read.
They say.
A promotion for his September 2nd to 3rd talk read, Is cannibalism the solution to food sustainability in the future?
No, it's not.
Why wouldn't we just grow beef in the lab?
That's ridiculous.
Does Generation Z have the answers to our food challenges?
Can consumers be tricked into making the right decision?
At Gastro Summit, you will get some answers to these questions and also partake in the latest scientific findings and get to meet the leading experts.
Listen, men.
I understand that cultures change, and as time goes on, people adapt to new things that are considered wildly inappropriate previously.
Like, if you took someone from the year 1910 and brought them to today, they'd be shocked at the way we live.
Like, what is wrong with you people?
I get it.
Maybe I'm just an old fogey type.
Maybe I just have this darn traditional view of food, but I don't think cannibalism is the answer.
Think about the absurdity, right?
They go on to mention that Richard Dawkins says, Clean meat, already in 2018.
I've long been looking forward to this.
What if human meat is grown?
Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism?
An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus yuck-reaction absolutism.
I don't think Richard Dawkins is absolutely saying we should or shouldn't.
I think he's making the point.
A good point.
Again, I didn't read it, but… Think about it this way.
If we start growing human meat in labs, would people start losing their moral rejection to eating human meat?
It's not a question of whether they should or shouldn't.
It's a question of why people have that view.
Now, me personally?
I think we shouldn't do that.
I just think, man, maybe it is like a traditional moral perspective of us not eating other people even if we grow their meat.
But I also want to stress, why would we?
Why wouldn't we just grow chickens in the lab?
Here's a crazy thing.
This is what's really crazy to me.
Did you know that if you take a bunch of chickens and put them outside, they will live and grow and reproduce?
This is the craziest thing.
Did you also know?
Now, here's the craziest thing.
You can take, like, corn, for instance, and if you put it in dirt, more corn will grow out of it?
Isn't that amazing?
So, I get it.
Meat tends to be nutrient-dense, a lot of vitamin B, iron, and things like that.
But if we had the choice to grow meat, why would we grow human meat?
I understand the question.
Look, academically, I think the question is important, right?
Why do people behave the way they do?
Science.
I like it.
But when given the choice, So they're going to point out Sutherland's not alone in musings about cannibalism.
So perhaps I should clarify.
Maybe, is he really... Does he really want to end it?
I mean, that's how they're phrasing it.
I want to make sure I'm really careful on this.
What is the question?
Is cannibalism the solution to food sustainability in the future?
It doesn't need to be.
I don't understand what the question is.
God, that's like, that's literally Soylent Green.
Like, I haven't seen the movie or whatever.
It's really old, but if you're not familiar, basically there's like no food left and they grind down people into their parts and then they eat the parts called Soylent Green.
So here's the thing.
I want to stress this point.
When I saw this, I wanted to look at whether or not cannibalism was bad for you because that's one of the big things that people talk about.
Personally, I don't care if it's good or bad for you.
I think it's just beyond the standard we should engage in.
Eating other people is probably not something we should be doing.
Other than, I mean, it could, you could get really sick if you eat brain.
Let's read this little bit right here, they say.
In May, Washington became the first state to legalize the composting of human bodies in the name of fighting climate change.
Man, that's where we're going.
And being environmentally sustainable.
Governor Jay Isley signed the law in May before he aborted his Democratic presidential bid.
He's like, you need a copy editor, pluralist.
People keep saying that to me.
During CNN's 7-hour climate change debate on Wednesday, a number of Democratic presidential
candidates issued dire warnings about climate change.
Several proposed multi-trillion dollar plans to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in coming
decades. More than half endorsed taxes or fees on such pollution. Well, listen, I don't know if
composting human bodies is the right thing, but I will point this out.
I am not a fan of ceremonial burial.
It's an ancient tradition where we embalm and put people in a box and bury them in the dirt.
For me, you know what I want?
Viking funeral.
Put me on a boat, kick me out into sea, fire a flaming arrow onto my corpse, light me up and let me sink to the fishes and the rest into the air and carbon and whatever else.
That's better.
I will return to the earth from whence I came.
So, in a sense, that's kind of like composting human bodies.
But can't you just give people Viking funerals?
It's way more fun, right?
And that's an ancient tradition, too.
So here's what I did.
So here's what I did.
I looked up the health implications of eating colleagues to determine if there was a serious problem with eating people.
According to Medical News Today, which, yes, is a NewsGuard-certified, across-the-board, credible outlet, The only real problem arises when you eat brain and you get what's called Kuru, which means the shakes or to shake.
It is laughing sickness.
You may have heard stories about this.
People who eat other people, they twitch and they shake.
Well, that's when they eat brain apparently.
So in this, they say, I'm not going to read the whole thing.
They say although the knee-jerk reaction to eating human flesh is strong, the actual morality and ethics behind those feelings aren't as simple as they first appear.
They mostly say it's Western sensibilities against eating people.
Perhaps it was because of the spread of disease, but they go on to point out that People in a lot of cultures actually eat people, but there were diseases associated with it.
Let's read a little bit.
They say, In Europe, from the 14th century up to the early 18th century, human body parts were knowingly sold and purchased as medications, particularly bones, blood, and fat.
Even priests and royalty routinely consumed human body products in an effort to stave off anything from headaches to epilepsy and from nosebleeds to gout.
You know what the craziest thing I saw in this was?
Where is the- I don't want to read through the whole thing, but there was one part where they say that, like, humans eat their own parts.
Let me- let me- let me- let me- let me do this.
There we go, look at this.
They say, once we start to strip away at cannibalism's ability to make us instantly recoil, we see that our feelings aren't quite as clear cut as they seem.
For instance, okay, I'm gonna give you guys a trigger warning right now, and I don't normally do this, but this is about to get gross.
All right, here we go.
For instance, many of us still eat our fingernails.
What?
I don't know anybody who eats their fingernails.
Do you guys eat your fingernails?
That's so weird.
I don't.
I- I- I snip my fingernails and they get tossed in the trash?
You know, or some of them go arid and you vacuum them up?
Who eats their fingernails?
And some women eat their placenta after giving birth.
What women?
Cats?
The lines are perhaps slightly more blurred than our initial reaction might infer.
I don't know anybody who eats- who ate their placenta.
Now granted, I've seen stories on the internet, but I've never heard of people eating their fingernails.
Is that a thing?
Like, what do you do?
Do you bite them off and then just eat it?
Why would you do that?
That's so weird!
Look, if you eat your fingernails, comment below and let me know why, because I gotta admit, Maybe this is one of those areas where I am literally just staunchly traditional in how we deal with the things we ingest.
But I would just stress, the things I eat includes, I don't know, not eating body parts, fingernails, placenta, or other humans.
Wow, this is so weird.
