CNN's Anti-Trump Obsession Is BACKFIRING, Ratings Drop As Americans Are TIRED Of The Absurdity
CNN's Anti-Trump Obsession Is BACKFIRING On The Company, Zucker Called "Captain Ahab" As Ship Sinkss. What does it mean when we say that Trump Derangement Syndrome is destroying CNN and other media companies?Well first CNN's ratings are down significantly year over year and they have been obsessed with covering every little detail about Trump. They ran a segment recently about Trump's twitter typos.No matter what happens many media personalities can't give Trump one good day. Eventually something objectively good happens but the orange man bad media must do everything in their power to spin it to a negative.This causes two kinds of destruction. First, people eventually realize that they are being fed fake news and misleading information in order to drive ragebait clicks, they leave or get exhausted. CNN's ratings have been going down more and more in recent times.But it destroys them in other ways, their credibility is gone. No longer are these outlets the seekers of truth. All that is left a withered husk of what used to be journalistic ethics and passion crumbling on the floor as the network begins its day of panels and petty critiques.While the Trump bump may have helped views for a while it was no better than an other medicine turned addiction. Now that the orange man is bad they can never run a positive segment. The audience would revolt.They led themselves down a path of fake news and into the Trump maelstrom.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Brian Stelter of CNN recently talked about Donald Trump's story pertaining to Baghdadi, saying it seems as though the story about Baghdadi whimpering and crying may have been all made up.
And apparently, there's no confirmation at all that Donald Trump made the story up.
There's just no confirmation that the story isn't made up.
So I question why they would do this anyway.
Why is it?
That over the past several days, when the story came out, they referred to this awful, awful man as an austere scholar.
They said he's not a coward and had to delete the tweet and backtrack.
And even today, now, isn't the cycle over?
They're still running a segment saying Trump made it up.
He wasn't whimpering and crying.
Who cares?
The guy was awful.
Why are they so obsessed with making every single thing about Trump bad?
I kid you not.
CNN talked about Donald Trump's typos today.
Seriously.
So I have a series of stories for you.
And I want to talk about how Trump Derangement Syndrome is becoming terminal.
It is an addiction.
And an obsession.
And as these media companies relentlessly talk about how every single thing this man does is bad.
They generate an audience of addicts.
And what happens then when they deviate from that orange man bad narrative?
Well, the addicts go through withdrawal.
They get angry.
They scream, how dare you say anything positive?
And they lock themselves in a corner.
So let's look at these things today.
And you're gonna love, I got this great stuff lined up.
One story from The Spectator basically says that Jeff Zucker is Captain Ahab, desperately going after his white whale, Donald Trump, even though it's bringing about the demise of their network.
Dare I say it?
Trump derangement syndrome may be terminal.
However, it may also be true that the only reason the network has survived this long is because they started selling an addiction to their audience that you can love to hate the president.
So I start you off with this first story you're looking at.
U.S.
economy under Trump, is it the greatest in history?
They say, the reality-checked verdict.
It's true, the economy has been doing well.
But there have been periods where it was even stronger.
So yes, we will fact-check the present when he said, perhaps the greatest economy we've had in the history of our country.
No, it's not the greatest.
Well, Trump said perhaps.
Okay, fine.
But the economy is good, right?
So I show you this to make a couple points.
I actually have some outlets that are being fair and doing the right thing in reporting these stories accurately.
And I want to mention that although there are some networks that have gone full-on Moby Dick, it's not true for every single outlet.
There are some that can point out, even though they want to say it's not the greatest, they're kind of making this a negative, the economy is doing really well.
And that brings me to the next story I've highlighted several times.
Watch Fox News?
You likely think the U.S.
economy is great.
MSNBC viewers, not so much.
Strange, isn't it?
We just read a story from the BBC, a far cry from Fox News, saying it's true, the economy is great.
Maybe not the best in history, but it is great.
So why then would you think the economy isn't great if you watch MSNBC?
It's because several networks and outlets have adopted a Trump derangement syndrome model of reporting, where no matter what happens, you cannot say good things about the president.
How hard is it for anybody to talk about something else?
And I'll be the first to admit, I can't stand the obsession with him, and even having to talk about this media in this regard, so stick around!
Because at the end, there will be some self-reflection on myself and my own channel, and we'll talk about this issue of shock and outrage.
Now, I want to show you some graphs here.
Before we do, though, make sure you check out TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's several different ways you can help me out, the best of which, however, Share this video.
I'm competing with these big channels like MSNBC, Fox News, etc.
And if you think I'm doing a good job sort of breaking these stories down and you want me to do it more, well, YouTube's trying to shut this down.
And I'm going to say it.
I predict in the coming years, channels like mine will not exist because YouTube doesn't like the controversy.
The only way to counteract the throttling and censorship, and I admit, it's difficult for me.
I have to plan these videos out and blur things because it's news and YouTube doesn't like it.
But if you share this video, it overcomes that throttling.
And that means YouTube can't shut me down.
It helps me grow and do what I do.
Let's look at some graphs here.
And before we get into the meat and potatoes of CNN's outrage reporting.
PARTISAN SPILLS INTO VIEWS ON THE ECONOMY.
CONSUMER SENTIMENT AND EXPECTATIONS ARE CONSIDERED IMPORTANT GAGES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE ECONOMY.
A NEW BIG DATA SURVEY, HOWEVER, SUGGESTS THAT EXPECTATIONS MAY BE LESS ABOUT ECONOMIC FACTS AND MORE ABOUT PARTISANSHIP.
VALUES ABOVE 100 INDICATE POSITIVE SENTIMENT ABOUT THE ECONOMY.
And here we can see that those who disapprove of Trump Think the economy is doing bad.
And those who approve of Trump think the economy is doing good.
That's why I showed you the BBC.
The BBC is not a conservative outlet.
Far from it.
They're criticized as having a liberal bias.
So I believe allsides.com says they lean left.
I could be wrong.
But that just goes to show you, the people who approve of Trump tend to be living in reality when it comes to the economy, at least.
And why is that?
The BBC is not a right-wing outlet, and nor is Time.com, which I'll show you in a second.
But for some reason, this view of the economy, a fact-based claim, is wrong?
Check this out.
If you watch MSNBC, you think the economy is bad.
If you watch CNN, you think the economy is bad.
And only a little bit.
It's just below 100.
The New York Times, Facebook, Twitter, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News are all above 100.
Those who watch Fox News, near 140.
Well, I'll tell you what.
This is according to a morning consult poll.
The BBC says it.
It's quite simple.
The economy is doing really, really well.
And that takes me now to today's big breaking story.
I tweeted this.
Why are they trying so hard to defend Baghdadi?
What the F is wrong with the media?
Quote, he was an austere scholar, not a coward, and he certainly wasn't crying.
This was in response to a tweet I was quoting from Brian Stelter, where he said, All the available evidence indicates that Trump invented his claims about al-Baghdadi, whimpering and crying.
We shouldn't get used to this.
Well, Brian responded.
And I do want to make sure I extend my respect to Brian for engaging, having the conversation.
I don't think Brian... I'll use the same lines for Trump.
Brian's not that bad.
Trump's not that bad, right?
I think Brian... I'm going to be critical of him here.
And I think there's some... You can criticize him.
He can criticize me.
It's fair.
I think... I appreciate his willingness to engage, though we disagree.
I certainly don't think he's the worst of the worst.
But I want to point out the problem here.
Well, his response was, defend Baghdadi.
Shame on you.
What I said in the air was very clear.
The country has celebrated his death.
The country also expects political leaders to tell the truth.
Let me stop there.
And I'll bring you now to Time.com.
Trump had reasons to give the gruesome details.
And they make it very, very simple.
I was impressed when I saw this article from Time.
That basically what they say is Trump is trying to break the cult of personality that is Baghdadi to make his legacy about being a whimpering, crying coward who took the easy way out instead of fighting.
It's that simple.
And I think most of us get that.
Trump was just insulting the guy.
Do we really think that quite literally he's cowering in the corner?
I mean, he was probably maybe muttering a little bit, something like that.
But I know, I can see what the man is trying to do.
He's trying to tear down a legacy from a dangerous, dangerous individual who everyone is happy that he's gone.
And that's what Trump wanted to do.
But for some reason, CNN must make sure that he is not a coward, that he was not crying.
How dare you say this?
And it brings me to this tweet.
Nate Silver.
You see, comfortably smug on Twitter was quoting Jamie Lee Curtis, who for some reason was angry at Trump over his language.
And Nate said, it really is amazing how many libs can't even permit Trump to have one good day.
No one will remember this stuff by Tuesday after US forces take out perhaps the most wanted, we'll call him a bad man because YouTube's gonna get mad at me for this language.
So going back to this Twitter thread.
That's the easiest way to put it.
We understand.
Time.com.
They talked to people and they said, look, Trump wants to break the spell this guy has.
He's not some great and glorious guy.
He's an awful person.
And Trump is saying this to make his legacy bad because what Trump said will go in the history books.
Well, the New York Times and Brian Stelter wanted to make sure that this awful person goes down in history, I guess, as not a coward.
So here's what I said.
You're the orange man bad network.
All Trump, all the time.
Trump's insulting will become a bad person.
And you fact-check his insult?
You're bending over backwards to make this bad for Trump.
To which Brian responded, Tim, the president's spokeswoman was asked about Trump's apparent made-up account.
If she wanted to claim it was an insult, she could have.
She didn't.
As for the fact check, the NYT published the original story.
Take your concerns up with those reporters.
And I will.
And you for not calling this out for exactly what it is.
A smear without confirmation.
Because the New York Times writes, the whimpering terrorist only Trump seems to have heard.
They say that Trump offered a vivid account of crying and screaming in the final minutes before the end of Baghdadi.
The only problem?
No one else knows what he's talking about.
No one?
No one.
You literally talked to every person everywhere on the planet and everyone involved?
No.
The New York Times reached out to select individuals and high-ranking personalities who you would assume would have information and they said, I don't know what Trump is talking about.
One person said it sounds like he may have made it up.
Is that confirmation that Trump made it up?
No.
Did Trump make it up?
In my honest opinion, I think, yeah.
I think Trump was being hyperbolic.
I think it was exaggerating.
And he was making it more colorful than it needed to be.
But as we can see from the Time.com story, we all kind of get why he's doing it.
Thanks for breaking this down and trying to make an awful person look good.
Not Trump, the other guy.
Baghdadi.
Trump is trying to destroy the man's legacy.
He was a terrible, terrible person.
The New York Times got no confirmation the story was made up, although I think it's fair that we can all say, yeah, Trump was probably embellishing at the very least, and probably just smearing and insulting the guy at best.
But the New York Times, without evidence, Absolutely.
The lack of evidence has come out claiming that no one knows what he's talking about.
Well, you don't know that.
You don't know that.
And I bring you now to another tweet.
The red-headed libertarian on Twitter said, Hi, Brian Stelter.
The president had planned to speak directly to unit members.
CNN has not done that because you all don't have those privileges.
You doxxed the hell out of them.
So the president's word is your available evidence, or are you calling the unit members liars?
Stelter then said this.
Quote, when Trump delivered the whimpering line, many officials assumed he had spoken to some of the commandos who had carried out the raid.
But as of now, the White House has not confirmed that he has done that, per CNN's reporting.
My response?
That is not confirmation.
It's the opposite.
