Democrats DEMAND Trump Impeachment Over Ukraine Scandal, Story BACKFIRES On Democrats Instead
Democrats DEMAND Trump Impeachment Over Ukraine Scandal, Story BACKFIRES On Democrats Instead. In May the New York Times reported that 2020 Democrat front runner Joe Biden was involved in a conflict of interest when he threatened to withhold One Billion Dollars to Ukraine unless they canned a prosecutor that also happened to be investigating a company where is son was working. The scandal got little attention.Recently someone claimed to have learned information pertaining to President Trump asking Ukraine to start the investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden again. Media reported this person was a whistleblower except he isn't and the story seems to be largely a miss.Democrats like Ocasio Cortez and Elizabeth Warren however are not deterred and have called for the impeachment of the president over the flimsy story. In the end, it seems to be a win for the far left and republicans both of which don't like Joe Biden.The story is falling back onto Biden and hurting Democrats as a whole, something the far left democrats don't really care about and something Trump probably benefits from.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is demanding the impeachment of Donald Trump.
Again, sure, what else is new?
This time it has to do with, quote, law-breaking behavior over the Ukrainian scandal.
Now, AOC is saying the bigger scandal is that Democrats are letting him do it and won't impeach him.
In reality, I think the bigger scandal is the ongoing story involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and they somehow are injecting Trump into this when the story about Ukraine and the big scandal having to do with conflicts of interest from Joe Biden and his son, it was broken in May by the New York Times.
Why wasn't that a scandal that a major 2020 presidential candidate got a prosecutor fired who was investigating his own son?
That's the scandal.
Well, apparently, Donald Trump had a conversation with Ukraine and said, you can work with Giuliani and urged them to do it.
And they're saying that's the scandal because he wants them to reinvestigate potential corruption.
Look, I think the story is ridiculous.
It's a pool of fake news.
I've talked about how the media falsely frames things and fake news goes wild.
That's why I'm more focused on what AOC is doing to the Democrats.
So here's what we're going to do.
Let's talk about AOC's calls for impeachment.
She's actually getting a bit of pushback.
We will break down Ukrainian scandal.
And trust me, once again, the mainstream media is pushing absolute fake news about the president.
I'm not saying President Trump is innocent of all charges.
I'm just saying the whole story is a scandal involving Biden, not Trump.
And they're falsely framing this.
It's ridiculous.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
But in the end, I do want to focus on impeachment.
So let's start with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and how she bases her policy positions off of fake news.
And this, to me, is the most worrying thing.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
I'm going to be calling out a ton of fake news, and YouTube props up big corporate channels like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC.
I recently learned they like this channel a bit, although the corporate channels get the biggest boost.
If you like what I do, and you think I should keep doing it, please consider sharing this to help me grow and overcome the obstacles put in front of me by deranking and algorithmic bias.
However, let's get back to the news.
The Daily Mail reports, AOC launches scathing attack on her own party, saying Democrats' refusal to impeach Trump is a bigger national scandal than the President's law-breaking behavior over Ukraine.
First of all, AOC attacking the Democrats.
What else is new?
AOC calling for impeachment.
What else is new?
And AOC getting the facts wrong.
Okay, what else is new?
You know, I talk about this stuff so often, I'm kind of like, It's like a rerun, almost.
It's like, oh, I'm gonna make another video about AOC calling for impeachment and getting her facts wrong.
Rerun, basically, but it's not.
It's like we're living on repeat.
Hopefully something happens in 2020 to break this cycle, but it's bad.
So here's the thing.
AOC tweeted this.
At this point, the bigger national scandal isn't the president's law-breaking behavior, of which she's referring to a scandal.
There's none, for the most part.
It's an accusation.
It is the Democratic Party's refusal to impeach him.
She actually got some pushback in this thread where someone said, And by saying Democrats are worse than Republicans, you may be exacerbating the problem.
If you want impeachment, advocate for the votes, raise money for vulnerable moderates, encourage people to vote him out.
This critic is actually targeting Democrats, too.
In the context of how this is going to play into 2020 and how politics works, I think it goes well beyond this Ukrainian scandal story.
And I'm so not interested in it because it's fake news.
It really, really is.
Now, it's not fake news that Joe Biden should be investigated for conflict of interest.
It's fake news that has anything to do with Trump.
And in the end, The story is shifting back to Biden.
Now, there are Trump supporters saying Trump has tricked them into calling out Biden.
Well, they did this to themselves.
Check this out.
We saw this story.
May 1st, 2019.
Why is Ocasio-Cortez calling for the impeachment of Trump?
Well, from the New York Times, they report.
It was a foreign policy role Joseph R. Biden Jr.
enthusiastically embraced during his vice presidency, browbeating Ukraine's notoriously corrupt government to clean up its act.
And one of its most memorable performances came on a trip to Kiev in March 2016.
When he threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine's leaders did not dismiss the country's top prosecutor, who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.
The pressure campaign worked.
The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was soon voted out by the Ukrainian parliament.
Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden's younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Hunter Biden was a Yale-educated lawyer who had served on the boards of Amtrak and a number of non-profit organizations and think tanks, but lacked any experience in Ukraine, and just months earlier had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine.
He would be paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months for his work for the company Burisma Holdings.
This is May.
This is a story from May, they say.
The broad outlines of how Biden's roles intersected in Ukraine have been known for some time.
The former vice president's campaign said that he had always acted to carry out U.S.
policy without regard to any activities of his son, that he had never discussed the matter with Hunter Biden, and that he learned of his son's role with Ukrainian energy company from some news reporters.
But new details about Hunter Biden's involvement and a decision this year by the current Ukrainian Prosecutor General to reverse himself and reopen an investigation into Burisma have pushed the issue back into the spotlight just as the senior Mr. Biden is beginning his campaign.
Let me break this down for you.
Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, had cocaine in his system, was discharged, then got a job for $50,000 a month at an energy company in Ukraine that was being investigated, and Joe Biden threatened the government with withholding a billion dollars unless they fired the prosecutor doing the investigation.
Whether or not Joe Biden was acting at the behest or the benefit of his son is irrelevant.
There is a major conflict of interest here that should be investigated.
Well, apparently, There's a story from CNN.
You see, Trump apparently talked to Ukraine and said, work with Giuliani investigating Joe Biden's son, or something to that effect.
CNN claims a whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump intensified Thursday amid revelations that the White House and Justice Department tried to keep it quiet.
Let's dig down and figure out why they wanted to keep it quiet.
How about this?
The Washington Post on Wednesday said the complaint referenced a promise Trump allegedly made to the unidentified leader.
CNN has not confirmed that aspect of the controversy.
The whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN.
Instead, the whistleblower's concern came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.
It is hard to know the potential exposure faced by the president.
Not confirmed.
Whistleblower.
No direct knowledge.
Learned about this not in the course of work.
What do we have here?
Somebody working in government heard a rumor, then tried reporting the rumor, got told, no, it's a rumor, you have no direct knowledge of this.
They didn't even learn it from, you know, from work.
They say, the whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications.
Are we done here?
No.
Now it's a national scandal that the Democrats aren't impeaching Trump about it.
I can't say I'm surprised.
They base so much off of fake news, but perhaps it's on purpose.
So check this out.
In this story, Biden explodes when confronted on his Ukraine scandal.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden exploded on Saturday when Fox News reporter Peter Doocy confronted him over his Ukraine scandal, claiming that he did nothing wrong and that the media should be looking into Trump.
Should they?
The story was broken by the New York Times in May.
So here's my big question.
Why is AOC blaming Trump for a story about Biden that came out May 1st?
Where was the press?
Where was the outrage?
Where was the scandal?
It's fake news.
It's the Democrats weaponizing fake news from somebody who's not a whistleblower, but every single story is claiming it's actually a whistleblower.
Now, Donald Trump responded to the Ukrainian scandal.
I know we're getting into the Ukrainian scandal stuff, and I really didn't want to cover this because it's such fake news.
And I don't want to do videos every single day where I'm like, hey, remember that story from yesterday where they claimed a whistleblower saying something?
Turns out it's fake news, and a day later we're going to issue a correction.
It happens every single time.
That's why I'm just fed up.
I don't want to go through all of the— Like, every time there's a big negative story about Trump, just wait 24 hours.
Ignore it, wait 24 hours, and then CNN drops it.
The whistleblower didn't actually have any knowledge.
Well, Trump responded to the scandal.
Let's read this, and yes, I will get back into impeachment, and we'll talk about Democrats in 2020.
Trump said, I'm not looking to hurt Biden.
Speaking to reporters on Sunday morning, President Donald Trump described his July call, in which he reportedly pressured the Ukrainian president to open an investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden as perfect, while insisting he's not trying to hurt the former vice president.
Let's stop right here, Daily Beast, and correct the record.
First of all, He was talking about Joe Biden's son.
Whether or not what Joe Biden's son did would hurt Joe Biden is up for debate, sure.
Personally, Joe Biden should be investigated for getting a prosecutor who was investigating his own son fired.
Investigating the company in which his son was receiving payments from.
We'll put it that way.
I'll try to be careful here, okay?
It's not a scandal that Trump was like, maybe you should start looking back into this guy.
Quote, This is a very dishonest thing that Joe Biden did, and then he said he never spoke to his son.
Trump exclaimed, referencing Biden's claim, that he hasn't discussed overseas business dealings with his son Hunter.
But what he said is that he wouldn't give, I think, it was a billion dollars to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who was looking at his son and his son's company, the company that his son worked with.
And that's a very dishonest thing.
And I'm not looking to hurt Biden or even looking to hold him to it, to be honest.
But he said a very bad thing.
They gonna say the president also told the press corps that he had no problem with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani speaking to Congress, who has launched an investigation into possible Trump pressure on Ukraine.
Giuliani admitted last week that he asked the Ukrainian government to look into Biden and his family.
Okay!
Let me break it down for you.
Ocasio-Cortez wants Trump impeached.
She's targeting the Democrats because they won't impeach Trump.
And why won't they impeach Trump?
There's no evidence Trump did anything, period.
