Democrats Impeachment BACKFIRING And They Know it, They Risk Losing Everything In 2020 To Trump
Democrats Impeachment Push BACKFIRING And They Know it, They Risk Losing Everything In 2020.The Democratic party can't seem to stand up to the media. A story breaks and they bend over backwards to appease the outrage machine. But The media does not have the Democrats best interest at heart, they just want clicks. In the end Pelosi, who has resisted impeachment calls repeatedly, has caved in and pushed forward with an impeachment announcement.Trump is raising millions, new donors, and new money are pouring in. But for Democrats, multiple stories say that the scandal will overshadow their moderate policy agendas and could not only cost them 2020 but also the House majority.Nancy Pelosi even acknowledges this stressing that they will keep the election focus on the issues but in the end even if they lose impeachment would be worth it. But why?Surely they will lose in the Senate. Not only that but the accusations against Trump are flimsy and only serve to backfire against Joe Biden. The only real winner will be the far left democrats who want to see Trump and Biden hurt by this, but if this helps republicans and Trump then no amount of pain or damage will matter.Now We have the ex PM of Ukraine demanding Hunter Biden be investigated and a media refusal to acknowledge the evidence. A sworn affidavit implicated Joe Biden yet the media and left refuse to acknowledge it. We really do live in two different universes.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I was recently speaking with some working class Hispanic American individuals about the president and politics.
And they told me they didn't know much about what was going on with Ukraine or any of that stuff.
All they know The economy was doing really, really great, and it was great for their family.
And I thought that was interesting, because while it's anecdotal, it does play into my confirmation bias, this idea that what Americans really want is policy issues being addressed, the world being made a better place.
Instead, for the past several years, we've been embroiled in a political crisis, from Russia to now Ukraine.
And I can't tell you exactly why or how or what's happening, but you've got two different realities right now.
You know, Jake Tapper and Jim Jordan were recently on the air, both completely disagreeing about what's really happening.
Well, I'm going to try and break down for you what's really happening, but the core of what I want to get at is the risk the Democrats are making.
And I'm not quite sure why they're doing it.
It doesn't seem like, in the end, impeachment is going to do anything good for the Democrats or for this country.
It'll be extremely divisive, and it'll cost the Democrats their House majority.
Or it could, I should say.
I don't want to say it will.
Take a look at this story.
Pelosi.
Impeachment worth losing House in 2020.
It's a very strange statement.
I mean, I didn't expect it.
Nancy Pelosi believes it is better to try and impeach the president knowing they won't succeed and they could likely lose the House than to do nothing.
I find it very strange.
You know, if you're going to impeach, but you know you can't win in the Senate, why bother doing it to make a statement?
Well, apparently that's it.
Because depending on which movie you're watching, I'll have a different view of what Pelosi is saying.
If you're someone who believes Trump is corrupt and inept and needs to be removed, then yes, it absolutely is worth risking it all to move forward with impeachment.
And that's Pelosi's perspective.
That's what she says.
In the story, she goes on to say that We cannot allow a president to abuse his position and all of these things.
But if you're approaching this from the perspective that Trump is going after corruption, and Trump didn't do anything wrong, which half the country believes, then Pelosi seems to be acting with reckless abandon, sacrificing her own party and a moderate position, which will only benefit the left, take Joe Biden out in the process, and do nothing but potentially help Trump.
I can't tell you which is the right view, but I want to go through the latest perspectives from The Hill, And from the New York Times as to why this is a potential risk and maybe even a bad idea for Democrats.
But I also want to talk about some of the latest that's going on with the Ukraine scandal and push back on some of the weird media defense that's been going on.
Listen, I will say, you know, Trump definitely pushes it and there's a dangerous game afoot.
But did he cross the line?
I just don't see it.
I really, really don't see him crossing the line with the Ukraine transcript.
There was no quid pro quo.
The best the left has come up with is that it was implied.
But it's not even about that.
It's not even about your opinion.
It's about a disagreement on the facts, which even some outlets don't agree with themselves.
And Jake Tapper is currently, you know, he's trending on Twitter because of his pushback on Jim Jordan.
But it's not so cut and dry.
The right says Jim did a great job.
The left says Jake did a great job.
Which is it?
Let's break it down.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address you can send things to.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video!
We are in trying times.
You've got CNN saying one thing, you've got Fox News even still saying something similar, but you've got other conservative outlets pushing back, and you've got moderates kind of pushing back.
That means In this world of YouTube where they derank independent political commentary, I need your support to help continue doing the work I do.
By sharing this video, you help me compete with the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
But let's read from the hill.
I don't need to read too much into this first story about Pelosi, because I can simply provide you the important context.
Pelosi is not saying she's risking it all for a Hail Mary for no reason.
She's taking a principled stance that she believes Trump is doing something wrong.
She said, People say you have to take a political risk doing that.
That doesn't matter.
That doesn't matter.
Because we cannot have a President of the United States undermining his oath of office, his loyalty to his oath of office, undermining our national security, and undermining the integrity of our elections.
I think from Pelosi's perspective, it's quite a noble thing to do, to sacrifice your own party to do the right thing, is a principled stance.
I can respect that.
But in the end, I have to think about the practical reality.
First, do we have a clear-cut situation where Trump has done anything wrong?
We honestly do not.
We have conflicting narratives.
In my opinion, you know, honestly, I don't know what you're supposed to do in that position, but I will say this.
If it ends up with Trump being investigated and Biden, well then so be it.
And let the investigation figure out what the right thing is.
But I have to stress that after years of Russiagate, I am fed up with the absurdity pointed at Trump.
Trump released the transcript.
We've seen the whistleblower's complaint.
It is a big nothing burger, and I am tired of it.
And you know what?
The New York Times seems to get it.
Democrats' 2020 campaign message, not impeachment, they insist.
The party is bracing for a pitched battle with President Trump that will likely overshadow its policy agenda.
But Democrats say they do not want impeachment to dominate the election.
Well, too bad!
Okay, whether or not you wanted it to, whether or not it's going to help or hurt, whatever, Trump seems to think it's a good thing for him.
He's raised over $15 million for his re-election, excuse me, based off of the impeachment.
Record increase for congressional Republican contributions, up 608%.
So yes, this very well may be lighting a fire under Trump's base, and Trump is certainly using this.
I have to wonder, why do this?
Is it a principled stance, perhaps, for Pelosi?
She really believes it.
But is it going to do anything positive for anybody?
The answer may be no.
So again, I can respect standing on principle, but sometimes strategy does make sense.
Well, let's read how the New York Times is approaching this.
They say, after the 2016 election, Democratic leaders reached an all-but-unanimous conclusion.
To defeat Trump in 2020, they would have to do more than condemn his offensive behavior and far-right ideology, as Hillary Clinton had done.
They would need, above all, to promote a clear and exciting agenda of their own.
And that's what I personally have been saying, which is why I believe it's absurd to approach this the way they're approaching it.
The Times writes, They took that lesson to heart in the midterm elections and afterward, capturing the House of Representatives with a focus on health care and then attempting to impress the electorate by passing legislation on matters like campaign finance reform and the minimum wage.
As Democratic presidential contenders pushed campaigns built on big ideas, Nancy Pelosi resisted a chorus of calls for impeachment, even from some of her party's leading 2020 candidates.
Yet 13 months before the election, Democratic leaders are now steering into a protracted, head-on clash with Mr. Trump.
By seeking Ukrainian government's help in tarring former Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Trump left them no choice, they say, but to pursue an impeachment inquiry that could consume the country's attention for months.
Ms.
Pelosi had indicated she aims to move the process along with haste, in part to avoid an election-year conflagration.
but the exact course of the inquiry is impossible to foresee. Now I want to stop and make a few
points on this article. They are framing it as though Trump did what he did with Ukraine
to dig up dirt to smear Joe Biden. However, they're also then going on to frame it as though
Trump left them no choice as if Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Biden, not to go after Biden,
but to force the Democrats to once again fight a battle that will make them look bad and force
It seems that no matter how you view this, either Trump doing something wrong to dig up dirt, or Trump's trying to weed out corruption and getting attacked, in the end, the Democrats seem to be just floundering.
Now, look, I don't believe Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Biden because I don't think Trump needs it.
And I think Trump was actually just reacting to information in media about Biden and his son and wanted to know what happened.
You know, the interesting thing about what Joe Biden did with his son is that it happened when Trump wasn't in office.
Joe Biden was vice president.
So now you have a new president who says, I don't know what happened with that, and I would like to find out.
I don't understand what's so wrong about that.
Just because Joe Biden has decided to run for the candidacy means you can't investigate potential corruption?
I think it is well within the purview of the president to try and figure out what happened.
Why Joe Biden's son got a job at Burisma, why a former CIA director was also appointed to the board of Burisma.
It all seems kind of weird.
And then finding out that from the New York Times it was a CIA whistleblower going after Trump.
So we'll get into all that.
But I want to highlight a little bit more from this story, and we'll talk a little bit about politics first.
They say all 19 Democratic presidential candidates now support the impeachment inquiry, and many Democrats are optimistic that voters will as well, because Mr. Trump is so unpopular and the allegations against him are grave and easily grasped.
For now, Republicans are the party on the defensive, flummoxed by the cascading disclosures about Mr. Trump that have threatened to upend his re-election campaign.
It's an interesting point.
This story makes an important point, but goes on a perspective that I don't agree with.
Impeachment is still unpopular.
It's definitely gone up.
Polls in support of impeachment have gone up, but have not broken 50%.
So I wouldn't necessarily say it's Republicans on the defensive.
Trump is raising money.
The National Republican Congressional Committee upped 608% in terms of donations.
Trump received $50,000 in new donations and $15 million.
I do not think they're on the defensive.
But I think Trump wants to play that he is, because it is rallying his base.
First, let's take a look at this.
A story I highlighted a little while ago.
Moderate Democrats fared best in 2018.
I don't need to go and rehash this, but the fact remains.
As much as I've been saying it, and many Americans have been saying it, the far left is not the strategy.
The scandal-laden orange man bad trope is not the strategy.
The strategy is, we're going to fix your healthcare.
We're going to get you a job.
We're going to improve life for you and your family.
That's the position that plays.
Not this scandal-laden nonsense.
Now, here's another interesting story.
Democrats risk it all with moving full speed ahead with impeachment.
What's really fascinating about this opinion piece from Douglas Schoen is that this is a Democrat who views Trump very negatively and takes the stance that Trump was going after Biden for dirt, just like the New York Times did.
But they also agree.
They are risking everything on this.
I find it actually pretty fascinating.