Are you saying that this is what you're going off of to accuse the president of lying?
The other sources you talked to have not yet confirmed if Trump talked to commandos?
Without evidence?
Without confirmation?
Brian Seltzer ran a story accusing the president of lying.
Now here's the thing.
I think it's fair to assume it was an embellishment.
Fine.
Absolutely.
But come on, man!
We know why he's doing it!
Why carry water for Baghdadi?
This brings me now to the terminal nature that is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The absolute need to make sure that every single thing they talk about when it comes to Trump is bad.
Brings me now to a few very important stories.
You can see here in my tweet, I have some graphs.
I said, talk about something else.
CNN is part of the maelstrom obsession that drives the cycle of Orange Man TV.
Because CNN leads coverage, smaller outlets follow suit.
Your president was recorded saying factual news from Politico is a conspiracy theory.
You guys are losing it.
Here's what happens.
Stelter and others are obsessed with making sure every single thing Trump ever does needs to be talked about, needs to be negative.
And it creates this whirlpool where then other smaller outlets talk about the same thing.
And then Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, reads news claiming that Ron Johnson talked about a conspiracy theory and recycles that back to his staff.
Ron Johnson, my understanding, was specifically talking about a Politico report, a fact-based story from a verified, credible news source.
But because all of the Orange Man bad narrative had to make sure that everything about Trump all the time is negative, they call it a conspiracy theory.
Instead of Zucker fact-checking it, he eats his own waste and then vomits it back up right into the mouths of those who work for CNN on the morning phone call.
And that's what you learn thanks to Project Veritas.
Here's a tweet where someone said, on his CNN program, Brian Stalter did a 10-minute segment on Trump's Twitter typos.
Really.
Well, Brian Stalter said, nope, a 4-minute segment.
It's not the most important thing in the world, but accuracy does matter.
Presidents should have proofreaders.
OK.
Dude, I get it.
But does cable television, a media report, need to talk about the typos in the president's tweets?
No.
But I tell you what, man, the obsession is so, so insane.
When Trump tweeted, Yes.
You know what I assumed?
Somebody was writing a tweet and accidentally pressed send.
It's happened to me sometimes.
And then I get, oh, and I gotta delete the tweet.
But because it's Trump, the unfinished tweet that said, it said, despite negative press covfefe, clearly they didn't finish someone mashed some buns and hit send on accident.
Now it's a thing.
It became a huge story.
Everybody had to talk about it.
Google employees were involved in altering things.
Man, I tell you what, Trump derangement syndrome is something else.
And I believe it's terminal.
In this story from The American Spectator, in reference to Project Veritas' exposé on CNN, they say, CNN slammed by staffers.
Jeff Zucker as Captain Ahab.
You know the story of Moby Dick?
I'm not super familiar.
It's been... I was a little kid when they made us read it.
But the general idea is, he's chasing after that white whale, and he's bringing everything down around with him.
In this story, they highlight all of the negative press, mostly from right-wing sources, I must admit, because why would the left criticize CNN, for the most part?
They do, for sure, like the far-left, anti-war left.
But, like, the media doesn't really rag on the media.
Because conservative media is not really in agreement, we can see this.
CNN ratings plummet.
April 16th.
CNN loses 50% of primetime audience.
April 17th.
CNN's ratings drop.
CNN's ratings drop.
CNN's ratings disaster.
Just how badly is CNN collapsing?
CNN, MSNBC hit hard.
CNN, the network was sold recently.
I believe AT&T bought it.
They relocated.
They bought out a bunch of staff.
Now, I do think it's important to point out one thing, to be fair.
These stories are selective.
When the ratings drop for CNN, everybody on the right points and hollers.
But when the ratings bump back up a little bit, nobody says anything.
So take it with a grain of salt.
CNN's ratings have been down.
Significantly, they've gone up in certain areas.
When it comes to their town halls and debates, it's been really, really bad, and they did have a buyout of many of their staffers.
So we know that media is doing really, really bad outside of this.
This story is one I often highlight, but it's frequently updated.
7,200 people have lost their jobs so far this year in a media landslide.
Not every job lost has been Orange Men Bad Networks.
But we can see that many of the networks that are the wokest, far-left, anti-Trump, everything, you know, Trump, far-right, yeah, they're doing bad.
Vice, Vox, their investment, well, Vox wrote a story saying that they believe their investment may have gone down, but I think Vox actually might be doing well.
They recently bought New York Mag.
But you have, well, you have a ton of layoffs across digital media, and Deadspin being the latest.
Splinter, which was a woke progressive political outlet, very, very anti-Trump, shut down completely.
We then had Deadspin, where the owner said, stick to sports.
Not interested in the political game.
What did they do?
They all leave.
Yes.
I think it's fair to say.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is terminal.
And I think I know why.
It's kind of simple.
You know, people watch my channel, and I'm pretty lukewarm to negative on Trump.
I'm not crazy.
You know, like, I don't shrink the top of my lungs like CNN does.
I go, Trump's typos!
Wah!
No, I say, look, you know, Trump deserves credit for what happened with Baghdadi.
There you go.
What do you want me to say?
These people are insane.
You don't have to like the guy.
You don't have to support him or like him to be reasonable and rational and have a regular conversation with people in media.
So think about what happens.
You know, I read a story and they talk about Trump in this way.
And I'm just like, I read the New York Times story.
I'm just like, dude, you have no confirmation on this.
Why are you reporting it?
We know, we get it.
So they go around trying to disprove Trump's insult on this really awful guy?
Why did Brian Stelter do a four-minute segment on the typos of the president's tweets?
I really don't see the reason or the importance.
You are feeding an addiction for obsessed people.
I want to know what's going on with the economy, man.
I want to know what's going on overseas.
I do not want to be sitting here complaining about the president or, admittedly, the media.
But let me show you one more data point.
I'll admit, every so often we have to talk about this.
This story from RealClearPolitics, measuring the media's obsession with Trump, is a fascinating case study in the absolute Trump derangement syndrome press we have today.
Now to Trump's credit, this whirlpool, he's right in the middle floating like some crazy titan or, who's the water god?
Poseidon.
As all of the media swarms around him and Trump raises his hands and they just, they bend to his whim.
And it's all, I wouldn't say it's all good for the president.
It's certainly not good for these media companies to be trapped in this maelstrom, spiraling down out of control.
Here's a chart showing mentions of Obama versus Trump.
Around the same time in his presidency, Obama got substantially less press.
It's so weird, isn't it?
Look at that red line.
Isn't that nuts?
For those that are listening, the red spikes, it's a graph showing blue and red lines, and the red lines for Trump are double, triple, or even a full order of magnitude higher than Obama's.
Now, around the same time in their presidency, Trump gets around double the coverage, but Obama came nowhere near the amount of coverage Trump ever got.
At the peak of Obama's presidency, Trump was higher during his inauguration.
Don't ask me, but I'll tell you what, man.
The media is absolutely obsessed.
So it's no surprise, then, you're seeing all... Let me ask you something.
You know, I recently raised over a million dollars for a news venture.
Things have been going pretty good.
We've covered a lot of things on the ground.
We've got a crew that's acting independently, doing interviews, traveling overseas, being on the ground, covering real news.
You'll notice that at subverse.net, No stories about the orange man being bad.
We have covered some protests, okay?
But for the most part, just real news.
Why is it that my ventures are doing really, really well?
With great support, by the way.
The people who run Subverse are not in any way... I'm not telling them what to cover and how to cover it.
They're doing all that work.
My channels are growing, and I'm not particularly fond of the president.
But why is that?
You know what it is?
It's that people don't care if you like or don't like the president.
They care if you're going to give them a fair shake.
CNN, you're allowed to talk about how you don't like the president, but to do a four-minute segment specifically on his typos?
That's going to make people turn the TV off.
Because it's irrelevant nonsense.
It's not important to anybody's life.
Now, just wait.
I told you I was going to be self-critical, and I will.
I'll defend myself, though.
Check this out.
Compared to Obama, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, it is just nuts.
Looking by station, CNN spent 4.3 times more airtime on Trump than Obama, MSNBC 2.4 times, and Fox News 3.1 times.
I'll give you my final hypothesis.
When people tune in every single day and everything you say about the president is negative, they lose trust.
I think people will turn on CNN and they'll say, I don't like the president.
I think he's really, really bad.
And there will be Don Lemon and Jake Tapper and Brian Stelter saying, orange man bad.
And they say, yup, I thought so.
But then something like Baghdadi happens.
And people are like, well, you got to give them that one.
But they turn on CNN and they say, orange man bad.
And then regular people who don't like Trump are going, well, come on.
Like, I know, but dude, like, it's Baghdadi, man.
But yeah, because they keep that through line, that even in this point, they're going to say, well, okay, Trump deserves credit, but he lied about this.
People are going, what?
And it brings me back to what Nate Silver said.
Nate Silver is a Democrat voter.
That's what he said, at least.
It's amazing how Libs can't even permit Trump to have one good day, and that's the break.
That's where Trump Derangement Syndrome becomes truly terminal.
And people say, I can't do it anymore.
I can't.
You turn on my channel, and I'll say, like, look, you know, I'm not a big fan of the guy.
He deserves credit here, and he deserves credit for this, and criticism for this.
Credit for this, criticism for this, right?
You turn on CNN, it's all Trump all the time, but all bad.
Always bad.
Always, always bad.
Now, people have criticized me, and so you get the point.
I do want to show you one quick thing from 2017, from Farhad Manjoo.
I've actually enjoyed some of his writing recently.
He talks about California.
But in this op-ed, he writes about how he decided to turn off Trump-related news and see what else was going on.
He said, I wanted to see what I could learn about the modern news media by looking at how thoroughly Mr. Trump had subsumed it.
In one way, my experiment failed.
I could find almost no Trump-free part of the press.
OK.
If that's the case, I know it's an anecdote.
Why are all these media companies collapsing?
Why 7,200 layoffs?
And you can't get away from news about the president.
I'll tell you what.
My work's doing great.
My channels are growing.
We're preparing new shows.
We're talking with new contributors.
We're talking with old legacy, like, high-profile individuals who have the chops to do great work.
We're hiring people.
We're traveling the world.
Things are going great over here.
We're not the Orange Man bad channel, though.
We're the Orange Man not-that-bad channel, right?
Isn't that amazing?
That my take is, like, Trump is bad, but he's not that bad.
Right?
I can be critical of him in these ways.
People still watch.
And I gain more and more viewership.
It's so strange how that works.
But this guy who can't escape the news, the news is laying all these people off and they're collapsing.
What is it?
In my opinion, I believe Trump derangement syndrome is terminal.
I believe that once you get trapped in that spiral, It's terminal.
And these companies are doing the opposite of adapting.
So here's what I'm doing.
I have a TimCast IRL channel.
I think I'll do an update for you guys later today.
It's been a while.
And, you know, it's youtube.com slash TimCast IRL.
And we're growing.
We're diversifying.
We're planning a show on Unsolved Mysteries.
I'm working on it.
Trust me when I say I don't take any days off and haven't had a real day off in three plus years.
And we're trying to launch this show, but there's a complicated process.
I'll do an update later today.
But yeah, we're growing, and we're diversifying.
These companies like CNN are doing the opposite.
They're consolidating everything around Trump.
Instead of talking about, you know, the collapse of media and the wider industry, and doing a longer segment, like dedicate a whole show to the state of the press, or do a longer show about Hong Kong, or China, or South America, or the migrant crisis.