Once again, the Democrats are launching a nonsense inquiry because a person heard a rumor at work and didn't learn about any of this in the course of their work, and it was rejected as an actual whistleblower claim because it's just someone repeating a rumor.
Apparently Trump did tell Ukraine that they should work with Julian and investigate this.
But why does that matter?
Why isn't the story that Joe Biden has a conflict of interest and may have acted at the benefit of his son Withholding billions of dollars and using his position of power to make personal familial gain to help his son, who was discharged for having cocaine in his system.
This is why I don't like the Democrats.
You understand?
Joe Biden, corporate crony trash.
It's the same old game of the corruption.
But no, I don't want to see AOC in the far left.
Why are they going after Trump for this?
Why aren't they talking about the story from May 1st?
How about this?
From Vox, a whistleblower alleges Trump requested 2020 election interference.
Pelosi still says she won't pursue impeachment.
You see how the far left plays this game?
This is why I don't like them either.
Okay?
First of all, not a whistleblower.
Stop lying.
CNN did not, well, CNN did call this person a whistleblower, which is insane.
How can you call the person a whistleblower if they didn't learn about this in the course of their job and have no direct knowledge?
Mind-blowing.
And then they try and frame it as a negative against Pelosi.
Not a big Pelosi fan, but come on, dude.
What did Pelosi do wrong here?
She was honest and playing it right, that there's no evidence Trump—actually, there's an accusation against Trump with no direct knowledge, and the real scandal is on Biden?
They are tearing apart the Democratic Party on purpose.
Cenk Uygur said—I did this video a couple days ago—he is going to tear the Democratic establishment to shreds, attack them at their core, and that's what they are doing, targeting Biden Targeting Trump, targeting Pelosi.
In this instance, Biden is the one at fault.
The fallout from calling on Trump and accusing him of this hits Biden.
It's bad for him.
So I will stress the point that they're not actually going after Biden, but they are going after Pelosi as though she's done something wrong when there's no evidence.
Welcome to current politics, man.
The dirty underhanded tactics.
I don't know.
Should Trump tell Ukraine they need to investigate Burisma and go after Joe Biden's son?
It's a complicated question.
It's a question we can ask and we can debate.
But the bigger scandal was published in May and the left ignored it.
The Democrats ignored it.
Of course they did.
It was Biden.
Of course they're not going to talk about it.
This is why I detest the mainstream, you know, corporate crony Democrats.
They know Biden's doing something wrong.
He's corrupt.
As far as I'm concerned, the New York Times is corrupt.
And how does the left respond?
Blaming Pelosi for not wanting to impeach Trump and lying, calling this person a whistleblower?
They're all liars.
They're all dirty.
They're all cheaters and stealers.
So you know what?
It's just, it's gotten to the point where I just don't care for any of these people.
There are a couple people I like.
I like Tulsi, I do.
She's not in this game.
She's an outsider.
They don't like her.
They're pushing her out, okay?
I don't think she's perfect policy-wise, but this is just gross.
It's just gross, okay?
AOC is playing a game to destroy the Democrats, not to stop Trump.
She knows they're not going to impeach Trump, so she's using it as a weapon against the Democrats.
And even the person criticizing her said, Great.
That's what we need.
But I'll tell you what.
The game they're playing is a losing game.
Impeach Trump, okay?
Look, I'll admit I did not want to get into the Ukrainian nonsense because it's just fake.
Why are they bringing it up?
I don't know, but I'll tell you what.
Here's what I do want to focus on.
The Democrats, regardless of what they're doing and why, are going to lose, okay?
Targeting Trump over Ukraine?
Losing position.
We have the facts.
CNN admitted it.
Impeaching Kavanaugh.
Bill Maher tells Democrats they're wasting their time pushing for Kavanaugh impeachment.
Now this is a bit different, but I just want to lightly highlight this moving into the bigger impeachment question.
This issue here has more to do with the Democrats grasping at straws and presenting flimsy nonsense stories to try and oust their political rivals, be it Trump or Kavanaugh.
At least Bill Maher is pointing out it's nuts.
It is more of a cultural issue, so let's move on.
Warren, Congress is complicit by failing to start impeachment proceedings against Trump.
And here it is.
Here it is.
This scandal against Trump over Ukraine, which is, this is the story.
She's saying basically the same thing Ocasio-Cortez said.
It's falling back on Biden.
It's really interesting that Warren is stepping up and playing the same game, which is falling back and hitting, it's backfiring against Biden, when you see Elizabeth Warren surges ahead of Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders for the first time.
How convenient!
That this story drops, it makes Biden look worse, and then Elizabeth Warren surges ahead.
This is from the same day.
So I don't want to say that what she said actually affected the polls, but I think it's opportunism.
Of course she's saying she's going after Trump, but the real story here is what Joe Biden did.
Oh, Trump called someone and said, investigate a crime.
What do you think Americans are going to think when they hear that?
That he said, investigate this corruption.
When you learn of the story from May about what Biden did for his son, the first thing I think of is like, all right, maybe Trump should have called him and told him to work with Giuliani.
But isn't the real crime what Joe Biden may have done in threatening, taking a billion dollars away unless they stopped this guy who was investigating the company his son worked for?
That's like red flags and alarm bells across the board.
Trump calling them and saying investigate a crime means very little to me.
But you know what?
In the end, it's just... Look at this story.
This is from last month, okay?
I've talked about this a lot.
This is the absurdity of the Democrats.
Majority of Americans don't want Trump to be impeached and removed from office.
Well, thank you Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren for pushing us in this direction that nobody wants.
Updated September 5th.
How about this one?
I just don't get it, man.
I don't get why they're standing behind this losing position that gets them nothing.
They win nothing.
They lose.
Americans don't care.
Americans want to talk about the economy.
They don't want to hear about, you know, Bill Kavanaugh.
I'm sorry, Brett Kavanaugh.
I was going to say Bill Maher talking about Brett Kavanaugh.
Check this out.
Bill Maher talks about the Kavanaugh effect.
This is the biggest point that I try driving home with these stories.
Maher introduced what he called the Kavanaugh effect and noted that four Democratic Senators were defeated in the 2018 midterm elections after they voted against confirming Kavanaugh.
West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin was re-elected and supported Kavanaugh.
Look at this.
Bill Maher telling the Democrats, when you do this, you empower Trump.
And what have we learned from all of this very important news?
We've learned that not only does nobody care about impeachment, but we've seen AOC now attacking the Democrats.
What else is new?
And we've seen the story is actually about Joe Biden's potential corruption, not Donald Trump's.
I'd like to give an applause to the Democrats for making this problem worse for themselves, to allowing AOC to continue to tear them to shreds and target them instead of Trump.
Now, this is a twofer, right?
She's targeting Trump and the Democrats at the same time.
In the end, this conflict within the Democrats will result in the collapse of the Democrats.
I think we may see.
As of right now, if I was going to make a bet, I'd bet Trump's going to win 2020 and a Republican is going to win 2024.
Because I don't see how they come back for this.
There's no charismatic Democrat who's going to run and win.
It just doesn't exist.
Regular Americans are concerned about health care.
They don't want unfettered immigration.
They don't want us giving health care to non-citizens.
They want health care for themselves.
They want to improve the economy.
All of these things the Democrats are pushing will not do that.
I think Yang has a lot of really interesting ideas.
I think UBI.
I'm pretty skeptical, and I've always been.
But I appreciate the way he describes it, talking about the dividend and all that stuff.
In the end, the Democrats, for whatever reason, seemingly on purpose, continually chase after things no one cares about.
So I'll give respect to Pelosi.
Pelosi has been pretty harsh on Nadler and other Democrats, telling them to stop this, I think she said something like a Moby Dick obsession with impeaching Trump.
Americans do not care for this.
That's the polls.
Don't want Trump to be impeached and removed from office.
If the polls are not favorable to Trump, if the polls all show Trump below 50%, but they also say most people don't want him impeached, I'd listen to the polls.
And I think Nancy Pelosi gets that.
But in the end, AOC doesn't care.
She wants the destruction.
And Nadler doesn't care.
He's got a Moby Dick-like obsession.
And there it is.
What they're going to do is chase themselves down—it's a race to the bottom.
You know, I guess the easiest way to put it is the left is in a state of civil war.
And I don't know what's going to happen.
I think the progressives will beat the moderates, maybe.
No, it's hard to say.
It's hard to say.
Some people believe that because of the progressives and the Democrats, the Democrats will lose so much.
There will be a resurgence where the moderates purge the far left out of the party and then take back over.
I think that would be fantastic.
Calm and rational debates haven't always been the case, but it's a lot better than what we're seeing now with AOC actually going after Democrats.
It's also possible that the aging moderate population loses out, gives up, and flips to Trump and the Republicans, causing whatever's left of the Democratic Party to lose for the next decade.
I can't tell you for sure what'll happen, but I think that's a strong case.
Take a look at how much money Trump has raised.
$15 million in one day in California.
You see that story I did the other day?
He's raised more than all Democrats combined.
He raised more in California than Kamala Harris did.
Trump raised more in California in a single day.
than Kamala Harris raised in the entire country in the second quarter of this year.
One day, he raised more than her in her own state.
So you think Trump's not going to get elected?
You think people are behind this insanity?
I think we're seeing a completely fractured and collapsing Democratic Party amidst a growing and strengthening Republican Party.
The Democrats need to get their act together and recognize when it comes to policy, Orange Man actually pretty good for most Americans.
At least that's the way they see it.
And when it comes to character, by all means, call the orange man bad.
But most Americans don't care if Trump is offensive, is crude.
Some Americans actually like it.
In the end, they want to know that they can put their kids in college, they can buy bread, milk, and eggs.
The Democrats talking about impeachment are basically telling those people who are now seeing the economic turnaround benefiting them, they're saying, we're going to take that away from you.
Case in point is Minnesota, which I've mentioned several times now, but CNN went there and found a Democratic stronghold flipping to Trump at the national level.
Still, they're locally Democrats.
At the national level, they want Trump.
Take that position these people are in, where they think Trump is good.
Throw in Democrats saying, we're going to impeach him.
Now they're going to be like, why?
You're going to take away the good thing we have going.
