Hillary Clinton Set For MAJOR Comeback, Escalates Rumors Of A 2020 Democratic Run Against Trump
Hillary Clinton Set For MAJOR Comeback, Escalates Rumors Of A 2020 Democratic Run Against Trump. With a major press tour underway the rumors have begun escalating. While before it was silly chatter we are now seeing betting pools start to spike and betting house experts and even Steve Bannon are saying Hillary is preparing to enter the 2020 race on the democrat side.While this is still just silly rumor and speculation it won't see to stop. In November of last year a former Clinton aide said she would run again and with Clinton's recent statements in the press about Trump is really seems like she is after him. She seems to be focusing more on Trump scandals than her book making several references to Ukraine and Joe Biden.People believe that because the democrats have moved so far left the only way to win is to centralize around Hillary in 2020. The democratic 2020 line up is fractured and weak sparking even more rumors that it could be Bloomberg entering the race against Trump.But in reality it may just be that she has a new book out and she really dislikes the president.Sometimes the simple solutions are the correct ones
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Why yes, Hillary Clinton has been doing a press tour and story after story has emerged.
More stories than I've seen for any subject in a long time.
All of this positive coverage and praise of Hillary Clinton.
And I have to wonder why.
Now, it could just be that she's promoting her new book.
And that really does make the most sense.
But because of the press tour, and more importantly, because she is specifically entering the political fray targeting Trump over the Ukraine scandal, people believe she's trying to find her way into the 2020 race.
See, here's the thing.
I've said it.
You've probably thought it.
The Democratic field is weak.
There are some candidates I like more than others, fine.
But for the most part, I really don't think any of them are going to have a chance to beat Donald Trump.
And you also have to consider that Trump got elected, when Trump got elected, he was less favorable than he is today.
Taking a look at the RealClearPolitics average of Trump favorability, it's higher.
And even the New York Times has recognized that Trump's base is larger today.
So I think it'll be very difficult for anyone, even Hillary Clinton, to win.
But I gotta admit, Hillary Clinton, in many ways, would be a lot stronger than anyone else they have.
Not strong enough, let's be real.
She couldn't win in 2016, she won't win now.
Well, actually, let me rephrase that.
She could have won.
But she campaigned poorly.
So now they're talking about how Trump is illegitimate, they're accusing him of all these things.
Here's what I really think.
I think Democrats know the leftward lurch of the party, of the activists of the party, is poisoning their message or their party to moderates.
And so the only thing they can campaign on that's going to attract everyone on the Democratic side is scandal.
And it's not my opinion.
I talked about this the other day.
What Democrats could lose with their left turn.
The New York Times straight up says that when independents learn of the leftward push by the Democrats, they are 6 percentage points less likely to say they would vote Democrat.
So along comes Hillary Clinton's big comeback.
Many people have said Hillary Clinton is a centrist.
Well, kind of.
She's a corporate crony, but sure, she's fairly centrist.
I really hate saying it like that because it kind of poisons centrist.
But Hillary Clinton isn't far left.
She's not one of these hardcore progressives.
And the far left calls her a Republican.
And a lot of people don't like her calling her a Republican anyway.
But here's the idea.
With the weakness displayed by the Democrats, she now finds this opportunity to come up in the press, and here's what I think will happen.
She's gonna step up after someone drops out, maybe Biden, and she says something like, I didn't want to, but I feel I have no choice.
More importantly, we may see calls from high-profile Democrats begging her to do it.
People start emerging on Twitter saying, we need you, we need you now, you must win.
And then she comes back.
Now, I don't think that's the case, and most people don't think that will be the case.
I'm just entertaining what may be happening and why.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to read through some of these stories about her big comeback and all the rumors that are emerging in some statements, but I also want to show you the positive press attention that everyone is giving her over this Ukraine scandal and her statements.
It makes you wonder why it's not so much about her book.
She is not talking about her book in these stories.
She's talking about Trump and the presidency and scandals.
Makes you think.
But there could be reasons for it.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is just share this video.
You know, I'm competing against CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and YouTube is playing weird games that are hard to predict.
The latest data, it appears this channel is actually being upranked.
I don't know why.
It could be because my content is better, or it could be because YouTube has deemed me acceptable.
I have no idea.
But the fact of the matter is, I'm still going up against MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, who are upranked substantially more than this channel.
Admittedly, my second channel was hard deranked.
Fine.
But if you like my content, regardless of what's going on in that YouTube space, just share this video to help support my work.
The Washington Times says, Media attention will intensify on Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.
The former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and Democratic presidential candidate is ready for another round in the public arena.
She has a new book arriving, written with the help of a very close relative.
Behold, here comes, quote, the book of gutsy women.
Favorite stories of courage and resilience.
All 464 pages of it.
That's a lot of pages.
That's pretty impressive.
Indeed, the new book of essays now landing on the shelves is written by Mrs. Clinton and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, is published by Simon & Schuster.
Some informed observers speculate the book could be yet another indicator, along with increased public appearances and commentary, that Mrs. Clinton pines for a political comeback.
What kind of comeback?
Oh, maybe the bumper stickers will read Biden-Clinton 2020, Warren-Clinton 2020, or even Clinton-Clinton 2020.
Who the heck knows?
I doubt it.
We're on the political street now.
Is the rumbling that the impeachment probe launched by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be the crack that opens the door for another presidential run by Hillary Clinton?
This time, the thinking goes, Hillary would be running with vindication that the 2016 election was stolen from her and she can ascend in 2020 to reclaim the mantle for her party and the majority of the country that voted for her, write Nate Ashworth, editor-in-chief of Election Central.
Clinton's sallies against Trump raise a key question.
Is she gunning for a rematch in 2020?
Asks the national interest.
Indeed, Mrs. Clinton certainly sounds like a candidate backing the impeachment inquiry against President Trump with gusto.
Now I'll stop there.
You get the point.
A lot of people are writing about how they think this is the case.
But let me just stop and kind of be rational for a second.
I think the simple solution is that Hillary Clinton wrote a book, and she's going to do whatever she can to sell that book.
And the impeachment?
That's the perfect time to promote your book!
So is she going to run?
Well, actually, most people don't think so.
Over at the prediction market of Predict It, they say, will Hillary Clinton run for president in 2020?
And the latest yes price, as of right now, is only 17 cents.
Meaning, you're not gonna win a lot.
It's a low percentage.
People don't think she's gonna run.
Most people.
Let me rephrase.
A lot of people think she will run.
But most people don't.
However, I want to stress, this rumor hasn't stopped because while Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called Trump illegitimate, she's said the election was stolen from her, she's refused to let it go.
Apparently there was some exhibit in Italy or something about her emails, fact check me on this one because I don't have it pulled up, where she sat at the Resolute desk with her emails or something like that.
I think they make a great point.
With impeachment, Hillary Clinton will now step up and say, this was stolen from me and the impeachment proves it.
Trump worked with these countries in Russia and Ukraine and did all these corrupt things.
That's why you must vote for me.
Will she win?
I don't think so.
I mean, I don't think Trump will be impeached.
Well, actually, no.
I think Trump might be impeached at this point.
It's important to realize impeachment doesn't mean removed from office.
Impeachment is essentially indicted.
And then whether or not he gets convicted by the Senate, that'll never happen.
I mean, I'd be surprised if it would.
But in the end, Trump can run for re-election.
My understanding is, no matter what happens, he can run for re-election.
So will Trump beat Hillary?
I gotta say, I think the answer is, yeah.
If she couldn't win in 2016, and Trump is more favorable now, why would he lose?
She can complain all day and night, but I gotta admit, it sounds like she's a sore loser.
The only way I think she could actually re-enter the race is if a bunch of high-profile leftists
started saying things like, the Democratic field is too weak, we need Hillary Clinton,
Hillary, please run, and then Hillary will do something like, no, I couldn't, I couldn't,
and then finally, okay, the people have called on me, I must.
Here's the thing.
Right now, Trump is losing in the polls to most candidates.
In which case, there's no reason for that to happen.
Unless, or until, Joe Biden is forced out of the race because of the Ukraine scandal.
Why?
That's actually what some individuals think.
Now, first, this is from the Daily Mail.
Is Hillary about to run again?
I just want to show you the rumors there.
Daily Mail writing about it.
But here's the bigger one.
Steve Bannon.
Hillary Clinton is running again and trying to decide how to fit her way in.
Amazing.
I'm not going to say Steve Bannon is right, but Steve Bannon did help Trump win.
I think his insight, whether you like the guy or not, is important because he knows Trump's base.
He helped the president win the election.
So if he's looking at this, and this is his view, I'd take it very seriously.
In the story from The Examiner, they say, Steve Bannon said Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2020.
Bannon, who was the chief executive of President Trump's campaign in the final stretch of the 2016 election, said the Democrats fear they have poor candidates this cycle, and with the House impeachment inquiry underway, are attempting to nullify the election.
They think they have a weak field and they're, it's like chess, they're prepared to sacrifice a rook to take down a king.
They will throw Joe Biden away to get to Trump and hope Elizabeth Warren or I even think Hillary Clinton or Michael Bloomberg or some centrist comes in here.
Bannon said Monday on Fox Business.
Now hold on.
Why should we believe it would be Hillary Clinton?
It could be Bloomberg.
Warren's doing really well, right?
Fine.
Maybe it won't be Hillary, but I will stress, I think they're going to sacrifice Joe Biden.
He's not strong enough.
I'm not trying to be mean, but it seems like his teeth are slipping when he talks.
He slurs.
And now he's embroiled in the scandal.
The perfect out to remove him and bring in someone else.
Elizabeth Warren is not so much a centrist.
She's fairly progressive.
She's just not as far left as the rest of them.
But as we saw in this story from the New York Times, independents are soured by the far left.
And the Democrats, I assure you, are paying attention to this.
They tried walking back a lot of the statements they made in those debates.
Think about when, I believe it was Kamala Harris who raised her hand for abolishing private health insurance.
I could be wrong, could be wrong.
And then later clarified, oh no, no, that was a mistake.
Think about the story from the AP where Union Democrats were saying they're going to vote for Trump.
Or CNN's story about how a Democratic stronghold was flipping for Trump.
They get it.
Here's the thing.
Their policy positions to contrast Trump have gone too far.
And the independents are put off by it.
So what do they do?
Scandals.
Focus on the scandals.
Well, let's read a little bit more.
Bannon, who also served as White House chief strategist, said Clinton is doing a whole thing this week, going on tour with her daughter Chelsea to promote their new book Gutsy Women and calling Trump an illegitimate president.