Maybe, um, no, look, man, like, I grew up in the city.
I grew up in Chicago.
There's a lot of death in Chicago.
I don't know anybody who eats people, they say.
For the purpose of the article, we do not need to wade into the interplay between instinctive gut feelings and cold hard logic.
Here we will focus on the negative health ramifications of cannibalism.
They basically say, excuse me, there's no real, you know, if you're just eating regular bits of human, it's fine, but they do go on to say that there's a prion disease called Kuru And it's because these proteins, they're called prion proteins, will accumulate in the brain.
And if you eat them, it will screw with your body.
They say it's Kuru is essentially like mad cow disease.
The four people are the only known population on earth to have had an epidemic of Kuru.
And at its peak in 1950s, it was the leading cause of death in women among the four, which is the name of the people, and their nearest neighbors.
The word Kuru comes from the four language and means to shake.
Kuru is also known as Laughing Sickness.
They say, 2% of all deaths in the four villages were due to Kuru.
The disease predominantly struck down females and children.
In fact, some villages became almost entirely devoid of women.
This gender difference in the disease appears to have been for a couple of reasons.
Four men, F-O-R-E is the name of the people, believed that during times of conflict, consuming human flesh weakened them.
Okay, that's a fact.
These women were dying.
What, really?
Wait, you can get a pre on an open wound?
Don't touch brains, man.
Also, it was predominantly the women and children who were responsible for cleaning the bodies,
leaving them at an increase of infection via any open wounds.
What really?
Wait, you can get a pre on an open wound?
Don't touch brains, man.
Whoa, that's crazy.
Look, here are the symptoms.
Kuru has a long incubation period where there are no symptoms.
This asymptomatic period often lasts 5 to 20 years, but in some cases can drag out more than 50 years.
Once symptoms do appear, they are both physiological and neurological, and often split into three phases.
Ambulant.
I'm not going to read through all these.
Secondary.
Terminal stage.
Cannot sit without being supported.
No muscle coordination.
Unable to speak incontinent.
Difficulty swallowing.
This is really gross.
Generally, the patient will die between three months and two years from the onset of symptoms.
Death usually occurs due to pneumonia or infected pressure sores.
Good lord.
Although Kuru is never likely to be a major health issue for the majority of humanity, the outbreak has proven useful to medical researchers.
They say Kuru remains the only known epidemic of a human prion disease.
But understanding this disease and how it works, treatments might be designed to prevent or at least reduce the chances of future neurological prion-based epidemics.
Why would we have to worry about that?
Well, perhaps it's because there are people actually asking whether or not we should eat other people.
I'm gonna go ahead and say we shouldn't eat people, but maybe I'm just wrong and very traditional on my concept of food.
I'll die on that hill, man.
I'm sorry.
You're not gonna get me to eat people.
It's never gonna happen.
I do want to make sure I downplay this, and maybe it's unfair to do so, but simply asking the question shouldn't necessarily be taboo.
If he's advocating for it, we gotta do a full stop and say, turn around, buddy, you've gone too far in the other direction.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out to hear about this gross story, and I'll see you all in the next segment.
We're the last of a dying breed, those who believe in what we refer to as liberal democracy.
This doesn't mean liberal as in like leftist, like many people think it means.
It means the democratic institutions of the West, and liberal meaning individual freedoms.
The term has been appropriated, partly because of the right, but also the left, right?
For the longest time, the left has been called liberal.
But something's happened where, you know, you have people like Dave Rubin saying the left isn't liberal anymore, and many classical liberals are now being called conservatives.
So don't take that word to mean left.
I know a lot of people get angry saying, no, no, stop, no, listen.
Those of us who believe in freedom, who will respect someone's views even if we disagree, we're a dying breed.
Check out this story.
The shocking paper predicting the end of democracy.
Human brains aren't built for self-rule, says Sean Rosenberg.
That's more evident than ever.
Now in this story, they talk about the rise of right-wing populism and the decay of Western democracies.
But you know what the big factor is?
What's driving it?
An intolerance towards people of differing views.
And that's the culture war.
And it's getting worse.
But here's the thing.
As a moderate individual, I look to the right, the conservatives.
I don't fault them.
They haven't changed all that much.
But the left has truly gone off the rails.
You know what?
There's gonna be a lot of people who watch this video and say, you're wrong, Tim.
I have done dozens Dozens of segments showing the graphs, the charts, the New York Times, Pew, Gallup, etc.
It's a fact.
We've seen it repeated over and over and over again.
The left has been veering so far to the left, so fast, it is fracturing the society in the United States, fracturing our culture in the U.S.
And that's the culture war.
People on the left who embrace authoritarian tactics, Antifa, they defend them, they defend the violence.
And the best example I can bring up is the event I sponsored in Pitman, New Jersey, where Daryl Davis, a famed anti-racist, was set to speak, and they protested the event.
They didn't want anyone to be able to speak.
It's authoritarianism.
Well, because of that, you see... Well, here's how I'll explain it.
When you have antifa on the streets bashing people and refusing to engage in a democratic process, we can see the process is breaking down.
The response then is for moderates and conservative types to be like, this has to be stopped, and they make a call to a strongman.
When people are scared or angry with the, you know, recklessness and the violence from extremist groups, they call for strength.
People like Trump get elected.
I wouldn't put Trump in the anti-democratic system necessarily.
Trump is a populist.
He does what the people want.
But this is leading us to that future, at least in my opinion.
Now, I think they're going to be harsh on populism, but let's see what this story is about.
Let's read.
They say, everything was unfolding as it usually does.
The academics who gathered in Lisbon this summer for the International Society of Political Psychologists annual meeting had been politely listening for four days, nodding along as their peers took to the podium and delivered papers on everything from the explosion in conspiracy theories to the rise in authoritarianism.
Then the mood changed.
As one of the lions of the profession, 68-year-old Sean Rosenberg began delivering his paper, people in the crowd of about a hundred started shifting in their seats.
They loudly whispered objections to their friends.
Three women seated next to me near the back row grew so loud and heated, I had difficulty hearing for a moment what Rosenberg was saying.
What was causing the stir?
Rosenberg, a professor at UC Irvine, was challenging a core assumption about America and the West.
His theory?
Democracy is devouring itself.
His phrase?
And it won't last.
As much as President Donald Trump's liberals critics might want to lay America's ills at his door, Rosenberg says the president is not the cause of democracy's fall, even if Trump's successful anti-immigrant populist campaign may have been a symptom of democracy's decline.
I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, look, I think there's a skewed perspective based on what Trump is doing because he's doing really similar things to what Obama is doing.
Granted, his messaging and the way he behaves is very, very different.
But I've said it over and over again.
Trump is not the cause.
Trump is a symptom of this change, for better or for worse, whatever your opinion is.