You don't have to like the man's character to point out a lot of people like him.
And you don't have to like the Democrats to recognize, you don't have to hate the Democrats to recognize, that impeachment is largely unpopular.
That's it.
Stop asking for it.
But you know what?
They're gonna play this game into oblivion, where they claim someone who isn't a whistleblower is a whistleblower, so they can smear Trump, and now you're gonna have a bunch of people on the left saying, oh, but a whistleblower proved that Trump broke the law, why won't they impeach him?
Because in reality, there's nothing to impeach him for.
There's no proof of a crime.
There's an allegation from someone who didn't have direct knowledge of it.
That, in our legal system, is not enough for anything!
You can't even, like, it's not even enough to start an investigation!
Someone going to say, I heard a rumor that, you know, Trump did a backflip once.
What do you want me to do about it?
I'm not gonna go investigate your rumor, okay?
Show me some evidence, we'll talk about it.
If it's true, Trump said this, I think, you know, absolutely fine, look into it, but in the end, it's probably nothing.
Trump telling someone to investigate crime...
I don't see how that's a scandal.
They're trying to claim he's interfering in the 2020 election.
Oh, please, dude.
The far left, like AOC, they don't want Biden.
They don't support Biden.
They've been smearing him as a bigot for the past several days.
Now, all of a sudden, they're mad that Trump is going after Biden's son?
Don't play that with me.
I know what they're doing.
They don't want Biden just as much as they don't want Trump.
But Trump going after Biden, it's the same thing they do.
Okay?
Assuming Trump is going after Biden himself.
He's going after his son, allegedly.
The Democrats, the far left ones, have targeted Biden with all of the worst slurs.
They accuse him of being a misogynist for smiling at a woman.
It's ridiculous.
Then Trump comes out targeting his son, and all of a sudden they're defending Biden?
Please.
I don't want to hear it.
You want Biden out just as much as Trump— Well, actually, I don't think Trump cares about Biden, because I think Trump's on track to win.
But it's the Democrats who don't— I'm sorry, it's the far left that doesn't want Biden.
So in the end, what we can see is fractured ignorance, fake news.
This is the problem with the left, okay?
This is it.
I'll just stop this.
I'll end by saying this before I just rant for another hour or so.
They're fractured.
The media is pushing overt fake news, which has been called out even by the media.
Proving Trump right?
You got a scandal involving Biden.
Where's the media?
New York Times reported it.
Good for them.
There's the media.
But where is the outrage?
Where is the Twitterati?
Where are these woke digital outlets?
I mean, they didn't like Biden either.
Why didn't they use that?
Don't know.
Don't know.
Can't tell you.
But the Democrats are fractured, as evidenced by me arguing with Democrats.
That's the best takeaway I'll give.
I'll stop here.
I'll say this.
They like to accuse me of being far-right or conservative or whatever.
It's ridiculous.
Okay, my politics are moderate-leaning Democrat.
The problem is, I am proof that we're fighting.
That we're not in agreement.
That I don't like the corporate crony people like Biden, you know, doing what he did in Ukraine.
And I don't like AOC's duplicitous, you know, her lies and her deceit.
I don't like her policies and her manipulation and her social identitarianism.
I find it disgusting.
So what do I do?
I don't know.
I'm politically homeless.
The regular, moderate individuals, the rational individuals who want to have a calm conversation, We got nothing.
But I'll say this.
Conservatives have no problem reaching out that hand and saying, hey, come talk with us.
We'll negotiate.
We'll figure something out.
And now, even when I talk with Stephen Crowder, Crowder presents a moderate position on, you know, the life and choice debate.
And it makes more—he's offering up, you know, as a conservative, he's like, OK, here's what we can discuss.
And I'm like, that makes sense.
That's a regular, moderate, you know, Democrat policy from 10 years ago.
Where are they now?
They're gone.
Chasing after things no one cares about.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
It feels like a rerun, doesn't it?
Like every day when these stories come out, it's like a rerun.
It's like I might as well just re-upload the same video and be like, it's basically the same thing.
I'll see you on the next segment.
It will never be enough.
No matter what you are, no matter if you're a minority or if you're gay, the woke left cannot accept That includes a gay, front-running Democratic presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg.
Now listen, I disagree with Buttigieg on a lot of things.
I probably agree with him on more than I disagree with him on, but he is kind of a stock Democrat.
He seems kind of just, I don't know, run-of-the-mill.
However, he is one of the first openly gay people to be running for president.
As far as I know, I could be wrong, but he's getting attacked for it.
And I think I know why.
When you have a high-profile gay man, it kind of says a lot about progress.
That's a problem.
If you're continually campaigning on this narrative that there's inequality and oppression, That's not being served when a Democratic presidential candidate, in all of the debates, on stage, in all of the media, turns out to be a gay man.
Because that kind of discredits the narrative that you're all poor little victims.
The reality is the left has done great in pushing forward for social justice, for civil
rights, but they can't accept victory.
You know, the goal of any non-profit should be to put itself out of business.
That was my understanding having worked for a lot of these non-profits.
But what I learned is these activist organizations, these groups that are trying to fight for
say the environment or whatever, they don't want to go out of business.
They don't want to lose their jobs.
You see, when you run a business or a company and you produce, say, I don't know, coffee, you can make coffee forever!
I mean, until the world ends, I guess, but you can make coffee, and people will buy coffee because you're providing a service.
Non-profits tend to be trying to solve a problem with an end, right?
We want to end homelessness in this city.
Well, if you do your job right, there won't be homelessness anymore, and you're done!
Some nonprofits have actually shifted after this.
So there are some groups, and I commend this, they've solved a problem and said, we're now going to allocate resources towards another problem.
That makes sense.
But in terms of whatever this activist woke outrage is, it doesn't function this way.
It can't.
Because they're not in it for money.
They're not in it for a job.
They're in it for an ideology.
And it's almost like they just want to be opposed to the system.
So they can never accept a victory.
That means, For prattling on, forgive me.
But Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg gets smacked for saying he can't even read the LGBT media anymore.
And he can't even say this!
He can't even say the problem because then he gets slammed for bringing up the problem.
Left-wing outlets have gone after Buttigieg for either not being gay enough, for being too gay, for being a cis-white male.
They say, it doesn't matter that he's gay.
He's cis-white and he's heteronormative presenting, they say.
And that's the game.
No matter what you are, no matter what you win, it will never be enough because they must be victims.
Well, you can't call Pete Buttigieg a victim.
He's a front-running 2020 Democrat.
He could probably, well, he could potentially become the president.
He won't.
But he has a decent shot.
There's a higher probability that this gay man becomes president than many other Democrats, most people in the country.
Now, Donald Trump's probably going to win for a lot of reasons.
Elizabeth Warren would probably beat him, you know, just for name recognition alone.
But he's still up there, and he's going to have a massive career after this.
It's kind of amazing.
He's a mayor of South Bend.
He's a gay married—I believe he's married.
And here he is on the stage.
I don't understand.
Donald Trump was the first president in U.S.
history to support gay marriage before getting into office.
Not good enough.
Trump's a bad man.
Now, I think Trump's made some policy decisions pertaining to the LGBT community that I understand why they're angry.
But hey, man.
Are you ever going to acknowledge you're winning?
I mean, that's a great thing to rally your base to say, look at what we've accomplished.
We can do more.
Instead, the media, seeking clicks, seeking their victim mentality, are saying, Pete Buttigieg does not represent us.
I kid you not.
There was a story a while ago, I don't know where it was from, so it could be just some stupid fringe blog, and it said something like, Black men are the white people of black people.
I kid you not.
Google it, I don't know what it was, it was like a meme image I saw of like an article, I never actually checked it.
But that, whether or not that article exists, and it might not, I want to make sure that's clear, I think it does, but that's the idea, okay?
That you can be on the democratic presidential stage, and that's bad for the victim narrative.
Now how do they claim that they're so oppressed?
Oh, well, Pete Buttigieg doesn't count.
Candace Owens doesn't count either.
Candace Owens, a prominent black woman, speaking before Congress several times.
Nope, she doesn't count.
Her opinion doesn't count either.
She's just a shill for the Republicans.
Oh, please, dude.
Pete Buttigieg is not a shill for the Democrats.
He just happens to be a gay dude.
Guess what?
No one cared.
That's the thing, right?
I mean, some people do.
But Taylor Swift has this song that came out a little while ago called, You Need to Calm Down.
And so I was watching the music video for it, and it's this narrative from, like, the late 90s or something, you know?
Where you've got a bunch of redneck-looking people waving signs saying, you know, like, don't be gay or whatever.
And then, in the song, she's, like, one of the verses is, like, Shade never made anybody less gay.
And I'm like, you know, look, I understand that there still are people, you know, that are very traditional and don't like gay marriage and all that stuff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But I think we can at least acknowledge that most people...
Don't care.
Seriously.
Have you heard any Republican, okay, coming out and being like, how dare we have Pete Buttigieg run?
No!
Okay, I'm sure there are some, like, Republicans in the middle of nowhere saying it, but prominent Republicans and conservatives are not criticizing Pete Buttigieg for how he presents or for his sexuality.
They're criticizing him for policy positions, for only being the mayor of South Bend.
Now, of course, I'm not trying to be absolute.
Of course there are people with bad opinions.
But for the most part, Buttigieg is not a victim.
He's the opposite.
He's a champion.
He served in the U.S.
Armed Forces, came back, became a successful mayor, now he's running for office?
Congratulations, dude.
Seriously.
I understand that, you know, he was in the closet for a long time, and there's a lot of struggles that come with being gay.
I can only assume, based on my understanding from what they say, I'll take their word for it, I can't tell you.
But the point is, we've come a long way in this country.
From people actually campaigning in like, you know, 2008 and 2012 against same-sex marriage, to actually having a same-sex married man, I believe he's married, on stage every night of the Democratic debate's frontrunner for the president of this country.
That makes me proud.
That makes me very, very proud that we recognize civil liberties and true social justice.
But of course, they're mad at him.
Let's actually read so I can give you...
I should probably read what happened.
They say he was on a show, the Clay Cain Show.
During the segment, host Cain asked Buttigieg about the way in which his orientation is perceived by LGBT media.