Because they say it's disturbing, it's serious, the Democrats, you know, need to go after Trump, but they say they will almost certainly not achieve their end goal of removing Trump from office, given the Republican Senate majority, with Trump already weakened in the polls, they say.
See, they view Trump in a negative light, very much so.
and the Democrats ahead on a number of key issues like health care and climate change.
It is a profound error to focus the country on an impeachment inquiry, notably at a time
when close to 60% of the American people are currently against impeaching the president.
Now it's about 50, you know, that is in the aggregate, I'd say they're correct.
I'm fascinated to see the people who are on the side viewing Trump as doing wrong and being a
bad orange man and going after Biden are saying it was a mistake.
What more do the Democrats need than Democrats, anti-Trump personalities, saying it is an error to pursue this course of action?
Well, you know what?
I can only really say that It must be the case.
I mean, if you have the Democrats, if you have the people who hate Trump saying, please focus on the issues, I'm confused as to why they would decide impeachment was the right course of action.
Again, I can stress the principle thing, but in the end, I just think it's a big mistake.
I wanna focus now on what's going on with Ukraine, though, because I think, interestingly, when you combine the fact that there are principled people on the left saying, please get to the issues, with the fact that the media is just wrong about this, I think you realize that most people in this country are gonna fall onto the side of While Trump may be pushing it, it's certainly not worthy of impeachment.
Take a look at this story.
Jim Jordan defends Trump administration's decision to put Ukraine transcript on secure server.
I like how Fox News is framing it.
Jim Jordan defends Trump.
Well, we can see the Washington Examiner highlighting Jake Tapper, accusing Jim Jordan of spreading wild allegations against Hunter Biden.
I see CNN, you know, Oliver Darcy, Stelter, playing it up like it's only Trump supporters and the conservative media who are going to defend the president.
Well, that's just not necessarily true.
But I can also levy the exact same accusation against them.
They're trying to smear the president to push forward these scandals, in my opinion, because their agenda is clicks and traffic.
Their agenda is not the same as the Democrats, but the Democrats are dancing along to the tune of the media.
And it's a mistake.
And even as I've shown you, Democrats who don't like Trump are saying it.
But let's get real here.
Let's dig in a little bit to the Ukraine stuff, and I want to show some media hypocrisy.
Jake Tapper says you're spreading wild allegations against Hunter Biden.
What did Jim Jordan say that Joe Biden We don't know.
We don't know anything.
to the company Burisma.
Well Jake Tapper says that's not what happened.
He says the problem was the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma.
I'm sorry Jake, you are playing politics the same as any conservative is playing.
We don't know.
We don't know anything.
We have a sworn affidavit from the former prosecutor saying he was investigating.
We have reporting from The Hill saying he was.
So pick one.
Who do you trust?
I honestly don't know to tell you.
I'm not going to tell you to trust one side or the other.
The left certainly trusts the story that he stopped investigating and the right certainly trusts the affidavit where he says he was investigating.
But the point is, we don't know.
So perhaps an investigation makes sense.
Perhaps Ukraine should look into this.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister says the Ukraine must investigate Joe Biden's son.
And once again, we play the two sides game.
Why?
Because one side believes the ex-Ukrainian Prime Minister is corrupt and he's trying to meddle and cause problems.
The other side says he's taking a principled stance and pushing back.
I can't tell you which one.
I really can't.
But you do have the former Prime Minister saying, investigate Biden's son.
These issues are a matter of fact.
He got the job.
He didn't have the experience.
He was getting paid a lot of money.
And I would have to ask why a former CIA director was then also appointed to the board.
It's all very strange.
I must insist.
But he's calling for the investigation.
So how about it?
Instead of you claiming you know Jake, how about we take a look at the sworn affidavit From the former investigator who says that he was fired.
He was removed because of Joe Biden didn't want Joe Biden not wanting his son investigated.
So so let me show you this.
In this story from The Hill, I want to now show you why it's so frustrating and impossible to truly know what's going on and to truly know the right position to take.
In this story, they say ex-Ukrainian Prime Minister says Joe Biden's son must be investigated.
Thank you, Justin Wise, for writing this up.
However, I must criticize you.
At the end of the story, he says, Trump has tried to portray the former vice president as corrupt over his efforts to dismiss a top prosecutor in Ukraine who is investigating Burisma.
There is no evidence that suggests Joe Biden was working in his son's interests during his efforts.
I'm sorry.
The Hill seemingly contradicting itself with this massively shared viral story.
Presented evidence to— Well, actually, listen.
I'll say it's evidence to the contrary, but no.
There is evidence Joe Biden was working on behalf of his son.
It's not overwhelming.
It's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
But it is evidence, nonetheless, and I think we have probable cause for some kind of investigation.
It is the statement from the prosecutor who says, under oath, that speaking with Poroshenko, he was told he needed to give up on the investigation.
He didn't want to.
He then says he was forced out because of it because Joe Biden was threatening to withhold a billion dollars.
Now let's stop this game.
Let me just say one thing.
Ignore Trump.
Ignore Biden.
Walk away from all of this and let me ask you a question.
Regardless of why Joe Biden did it, why are we ignoring the fact that Joe Biden Now, the response I've gotten from people is, well, Joe Biden was pushing U.S.
security interests.
I get it.
Why?
Why should the U.S.
flaunt its wealth and push a billion dollars On Ukraine, and say, fire the prosecutor.
We have our reasons.
I don't know what those reasons were, and I don't trust the US national security apparatus to act in the best interest of the American people.
All I know is Joe Biden admitted to saying, we got a billion dollars.
If you want it, fire a guy we don't like.
Now I hear that they're claiming it's because the investigator was going after Biden's son.
Maybe that's not true.
I don't know.
Now they're saying it's because Joe Biden was trying to stop corruption.
I have no idea.
All I know is Joe Biden leveraged a billion dollar loan so a foreign government would take internal policy matters, would affect their own government.
Listen.
What's shocking to me here is that imagine if Ukraine came to the U.S.
and told Barack Obama, I want you to fire a federal prosecutor, otherwise we won't work with you on, you know, Russian, Eastern European interests.
And Obama said, deal, and fired someone in our country.
We would not stand for that.
Imagine if Russia came to, you know, Spain and said, we want this federal prosecutor fired because we don't like him.
Otherwise, we're not going to give you natural gas or whatever resource.
We would not stand for that.
I understand the US acts like the world police, but it seems like in all of this scandal, what's being swept aside is that Joe Biden basically bought political access in a foreign country.
We should not be interfering in a foreign government's internal affairs.
I'm just shocked by it.
Give me all the reasons you want, but in the end, I am an anti-intervention type of person.
I understand the nuance.
You know I like Tulsi.
Tulsi talks about stopping the regime change wars, which is why I'm surprised Tulsi's now on the side of impeachment.
I would ask this to you, Tulsi.
How do you feel about this?
I'm not the expert.
I defer to you.
How do you feel about Joe Biden going to Ukraine and saying, here's a billion bucks, fire a guy we don't like?
To me, that is more regime change insanity.
Why should the U.S.
be doing this?
Look, I get if the U.S.
went to Ukraine and said, we'll give you a billion dollar loan in exchange for a bunch of iron, or in exchange for natural gas.
Instead, he said, fire a political figure.
That blows my mind!
This is why I fall on the side that I do.
So, Jake Tapper, you want to say it's lies.
Okay, fine.
I don't care.
Let's walk away from all of that.
But I've got more for you, man.
I know I led with the Democrats risking everything.
I think it is the more important thing.
And I think it's more important for most people because it has to do with what is going to happen to our country.
Maybe I'm wrong about Joe Biden taking action in Ukraine.
Maybe it's something America's supposed to... I don't know.
In my opinion, I'm confused by it.
I really, really am.
But take a look at this.
Jake Tapper wants to say it's a false narrative.
It's fake news.
That, you know, this affidavit says Joe Biden was the reason this guy got fired.
Okay.
I warned you all.
I showed you, in the story where I talked about John Solomon, I warned you that they will come for him.
I showed you his Wikipedia page on purpose and said, he is an award-winning investigative reporter who worked for The Washington Post and The Examiner and now The Hill.
He has accolades.
He has credentials.
But I told you, once he published these documents, they will say he's a liar, a cheater, a conspiracy theorist, he is pro-Trump.
And I was right.
And here it is.
Leaked memo.
Colleagues unload on John Solomon, the journo who kicked off Trump's Ukraine conspiracy.
The Trump-friendly scribe and his Biden-Ukraine conspiracies were cited multiple times in the whistleblower memo.
Many of his co-workers are ashamed to be associated with him.
The Daily Beast goes on repeatedly to call an award-winning investigative journalist a conspiracy theorist over and over again.
I wonder, where's the Daily Beast article calling Rachel Maddow the same thing?
Her Russia-US-Trump conspiracies and her co-workers are ashamed.
People have written stories about it.
Politico criticized her.
But it's also in the Washington Post.
How a conservative columnist helped push a flawed Ukraine narrative.
Here's the thing.
He published a document.
He published a memo, a statement under oath from the former prosecutor, which is literally evidence that Joe Biden did something wrong.
It is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is not enough to convict Joe Biden.
It is credible evidence.
They love saying the word credible.
Well, this is credible evidence.
Disagree or agree, regardless, when we're confronted with this information, a sworn affidavit We have to look into it.
It's tough, I know.
I'm not saying Joe Biden did anything wrong.
I'm curious about the ethics of what he's doing in, you know, in Ukraine.
But the fact of the matter remains, I as an individual am looking at this story confused as to why the Democrats are pushing forward with it, when it's going to cost them everything, it's going to cost them everything when they're being, you know, there's Democrats pushing back, the New York Times, The Hill, saying you're risking it all.
They say it's for principle, but they're not going to win.
And it's flimsy.
And I'm just confused as to why it's happening.
I really don't get it.
But I'll tell you this.
The smear machine is in full play.
The media likes playing a game where news will come out from credible sources, and then they'll act like it doesn't exist.
So you have this new evidence from John Solomon.
It's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
I want to stress that.
But it's evidence nonetheless.
And I think this warrants an investigation.
Sure.
You know, Trump put out his transcripts.
What more can I say?
They want to know what Trump is doing behind the scenes?
Well, Trump put out the transcripts and the whistleblower complaint.
What do you want me to say?
He released it.
Now, what was Joe Biden doing?
And they say, oh, but there's nothing there.
There's no evidence.
Sorry, there is.
Well here's the thing.
They're going to smear John Solomon.