A lot of people look to Trump as a solution.
He's a change.
I'm not going to say it's a solution.
I'm going to say there are problems, and Trump is doing something, and some people don't like it, and some people do.
That's not the game I want to play.
What I want to mention is that everybody thought the establishment would win, Hillary Clinton.
Trump came out of nowhere.
People, you know, on Bill Maher, Ann Coulter said Trump would win, and they mocked, they laughed at her, because she could see this problem.
She could see whatever it was eating away at the United States and the West, she could see it.
Instead, Trump is that answer, and they laughed.
Well, Trump won.
Trump didn't cause it.
Trump was voted in because of these problems.
And there are a lot of problems.
And I think the ideological left is a big factor.
For one thing, I was told this by many young people.
But you see people who get fed up.
They see someone like Trump who tells them all to shut up, I'm gonna do what I want, and they vote for him.
Let's read on.
We're to blame, said Rosenberg, as in we the people.
Democracy is hard work, and as society's elites, experts, and public figures who help those around them navigate the heavy responsibilities that come with self-rule, have increasingly been sidelined, citizens have proved ill-equipped, cognitively and emotionally, to run a well-functioning democracy.
As a consequence, the center has collapsed, and millions of frustrated and angst-filled voters have turned in desperation to right-wing populists.
And you know why?
I think the issue is, for one, I won't resort to the authoritarian tactics we see from the ideological and fringe left.
The fringe right has been sidelined and ostracized and belittled and mocked relentlessly by everyone.
But then when it comes to, again, let's talk about my event.
And I'm sorry I bring this up so much, but it really is a good example, so forgive me if you're tired of hearing it.
The event we put on in New Jersey was centrist, moderate.
We had some people from the left, some from the right.
Most of the people who attended were centrist libertarian types.
Not both at the same time, but like a mix of the two.
And we had progressives, and we had conservatives, we had traditionalists.
Antifa wanted to shut it down.
So here's the problem.
We wouldn't use the tactics they use to lie, cheat, and steal to shut down a peaceful conversation.
The center couldn't hold.
So it's no surprise then.
Conservatives are saying, you know what?
What you guys are doing isn't working.
We're going to go our own way.
And it's a shame.
Us here in the center, what's left of us, we're willing to stand up and speak out.
But most of the people aren't.
And so they've either bowed out, or they've gone Trump.
And that's a fact.
Because I've met the Occupy Wall Street activists, who you'd be, it would be absurd to call centrists, but yes.
And they went for Trump.
Why?
The center failed.
You know, a lot of people point to Hillary Clinton and call her a centrist.
Please.
She's an elitist crony.
She was bad in a lot of ways.
She is not the centrist we're looking for.
We're looking for a sane, reasonable conversation.
But guess what?
We can't get it for one reason.
Trump is a strongman.
Trump will tell the far left where they can put their outrage, if you know what I mean.
The centrists won't do that.
Trump will push back and I'll tell the media to buzz off.
And I get criticized from a lot of conservatives for still refusing to join, you know, the right, the tribe.
But I'm not interested.
I'm going to play to my principles and I'm going to do what I think is right.
But I get it.
I completely understand why former moderates have gone to Trump, why former Occupy supporters and Bernie supporters have gone to Trump.
Because they're saying, what you do doesn't work.
Your calm, rational conversation is failing.
They'll support it.
And I appreciate it, you know.
Trump supporters will come out and join us in conversation, and it's very easy.
But then they'll turn to Trump and say, do your thing, buddy.
Trump's the attack dog.
Trump is not causing it.
Trump is the attack dog recruited by those who are tired of the insanity of the decay of conversation and the rise of authoritarianism, which we've been seeing from the left.
So these people say, you know what?
I'm done.
And they unleash Trump.
And I've talked to people who are lifelong Democrats, and I've brought this up a lot in the past week.
And they've said to me, they're tired of it, and they don't care anymore, and now the Democrats need to learn a lesson.
I kid you not, there's people telling me this.
People who voted for Obama twice, people who voted for Clinton, who voted for Gore, now saying, I'm done with it.
These people have run wild, and it's time we vote for an attack dog.
And that's Trump.
Trump comes out, he doesn't care.
He makes fun of the press, he posts memes, he makes jokes, and people are finally laughing again.
I think Trump isn't causing it.
He's a recruit.
He was brought on by the people to serve the people for what they want, and at least a large portion of them.
Because certainly there's a large portion who don't like him.
But that's what I'm going to get into in a later video.
His base is growing.
Let's read more about this.
They say in well-established democracies like the U.S., democratic governance will continue in its inexorable decline and will eventually fail.
They go on to say that, you know, right-wing populists have started taking over.
And I want to stress this point about Brazil.
What a lot of people don't realize is Brazil doesn't have free speech.
People are being threatened with jail for jokes.
I know a comedian who actually was facing potential jail time because he told an offensive joke.
It's like Count Dankula.
So what do you think happens then when people see this and they're like, I just want to hear a joke.
You know what?
Fine.
I don't care anymore.
You do it, Trump.
Or they vote Brexit, saying, we don't have anything to do with your system anymore.
And of course, the government, we know what's going on with Brexit, right?
They're making it very difficult.
It's been three years.
They say, let's read on.
A brief three decades after some had heralded the end of history, it's possible that it's democracy that's nearing its end.
And it's not just populist rabble-rousers who are saying this.
So is one of the establishment's pioneer social scientists who's daring to actually predict the end of democracy as we know it.
I don't necessarily think so.
I don't think we're going to completely lose democratic institutions.
I think it's entirely, and look, I'm not a scientist, I'm not a social scientist, I can't tell you for sure, but I think right now Trump might be a temporary, you know, last ditch effort.
It might be like trying times and people have called for Trump.
And if the left can be defeated, you know, I don't mean like the left, I mean like this woke, identitarian, authoritarian insanity that's infected the left.
If they can be defeated, things might return to normal.
I don't know if that's gonna happen though, so who knows what we'll see.
They say, "...democracy is hard work and requires a lot from those who participate in it.
It requires people to respect those with different views from theirs and people who don't look like them.
It asks citizens to be able to sift through large amounts of information and process the good from the bad, the true from the false.
It requires thoughtfulness, discipline, and logic.
Unfortunately, evolution did not favor the exercise of these qualities in the context of a modern mass democracy, more importantly, in the context of social media."
There is a net benefit to a centralized authority media.
The benefit is that everybody shares a worldview and are told what to think.
Admittedly, that does create order.
However, with the rise of social media, everybody now has a chance to speak, and information is basically being bisected.
You know, that's why we're seeing these different tribes, people who live in completely different worlds, because they can build their own through mass media.
What ends up happening is uneducated and ill-informed people take the reins.
Look, I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I don't think I'm always right.