She's running.
She's just trying to decide how they're going to fit her way in.
Clinton, 71, has said she will not attempt a third run for president, but also stressed she would be a vocal presence as Trump seeks re-election.
I'm going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe, she said in March.
And I think that is the fairest assessment.
Listen.
She's mad at Trump.
She's mad she lost.
So she's smack talking him.
And she's selling a book and making money while she does it.
I think that's where we are.
That's the sane and rational position to take.
But I also want to stress some of the other rumors.
See, back when she did say this, she didn't say she would not attempt a third run.
That is not what she said.
She said, I'm not running.
You see?
That's very interesting.
I'm not running.
Oh, let's dig into it.
And this is not my opinion.
I am not a fan of conspiracies.
But what a lot of people started saying was that I'm not running meant she was literally at that time not running.
She never said she wouldn't run.
Get it?
Semantics.
So here's the thing, okay?
Let's talk about the idea of whether or not she's promoting a book or running for office.
Maybe she hates Trump.
That explains a lot.
But here's the thing.
In this story, Hillary Clinton says Trump's behavior was embarrassing, if not illegal and impeachable.
Here's one story.
Here's another one.
Hillary Clinton may run for president again.
Experts believe as she suddenly launches new campaign against corrupt human tornado.
Here's another story of her targeting Trump and this one actually references she may run again.
Here's a story.
Hillary Clinton promotes another book, criticizes Pompeo.
Okay, okay.
Here she is, once again, criticizing politics.
She's not talking about gutsy women.
I mean, maybe in these shows, she really is.
But I'm talking about the press.
All of the press is highlighting her attacks on Trump.
It may just be the Trump bump.
But why is she attacking Trump in the first place?
It plays well, for her as well as anyone else.
It sells books.
But I'd imagine a lot of the stories would be about the content of gutsy women.
Not the president?
Man, well, the Trump bump is real.
People like talking about Trump, so there you go.
How about this story?
Hillary Clinton carefully thinking through not one of Giuliani's strong points.
Once again, targeting Trump.
I can go on, man.
Trump is illegitimate.
Here's one.
It says Hillary Clinton slams Pompeo over the conversation with Ukraine.
Here's where she... Rudy Giuliani... Wait, what is this one?
This is the wrong story.
This is Giuliani slamming Biden.
I put the one on there on accident.
We'll talk about this later today.
Hillary Clinton.
Gutsiest thing I've ever done was stay in my marriage.
Now.
Publicly, politically, run for president, she added.
And keep going.
Just get up every day and keep going.
See, there are stories about her book.
This is her about her marriage.
However, I'm gonna play the game.
Perhaps her addressing staying in her marriage is another political play.
If she does end up running, as many people are speculating, and again, I don't think will be the case, but if it is, she needs to address Bill Clinton's impropriety, especially as it pertains to the things Joe Biden has been accused of.
Now, there was a story recently that Hillary Clinton was defending Joe Biden.
Actually, I have that story.
I do.
Here it is.
Hillary Clinton defends Joe Biden after controversy about how he interacts with women and girls get over it.
Now, I questioned, if she was going to run, why would she target Joe Biden?
I'm sorry, why would she defend Joe Biden and not target him and say, you know, oh, you know, Joe, what you did is wrong?
Well, there's a couple reasons.
She can't outright attack Biden.
She's got to defend the party.
But this plays really well into the narrative about her husband, Bill Clinton, who is a... I'll just call him a pervert, I guess, to say the least.
Predator, maybe?
Here's the thing.
There's a lot of negative press about Bill Clinton, the things he's done, and the woman he has abused, to say the least.
Hillary Clinton.
The gutsiest thing she's ever done is stay in her marriage, and get over it, it's just no big deal what Joe Biden did.
She is downplaying these MeToo accusations.
And it makes sense, if she's gonna enter the race, and she has to make sure she can push back on claims about what her husband did.
But here's the other thing, too.
It's getting now into—you know, when we talk about civil war, I guess, I think the cold civil war is going on between the Democrats and the Republicans, with intelligence people loyal to the president—I'm sorry, loyal to Clinton, and many others who aren't.
And so now we see how this whole fight is evolving.
Is Hillary Clinton, or any of the Democrats, going to start talking about Trump's policies?
I really don't think so.
As I mentioned earlier in this video, they realize their policies are poison.
Trump is playing to the moderates.
Or at the very least, the Democrats aren't.
So what's their best bet?
With the Democrats continuing to fracture between far-left and moderate, How does Hillary Clinton attract those progressives who don't like her?
She needs to focus on getting rid of Trump.
You will hear this message over and over and over again.
If in the event Hillary Clinton runs, people are going to say, stop being lazy.
Just accept it.
Hillary is better than Trump.
That's what they will say.
This is the game that has to be played.
Oh, you know, we'll win next time.
But trust me, just do this now.
And that's what'll happen.
They'll say you have to accept Hillary, but Hillary won't talk policy much.
She'll talk scandal.
Hillary Clinton says, really dangerous for Trump to try to out the whistleblower.
That's right.
Hillary Clinton's criticisms are all about scandals.
If she enters the race, it will be to claim Trump is either illegitimate, has done illegal things, and is corrupt, and must be stopped.
And there will be very little conversation about her policies.
And I'd like to prove it to you.
You see how the narrative has flipped?
From the slate.
Hillary Clinton's emails are now a Trump scandal.
You see?
They're not going to talk about her wrongdoing.
The media is praising and defending her.
Not all the media, but a lot of them.
They're not going to talk about Trump's plans or policies.
They're going to try and flip the script.
And here we can see it happening.
As of yesterday, Hillary Clinton's emails are a Trump scandal.
Well, there it is.
You see how they're playing the game.
They're trying to make sure that whatever scandals hurt Hillary flip onto Trump, and then when Hillary runs again, she can win those margins she lost.
Now, Hillary lost in the Electoral College by a large number.
I think what, Trump got like 306 electoral votes?
Substantial, over 70 or so.
But she did win the popular vote.
She needs to win the Rust Belt states, and I gotta admit, I don't think she can.
I'm not entirely sure.
Biden might be able to.
That's what Bill Maher said.
Bill Maher said, Interesting point.
want Joe Biden to be president, not really, but is the only one who beats Trump in Ohio.
Interesting point.
But what happens when Joe Biden gets knocked out over this scandal?
We can see now, from Pluralist, State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe, looking
into 130 current and former officials.
And this is why I think we see this story from Slate.
They're saying it's Trump's problem.
It's a Trump scandal.
Oh, Trump is trying to undermine the election.
But why?
Why would this be bad for Hillary?
She's not running.
You see where we're going?
Again, I don't think she's gonna run, but come on, boy.
Is the circumstantial, conspiratorial thread-pulling so interesting?
Trump going after Hillary, and they're saying it's a Trump scandal?
It almost sounds like Trump is preempting this.
No, no, no, maybe it's about Biden.
See, Trump reached out to Ukraine to ask them about CrowdStrike in 2016.
The Joe Biden thing was unrelated to the 2020 election.
They're making it so.
But in the end, this might hurt Trump and Joe Biden.
And maybe that's something they're okay with.
If they can flip the scandal onto Biden and Trump and throw them both under the bus, someone like Clinton can emerge.
But let's be real.
I don't think Elizabeth Warren can beat Trump in a debate on that stage.
She won't look strong enough.
So what happens, I honestly don't know.
And I want to make sure I stress for the millionth time, it's just a fun idea.
It's interesting that people believe it's going to happen.
It's interesting there are experts, or at least according to The Sun, experts believe she may run again.
Maybe.
Maybe.
She has said all of these things.
She's insulted him.
But who are these supposed experts?
So they're specifically referring to bookmaker Ladbrokes, who has seen the odds of Clinton running in the 2020 race rise 20 to 1.
Matthew Shattuck, head of political betting at Ladbrokes, told Newsweek, we're baffled, to be honest.
We've taken more bets on her to be the Democratic candidate than any of the other runners.
It's just one more betting pool, like I showed you earlier.
But what does it mean?
It means the idea is funny to entertain, but does it mean a whole lot?
Right now, there is a bunch of controversy surrounding Bill Barr and Trump and digging into 2016.
But maybe this big push against Trump has more to do with Trump pushing back on the 2016 Ukraine election interference, pushing back on the Democrats who accuse him of being a Russian agent.
Trump's going on the offensive, it would seem.
Now, I'll cover this in a segment later today at 6pm, but I'll just basically get to the point.
Maybe Hillary Clinton really isn't running.
Maybe what's actually happening is she's going on the offensive because Trump is reaching out to Australia, Ukraine, these other countries.
I'm sorry, it was Australia that reached out to them.
Because they're offering assistance into the election interference that the Democrats did.
This was reported by Politico, that Ukraine was trying to help Hillary Clinton by digging up dirt on Trump's people.
So maybe that's the real issue.
Not that they want to run against Trump, that Hillary wants to beat him.
But they have to do everything in their power to delegitimize him and stop him.
From going after Hillary and the other Democrats.
Maybe that's why she's in the press.
Because Trump is now investigating.
Trump talked to Australia about origins of Russia probe.
Media tries to frame it as a scandal.
Why would they try to frame it as a scandal?
I really wonder.
I think in the end, it's not about Hillary Clinton running.
I think it's more to do with Hillary's ties to Ukraine, as we see the story in the Wall Street Journal.
A letter released Monday raises questions beyond the Bidens.
Maybe that's why she's out and fighting.
Because if she sits back, this will all fire back on her.
And be massively detrimental for the Democrats.
But I can't tell you for sure.
The crux of the story is she's gonna run.
No, I think it's about the political scandals.
At the end of the day, I don't think she's gonna run.
I think it's about her protecting herself because Trump is digging in.
They're investigating.
You got Bill Barr and Giuliani.
You got Trump's private attorney and you've got the Attorney General.
What this means, I don't know, but boy, does it look like we're watching a great battle in the skies between juggernauts.
Trump is investigating what they've done, and they're trying to shut him down.
So we'll see what happens.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m., and I'll see you all there.
Major breaking news in the Hong Kong story.
A police officer fired a round, live round, point-blank, into the chest of a protester.
Now, I understand this thing's, it's contentious.
Some people are saying they were hitting the cops, the cops are defending themselves.
I'm gonna talk to you about what happened first.
We can talk about the ethics and the escalation.
And that's what I really want to get into.
After the live round is fired into this man's chest, he is bleeding.
Reports say it's not life-threatening.
But then the protesters throw Molotov cocktails.