What happened to kids in cages?
What happened to the migrant caravans?
The news is gone!
Now they're talking about Trump typos!
Wow, incredible.
Well, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't address the criticisms towards me in a very similar vein, and I have many times.
Omar Badar says, Tim, is it possible that your appetite for constant outrage at media
criticism of Trump, even when they catch him in another lie, because that's what your followers
love isn't too different from media's relentless coverage of the president's scandals, big
or petty for traction?
So I think first, fair criticism, 100%.
I will fully, fully acknowledge, as I have in many videos, I think we're all playing
a similar game.
And it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we check ourselves if we get trapped in that maelstrom and pull out and talk about something else.
And I have.
And I fully recognize, if I played the game too, I can get way more views doing other things.
I mean, admittedly, I could get way more views playing Minecraft, but I don't do that, so I don't care.
But yeah, I could absolutely make a specific kind of content, but guess what?
Here's what I said.
The last video I did dedicated to the media for my main channel was two weeks ago.
And admittedly, talking about things that I think are more important and trying to make sure I don't fall into these traps results in lower viewership.
That's a fact.
But I try to make sure I live by my own principles and I practice what I preach.
I said except I don't talk about media for every video.
My last main segment on media was two weeks ago.
I'm also not a network.
And our coverage at Subverse doesn't talk about media or Trump unless it's peripheral.
I am not a network like CNN, okay?
Where you have every single host saying Orange Man bad.
I'm a person, with personal opinions, doing one show.
If you want to have just Don Lemon talk about Trump all the time and everyone else talks about something else, hey, that makes sense.
You got one person, that's what they care about, I can respect that.
But CNN is a network, with Zucker on top, telling everyone every day not to cover this, and you must cover Trump.
That's what we learned from Veritas.
Somebody on this phone call said, MSNBC is doing this big town hall thing.
I said it's why I specifically highlighted Zucker's claim to his team on the 9am call that Politico's reporting was a conspiracy.
They've gone off the deep end in their obsession to make sure everything Trump does is bad in some way.
By all means, I'm not perfect.
I do have my own personal things I'm heavily focused on, which includes duplicitousness from the left.
I think impeachment is a scam.
The media's obsession with Trump.
They're not focusing on more important issues.
A lot of these companies are bending over backwards for China.
And yeah, I care about freedom.
It's not about left or right.
It's about, you're doing bad?
We're going to talk about it.
And as I showed you in the beginning, the data shows us The best of my abilities, okay, I'm not perfect.
The BBC, the economy is great, maybe not the greatest ever.
Then why do MSNBC viewers think otherwise?
I am not conservative for pointing out the BBC says the economy is doing well simply because it proves you wrong.
Now I'm not perfect.
I'm not.
I know it.
So I'd appreciate if CNN also tried to break out of this maelstrom.
Because when CNN won't stop talking about Trump, then it makes all the other outlets talk about Trump.
And then when I go online, all I see is Trump news.
And here we are, me, making a video about the media and Trump.
Isn't it fun?
This is why TimCast IRL, that's why I wanted to do it, because I can get out and do other stories.
And I, look, I do try to make sure I talk about other things.
I talk about, I try to talk about the biggest stories.
So yeah, Trump is often mentioned, the media is often mentioned, but I too try to make sure it doesn't just become this one thing is the worst thing ever, period.
And all they do is talk about Trump.
Well, the ratings are down.
They bottled a bunch of staffers.
Murmurs of layoffs circle, you know, nonstop.
7,200 media layoffs.
Woke journalists being purged from news outlets.
I believe Trump derangement syndrome results in an obsession, an addiction, and a microscopic fringe audience.
But they can't stop, because they're addicted.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
I will see you all in the next segment at youtube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
It is a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
Ronan Farrow kicked off a major wave of Me Too stories when he broke the news about Harvey Weinstein.
Now he's talking about Bill Clinton, saying it's time to revisit these accusations.
And he's right.
You know, looking at what Ronan Farrow has done with taking on these big, powerful interests, he's complained about Hillary Clinton trying to interfere to protect power.
I wonder where real journalism went.
Because here we have a story of a dude who, let's just be real.
By any metric, left, right, whatever conspiracy you want to believe or disbelieve, I think we can all acknowledge challenging this level of power is dangerous.
Now, Ronan Farrow is not a peasant.
He's not some low-tier, poor individual challenging the system.
I'm exaggerating and being a bit disrespectful on purpose.
No, he is nobility.
He's Ronan Farrow.
He's been on TV, but they did cast him out, at least as the story goes, because he wanted to do stories that actually challenged those in power.
And I'd imagine many of those in power are shocked, saying, wait, but we've paid you off.
We've bought you.
How dare you turn the blade on us?
Ronan Farrow's doing that.
And this time on Bill Maher, saying it's time to revisit accusations against Bill Clinton.
Good.
Yes, I agree.
And this brings me to the next point.
I do want to read this, but I do need to make this one important point.
I'm so confused by, you know, the far-left progressive types who are targeting Trump.
Obviously, I'm not surprised the Democrat establishment doesn't like Trump.
They want to win.
But I look at, like, the Young Turks, for instance.
Imagine if they said, OK, Trump, please investigate Joe Biden and all of those things.
Trump isn't targeting the Young Turks.
He's targeting the Democrat establishment when he calls for these investigations.
Don't we all want that?
That's what's confusing to me.
You don't have to like the guy to be like, hey man, turn all of the intelligence agencies in on themselves to investigate their wrongdoing.
I'm down.
And then we can have a real argument between the populist left and right and Bernie and Trump and whatever.
But for the time being, It's so confusing to me that you see very little of this.
Ronan Farrow being like, what about Bill Clinton?
Yeah.
Now, I will be fair.
I think the Young Turks have sometimes, you know, pointed the finger at the Democratic
establishment, but it's confusing to me, them in particular, how they talk about they wanted,
what did Cenk say about, you know, shaking them to their core or attacking them at their core
and destroying the establishment?
It's okay.
If that's the case, then let Trump do his thing when he sends the investigators to investigate the Russiagate stuff.
There we go.
Congratulations.
You're shaking them to their core.
But they don't.
They attack Trump.
It's a weird thing that's going on.
But let's read the story and see what Ronan Farrow has to say about Bill Clinton.
I do want to stress as well that Ronan Farrow in the past, recently, Let's read the story from Daily Caller.
Before we do, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
The best thing you can do, however, is share this video, and I really do mean it.
YouTube is throttling independent commentary, I believe.
stop this? Well, you try and stop him. He wins. Guess what?
You're next. Let's read the story from Daily Caller. Before we do, however, head over to timcast.com
slash donate if you'd like to support my work. The best thing you can do, however, is
share this video. And I really do mean it. YouTube is throttling independent commentary. I
believe this is legit. I think that in the next couple of years, especially with 2020 looming,
my channel and all the other political commentators are going to be gone, gone, gone.
YouTube doesn't want to run this content.
It's bad for advertisers.
They don't like it.
And they're doing everything in their power.
They can't just get rid of us overnight.
They have to do it very, very slowly.
They throttle you one day, your views are down, cut in half, and they say, maybe you're just not good anymore.
Maybe you're not interesting.
YouTube knows.
That if they just never show this content, it will reduce growth, it will take away economic viability, people will stop doing it, and then there will be no more independent political commentary.
And if you want to get your news, it'll be the Orange Man Bad Network.
And now, so that's why I say share this video, because it's kind of like, hey man, YouTube is taking, you know, potshots at our shit, and we can resist how we do it.
But this does also play into the stories of, like, Ronan Farrow, okay?
So we'll read this, but I want to make sure this point is clear.
I believe that for the most part, media is bought and paid for.
And that's why, like, I feel like what I do is so important.
It's why I left.
These big media companies.
I worked for Vice.
Because when I started, Vice was this hole-in-the-wall, edgy joint that said, we're going to speak truth to power.
But for the most part, think about what Vice used to do.
You know, for one, they would kind of do stories kind of like this.
I don't want to say they would do this story, that's different.
But Vice was apolitical.
And then all of a sudden one day, they got political.
Big investment came in, story changed.
And now it's...
Just your straight corporate news.
I joined a new company.
I knew it was corporate.
But once again, I saw exactly how they operate.
Bought and paid for.
They'll pay you a ton of money.
Say, this is the story we want you to do.
And when you don't do it, they just don't promote your content.
Sure, you get paid.
No one tells you, hey, you can't do that story.
They just say, go off and do your own thing.
Whatever.
And you get no reach and you rely on yourself.
Well, fortunately, I'm smart enough to get past that and was able to do news.
But this is the kind of news they don't want anyone to see.
Ronan Farrow had to leave MSNBC in order to do this story, and now he's pointing at Bill Clinton.
That's got to be shocking for the establishment that was trying their hardest to control the press.
Think about all of these media outlets that all of a sudden start towing the exact same narrative, okay?
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
I'm saying it's safe.
The corporate interests, they don't want to upset the establishment, they want to make money, and what makes money and what is safe?
Listen, if someone came to you And said, actually I'll give you the perspective of like a news outlet.
Someone comes to the news outlet and says, we want to talk about Bill Clinton and Juanita Broderick.
I want to make sure I can cover as much of this too.
Ronan Farrow on Bill Maher is saying that Juanita Broderick, Bill Clinton was credibly accused.
That phrase, he's turning that language the left has used on them.
And that he says, I think that the Juanita Broderick claim has been overdue for revisiting.
Let me tell you exactly what happens in journalism.
Much respect to Ronan Farrow on this.
They come... Someone... I've been here.
I've seen this.
It's why I don't want to work for this company.
It's why I want to do my own thing.
And it's why it's extremely, extremely dangerous.
This is a dangerous job.
I tell you what.
Someone comes to me and says, I have this story.
Check it out.
And they show it to me.
And I've been here.
And I'll admit this 100%.
I have been told about stories that are shocking and that I know if I stepped up to this, they would destroy literally everything before anyone even realized it.
You would never even hear the first word of the headline.
Some of these stories challenging these billion, multi-billion dollar national corporations that would cause serious harm to them.
I look at these reports, I look at these individuals saying, we need to do the story, and I'm like, dude, I'm one guy, man.
I am not at that level.
It's a fact.
But what's scary is, now I hope you can understand that we're growing, and we've got to go slow, and we've got to build our defense, we've got to show up our fortress, and we've got to make sure we have legal protection, that we can actually, you know, get to the point where we are doing these stories.
And we've got them in the pipeline.
They're coming.
Stuff like this.
These bigger media companies and these digital blogs, they have big investment.
And so when someone comes to them and says, check out this story, they think...
Yeah, you know what, man?
At the end of the year, we're not going to make enough money.
If we do this, we're going to get sued.
No thank you.
Now, that's not my motivation.
My motivation is we've got a small ship, and we want to make sure we can speak truth to power, and we can break big news like this and challenge people like Bill Clinton.
But we will get sunk before you ever even hear the first word of our headline.
It's different for these bigger media companies.
They've all turned corporate.
They all start espousing the exact same narrative.
And I want to make sure I stress the point that it's not a conspiracy.
It's an established, safe path of lease resistance.
MSNBC, it was Chris Hayes who talked, I believe it was Chris Hayes, who talked about this in reference to Ronan Farrow's reporting on all of this, and I respect it, saying all of these companies say that it's too risk, there's too much risk, we're not going to make money on it.