In fact, I think I'm wrong very often.
I only call it as I can see it.
But I try to make sure there are checks on my work.
For instance, I use NewsGuard, a third-party agency, to... I only use services that are verified by them, even though I disagree with them.
And the reason... I disagree with them often.
The reason I do this is so that my personal bias doesn't cloud my judgment.
If I disagree with their assessment, I'll still use the source, and I do think they still kind of lean left.
But the point is, I try my best to distill information and present a rational view of the world.
However, I am then accused by many on the left of being wrong and being a liar and being a grifter and all these things.
It doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong.
It matters that they have an equal right to say what they want, even if they're wrong themselves.
So how do we know who's right?
I'll admit, maybe they're right.
I don't know.
I think I'm right.
They think they're right.
And there's the conundrum.
Someone has to be wrong, right?
All that matters is that these two forces, it's an immovable object, an unstoppable force, and they're going to collide.
Because there's no centralized information anymore.
So, Take your pick.
We have these people who want, you know, things like the Christchurch Call, which is going to restrict free speech on the internet, censorship, and I think it's a really, really bad thing.
But I also kind of feel like without compromise, we just doom ourselves.
It's a really tough position.
I fall in principle.
Unfortunately, it kind of makes me feel like Rorschach from Watchmen.
He's standing there, if you're not familiar with the story, he knows that the information he has will lead, potentially, to the destruction of the planet, but he refuses to compromise on his principles.
And I respect that.
But at a certain point, I'm like, isn't it better that you survive and make it through?
So the challenge now is taking away the rights of people to protect the system or giving everyone the right to speak and hoping the system can stabilize and make its way through.
Here's why I fall on principle and protecting speech.
The ends don't justify the means, because we never meet the ends.
If today we decide authoritarianism is the right way to go, and we restrict the speech like all these big tech giants are doing, these are truly evil people if you ask me, well, we'll create a world with no end.
There will never be a point where we're jumping up and down saying, we've done it.
That's why it doesn't work.
The only logical solution is to protect individual liberties and the right to speech for everyone, even if there is a risk that our fractured reality results in collapse.
Because the alternative is a collapse itself.
Who would want to just choose to live in an authoritarian system where you can't speak and you're forced into hiding?
I would rather build a better world and strive for individual freedoms and liberties and true liberty.
Instead of just snapping our fingers and creating this hellscape.
And, you know, you can wait for the hellscape or you can make it happen now.
And it seems like that's the argument from these elitists.
Populism is bad.
People shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Censor them on the internet so they can't.
And they're doing it.
People like Jack Dorsey going and meeting these evil people who are jailing people for sharing videos.
In the end, we have to just hope that liberty prevails.
But I say this.
One of the biggest problems with communism is that you centralize power instantly.
And that immediately creates a dictatorship and a hellscape and suffering.
There's problems with capitalism.
Run amok, laissez-faire capitalism results in corrupt systems that cater to our deepest vices.
And so we do need some kind of nucleus guiding society.
But we do need the people, you know, having the ability to push back.
With capitalism unfettered, Laissez-faire running amok.
Yeah, eventually the system becomes corrupt.
But with communism, you snap your fingers and create an instantly corrupt centralized system.
That's why authoritarianism is the worst idea.
You have a gradual progression, followed by a revolution to destabilize, or you can just create the monster itself.
If they think the best thing to do is take away people's rights and individual liberties and voices, well, they're going to create the nightmare scenario instantly.
And we're watching it form.
Liberty is the only option, even if it comes with risks.
Because, look, The price of freedom is high, and there are risks that come with that, but we have to be willing to accept the good with the bad, or the bad with the good.
You can't just live, you can't just assume there will be this perfect utopia, because when you centralize authority, it will be abused.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
We're gonna talk about politics.
The Democrats are losing their advantage, and it's their own fault.
I'll see you there.
It's a different channel.
Yesterday I made a video talking about the coming legal action against the theater that tried to cancel the Mines IRL event.
I'll give you a really quick update for those that missed that video.
I sponsored an event put on by MythInformed and Mines, the social media network.
The goal was to bring together of different political viewpoints and have a conversation called Ending Racism, Violence, and Authoritarianism.
The headline speaker was Daryl Davis, one of the most famous anti-racist speakers in the world.
He's a black man, a blues musician, who de-radicalized over 200 Klan members.
Far-left activists engaged in a harassment campaign.
There was even threats of violence.
And the theater, after five months of having a legal contract, shut us down.
You know why?
So, I'll get to that.
Okay, okay.
I gotta slow down.
For those that followed the video, you can watch the video yesterday, I asked you guys to get involved in the legal battle and help fight.
As of today, $8,500 has been raised.
The ultimate goal is $250,000.
No matter what happens, the legal suit is moving forward.
That's my understanding.
I have to be very careful.
I'll do the disclaimer now.
You know, everything I'm gonna say is gonna be my personal interpretation and opinion and how I believe things to be moving along.
So thank you all so much for donating.
Again, I was a sponsor of the event.
I don't have much... I wasn't a contract holder or anything like that.
But I need to make one very, very important point, and there's a reason why I'm doing another video about this.
When we started getting attacked, okay?
I say we carefully, like, you know, I was a sponsor of the event, I spoke there, and I lived in the area.
When the activists started lying, smearing, and doing everything in their power to shut us down, We thought, what can we do?
Well, the activists like to threaten people.
They say, we'll destroy your business.
They went around putting up flyers with the most insane conspiracy nonsense that terrified the local town.
And what can be done to stop them?
These people know that their terror campaign will force these businesses to bend the knee and side with them.
And guess what?
The theater for the event Did.
The Broadway Theater in Pitman backed down at the very last minute, with only 12 days before the event was supposed to take place, and said, too bad, even though for five months they knew about the event and they supported and defended it.
Okay.
Here's the thing.
The activists likely did this at the last minute on purpose, because they knew how difficult it would be to find a new venue.
Well, fortunately, MythInformed found a new venue, but not without losing 500 seats, 50% of the capacity, and causing serious financial harm.
There's one important lesson from this.
It's that businesses today will side with Antifa because Antifa is scary.
That's it.
South Park did an episode about this where they said, you know, terror works, people are scared, so they'll bend the knee.
Well, I'm sorry.
We won't play that game.
Here's the challenge.
I made this point at the event.
I said, these people on the far left are willing to break the rules.
They're willing to cheat in order to win by any means necessary, they say.
Unfortunately for us, we can't do that.
Unfortunately for us, we have principles and we refuse to cheat to win.
That means we're at a massive disadvantage.
But it doesn't mean we have no options.
It means that things like this must start happening.
The first thing I will say is, if you are put on any events, and something like this happens to you, you must file a legal claim.
The Broadway Theater of Pitman had no legal grounds to terminate the contract.