There have been petrol bombs.
There has been violence.
And the protesters have attacked people.
And the police previously fired warning shots, sparking fears that this is exactly what's going to happen.
So here's the story from the BBC.
China anniversary.
Hong Kong protesters shot by live round.
Now here's the thing.
I have this video pulled up, which it's really hard to make out at any rate exactly what's happening, but I'm going to show you right here.
Yeah, for those that are listening, I'll just describe it.
We can see this officer here on the right of the video with his arm extended.
He's holding what I believe is the standard, the police issue revolver we've seen in photos.
So I have another, well, so I'll just explain this.
You can see this man right here in front of him.
With a shield and a stick.
You hear the bang, and then people start to run.
This guy falls down, and later in the video you can see him with blood on his chest.
I can't show that, this is YouTube.
But I do have the tweet- the video is up on my YouTube channel- I'm sorry, on my Twitter account.
Uh, Twitter.com slash Timcast.
Uh, but I'm sure you can find it in other places.
I'm sure other people can post to YouTube.
I can't.
I have intense scrutiny on me by YouTube.
If I show an image of blood and gore, I can get in trouble on the channel, so... But we've seen these photos.
This is a photo from August 26th.
The Hong Kong police, they're holding their... I believe they have a standard-issue revolver, because they all tend to be holding the same guns.
Trump's between a rock and a hard place, I gotta admit.
fire warning shot during night of violent clashes with protesters.
So it's China's anniversary.
Donald Trump has just tweeted, you know, great, you know, good on you China or whatever.
And a lot of people are a bit concerned that it's kind of a, you know, I, I, Trump's between
a rock and a hard place.
I got to admit, Trump is trying to, uh, uh, there's a trade war.
There's a lot of issues with China, to put it simply, and Trump has to maintain positive relations in the face of all of the negativity.
Now, the protesters in Hong Kong, they're democracy protesters.
They've gotten violent.
Police have responded by escalating the violence with live bullets.
We're getting now to the point where you will see people throwing Molotov cocktails at cops, police firing warning shots, and then escalate to the point where they retaliate with live rounds.
Tell me which is right.
I don't know.
You know, when you have a circumstance where it's peaceful protesters with umbrellas and the cops come in with weapons and start beating people, it's fairly clear who's in the wrong.
The people have a right in any country, anywhere, to challenge the government, to challenge the systems that tried to put them in place.
That is a human right, at least in my book.
People have a right to dissent.
Well, it escalates to a certain point.
Protesters begin fighting back.
They say, well, they have no choice.
It's often what we hear in the U.S., and it's hard to know where that line is.
You see some of these protests in the U.S.
recently.
The problem with this, they're not protesting the government, you know, the Antifa types.
They're protesting people, citizens.
And they're not protesting against authority.
They're imposing their will on others.
It's very, very different.
You know, during something like Occupy Wall Street, I don't think you had necessarily the critical mass, and you didn't necessarily have as much violence.
So, when the police come out and intimidate, threaten, and shut down protesters, well, at a certain point, you have to figure out, which side are you on?
And the protesters like singing that song, which side are you on?
And it's funny, because whenever I hear the protesters sing that in the US, my response is just in my head, I'm like, not yours.
The police are clearly not in agreement with whatever it is you're trying to do.
How do you not realize that?
They don't care about your side and what you believe.
The reason this is different, and why I reference what happened in the US, is that we're at a point now where there are a million plus people who have been protesting consistently.
And the violence has escalated.
The people of Hong Kong are not armed.
In the sense, they don't have firearms.
They do have sticks and shields.
They do have Molotov cocktails.
So they do have weapons.
I guess technically to say they're armed, but I mean to say they don't have firearms like the police do.
What do you do?
Who's right?
If you're protesting against Communist China and the police are shutting you down and they're beating you, what do you do?
Do you push back?
Do you give in?
Do you throw Molotov cocktails?
I honestly can't tell you what the right answer is because there's a line.
There really, really is.
If the police are coming out and oppressing you and telling you you can or can't, that their will is law and dissent will not be tolerated, well then I say, screw you.
At a certain point, when the police are beating people, people show up with sticks and shields.
And then police retaliate by escalating.
And I don't know what the solution is.
Escalation is, you know, when it's something clear-cut, like a criminal.
You know, the cops come out with guns, so the criminals wear body armor.
Yeah, we understand why that's wrong and it's dangerous, and something needs to be done to figure out how to de-escalate that.
But in this instance, can you fault the protesters for resisting the Communist Party of China?
The answer is, Well, I should say first, for the most part, your opinion, I honestly don't know.
For me, I say, screw the Chinese Communist Party, right?
That's gonna get me in trouble, sure, but I don't plan on going to China anytime soon, I guess.
No, but I mean, look, it's a challenge for a few reasons, and I can't say who's right or wrong.
I can't say I'm not gonna ever, ever say anything nice about the Communist Party of China.
But the protesters have won.
So here's the thing.
This is what usually happens with these protests.
The morality of these situations is murky, difficult, and I would prefer not to align with anyone.
I will stress that the protesters have been using Pepe and waving American flags and British flags, singing the American anthem and things like that, because they believe in freedom, because they're a former colony of Great Britain, of the UK, I think.
And now that authority's been handed over to China, China's trying to impose their will over Hong Kong, which is resisting.
So, let me stress, too, I am far from an expert on what's happening.
But here's the thing.
This was caused by the proposal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Bill of 2019, alleged misconduct by the Hong Kong police force against protesters.
This started because of an extradition bill.
They protested.
Police beat people.
Then they protested more.
They also say in Wikipedia it was the failure of the 2014 Umbrella Revolution.
So here's the thing.
We see this so much with protests.
The government will say, hey, we're going to do X. The protesters say, don't do X. The government resists.
After a month of protests, the government backs down and the protesters refuse to stop now making more demands.
And that's the big challenge.
At what point do you say, you won?
You've won.
The extradition bill's out.
What more do you want?
Well, now they want this.
Full withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process.
Retraction of the characterization of the protests as riots.
Release and exoneration of arrested protesters.
Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police behavior.
Universal suffrage for legislative council and chief executive elections.
Resignation of Carrie Lam.
Now here's the thing.
These demands are almost the same we see with the protests in the United States.
And this is why things are rather tricky.
When the protesters came out and beat a journalist, I don't know, look, it's complicated, I don't know all the details, but we've seen people stomped and beaten by the protesters.
And that's wrong.
It's absolutely wrong.
The police firing around point-blank into someone's chest is as wrong as you can get.
I get it.
They were beaten.
They were thrown Molotov cocktails.
But live ammunition is not necessary.
And boy, was that a huge mistake.
I assure you, this shot to the chest is going to... It could potentially be that shot heard around the world.
A protester, pushing back against police with sticks and batons, and the police also have their sticks, and he got shot in the chest.
Listen, I see people tweeting that, yeah, but they're throwing Molotov cocktails, what are the police supposed to do?
And the answer is...
Not shoot somebody in the chest.
It's that simple.
This is why we use less lethal ammunition in the United States.
We have beanbags.
We have rubber bullets.
Because they're effective.
And they can stop people.
They can seriously injure and potentially even kill people.
But they're much less likely to.
I don't see why these cops have to have live ammunition.
Go ahead and argue.
I just don't see it.
It's interesting.
It's really, really interesting to see that there's more conservatives in support of this.
And this says to me that a lot of what's happening is really about tribe.
The Communist Party of China has a lot of support from the far left.
I kid you not.
I've seen it on Twitter.
These articles popping up.
These activists defending them.
In the last video I did about Hong Kong, I showed you posts from Facebook where people are saying, because Tim Pool supports the protests, I support the communists or whatever.
It's like, But then you also have actual, excuse me, communists in the U.S.
who are now looking at China and just offending the government, what they're doing.
And it's so weird to see the left use the same arguments the right does to defend the police.
This is why I don't care for tribes.
In reality, people are just going to choose who they trust.
And what am I supposed to tell you?
Where's the morality?
I don't know.
I don't know for you.
I can say don't shoot someone in the chest with live ammunition, that's a fair shot.
Don't throw a Molotov cocktail at police, that's fair too.
I understand showing up with sticks and shields when the police are beating you.
But at a certain point, you have to ask the question.
A lot of people on the right like to talk about how we need the Second Amendment to push back against government tyranny.
Would you respond in kind if you saw police shooting someone in the chest?
I think the answer is an overwhelming no.
You wouldn't.
It's a very, very complicated situation.
It's very political.
I do not see a circumstance, for the most part, where American citizens take up arms against the government for any reason.
Seriously.
I mean, there's the extreme extreme case where you get these stormtrooper soldiers marching through the streets and just like, you know, executing kids or something.
But I'm talking about like in the realm of real life.
Imagine these protests break out with a million people in big cities and the cops are fighting.
Do you think that, you know, a right-winger would take up arms against a cop who's defending himself against Antifa?
It would never happen.
It would never happen.
I suppose, though, if you saw a bunch of people protesting, you know, some kind of government overreach, and it was, you know, American national anthem-singing individuals pushing back against communists, you'd see it.
So that's the point, right?
Whether or not someone is right or wrong in their use of force really comes down to whether you see a greater good at the end of the tunnel.
It's what makes all of this so damn complicated.
So the people on the left who support communism, they're saying these people are right-wing trolls, far-right, white supremacists.
I kid you not, that's what they're saying.
And so they're saying they must be opposed at all costs.
They show up outside, they say, you know, punch people in the face.
The inverse is the communist government of China pushing back on the protesters.
It's a really, really weird situation.
I think the morality just comes down to what you think is the moral ideology.
Freedom.
Communism.
I think communism is really, really bad.
It's oppressive, as we are seeing.
And when you look to the U.S., I gotta say, based on what China does with the Great Firewall and restrictions of rights, and the Uyghur Muslim camps where they're rounding up people based on their religion and calling them a disease and putting them in camps, I'm gonna go ahead and have to say communism is bad, has always been bad, and before you go on to say that real communism has never been tried, You're right.
You're absolutely right.
I will give the communists that.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain tweeted this.
I gotta restart.
I said it wrong.
They said, Communism has never existed.
Socialism has never existed.
Okay.
They say, that wasn't real communism, we gotta try again.
Okay, you're right.
You're absolutely right.
It's just that, you know, every single time someone tries communism, you see things like this.
You see, you know, camps where people are being rounded up by the millions for their religion or ideas, or they're being gulagged.
And China is doing that.
So here's what I gotta say.
Which side would I likely fall on in this conflict?