I'm sure you've heard this before in LGBT circles, that more masculine-presenting men
have more access.
How different would it be if you were quote-unquote more effeminate?
Buttigieg replied, It's tough for me to know because I just am what I am.
And there's going to be a lot of that.
That's why I can't even read the LGBT media anymore because it's all too gay, not gay enough, wrong kind of gay.
All I know is that life became a lot easier when I just started allowing myself to be myself.
I'll let other people write up whether I'm too this or too that.
Think about it.
Buttigieg said life was easier when he just decided to be himself.
Bravo, man.
I really do respect that.
It's probably scary.
It was very brave.
And here you are on stage.
And that's something Americans should be proud of.
That we respect the individual enough to say, What you want to do and who you love is your thing.
Live and let live.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So long as you're not infringing on the rights of others.
And that's exactly what Buttigieg is doing.
I have tremendous respect for the fact that he served.
Anybody who served has my respect to a certain degree.
I mean, you could be a bad person.
I get it.
But when I think about who I want to be Commander-in-Chief, I think service, for me, is close to being a prerequisite, okay?
That's why I really like Tulsi Gabbard and Dan Crenshaw.
Disagree with Crenshaw, like Tulsi Gabbard on policy a bit more, but I tremendously respect people who understand Okay, understand all of this.
The Commander-in-Chief, I'm sorry, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.
That says a lot.
Pete Buttigieg has that service.
Fantastic.
And here we are in America, you know, a decade or two ago, arguing about same-sex marriage, Supreme Court, now having an openly gay man on stage with respect and without condemnation.
Except from the woke left, I guess.
This is what's truly insane to me.
He's the wrong kind of gay.
He's too gay.
He's not gay enough.
Whatever.
People started then slamming him for even saying this, but he wasn't wrong.
They're just... I think a lot of this rage directed at him over what he's saying, it's just to court controversy, to make money.
Pete says LGBTQ media is to blame for the pieces dissecting whether he is gay enough.
However, those two big pieces were in Slate and The New Public, not LGBTQ media.
Full stop.
You can't just cite two big pieces and say he's wrong.
That's not how things work.
But you see what they do.
Pete Buttigieg is right.
It is.
The conversation is all over the place.
I've seen it.
And just because two of the biggest pieces were in just standard old left media doesn't mean he's wrong.
It's a strawman.
I think I know why.
Twitter user Matthew Wing replied, LGBTQ writers wrote the articles,
LGBTQ outlets have written articles discussing whether or not Pete likes RuPaul's Drag Race,
which are just he's not gay enough articles, and LGBTQ media in general
has presented a clear anti-Booty Judge bias.
I think I know why.
I think I know, and I think I explained it.
They cannot accept, they cannot accept a victory, because then their narrative falls apart.
But I think you should, and you could.
I think when you're rallying a base and explaining to people why they should support you, you say, we are winning.
We've done it.
Think about this country 10 years ago.
Think about this country 20 years ago, and look at where we are today.
You had the first black president, and now you have one of the first, I believe, the first openly gay candidate running on the debate stage.
You're doing great!
The problem is these people don't really want social justice.
They don't.
They want power, and they use victim mentality and the claims of victimhood to manipulate our goodwill.
See, I've always been very much in favor of this idea of social justice.
Equality.
Of opportunity.
Respecting individuals based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin or who they love, where they come from, what their religions are, things like that.
The religion thing I actually think is a bit more debatable.
There are a lot of people with kooky beliefs that I don't agree with.
However, I think we have a discussion about that and we learn to live together.
So long as there is an overarching idea of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and individual freedoms, I think we're going to be great.
We're going to do well.
They don't like this, though.
These people who are slamming Buttigieg do not want social justice.
Those marching in the streets with black masks on claiming to fight racism are not anti-racist.
They are racist.
They tend to be antifas like white dudes.
They tend to have college degrees.
Well, progressive Americans do.
And they yell racial slurs.
We've seen it.
You see these woke progressives telling Candace Owens the other day what she should or shouldn't believe about white supremacy in this country.
They don't want social justice.
They want to manipulate victimhood to gain power.
So it's no surprise that the people who claim there's a problem with white supremacy tend to be wealthy white people.
It's no surprise that when you get an openly gay candidate, he gets smeared and slammed because he's breaking their victim narrative.
Good for Buttigieg.
Not a big fan in terms of, you know, his policy and stuff, because I think...
He comes off very much like a stock Democrat from 10 years ago or so.
I don't want to get into all the policy stuff, but when it comes to international affairs, my understanding is that I'm very much at odds with him because I think he's more of a Middle East war kind of guy.
I don't want to get into too much because I don't want to be wrong and mischaracterize him because I don't have sources pulled up and I always try to make sure I have a verified source.
When I comment on things, I avoid being wrong so often.
But I'm very tepid on the guy, right? I don't know too much about him.
And I'm just like, hey, look where we are. We've done it.
Okay?
I remember my family owned a cafe in an area of Chicago, North Halstead.
It was called Boys Town. And this was back in like, 97.
We had it for a couple years. And LGBT rights was a huge part of this neighborhood,
and something my mom was very active in, and she had a lot of friends in the gay community.
And, you know, thinking about how things were back then, compared to how they are today, and I can say, at least in my per- like, for me, I'm not, you know, in this community, I don't know, but I think this is a huge gain, right?
If I'm wrong, correct me.
But you can certainly see that people don't like it.
It's bad news for them.
I'm gonna wrap it up here, because I don't want to make this too long, but, um, Look, this is what we've been getting.
I assure you, any time there's going to be a prominent individual of a marginalized community who steps out of line, they will go after you.
They will say you're not enough, you're wrong, you're bad, for all of these reasons.
Stick around, next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I talked a bit in the past about how the Democrats are going to get ripped to shreds by the media.
See, the media talks about Trump a whole lot.
And they do it because Trump is interesting, right?
Well, so is the 2020 Democratic primary race.
And that means the media is going to be circling overhead like vultures trying to get anything they can.
They're scraping the bottom of the barrel so hard that woodchips are popping out.
Here's the thing, though.
It's not just going to be media.
It's going to be the woke left in media.
So you have woke digital media, as I said, scraping the bottom of the barrel of news so hard woodchips are flying out.
Check out this story.
Biden criticized after snarking to female moderator, quote, sexism with a smile.
What did Joe Biden dare say?
He said, you're a lovely person.
I kid you not.
Look at this story.
He also said you, uh, he called a woman sweetheart and said, uh, you were great, sweetheart, something like that.
You shouldn't be calling women sweethearts.
Oh man, you reap what you sow.
Okay?
You are courting these lunatics and I can't, I can't understand why.
You don't need their support.
If every Democrat right now just said, stop, just stop.
You people are insane.
Things would get a whole lot better, a whole lot quicker.
I was reading something.
I can't remember who it was from.
They said what they think is going to happen is the woke left is going to eviscerate and cannibalize the left of the Democrats to the point where there's going to be a hard correction and Democrats are going to get angry and push back hard.
Trump is using the squad and AOC and this kind of insanity to make the Democrats look weak.
And he's right, they are weak.
I mean, they do look weak.
Nancy Pelosi can't do anything about this.
The media, it's the media, and they're playing the game.
Guess what?
No amount of bowing will ever be enough.
You could dig a hole in the ground to bow greater than, you know, 180 degrees, get your head straight up in the ground, and they will still not consider that to be enough bowing.
They will tell you no matter what you do, it isn't enough.
And so long as Democrats keep playing this game, well, you deserve it.
Biden should come out and say, shut up, and go home, and I don't care.
But they're all terrified.
Ooh, the woke Twitter outrage crew.
What do we do if someone insults us?
Well, they're insulting you anyway, dude.
They're tearing you down.
Stand up to these lindex.
And you know what?
The same goes for everybody else.
Everyone.
I don't care if you're a conservative, liberal, moderate, progressive, whatever.
If you're sick of this insanity, start saying something.
Give them the middle finger and tell them they're not welcome.
Stop entertaining this insanity.
Of course I get it.
They then go on Twitter and go, help, help, I'm being harassed.
Oh please, dude.
These people are insane.
Joe Biden smiled at somebody so they're saying he's a sexist and this proves it.
What kind of insane world do we live in?
You know what?
This is why people like Trump.
Trump has no problem telling these people to go screw themselves.
And you know what?
People find it refreshing.
But if Joe Biden is too weak, you think Biden can go up against Trump if this is what he's dealing with and he can't answer it?
I'm sorry.
If Biden smiles at a woman and gets smeared in the media because of it, and all these woke Twitterati start slamming him, calling it sexism with a smile because he just smiled during a conversation, are you insane?
You think he's going to be able to stand next to Donald Trump when Donald Trump calls him Sleepy Joe?
Sleepy Joe, low energy, can't talk, and Joe's going to be like, oh, listen here, and then his dentures are going to slip?
Dude, this is nuts.
Joe Biden, not strong enough.
But you know what?
Do you think Elizabeth Warren's gonna be able to do it?
Let's just point this out once and, like, well, it's been pointed out, okay?
But let me say this.
We'll read the story.
I'm sorry, we're ranting.
If you can't stand up to these people and tell them to shut their mouths, how will you debate Donald Trump?
He is a master troll.
He is a media manipulator.
And he mopped the floor with the Republican primary.
What was it, like 17 candidates?
And Trump just swept them all up, mocked and belittled, gave them all little names.
You think any one of these Democrats will stand up against him?
No, please.
Especially not Biden.
And especially not anybody who isn't going to push back on these weirdos who are like, how dare Joe Biden smile?
It's insanity, okay?
It's pure insanity.
And I'll tell you this.
I'm doing, like, expansion work.
We've got a bunch of big news coming up, you may notice.
I didn't actually make it down to El Paso like I wanted to.
It's because there's big news in the works.
You know what?
As things grow, my administrative role has to grow with it, and things are getting complicated, but good things are happening.
In this, I'm talking to a lot of regular people, talking about business contracts, and contractors, and development, and all this regular stuff outside of politics.
Just business stuff, accountants, all that stuff.
And they all say the same thing.