That's my understanding.
And they did anyway, because they wanted a side with Antifa.
Because Antifa was sending nasty messages.
Antifa was going to smear them and give them bad ratings on the internet.
Well, you know what?
When you breach a contract, we fight back too.
So long as Antifa are the only ones, or the far left, are the only ones willing to actually step up and fight.
They'll keep winning.
The point of this video is once again to show you the update, $8,500 raised in less than 24 hours, so much gratitude, but to explain better why I want you to get involved and help fund this suit.
Now listen, first I will say this.
It's very difficult to ask people to go on the offensive.
Going on the defensive is easy.
When Antifa and the far left start smearing and lying and cheating, it's easy to say, please help defend us from these lunatics.
But one thing that never happens is that people on our side, which is the centrist, moderate, libertarian types, those who believe in freedom and free speech, we never go on the offensive.
And I've been criticized for doing nothing but making videos whinging.
You're right.
You're right.
I'm not a contract holder.
MythInformed are going to be pushing this forward.
But there are some very high profile personalities who are interested in getting on board as well.
I am going to be contributing to the legal fund to push forward with the suit.
I don't know what will happen.
I don't know how things will play out.
I can say that if you go to the link, you can contribute to the legal fund and go on the offensive.
Let these businesses know, it's not just the far left willing to fight.
And if you want to bend the knee because you're scared of a broken window, then I hope you're prepared for a legal battle over the damages incurred to our businesses because you backed out of a legal contract because a handful of crazy people made a phone call.
Think about how crazy that is.
Think about the power and the economic damage these people can wield.
Simply by calling up and calling someone a name and the business says, that free phone call?
Yep, we're gonna cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to your business because one person on the internet said something fake.
Okay, well I'll tell you what.
You wanna defame?
You wanna breach a contract?
We're gonna stand up too.
And if you wanna get involved and go on the offensive, then please go to the link below, contribute to the legal fund.
Now I will stress a few points.
None of this goes to me at all.
I'm actually going to be giving money myself to support the legal effort.
They say, first, it will be used for litigation regarding the interference and disruption of the event going after the venue.
I want to stress, okay?
The human village, which is the small brewery which held the afterparty, defended us.
And they were better off for it.
Protesters showed up.
Nothing really happened.
They sort of crossed the street.
Everybody had a good time.
And now everything is fine.
Business keeps on keeping on.
Why did this theater bend the knee?
Because they were scared.
But scared of what?
A broken window?
I have no idea.
There are no front-facing windows on this theater.
But they decided, with 12 days left, to side with the far left because of a few phone calls.
Okay.
Well, if you want to side with them, then we're going to take legal action against you.
Look, those who believe in free speech, this faction, whatever you want to call it, whatever these people are, centrist, intellectual, dark web, I don't know.
We need to return and get on the offensive as well.
Now listen, remaining monies are going to be used to be holding bigger and better events.
And I can only say this.
I can't tell you exactly.
I trust the MythInformed guys.
You know, they're good friends.
They volunteer to do this.
This wasn't a profitable venture, partly because of what the theater did.
But it's a non-profit.
MythInformed is seeking to put on events about bringing people together and depolarizing and having this conversation.
Any excess funds afterwards are going to be used to continue to hold these events, to send one clear message.
If you try to shut us down, we will come back stronger.
You don't have to get involved.
I don't know if it's the right thing to do.
I know it's what I think is the right thing to do.
And I'm sick and tired of sitting here, having these people go on these websites, lying, cheating, and stealing, and winning.
Lying, cheating, and stealing.
Because of our principles, we refuse to engage in this behavior.
Well, there is nothing unprincipled about firing back with a legal claim against them.
And it is what needs to be done.
Enough sitting around and doing nothing.
When these people started coming after the venue, okay?
We talked about should we put out a call to people to do a phone campaign to get active?
And we all agreed it's not the right thing to do.
To send our followers after these businesses to just create a battleground?
It just seems wrong.
It's not what we're about.
We're about calm and rational conversation.
But that meant we could only sit back while they fired all of their, you know, attacks against us.
And then eventually the theater caved.
Okay.
Well, this is how we return fire.
We talked about a lawsuit before.
And there were some exchanges with the theater.
But only until after the event and the extent of damages can you actually take action.
And now's our return salvo.
Now's where we fight back and say, when you side with these lunatics, then we're going on the offensive.
Let me show you a few things.
I'm sorry if this is, like, not newsy or if it's boring.
I just... I'm sick of it.
And I will not sit back and do nothing.
Check this out.
MythInformed tweeted, a notice was sent out to the businesses that they had to pull in trash cans, you had to protect your businesses, there was a fear of threats and violence.
There were threats and violence.
That's what these people do.
We won't do that.
We don't do that.
Okay?
They claim they're acting in self-defense when they threaten these businesses.
They're liars.
But I gotta stress this to these businesses.
Stand your ground.
If you have a contract for five months and you know what the event is about and you cower in fear and fly the flag of your oppressors, then you have just joined them.
And now you are responsible.
Look at what these people were doing.
I hate to highlight this individual, but you know it has to be done because I'm not going to blur out their names.
One person who showed up to the event lied about everything.
And the activists use these lies as weapons.
And what can we do?
We can push back.
But in the end, what can really be said?
According to this woman, I'm not gonna say her name, you can see it on the screen, whatever.
She claims she was chased out of the venue.
Okay.
She claims she was chased out of the venue by racists.
Except the venue was a casino on purpose.
One of the most secure facilities in the state, if you're asking me, with cameras everywhere.
And she says she was chased out.
Well, guess what?
According to the organizers and security, never happened.
But do you think any of these people care?
Of course not!
The lies are on purpose!
So they can call up a venue and say, you see?
You see what happened?
You see who these people are?
And it's fake!
And then what can we do?
Well, these far leftists are going to continue using these tactics.
But at least, when we go to a venue and say, here's the terms, here's the speakers, here's our plan, when they say yes and sign on the dotted line, they cannot cancel a contract at the last minute and bend the knee to their oppressors.
I feel bad.
To an extent, I do.
I understand the real threat here is from the insane activists.
But admittedly, it's not the responsibility of the insane activists.
Crazy people exist and they're going to tweet.
It is the responsibility of the businesses to stand firm and uphold their contracts.
I'll end by saying this.
I can't ask you to march in the streets.
I don't believe that's the right thing to do.
I can't ask you to do a phone banking campaign.
I also don't think that's the right thing to do.
Disrupting the economy and businesses is what they do.
It's the dirty, underhanded tactics and lies they do.
What I can say, though, is we have the truth on our side, and we have the law on our side, and it's about time we used it.
So whether or not you want to contribute, by all means, you don't have to, and don't feel compelled to.