The protesters against the authoritarian government of communist China that locks people in camps, re-education centers, and calls them diseases?
Yeah, so to the left that's defending China in all this.
I gotta say, I question your morality and your principles.
Because at the end of the day, I believe in freedom.
And that means the freedom to protest, not the freedom to throw Molotov cocktails.
That's true for Antifa, that's true for the left.
Anybody who wants to give Donald Trump the finger and say whatever they want about him, congratulations, you live in America and you are allowed to.
But China's doing something different.
I'd be willing to bet the left will say something to the effect of, but Tim, what about the concentration camps on the border?
Oh please, stop.
I'm not going to play these silly semantic games with you.
The immigration detention centers are not concentration camps.
These people are choosing to come to the U.S.
and we're telling them no.
It's that simple.
Do I agree with the conditions?
Of course not.
Do I think we should do better to fix them and make them nice?
Absolutely.
Some of them are nice, some of them are not nice.
It's a complicated situation.
But you know, we're trying.
America is one of the freest, wealthiest, safest, and most egalitarian societies in the world, if not the.
How about China?
Well, in China, if you happen to be a Muslim, they lock you in a camp.
Okay, there's a big difference.
Donald Trump is not going door-to-door to snatch up, you know, Muslims and lock them up.
Now they'll come and say, but what about illegal immigrants?
Yes, my point remains.
You are being arrested for breaking the law By being here, you know, in violation of our law, and you're going to jail.
There's a big difference between, hey, you did a thing you weren't allowed to do, and that guy believes something, snatch him and lock him up.
I admit, I'm not a big fan of private prisons.
I detest them.
I think they should not be allowed.
I think we need oversight panels.
And yes, it will be very difficult to solve this problem.
But we should not have a profit motive behind rehabilitation, detention, removal, etc.
If somebody breaks the law, you get arrested.
Not all laws are just.
The left will argue that these people have a right to be here, it's indigenous land, whatever.
Fine.
Okay?
The problem is, we live in a society.
And that means that there are laws that, while you may find them unjust, those laws must be challenged if that's the case.
And in the end, as our system works, when you protest, you get arrested.
And as I was told by protesters growing up, it is a badge of honor to have that conviction for some protest action for civil disobedience.
Even Bernie Sanders was arrested fighting for civil rights and he won, and the laws were changed, and the Supreme Court made rulings, and I am very grateful to those who fought.
The point is, for now, we recognize that we're figuring things out.
If somebody's going to come to this country by choice, So let me put it this way.
People are coming to the US.
They are being told straight up, if you come here, you will be arrested and you will be sent to a jail, a detention center.
And they choose to come anyway.
People in China, on the other hand, are minding their own business and living their lives
and being essentially kidnapped by police and brought to camps.
There's a difference.
It's complicated.
It really is.
You know, when it comes to right and wrong, sometimes it's not so simple, and that's why
we have judges.
That's why we have this brilliant and beautiful system of English common law.
It really is amazing.
The, you know, the protecting the innocent.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffers.
It means we're not perfect.
And it means we're trying to figure out the right way to do things.
And it means not all laws are just, and not all circumstances are just, and therefore judges can sort things out.
It means that sometimes judges play by the letter of the law, even though they shouldn't and they should be more lenient, and that to me is a corruption of the system and it's getting dangerous.
But there was one story I saw recently that was very heartwarming where an old man, essentially,
was speeding or something, and he told the judge that he was rushing his wife to the
hospital and the judge just smiled and said, you're a good husband, we're dismissing the
ticket.
And it was that human interaction of the judge understanding.
I get it.
You know, we'll let this one slide.
So we need to make sure we retain that human element and it's being lost and it is kind
of worrying.
But in the end, the main point here, because I'm not going to ramble much longer.
It's going to get worse.
You have to understand, taking a bullet to the chest is going to incite the protesters to carry on.
I fully imagine there will be people on the right in this country who are now going to start talking about the threats and the danger of the Communist Party.
I gotta admit, with the Uyghur Muslim detention camps, with the cop now shooting somebody in the chest, I think it's a fair point.
I think if you're gonna defend this government and their actions, you're gonna be in for a rude awakening.
I mean, these people, what they're doing in these camps is nightmarish.
And I was actually a bit inspired when I saw someone on the left, like a far lefty, say, we all said never again, and look what's happening in China.
And I'm like, yes, there you go.
When they talk about the U.S.
saying never again, I say, oh please, they're choosing to come here, man.
And they're hoping they make it through.
And these detention centers, some of them are relatively nice.
It's not perfect.
The system has problems.
People suffer.
I get it.
But I am offended when people come from Africa.
There's a video of people coming from Africa.
How they made the journey from Angola to Congo to Brazil, all the way up to the U.S.
border, and then going to the border and begging, saying they need our help.
And I'm like, how did you make that journey, man?
There are people who wish their whole lives to make a journey like that, but they can't afford it.
They don't have the resources.
And you come here, and then you're mad when the only place we have for you to go is not Pretty?
That's frustrating.
You know, people trying to break in.
I don't mean break in, I mean like, I mean they're trying to come through into the United States against the law and they know it.
It's just different.
What China is doing is disgusting and terrifying.
So you know what, for the Hong Kong protesters pushing back, I get it.
And so here's the main point.
When you see a Hong Kong protester throw a Molotov cocktail, what's your response?
Is it good or bad?
Well, just like Antifa, people believe they're morally justified when they do it.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.
If Communist China wants to impose their will over Hong Kong, and they have camps where they round up Muslims, perhaps it is the right thing to do to fight back.
I do not believe anyone, for any reason, should ever draw a revolver during a protest and shoot someone.
Okay, that's a bit too hyperbolic.
Okay, for the most part, you don't need a revolver in these circumstances.
And I gotta admit, there's a video of the LAPD taking out a katana-wielding lunatic in the 90s with beanbags.
I've had cops say to me, listen, man, you don't understand.
Sometimes the beanbag's not good enough.
Sometimes you need a better weapon.
I get it.
But you know what, man?
The Hong Kong police force just lost a major, major morality and PR battle on this one.
They shot a dude in the chest.
So, we'll stop it there.
Otherwise, I'll talk for a million years.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
In what will be surprising to no one, YouTube's deranking and censorship and demonetization is having a massive, massive impact on more left-wing groups.
I don't want to say necessarily left-wing, but I will say, Nerd City put out a video, it's a half an hour long, talking about words that are demonetized.
They looked at 15,000 words and found words that were and weren't demonetized with a heavy impact on the LGBTQ community.
Now, I understand.
There are gay Republicans.
It is not a left-right thing to be gay.
But it is typically more progressive and left-wing people who are pushing for censorship and demanding these actions.
Well, recently, LGBT creators filed a lawsuit against Google for discrimination, essentially, for censorship.
And it's a fact.
YouTube absolutely does discriminate against content targeting the LGBTQ community or issues.
And Nerd City has data to back this up.
But the issue around deranking and demonetization isn't only affecting the LGBTQ community.
What's important here is that those who are advocating for censorship are not, for the most part, the moderates and the conservatives.
For the most part, it is the left-wing creators.
I was invited to a YouTube meeting a few years ago where, on stage, they repeatedly berated and belittled conservatives and Trump supporters, and I got really angry about it.
Because I was told we were supposed to have a meeting to talk about ending hate, and they thought it was funny to just mock and berate people.
And I had that conversation.
I left the room.
I said, I'm not going back in there.
I'm not going to go in there to sit there and hear these people just rag on white trash and Trump supporters and conservatives because I don't want to hear the hate.
I want to talk about how we solve these problems and bring people together.
And that's the opposite of what they were doing.
These are the groups leading the charge.
YouTube puts on a public mask about how they defend the LGBTQ community, and they do not.
It is demonetization, and it's more severe demonetization than even I get.
Listen.
It's hard to quantify who gets it worse, right?
The LGBT community or political commentary.
And I think political commentary likely gets it worse in a lot of ways.
However, there are high-profile channels that are able to navigate politics and do it successfully.
When it comes to LGBT content, LGBTQ, even saying the word gay is going to get your ads taken away.
And here's the big kicker.
The left that has pushed this is creating a twisted, strange world.
And Nerd City brings up a really, really amazing point in their story.
Listen.
YouTube is an international company.
Content on YouTube can appear in every single country.
That means YouTube is looking for the lowest common denominator of acceptable content internationally.
And guess what?
In many countries, it is illegal to be gay.
What that means is, when you demand YouTube enact certain policies banning offensive content, that means they're not going to think about what you find offensive, they're going to think about what anyone at any point anywhere could find offensive.
And that's the path they're navigating.
Not America.
But the world.
And that means if YouTube is going to exist in a country like Turkey, which it struggles to do, well, they're going to have traditional Islamic or religious interpretations of what is or isn't offensive.
And that means YouTube recognizes your content may appear in these countries, therefore it's offensive to say the word gay.
Interestingly, NerdCity finds the words straight and heterosexual are good.
And it makes sense.
It absolutely makes sense in this context.
Think about it.
Everywhere in the world, it is okay to be straight.
Most places of the world, it is not okay to be gay.
And that is something we in the U.S.
are actually fighting for.
Even Trump has a policy agenda of making sure these other countries respect civil liberties of the LGBTQ community.
As much as many people on the left and in this community might not like Trump for reasons I understand, fine.
Even Trump, you know, is more favorable than many of these other countries.
But YouTube is looking at a global perspective.
Even Twitter has said the same thing.
They say they're global companies seeking to work with a global audience.
So they've specifically talked about UN's rules, about how you can't say offensive things that demean or belittle or things like that.
Okay, great.
You know what's offensive to Saudi Arabia?
Gay content.
So YouTube doesn't care if 99% of the world is okay with it.
They care that it will cause controversy anywhere.
So let's read a little bit of the story.
And I want to stress, too, make sure you go check out Nerd City.
I don't want to act- Look, I have a very political perspective on this, doing news and political commentary.
His perspective is more on how it's impacting the gay community.
And I think he's correct.
I, on the other hand, I should say, I'm not going to ascribe to him his beliefs on this issue, but I believe this is a complete backfiring from progressive and left-wing groups, or it's just another instance where they claim to want to fight for marginalized communities, and in the end, they don't.
They create things that are actually negative towards these communities.
So there's LGBT creators who are suing YouTube.
I think it's a good thing.
I think we must challenge the precedence of YouTube.
But, in my opinion, you have no entitlement to monetization.
Deranking, on the other hand, is a more interesting story.
Take a look at this data.