But this story in 2017 from Ken Vogel.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kyiv officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
It's not a conspiracy.
Ukraine was working with the Clintons.
What was Joe Biden doing in Ukraine?
And we know this story from 2017 exists, and Ken Vogel is one of the people reporting on the current scandal working for the New York Times.
He has credentials.
Smear him next!
MSNBC tried.
They called him—they called it Russian propaganda.
I'm not going to play this game.
Either it's real or it's not.
I don't know why the Democrats are doing what they're doing, but they're risking it all on a flawed narrative.
So let me end with one more perfect example of how the media plays this dirty game.
I love citing this.
Former Facebook workers.
We routinely suppress conservative news.
From Gizmodo.
May 9th, 2016.
What do you think happened after 2.7 million people viewed this article and knew for a fact, because Gizmodo said so, that they were suppressing conservative news and it was because of their bias?
Well, they said, the myth of media anti-conservative bias refuses to die.
You may say, Tim, this story is unrelated, and it is for the most part, but trust me.
It's an issue I want to exemplify.
A story can come out in 2016.
It's a fact.
Ukraine was trying to sabotage Trump.
They were working with the Clintons.
Something was going on.
Biden was working with Obama.
Tell me what happened and why.
Well, Joe Biden's involved.
And Trump asked Ukraine, what happened in 2016?
What happened with Joe Biden and his son?
And they're using that to impeach him, even though it's going to cost them everything.
And now the media is acting like it's all Ukraine conspiracies, all the way down.
You expect me now to get behind the investigation of Trump?
I will not.
Okay?
Look, I'm tired.
Ukraine, Russia, conspiracies, fake news, John Solomon a conspiracy theorist.
I'm just so sick of it.
If you want to burn it all down, be my guest.
If you want to risk losing the House over impeachment, be my guest.
But don't expect me or any other American to want to play your game.
I think we're all sick of it.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
Environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been criticized and insulted and belittled.
And of course, the defense from the left is often, how dare you insult a child?
How dare you attack a child?
No, no, no, hold on.
First, if you enter a public forum for public debate, expect to be treated like an adult or any other person in that debate.
But Jeremy Clarkson has decided to actually treat her like a child, calling her a spoiled brat.
He's basically arguing that she's getting everything she wants.
Now, of course, what she wants is global climate action.
But think about it.
I mean, she protested, she made demands, her parents stopped flying, then she travels across the Atlantic on a boat, meets with all these world leaders.
She's basically getting everything she wants.
And to an extent, right?
She has demands.
But here's the thing.
The focus of this video is not so much on what Jeremy Clarkson is saying, but the fact that she is getting attacked from left and right.
Now, it's not the entirety of the left, right?
Just like it's not the entirety of the right.
But the issue is, well, Greta's white, unfortunately.
You see, here's the thing.
One of the demands from the climate strike is reparations, and I am not exaggerating.
They actually are calling for reparations as part- I have no idea what that has to do with the environment, but sure, call for reparations.
Well, we have a few viral tweets.
Normally I wouldn't highlight random people on Twitter, but this has got 2,262 retweets.
And it reads, Did anyone consider the optics of a white climate activist traveling from Europe on a boat to indigenous lands to spread a message we've been saying for 500 years?
This feels like the environmental Mayflower taking resources and space in a movement that we're still criminalized for.
Now, of course, they try to say, no disrespect to Greta.
Right.
That's literally what the right is saying, okay?
Now, first, you've seen the criticism for Michael Knowles.
Michael Knowles said that Greta was mentally ill.
She is.
She has OCD.
She has selective mutism.
She has depression.
I don't see, like, if someone, if you are mentally ill and someone says that, and like, if you say you're mentally ill and then someone else points it out, you can't get mad at Michael Knowles for pointing out what you describe yourself as.
It's a factual state of being.
Now, a lot of people feel that he was doing that to make a point about how we should be dismissive of her, so I get that.
We also have this tweet.
Kentington Clark.
Again, I don't like to highlight random Twitter accounts, especially guys with all these weird symbols like a sickle and hammer, he, him, his, they, them, theirs.
Like, how do you both simultaneously be a he, him, and a they, them?
I have no idea.
Fine.
Call yourself whatever you want.
But this has got 8,000 retweets.
Okay, ladies, so I value Greta Thunberg, but I've been thinking about how white Americans literally import white activists from Europe because they won't listen to POC activists like Mari, Little Miss Flint, Kopeny, and the indigenous peoples that risked their lives at Standing Rock.
I mean, look, they make a good point.
It's kind of a weird left eating itself.
But I agree.
It's curious.
Why have these high-profile environmental leftists imported a young white girl to preach about climate change when there are literally tons of people in the U.S.
preaching about climate change?
It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Well, in my opinion, I think it's because they're racist.
And it's a kind of ironic, it's paradoxical.
In that they're questioning why they imported a white person but then kind of throwing shade at Greta for being a white person.
So, you know, it's the weird world of identity politics.
I don't know how you answer the question.
I don't know how you navigate that space.
But here's what I'm looking at, okay?
So the left is coming for Greta.
Not that they're saying she's wrong or they're being mean to her, but they're upset that she's white and they want different representation.
Okay, that I can understand.
We have this tweet here from Ryan Grimm, who's a DC Brewery Chief from The Intercept.
He said, I wondered how long it would take for Greta to be dragged for being white.
Didn't predict cis though.
There you go!
That's right, Greta is cis and white and privileged.
She comes from a wealthy nation.
A nation, Sweden.
It's Sweden, right?
Yeah, which makes a ton of money off exporting weapons!
The military-industrial complex is one of the biggest contributors to global climate problems, right?
Or carbon emissions.
So I'd love to see some addressing of Sweden sustaining itself off weapons exports, but hey.
Now here's some interesting things.
I want to talk about Jeremy Clarkson's point about her being spoiled.
I guess in the UK you say spoilt.
But I also want to show this.
The Greta Thunberg problem.
So many men are freaking out about the tiny Swedish climate demon.
This is a comic that sets up a straw man.
It's meant to be funny, but this is poison, okay?
Look, I get it, you can make comics, you can poke fun at the other person, but this comic, it sets up a straw man and then knocks it down.
This is a comic meant to make you laugh, but not help you understand what's actually happening.
It depicts everyone who opposes Greta as, what does it say, old white men and their various well-clenched friends.
What about the people of color who are upset?
Are they old white men?
This is the problem.
The other day, I was looking at a story from BuzzFeed that I said was defending this journalist who tried to cancel this guy, Carson King.
I don't want to rehash the whole story, but the point is, framing is usually everything.
I said BuzzFeed was defending this guy, and the reason for it is, you look at how BuzzFeed frames who was attacking this journalist.
They say it was right-wingers harassing and doxing him.
Because while that's technically true, there are right-wingers who are upset with this journalist, it was local Iowans from his town.
But basically, the point is, are there old white men who are upset with Greta and insulting her?
Well, yeah, Jeremy Clarkson's an old white man.
But what about people like me?
What about people like Landback or Kentington Clark?
Well, Kentington might be white, but he might be Hispanic.
I don't know.
The point is, why do they act like there's only one- well, it's a strawman.
This criticism right here, this comic, which is meant to be funny, I guess, doesn't actually address any of the real concerns people have with Greta and what she's saying.
It just makes a bunch of fake comments that are supposed to be...
caricatures of the actual argument against her.
But the problem is, supporters of Greta read this and take it seriously.
A good example of how people take jokes seriously, and it's not the fault of the comedian, I'm
not faulting them for making a comment, it's supposed to be funny.
But you look at when Sarah Palin said in an interview that she said from the westernmost
point of Alaska you can actually see Russia.
And Alaska deals a lot with the Bering Strait, with trade routes, and they have to work with Russia as ships go through these lanes.
And that's a very poignant comment.
It's like, oh, okay, right, as governor of Alaska, you do have, you know, a relationship with Russia.
Tina Fey, who I think is amazing, on Saturday Night Live parodied this by saying, And then people marched around with signs believing Sarah Palin actually said that.
That's the problem.
I don't fault the comedians, I fault people for being dumb.
Let's head over to Jeremy Clarkson's comments about her.
He says, when a teenage girl has an angry, tearful strop, most parents just send them to their rooms until they've calmed down.
However, when 16-year-old Greta Thunberg got onto the stage at the UN this week and had a full-on adolescent meltdown, she was deafened by the applause.
There's actually a better point that should be made, and there was a Twitter thread about this, so forgive me for the person.
I'm not, you know, I can't remember.
It was a Twitter thread I saw.
I'm not trying to not give credit, but Here's the thing.
Greta Thunberg has OCD.
I believe that's right.
She has obsessive compulsive disorder and selective mutism and depression.
The point that was made is her OCD and her refusal to eat and things like that, they're centered around environmentalism and climate change.
And while these are serious and true issues that should be talked about and focused on, you cannot put someone who is obsessive compulsive to solve the problem.
So, you know, there are some people... I'm not gonna act like I'm an expert on mental health but...
There are people who have depression and mental illnesses.
Selective mutism, for instance, or OCD.
What do you do if you have this young person who's got an issue where they're obsessed towards this one thing?
You need to give them therapy.
You need to walk them back and calm them down.
Instead, her parents and those around her have amped up her anxieties.
Now look, like this strawman comic likes to say, they're like, oh, she has no idea what she's doing.
No, no, no, no.
I fully understand that Greta is talking about real problems.
That's fine.
I fully understand that the activists are upset that she's white.
Sure.
But you have to understand, when you take someone who is obsessive-compulsive and then start playing into their obsessions, telling them it's right and true and correct, and clapping and cheering and encouraging more behavior, I have to wonder at what point you're actually abusing this kid.
Listen.
The sane adults in the room understand there's no such thing as infinite economic growth.
Now there's some interesting ideas around the idea of economic growth that lasts forever, and that has to do with interstellar colonization.
We can expand the economy, we can grow and expand humanity by colonizing the stars.
Yeah, I mean, moving out and getting off the planet.
But there's also an interesting argument about an ever-expanding economy by using digital assets, which produce no waste.
Now, I understand that server farms and data centers will produce, you know, CO2 emissions through the power they consume.
But the point is, she's freaking out about, she says, fairy tales of infinite economic growth at the UN forum.
Okay, stop.
It's not a fairy tale.
We have right now a digital economy where you can download a game.
There's a game I love.
It's a little golfing game.
And you, like, pull the thing back and the ball shoots in the air and you gotta land it in the hole.
Or you can buy power-ups.
Those power-ups transfer money from you to the person.
But there's literally nothing but ones and zeros created in that transaction.