What's it going to do for us?
Are we going to get attention?
No.
So what do they do?
Orange man bad.
Well, orange man bad's safe!
You know, advertisers don't care.
You can talk about Trump all day and night, and that's why this is happening.
Because journalism is dead.
Let me read for you a little bit about what Ronan said, to give you a better understanding.
They say, during a panel discussion that began with an analysis of how the media has responded to the resignation of Katie Hill, Maher wondered if Clinton would have been subject to a more rigorous media examination if he were president today.
Could Bill Clinton If he had done what he did in 1998, survive today, or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?
Farrow answered that question by saying the allegations made against Clinton need to be taken seriously, whereas they often weren't considered in the past, saying, I think that it is very important to interject that Bill Clinton is a different conversation.
He has been credibly accused.
That has nothing to do with gray areas.
I think that Juanita Broderick's claim has been overdue for revisiting.
Farrow was instrumental in exposing the dark side of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who continues to face multiple accusations.
Yeah, we get it.
We know about Ronan.
I am heartened by the fact that people routinely express outrage over Bill Clinton, and particularly those more serious allegations about him, Farrow said.
So here's the question I have.
To the progressives who scream and rant about Trump.
I'm not a big fan of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but I do recognize that it's not always that simple, right?
Sometimes you'll, you know, you're pointing the finger at something.
Let's say there's a disaster.
You know, the enemy—fire is an enemy of ours, and you might really, really hate somebody, but you both realize the fire's got to be put out.
The challenge with a Trump situation, that I can understand from the perspective of the left, is that by giving into Trump's demands and power and investigation, it's granting the executive branch too much power, and Trump in particular, and empowering Republicans, so they recoil.
However, I do kind of feel like maybe this is the point where the anti-establishment left and the anti-establishment right can agree that there is deep-seated corruption in our government that needs to be talked about and the media refuses to do anything about it because it's too risky.
So let me make sure I make this clear for those of you, my point earlier.
There are certain degrees in which it's impossible for individuals to tell stories because they will crush you and you have to be very, very careful.
Take a look at Project Veritas.
They get smeared relentlessly with lies that James O'Keefe has this wall of all the corrections and retractions.
It is a dangerous game.
So, for us, oh, we've got stuff in the pipeline.
Don't you worry about it.
We're never going to play that game.
This is the end result for me.
A lot of these companies, these digital media outlets, their end result is profits in the pockets of their shareholders, etc., or whatever, their investors.
And that means they're more concerned about traffic and less concerned about, actually speaking, truth to power.
You take a look at what happened with Deadspin.
If you guys have been paying attention, Deadspin is the woke sports blog.
Everybody quits.
The union for Gizmodo Media Group says, they just didn't want us speaking truth to power.
Kind of.
Kind of, but not really.
Because you're not speaking truth to power, you're complaining about Trump.
You know, you're complaining about some kids on the stairs of a Lincoln Memorial.
That's not what it's about.
But they are in the correct vein to an extent.
The people who run Deadspin don't care about political coverage, they care about making entertaining content that turns a profit.
With a profit-driven news media, you will not get what Ronan Farrow did.
I think it's fair to point out, Ronan Farrow will probably sell a book.
Actually, he did, right?
Is that what he did?
He literally wrote a book?
Is that Ronan Farrow?
They say the author of Catch and Kill.
Is that him?
Whatever.
He'll make money off of selling a book.
He'll make money off of speaking events and things like that.
So there is profit to be had.
But you know what's easier?
When you get someone with a foundation that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars, and they come to you and they say, you know, we really don't like this story, and here's the thing, you know, we had this job offer opening, and it pays a million bucks a year, and you'd be great for it, but, you know, I guess with the story coming out, it's probably not gonna happen.
And then the journalist goes, well, you know, I wasn't 100% on the story.
I mean, we can talk about this job.
This is how the game is played.
You've got to look at who's paying the bills.
So here's the big benefit to independent media.
Subverse.
Funded by crowd investment.
We don't have big corporations and we don't have any one individual who owns a huge chunk.
It is me and a couple other people and it is funded mostly by the community.
So there's never going to be an individual who comes to me and says, you have to do X. I'm going to laugh and say it's never going to happen.
I'm going to put out a story and when they come to me and say, You know, that story about us you're doing, it's really interesting.
You know, we were gonna do a big ad buy with you guys for like a million bucks, but it's a conflict of interest with a story, I mean, and then this literally happens and companies are just like, well...
You know, we weren't confirmed on the story, so maybe we should talk about this ad deal.
Yeah, not me.
I'll be like, I shouldn't say this, but I'll be like, nah, thanks for the offer.
I'm going to include that in our story now that that's what you're trying to do.
The end result for me is not profit.
And this is probably bad for... I'm not going to say that.
That's not necessarily true.
The company has to survive and grow and profit is an important part of that.
Let's not play games.
But the goal of the company is to serve the community and to do something legitimate.
So I got your man's respect for Ronan Farrow pointed the finger at Bill Clinton for 100%.
And I'm hoping that as these sites like Deadspin sort of die off, and these woke rage-bait outlets that are driven by profit start failing, we can get back to actual content that speaks truth to power.
I'll give you another example why our system is totally broken.
Even non-profit media is failing right now because at a certain point, you've got to take the risk.
You've got to tell the story.
I've done it a couple times.
If you look at my channel, there's some stories where I've broken some news at potential liability.
For one, I released an email of a journalist Who I believe was trying to get some individuals banned from their bank and it worked.
And I knew that I could get my channel banned.
And I knew that it could result in a lawsuit.
And I have to be very careful about how I speak.
But I do it all the time.
When I have stories to break, we do.
But even the non-profit outlets are driven by ideology.
And while their goal may not be profit, their goal certainly isn't speaking truth to power.
As much as it is, I just don't like that other.
You think about, I think about what, you know, Vice, like what it used to be and why I wanted to work there.
Man, they'd go tell a story that had nothing to do with politics.
Now everything's just Trump or, you know, or otherwise.
So I'm hoping that with what we're doing here, and I'll try to do, I think I'll do an update on the TimCast IRL channel because it's been a couple months and we haven't actually gotten started and it's really complicated because we're trying to buy a building and it has been a nightmare.
But that's the plan, man.
So once we have our foundation shored up, expect to see stories that are going to be on this level, and they're going to rock the boat, and they're going to make people angry.
We'll see how long it lasts.
Real journalism doesn't exist anymore.
It really, really doesn't.
There's just a few outliers, Ronan Farrow being one of them, who's willing to step up on major television and say, Bill Clinton.
For the longest time, everybody who brings up Bill Clinton is ignored.
They just ignore it.
And it's like, oh, you're a conservative, you just don't like the Clintons.
No!
No, Bill Clinton was credibly accused.
And I want to make sure I say, I hate that phrase.
It means literally nothing.
But you see how he's turning it on the left.
Oh, you want to defend Clinton?
You want to have him speak at these events?
Hillary Clinton and the Clintons are losing their power.
And that's why I go back to the first point.
It's like, let them go.
Stop defending them.
If Trump wants to investigate, let him do it.
You know, I'm not concerned if the investigators are weeding out corruption.
It needs to happen.
So anyway, you get the point.
And I will stress, by ending this, there will never be a circumstance where I would choose profit over an important story.
If an important story comes our way, our mission, first and foremost, is to make sure that people understand the truth.
I will recognize it's not black and white.
There are privacy issues to deal with, there's confirmation issues, and there are risk issues.
Okay?
So I have been presented stories where I'm just like, I do not have the capacity to do that.
I just don't.
You need, you know, if... So I'll put it this way, too.
These big companies, like MSNBC, have the capacity, more than anyone else to do it.
They don't want to do it, because it's a risk to their bottom line.
For me, it's an issue of, I don't have the capacity to do it.
I've been presented some stories, and I say, I'll tell you what will happen right away.
We don't have the means to fact check, to hire the lawyers to defend ourselves, and as soon as we even try going near this, it's going to all fall down around us, and they're going to crush us with their boot.
So we have to get to that point.
Ronan Farrow was at that point.
High-profile individual.
You couldn't ignore it.
MSNBC tried stopping it.
You see what happens?
But Ronan Farrow is not, as I said earlier, he's not one of these peasants.
He's not common folk.
He's a nobility.
So he had that, and he launched.
That's what I want to get to.
And in order to do that, we have to protect ourselves.
Because I'll tell you what will happen.
The moment we come out with that story, you will see every outlet on the planet.
We've got to make sure we cross all the T's, not all the I's.
And that's what we're building towards.
So let's be a warning to those in power.
And maybe they'll try and shut us down before we can even get off the ground.
I'm not surprised.
When the time comes, we're going to start putting out stories that are going to rock the boat.
Stories like this.
And those stories I said we can't work on, or that we can't publish, doesn't mean we're not working on them.
It just means we have to make sure we do this right.
That's what journalism used to be, right?
They'd get a story and they'd say, okay, we've got to prepare and plan and make sure that by the time we are ready to publish, we are in an impenetrable fortress with confirmation facts, can defend ourselves from lawsuits.
Because I'll tell you this, man.
Even if you're right, even if you have the facts, you will get sued into oblivion, buried by paperwork, and you lose.
So we'll see how this plays out.
Props to Ronan Farrow.
Let's see if anything ever comes of Bill Clinton.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
When I first started hearing all these woke progressives talk about the social construct that is defining gender, I said, I get it.
I'm right there with you.
But you know what?
We crossed a line at some point where nothing makes sense anymore.
It's one thing if you want to talk about the social phenomena that surrounds biological gender.
Totally get it.
And it was typically a courtesy because there are people who are trans and we want to be respectful and protective.
They've taken it so far now, they're wielding this as a cudgel to the point of absurdity.
No, I'm not okay with that.
It's getting too extreme, and there's going to be a massive snapback that I fear will actually be kind of scary.
Look at this story.
Birth Coach is hounded out of industry charity after activists branded her Facebook message claiming only women can have babies offensive.
Listen.
According to Wikipedia, a woman is a biological female.
Based on that understanding alone, fact!
Only women can have babies.
This is why I brought up that point in the beginning.
Because initially, it was a courtesy to say, you know, we want to be respectful to other people who have dysphoria and who are trans, to respect them.
And even Ben Shapiro has said, you know, when it comes to Blair White, for instance, if you're not familiar with Blair, she's a transgender conservative.
I think Blair's a Trump supporter.
But Ben was saying, like, if we're in public, it's going to be a lot hard to explain that Blair was born biologically male and transitioned, so just use the pronouns and refer to Blair as a woman, right?
But understanding, in a more academic and newsworthy context, he wouldn't use Blair's preferred pronouns, which is, I believe, she, her.
All of that is a courtesy.
And now it's extended to the point where there is a law that you have to use someone's pronouns.
Well, now we're starting to get a little far, but even at this point, I'm kind of like, well, I don't like the law on compelled speech.
We're getting a little crazier.
It's different to say, you know, if you participate in public, then your business should serve the public.
You want to come into my shop, right?
And I sell wedding cakes.
Well, I'll sell you a wedding cake, but when you want to get in the nitty gritty, we'll focus on it.
And I use this example on purpose.
Because for most people, they don't realize the wedding cake at the bakery and the gay couple was because the baker didn't want a custom... He didn't want to write that message.