Changes in impressions percentage for April event.
We can see that my main channel, Tim Pool, is on the positive end of these things.
It was upranked.
I don't know why they're showing more impressions or whatever.
I did change my content on my main channel.
I changed the style and the format.
I used to do cut, edited pieces.
Now I do straight live reads on my main channel as well.
I also started making my videos longer because I have the gift of the ability to rant forever.
So now the videos are averaging around 20 minutes long.
That could be why they're showing more of it.
It may have nothing to do with content or politics.
However, I also installed a new extension that censors words, and some words you think might not even be offensive, that I can't say.
I'm not even kidding.
There are words I can't say right now that you'd be like, that word's offensive?
Yup!
It'll get you demonetized.
Because they transcribe the words you say.
I don't say them.
And I've even blocked certain names out, because yes, names can also get you demonetized.
Now here's the thing.
If you look down, at the bottom you can see Timcast.
Deranked.
The yellow to orange is deranking.
Now, I didn't change Timcast.
I don't do a whole lot with these videos.
I don't care for metadata or whatever.
But something happened after May where my channel started getting less impressions.
This says to me the only way this could have happened is if YouTube chose for this to happen.
Now I also admit, I purposefully keep my main channel towards mainstream, large, breaking news stories for my commentary and breakdown, and avoid the more controversial drama stuff like you're seeing now.
I'm purposefully avoiding doing videos like this on my main channel because I know YouTube will punish me, and this is a scary thing.
Now look, you know if you watch me, you're going to get my honest opinion and assessment on all of these stories.
If you only watch Tim Pool, you may be wondering why it's all politics all the time.
Well, because I focus on the big political stories as we're moving into 2020, and reserve the bigger cultural stories for this channel.
I have to be very careful, because I know YouTube will shut me down and negatively impact my livelihood.
What's interesting here though, and we can see, it's very strange.
First, we can see that Steven Crowd has been heavily de-ranked, but so is the BBC.
I have no idea why.
I really don't.
The David Pakman Show was de-ranked.
My channel was de-ranked less than Pakman.
Okay, so let me stress this.
The Young Turks.
Where are the Young Turks at?
They're in here somewhere.
TYT Nation and the Young Turks were deranked.
For whatever reason, they're on the negative and following some change that happened.
And guess what?
Red Ice TV and the Thinkery, Sargon of Akkad's channel, was deranked less than the Young Turks.
The Young Turks took a heavier hit than Sargon did.
And let me just make it very clear for all of you.
My main channel, Tim Pool, which absolutely pushes back on the Young Turks, pushes back on the far left, upranked.
So the Young Turks, the people who are in line with that progressive view and are more likely to support banning hate speech and offensive content, are the ones getting hit by this.
The most, at least according to this data.
I shouldn't say the most because there have been a lot of right-wing channels that were outright banned.
But it's amazing that the Young Turks, TYT Nation, the David Pakman show, were deranked more than, well actually were deranked at all.
And my main channel was being propped up.
Take a look at this story from Nerd City.
His YouTube channel is just Nerd City.
It's a half an hour long.
It's really, really well made.
And they have a spreadsheet that shows all of the banned words.
What was that?
Did I just see Ann Coulter?
So anyway, you can see, you know, like, I can't show these words.
What am I doing?
I can't show those words.
So there it is.
You know, it's not the conservatives or the moderates.
It's not people like me calling for this.
We're actually pushing back.
I absolutely believe the LGBT community has a right to talk about all of these things.
And, you know, well, you know, let me put it this way.
Monetization is a tricky subject.
Do you have a right to have ads on your channel?
The answer is no.
However, what we're talking about with demonetization is also de-ranking.
What we're seeing here in this image is de-ranking.
Whether or not advertisers want to be on your channel.
I have advertisers.
You know, people sell ads on my channels.
Why would they take issue with my opinions and personalities on one channel and not the other?
The problem here is YouTube making an automatic determination of what they don't want to include for sale, period.
And I think the main point stands that needs to be stated.
If the left continues to call for the banning of offensive speech and refuses to defend open speech, whether it be hateful or otherwise, these companies are not thinking about what Americans want.
They're going to look at a global average.
And the lowest common denominator of this planet does have a tinge of an offensive reaction to gay content.
Period.
So if, in the United States, look, in the United States, most people find it completely acceptable.
Not everybody, but most people.
And most advertisers, if not all advertisers, are completely okay with it.
There you go.
YouTube will say fine.
But not in other countries.
In other countries, YouTube says, listen, we do sell ads in these countries, and they are offended by it, so they will ban it.
It was hit piece after hit piece that caused this, and it will only get worse.
So I'll wrap it up there.
I think you get the point.
They go on to show a bunch of words that I can't show and I probably already did.
So you can expect, look, this channel almost entirely demonetized.
And it's like two days later they monetize it because of course Tim Pool doesn't say anything too ridiculous or outrageous.
A bunch of feminists are angry that I made a video saying that I prefer to find a housewife and not a career wife.
Okay, whatever, man.
I'm a dude talking about his feelings on the internet.
I don't know what you expect of me.
I don't know why you think I care what your opinion is, and I don't care what your opinion is.
You're allowed to hate me.
Fine, whatever.
You know what, man?
We live in a weird world.
But anyway, the point is, expect it to get worse.
Because there are a lot of countries with backwards views.
And Google caters to them.
And that includes China.
That includes China.
Keep that in mind, okay?
They want to make money over there too, and so when China says, we don't want this content on the site, guess what?
It'll be gone.
Now, maybe they'll localize it, but in the end, I don't think that's the case.
I think what they're doing is saying, hey, if anyone anywhere might be offended by this, better get rid of it.
Congratulations.
You know what's not offensive?
I don't know, a video about a cheese plate.
Well, I'm sorry, that'll offend the vegans.
How about a video about socks made of bamboo?
I actually have some.
They're great.
They're super smooth.
It's like bamboo fibers.
Well, bamboo is sustainable.
Socks, boring.
Who cares?
Yeah, I don't think anybody could be offended by that.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Nudists.
You know what?
I give up.
Everything's offensive.
Congratulations.
You reap what you sow.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm on my main channel.
And, of course, it will be political.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
And I will see you all there.
On my main channel today, I talked about Hillary Clinton's potential run in 2020.
And it was jokey and a bit silly.
Everyone thinks she might run.
I don't know.
We'll see what happens.
But the point I made at the end of the video.
Was that perhaps the reason Hillary Clinton is doing a press tour and going on the offensive is because Trump has gone on the offensive.
Or perhaps Hillary Clinton is actually defensive.
It's all defensive play.
So here's the thing.
GOP senators say Hillary, DNC colluded with Ukraine to undermine Trump campaign, press DOJ to probe.
This was reported by Politico in 2017 that the Ukrainians were helping the DNC.
Why the story for the past several years was Trump and Russia?
Your guess is as good as mine.
But Trump is on the offensive.
That call with Ukraine, why are they coming after him so hard?
Well, it really seems like Trump is targeting the 2016 Russia investigation.
Now there's a story coming out where they claim that Trump tried doing the same thing with Australia to pressure them into smearing Biden.
But it's not true.
It turns out Australia reached out to Trump.
It's also really interesting how in the Ukraine call, it was Ukraine who stated to Trump that they were, you know, going to be working with Giuliani.
They brought it up, not Trump.
Here's what I think I see happening.
Trump is investigating 2016, a counter-strike.
You had the Mueller probe, and now Trump is saying, OK, if this wasn't true, where did this come from?
Where did these conspiracy theories arise?
And so Trump reaches out to these countries that were involved, Australia and Ukraine, and asks, Hey!
Well, I shouldn't say... No, I'm sorry.
Take that back.
He didn't reach out.
Okay?
He just asked them in conversation.
Either Australia reached out to him, or with Ukraine, he had a phone call and he mentioned it.
Seems like the Democrats are quite concerned, and the GOP is calling it out.
It is not Russian propaganda.
It was reported by Politico.
Ken Vogel, who now works for the New York Times.
It's about time this story got more coverage.
Let's read.
The Daily Wire reports two top Republican senators have asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that Democrats sought dirt on Donald Trump from Ukrainian officials during the 2016 election.
In a letter to Attorney General William Barr released Monday, Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa pushed the Justice Department to open a probe, saying they have concerns about foreign assistance in the 2016 election that have not been thoroughly addressed.
Ukrainian efforts abetted by a U.S.
political party to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored.
Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny.
The American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempt to undermine our democratic process, the senators wrote in a letter.
Now here's my question.
First, respect to Politico, Ken Vogel, and the New York Times for hiring him in the first place, though I'm critical of the Times.
I can respect this.
The New York Times also reported, in the Ukraine scandal, where Schiff and other Democrats are trying to claim that Trump's quid pro quo was withholding Ukrainian aid, The truth is, according to Ken Vogel, Ukraine had no idea Trump had postponed aid to Ukraine at all until a month after the phone call.
So where was the quid pro quo if they didn't know?
They couldn't act in any capacity to benefit Trump if they didn't know he was trying to put pressure on them in the first place.
Same reporter.
So if this is true, why did MSNBC call it Russian propaganda?
And where is the big press outrage over the scandal from Hillary Clinton?
Why is Hillary Clinton getting this glorious press tour with positive coverage?
Why aren't they calling her out?
I wonder.
I wonder.
For years, we had to endure these congressional hearings, the nonsense, the Mueller probe, the investigations, and it was a strain on this country, it was divisive, and we are sick of it.
And guess what?
When I say we, I'm not talking about Trump supporters.
I think there's a lot of things to criticize the president for, but this is not one of them.
This was a smear job.
Russia was fake news.
Where's the press?
That's what bothers me.
You know, let me make this point.
To anybody who wonders where my allegiances lie.
First, it's not the Republicans.
I do not like them.
Mitch McConnell, I do not like him.
Trump, I do not like him either.
I don't like the Democrats either.
I don't like any of them.
But you know what I really, really hate?
The media.
The media.
The lies, duplicitous behavior.
It is manipulative, and they refuse to hold their own accountable.
You may realize that the thread in most of my content is targeting the press, not politics for the most part.
My concerns with the Democratic Party is that the media runs defense for them.
And when I say the media, I'm not saying literally everyone all of the time.
I'm saying too often.
The corruption persists.
And while we see good work from the New York Times, more so than many outlets, we can also see their corruption as well.
And something needs to be done about it.
And it just so happens, I mean, wow, so convenient, that all of these stories about Hillary Clinton are positive, and all of these stories about Donald Trump are negative.