There's no extra waste.
The game is being played.
The power is being consumed regardless.
You are transferring money in exchange for very little.
A lot of games have this, the freemium model.
So there is the potential for economic growth that doesn't produce waste.
If we can get our data centers and internet infrastructure on renewable energies, then economic growth could be infinite in a virtual space, let alone if we actually end up colonizing the moon and Mars, etc.
Greta hears these things.
She hears these left-wing talking points about how, you know, you watch the movie Avatar.
There's no green left, he says.
You have to imagine The stuff she's talking about, it's left-wing talking points.
It's almost, in a sense, anti-scientific in regards to what humanity can or can't do or invent.
We don't know.
I certainly think there's a problem with trying to rapidly expand consumerism indefinitely, but that's a limited perspective.
The idea that all we are going to do is continue to make more plastics and then pollute the world and the world ends, you must believe that humans have never solved any problem ever.
Which we have.
So, I was told a story, and I don't know the veracity of this, so fact-check me on this, that there used to be a big concern about horse poop.
That because cities were expanding and people drove around in horses, you know, rode horses in carriages, and they'd poop everywhere, there were concerns that city would be just full of poop.
Well, then the car was invented.
Now there's no poop, and now we have CO2.
Okay, well, you know, electric cars, then renewable energies, and then how about that?
How about bioplastics?
We could, you know, for years now, for probably more than a decade, I don't even know how long, longer than that probably, we've had plant-based biodegradable plastics.
You go to Starbucks, you get a spoon, it's this weird corn plastic, it gets broken down, it's made of cellulose or something.
When I see people like Greta Thunberg, let's stop.
Here's the point I want to make.
This is nonsensical, okay?
For those that are listening to the podcast, this is comic, where it's like, Greta is made of poisonous cheese, she feeds live Pomeranians, it's like, no dude, there's legitimate concerns about, look at this, also it's child abuse, which is all of a sudden people seem to care about.
No, you just don't pay attention to what people care about, okay?
There has been a consistent outrage over exploiting children for political gain, and it's not just a new thing.
The point is, ignore all these arguments.
This is nonsense, okay?
Complaining about her being white is nonsense.
Though I can understand why they're upset.
It's a funny thing the left does.
Where they claim to not be racist and then are, you know, pretty racist.
And then we have her being called a spoiled brat, well...
I respect her being called a spoiled brat to an extent.
But the main issue is, she's an uninformed child.
She is ignorant, and she doesn't have any historical context.
And this is where it comes back to the child abuse argument.
Listen.
She is someone who, as a young child, was being fed all this information, and she's got Asperger's and OCD, and so she internalized it, and it freaked her out and gave her panic attacks.
What she needed was someone to sit down and work with her and give her therapy and educate her.
Instead, they clapped and cheered and said, good for you, and it exacerbated the problem.
But you know what?
That's fine.
Let's say all of that's true.
Let's now ignore the child abuse problem.
Absolutely.
All of this comes back to one issue.
Greta is uninformed, She's an uninformed child.
I will not attack a child.
I think it's silly to insult her.
I think it's, you know, we can point out the issues she's had and the lack of support from those who are supposed to be protecting her.
That's criticism, fine.
Some people would disagree.
And they would say, well, they're supporting her.
They're supporting her activism.
Fine.
Listen.
At 16 years old, she doesn't understand, she probably doesn't even know how petroleum is, where it comes from.
She probably doesn't understand the basics of fracking.
And I'm not trying to be a dick.
Like, as a climate activist, I really, really doubt she knows anything about the frack fields in North Dakota or how they operate.
I bet she doesn't even know what a frack sock is.
I bet she doesn't even know about the radiation that comes from these things.
I bet she doesn't know anything about this.
That's my assumption, in my opinion.
The point is, Well, there's many points.
I say that too much.
The issue I'm trying to drive home is, humans are problem solvers.
We are always faced with a problem.
It reminds me of, you know, Men in Black, when Agent K says, there's always some Krillian death ship or, you know, end-of-the-world scenario that's going to wipe everybody out.
And then he says something I disagree with.
He says, and the only reason these people get along is because they do not know about it.
I don't like the end of that, but I like the first part.
In reality, there's always something threatening the planet.
There's always something threatening the planet.
It's never... You know, it could be war.
For a long time, it was.
We had two world wars.
Technically, I mean, depending on who you ask, you'll say it was one big war with a 20-year armistice, but that's besides the point.
But there's always an existential threat looming just in front of us.
And humans... Well, humans are actually kind of smart, you know?
In some respects, you can say humans are dumb.
In some respects, you can say, you know, on average, a person is stupid.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Cite Men in Black again.
But humans are a distributed network of thinkers.
And while there are many people who aren't too smart, humans have a tremendous ability to see patterns and solve problems.
And so one of the things that's happening is, well, a lot of people are solving the problems.
In fact, Jeremy Clarkson brings this up.
And part of the story, what he says is, you're spoiled because you don't realize.
Look at this.
He says, what about the pills you take when you have a headache?
What about the clean water that comes out of your tap?
What about the food you bite any time of the day and night?
No 16-year-old was responsible for any of that.
Well, you might actually get people to push back, saying, that's the problem of infinite economic growth.
But think about biofuels.
Think about renewable energies.
Look, we're doing it.
Humans are doing it.
Humans will be fine.
There are problems we face.
The world will not end in 12 years.
Now, that was said, but the crux of the actual argument was 12 years until irreversible damage to the planet.
I don't know what that's supposed to mean, irreversible damage to the planet, okay?
Are you implying that Earth will be hurt by this?
Because the Earth is a giant rock with a big molten core that doesn't care if we're alive or not.
There's no intent to destroy humans.
It's whether or not humans will survive, and the answer is of course they will.
I think it's SimCity or SimEarth from a long time ago.
You know, if you've ever played the game, you develop the planet, and you can create natural disasters if you want, and so I ended up watching humanity evolve and get to this point where they invented biodomes, and then I iceberged the whole planet.
I just froze it over, and guess what?
Humanity survived.
Now that's an optimistic human perspective.
But I think the main point is we see all these problems now, and they're problems that must be solved.
We look back in the past and we say, hey, someone solved that problem.
Yes, someone did solve that problem.
And so a lot of people today say, ah, someone else will figure it out.
No, no, no, no, no.
We're the ones who need to figure it out.
This is not the solution.
Getting up on stage and everything she did was some of the most offensive things I've ever heard.
I don't know if you saw the speech she did at the UN, but I was extremely offended by it.
I was offended because she is a mean, snarling, spoiled child.
You know what?
Look, I'm not saying she's spoiled because I'm trying to be mean or disrespect her.
I'm saying it's a factual statement.
She gets up on stage and says, how dare you do this?
And how dare you do that?
And there are many of us who are trying as hard as we can to solve that problem.
Granted, she slammed the adults, too, saying, turning to children for hope.
I gotta be honest, that slam wasn't directed at me or any other environmental activist who actually cares about solving these problems and supporting green, you know, measures.
That was directed at the UN, who propped her up.
Because there are great people who speak every day and don't rely on children.
So, you know, I don't make this video a million years long.
The point is, They're gonna drag her for being white.
That's a fact.
They're gonna then set up fake arguments so that, you know, the people on the left have a caricature of what the actual criticism is, calling her a Swedish climate demon.
No.
She's an ignorant child.
That's not disrespectful.
I am not being mean.
She is literally ignorant by the definition of the word.
She doesn't know what she's talking about.
Stop taking children who don't understand the world and putting them up on stage and then having her come out and yell at people and say, how dare you?
Because it is offensive.
What I'm- Look.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to say it.
The point about being offensive is that it's- It doesn't affect the argument.
You will- You are not doing what you think you're doing by propping her up.
There- Listen.
Who are you trying to convince?
The hippies who already agree and give her a standing ovation?
Or the naysayers who don't believe it?
The answer is, you need to get the naysayers on board, and you don't do it by insulting them.
But go ahead and make your comics where you pretend to care, where you caricature the actual argument against her.
Because I assure you, in this way, you will solve no problems, you will win no hearts, and you will win no minds, and the problem will not be solved.
I'm done.
Whatever.
That was a lot of issues built up over the past week.
I haven't done a video about this in a while, so stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Perception is reality, as the saying goes, and I feel like this story and this concept is missing—it has a lack of perspective in understanding the problem.
This story says women are struggling to find men who make as much money as they do, and there's a couple problems with the premise.
The first, I love how they take a problem that affects men and turn it into a women's issue.
Women can't get good dates when the reality is men aren't getting jobs.
They're staying at home.
They're not going to school.
They're all around failing.
They lack ambition.
Why is that?
That's a question we should be asking.
Now, I should say this.
I'm not going to act like no one is talking about the problem.
Of course they are.
It's why Jordan Peterson becomes so popular.
So, I don't, on the surface, have a problem with the New York Post, which, they're fairly conservative.
I don't have a problem with them framing this problem this way or approaching it from the perspective of women who can't get a good date.
But here's the real issue.
Women aren't struggling to find men who make as much money as they do.
Technically, they are.
But you can just look at it a different way.
Women are entertaining bad dates?
Like, the idea is, listen, there are men who exist who make money, who make a good amount of money, and who are available.
The problem is that some of the guys that these women dated were just bad.
Okay?
I don't understand.
Are they saying that the dating pool is getting smaller?
Are they saying they don't want to date men who are broke?
What's the real problem here?
If you go on a date with a guy and you don't like him for whatever reason, be it because he doesn't have a job, doesn't go to school, lacks ambition, well then you don't date him!
Guess what?
People go on bad dates.
Now, I get the greater context is that the negative supply is increasing, like the guys are not economically attractive.
That's what the previous article said when I read about this.
So this story from the New York Post actually talks to some women.
And asks them about, you know, guys who are not as worthy or something.
You know, like they're not ambitious, they're failures, whatever.
Here's what I want to do.
Let's read through this story.
And I also have the actual study that they based on from earlier this month that I want to talk about.
But let's read this from the New York Post.
Women are struggling to find men who make as much money as they do.
The Post reports, A good man is hard to find, especially in this economy.
The country is facing a crisis of broke dudes, according to new research from Cornell University,
and it's left successful ladies single and disgruntled.
Here's the point I was trying to make earlier.
Back when you had a traditional culture based on women being in the home and men being in the
workplace, women could just choose a guy who had a job or didn't.
A woman never had to worry about a man making more or less money.
It didn't exist.
This isn't a bad problem.
It's just an issue that exists when you get women who have jobs.