He said, you can't make me say that.
And that's where things get interesting.
And, you know, I'll admit...
For a long time I said, look, don't consider that speech yours if you're customizing a cake.
If you're making a simple statement, I think there's a gray area and there's nuance here.
It's one thing to physically speak out by force of government what you have to say.
Interestingly, the left uses that same argument used by the baker to defend Twitter and Facebook.
I kid you not.
None of this makes sense.
Well, I don't want to rant.
Let's read the story and figure out why this woman was fired.
Or ousted.
And why a charity believes that...
A man can have babies.
I get it.
They're changing the definition.
And it is extremely dangerous and extremely effective.
And we'll talk about it.
They say a birth coach has been ostracized by a professional organization after activists branded her post-offensive.
We know that.
Lindsay McCarthy Calvert, 45, was forced to stand down as spokesperson for Doula UK and has since resigned altogether from the National Organization for Birth Coaches.
Her exit comes after transgender rights activists triggered an investigation Into which Doola UK concluded her message breached its equality and diversity guidelines.
Full stop.
It's the law.
End of story.
And this is the point I was making about things starting to get really, really dangerous.
If you as an organization want to provide female-bodied individuals with reproductive care and coaching, you cannot say that.
Seriously.
Steven Crowder did this bit where he pretended to be trans and went to Planned Parenthood.
And Steven and his audience were shocked to find they actually prescribed medication.
I believe.
Actually, I think they may have prescribed a medication.
I could be wrong.
But they did a test and found that he tested positive, you know, for pregnancy.
The point Stephen was making is that if a man takes a pregnancy test and it's positive, it's potentially cancer.
And so they treated him as though he was biologically female, much to the shock of him and much of his audience.
But I don't want to say shock like they expected anything different.
No, they were like, wow, I can't believe it.
I thought it would happen and it did, right?
Here's the thing.
They legally have to.
End of story.
I don't know where they were at, probably California, but you know that California has gender identity law.
So something dangerous starts happening when you change definitions of words, and it's an amazing and brilliant political phenomenon, or I don't want to say it's a tactic, but I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of activists who understand this.
Take a law that says you cannot discriminate based on sex.
The initial understanding of the definition of the word sex is your biological sex.
It's what the gametes you produce.
It's complicated.
Okay?
So, the law exists.
Well, what do you do?
Change the definition, and you've changed the law without a democratic process.
And there it is.
Gender has a meaning.
We change the definition of woman.
Right now, go to Wikipedia, type in woman, and it will say an adult female human.
But go to trans woman, and it'll say trans woman is a woman.
Literally makes no sense.
But I'll tell you what'll happen.
If we get to the point, and we have basically, here in the UK, here's proof, where woman is no longer recognized legally as an adult female human, then she makes an offensive discriminatory statement, she must be removed, and they will pay a fine because it's illegal.
Gender discrimination.
And there it is.
You change the definition of the word, and you've changed the law.
And that's what's happening.
So as I stated earlier, it's a bit of a courtesy, in my opinion, to say, you know, I will respect your pronouns, I will call you what you want, because I mean you no ill will, and I think there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.
And this is the big thing.
When I was younger, they say, you must learn tolerance.
That was the big thing, right?
South Park did an episode where they went to the Museum of Intolerance.
Because tolerance does not mean acceptance.
I tolerate you means I'm not gonna freak out.
I will recognize that you're here.
It doesn't mean I agree with you.
It doesn't mean that I recognize your worldview or anything like that.
It means we're gonna have a mutual respect and compromise so we can live together peacefully even if we really don't like each other.
This is a better example for me as, like, more religious folks.
Admittedly, as I got older, I kind of chilled out and just totally hippied out.
Like, man, there's so little, there's so much going on in the world.
You experience real war and civil war and a lot of the stuff, you know, rolls right over your, you know, rolls off your back and you just don't care anymore.
But just because somebody does something, like, you know, somebody could have a certain lifestyle.
I'm trying to avoid being overly specific because they'll start attacking me for it.
And it doesn't mean I accept it.
It doesn't mean I like it.
It doesn't mean I agree with it.
Tolerate means we get it.
You're here.
You do your thing.
I do my thing.
Tolerate.
But now they've changed it.
Now they've pushed one step further.
Now it's going beyond a courtesy where I was like, you know, we will use your pronouns because we want to be respectful.
Now it's the law.
And under the law, men can have babies.
Even though the scientific and colloquial definition of the word men does not include biological females.
But, too bad.
And that's why she's out.
There's more to this story, though.
And I want to show you where we get to this point where, unfortunately... You know, look.
These things, these changes, these definitions, they could come normally.
Unfortunately, it happened way too fast because of Tumblr, and because of the law.
It's so insane.
When you have a law that says you can't... Look at New York City, because I've used this as an example often.
New York City says that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity, and then goes on to define gender identity as self-expression.
So now, it's one thing to say people will abuse the system.
It's another thing to just tear a hole in the side of your hull and start taking on water.
If self-expression is gender identity, according to New York City, and that was, it may have changed, but that's the ordinance.
That's what I looked up.
They passed the human rights law.
Well, now you have scoliosexual.
This is Scotland, by the way.
Check this out.
Scots face baffling list of 21 sexualities to choose from in 2021 census, including gynephilic and scoliosexual.
They say, civil servants said terms including scoliosexual, gynephilic, and demiromantic will be understood.
No they won't!
Are you nuts?
This is Tumblr nonsense.
No one has any idea what you're talking about.
And this is what you get when you pass these laws.
Now, they've got the Equality Act in the United States, and there are some real concerns about it.
The left wants it to pass because they believe that this will stop discrimination against people based on identity.
But did anybody really think about what that means?
Biological sex really exists.
It's a fact.
This law would erase protections for people based on their sex.
They argue, no.
No, it would protect gender identity.
Right.
Which means it would remove protections based on sex.
Not completely, right?
You still can't fire someone.
You're female, you're out.
You can't do that.
But it does mean that spaces we've set up specifically to protect females will no longer exist.
You know, I was talking to a friend of mine and I said, you know why we have women's sports separate from men's sports?
Because if you look at the record across the board, women can't compete against men.
So the important thing to consider, And the danger for women's sports.
They like to argue, but if it were true that men have a natural advantage, why is it that some trans women don't win?
Right, because yes, sometimes there are women who are faster than average guys.
The issue is, there are more men, the bell curve for strength on men extends higher than for women.
So let's say you have 100 men and 100 women.
You will have 5 guys in the top 5, the best of the best, and you'll have 5 women in the top women, best of the best.
However, I actually looked up track records for high school, and you would have to mathematically go down
to like the 100th worst guy, or like the 100th best guy, to actually start being on par with women,
which means if you have any one of these guys who are not champions, who are not breaking top 10,
20, or 30, nobody knows what their name is, and they transition, they will maintain benefits
that will result in them displacing women.
It's a fact.
So we set up sports not for women, and I'll wrap this all together.
Women's sports are not for the social construct of women.
Women's sports are specifically for people biologically female,
but they've changed the definition.
You see, women used to mean biologically female.
Now they're saying women means social construct.
It doesn't make sense.
However, it opens the door to say, if a person says they're a woman, then legally they are.
You can't discriminate.
Therefore, there is no longer a female division.
So let's just lay it out this way.
I think you get the point of the absurdity that is this story, right?
The birth coach, losing her job, and they say that the charity is too scared to say anything.
Well, no, they legally can't!
I'm assuming that.
I don't know the laws in the UK, but I know in New York, you couldn't say it!
It would be against human rights law in New York City to assert this!
Because they would say gender identity is a social construct of self-expression.
In which case, every law ever written which uses the word woman instead of female, gone.
Means nothing.
And there it is.
When you change the definitions.
So, I would put it this way.
You know what?
Let's do this.
Let's create a female division for running.
And yeah, you gotta be female.
But the problem is, and the reason everything falls apart, is that the argument from the left and from trans activists is that some people look female and aren't.
Some people pass and some people don't.
Some people are female but look male.
And yeah, yep, those are issues.
How do you solve for that?
Honestly, it's a good point and I don't know.
But the answer isn't to strip away the protections afforded to females in the first place.
We have a female league, and we actually, for the most part, don't have male leagues.
Like in major league sports, women have been trying out for the NFL to be kickers for quite some time.
They just never, they don't cut it.
Women tend to be shorter.
They have wider hips, which means that plays for a whole other list of factors.
The Q angle, more likely prone to knee and ankle injuries.
You know what's mind-blowing to me, man?
You can look at sports and clearly see the difference, but when it comes to running, and when it comes to cycling, where we have these big moments today, I'm like, listen, if you really want to talk about why we don't do this, what do you think would happen if you put a male in a female skateboarding league?
Like, I kid you not, man.
I'm gonna be honest, and I don't want to be mean, okay?
I've been skating for a long time.
I am, uh, much less- I am no longer in particularly good skating shape.
I skate very rarely as of the past few months.
I've been working so much on all of this, but I will tell you something.
I- I went skating, uh, the last time I went skating I think was like a month and a half ago, and I- I am, like, without being a dick, dude, I'll just put it this way.
I know a ton of guys who barely skate, who would get first place like that, and it's because of hip ratio, it's because of shoulder length, there's a lot of factors involved in it.
So taking away women's right to compete on a level playing field to me makes literally no sense.
But I'll give you the point of this video.
The reason I highlighted this is that we need to have a discussion about how we protect the rights of those who suffer from dysphoria, who are trans, respect them to the best of our abilities, to the best, you know, to the legal requirement.
How far is too far?
Okay, do we tolerate or are we forced to accept?
And if we do, what happens then when a woman gets forced out of her job for the factual statement that only women have babies?
And I'm basing that off of Wikipedia's definition.
Now again, I know the left says, but Tim, Wikipedia is in fact based.
No, it's not.
Wikipedia is not the definitive answer for everything, but it is an aggregate of common colloquial opinion of what something is.
If most people feel that women means adult human female, and you've changed the definition and are wielding that to enforce laws against people in ways they were never intended to be, we got serious, serious problems.
And that's where things have crossed the line.
Now we have trans people being hounded by non-binary individuals.
The whole thing is starting to break apart.
And I said this, okay?
I said it a year ago, a year before.
The more they try to expand these rights, the more they get taken away.
Because if anyone can identify as anything, then no one is anything, and all of the protections we've made for physical, biological reasons cease to exist.
It's a complicated problem.
I don't know where the line is.
Because I'll admit, you know, civil rights law mandating like, hey, you can't discriminate for these reasons makes a lot of sense.
But here's the thing.
Basing it off of race, national origin, these are characteristics that are immutable that we understand.
But if you're saying someone can be gender fluid and they can just change their mind overnight, they can change something, well now we can't really protect against that.
Like someone's visibly Korean, and we say you can't discriminate based on race, you can't say get out because you're Korean.
You can't do that.
But what if you say, only women can compete, and New York City has no legal requirements for what defines man or woman, and the definition's changed?
Quite literally, anybody can do it.
And I'll tell you this, man.
They say that, oh, you're talking about exceptions and exploitation.
Yeah, people will exploit the system.
They absolutely will.
So let's figure out where the line is, because this is insane.
You want to have a conversation about the definition of woman?
We can.
But she's right, according to the colloquial understanding of the word.
I totally get the social construct definition.