So no, I don't care for Trump or his policies or the Republicans.
I don't care for Mitch McConnell holding up legislation or blocking Merrick Garland.
I don't care for that and I don't like them, but here's the issue.
Call it out, fine.
But why won't the press talk about this?
You want to talk about Trump and Russia?
Go for it!
I'm gonna sit here and I'm gonna listen.
But what happens, what happens when we talk about the DNC and Hillary Clinton and Ukraine, which is being reported far and wide, was in Politico, a New York Times reporter, Katie Turner on MSNBC, that's Russian propaganda.
Get over yourselves.
Okay?
We have a sworn statement from a former Russian prosecutor.
Numerous sworn statements.
And they call that a conspiracy theory.
I'm not saying trust the guys.
I don't trust Ukrainian prosecutors.
I think they're all corrupt.
But I'll tell you what, a sworn statement under penalty of perjury, or however Ukraine works, is substantially more credible than second-hand complaints going to the ICIG.
You want to investigate second-hand complaints?
I also say go for it.
But how dare the media come out now and say sworn statements are conspiracy theories?
How about this?
Hillary Clinton and Ukraine.
How about the story from Politico?
I can't stand the press, man.
The games they play.
Is there conservative media?
Sure.
Do they get things wrong?
Absolutely.
But what happens when MSNBC gets it wrong?
Do we see any of these stories come out like the Daily Beast?
Are they going to now write about how Katie Turr pushed a conspiracy theory believing the Russians are spreading propaganda?
What about the CNN analyst who claimed that Trump was spreading Russian propaganda just the other day?
Nope!
Oliver Darcy and Brian Seltzer will continue to push the narrative that it's only Trump supporters questioning what they say.
Sorry!
Listen, you can't call Politico and the New York Times crazy conspiracy theorists.
Oh, but they've tried.
See, now there's another guy, John Solomon, the guy who released these sworn affidavits.
Now we have The Daily Beast and Washington Post calling him a conspiracy theorist.
It's absurd to me.
This is a guy who is the executive editor of The Hill TV.
The Hill is a mainstream credible outlet.
He was an investigative reporter for The Washington Post.
And as soon as he steps out of that bubble and shows us proof of wrongdoing from the Democrats, what do they do?
He's a conspiracy nut, they say.
This is my problem, okay?
Ukrainian efforts abetted by a U.S.
political party.
They say the Justice Department has yet to inform Congress and the public whether it has begun an investigation into links and coordination between the Ukrainian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee.
Ukrainian efforts abetted by a U.S.
political party to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored.
They should not.
If you're going to make me sit through three years of this Russiagate crap, well then I demand we get another three years of sitting through the DNC and Ukraine.
No, instead, it's Trump's fault.
It's a Trump scandal.
I am so sick of the media's inability to actually talk sense.
Let me just say, I do not mean literally everyone in the media, okay?
I'm talking about those who seek to defend Hillary Clinton and poo-poo these stories.
It was Politico that said this was a fact.
It was The Hill.
Okay, we've got some great media calling it out.
Well, it needs to be called out.
They go on to say, at the center of this, uh, the senator's claim, Alexander Chalupa, a Democratic consultant, worked with Ukrainian officials to find dirt on Trump in 2016.
At the center of this plan was Alexander Chalupa, described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for Democratic National Committee, for the, and who reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Manafort, and Russia.
Politico also reported on a Financial Times story that quoted a Ukrainian legislator, Serhii Leshenko, as saying that Trump's candidacy caused Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before, intervene, however indirectly, in the US election.
Okay.
I don't care if you're a Republican.
I don't care if you're a Democrat.
If the Democrats want to say something's fishy with Trump, alright, show me the evidence.
If the Republicans want to say there's something fishy with the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, okay, show me the evidence.
Well, we did.
And we sat down for years, and we listened to everything that Rachel Maddow had to say about her insane Russia conspiracies, and it all turned out to be bunk.
Okay, I say all, but for the most part.
You know, some people were indicted, there was Russian attempts at interference, but it wasn't this big scandal.
And Trump certainly had nothing to do with it.
Are we going to get reciprocity?
Is it our turn now?
For those of us that sat through Russia and were misled by the press, is it now the turn of Republicans to come back?
Let me stress again, because I'll take that out of context.
When I say our turn, I'm talking about the American people who want to now ask the questions about what started Russia, what started the probe.
If you waste my time And tell me these things.
It is now my turn to come back and say, OK, it was all fake.
Let's investigate the origins.
Well, Trump is trying to do that.
And I think he should.
And it's not about whether I like him or his policies, because that argument has been thrown out the window by the Democrats.
All they care about is scandals.
Well, I don't!
I thought the elections were supposed to be about what we were going to do for the American people.
OK.
You want to make this about scandals?
We'll make it about scandals.
And I'll let you know I'm not on your side.
OK?
I am not.
I'm on the side of the facts.
And the facts are Russiagate's fizzled apart.
And the facts are, according to several outlets, that DNC colluded with Ukraine.
OK.
Do I want to say that's a fact?
Well, hold on.
How about we have Ukrainegate and see a special counsel appointed to investigate this and go after Hillary Clinton and the DNC?
That's my turn.
The facts.
The people of this country who want to know what is happening and why.
I... I get so frustrated.
I just can't stand the media.
Okay?
And it's most of them, not all of them.
We know about this because of Politico.
Good job.
And the New York Times.
Good job.
But I want to see even-handed press.
And I want to see an inquiry.
Stick around.
One more video coming... A couple more videos coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
Earlier today, I did a video about NerdCity's video looking at essentially restricted keywords that, if you say certain words, you will get demonetized.
It's a very, very fascinating video talking about why YouTube censors various, you know, content.
Soft censors, right?
Demonetization.
Well, Steven Crowder has been talking recently about how he's been soft blacklisted on YouTube.
When you search for him, he doesn't emerge.
Well, Crowder dug deep.
He looked at a bunch of different channels and found many conservative commentators and creators were not appearing in search.
It's actually quite amazing.
So here's what I did.
I opened a tab.
I opened a private tab, and I searched for my name, and guess what?
My channel didn't even come up.
My channel?
Tepidol, Milk Toast, Fence It, or Tim Pool?
Yep.
When you searched for me, it didn't emerge.
Today, in conversation, I was talking to somebody, and I went and did a search, and there I was like normal.
It's weird.
Because in the past, I have done searches for my name to see what my ranking is.
It's a funny thing, because when I joke about, like, Googling myself, people laugh, and I'm like, dude, I'm running a business, and my name is my brand.
I have to check about rankings and delivery and everything like that.
So I'll do a YouTube search, and for the longest time, I could see my name, my channels, my Vice stuff, and then something happened the other day when Crowder was talking about it, and it didn't come up anymore.
Crowder was right.
It's not about conservatives.
I don't know what it was about.
Unfortunately, was a test done checking on progressives.
According to the data I've seen, David Pakman and the Young Turks have been deranked as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were knocked out of search.
This has more to do, in my opinion, with YouTube trying to prop up mainstream media.
So, while Crowder focused on the conservative aspect, let me push back and say, Crowder, you're correct.
But, I'd be willing to bet they're hitting the progressives too.
Not all of them.
They're propping up the mainstream media.
David Pakman did a video where he pulled up the data.
We all get hit.
You and David.
And David, he's on the other side of this than you, okay?
The issue is, and we should be unified in this matter, By all means, Young Turks, by all means, David Pakman, Kyle Kulinski, and the progressives, rag on me, Crowder, and Trump, and anybody else, the free speech people, the intellectual dark web, rag on all of us.
The centrists, the conservatives, the moderates, even the moderate leftist Democrats you don't like.
Please.
I respect your opinion, and I would like you to do it, because a healthy ecosystem includes all of our opinions.
So, when it comes to the issue about what YouTube is doing, they're hitting all of us.
And it's something we should be together on because it is propping up the mainstream press, the corporate media, things that can be controlled.
With that being clear, let's read about the story because it appears Crowder pushed back and got this problem resolved.
And now all of these channels are appearing in search.
From Reclaim the Net, YouTube reverses at least some of the censorship of Steven Crowder and others.
They're right.
Critics of YouTube's business and tactics, specifically those coming from a conservative portion of the US politics and society, repeatedly cry foul, declaring this Google-owned, super-influential platform as one that is habitually using its power to sway users, effectively towards its own vast preference as a global video giant.
I want to stop and mention, because I typically, as a rule, use NewsGuard-certified Outlets.
On purpose.
It is not because I think NewsGuard is all-knowing or smarter or better.
It's because it is effectively a check on my bias and a PR defense.
Listen, if it's certified by NewsGuard, don't take my word for it.
They're the journalists in New York who have verified these.
Reclaim the Net is not.
But Reclaim the Net I've seen to be fairly accurate, and I'll personally vouch for at least this story.
I've seen the screen grabs, and I think that this is a good write-up by Reclaim the Net.
I think the issue with verification for them is simply because they're new at it.
So, let's read.
They're right.
But could YouTube at the same time be deliberately putting in many roadblocks, some more subtle than others, all the way to the ultimate goal of suppressing legitimate conservative online voices?
The evidence seems to point that way.
The question has not merely been an ongoing accusation made by observers and active participants.
Who have theorized bad intent on the part of big tech.
But in fact, this has also been a question put forward by some Google insiders in their public testimonies that support similar claims.
All boiling down to accusing YouTube of being motivated by bias, fueled by some very real, uh, real, real world politics and allegiances.
Now hold on.
YouTube was under fire for hosting controversial thoughts and opinions.
A lot of it came from the left.
The backfire was on them.
Okay, all of us.
In the end, YouTube propped up what they call authoritative sources like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
Well, I personally find myself a bit more authoritative than all of them combined.
Why?
Because I read their stories and fact-check their stories.
I'm not saying they're all bad.
I think they're all biased in various ways.
MSNBC, let's throw out the window because they're trash.
CNN is biased.
They have a perspective, and they get things wrong.
That's fine.
Fox News is biased.
You know, they present factual news.
They sometimes get things wrong.
Fine.
You want to have an opinion, guy?
I put those out and say you're allowed to have your opinion.
When it comes to facts, CNN, for the most part, is okay.
Fox News is okay, and that's okay by me.
I'm fine with it.
But I fact-checked them, and neither are better than others.
I don't know what to tell you.
They're both biased.
CNN tries to claim they're not, but let's be real, they're the left.
Fox News is the right.
MSNBC is the conspiracy arm of the wingnut party.
I don't know what's going on with them, but they've lost the plot.