Case in point, take this woman who they depict standing on a pile of gold coins.
And remove all of her gold coins and put her in a homemaker role and all of these guys are on par with her or above.
Society changed.
I'm not saying we should go back, I'm saying society changed and now we have an issue where women are experiencing the fact that men exist who don't make money.
That's just the way things are.
I mean, that's always been the case.
If women weren't making money, this problem wouldn't exist.
So it's not so much that We should focus on women struggling to do this.
It's just, I would say to women, welcome to the dating pool.
That's like, what do you think is supposed to be happening?
I don't know if this is normal.
Granted, we do have a crisis of broke dudes, for sure.
Let's read them.
In the study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, Cornell sociologists explored America's declining marriage rate.
They discovered a lack of financially eligible bachelors.
Well, look, I want to say this from the get-go.
My issue is inverted.
There is a lack of familially attractive... What I'm trying to say is...
Economically, I'm not interested in a spouse or significant other who wants to be the CEO of a company.
I have no problem with women being CEOs of companies.
In fact, I'm excited to see more.
However, if I'm going to choose a significant other or a spouse, I want someone who's going to take care of the social aspect of our cohabitation, partnership, and child-rearing.
I don't need someone who's going to be at a board meeting, okay?
I've got a business to run, I've got several to run, I have work to do.
So that means a partnership would involve someone who can fill in the gap on the other side.
The problem I'm having as an economically attractive male, I suppose, as someone with a job and a career and success, is that I can't find women who want to be in families.
And I mean that.
Look, you're going to find a lot of dudes who are struggling in the economy.
That's bad.
We've got to figure out that problem.
But apparently it's not a problem that women don't want to be in families.
Now, don't get me wrong.
A lot of women want to have it all.
That's what they say.
They say, have it all, right?
That's the joke.
You know, 30 Rock did a great bit about Tina Fey.
You know, Liz Lemon, wanting to have it all.
Go for it.
I got no problem.
The problem is, I'm not looking for, you know, half.
I'm looking for all.
There was a saying, I remember when I was little.
I shouldn't say little, but when I was a young man.
There was this, I was reading this quote, I can't remember who it's from.
They said, if you don't have the time to commit to busting your ass, then neither do I. The point was, I'm not, it was a business that said, I'm not going to accept anybody who divides their attention.
I need something, and that's what I'm looking for.
If women need a man who's successful, then go for it.
But here's the thing.
Take a look at these women, all right?
So this woman, they highlight, let's read a quote.
Single New Yorker Gina Thibodeau has some theories about her own about the fella problem.
I find generally that dudes these days just do less across the board, says the nurse practitioner.
Their parents have coddled them and taken care of them, and they just don't go out there and make more money.
The 38-year-old Upper East Sider stresses that she's not looking for anything outrageous.
Safety and security as far as finances go.
But she's still coming up empty on dates.
Yes, I'll tell you why you're coming up empty on dates.
Let's invert the perspective.
You will find a lot of guys who are struggling who will like to go on a date with you.
You provide security, you have a job.
Then you can look at someone like me, and I can only speak from my perspective.
I'm someone with economic security, and I'm looking for a mother and a wife, not a nurse practitioner.
I respect the work you do, I appreciate your success, congratulations, and I'm proud to see many people are fulfilling their dreams.
I don't need a wife who has a job.
I need a wife who's going to be at home and help take care of the social aspects of our lives.
I'm not saying just be a mom, just be in the house.
No, I'm saying like, literally I work all day and then afterwards I'm sitting there like, I don't know what I'm doing.
I'm gonna play video games or something.
It would be great if there was someone who could take care of the kids, who could raise the family and say, here's the thing I want to do in the social aspect.
There are some people who want a traditional wife, be at home, clean the house, whatever, that's fine.
That's not necessarily what I'm saying.
I'm saying, I need something specific.
It is not, you know, no disrespect.
Gina is a very, she looks very successful and attractive.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
I'm saying what your life has to offer is not attractive to me.
I think you're, you know, she looks great and everything.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to her life choices.
More power to her.
Congratulations.
It's not a personal dig.
The point is The problem I face, as this economically attractive male as they try to describe it, is where are the women who want to be at home and raise a family?
That's the struggle I'm facing.
Can we write a story about that?
No, because that's not socially acceptable.
For a man to say, I don't want my wife to have a job, I'll take care of the family, it's relatively socially unacceptable.
There's an episode of Family Guy.
They point this out, and this is an episode from, what, like 15 years ago, where Lois Griffin, the wife and family guy, if you're not familiar, goes to some event.
I can't remember where she was, but she meets a career woman, and the subject matter of their conversation was that the feminist career woman looked down on Lois for being a housewife.
That's normal, okay?
That's my experience.
I have seen profiles on OkCupid from some women saying they wish they could be moms, but society finds it You know, at this point, feminism has won out.
It is unacceptable to not have it all, to not have a career, to not support yourself.
So now we're in a situation where women are upset because the only guys they apparently find are economically unattractive.
They don't want to date them.
But here's the thing.
The simple solution to the problem.
Actually, let's read a little bit more.
They have more quotes.
They say she says it's because the men she goes out with don't feel the innate push to succeed that she does.
Okay.
And therein lies the issue.
I do not want a wife whose desire to push is towards a CEO or board membership or a million bucks.
I'm looking for someone who wants to be a good mother and create human beings That's a noble and important role in society.
I absolutely respect, you know, the goal, the successes of past feminism and getting women the ability to be CEOs, and I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done.
That's great.
You do you, I do me.
That's what true liberalism is, not this perverted word liberal that now means, like, left.
I'm talking about classical liberal in the truest sense.
Live and let live.
All about it.
Now, the dating pool for me, it's, unfortunately, every, you know, 99% of women, for one, I gotta say this, wow, are women communists on OkCupid.
No, seriously.
OkCupid, it's like, 90% of the women in most areas, like communism good or bad, they put good, and I'm like, What?
No, it isn't!
That's so weird.
Anyway, I digress.
The point is, almost every woman is expected to get a job and have a career.
So let me give you a more specific example, and we'll keep reading into this.
I dated a woman once and she was very successful and wealthy.
You know, wealthy-ish.
I don't want to say, like, she wasn't, like, top 1%, but, like, you know, upper class.
Upper-middle class.
And the problem was, she traveled all the time.
And so did I. And we never saw each other.
And I said, what's the point of a relationship if we're both doing our own thing, and even if we want to, we can't really be together?
I think, you know, this was, like, eight years ago, or, like, no, this was, like, six or seven years ago.
And I realized if I'm really going to have a relationship, it's got to be with someone who wants to fill that gap.
So I work all day, every day, no days off.
I barely get time in for recreational activities.
It's always some kind of mission or plan.
It's who I am.
It's my passion.
I need someone who has the time to fill the other role.
Where are they?
Let's read a little bit more.
I think for years they've always just taken their role in society for granted.
And I think that they're just getting lazy culturally.
Morgan Jordan, a staff administrator at a South Carolina college, says she's also struggling to find a partner on her level.
I don't consider myself all that successful.
I just make a living wage and I'm comfortable, says the 32-year-old who lives in upstate South Carolina and recently paid off her student loans.
And I'm going to hit another point right here.
They said it right there.
32 years old.
I'm 33, okay?
I have no great expectations about getting, you know, a ridiculously young Playboy Bunny-type girlfriend, and I'm not interested in it.
But I gotta admit, when you look at, you know, where she is, where I'm at, we're both around the same age, and, well, guess what?
We both made different choices.
Well, actually, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm gonna walk back a second.
Listen.
I typically... It's a fact, actually.
Data shows this.
Men are attracted to much younger women for obvious reasons.
Now, I'm not gonna... I'm not the kind of person who's gonna go after a 20-year-old for a significant other.
That's, to me, it's absurd, and I really don't want to be around somebody who lacks that kind of mental development, you know, into adulthood.
Like, 20 years old, too young.
But yeah, a lot of the women I end up talking to are, you know, 27, 28 years old, a bit younger than I am.
And that's normal.
I mean, culturally, that's normal.
I think there's a big problem right now with a change in culture, And what humans might innately want or just be driven to do.
They'll argue it's society that makes men want 20-year-old women.
I'm gonna have to disagree and think guys just find perky young women attractive.
And older, chiseled guys are attractive for a reason.
I'm not an evolutionary psychologist, but all this stuff exists.
So let me say this while trying to avoid being disrespectful, but I think we need to be honest.
I, as a 33-year-old man, am not interested in a 32-year-old woman who has a career and is comfortable.
It's not who I'm talking to and who I'm interested in.
I have no problem The potential is there.
But I'm, you know, I gotta be honest.
I do look at younger women.
Not super younger, but I'd say like 28, 5 years younger than me, you know?
28, 29.
32 is, what I see with a 32-year-old woman is somebody who dedicated to their career and not to family.
And that's a societal issue, I suppose.
There are scientific, like biological issues that exist there, but I'll admit fully.
The feminists can be mad at me for saying this.
Fine, whatever.
You're not going to change my preference, which is for slightly younger women.
It is the way it is, and it is for most guys.
As you get older, the age gap becomes more palatable, but also more acceptable.
Again, I got a limit.
I try not to go super young.
Five years is kind of as far as I've gone in terms of dating.
But here's the thing.
You know, a woman who's 32 and single, no disrespect, but that's not what I am looking for in a relationship.
So, you know, this only really comes down from my perspective as this eligible bachelor who's successful and all that, and I'm trying to just basically flip this narrative.
They present this story as though these women are struggling, but in reality, a choice they made has presented them with only economically unattractive males.
Okay?
You see the point I'm making?
Like, I exist.
Men like me exist.
Successful men, and many who are married.
But in this story, the real issue that they're highlighting is not that there is a crisis with men, but the real issue is that What they're not focusing on is women who are now in their 30s who dedicated their lives to having a career now wondering where all the good dudes are at.
I mean, you're playing right into this manosphere trope about men wanting young wives, women who want to, you know, be a homemaker.
I guess I don't want to beat the dead horse, but let's read a little bit more.
This 32-year-old woman says, You can tell that some men really want to be the more traditional breadwinner, says Jordan.
Spot on.
Absolutely.
It's not about me wanting to prove myself.
They try and push this narrative that men are insecure about making less money than their wives.
Not at all.
The bigger issue is, how much time do you spend at work to make that much money?
Okay?
That's the issue.
Like I said, I was in a relationship with a woman, and she was, you know, high-level, making great money, and we never saw each other.
It's like, okay, look, if I'm already going to be working, it's already hard enough for you to see me, because working is a thing.