I'm just asking you What's our recourse?
Well, you can click a button and send a few bucks, and that money will go into the pocket of a lawyer who's going to fire back and say, when you side with them and breach a contract, you must pay the price for the damages you incurred by breaching a lawful contract you had no standing to breach.
And you decided to?
Well, congratulations.
The only reason the far left gets away with this is because we don't fight back.
The businesses says, if we cancel them, what's the worst case scenario?
They probably won't sue.
So we'll side with the lunatics, and that's what they've done.
Okay, well you know what?
Sorry, MythInformed is going to sue.
Okay?
And now all the damage is incurred because you wanted to bend the knee to these lunatics?
It's on you.
You broke the contract, not us.
It has nothing to do with the crazy people on the internet.
You knew full well what the event was.
So if you want to stand up, if you want to fire back, we won't use their lies, we won't use their tactics, we'll use the law to the best of our abilities.
You can tell I'm really angry about this.
I've been talking about this non-stop, well, periodically for the past couple weeks.
Now that the event is over and we've succeeded, we need to counter and say, never, never again.
And we're going to make sure any events we do in the future, we're going to make sure we do the same thing.
You want to cancel a contract?
You made the mistake of bending the knee to the lunatics.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
And again, thank you to everybody who contributed $8,500 in less than 24 hours.
It means a lot, it really does.
I know we don't have, you know, look, five people on the phone can make so much economic damage
for our events and our conversations.
And it's hard and it's difficult to fight back when you're standing on principle, okay?
They're cheating and we're at a disadvantage, but this helps.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I'll see you shortly.
Donald Trump is going to win in 2020.
You heard it here.
Okay, I hate making predictions.
I thought the Republicans were going to sweep all the branches in the midterms, and I was wrong.
They made gains in the Senate, but they lost the House.
That's why I'm just like, don't take my predictions, man.
I'm one dude who reads the internet, and I could be wrong.
I just tell it the way I see it, and I appreciate those who watch.
Here's the thing.
Check out this thing.
Campaign 2020.
TV's war against Trump leaves little time for Dems.
They're doing the same thing they did in 2015 and 2016.
Look at this.
On TV, it was the summer of Trump.
Trump has more than 10 times the on-air mentions than the next most mentioned person, the Democrat, Joe Biden.
In fact, I'm pretty sure if you add all of these up, he's still pretty much close to 10 times more than all of the Democrats combined.
Certainly the media knows what they're doing.
They love it.
The Trump bump.
There's a really funny tweet someone put out.
They said, I can't remember who put it out.
So forgive me for not giving you the credit, but Something about the media knows that Trump is worth money.
He's lucrative.
Talking about Trump drives ratings.
They also know if they slam him too much, he'll kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
If Trump doesn't win 2020, they're gonna lose the Trump bump.
Their ratings are gonna drop.
So they need to make sure Trump wins while they still smear him.
How do they do it?
Well, they present the Democrats semi-favorably, but in a light that makes them look crazy, and they give as much airtime as possible to Donald Trump.
This serves multiple purposes.
Listen, more airtime for Trump means more money.
It also means they can't highlight any of the sanity, like any of the good policies from the Democrats.
Don't let the Democrats speak.
Trump, Trump, Trump.
All day, all night, baby.
That's what helped Trump win in 2016, and they are paving a path for him in 2020.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to Tim... Actually, you know what?
I don't have it pulled up, but do this.
Go to TimCast.com slash IRL, because I got a new video up.
I don't have it pulled up.
I'll pull up the next one.
A van tour.
If you want to see my van and hear about my plans, TimCast... I'm sorry, YouTube.com slash TimCast IRL.
Let's read.
They say much as they were four years ago, the big three evening newscasts continue to be obsessed with Donald Trump, pounding him incessantly with the highly negative coverage.
But then as now, the network's fixation on Trump seems to be leaving comparatively little airtime for his would-be presidential challengers.
From June 1st through August 31st, MRC analysts found the network's devoted 838 minutes of airtime, nearly 14 hours to coverage of President Trump personally, the vast majority of which was negative.
They say, Note, this report only examines coverage of Trump himself, not generic stories about his administration's activities or those of other top-ranking officials, which accounted for an additional 213 minutes of evening news airtime.
Free press.
There's no such thing as bad press.
And let me make this point.
People might say, yeah, but Tim, all the news is negative.
That's bad for Trump.
Hold on.
Is it negative?
Let's say CNN comes out and goes, Trump is allocating funding from government projects to the wall.
What a disgrace.
They haven't said, it's not negative.
It's not negative at all.
Now you can say, obviously they're smearing Trump.
All right, listen.
There are two different people.
One person hears Trump is taking money illegally.
The other person hears Trump is keeping his promise by any means necessary.
Just because they frame it negatively doesn't mean everyone agrees with them.
Free press is free press no matter what, and the media knows what they're doing.
They know what they're doing.
And like Trump with the cat meme.
It's a laser pointer, you know, and they're a cat dancing around.
The airtime devoted to Trump was 11 times greater than that spent on the leading Democratic candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, and vastly more than the networks gave California Senator Kamala Harris, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, or Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Overall, 21 Democratic candidates shared 187 minutes of evening news airtime this summer, less than one-fourth of that of Trump alone. On the GOP side, former Congressman
Joe Walsh received a scant 35 seconds of coverage after he announced his candidacy in late August.
Yeah, but come on, he doesn't matter.
While the campaign of former Massachusetts Governor William Weld
has yet to be acknowledged by any of the three evening newscasts.
Clearly, this heavy coverage is not intended to boost Trump.
Overall, the spin on his coverage during these three months was 90% negative, roughly the same as we found throughout his presidency.
The network spent much of their time on alleged scandals and accusations of racism.
During the past three months, Evening News viewers saw an additional 82 minutes on the Russia investigation, bringing the all-time total to 44 hours of Russiagate.
You know what's gonna happen?
To all those people who were sitting there staring at the screen, Russia, Russia, Russia, and then Mueller's report dropped and they were like, oh, I was lied to for three years.
Yep.
43 hours of lies.
Not necessarily lies, but misinformation.
They say coverage plunged after former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony in late July.
Evening news coverage of the so-called collusion scandal sank from 46 minutes of airtime in July to less than eight minutes in August.
But the idea of Trump's impeachment was floated in 35 stories between June 1st and August 31st.
Network reporters seemed especially interested in topics they claimed showed the President displaying racial insensitivity, spending nearly 74 minutes on Trump's feud with the far-left squad of Democratic Congresswomen, and another 25 minutes on his antagonistic tweets aimed at Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings.
An additional 22 minutes was spent serving up theories that Trump inspired the events in El Paso, as well as recalling his response to Charlottesville.
Okay, hold on.
Listen.
Trump's doing it on purpose!