They say, so what kind of work you get you in?
And I say, oh, you know, I do journalism, politics, commentary, we're expanding, gonna do a big media thing, it's really, really great.
And they're like, oh yeah, man, the Democrats sure have gone nuts, haven't they?
And I start laughing.
You know, I tell people, they ask me like, So what do you do on, you know, YouTube or whatever?
And I mentioned it's like political commentary.
But I was like, I'll warn you now, if you're a big fan of the Democratic lineup and what's going on, you're probably not going to enjoy my commentary.
And they invariably... I have encountered no one in all of regular middle America, from going to stores, from hiring contractors, no one has ever been like, I actually really like the Democrats.
They've all said the same thing.
Yeah, what the hell's going on, man?
Most of them have said one thing to me.
They're not going to vote for Trump, but they're certainly not voting for these crazy people.
Some of them have said, yeah, they're going to vote for Trump.
But anyway, you get the point, because I've talked about it a lot, but I just wanted to stress it, because there it is, man.
Joe, he went to this event, and he talked about how, like, you should be able to identify as any biological sex that you want in prison, regardless of what the prison says.
OK, then why wouldn't every guy just be like, I'll go to the ladies' prison?
That sounds like fun.
We're just going to make co-ed prisons?
You know what, man?
The Democrats don't have spines.
It's like, there's not a single, you know, to Obama's credit, for all that I could criticism foreign policy, war and stuff, the dude had a spine.
He did.
He had no problem furling his brow and yelling.
Let's read, let's read because otherwise I'm gonna keep ranting.
Fox News reports, Joe Biden is facing accusations of sexism this week after he pushed back on a female moderator's question about his record.
Oh, oh heaven forbid, he actually challenged the moderator.
The incident occurred at the LGBTQ presidential forum hosted by GLAAD and the Iowa Gazette on Friday.
One of the Gazette's writers, Liz Lenz—is that a real name?
That's like a superhero name—seemed to question Biden's progressive bona fides.
And when she asked about his opposition to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and a compliment he paid to President Mike Pence.
You have also praised Pence as a decent guy, she said, drawing boos from the crowd.
You're a lovely person, Biden shot back with a smile on his face.
He was just being like, you know, a little catty.
Like, that was just a little playful banter.
That's normal.
Lenz defended herself, saying that she was just asking questions that people want to know.
According to some, like Time Magazine editor Anand Giridharadas, Biden's response was related to the moderator's gender.
Oh, there it is.
Last week, Joe Biden gave us an occasion to talk about racism with a smile.
Now he's doing sexism with a smile.
Watch him grow angry at Liz L's solid question, and then try to slap her down in the most patronizing way.
You're a lovely person.
Oh, that's so hilarious.
Because I've been- It's playful banter.
It was just, like, him playfully making a- Like, it's nothing.
It's literally nothing.
Here's the problem.
This is Anand's benevolent sexism.
If Joe Biden was talking to a male moderator, nobody would bet an eye.
But Anand is going, oh heavens, did he just offend the delicate sensibilities of this little woman?
He must be a bad man.
Nobody would have said anything if Joe Biden said the exact same thing to a male moderator asking questions.
No one.
This is them being overtly sexist.
And that's why I have to say, listen.
It is—the left harbors sexists and racists and bigots, and they refuse to do anything about it.
I'm not saying conservatives don't, because Q left us outraged, saying, but Tim, what about the right?
It's like, dude, I don't care, man.
We get it.
Steve King was stripped of all of his committees, and he's probably going to lose in 2020.
He's not fundraising at all.
Nobody wants to deal with what that guy has to say.
But the left doesn't do anything about it.
They say, you go.
Well, I'll tell you what.
If you won't stand up to it, then you reap what you sow.
Now, here's the other thing about this.
This is part of the dishonest tactic of getting rid of a political rival.
Look at Brett Kavanaugh.
Bill Maher, right?
Bless his heart.
We'll talk a little bit about this in the next segment.
Bill Maher is like, why are we going after a guy for what he did when he was 17?
Thank you, Bill Maher.
It's like one of the last voices of reason.
The left as a tribe is embracing fascistic tactics.
Smears, lies, deceit, etc.
Not all of them.
Just enough in the media.
Joe Biden, that was sexist.
They want to create that narrative.
So the narrative cycle is that Joe Biden is a racist sexist, so he loses, and they can force in someone who's far left or more progressive.
They know moderates don't want far left.
So they have to give moderates no choice.
Biden's on track to win.
Now Elizabeth Warren just surpassed him.
But this is the dirty political tactic they're using.
I get it.
Cue leftist outrage.
But Tim, Mitch McConnell held up, you know, legislation and held up the Supreme Court.
I get it, man.
I get it.
You know, it's funny, they act like, just because the right has done things wrong, that grants them the right to lie, cheat, and steal.
I'll tell you what I care about, okay?
Because I have talked about, you know, certain Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell, not a big fan of the guy, doing things like holding up legislation and holding up the Supreme Court nomination for Was it for Obama's appointee?
I get it.
But you know what really I focus on because I've talked to people about this?
I'm talking about policy positions.
We get it.
Politicians lie, cheat, and steal.
I'm not interested.
That doesn't mean you have a right to do it.
I'm concerned about cultural issues and how it affects politics later on.
Joe Biden, not a big fan, okay?
But you are lying about him, and you are lying about Kavanaugh.
And I will come out and criticize both instances, whether it be against Kavanaugh or against Joe Biden.
Does Trump lie?
Of course he does!
So did Obama!
So did Bush!
Do I have to say this a million times?
We live in an insane reality.
But you know what?
These people have learned they can use this system to their advantage.
So you know what, Joe Biden?
It's your own fault, okay?
To all the Democrats that are swimming in this mess, it's your own fault.
You embrace this stuff, you refuse to stop it, well then you reap what you sow.
People love Trump.
For Trump's all his misgivings, for all his shortcomings, they don't care.
They like what Trump's policy positions are.
I can't tell you how many Trump supporters I talk to who are like, yeah, we get Trump's kind of a bad character.
Don't care.
And then the left is like, do Trump supporters really not care about Trump's behavior?
It's like, dude, the economy is stupid, okay?
He's making the economy better.
People are getting better jobs.
There's a shortage.
I was talking to a contractor.
He said there's a shortage of skilled labor in the trade.
They're having trouble finding people who can do these jobs.
Prices are going to go up.
The demand is huge.
They're booked endlessly.
They love what Trump is doing.
Look at Minnesota.
That CNN report the other day that said a Democratic stronghold is flipping Republican.
Now people are saying that Minnesota might be in play.
Trump raises $15 million in one day in California.
Yeah, I tell you what.
At a certain point, people say, I don't care if Trump has bad behavior.
I don't care if he's bad moral character.
It's policy.
It's his ability to stand up to other people.
So I understand exactly why the left calls out Trump for bad behavior.
Yep.
But I think you need to realize when you engage in the same bad behavior, you will get no sympathy from me.
In fact, I will call it out because the only real alternative the Democrats will ever have, a real viable alternative to Trump, is going to be someone who agrees a lot With Trump's policy positions, secure borders, tariffs on products to bring back manufacturing to the US, whether it's the right plan or not, that's what his goal is.
So until a Democrat stands up and says we can't give healthcare to non-citizens, we have to protect our borders, we need to bring back jobs, and we need someone who isn't boorish and offensive, They're not going to win.
They're not.
So I'll tell you what, Democrats.
You want to play dirty, you will lose.
Because there are a lot of people who know Trump is of bad moral character, but they don't care.
Because Trump pushes back on your insanity, on the woke insanity, and he's advocating for things they like.
Now, I will also say there are a lot of people who defend Trump's behavior, too.
You won't see me being one of them.
You'll actually see me saying what I'm saying now.
I get it.
I totally get it.
So, we can disagree on whether you think Trump is good or bad moral character in terms of, like, you know how he acts.
But I can't tell you how many Trump supporters I meet who know it.
I'm not calling Trump a racist or anything like that.
To an extent, I think everyone is to varying degrees.
Humans do these things, right?
But I think it's absurd how they try and label everything Trump does as bigoted, sexist, or racist.
It's like, please, dude.
Trump could brush his teeth in the wrong way.
I'm not going to get into how you brush your teeth.
But the point is, Trump could fart, and they're going to be like, that was racist.
And then it's like, you know, we can't have a real conversation about what's actually going on.
Granted, I think in the colloquial sense, I don't think Trump is racist.
I don't think Republicans are racist.
I think there are racists that lurk about on the right and the left, and I think the left has a problem calling them out.
The left has a problem calling out their bad actors.
So you get to swim in it.
You get to swim all up in it, okay?
I was talking to somebody recently, and I was like, you know what, man?
If there was a Democrat that held most of the policies that Trump did, But didn't have the bad behavior.
Like, wasn't, you know, always on Twitter ranting and raving.
Well, I shouldn't say ranting and raving, okay?
That's a bit hyperbolic.
I'm biased, okay?
But if they weren't on Twitter all the time targeting the press, if they were more, I don't know, more charismatic, okay?
And again, I understand Trump supporters find Trump to be very charismatic, but I mean more, I don't know how to describe it, I guess.
Like, Well-behaved, like well-mannered, okay?
You get someone who's tough, you get someone who avoids calling people names, horse-face and things like that, but you get them on board with a lot of Trump's policies, they would win.
I don't think right now, because people don't want to rock the boat, but 2016, take Trump, copy and paste, so their policies are nearly the same, make some slight alterations, change the behavior, that's a winner.
That's a winner.
There are a lot of middle Americans who voted for Trump who don't like his behavior, but they like his policies more than anything else.
And they also don't want to live in a world where the Democrats are courting this insanity.
I'm ranting too much.
I'll wrap it up there.
You get the point.
It's kind of a lead-off of the video I did earlier this morning, but you know what, man?
Democrats, you deserve this.
You deserve everything you get.
I'm absolutely willing to sit here and vote for a moderate, someone with a real plan, but Joe Biden's playing the same stupid game as everybody else, and now you get to reap what you sow.
So you know what?
Find me someone I can vote for on the Democrat side, and we can have a conversation.