I'm looking for a wife, you know, not a CEO.
And that's fine if you're a CEO.
You know, don't take rejection personally.
If you're trying out for the role of Batman and they don't choose you, well, it's because not everybody can be Batman.
And if you want to be the CEO, like, congratulations, much respect, but I'm not looking for a CEO, I'm looking for a woman who wants to help me raise a family, okay?
So, yes, it is about being a traditional breadwinner, in a sense.
Not to prove my worth, not to, not, like, it has nothing to do with me being insecure about the one making more money, it has to do with me being passionate about what I'm doing and not wanting to give it up.
I can say the same for them, and I respect that.
But in the end, it means we are not compatible.
Boston single Jake Revis gets where they're coming from.
My prospective partner's income is something I consider, says the 28-year-old who works as a staff caregiver at a group home.
Being on the lower end myself only serves to feed insecurity.
Well, that's you, Jake.
That's not me.
And I think there's a lot of successful guys who are looking at this in the same way that I am.
Graduate student Isaac Suarez says he's not turned off by women who means business, but he has found that his relationships tend to last longer when he makes a similar amount as his partner.
I've did women with money, and full-time professional women tend to be busier, and
it's more difficult to find time to spend together.
Thibodeau says she knows it's not necessarily a guy's fault if he's struggling financially
Given the circumstances, she's had to devise a plan B for her future.
If Mr. Right doesn't come along soon, she may just shack up with some lady friends at her professional level.
I think guys, they want traditional relationships not because they're anti-feminist, not because they're misogynist.
It's because guys are passionate and driven.
Why is it that guys take risks?
Why is it that guys work their hands to the bone?
Not all guys.
You know, we're highlighting some lazy dudes.
They exist.
And some less fortunate guys.
But why is it that guys are so driven to do these things?
Why are women more likely ending up in social jobs?
Jobs that interact with people, like teaching.
And men are doing technical jobs.
There's reasons for this.
So, there's the big challenge.
You know, I think I've beaten the horse to death.
I'll leave it there.
You get my point, okay?
I'm not interested in a 32-year-old, you know, what was her job?
They don't mention.
But I'm not interested in a career professional, okay?
And I understand there's like a feminist, like it's considered taboo in society for a man to ask a woman to put her career on hold to raise a family.
Don't put your career on hold.
By all means, you do that.
But I'm not interested, okay?
Much respect to you and what you're doing.
Find me someone who, you know, is... I don't necessarily want to say graduated college, but has some life experience, understands a bit of the world, and wants to be in a family, and I'm interested.
Guess what?
They don't exist.
Like, they do exist.
I know they exist, okay?
But seriously, you go on these dating sites, and it's all of the same thing.
Women who don't want to be raising a family.
So now there's the pitfall, okay, of two overt tropes that are very dangerous for a single guy who's got a good career, and it's the woman who just wants to have a good career as well and doesn't want to be there for the family, which, again, more power to her, gotta be very careful, but is not compatible with that guy.
Then you have the opportunist gold digger types.
And so it's like, how do you find a good significant other?
For men and women alike, I don't know what to tell you.
There is a compatibility issue.
I do not speak for all successful men.
I'm sure there are left-wing, feminist men who are completely on board with a woman who works just as much and they'll figure it out, more power to ya.
But I assure you there are a lot of guys who are successful, educated, have careers, whatever you want to say, who are economically attractive, who are not attracted to you based on your life choices.
How do we solve that problem?
I don't know.
Maybe our society will evolve and we'll get through it, and that's what'll happen.
I have no idea.
It's a long video.
I have no idea why.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
There have been a lot of rumors circulating.
Well, I should say, periodically, rumors erupt that Hillary Clinton may be mounting a 2020 presidential campaign.
It's not too late in the season for her to do so.
Now, this current iteration Is due, of the rumor, is due to the fact that Hillary Clinton has been setting up a press tour.
So many people are thinking that she's going to announce again.
Now, here's the thing, man.
Hillary could have won 2016.
I don't think she could win now, okay?
There's no strong Democrats.
I think, there's nobody who's gonna beat Trump.
Elizabeth Warren can't do it.
Cory Booker can't do it.
Joe Biden, he's polling the best, but come on.
Biden up against Trump, they just don't have, they don't have what it takes.
Hillary Clinton is much better than all of them in some ways, but probably not enough.
She's not going to win this time.
She made a ton of mistakes in 2016.
She didn't campaign in a Rust Belt states where she should have, and so she lost.
And that's what happens.
Now she's complained over and over again that it was stolen from her.
Well, if it was stolen from her, it was stolen by the people who voted for somebody else.
I wouldn't necessarily call that stealing.
So a lot of people think that she's going to run and that she's biding her time, especially with these press tours, but let me just dispel this before we even get into the story, okay?
I got a story pulled up.
Is Hillary about to try again?
Here's the thing.
Hillary Clinton is doing a press tour to support the Democrats, right?
She's going to smear Trump.
She's going to prop up Democrats.
She's going to say what she can to use whatever little power she has left to hurt the president.
That's about it.
I do not think she will run, but I will admit, it is possible.
I mean, come on, who do the Democrats really have?
Nobody.
I don't think Hillary Clinton can win.
She couldn't win last time.
I mean, she could try to fix the problems she made last time, but I really, really don't see it.
I really don't see it.
I don't think she's going to run.
But anyway, that's just my opinion.
Let's actually see what the rumors are about and what's happening.
Now, I must admit, if she was going to do a press tour to support Democrats, she doesn't need to jam all the media in one week.
I wonder what the real goal is here.
as an illegitimate president and a corrupt human tornado.
Oh, that's a new one.
Ahead of a week packed with media appearances, sparking rumors she plans to enter the 2020 race.
Now, I must admit, if she was going to do a press tour to support Democrats,
she doesn't need to jam all the media in one week.
I wonder what the real goal is here.
And I will say, the media and this kind of pressure is forcing the Democrats to take action.
It's hurting them.
If you watch the video I did on my main channel, it's basically that the impeachment stuff is backfiring, and they know it.
They're trying to deflect, saying, no, no, no, the election will not be about impeachment.
It won't.
No, I'm sorry.
It's too late.
You bent over backwards for the media and for the PR, and it's hurting you.
And you know it.
I get it.
Well, this is going to hurt them, too.
Maybe Hillary's secret plan is to help Trump.
I have no idea.
Maybe that was the whole point of running, so Trump would win.
I'm kidding, by the way.
Let's read.
They say Hillary Clinton bashed Donald Trump Sunday, calling the president a corrupt human tornado after a week of negative media attention surrounding revelations of a July phone call he had with Ukrainian president, while promoting the book of gutsy women, which she wrote with her daughter Chelsea Clinton, who often laments that she won the popular vote in 2016, called Trump an illegitimate president.
He knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out how it did.
Clinton told CBS in a pre-recorded interview.
Now, listen.
A lot of people are bringing up, you know, the rumors.
Why is she going on TV?
She's selling a book, dude.
She's trying to make money.
It's that simple.
Please, please.
Calm the rumors.
She's not gonna run.
I hope not!
Actually, it's really funny, because the last time this rumor popped up, I said, I hope she doesn't run, and all the Trump supporters were like, I hope she does!
Because it guarantees Trump a victory.
And at this point, I really think so.
Could you imagine someone as unpopular as her stepping up against Trump?
Trump's approval rating is up, his favorability is up, the economy is doing great.
Look, I get it, the media can smear him all day and night, but that's on the Democrat side.
Republicans, for the most part, like the President.
Given this latest revelation, which is such a blatant effort to use his presidential position to advance his personal and political interests, there should be an impeachment inquiry open, she said.
Like I said, is she trying to help the president?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Tuesday that the lower chamber was officially opening an impeachment inquiry into the president following after the whistleblower's allegations came to light.
But I want to stress, Nadler said the same thing, didn't he?
Like, a formal inquiry.
And now Pelosi's saying the same thing.
Get it on the House floor, okay?
Let's see the resolution.
Let's get some votes on it.
Yeah, the problem is, while a lot of Democrats support it, the majority of the House doesn't.
I think it doesn't.
I could be wrong.
But I'm pretty sure the majority of the House isn't going to support this.
I could be wrong.
Maybe it is.
I don't know.
Fact check me.
I think I may have got that one wrong.
But the point is, they have a majority of Democrats, okay?
There are still Republicans in the House.
They can still vote against this.
I don't care who you're for in the Democratic primary, or whether you're a Republican, whether you're the President of the United States, who has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and by that defend the American people and their interests, uses his position to in effect extort a foreign government for his own political purposes.
What?!
That's literally what Joe Biden did!
No, stop.
I'm not talking about helping his son.
I'm talking about his own political purposes.
We don't know what Joe Biden really wanted out of Ukraine.
We know that he bragged about holding up a billion dollars in aid.
Did he have the authority to do it?
He bragged that he didn't.
He bragged that the Ukraine said, you're not the president, you can't do this.
He goes, oh yeah?
Who do you think talks to the president?
Joe Biden, for political reasons, okay, maybe not personal, his own political reasons, but for political reasons, demanded the firing of a foreign official and bought that.
It's just such insane governmental interference.
My mind is blown.
Yeah, something should be looked into.
Why is the U.S.
doing this?
The Obama-era Secretary of State said she doesn't accept that Donald Trump will receive another four year.
Four years?
I don't believe that will happen, she insisted.
Oh, come on.
Don't delude yourself.
The former candidates packed me.
You know, Trump's gonna get re-elected, and we all know it.
Everybody knows it.
Michael Moore knows it.
Bill Maher knows it.
Everybody knows it.
That's why you're trying to sell a book.
Everyone on the debate stage is trying to sell books.
That's what they're gonna do.
They're gonna run for office, get defeated, and then sell a book, make some money, and buy a nice summer home upstate.
That's what they're gonna do.
The former candidate's packed media week, and her renewed critique of his presidency has rumors swirling that she is looking at potentially entering the 2020 Democratic primary race, at the same time Biden is losing clout within the party.
Hey, maybe that's true.
Maybe she's stepping up now because she knows Biden is waning.
And Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders do not represent the establishment crony Democrats.
Look, there are many funny things that happened in my election that will not happen again, she told interviewer Jane Pauley.
And I'm hoping that both the public and press understand the way Trump plays the game.
Clinton said, it doesn't bother her that Trump continues to bring her up during his campaign rallies, where the crowd still chants lock her up when the president mentions her name.
He knows he's an illegitimate president.
Oh, come on.
No, he knows that he played the game right and he won.
He played by the same rules as you and he won.