I totally get that there are people who are biologically female who transition to becoming, who call themselves man.
Scientifically, you cannot change your sex.
You cannot do it.
There are some developments that are really interesting about womb transplants.
However, for the time being, I don't think that's physically possible based on what I've read so far.
Because of the structure of the pelvis, the depth, the width, etc.
Not gonna happen.
In which case, you are typically, I believe the range is 98.3 to 99.2 is the high and low range, that will be discernibly male or female.
There are outliers, there is intersex, and there are complications.
But simply because those things exist doesn't mean we just disregard all of science and then force someone out of her job over this and then put 21 different sexualities that no one's ever heard of on the census.
Scoliosexual.
You might as well put blank.
And then people can write whatever they want and then your stats mean nothing.
Whatever.
You get it?
I don't know where to go from here, though.
I do know that Twitter will ban me for saying half the things I said just now.
YouTube will probably give me a strike over this.
But what's the answer?
Okay?
I'm genuinely concerned about how we solve this problem to respect the rights of individuals without taking away the rights of other people.
Females have a right to compete against females.
I know it's complicated.
I know that sometimes there are people with abnormalities, and I have no idea how to solve that problem.
But I will tell you, taking away their right to be on a level playing field makes literally no sense.
It's complicated, it is.
I'll leave it there, man, because you get it.
A woman got fired for saying women have babies.
Welcome to 2019.
Everything's falling apart.
I'll see.
The next segment will be youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m., and I will see you there.
You may have been following all the big Deadspin news.
Deadspin is the sports site that was part of the Gawker network.
It was sold several times.
And for those that don't know the context, recently, the owners, the new owners, said, stick to sports.
They say it was a broad mandate.
You can write about anything as long as it's kind of got a sports angle.
Well, Deadspin is also known for periodically covering political issues, like Gamergate and TV news media, leaving their owners wondering why.
Now, in my opinion, I think it was really stupid of the owners to buy the company because, come on, do some research before you buy a property.
But let's get to the point.
The meat and potatoes here.
All of these workers at Deadspin triumphantly, you know, dance out cheering, saying, ah, the workers have power and we've just shown you and we left.
This guy comes along.
Deadspin tries to hire a freelancer to pick up the slack.
They hound him on Twitter.
He apologizes and resigns immediately.
And the woke journalists are all high-fiving and clapping, yeah, we did it!
And then Deadspin went and I guess hired somebody else, started cranking out articles with no byline.
Congratulations, you've accomplished nothing.
The owners got exactly what they wanted.
They purged everybody who wouldn't follow company mandate.
The site still exists.
You lose.
Welcome to the real world.
You can high-five each other all day and night about how tough and amazing you are, and congratulations, I actually respect that.
If you don't like the job, you walk out.
But no, nothing has changed.
So this brings me to...
The article I wanted to read from a couple days ago.
What the mass resignations at Deadspin tell us about work in America.
The move realized every worker's fantasy.
Ah, yes, Vox.
Because in New York, where many of these people work, they're probably friends with each other.
I know because I worked at some similar companies.
But what's really funny about this is that I have the gift of hindsight.
See, this story came out November 1st.
I had a prediction.
My prediction was that Deadspin would hire people who would publish under no byline.
And they've accomplished one thing.
What the woke journalists have done by targeting that freelancer is they have salted the earth not for the media company.
That's what I said before.
I said they're salting it to make sure the company fails.
No, no, no, no.
They're salting the earth for wokeness.
They're ensuring that anybody who is sufficiently woke and would bend to an outrage mob Will not work there.
You know what that means?
That media company that you think is so great that has that tremendous reach is now going to be dominated by people who don't care about you, who you have no control over.
Congratulations.
What little influence you could have maintained is gone.
Reminds me of, uh, Marvel, the Captain America Civil War movie.
Where one of the arguments for signing the peace accords, keep one hand on the wheel, at least.
Right?
Here's what you could have done.
You could have said, okay, we'll stick to sports.
And you still could have maintained that political angle.
Guess what happens now?
Now they bring in some low-cost, you call them scabs, but you're not striking, so they're not scabs, low-cost workers who come in with no byline, write blogs.
And I'd be willing to bet there are a ton of journalists Desperate for work as 7,200 jobs have been terminated as of this year alone.
Let me introduce you to market competition.
You thought you could walk out.
You thought everybody would be in solidarity.
And then I wonder, I wonder who it is who went behind your back.
I'd be willing to bet you know him.
Check it out.
This story from this morning, Canelo Alvarez's On The Money by Deadspin.
And it's a blurred, pixelated, little orange image.
I'd be willing to bet the people writing for this site, they know you.
It's not a very big journalistic community.
I wonder who it could be?
Who went behind your back because that sweet, sweet money is worth way more than your political ideology?
Welcome to real life.
Now the story from Vox is hilarious.
The move realized every worker's fantasy.
And I will say, I hear you, man.
I really do.
I have walked out of many jobs.
I had one job, they got a new manager in.
It's very similar, actually.
I was working, it was like when I was a teenager.
I was working really hard.
I always did a good job.
I felt like I was smart and I was eager and I wanted to move up.
They bring in a new manager who knows nothing about the company, who starts getting all confused all the time and getting mad at me that they can't do the thing, you know, do what they're supposed to be doing right.
And so one day, he insults me, I take off my apron, ball it up, toss it to him, I say, here you go, and I walk out.
And oh, uh-oh, the other managers are now freaking out.
They called me like eight times, please don't quit, please come back, please, I'm like, nope!
It felt great, guess what?
I didn't care about the job, didn't need the job, there was no victory in like, spiting the company, it was just me saying, I'm out, I do what I want.
In this instance though, it was this big like, principled outrage.
Ah, well, the company carries on without you.
That's exactly what the owners want.
Here's my conspiracy theory.
My conspiracy theory is that the owners bought the site purposefully to purge wokeness.
I don't really think that's true.
I think they bought it because they want money.
But sure enough, they've effectively gotten... They didn't have to fire any... They fired, like, one dude.
Everybody else quits.
Aw, man, you made it easy for me.
Now you can't sue.
Now you can't file for, well... Yeah, you can't file for unemployment or anything like that.
Imagine this.
Imagine this Jim Spanfeller guy who owns it is thinking, I want to get rid of these woke, outraged people If we lay them off though, they're going to want to sever it, it's going to be this big ordeal.
Got it.
Make them all quit!
Congratulations.
So this story's really funny.
One by one, Deadspin staff writers announced their resignations on Twitter on Wednesday.
And you got these people saying, like, I just resigned my position.
I, too, quit.
And all of the other woke Twitterati are like, yes!
By the end of the day, at least 10 writers had quit their job.
A sign of protest and solidarity with their interim editor-in-chief, Barry Picheski, who defied a mandate from the company's new owners to stick to sports.
The collective quitting stunned other journalists on social media and surfaced the deep tension between writers at the sports-focused news site and the new owners of its parent company.
Univision sold the company, we get it.
They say.
Deadspin staff and other employees have had a lot of complaints about Spanfeller.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, don't care.
If you don't like the job, quit.
You did, we're done, right?
They've also complained about the new leadership's repeated interference with their writing, which is known for its irreverent, stick-it-to-the-man take on sports, culture, and politics.
Several former Deadspin staffers did not respond to Vox's request for comment.
Geo's editorial director told the New York Times, the company is simply moving in a new direction, and some employees don't like that.
Plain and simple, right?
There we go.
We can all be happy, shake hands, say, take the company in a new direction, have a nice day.
No.
No, they wanted to salt the earth.
That's why things didn't go over well Monday, when the new editorial director demanded its writers focus on sports, then fired Bochesky, who had been with the company for more than 13 years, for refusing to follow the mandate.
That's when the resignations began to trickle in.
Uh-oh.
They say, it was striking for this to watch to unfold, especially at such a turbulent time for digital news media.
I would say it was a really dumb thing to do, to walk out.
When there's no jobs in digital media.
Except for mine, because, you know, we're hiring.
They say, yes, part of the mass exodus stems from unhappiness with GEO's culture and desire to speak out against corporate overlords.
But it also reflects how powerful union organizing in digital media has created an opening for workers to rethink what they are settling for and how to take matters into their own hands.
Yes, GMG union.
I respect union and collective bargaining to a great deal.
They did nothing for these people here.
There is nothing they can do about it.
Deadspin continues with new writers and no bylines and you can't do anything about it.
Welcome to real life.
It's called market competition.
If 7,200 people have been laid off and most of these jobs are in New York, I'm willing to bet as soon as these people walked out, somebody who was in their room drinking a beer at 10 a.m.
and crying about having no job and A guy can't pay rent, all of a sudden spammed emails to the owner saying, please give me the job, please give me the job.
And he said, how's 40,000 a year sound?
And they went, oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Just, just don't publish my name on the byline.
Just put Deadspin.
How many, how many of the thousands of people have lost their jobs in New York are desperate and have no problem saying, I don't care about you.
I don't care about your ideology.
I need to put food in my mouth and pay my rent.
And they left at that job in two seconds.
You're an ideologist.
What'd you get you?
So, so look.
They say walking off the job is a powerful idea.
At some point or another, everyone has fantasized about doing what Deadspin writers just did.
Channeling their pent-up frustration and anger on the job into a dramatic exit.
I've done it several times!
Hey!
How about you just go do it?
You got a problem?
You say, I quit!
Are we done?
They say, in February, the entire staff at a Sonic restaurant in Circleville, Ohio, quit over a dispute with the new owners.
They left a note with some expletives on the door for customers.
Warning, due to terrible management, the whole store has quit.
Now here's the thing.
You work for a Sonic, right?
You got a specific company infrastructure and plan and burgers and shipments.
That's tough, man.
Those managers, you're going to have to train new people?
Ouch.
Not everybody knows the Sonic way.
And if you lose all your staff, you're closed for the foreseeable future until you can train new staff.
Somebody's probably got to fly out.
Whole new procedures, cleaning house.
You'll find people to work there, but it will take time.
Now for Deadspin.
You've got 7,200 fresh layoffs.
And all you really got to know is, hey, can you write about sports?
You got it.
You're hired.
So as soon as you walk out, they walked right in.
And you can tell that they know it's a problem for their ideology.
It's not a win for them.
They've won nothing.
You can tell because of how they attacked that one guy who took the job.
They say it's a fantasy, blah blah blah.
Look at this.
Workers have more power than they imagine.
It's hard to overstate how much leverage workers have right now.
Not in the media industry, dudes!
Not in the media industry!
You walked out of a job as media is collapsing?
Good luck finding another one, okay?
Now, I'll be honest, I think they probably can.
I think they'll call up, and it's a revolving door, the journalism enterprise, like, industry.
It's a revolving door.
Someone leaves one company to go work for another company, because everybody's friends with everybody else, and they'll hook each other up.
It is corrupt, it's gross, it is an ivory tower industry.
But for the most part, you're now in a pool of 7,200 laid-off media workers this year alone.
Welcome to the free market, where people have easily picked up your job with no qualm.
They don't care.
They're not going to protect you.
They're not in solidarity with you.
They talk about how they all walked out and they have more power.
For the first time in decades, workers in many industries have a lot of collective power.
No, you don't!
You quite literally do not.
There are some industries that do.
Companies get too big, and when their workers storm out, yeah, it's a big problem.
But I'm telling you this, man, I loaded up Deadspin and...