Trump's doing it on purpose!
You know what I want to do?
I want to go outside with a big sign that says Trump's doing it on purpose, and I want to, like, wear crazy clothes and, like, shake the sign in the air because apparently nobody's listening.
You know, apparently I need to get sensational and scream, the end is here, but actually, Trump is doing it on purpose.
When Trump focused on the squad, he did it, in my opinion, because he was simultaneously changing asylum rules that probably would have, I believe it did spark a lawsuit.
And the last thing he needs is activist funding going to a lawsuit.
So what does he do?
He points to the squad and says something dumb.
And the media goes, woo, with their arms in the air.
Take a look at Sharpiegate.
What is Trump doing currently?
He's allocating funding from military projects towards the wall, which could trigger lawsuits, and I believe it did.
The last thing he needs is activists raising money for those suits, and filing suits in various jurisdictions.
So what does he do?
He tweets incessantly about a Sharpie, and he posts a meme of a cat!
Trump is doing it on purpose!
You've gotta be nuts to think all of these are happy accidents.
That Trump is just a bumbling, you know, idiot savant who's accidentally tricking the media into focusing on him relentlessly.
But here's the other, more important point.
It's that the press is good.
There's no such thing as bad press.
The more they talk about Trump, the less they talk about Biden.
You want to complain that Trump's had a mean tweet?
Most people don't care.
But instead of talking about Biden's plans or why people should focus on Biden, you're talking about Trump non-stop, all day, every day.
And Trump knows.
I have to assume he learned in 2016 that all of the free press he got helped him win.
No such thing as bad press.
I'll stress the point.
When they come out and say, oh, Trump just said these horrifying things about Ocasio-Cortez, one person says, wow, why would Trump say that?
The other person says, yeah, maybe Trump's right.
You don't know who you're speaking to.
There are people in this country who are politically inactive.
And they hear the story and they go, huh, maybe Trump's right about that.
Maybe that's what they think.
Some of them do.
So even if you make enough outrage, in the end, if no one hears about Democrats, sure, a lot of people might vote against Trump.
But you're activating voters for Trump.
And you're also causing chaos on the left because no one can get a word in edgewise.
Think about this.
Joe Biden can come out, his eye can burst on camera, I kid you not, it's bleeding, and the media barely talks about the guy.
Trump posts a tweet of a cat with a laser pointer and him wiggling it.
And the media goes nuts.
Brian Souther does a whole segment.
Oh, look at Trump and the Sharpie thing.
Pete Buttigieg can come out, talk about policy.
Elizabeth Warren, now this is where I get angry.
Elizabeth Warren wants to go after big tech, and this I commend, okay?
I can criticize these people for a lot of things, and I'll criticize all of them, I don't care if it's Trump or Warren, but I will praise them when they do the right thing.
And Elizabeth Warren is doing the right thing by challenging big tech.
I don't agree with the censorship and the hate speech and all that stuff, okay?
I think hate speech is bad, but I think censorship is worse.
But she's right to target them for antitrust probes or whatever.
And that gets my respect.
But she can't even get airtime about it because Trump's posting cats with laser pointers!
Trump is—he owns the media.
He owns the media.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Change my mind.
Look at this image.
838 minutes on Trump personally.
He owns them.
Not only is he living rent-free in their head, he's pushing buttons and making them do whatever he wants.
And now they're gonna say, Some guy tweeted, Trump cultists think Trump's doing it on purpose.
Oh, are you kidding me?
Do you know how many people wish they could command that kind of press?
Do you know how many people are so desperate for attention, they commit crimes to try and get attention?
And Trump can snap his fingers, or better yet, Trump can tap the screen in his phone, post a picture of a cat, and get four or five times the coverage of all Democrats combined.
The media knows what they're doing.
Trump knows what he's doing.
The media doesn't care.
I love this right here.
Don't believe the liberal media, they say.
Well, you know what?
It doesn't matter, MRC.
Because in the end, Trump gets the attention and Trump wins.
Even if the press is bad.
Even if it's bad, there's no air time for any of the other candidates.
I think if Elizabeth Warren came out and talked about Big Tech more, she'd find a lot of supporters.
She can't.
The media won't cover it.
Because Trump is just so darn entertaining, isn't he?
Trump knows.
He's an entertainment guy.
He's a reality TV real estate mogul.
He knows what people want.
He's in the WWE Hall of Fame!
He knows how to entertain the crowds.
Bread and circuses.
Well, a lot of people agree with the policy stuff he's doing behind the scenes, but there you go.
And you know what's funny?
For pointing this out, they're gonna call me right-wing.
They always do this.
I'm not wrong.
I am not wrong about this.
It's there.
The data is there.
The media favors Trump.
Negative story, but more airtime.
Okay?
I'm not wrong about this.
This is Trump's advantage.
None of these other Democrats know—have any idea—how to get press.
Trump does.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
You guys know that I write music.
I think I'm gonna write a song called California is an Apocalyptic Wasteland.
I lived there for a couple years and ended up leaving because it is not California dreamin', I will say that.
It is California nightmarin'.
The streets are filthy.
People are, you know, there's like wealthy enclaves where they like wall themselves off like figuratively from the mess.
Nobody actually, well, none of my friends or people that I knew in California and Los Angeles ever really wanted to go downtown.
You've got Skid Row, you've got a homeless crisis, and for some reason the Democratic supermajority can't solve the problem.
I want to, I want to take this point not to smear the Democrats.
This shows you the political ineptitude of Of politics, period, of these politicians.
It doesn't matter who's in office, okay?
Now, I will admit, a lot of people like to point out Republican-controlled cities tend to be clean, and Democratic ones are crime-ridden and awful, but I think it's important to look for causation, not correlation.
So I think the bigger issue is that, you know, California—well, actually, I take this back.
I was going to say California has really nice weather, which attracts a lot of homeless people.
But I think there is a political... When the Democrats take control and own it, nobody needs to do anything.
There's no competition.
It's just self-gratification.
There's no... You know, you can come out and run for office and say the same thing every night.
There's no competition in politics.
And because of this, it stagnates, falls into disrepair, and then people leave.
Now here's the funny thing.
People are leaving California, and they're going to Colorado and Texas, and voting the same way that caused these problems.
Okay.
Whatever, man.
I got a story for you.
Why California must declare a state of emergency on homelessness or get a governor who will.
Yeah, I don't think they will.
I think California is a lost cause.
It's like, at a certain point, it's not about whether you're right or wrong.
It's about recognizing you failed.
At California's current state, they should probably say it's time to change something.
Staying the course is bad.
It's getting worse.
Let's, uh...
Let's, before we get started, head over to TimCast IRL, youtube.com slash TimCast IRL, because I have a new video up!
Look at that!
I got 9,000 views in one hour.