To clarify what I'm saying about Trump's policies, it's very simple.
There are a lot of things that people don't agree with in terms of taxes, and pro-life, and social issues, and trans in the military.
That I understand why people are upset.
But what are the Democrats advocating for?
Healthcare to non-citizens?
Non-starter, okay?
You are so far away from where Americans are, their only choice is to vote for Donald Trump.
So congratulations, you've played yourself.
Next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
I will see you all there.
Considering everything Twitter has done in the past in regards to censorship and the conversation I had with them, I'm going to go ahead and say that the strange phenomenon negatively impacting the left as they try to challenge Elizabeth Warren is not a bug, but it is probably a feature.
Now, look, I get it.
Sometimes mistakes happen, and we should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this instance, though, you have this story, okay?
The Working Families Party.
They're the ones who endorsed Crowley.
It's a complicated situation.
They're like a left, union-type kind of organization, and they recently endorsed Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders, much to the anger of the left.
When they tried challenging the tweet that— they tried challenging Working Families Party, In one of these tweets, nothing came up.
Nothing could be seen.
And they were confused as to why this could be happening.
Let me break it down for you.
The establishment machine knows what it wants.
Trump wasn't supposed to win, so the establishment machine doesn't like Trump.
The establishment machine also doesn't like the left trying to challenge Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren is acceptable. She's like Bernie Sanders but acceptable.
Look at 2016.
She didn't endorse Bernie. No. She got behind Clinton.
I'm pretty sure she did. It's been a while. Anyway, I'm not trying to say there's a
conspiracy or anything like that.
I'm trying to say don't be surprised if the first thing, the first group of
people that are taken down off Twitter are going to be conservatives, outspoken
ones, especially Trump supporters, but then at the same time
when you don't come out and call out what Twitter is doing and shutting
people down, Why would you be surprised if they would then do it to you?
Of course they will!
Congratulations.
This is what happens when you don't stand up and push back against censorship.
Here's the headline.
A strange Twitter glitch is censoring the left and no one knows if it's a bug or a feature.
Twitter is mum about a well-documented bug that seems to prevent verified accounts from getting ratioed.
I wonder why?
Well, let's tone things down a little bit.
I'm not going to act like Twitter is, you know, Jack Dorsey's twirling his mustache or anything like that.
We have another story here.
Disney was going to buy Twitter, but they walked away because the nastiness was extraordinary.
This kind of explains everything.
I think Twitter is heavily gaming the system for monetary reasons, okay?
They're probably pretending like, oh no, you know, Milo Yiannopoulos.
Troll.
Yep, you might not like him, you might think he's bombastic, whatever.
It's probably why they want to get rid of them.
Not because of any political reasons.
It's just politically expedient for them to say, well, we had to get rid of them because everybody wanted to.
Twitter constantly talks about the health of their platform.
Political debate happens, and they're trying to control it, in my opinion, for monetary gain.
I will also admit, I don't want to play the conspiracy game, but it's kind of strange how the acceptable candidates and the acceptable speech is often overlooked.
And what I mean by acceptable speech is you can have wacko far leftists calling for violence and nobody bats an eye.
For some reason, Twitter thinks that's okay.
So I will counter my own argument saying, if Twitter wanted to make things less nasty, they'd get rid of Antifa, you know, first and foremost.
But anyway, let's read a little bit about this story.
I have good news for my channel.
As many of you know, YouTube deranks this channel particularly by like 0.5% of where it was before.
It doesn't seem to be too big of a deal.
I don't know how the math works out.
But yeah, this channel gets deranked.
So I often ask you guys to help share and donate, but I have better news.
Today I have a sponsor.
Virtual Shield.
So, uh, special shoutout to Virtual Shield for sponsoring my channel and allowing me to continue doing the work that I do.
It's easy to say, you know, every day, hey, just donate.
Sometimes, you gotta pull in a sponsor, and Virtual Shield has been there every step of the way.
They were my first sponsor, and they're basically the only organization that I actually do any, like, shoutouts for.
You may have noticed, like, I never do this.
So here's the thing, let me- let's just cut to the chase.
Virtual Shield is a VPN.
It's a virtual private network.
The way I kind of describe it is it's a basic level of security for you as you browse the web.
It can do a lot of other things, but the only thing... I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of like what you can do with a VPN in terms of like watching Netflix out of country, other stuff like that.
It's a basic level of security.
I just explain to people, you know, we don't expect people to break into our house, to break through our windows, but we still lock them.
Okay, we locked them for a reason.
If somebody really wanted to kick your front door in, they would, but that lock is your first level of defense.
It makes sense.
So does a VPN.
If you go to hidewithtim.com, they have a special promo.
It's 30% off, $3.49 per month, and you can get a virtual private network.
It's really easy to just download it.
You press go.
It basically protects your data.
It hides your data.
So there could be, you know, governments, there could be hackers, just people who want to steal your information.
Maybe you want to steal your bank account information.
All in all, the best way to explain it to the layman is basic security, right?
Like the lock on your door.
Not perfect, of course not.
I wouldn't tell you that.
But go to High with Tim, click sign up, and you can get 24 months at $3.49 per month.
Virtual Shield is sponsoring this video and I'm very, very grateful to them for doing it, so please show them support.
If you're interested in a VPN, go to hidewithtim.com.
But let's get back to the news.
They report for Salon Reports.
The Working Families Party, a New York-based progressive political party, has a reputation befitting its name as a left-populist political organization.
So when the organization endorsed the center-left Elizabeth Warren, who was once a hardcore Republican and has emphasized her capitalist credentials over the explicitly Democratic Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders, supporters were understandably disappointed.
After all, The party overwhelmingly endorsed Sanders in the previous presidential election.
What had changed?
I think they're playing insider baseball.
However, they go on to say the vote process wasn't democratic, it was hybridized, and they wanted to complain about it.
Here's the thing.
But on the Working Family Party's Twitter thread, announcing the vote, many found something bizarre.
They couldn't actually comment on, like, or see other comments on the thread.
I can't see the comments or reply to the Working Family's party tweet.
Caitlin Sapoche Belknap, the National Director of Move to Amend, who is personally supporting Sanders, told Salon, I was never able to.
I got the text from them, and I went to Twitter from there, but I couldn't see the comments.
That wasn't an isolated experience.
One enterprising Twitter user even began documenting the cases of people who were unable to reply to the thread and quickly amassed dozens of screenshots of what was termed the Left Twitter Blackout.
Not censorship.
Something different.
However, it's in that same vein.
Many people wanted to engage in a political debate, which they have every right to do if they want to support Bernie Sanders over Elizabeth Warren.
I'm gonna give a quick shout-out to all of these people saying it was wrong.
And I absolutely, 100%, are behind you in your fight to make sure Twitter allows you to express your political opinions and challenge the Working Families Party endorsement of Elizabeth Warren.
100%.
Disagree with Bernie on a lot of things.
I think he's gone hardcore establishment, not a big fan.
And I've actually praised Elizabeth Warren on her push against Big Tech.
Elizabeth Warren has called out Big Tech, but here she is reaping the benefits of it.
Now, I have to stress that I am disappointed.
I am not a conservative.
Please spare me those arguments.
There is a reason why I defend conservatives when they call out censorship.
It's this.
It's this right here.
Okay?
There you go.
I hope now you understand why I've been standing atop the hill waving the sign in the air saying they are censoring political speech.
Because invariably, they come for you.
Do I know if it's intentional?
No.
But it is so darn convenient!
How it impacts outsider candidates like Bernie, who gets smeared in the press, he does!
There was recently like a graphic for I think MSNBC, I can't remember which outlet, so forgive me MSNBC if I falsely accused you, but it was some cable news network, and Bernie Sanders was conveniently removed from the list of the contenders.
We see it.
And Bernie Sanders supporters know it happens.
Here you go.
People are wondering why WFP is supporting Warren when Sanders is the clear progressive— Oh, wait.
I'm sorry.
Because Warren is a safe bet.
She is— My understanding, it's been a while, but she endorsed Hillary.
She got behind Hillary.
There you go!
She's just the— Like, you know— When it comes to the establishment, when it comes to the crony capitalist types buying in their payoffs, Clinton Foundation, all that stuff, Elizabeth Warren's right there with them.
But she's like the safe plan B backup contender.
I doubt she can win, regardless.
So I don't think it matters if WFP gets behind them.
But let's read.
They say, the inability to reply was accompanied by an error message.
Twitter is over capacity, please wait a few moments then try again.
Others, as seen in the screenshot thread, received a failed to load tweet message.
That raised a curious question.
Was Twitter or the WFP account or both somehow censoring people who were angry and wanted to reply?
Blocking their ability to do so with an error message?
I'm gonna have to say, I think probably yes.
One of those two, like it's deliberate.
Interestingly, this glitch, or feature, wasn't limited to one WFP tweet.
Salon's executive editor, Andrew O'Hare, noticed he could not like an Edward Snowden thread on Tuesday about Snowden's book.
He, too, received a like-failed message and found that Snowden post behaved similarly to the WFP post in that he was unable to interact with.
John Graziano, who has over 18,000 followers on Twitter, often tweets on left-wing politics, said he noticed the pattern about a month ago.
Certain prominent tweets would get a lot of attention, yet he could not view the replies.
And I gotta say, I've started to see the same thing.
Kid you not.
There have been a couple tweets sent to me from, like, Joe Biden.
Maybe not Joe Biden.
Is Joe Biden even on Twitter?
Some, like, moderate Democrat.
And when I loaded it up, nothing.
No comments, no threads.
I could see the numbers.
I couldn't see anything.
So I loaded it in a private window.
There it was.
All the responses.
So you know what?
I stand in solidarity with my left-wing friends facing the brunt of Twitter's shenanigans, 100%, and I absolutely want them to be able to express themselves freely, be it for Sanders, for Warren, for Buttigieg, for Biden, or anybody else, especially for Tulsi.
So if you want to come out here and complain that they should have endorsed Tulsi, oh, then I'll really support you.
No, no, no, I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
The point is, speech is important.
And this is some of the most important political speech.
Look, I begrudgingly defend people who are mean on Twitter with stupid opinions and ideas that I really don't like.