I don't sit there and complain, you know, when I play a game of like Magic the Gathering and I lose.
I'll be like, that's an illegitimate win and you know it.
That was not fair.
I drew too many lands.
It's a bit esoteric for those that don't understand magic.
The point is, You were playing a game.
We all knew the rules.
You chose not to campaign in the Rust Belt.
That's your fault.
Trump won by very slim margins.
Yeah, too bad.
Not an illegitimate president.
No, I'm sorry, that's you.
You are not legitimate.
You lost, okay?
You know, it was like applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado.
Aw, are you kidding, dude?
It's not like the Electoral College is new.
It's been around since the inception of this country.
So I'm sorry.
I'm sorry that you knew what you needed to do to win, you did the wrong thing, and now you're complaining about it.
You know what's really annoying?
Is how they said Trump would never accept the results of the election.
Are you nuts?
What?
It's 2019 and Hillary Clinton's calling the president illegitimate.
Grow up, move on, drop the act, and talk about policy.
But I get it.
You're selling a book.
Good for you.
Living off 2016 is going to make you very wealthy.
I get it.
But for the Democrats, for people in this country who want to see things move forward, I want to see Trump actually have a debate.
I want to see someone challenge the things he's proposed.
And I want to figure out who's got a better position.
You coming out and complaining about losing the Electoral College, that's your fault.
That is your fault.
They blame Bernie still.
Saturday Night Live did recently.
Trump earned 306 Electoral College votes in 2016 to Clinton's 232.
That's a decent spread, man.
But Clinton, who won the popular vote, still argues against his legitimacy as a president, since she earned around 3 million more votes than him.
I think it was like 2.6 or something.
But the point is...
Just because you win California and New York doesn't mean you should be president.
We do not operate on a direct democracy.
It is not, in this country, about the most people deciding what makes the most sense.
It's about dividing the power based on several factors.
No, it's not about empty deserts, Ocasio-Cortez.
It's about resources, individuals, industry, the economy, and sovereign states.
Just because you can freely move about between these states doesn't remove the sovereignty of those states.
And that means, yeah, we're going to give Montana and Wyoming electoral votes, but they still don't have that many.
So stop complaining and start playing the same game as everybody else.
No, they want to change the rules now.
They want to impeach Trump, get rid of the Electoral College.
Okay, I get it.
You're mad you lost.
Changing the rules and kicking the guy out doesn't change that.
I don't care if you convince the judges to hand you the belt.
You didn't win the fight.
You lost.
Anyway, I don't want to even act.
I don't even want to even act like she's going to run.
She's not going to run.
It's silly.
It's dumb.
I'm getting all frustrated because she won't stop.
Accept your loss.
You're a loser.
You lost.
I don't mean loser in the Cloco sense.
I mean loser in 2016.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
I'm just frustrated, so I apologize for that.
But you lost.
You are the loser of the 2016 race.
Accept it, please, and just stop.
But you know what?
Let's be honest.
She's selling a book.
The outrage works.
There are people who love it.
And she'll sell a few million copies and make a few million bucks.
So congratulations.
She probably got a great advance on the book.
There you go.
Gutsy women.
Congratulations.
But you didn't win.
You didn't win.
And this isn't helping.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, I will see you all shortly.
During a congressional hearing, Rep Adam Schiff made up a fake quote from the president that was a bit over the top, but is quite confusing.
You see, the statement he made was overt, it was a lie.
He read a fake quote with a serious face, where he was pretending that Trump, or he was claiming that Trump was threatening Ukraine.
Listen here, see.
You're gonna do what I want or else and don't call me back until you've done what I said.
And then later when he gets called out he goes, I thought it was obvious that it was a parody.
Why at a congressional hearing are you doing a bit?
We don't need a politician to be doing a bit!
When we're undergoing this crisis.
Thank you very much.
No, I don't think it was a bit.
Well, Trump called for his resignation, and now, thank you, George Stephanopoulos grills Schiff for making up Trump quotes, and Schiff continues to lie.
At least there are people in the press calling out these weirdos.
They're weirdos.
Okay, this dude's a weird guy.
That's weird.
Listen.
You want to be a comedian?
Great.
Start a podcast.
You want to question the acting Director of National Intelligence, please don't read fake quotes and then get shocked when people don't realize you're doing a bit.
And more importantly, why are you doing a bit, dude?
You're not a comedian.
You're not funny.
That was awful.
So frustrating.
Let's read.
From the Daily Wire, they say ABC News' George Stephanopoulos ripped Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Sunday for making up quotes from President Trump's Ukraine phone call during a committee hearing last week.
Schiff, a rep from California, also repeated numerous lies on the program that he had made over the weekend on Twitter, falsely claiming that Trump tried, quote, to try to coerce that leader to manufacture dirt on his opponent and interfere in an election.
That wasn't in the transcript.
At a time when the president is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to Ukraine.
And yes, according to the New York Times, Ukraine didn't even know that was a factor, so I doubt that was Trump's plan.
Ukraine's president and foreign minister have both said there was no pressure and no coercion during the phone call.
The transcript shows that Trump never asked Ukraine to interfere in U.S.
elections, nor did he ever ask for anyone to manufacture dirt on Joe Biden.
Also, the New York Times reported that Ukraine was not even aware that aid was being delayed.
I can't take it.
It's just so frustrating watching Jake Tapper and Schiff and these people not even know what they're talking about.
Stephanopoulos then played a clip of Schiff from the committee hearing, where Schiff fabricates quotes, fabricated quotes, from Trump's Ukraine phone call, which Schiff later tried to claim was parody, after he was called out by other members of the committee.
That was you making up dialogue, putting it in the president's mouth, Stephanopoulos said.
If the facts are as damning as you say, why make up dialogue for dramatic effect, even if it's parody as you say?
No, I got a better question, George.
I appreciate it.
Why is a representative doing a comedy routine during a congressional hearing?
Please, comment below and let me know why you think he thought it was appropriate to do a bit.
That's it, we're done.
Okay.
I don't care what his reason was.
Dramatic effect?
Doing a bit?
Is this Dave's show?
Is it a Netflix special?
No, dude, you're a congressman.
Transcript from the segment from ABC News.
Is that all they do?
We'll read some of this, but I want to see if they have any... Yeah, okay.
So let's see how Schiff responds.
Well, let's just read.
Stephanopoulos said, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, thank you for joining us.
Okay, I'm not going to read through this whole transcript.
I do have some other news, but I'd like to get to just his response specifically.
So here's the section that's set where he begins.
Let's read.
Stephanopoulos said, you've been criticized by the president and others for comments you made in your opening statement at the hearing on Thursday.
I want to show a bit of it right here.
Schiff, I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good.
I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent.
Understand?
Lots of it.
This is in sum and character what the President was trying to communicate.
No, it wasn't.
That's him making... So first of all, he makes this exaggerated dramatic claim, and then he comes out and says, well, that's what the president meant.
Well, Stephanopoulos said, that was you making up dialogue, putting it in the president's mouth.
If the facts are as damning as you say, why make up dialogue for dramatic effect, even if it is parody, as you say?
And here's Schiff's long-winded response.
He says, well, George, you're right.
You're right, the call speaks for itself, and it is plenty damning.
But let's not pretend that this is really what the President is upset with me about.
I can tell you exactly why the President is furious with me, and that is because when I learned that a whistleblower had filed a complaint, an urgent complaint that was being withheld from Congress, and no one knew about this yet, I went public to demand that we get that complaint.
Okay, this is the most infuriating, mind-numbing insanity.
I can't stand this guy.
Do you know anybody who likes this guy?
This is insane.
He's not answering the question.
He's deflecting.
He's playing stupid games, and I have no interest in reading the rest of his stupid statement.
Because it's all really dumb.
He said, all I did was expose the complaint.
Okay, we were asking you about why you made up a quote.
George, you should have followed up.
But there is more news that I will include in this segment, because, well, there's movement being made.
It's not just about Trump and Schiff.
It's about, is there ever going to be anyone held accountable for pulling this insanity?
Well, it appears there may be.
The State Department is ramping up its investigation into email records of former Clinton aides.
So let's stop.
And it's kind of a hard segue, but sometimes I'll put these stories together.
If you want to talk about the wrongdoing the president has done, fine.
Totally, totally hear ya.
Let's talk about the wrongdoing from other people, like Clinton aides.
Remember that guy who, um, it's really interesting.
Somebody who worked for Clinton, it is alleged, went on Reddit and asked people how to strip out a very VIP's address from all of these emails.
Yeah.
Hillary Clinton destroyed phones with hammers.
She deleted 30,000 emails after she was speeded to turn them over.
And she has faced no consequences.
Why?
Did someone hand her a get-out-of-jail-free card at some point?
Presumably.
Well, the Trump administration's State Department is intensifying its investigation into the email records of dozens of former department officials and aides to former Secretary Hillary Clinton.
So at least something is happening.
As many as 130 officials have been recently contacted by investigators from the State Department, current and former officials told the Washington Post.
According to the outlet, Those targeted were contacted by the department about emails they sent years ago, and have been retroactively classified and could now count as possible security violations.
Investigators began communicating with former officials around 18 months ago, but they appeared to suspend the effort before ramping it back up in August.
Now I will stop and say, retroactive classification?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or why that would be appropriate.
I don't think, on the surface, it makes much sense, so I'd question why would you do this.
Yeah, it's a bit worrying if somebody who works in the government shares information that's not classified and then later they classify it to get you in trouble.
I don't think that's acceptable for anybody, Trump or otherwise.
However, I will admit, I don't quite know why they would do that or what the precedent is for that, but I am under the understanding you can't do that.
So, questionable.
Although some who are under scrutiny view the recent activity as the Trump administration's decision to wield power against political adversaries, senior State Department officials said they are simply following standard protocol in an investigation that initially started during the Obama administration.
This has nothing to do with who is in the White House.
This is about the time it took to go through millions of emails, which is about three and a half years.
The process is set up in a manner to completely avoid any appearance of political bias on other official edit.
Former Obama administration officials, however, told the Post that the investigation is an aggressive crackdown by an administration that has had its own problems with handling classified information.
The list of State Department officials being questioned includes Assistant Secretaries of State responsible for U.S.
policy in the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia, as well as several ambassadors.
It also includes many current and former bureaucrats who passed along important messages to Clinton from outside officials.
Many of those targeted have been found not culpable.
While some were sent follow-up letters saying that investigators determined that the security incident is valid and that they did not bear any individual culpability.