The point is, why should I be deranked as not authoritative when I use third-party certification agencies, when I fact-check the claims with numerous sources and give you an aggregate view?
Here's what all of these sources say, and here's what my opinion is on it based on reading all of them.
That is an overhead view of their stories to find out what's true and what's not.
But I get deranked.
They're going to say, that activity, if true, would be something very disappointing to normal users, not only in the U.S., but around the world, where the myth of an objective, knowledge-based, data-driven scientific search result might still be strong with Google and its various services.
So let's get to the point.
They say earlier in the year, YouTube demonetized Crowder's channel.
That we all know.
If you're not familiar, he was talking about this guy Carlos Maza, and he said things that were crass and offensive to Carlos in the context of telling jokes and doing political commentary.
YouTube said it wasn't against the rules, but took action anyway, because of course they will, and demonetized his channel.
But now, they write, YouTube seems to be fighting its ideological enemies far more subtly, by making them dissipate all the way to disappearing in that all-important segment, the search results.
In a new video this week, Crowder tells his followers about YouTube's latest censorship tactic, and what it means for the channel as well as for the rest of the conservative movement.
I'll give you my theory.
YouTube wants us to slowly die off.
They can't outright ban our channels.
Let me give you a history lesson.
This may be apocryphal, but I love the story.
When eBay first launched, the website was yellow.
But the yellow was kind of off-putting to a lot of people.
So one day, YouTube changed it to white.
Seemingly a good change.
However, the outrage was maddening.
No one liked the new color, they didn't like the new layout, and they demanded the website be changed back.
Because of the backlash, eBay changed the website back to yellow.
Did they lose?
No, they got smart.
What they did after that was every day, they incremented the color of the background one degree towards white.
Eventually, the website had changed white, but so gradually no one noticed.
It's an amazing story.
Facebook learned the same lesson.
They used to do these sweeping changes to the site and everyone would complain, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it.
So they learned, make the change slowly so no one notices.
YouTube's first play.
They removed me and many others from autoplay suggestions.
Meaning if you watch YouTube videos, you will not see my videos in autoplay for the most part.
Rarely you will.
So once a video is done playing, it'll automatically play the next video.
Well, I've successfully circumvented that because I use playlists.
When you watch one of my videos and someone links to it, it's a playlist link.
It automatically plays the next video in the playlist.
YouTube is doing something else now, removing us from search.
What this means is, the ability to discover our channels is slowly being taken away.
This is why I always say, share my video.
What we're learning is that the deranking was one thing.
Now you can't discover our videos, our channels, accidentally.
But they're going one step beyond.
You can't even try to find our videos.
Go into search, type it in.
We don't come up.
Well, apparently they reversed it.
So let's get to that point.
So Crowder looked at his channel.
He looked at Paul Joseph Watson, Breitbart.
He looked at Lauren Chen, Ben Shapiro, and found this was happening to everybody.
Even live action.
But finally, update.
Steven Crowder said half Asian lawyers spoke with YouTube before and after.
Crowder highlighted that after speaking to YouTube, the change was made.
YouTube has quietly fixed it.
Finally.
This is Mark Dice saying this.
As you know, I've been calling them out for months about this.
But yesterday and today, a bunch of other YouTubers finally saw it as happening to them and rang the alarm bell thanks to everyone for your help.
And that was me too.
I searched for it and was surprised to find I wasn't in search.
So I know that my time may be short for this platform, and I have absolutely prepared my companies and everything for changes.
You might notice that my content now appears on Facebook.
That's right.
There's a company now managing this for me.
They upload my content for me, because I can only do so much.
I handle all of this stuff.
But in the end, YouTube will come for me and everyone else, no matter how tepid my opinions may be.
And that's why the most important thing you can do, if you're a fan of what I do or any of these other people, share our content.
I stress that.
Think about the logic.
YouTube says you can't search for them.
Someone could search for Tim Pool?
Nothing.
Well, they fixed it because of pressure.
But how long will that last?
We don't come up as autoplay videos anymore.
Someone else does.
What are you going to get?
You're not going to get David Pakman.
You're not going to get a progressive.
You're going to get CNN or Fox News.
But I'll tell you what.
If every single person who watched this video, which averages around 150,000, shared this,
think about how many people they would reach, and that is way more powerful than YouTube
could ever hope to realize.
YouTube could ban us outright, but that backlash would be too big.
So they've got to do it slowly.
The change has to be gradual to purge our voices from this platform.
Well, I'm preparing for it, and I hope all of you are too.
You can go to any podcast platform and look up Tim Pool Daily Show and see I upload a podcast every day at 6.30pm.
Okay, I'm sometimes late.
But every day, I have a podcast.
It's the full hour and a half of all of my content.
You can listen to it all.
And there it is, I guess.
So, um, I'm grateful to Crowder for being vigilant and following this stuff and pushing back because he's helped me out.
So, I'm glad he's taking this stuff seriously and found it.
I made a video the other day talking about this article that says women are struggling to find men who make as much money as they do, and a bunch of feminists started screen-grabbing my tweets or something and, like, taking pictures, and there's this one that Lauren Chen commented on.
Basically, the crux of the video is me saying, listen, I said it a million times, okay, in my video.
I absolutely respect career women.
I'm impressed, honored, grateful that we've come to a point in our society where women are free to choose what they want to do with their lives and run careers.
And if you have chosen a career, and you are successful, congratulations.
You have my utmost respect.
Please.
However, I'm not looking for that in a relationship.
And that's no dig on you.
I repeatedly pointed to the woman and said, much respect to you as an individual, you're just not right for me personally.
Is it so offensive that I would prefer to date a woman who wants to raise a family instead of have a career?
Okay?
I believe someone pointed out in a response to Lauren Chen that career housewife is the right way to put it.
And I think that's fair too.
What I want to say is it's really, really simple.
And then we'll get to the outrage, which has been blocked apparently.
Listen.
I work sometimes 16-hour days.
I work a lot non-stop.
There's a ton of stuff going on.
I wanted to travel.
I couldn't do it.
I have put a lot on my plate.
I take no days off.
Videos every single day.
Six videos.
Sometimes more.
Okay?
And I am constantly working on new shows and new development.
I am, uh, so yes.
Okay, and we'll get to the criticism.
The point is...
What can I fit in my life?
Well, after I'm done working, I sit down, and I eat some food, and then I, like, I'm tired.
You know what help I need in terms of a relationship?
I do not need a significant other, a partner, or a wife, who's going to be doing the same thing as me.
I need someone to help me with the social aspects of my life.
In, like, say, raising kids.
And, you know, once I'm done working, being like, hey, I booked us two tickets to this show, pack, you know, get your coat, and I'll be like, alright, let's go do it.
That's the responsibility I need a relationship to pick up.
I do not need a wife who's going to be at a board meeting, and when I'm done working, I go back to sitting in the kitchen, eating my ravioli, Chef Boyardee, whatever, watching Family Guy, and then going to bed.
It's a total bachelor pad situation, right?
I need some culture.
I need some social assistance.
The point is, why would I want a CEO for a wife?
I have nothing but respect for the women who are CEOs, and anybody who's a CEO and works as hard as anybody else, congratulations.
But they're outraged!
And they're taking everything I said out of context.
So, in this one, okay.
Lauren Chen said, Tim Cass is 100% right.
Thank you, Lauren.
I am right.
100% of the time, always.
I'm just kidding.
If a man already has plenty of money of his own, what's wrong with him preferring a wife that can focus on family life?
Nothing.
Nothing.
And it's not a dig at any other woman who chooses to do otherwise.
I completely believe it is your choice.
Congratulations.
I respect you and I respect it.
Stop getting mad at me.
Why are you taking it personally?
But I can tell you why.
We'll get to it.
Women can complain that there aren't enough rich guys out there for them, but the moment a man says he wants a housewife, y'all lose it.
Well, see, this woman who tweeted it, she locked her account down, and fine, listen, if you want to take my statements and make them hyperbolic and out of context, you're free to do so, but don't be surprised when people push back.
Well, someone screen-grabbed it.
She said, This is truly the most cringe-inducing thing I have ever seen in all my life.
Tim Pool talking about how ladies need to realize that economically attractive men like him only want housewives and mothers, not career women.
Only!
No!
Talking about me personally!
The point I was making is...
It's true.
There's two things you need to understand, okay?
Men tend to prefer 20-year-old women.
I didn't make that up.
I'm not trying to make a dig at women.
If anything, this is a dig at guys!
Guys, grow up and find some culture in your life, and find yourself a wife who's older than 20!
But this is from Jezebel!
Please!
If I can't even cite the feminist web— a supposedly feminist website, Jezebel, and then feminists get mad at me when I talk about what they say, You know what, man?
The real reason I think they're angry is... I normally don't like to play this game, but I think they might internalize it.
I think maybe these women who are angry are experiencing this problem of only finding guys who are broke and lack ambition.
Take into consideration Jezebel's data.
This is from 2015.
Men's favorite ages are 20, 21, 22, and 23!
All men.
All the time.
I'm not exaggerating.
are 20, 21, 22, and 23. All men, all the time. I'm not exaggerating. Check this out. Here's
a graph showing a woman's age versus the age of the men who look best to her.
Now, women in their early 20s look like a guy who's a little older, okay?
But as time goes on, they actually slowly move to kind of a little younger, but for the most part, guess what?
Women prefer men who are around the same age as they are.
Got it.
Awesome.
That's the data.
Jezebel's publishing it.
Now let's see what guys like.
Oh, every guy of every age basically wants a 22-year-old woman.
That's the average.
The average, I think, is 21.
A 48-year-old guy wants a 23-year-old woman.
A 47-year-old guy wants a 20-year-old woman.
A 46-year-old guy wants a 20-year-old woman.
You get the point.
Okay?
Now, take a guy who's economically attractive.
And what I mean by that is status, okay?
I'm not saying all women are attracted to this.
I'm saying if you're a woman, don't be surprised if you can't find guys who have the same status as you.
I'll tell you why.
I have a career.
I'm in my early 30s.
I could go on a boat trip and helicopter ride.
I can take you on grand adventures.
If I had to make my choice, wouldn't I make a choice in line with literally every other man's preference?
For the most part, my answer is technically no.
I mentioned the other day, I do like younger women, okay?
Because I'm looking for someone who's excited, adventurous, and wants to raise a family, not work a job.
I don't care if you want to work a job, I'm just saying, for me personally, I would like to take care of the financial, the life aspect of it, I'm sorry, the financial aspect, the supply and demand, and you can take care of creating the family and the social aspects that surround us.