Okay?
I'm talking about, like, racists, bigots, sexists, all that stuff.
I don't like the things they're saying.
Most of us don't.
But we recognize this comes next.
And this is important.
Having the ability to say we don't support Warren and we do support Sanders is probably the most important thing in any political discussion.
Literally saying who you want to win and who should be endorsed.
So this is what happens when you allow Twitter to play this game.
So you know what?
I don't care about where we were in the past.
I don't care about spite.
I don't care about any of that.
I 100% stand behind anybody who wants Twitter to fix this problem.
Okay?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'm going to say it one more time.
I have to stress.
This is complete and utter BS.
Okay?
I have seen similar problems.
I agree with them it's a problem.
I don't trust Twitter.
And I absolutely want them to express their support for Bernie Sanders 100%.
100%. Stick around.
100% stick around.
Parentheses, and moderates get attacked if they say so.
I'll give you the gist, okay?
Progressives like to claim, oh, the Democrats just won't, they're not brave enough and bold enough to push real ideas that Americans want, when in reality, the Democrats probably just know what Americans actually want and what they can win on.
Unfortunately for them, they've lost their footing.
The progressives are pushing in, and anybody, people like me, who dares push back against their insane religion and their terrible ideas is called conservative or attacked.
You know what I love, though?
Absolute 100% respect to Antifa for accurately calling me a liberal.
I greatly respect that, okay?
Because you get these weirdo progressive types who are like, Tim Pool's a conservative, and then Antifa's like, no, he's a liberal.
We don't like them either.
And I'm like, thank you.
I'm your run-of-the-mill liberal type.
Not like these crazies.
Don't like the big corporate, you know, crony nonsense garbage that went on with, like, Clinton and her cohorts.
But yeah, moderate.
Uh-oh.
Let's read this because, as I mentioned, it's a great confirmation bias article.
And for all the other centrists who are listening and libertarian types who also agree, let's sit back and bask in our echo chamber that is hearing our own opinions back at us.
No, I think it's funny.
I'm being a bit self-deprecating, but it is a good story.
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 address.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I know I'm being a bit silly, you know, talking about it, but it is true, okay?
You know, the far left has been encroaching on the Democrats, accusing them of embracing policies because they're scared, when in reality it's because they know the regular Americans want these things.
On a scale, I think it was the New York Times, we saw that most Americans are slightly to the left.
They're like moderate-leaning left, if you averaged it all out.
And that is a huge advantage for Democrats.
Unfortunately, the far-left push is a massive, massive disadvantage.
Trump has capitalized on the center-left lean, talking about certain issues in the election and really speaking to, you know, like, what are they called, the Blue Dog Democrats or like Union Democrats.
These are like regular family people who have jobs who vote Democrat.
Trump spoke to them.
He spoke directly to them, telling them, I'll listen to you, I'll help you get your jobs back.
Instead, the Democrats are losing what should be a major advantage, because the far left has lost it.
Let's read.
She writes, Actually, many of them have been.
I think those are actually both fair criticisms.
candidates seem to reflect a common frustration with the party's base.
Democrats have simply never dreamed big enough. Perhaps lefties suspect
Democratic politicians have been cowed by bad faith accusations of socialism or
worse they've been captured by big money special interests.
Actually many of them have been. I think those are actually both fair criticisms.
A lot of Democrats are like oh no I'll get attacked for being a socialist or
oh no you know I I don't want to go against the people who are funding me.
I think the issue is actually integrity?
A spine?
Implicitly or explicitly, a slate of recent books and essays suggests that this was a core failing of the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, and others considered to be Democratic moderates.
The takeaway.
Democrats' inability to implement single-payer health care, a student debt jubilee, a Green New Deal, or other ideas on the progressive wish list is because of their either insufficient political will or impure motives.
While I would absolutely ascribe impure motives to Hillary Clinton, no fan of hers.
I do not trust her and wouldn't vote for her.
Okay?
You want to put someone like her up on the stand, sorry, not gonna vote.
But I'm absolutely interested in voting Democrat.
Always have been.
But I think they've lost it.
Tulsi Gabbard on Dave Rubin was amazing.
And this is where Dave Rubin really shines.
If you haven't seen it, go check it out.
See, the thing about Dave versus, say, Joe Rogan, is that Joe is more of a generalist.
Dave actually is in the weeds of the politics.
So the conversation with Tulsi was incredible.
And she really hit a bunch of sane, rational positions.
But she does have big, progressive ideas.
I think that's what makes a good candidate.
Not only that, Tulsi, major in the National Guard, Incredible.
I almost want to say service should be a prerequisite to be commander-in-chief, but I think that's a little too harsh, but I do really, really respect that.
Anyway, you can't put Hillary Clinton up in the middle and then complain that moderates lost.
She was the worst possible person you could have put up.
Everybody was saying in 2016, Trump is the worst of our culture, Clinton is the worst of our government.
And I think that's spot on.
Even Trump supporters, Trump supporters and Bernie supporters, both were like, yup, let's read.
But what if the real reason is something else entirely?
What if it's that Democrats have used research and evidence to inform their ideas, just as policymakers are supposed to do?
For most of the past decade or so, the Democratic Party has had a relative monopoly on the valuable political resource, expertise.
As Republican politicians work to discredit any independent source of accountability whose findings proved inconvenient to their agenda.
But I have to stop and give you my thoughts on this.
It's true.
The left in the 90s and the 2000s were embracing scientific facts and research in academia well.
They were using it.
And you had, you know, counter-arguments from the right.
Something happened, though.
Crazy people with crazy ideological ideas are in these universities, too, and started spreading these ideas to the point where it infected the Democratic Party, who once actually championed science, now claim that Biological sex is mutable and doesn't exist, and other weird things.
And I'm not joking, they do!
I'm talking about the left, right?
Two years ago, in a debate with Jordan Peterson, we saw a guy in Canada, a Toronto professor, say biological sex isn't real.
I'm not talking about gender, I'm talking about sex, okay?
They used to.
They used to.
And so policy-wise, the moderate Democrats are still kind of there, talking about key issues that Americans will support.
But the left, the far left, has been infecting them.
She writes, If the Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare repeal plans would leave more people uninsured, the CBO must be lying or wrong.
If independent forecasters said tax cuts wouldn't pay for themselves, they must be biased or stupid.
If scientists predicted that GOP policies would worsen climate change, those scientists must somehow be trying to make a quick buck.
Trust us, Republican officials said, we know better than the experts.
By contrast, Democratic leadership, especially under Obama, was pretty good about trying to achieve progressive goals in efficient, evidence-based ways.
I actually agree, as much as I really don't like a lot of the stuff he did in terms of foreign policy and war.
I think he was one of the worst presidents we've had in that capacity, but I do think he was a great president in terms of being a celebrity, for what that's worth.
Rather than fiats, Democrats relied, whenever possible, on market-based mechanisms and tweaked incentives.
Exhibit A, the Affordable Care Act, which despite being branded as socialism, was built on market-based mechanisms.
Efforts to put a price on carbon rather than wishing away market realities through a vague and sometimes supposedly free Green New Deal.
If you're a conservative watching this, what would you rather have?
Right?
A moderate Obama type saying, let's think about, you know, market values based on carbon?
Or the Green New Deal?
Let's go full socialist!
Free, you know, guaranteed jobs, free housing, free healthcare, free college, open borders.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Perhaps.
What we're seeing is a long play big ask.
Maybe they learned from Trump.
You know what the big ask is?
Basically, if you're going to try and push something, you want to ask for twice or more of what you really want.
So in Trump's instance, right, he said, I'm going to build a big, beautiful 30-foot concrete wall from sea to shining sea.
And the left was like, no way, that's never going to happen.
And then Trump settled with, fine, we'll do bollard fencing.
And he's getting it. They're replacing fencing, they're putting up, he found money, he's making
it work. That's the big ask. Now that Trump's getting, like, not a 30-foot concrete wall,
the left is kind of like, well, Trump couldn't even get the wall done, but Trump actually got
what he wanted, border security. The big ask would be, ask for something huge, that way when you walk
it back it sounds more reasonable. Take Obama, inject some far-left psychosis and insanity,
and then Obama sounds reasonable, doesn't he?
But at least when you had Obama, you knew where your argument and your compromise was.
I'm not saying it's on purpose.
I don't think it is.
I think what we're seeing from the left is a backlash from the inability to get what they want.
And so, look, it's been a long time coming, for whatever reason.
Let's read on.
We'll skip over the exhibits.
I get it.
I'm not going to give Clinton a fair pass on this one.
The Democratic Party watched all of this in frustration and lashed out at Democrats.
Reliance on market-based mechanisms was craven neoliberalism.
Clinton's fiscally responsible commitment to paying for her policies was a sign of political
cowardice.
Let's, let's, I'm not going to give Clinton a fair pass on this one.
She's a crony.
Down with technocratic fixes to market failures.
Up with revolution.
Exactly.
The climate strike, for instance.
They want justice, reparations.
And they said explicitly, no market solutions.
Okay, sorry, that doesn't make sense.
So here we are.
A significant contingent of the 2020 candidates is promoting bigger and bolder ideas, yes.
But also worse ones.
Ones that actual experts clearly played little to no role in crafting, because we know what experts have to say about them.
Applause?
There we go.
The Democrats have been increasingly embracing insanity.
There's no argument, okay?
The moderate position, arguing with the Republicans, are both sane.
Here's what I've always seen when it comes to the Democrats and Republicans.
Obama says universal health care.
Then you see Republicans say, no, no, no, we need more private free market solutions to drop prices.
And I can understand both arguments.
I really can.
That's where the debate comes in.
We both agree on what we want.
We want cheap and affordable health care for more people.
We just disagree on how we get that done.
It's an opinion.
So we have to look at all the data and have that argument.
Well, along comes a spider preaching all of the goodies can be free and everyone can have whatever they want and we can open all the borders and give health care to non-citizens.
And now a debate over whether or not we should have a public option versus private, you know, a free market is being washed away because the Democratic side has been eviscerated by that spider who sucked it dry and is now proposing things that make no sense and I have no idea what they're trying to accomplish because it'll never happen.