There it was.
Look at a bunch of articles, and it's just sports.
Look at this one!
Sports fans booing and jeering Trump round 2.
Hey, wait a minute!
That's political!
Oh, but that wasn't enough for them.
They wanted to be able to periodically, I think it was like 1 out of 25 articles was political.
That's what they wanted to do.
Well, I'll tell you what.
They easily changed the whole site.
Look at all of these articles.
I don't know who Bill Bradley is, but he published on The First.
Did he quit?
Because this article is from The First as well.
So maybe this guy quit too, I don't know.
But now all of these other articles just say Deadspin.
Deadspin, deadspin, deadspin, no name.
I'll tell you what happened.
Vox writes this article saying workers have more power than they imagine, and they're showing how, you know, things are changing, and yadda yadda yadda, and now people need to realize how strong they are.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear ya.
Right now, digital media is collapsing.
This is not the message you want to send, Vox.
This is the wrong message.
So you can all go behind the scenes and high-five each other and laugh about how you did it, and you've done a principle, and you know what?
I can respect that.
I do.
I absolutely mean it.
You had a new owner who didn't like what you were doing, and you had an argument.
You left.
It's the right thing to do.
But to act like you're going to walk away from this from the winner.
No.
The reality is your company was failing.
It was losing money.
They finally started to turn around and make a profit.
You had a mandate.
You refused.
You leave.
They replaced you in two seconds.
It reminds me of that song from The Living End.
It's called Roll On from back when I was a kid.
It's like a rockabilly band from Australia.
I can't.
I'll probably get the lyrics wrong.
But it's something like, um, come back to work tomorrow, meet your new replacements, and roll on.
Something like that.
So, basically, it's a song about these people going on a strike, and the management says, you're all expendable, when all is said and done, you'll come back to work tomorrow, meet your new replacements, and roll on.
Congratulations.
Meet your new replacements.
You've changed nothing.
The company has won.
This is the real world.
Is it good or bad?
Well, you can argue that.
Stick around.
I'll leave it there.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
Nancy Pelosi is awful.
She's just so awful.
And you know what's funny is that I've got several segments a few months ago where I was actually like, yeah, she's not so bad.
I'm actually kind of lukewarm because she was resisting the outrage and the impeachment saying, calm down.
And I'm like, well, you know, she's pretty corporate moderate.
I don't like the corporate establishment 30 year incumbent people, but She wasn't that bad, right?
Not that bad.
No, now she's insane.
She's awful.
She's spiraling out of control and everything's falling apart because the Democratic Party has lost sight.
They have no leadership.
It's the end.
Take a look at the screen.
You must win the Electoral College.
Pelosi warns 2020 Democrats against leftward lurch.
Oh really, Nancy?
Is that true?
You think the Democrats are going too far left and you must win the Electoral College?
My oh my!
What a great point to be made.
I agree.
People in middle America who are concerned about the economy, you need to make sure you win their vote and then you told all of the centrists to embrace impeachment.
How centrist Dems learned to stop worrying and love impeachment.
But it's a huge risk.
And I think the answer shows that Nancy Pelosi has completely lost control of the party.
She was trying really hard to resist the impeachment stuff for obvious reasons.
I think now they're looking at data and betting that impeachment can help them.
But I'll tell you what.
Joe Biden is leading the pack in the latest polls and in the RealClearPolitics average.
Do you know what that means?
I want you to really think about what Joe Biden represents.
How much money has he raised?
What did he recently hope to reinstate?
The Paris Peace Accord of 1973 ending the Vietnam War, something like that.
I wasn't alive, forgive me.
Joe Biden recently talking to a crowd, turned and walked towards the screen, apparently not knowing where the crowd actually was.
Joe Biden's Iowa State Director doesn't live in Iowa and hasn't campaigned there in like seven years.
Joe Biden has no idea what's going on.
And for some reason, Joe Biden's leading the pack.
I'll tell you why.
Most people don't care They're not paying attention to the news, and so they just checkmarked Joe Biden.
But anybody who actually has listened to what Joe Biden's been saying, you'd be like, dude's not playing with a full deck of cards.
And I'm not trying to be mean.
He's an old dude.
It's time to go lay down and relax.
You served your country.
I can respect that.
But you probably shouldn't be running for president at this point.
And I'll say the same thing about Elizabeth Warren.
She's, what, 70-something, 70 years old?
So here's what ends up happening.
You get all these Democrats riled up to be in favor of impeachment, hoping it's the right path.
But you acknowledge the leftward lurch is a big problem.
Now, I understand they're not completely the same thing.
It may be possible that moderates are in favor of impeachment.
That's what they're betting on.
But I would bet on this.
The people who are concerned about the leftward lurch, for the most part, are people who are paying attention and know it's happening in the first place.
In that regard, when faced with two options, you have the bad orange man who speaks like a jerk and made inappropriate phone calls, and you have the 2020 Democrats who are saying, health care for non-citizens.
Elizabeth Warren's plan recently about Medicare for all and taxing the rich didn't account for non-citizens, of which the Democrats pledged they would give insurance to or government health care.
I guess we'll make a bet.
My bet is that when you assume the Americans are paying attention, when their choice is Donald Trump, A good economy.
He's kind of a bad guy.
He's not that bad, like the way the media puts him.
But man, we could do better, I think, in terms of personality and character.
It's complicated, I understand.
I always try to make sure that I present my opinions on it in a more balanced way.
I think the foreign policy stuff has been pretty bad.
He did avoid war with Iran, and even Cenk Uygur praised that, so credit where credit is due.
But we've got some personality issues.
We've got some behavioral problems.
And so I'll put it this way.
Regular Americans who are paying attention, who know the leftward lurch is dangerous, they're also paying attention to Trump, thinking he's got attitude problems and he's a bad representative of our government, but take your pick.
Grumpy, crass, boisterous, rude, potty mouth, but a good economy versus tepid, frail, old, senile, And far left and giving away your community resources to people who aren't citizens of this country.
I'd be willing to bet any day of the week regular Americans who know anything about politics would prefer either to not bet at all or bet on Trump.
Now, who are you going to get?
The far left will vote for whoever you put up, because Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, for the most part, Bernie, that's candy.
That's cotton candy to the far left.
He's their guy, okay?
I can respect that, right?
Bernie, there's a lot of really, really good things about Bernie.
I just disagree with him on some character issues, similar to Trump, and policy issues.
Bernie is just too weak, in my opinion.
He endorsed Hillary.
There's a lot of problems here.
But the left, they like it.
Then you've got people who support Biden.
Not paying attention.
Their vote won't... This matters very, very little.
You know why?
The people who say they would vote for Biden, you're never going to sway for one reason.
They're not listening to you.
They're not watching.
They have no idea what's going on, because if they did, they would see all the gaffes and the insanity and be like, that dude's... We can't do that.
So here's what we're left with.
Nancy Pelosi simultaneously saying, get the centrists, the moderates on board to support impeachment, while also saying, you must win the Electoral College, to me, shows how she has no control.
Impeachment is out of her hands.
Everything's spiraling into the dumpster fire.
And she's doing what little she can.
Please don't go far left.
We must win the Electoral College.
But I'll tell you what, we'll read this now, okay?
But people are gonna choose a boorish old man who's lewd and lascivious and has all the character defects of a comic book villain, but a good economy.
A good economy.
They're gonna pick that.
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
I'm not trying to say Trump is a comic book villain.
God, people are gonna start saying, I have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
saying the people like Nancy Pelosi who think Trump must be impeached for high
crimes and misdemeanors. Okay regular people don't care they don't think that
way. They're just like, you know I was in an uber ride in Texas I talked about
before I went on a Glenn Beck show and the uber driver said man you know
Trump's got a bad attitude but but you know he's things are kind of going okay
And there it is.
I was talking to some Hispanic friends of mine, and they were just like, I don't know about any of that, but the economy's good.
And I was like, what are you gonna say?
You can talk about Trump being a bad man, a bigot, all that stuff, doesn't matter.
So now Pelosi.
Pelosi 79?
Whoa!
There's a woman who's running in San Francisco.
Her name is Agatha Basilar.
And she is very much a young progressive, kind of like AOC.
And she hot called me.
I thought it was a cold call.
Someone corrected me.
No, because she got my name off of a Yang donor list.
And she was talking about how she wants to primary Pelosi.
And I said, you know, I got to be honest, man.
I think I disagree a lot with your politics.
I like the anti-war stance she has, very much like no regime change war stuff.
That's big for me.
But the Green New Deal, it's buzzwords.
It's ineffective.
It's a problem.
But I do think, I got to admit, it doesn't matter who it is.
Okay, it kind of does.
It kind of does.
But for the most part, we need someone, be it her, a young upstart, to primary Nancy Pelosi.
And that's what she's doing.
So, I'm not going to go so far as to donate, because she does have a lot of the social justice and far-left ideology stuff, which I think is substantially more dangerous.
But man, Pelosi, you know what?
I'm not saying this because—you know, I'm just going to say it.
I'm just going to say it.
I'm going to get in trouble.
But seriously, the incumbents need to go.
And I'd be willing to accept a young upstart, more far-left progressive type if it means we get these incumbents out, these ineffective—and the craziest thing to me—I mentioned this in an earlier segment—I don't get Why the Young Turks and other Bernie supporters aren't actually working with the Trump supporters on investigating the corrupt old establishment.
Like, Trump is not an establishment player.
We all know it.
And you can think he's got all the character defects in the world and he's a comic book villain, like I was saying.
Believe all that, fine.
But he's pointing his investigators at the establishment, okay?
The people you've railed on for years.
And so did Trump.
I don't want to say the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
Not that much.
But I'm wondering why... It's actually kind of happening, because I've seen people like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and others, these leftists, who are kind of like, if Trump wants to turn the Department of Justice on the FBI and the CIA to weed out corruption, let it happen!
The funny thing is Matt Taibbi mentioned... Matt Taibbi is like a kind of left-wing dude.
He mentioned that Vindman, the guy who testified that he was concerned Trump was going to subvert U.S.
foreign policy, Matt Taibbi said, doesn't the president set foreign policy?
And here I am laughing, like, Matt Taibbi is not a conservative, but he's right!
If Trump sets foreign policy, who's this guy to come out and now he's working with establishment Democrats?
You gotta understand, you know, I understand these far-left types like AOC supported impeachment, but come on, seriously?
Trump is trying to investigate Biden.
You want Biden—you want Bernie to win?
Well, Biden's in the way, and a lot of people are supporting him.
So where are the progressive left saying, like, bring it on, Trump?
Imagine what would happen if the Young Turks ran a segment saying, we want Donald Trump to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.
Their own Hunter Biden would be in trouble!
And that opens the door for your candidate.
Look, I'll put it this way, man.
I'm not saying play political games.
I'm saying, if you're on the left, and you think Biden is corrupt, and you think these intelligence agencies have been corrupt for a long time, well, shouldn't you then work with those who are also concerned about that as well?
And I guess, I don't know what you think man, but I'll tell you what.
If you really do want to beat Trump, well then Biden is in the way.
Because Biden is an old establishment candidate, and he's taken a lot of that support.
And it's bad news across the board.
If Bernie is going to win, Biden is blocking him.
Wouldn't it be important then?
If Biden really did wrong.
I'm not saying he did.
I'm not entertaining any theories here.
I'm just saying Trump is saying Biden did this.