Oh, I'm so proud.
This is a small channel, only about 60,000 subs, but it's going to be behind-the-scenes tours of production and travel and interviews.
It's going to be like, change-my-mind kind of stuff, and just regular old, you know, real life, real life stuff.
I got a new video up.
I just put it up today.
Van Tour.
Solar, air conditioning, full shower.
You get a full view of the van and electronics and everything I used to build it.
So check it out.
Subscribe and watch the video.
YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL.
But let's read about why California is a wasteland.
They say, from Forbes, it's time for California's governor to use the powers granted to him by the state's constitution and declare a state of emergency on housing and homelessness.
The time for half measures has passed.
The growing number of people without shelter in LA, the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, San Diego, and other cities threatens public health and safety.
Yeah, did you know there's a fear of bubonic plague?
Amazing.
Allowing large numbers of people to sleep, eat, and defecate outside of designated campgrounds is not safe and robs them of their dignity.
I agree.
Homeless encampments overflow with dirty needles, feces, and rats, making them a breeding ground for diseases including typhus, tuberculosis, and hepatitis A.
The crisis is worsening.
The number of homeless people in LA increased from 52,000 in 2018 to 58,000.
59,000, I'll round up.
Homelessness increased by 43% and 17% in Alameda County, which includes Oakland.
roundup. Homelessness increased by 43% and 17% in Alameda County, which includes Oakland. 17%
wait why are there 43 and 17? What does that mean? They say deaths on the streets rose 76% in LA,
75% in Sacramento over the last five years.
Okay, man.
California, you got problems.
I don't think, again, I know it's probably gonna be controversial to say people are gonna get mad at me for this.
It's not Democrats.
It's corrupt people with no competition.
To clarify my earlier point.
When someone knows they can go into a district that's like plus 30 points blue, they don't need to do anything for anyone.
They can just go there and say, I'm a Democrat, and they will win.
Nancy Pelosi brought this up.
She said in her district and Cortez's, a glass of water with a D on it will win.
That attracts people who, in my opinion, are corrupt.
Completely corrupt.
You know, I'll admit, I'm very, very, very, you know, disenfranchised, as it were.
I think the Democrats have gone nuts embracing this weird wokeness and nonsense, because clearly they don't care about these people.
They talk about all these great things, and I think they're being inundated with corruption.
Let's read on.
They say in 2018, the people of California elected Gavin Newsom governor with 62% of the vote
and a mandate to take radical action to significantly increase both temporary and
permanent housing. He promised 3.5 million new units by 2025, which is 580,000 units per year.
Okay, you know what the problem is. Hold on.
And he promised to create a homelessness czar with the power of a cabinet secretary to focus on prevention, rapid rehousing, mental health, and more permanent supportive housing.
The problem is, giving a homeless person a house doesn't solve the problem.
Something else is causing the problem.
It is multivaried.
It's not just about the poor people themselves, the homeless people and the mentally ill.
It is about all of the factors around it.
It is about the economy.
It is about what you offer them.
Listen.
If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
If you teach a man a fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.
If you guarantee a man a fish every day for the next five months, he'll say, I'll work when I have to, and he'll take the free fish.
Listen.
A lot of people will fall into the trap of welfare.
I got unemployment benefits when I was much younger, like, you know, when I was like 18 or so, because I lost a job.
And it saved me.
It helped me avoid homelessness, though eventually I ended up homeless anyway.
But in the short term, it allowed me to at least stay in my apartment and have a place to live, and it allowed me to find a new way to make money, which I did.
I was homeless a couple times.
And government benefits, unemployment notably, saved me.
And I always stress this to people, because a lot of my friends are like, I will never take Listen, man.
When you work, you are paying into a subscription service so that when you lose your job, the benefits come back to you.
You're not taking advantage of anything if you're legitimately using the system.
This is why I believe social programs work.
I am a product of the success of them.
I lost a job.
I got the benefits.
It allowed me to survive and then find a new way to make money.
However, You can't allow people to take advantage of these systems
because it takes away from those who would really use them for legitimate purposes.
So I think they work, but I think we have to make sure we're not just saying,
yeah, yeah, yeah, we'll put a homeless person in a house.
It didn't solve the problem.
Why are they homeless in the first place? Maybe giving them the house wasn't the solution.
And I can't guarantee that job training is a solution either.
I can tell you, it sounds like they're just doing more of the same.
The way I describe it?
Putting a Band-Aid on a festering Band-Aid.
You got a wound, so you put a Band-Aid over it.
The Band-Aid festers, you put another Band-Aid over it.
Congratulations, you didn't solve the problem, you covered it up.
Let's read on.
They say, The crisis demands bold and decisive action.
That starts with declaring a state of emergency.
Doing so will allow the governor to waive gratuitous regulations that are blocking and driving up the cost of new construction and preventing the creation of temporary shelters.
He'll make California eligible for federal money if needed.
He must also name a cabinet-level homelessness czar with the powers of cabinet secretary and invest in her or him the governor's trust and power.
There is no shortage of land or money available to get the job done.
The governor's office earlier this year identified 1,390 state-owned parcels as being suitable for development.
Putting homeless people in big camps doesn't solve the problem of why they're homeless.
And taking resources from other people to people who can't or are unwilling to work doesn't solve the problem either.
Now it may be true, there are a lot of homeless people Who can't work.
And that's unfortunate.
And I don't think we should just leave them to die.
So, I would personally give up a bit of my resources to help those who are unable.
But unwilling?
There's the problem.
I don't know how you solve the problem.
What I can say is you better do something.
And at least they're calling for something.
Sometimes something isn't the right thing to do.
You know, I just don't know.
Sometimes people do something, think it's the right thing, and they should have done nothing.
That's true too.
But I can say this.
If you vote people in to governor, to solve the problem, and they don't, and California is now seeing diseases emerging, homelessness, feces in the streets, needles, something is wrong.
And they need to solve the problem.
Maybe a state of emergency is the right thing to do, not because it'll allow them to just build a shelter and shuffle everybody to a bus and kick them out.
But maybe what needs to happen is people from various political ideologies sitting down, addressing all the factors in the problem and solving the problem of homelessness.
I'll admit, maybe there is no solution.
In which case, I don't know what you do.
I really don't.
Think about your solutions.
What do you do?
If someone is unwilling to work, completely incapable, you leave them in the street?
Man, I don't know.
If they won't work?
Well, Ocasio-Cortez certainly thinks we just pay people who are unwilling to work, but I think that's a bad idea.
L.A.' 's homeless problem is getting worse.
We know it.
Skid Row has been a thing for a long time, okay?
I try to keep these short, so I'll leave it there, and I'll just say this.
A lot of people are probably going to point to the Democrats, and I can't... It's hard to argue against.