They go up on the debate stage and say, abolish private health care.
Know what happens?
Backlash.
Kamala Harris walks it back.
No, I didn't mean it.
I gotta keep these segments short.
So I'm gonna wrap this one up and read the conclusion.
She says, it's fine, I suppose, for a primary to be about the policies Democrats wish they could enact that have little chance of making it through the Senate.
Except the problem with these policies isn't just that they're politically infeasible.
It's that they're bad.
But anyone who points out any weakness is accused of not dreaming big enough or being a neoliberal shill.
The far left, in other words, has been taking a page from its opponent's playbook.
Experts don't agree with us.
Research, evidence, and math prove inconvenient.
Just trust us, they say.
Our plans do everything we say they will.
There was a shift.
A long time ago, I viewed the Republican Party more as rejecting science, and I still think, to an extent, there are elements of the right that do.
But I see the moderate base, those in the middle, who have moved to Trump, are being more rational and are embracing expertise on purpose.
It's a weakness that's being exploited in the Democrats, and the progressives are trying to play this game.
It's not going to work.
So there you go.
There is just confirmation bias fun.
I hope you enjoyed hearing your... Well, actually, I'm sure a lot of you don't even share your opinions with me anyway, but there you go.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Take care.
And there's actually a really interesting argument for why this kind of makes sense, and why third-way feminism doesn't really make as much sense in a lot of ways in South Korea.
Notably, Uh, conscription.
Young men have to join the military.
Young women don't.
We do have selective service in the U.S., but the draft isn't really much of a thing anymore.
In South Korea, the draft is legit.
It exists, and you have to do it.
There's a really good reason for American men to push back and say, hey, what about this issue?
But that's it.
In South Korea, it's mandatory, it's happening, and people are angry about it, kind of thinking we shouldn't have it anymore.
But I thought the story was interesting because it takes a look into men's rights activism and anti-feminism in a foreign country with a perspective we are not as familiar with, and the context is very different.
So, I want to read this story from CNN.
South Korea's young men are fighting against feminism.
So before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
The title of this is going to be something about fighting against feminism, and I can only assume YouTube is going to have a problem with it.
But hey, it is what it is.
YouTube has deranked this channel pretty heavily.
My main channel seems to be doing great, but yeah.
If you like what I do and think this is an important subject and I talk about things well, tell your friends.
That's basically a word of mouth.
Let's read.
Seoul.
On the same street corner in Seoul where 10,000 South Korean women rallied last October to demand an end to spy cameras and sexual violence.
We're getting deranked anyway.
Screw it.
The leader of a new activist group addressed a small group of angry young men.
Quote, we are a group for legal justice, anti-hate, and true gender equality.
Moon Sung-ho boomed into a microphone to a crowd of a few dozen men waving placards.
As feminist issues come to the fore in deeply patriarchal South Korea, there's a growing discontent among young men that they're being left behind.
Moon, who leads the Dang Dang We, a group fighting for justice for men, is one of them.
He started his group last year after a 39-year-old business owner was sentenced to six months in prison for grabbing a woman's buttocks in a Korean soup restaurant.
The case provoked outrage that a man could be convicted on no evidence beyond the victim's claims.
Yes, that's a big problem here in the U.S.
Fortunately, our legal system does prevent things like that, but the court of public opinion will still destroy you.
So this is another thing I think is interesting.
You actually have, in this case, a guy going to prison because he was accused falsely.
False accusations can lead to prison in the U.S.
as well.
So I think it's kind of a parallel to an extent.
Though, I want to stress, our justice system is supposed to prevent that.
While some lashed out at the judge, 29-year-old Moon found another culprit, feminism.
Moon and his group held a panel discussion at the National Assembly, Korea's top legislature, in early September to expose what they perceived to be the alleged harms of the movement, saying, quote, Feminism is no longer about gender equality.
It is gender discrimination, and its manner is violent and hateful, he said to applause from his audience of about 40 mostly young men.
The emergence of mainstream feminist voices and ideas came in response to the brutal murder of a young woman near a subway station in a trendy Seoul suburb, Gangnam, in 2016.
The perpetrator deliberately targeted a female victim.
Look, that's a fact.
The overwhelming perpetrators of violent crime are men.
The overwhelming victims are men, too.
But this is something you often hear only one side of.
The feminists will say, men commit all of the violent crime, and they'll leave out the other half of that.
Men are also the victims, for the most part.
But in this instance, I will stress, it's not unheard of that a man would be targeting a woman.
It's probably more likely, or actually, no, I just countered that.
It's not more likely, but it does happen.
You are more likely to see a man victimize a woman than a woman victimize a woman in certain circumstances.
The woman's death triggered an examination of attitudes towards women in the country, which broadened to include campaigns against harassment, like the Me Too movement, and anti-spy camera protests, dubbed My Life Is Not Your Porn.
Too many.
The discussion was long overdue in male-oriented South Korea, which ranks well below the global average on the 2018 Global Gender Gap Report, with major disparities in terms of wage equality and earned income for women.
But, as I always stress whenever something like this happens, that's not job for job.
You know, I was watching Rick and Morty.
You guys may watch it.
There's an episode where they go to a planet where the women have taken over.
And Summer, one of the characters, says, you know, because Rick, the grandpa, says that, you know, men and women are equal, and she goes, equal?
Women get paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same job, and that's the lie.
It's just not true.
I think women get like 95 to 97 cents, and there's social reasons for why they're not negotiating or not receiving raises.
They say, campaigners found support from the South Korean government and President Moon Jae-in, who vowed to become a feminist president before he was elected in 2017.
You know what I think it is?
I don't want to go through every single issue here, but I will read some of these.
This is what I often said about feminism.
Feminism exists because of patriarchy, in a sense, okay?
But let me try and explain.
It's not that feminists rose because there's a patriarchy that exists and they want to destroy it.
Feminism was allowed to arise because society views women as weak and in need of help.
This is why when you see on TV a man being slapped in the face or punched or hit, everybody laughs.
And when it's a woman, everyone goes, oh no, how dare you?
Society views women as weak.
So when a woman presents a feminist issue they want to fight for, everyone says, that's right, you poor woman, you need help.
When a man presents an issue, like forced draft or, you know, divorce courts being biased or, you know, getting longer prison sentences, they say, oh god, here comes the incel, good luck getting laid, all of these things.
The reason is, men are supposed to shut up and take it.
Now, it's interesting that feminists often point this out, and they say men are victims of the patriarchy too, being told to just man up and not cry about it, okay?
And then when men come out and say, I agree, I'd like to point out these issues, they mock and belittle them, and society has no respect for any man who wants to highlight issues men may be facing.
In fact, there was one famous incident Where there was an event that was going to be talking about male suicide prevention and cancer, and feminists shut it down.
So there you go.
The point I'm trying to make is, if society viewed women as strong, they wouldn't tolerate it.
Society views men as strong and not in need of help.
Therefore, any actual problems faced by men are ignored.
But you do get intellectual dark web types.
You get people who are moderate and reasonable and say, it's not about who's on top, who should be on top.
It's about, can we solve a problem?
Are men going to prison for longer than women?
Well, we should solve that problem and ask the question of why that is.
Why do courts favor women?
Well, that's a female privilege.
I don't think we should increase the amount of time women go to prison.
Perhaps we should decrease the amount of time of prison for everybody.
Or actually reform our prison system and actually work on rehabilitating criminals instead of just putting them in a box.
But I digress.
So, check this out.
South Korea's young men are more opposed to feminism than older generations.
This is kind of amazing.
Is there better context here?
They say... Park and Kim are not alone.
A Real Meter poll last year found that 1,000 adults found 76% of men in their 20s and 66% of men in their 30s oppose feminism, while nearly 60% of respondents in their 20s think gender issues are the most serious source of conflict in the country.
Wow.
So young men, anti-feminist, check this out, this is huge.
50.5% of men in their 20s are anti-feminist.
Patriarchal.
That's incredible.
End of old masculinity.
For 62 years, South Korean men have been forced to join the army.
The tradition, which began with the Korean War, requires all able-bodied men between 18 and 35 to serve between 21 to 24 months in the military.
But unlike their fathers, today's youth don't believe in this traditional male duty.
Moon's government is trying to increase the number of women in the military, where they currently make up around 5.5% of active troops, according to the latest figures.
But right now, women are exempt from compulsory conscription.
And of course, that's going to be a huge issue.
Now listen, you've got something contentious there.
You've got the DMZ, you've got North and South Korea.
The Korean War is still technically on, it's my understanding.
So it perhaps makes sense to have compulsory military service, but I will ask right now.
Women don't have to serve combat if that's their concern.
You know, women can do other things.
So what is stopping South Korea from saying everyone should have to enlist?
But my understanding is that men and women join the IDF.
Why would South Korea be any different?
So I do, again, I do try to keep these segments short.
So I will just say, one thing South Korea can do to probably alleviate this is just be inclusive in terms of your draft.
Otherwise, you're just going to see more and more men upset that they're being forced to go to the military and women aren't.
And the big conundrum they bring up here is if that's the case, while they're in the military, women are advancing their careers.
And when they get out, they'll be at a disadvantage.
You cannot have an equal society.
You cannot have true gender equality if we're treating all the genders completely differently and drafting some and not the others, acting like some are victims and others aren't, where you say, you know, women need all this support but ignore the fact that men aren't going to college anymore, they're not getting jobs anymore, young men are seriously hurting.
So I think you'd probably find young men in their 20s in the U.S., you'd probably find similar numbers.
I don't know to what degree.
But I think the thing is, there are going to be a lot of young men who are at home, without jobs, being berated and beaten down every day, saying that they're the problem.
If they keep talking about empowering women, and then when young men suffer, they say, well, you're just an incel, men's rights, whatever, you're not going to solve the problem, you're going to make it worse.
But as I was told during Occupy Wall Street, I was told by one of the activists, it's our turn now.
That's how they view it.
Not all of them, but enough of them.
And that's a problem.
We want equality.
Well, they want to be in charge.
So you're not going to win, because the pendulum will swing back and forth.
I'll wrap it up here.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