I think that's entirely respectable.
Because I can't do it.
I need someone who can do what I can't.
I don't have the ability.
Okay?
If you would prefer to work at a news outlet and write articles, that's amazing!
Awesome!
You know, I know some tremendous, some amazing journalists who are women.
And I know a ton of extremely talented people who are female.
I work with them.
That's awesome.
But that's a different job.
That's a different role.
Listen.
Let's not talk about me.
Let's shift it back to this outrage, this pure outrage over the fact that I would claim that a man in his early 30s who has money and success is going to choose a younger woman who doesn't want to be working all the time.
If all guys, according to the data, prefer 20-year-old women, what do you think happens then?
We take a 30-year-old guy with a ton of money and all of the availability and options in the world.
He can impress everybody.
He's got status, intellect, charisma, celebrity, and money to spare.
Well, he's going to choose the most attractive mate to him, same as a woman would choose the most attractive mate to her.
In this instance, if men find 20-year-old women to be the most attractive, A high-status, attractive male is going to go after young women.
This is not controversial.
This is fact.
And it's published by Jezebel.
But the outrage is palpable.
Now here's my next little favorite bit of outrage.
They claimed, That I cite- I made a statement that feminists bully homemakers, and my proof was an episode of Family Guy, taking my statement completely out of context and ramming it down a hyper-partisan funnel into the mouths of their followers.
The point I was making is not that literally all feminists all the time do this and I can prove it because Family Guy said so.
My point was, sometimes, There are women who are pressured into not being mothers because society is telling them to do more, to have careers.
I referenced a trope, a stereotype, that is common.
Not that it is common in real life, but that family guy played up to that stereotype.
It means exaggeration.
I am not saying literally every feminist everywhere does this.
The point I was making is that, on rare occasions, sometimes, women are looked down upon if they choose not to have a career.
That's true!
I'm not saying 99% of women.
I'm saying it could be one woman, one time, somewhere.
It just, it's happened.
But the point is, I'm not citing Family Guy's proof.
I'm saying, it's happened enough that a trope has emerged.
It doesn't mean it's always true.
It doesn't mean it's a majority.
It just means that sometimes there are women who feel put down for not having a career.
But the other bit of anecdotal evidence I gave, which is not much merit, before the family guy thing was the point that on OkCupid, I have seen profiles and interacted with them where they say things like, I would prefer to be a homemaker or a housewife, but I have to have this job, yadda yadda yadda.
I have seen profiles that interact with women.
It's anecdotal.
I'm not saying it's proof positive.
I'm not saying it's anecdotes.
But of course, strip all the context, and then get angry.
Well, I think the real reason they're angry is perhaps they don't understand why high-profile, successful men are choosing 20-year-old women.
I mean, look at Elon Musk.
Who's he dating?
Like, dating Grimes or something?
Like, look at Tiger Woods.
South Park did an episode about this.
About something happens to successful men where they just start cheating on their spouse and going after all these young women.
Yeah, gee, I wonder why.
It's almost like guys just do this.
It's almost like, I don't know, men Like young women!
So here's the point.
It is not that there's anything wrong with women.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman choosing to have a career in her early 30s.
But I'm pointing out to you, as in no way disrespectful, That if men prefer younger women, don't be surprised when those who make good money target younger women.
I'm not saying they'll be successful.
That's an interesting counterpoint.
Let's say a guy wants a 20-year-old woman.
Well, a 20-year-old woman doesn't find a 33-year-old man more attractive.
She prefers a 23-year-old man.
You see?
Women do like older men to an extent.
The point is, guys are going to chase after young women with their money, and that means you will not find them for a date.
It is not your fault.
It is no dig at you.
It is no disrespect for you.
If anything, it is a dig at men!
Why are you getting mad at me when I say this?
My personal preference, like I said, was probably like a 28, 29-year-old, somebody who's worked, has some life experience, but wants to run a social life, not a career life.
And it's important to stress, I know a lot of guys who are social.
I don't want to call househusbands, but their whole life is about the people around them and the experiences.
I do work.
I build.
That's my thing.
Some guys don't.
Some women don't.
Some guys do.
Some women do.
That's what the point is.
You know, for these women, perhaps you need a house husband.
The other major point I want to stress in this outrage that sparked is like, dude, the point I was making is that, one of the first things I said, how do you have a relationship if you're both at work all the time and never see each other?
I don't want to be in a relationship with someone so that when I'm done working, I go and sit down in the kitchen and plop some cold Chef Boyardee in a bowl and start chowing away because the relationship is meaningless.
Perhaps there are people who enjoy being career relationships, but I prefer to spend my time with other people when I'm done working.
All of my time was spent doing research and production and, you know, editing and working, and there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff you don't know about, like taxes, accounting, you know, we've got a ton of stuff happening with Subverse.
That means when I'm done, I'm sitting here in this chair thinking, what can I do now socially?
And the answer is...
I don't know.
I don't have time to plan that stuff.
It'd be great if while I was doing this, there was someone I loved and cared about who was taking care of my family, potential family, and then afterwards said, hey, how would you like to go see this, what's that movie, Gemini Man or whatever with Will Smith?
I'd be like, cool, yeah, you make the plans and we'll go do it.
I work all the time, you handle the social stuff.
It makes sense.
It makes perfect sense.
Look, Traditions have changed.
We have become more free and accepting and liberal.
And I find it particularly offensive that I could sit here in a video ranting and raving about how much I respect career women and their choice, and I'm grateful to the strides we've made in the society, and they rag on me for that.
They rip out that context and act like I'm advocating for some 1950s traditional society when I simply said that don't be surprised when men act this way.
But I'll tell you my favorite, favorite point that makes my day.
I want to stress I am very happy right now.
I am having a very good day.
I love seeing the commentary in response to my opinions that Tim Pool must be poor.
You want to know why this makes me really, really happy?
And whenever I hear it, I laugh and I'm so happy and so grateful.
I laugh because I grew up very, very poor.
And I worked very, very hard.
And now I am very, very not poor.
Quite successful.
I worked for Disney, by the way.
And now I've got a big YouTube channel.
Well, moderate.
I don't say big.
But I've got a collective, you know, 1.5 or something.
What do we have?
Like 1.3 or 1.4 million subscribers on YouTube.
And I'm grateful to everybody who watches, who cares what I have to say.
And it says to me that if you work hard in this country, the dream exists.
It's not the same for everybody.
You gotta mix in some perseverance, hard work, along with luck.
It's true.
Opportunity must arise and you must seize that.
But, if you choose to work 12 to 16 hour days and no days off for three years, I assure you, you can make it work too.
Sometimes you need advice.
Sometimes you need someone to show you where that path is.
But when I see this outrage, and they immediately respond with, I'm sure he's poor, I just laugh.
There was one thing that happened a while ago, I made a video about it, I did a commentary thing, where this woman tweeted, who's a journalist, I decided to look up Tim Pool to see how he's doing, and oof, ah, seems so poor, like, oh no, heavens, as if I'm doing bad.
And then someone responded with like, wow, from going from a six-figure salary at, you know, these big companies to now only getting $2,000 a month on Patreon, I'm like, dude, I don't use Patreon.
I don't know who's... I never promote it.
You understand that money is like, people have chosen to use Patreon without me asking them to.
The point is, my success is your success.
When they look at me and they try and shoot down my thoughts and opinions by claiming I'm poor, I laugh.
No, I'm not.
I'm running a business, and we're expanding, and we're hiring, and we're doing great.
And if the only argument you have is, oh yeah, well Tim's poor, that ain't even true!
But I laugh because I'm proud of myself for the hard work.
Thank you for working as hard as I have to get where I am.
I'm eternally grateful to everybody who watches these videos, because as I've said it before, I just feel like I'm some dude ranting about his feelings on the internet, and for some reason people care, and they care enough to help support my work through donations and contributions, by watching advertisements and all of these things.
And it affords me the ability to expand and do more.
It says to me that these fringe opinions from these people, who are mean and angry and want to attack me and tear me down, are wrong, and they have no argument.
Their only argument is, oh yeah, well you're broke.
The media is a dying industry, and I've had a pretty good run of things.
And I'm looking to do more and improve this system and help others.
Give back, I guess.
But you know what?
In the end, if that's all they have, fine, so be it.
Let these angry people rant and rave all day.
You do you.
And in the end, if you like my content, you can share it.
But it's funny.
The assumptions they make, the hoops they jump through, perhaps they don't realize that maybe they took the wrong path.
That's what it's really about.
The reason they're so angry about me talking about men's preference for young women is because they would like to have a good, successful, prominent husband.
But you can't have it all.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have it all, right?
The saying that you can be a successful career woman with a family, it exists, of course.
But I gotta admit, man, that's a lottery ticket.
How come men never ask about having it all?
Why is it that men, you know, the trope is never that a guy wants to balance work and family life.
Actually, no, take that back.
You know, you have, um...
Like that movie Click, where when you sacrifice family for work, you know.
So, can men have it all?
I guess it comes down to the fact that men don't carry children, so there's a big difference.
You know, women have that privilege and burden.
I don't want to, you know, whichever one you ascribe to, it's a great honor, I think.
But men don't have to have these kids.
They can focus on work.
Why is it that, you know, we don't talk about men having it all?
Men just have a career and they work really, really hard and then women get to have both.
No, I think it goes both ways.
So I'll end by saying this.
I think a lot of these women are angry because they're now in their early thirties and they take it personally.
But I mean, this article from Jezebel talks about the wall.
Is that what they said?
The wall or something?
I don't know where they actually put it.
Let me see if I can find it.
I thought they were talking about that idea.
What I've just described, the wall and the long accumulation of life, is what sociologists call longitudinal data.
Maybe they're not talking about the wall, or I don't know what that means, but I've typically heard that phrase referred to as, like, after women turn 30, they have a harder time finding, you know, eligible mates.
I don't know why this is shocking to anybody, but I can understand why they're mad.
Maybe college was the wrong choice.
Maybe you should have been an entrepreneur and worked really, really hard.
Maybe you shouldn't take days off.
Maybe you shouldn't take student loans.
Maybe you shouldn't spend extra money at the bar on the weekends.
Maybe you should sit down and work 12 to 14 hour days.
Maybe you should start a business and learn and research and work hard instead of blaming everyone else and then getting mad when they point out sad realities.
I'll leave it there.
This video went way too long.
I think I'll put this at the end because I usually just upload in the order I recorded.
Because this is so long, I'm going to put this one at the end of today.