The State Department review began after the FBI investigated Clinton's use of an unauthorized server hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, during her time as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
Former FBI Director James Comey publicly recommended in 2016 that no charges be brought against Clinton or anyone else involved with her private email network, but he admonished Clinton and her team for being extremely careless in handling classified information.
So, okay, we get it.
They go on to mention Paul Combetta.
He's the tech aide who administrated the server, and he's the guy who allegedly, you know, had asked People to help remove.
I gotta be careful, okay?
Allegedly, ask people to remove Clinton's email.
Look, I highlighted this coming off of the Schiff thing because I guess, I don't know, I just wanted to re-highlight Schiff making up fake nonsense because it's really annoying and I'm glad that the journalists are grilling him.
But let's talk about real accountability.
Will anyone actually do anything?
Will Schiff get in trouble?
He probably won't.
But, um, I don't know, whatever, man, this one's a bit all over the place.
I think I had a better picture in my mind of what I was doing before I started the video, but hey, it happens, you don't win them all.
In the end, we can see that Trump is going after, well, I shouldn't say Trump, it's the State Department, and they're saying this is an ongoing investigation, so it is what it is.
A bit, I don't know, fractured, whatever.
Eh, stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, I'll see you then.
In New York City!
If, in the issue of public accommodation, you refer to someone as an illegal alien or tell them to speak English or to go home to their country, that is now a human rights violation.
Now, I've talked about the issue of New York City and human rights violations quite a bit, actually, in the past several years.
The reason I'm telling you this story now, it's a few days old, but I keep seeing people share this, and they're framing it as though if anyone, at any point, for any reason, calls someone else, No, it's only in the issue of public accommodation, which is still a serious issue we can talk about, but it's not like you're walking down the street and you see somebody and go, you're an illegal alien and they fine you $250,000.
No, it's more like if you're in Starbucks and a guy comes in and he tries to order a drink and you say, hey, we're not going to serve you, you illegal alien.
That is a violation.
However, I must stress, this is a terrifying prospect.
It means that if you're a landlord, and someone tries renting from you, and you say, listen, I cannot rent to an illegal alien.
Oh, boom!
There it is.
Human rights violation.
Because apparently immigration status is protected.
Well, let's read.
I want to make sure.
So, from the New York Post, they say, city bans calling someone an illegal alien out of hate.
It is now against the law in New York City to threaten someone with a call to immigration authorities or refer to them as an eagle alien when motivated by hate.
In the instance of public accommodation... Please, New York Post, can you put it in there?
Who wrote this?
Come on, you guys.
The restrictions, violations of which are punishable by fines of up to $250,000 per offense, are outlined in a 29-page directive released by City Hall's Commission on Human Rights.
Alien, used in many laws to refer to a non-citizen person, is a term that may carry negative connotations and dehumanize immigrants.
Marking them as other, reads one passage of the memo.
No, it's the legal term!
That's the legal term for somebody not from here.
The use of certain language, including illegal alien and illegals, with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or person constitutes discrimination.
You can't even call them illegals?
What is this?
The directive goes on to list several examples of acts and comments that would run afoul of the restrictions, including harassing people over their accents, or grasp of English, or wielding the threat of a call to immigration and customs enforcement as a tool of hate.
Here's an example they say.
A hotel prohibits its housekeepers from speaking Spanish while cleaning because it would offend hotel guests or make them uncomfortable.
That's illegal?
That's... Whoa, whoa, that's crazy.
They made that illegal.
Listen.
If I'm in a hotel and people are sitting next to me and I start speaking a different language, that makes me uncomfortable.
It's not about the language.
If I'm sitting somewhere and someone leans over and starts whispering, that makes me uncomfortable.
It's about obfuscating information.
It's about withholding information and you don't know why, you don't know what they're saying, and you don't know what concern it could be to you.
So what?
I think it's getting to the point where, in New York City, they are trying to create so many protections, they'll actually start stripping them away.
Let's invert the scenario.
Would it be against the law now to stop someone from speaking English around somebody who speaks Spanish?
I think the answer is yes.
It is.
Think about it.
Let's say there's a... Let's say... Let's invert the situation.
You have a Spanish-speaking guest, and you have somebody who's speaking English, so you say, listen, the guests don't understand that language, and we would prefer it if you would speak Spanish.
And then they say, no, you can't do that.
You see the problem?
I would expect that the city is going to enforce this only one direction, of course.
That's how the game is played.
But what about a circumstance where the guests only speak Spanish?
Is it then appropriate for your employees, who also speak Spanish, to not speak Spanish?
Think about it.
If you have staff who are bilingual and a Spanish-speaking guest, speak the language!
Be polite!
An Indian immigrant family complains to their landlord about mold and cockroaches in their unit.
The landlord tells them to just deal with it, and threatens to call ICE if they file a complaint in housing court.
Well, that, my friends, is a slumlord and it's disgusting.
But how about someone complains about something in the house that's not legitimate?
Let's say you end up, inadvertently, with a tenant who brings in an illegal... Actually, let's talk about squatting, okay?
You could rent a property, move someone in without telling the landlord.
If they're there for a certain amount of time, they're legal residents and you can't evict them, even though you never agreed to it.
Yup.
That's how squatting works.
There have been stories where people have broken into homes, squat there, and when the owner finds out or the bank finds out or whoever, you can't evict them.
They are now legal residents.
In fact, people have been doing it in Chicago for a while because a lot of these investment properties go vacant for a long time.
And so there was one famous story where a guy just walked into a house that was like a half a million dollar home and they couldn't get rid of him.
And the only reason he got in trouble, not for squatting, was because he turned on the water pipe in the basement.
Well, there it is.
But anyway, here's the point.
Let's say, you now own that house, and the people are complaining, and they're saying, you know what, you're gonna do this for us or else, and you say, no, I'm gonna call ICE.
Did you know that in New York City, a business cannot discriminate based on your gender expression?
This is why I think everything New York has been doing, and how they're expanding, is very troublesome.
What is gender expression?
It means you can dress or act any way you want.
You can't define what gender is.
The law is inspired by a couple things.
One, that gender is a social construct, meaning whether you choose to wear a dress or not makes no difference, but it's also a desire to protect actual trans people.
Who are, you know, transitioning.
Think about the inherent conundrum in how this law is now going to be enacted.
You could have somebody who is not transitioning, but claim that they're a certain gender, and you can't tell them, you have an expectation of how a gender is supposed to appear because gender doesn't exist.
Therefore, someone's gender expression could be them walking around naked, hypothetically.
It could be them walking around dressed up like Winnie the Pooh.
And you can't tell them yes or no because the law specifically outlines you cannot discriminate based on the clothes they wear, what they call themselves.
Someone could literally call themselves Winnie the Pooh and say their pooh gender, and you must adhere to it.
Now, again, I've mentioned this before because I talked to a lawyer about it, and they said a judge would laugh it out of the courtroom.
How?
What gives the judge the right to determine gender or offense?
How do you know if it's in hate?
Look, they say, if it's motivated by hate.
How do you know it's motivated by hate?
So you're saying, if I'm at Starbucks, and someone says I'd like to buy coffee, and I'd say, well that's great, you illegal alien.
And then you go and do it, are you gonna get in trouble for that?
But there's no hate, right?
Let's read a little more.
A store owner tells two friends who are speaking Thai while shopping in his store to speak English and go back to your country, reads a third.
Okay, what about the first one, speak English?
If people are walking around in your store and they're whispering and muttering to each other, you say, hey, hey, hey, I don't know what you're talking about.
That's shady business.
That's okay.
But if they're talking about something in a different language, obfuscating what they're saying... Look, I get it.
It's complicated, right?
I think for the most part, no one's going to care if you're walking around speaking whatever language you want.
But in the instance of hotel housekeepers being told that you can't tell them to speak English, that's shocking to me.
Because guests won't know what they're saying.
Like, think about if the housekeeper went to them and said, you know, like, I don't know how to say anything in Spanish.
I can't speak enough Spanish to actually say something a housekeeper would say.
But let's say the housekeeper said something in Spanish like, do you want me to change the garbage bag?
And the person says, I don't speak Spanish.
And then they walk away and don't clean it.
Then the guest calls and says, what's going on?
They didn't clean up.
So what?
The manager can't say, hey, can you speak to them in English next time?
That's a hate crime.
I don't understand what they think they're trying to accomplish with these insane laws.
In the face of increasingly hostile national rhetoric, we will do everything in our power to make sure our treasured immigrant communities are able to live with dignity and respect, free from harassment and bias, said Carmelin Malalas, the agency's commissioner.
The directive comes months after Mayor Bill de Blasio vocally opposed coordinated raids by ICE.
Meanwhile, on Thursday, the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs announced a joint $1 million investment with the state to guarantee legal services to immigrants facing imminent deportation.
Okay.
Now, I just want to mainly debunk that people seem to think if you as an individual do this, you'll get in trouble.
You won't.
However, this stuff still puts it in the realm of hate crimes, depending on what else you do.
But here's the bigger issue.
It's an erosion.
If businesses can't say, we don't serve non-citizens, if hotels can't say, please speak English for English-speaking guests, then slowly over time, they are doing more and more to accommodate those who are not citizens to this country.
There's going to be a backlash, I assure you.
People of New York will not accept it.
But I gotta admit, you know, it is an increasing problem.
Think about this.
An illegal immigrant comes to the U.S.
and has a child.
You know, 18 years later, that child, now an American citizen, wants to protect their parents and votes for policies that protect non-citizens.
It's just that obvious.
While I believe in protecting people, you can't have a country if you're eroding the borders and letting anybody come all the time.
The U.S.
does great things for immigrants.
Look, New York City is doing this big legal fund to protect them from deportation.
But it's going too far.
It's going too far because it wasn't stopped in the first place.
And it's going to get worse.
It's going to take away your benefits.
And everyone's, you know, I get really annoyed when people say, why is Tim blaming the poor refugees?
I'm not.
I'm simply pointing out there's only so much food.
There's only so much healthcare.
There's only so much a road can handle.
And if you let every single person come, it all collapses and everyone is worse off.
That means we need to control the flow of immigration.
So, I'm not throwing shade at illegal aliens, but how absurd, how absurd can it get?
How much more absurd can it get?
It's absurd, okay?
It's not as absurd as everybody's making it out to be.
But this is one more step towards cities outright saying open borders.
If you're coming to the US, just come here legally and come to New York City and you'll be fine.
Because we will legally, we will fine people a quarter million dollars if they insult you, and we will pay your legal fees to make sure the federal government can't stop you.
That is getting nuts.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10am, podcast at 6.30.