We've got a sworn statement from the Ukrainian prosecutor saying it's happening.
Where's the progressive left saying, you know what?
Go for it.
Instead, they're like, no, Biden's OK.
You want Biden to win?
Now, Bill Maher, on the other hand, is more establishment.
So anyway, you get the point.
I bring up the egg of the bacilar because I'm just thinking you've got Biden.
It's like, come on, dude.
It's time to go.
Nancy Pelosi, 79 years old.
Come on, man.
I can respect that you serve this country, but I can't remember who said this, but we've got a minimum age for politics.
I think Congress is like 25.
Presidency is 35.
We don't have a maximum?
Like, you know, I'm not trying to be mean to senior citizens or anything, but come on.
In my neighborhood, when I was a lot younger, a 14-year-old girl was killed by a senior citizen driving.
And he wasn't paying attention, blew a stop sign, ran her over, and I'll give you a trigger warning on this one.
After he hit her, he didn't know what was going on, he didn't know what he hit, he backed up.
over her head. And that sparked a huge debate in my neighborhood about whether or not seniors
should be driving and South Park even did an episode about it. So at what point do we say
79 is too old? Why does San Francisco keep electing Nancy Pelosi? She has no control,
everything's falling apart. What she's saying makes no sense. So you know what?
While I don't support Agatha Bacilar, who's priming Nancy Pelosi in terms of most of her
policies.
I do support her in at least being a young person who wants to come in and effect change and challenge Nancy Pelosi.
Now, it's kind of contentious, because a lot of people have said, no way, Nancy Pelosi is infinitely better than any far left.
At the same time, I thought about that.
I did.
And I think that's not what it's about.
Change happens.
It might not be good change.
But it's not for me to say, let's keep a 79-year-old in office who's never faced a challenge, who's worth millions of dollars.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Get his incumbents out.
I would much rather have a young person with new experiences challenging me on my ideas And me arguing against those ideas, then an establishment corporate Democrat who's locked down the district, bring on a new progressive candidate who I can disagree with and that's fine.
That's okay, we disagree.
If her district supports her.
But Nancy Pelosi has locked this place down for a long enough time and she's 79 years old.
But I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
Comment, let me know what you think.
A lot of people have said, no, no, help us, come on, dude, it's San Francisco.
Do you think after Nancy Pelosi retires, you're gonna get a conservative?
Never gonna happen.
But I do think it's about time we send a message to the incumbents in general.
Think about what Trump represents.
He's anti-establishment.
He is not part of the same political class.
And he came in and brought a lot of changes.
Very similar to what the Tea Party was doing.
I can't tell you who's the right person to bring about, but I can say somebody young, and somebody young has stepped up, and for that Agatha has my respect.
We'll see.
We'll see if she wins.
But I gotta admit, I can disagree with her, but I think Agatha at this point would be a million times better than Nancy Pelosi.
But I don't know.
You know, I'm not a far-left, progressive, social justice, identitarian-type person, and I think I disagree with her a lot, but I will say this, final thought.
Nancy Pelosi represents nothing.
Nothing but corporate Democrats.
At least, when it comes to Agatha, she has ideas she follows, and we can have a conversation, and I can disagree, and we can argue about it.
Nancy Pelosi, what does she represent?
Duplicitousness?
Mixed-up ideas?
Weakness?
I'm sorry, man.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
In my last segment, I talked about Agatha Basilar.
She is a progressive Democrat who is challenging Nancy Pelosi in a primary in San Francisco.
And I asked the question, Is it better to have a progressive Democrat ousting Nancy Pelosi, who is a corporate Democrat who's nearly 80 years old, because we need to get rid of these incumbents?
You know, a lot of people have said Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist and it's better, but in my opinion, I disagree.
I think it would be better to get a younger individual in to get rid of these incumbents, be it AOC or otherwise.
Because think about it.
You had Joe Crowley in AOC's district.
And he was this long-standing, you know, what, 10-term incumbent.
And what did he really represent other than, I mean, honestly, nothing.
Corporate interests?
The corporate Democrats?
He is not a person of the people, whether it's good or bad.
Trump is a populist.
He's not part of this political class.
And now we have the corporate Democrats who remain.
And in my opinion, I feel like this.
I don't care, for the most part, who replaces them.
Just, it's time for the incumbents to go.
For the most part, I would say.
There are certainly some people I think are great, principled individuals who should stick around.
But at a certain point, man, it's time to get rid of these 30-plus-year politicians.
It just seems so strange to me.
Now, I brought up this question about Agatha Basilar because I recognize that her politics are widely opposite to mine.
Aside from her, she opposes private prisons and she opposes very, very anti-war.
That we're in alignment on very strongly.
So I thought it'd be fair to do a story about AOC to represent the challenges that come along with it.
While I can recognize ousting an incumbent like Pelosi, in my opinion it would be good because it's time for change.
Get rid of the establishment.
Not a fan.
Just don't like it.
Ineffective.
Duplicitous.
Just bring on somebody that I can actually talk about ideas with, and somebody new, and we'll see what happens.
That being said, AOC certainly is worthy of criticism.
And while when she was first elected, when she won the primary, I did praise her, we've now seen that she's become an ineffective, ignorant politician.
The reason I'm doing this is to point out, while I may feel strongly to a degree that Pelosi should be primaried by a young progressive, I also want to mention it's not necessarily the best thing in the world.
Now you can argue Nancy Pelosi should stay because she is at least somewhat moderate, and AOC Has ridiculous ideas that seem not to make very much sense.
In the end, I still think, I don't know.
I don't know.
I think it's better that AOC got elected.
Because now we can actually see the absurdity.
It's better for it to be front and center instead of hiding behind, you know, the rock, lurking in the shadows, and shielded by someone claiming to be moderate.
It's not about making someone safer.
Now, I will agree and disagree to an extent.
subway station as she tweets, arresting people who can't afford a $2.75 fare
makes no one safer.
It's not about making someone safer.
Now I will agree and disagree to an extent.
Arresting people and putting them in jail when they're poor and can't afford the train is a problem.
I would also like to point out, praising people storming the MTA over not just the fare,
but because a fight broke out and the cops tried stopping it
and the cops got aggressive, it's a complicated issue.
I'm not going to sit here.
I'll tell you this, man.
I've been on the stick end of a bad cop interaction on more than one occasion, and it is horrifying.
I've also been saved by police.
I think, for the most part, most interactions I've had with cops have been positive and important, because I've typically interacted with them when they were helping me.
But I would also say that I have had more I've had cops try planting drugs on me, falsely arrest me, threaten me and my friends, and just other horrifying things where you watch them and you can't do anything about it.
However, what we see here is—well, it's AOC taking the emotional reaction, which I think is very, very ignorant.
Why do police arrest somebody for fairhopping?
Because the trains in New York City are collapsing, okay?
The infrastructure is terrible.
They announced a couple of years ago they needed to repair the L train, which brings you from hipster Williamsburg into Manhattan, and it was panic!
Just pure panic.
Well, here's the problem, man!
The trains are failing and need to be repaired!
What people like AOC don't seem to realize is the fare increase is probably due to two things.
There are more people in New York, and typically more and more come.
There are a lot of people who use the train.
The fare isn't just to support the cost of fixing the trains and making them run on time, but it's also a slight deterrent for complete overuse and abuse.
If everybody who wanted to use the train could use the train and did, you would have substantially more people.
Unfortunately, there is a problem that exists no matter what you do.
Some people just don't have the money to take the train.
Now, you may be saying, Tim, that's horrifying.
Everybody should be able to use public transit.
Okay.
This is the problem that the left doesn't seem to understand when it comes to socialism.
The train can't carry an infinite number of people, nor can it even carry the amount of people it currently is ferrying.
The infrastructure is crumbling.
They were relying on the Amazon jobs to pay taxes, and AOC shot that down.
She led the protest.
She can deny it all day and night, but we know she was in the financial district leading protests against Amazon, she's high-profile, and they left.
They needed that tax revenue to help fix the infrastructure, but now they've increased the price because they need to fix the infrastructure.
If you gave the trains for free to everybody, imagine now that the 20 or 30% or so of people who can't afford the train, and typically don't, are using it 10 times more.
Imagine now that the trains are free or unenforced.
They don't enforce fare hopping.
People use it ten times more.
Let's say this.
Let's say everybody in New York does use the train.
But they only use it once or twice a day because it does cost $2.75.
So you say, stop arresting people for doing it.
Then all of a sudden, everybody says, ain't nobody gonna arrest me for doing it.
I'll use it whenever I want.
Now the use of the subway goes up and that one person's riding five times.
The trains are going to fall apart.
This translates to a lot of major issues and it's part of why socialism does not work.
Now let me tell you straight up...
Progressive policy?
Like moderately progressive, not like super far left?
Yeah, it works.
The city can subsidize the infrastructure of the train and make the costs a little cheaper by taxing the rich and real estate and other areas, and it's still sustainable, so long as the amount of people using it are within a certain threshold.
It's like, you know what, man?
Imagine you have a bridge, and there's a hundred people who want to walk across it.
And if they all do at the same time, the bridge collapses.
Well, you can't.
Some people are going to have to wait and take their turn and maybe never get a chance.
It's the same argument when it comes to health care.
This is the craziest thing about universal health care that's never factored in and why Elizabeth Warren's plan makes literally no sense.
Health care adapts with technology.
Let's say today, universal health care for everybody.
Tomorrow, a major corporation invents a cure for every form of cancer.
Boom!
Cancer cure.
However, it requires extremely intricate and precise methods of creation, and there's only one lab that can do it, and they only have 25 workers in that lab.
It takes about three months to manufacture the cure, and it's new.
Are we then going to say everyone in this country is entitled to that cure?
No, of course not.
How do we then scale up the issue?
For me personally, I do think we can get to a point where we have a base level of care, like if you break your arm, we can set it for you.
Those things are simple.
Cancer, on the other hand, probably still going to require private insurance.
How can Elizabeth Warren offer up universal health care?
How can New York City not enforce fare hopping?
AOC is siding with regular angry people who don't understand how things work, probably because it gets her more followers, gets her more donations, and that's the problem, in my opinion, with populism.
I will say, elitism should not be defended, because there's good populism, there's bad populism.
But elitism is elitism.
And I've seen some people try and defend elitism, and no, no thank you.
Elitism is the idea that the elites should be in charge.
For the most part it's complicated, I know people might argue.
But just because you're a wealthy, privileged elite does not mean you're better at running something, and you probably have less experience.
Now, when it comes to populism, you can seek to work towards the will of the people as a whole.
And typically, the media will slam the kind of populism the AOC does, where it's just blindly supporting whatever the outrage mob says.
Nah, none of that.
But there is a good form of populism, where you actually cater to what the people need.
And it's complicated.
It's a complicated process.
It leaves them, however, with more of the idea that you were born rich, therefore you're allowed to rule.
Nah, none of that.
In the end.
I'll say this.
The protest that she's praising was not just about fares.
A fight broke out on the train, and something happened, and a cop ended up punching a kid and arresting him.
And they said it was brutal, it was excessive force.
And while I certainly think the cop probably shouldn't have punched him, and cops can be aggressive, there was another arrest where the cops came into a train, threw a guy on the ground, and arrested him, and they said, hey, you're too rough with these people, you shouldn't do that.
Okay.
The problem is, While we can criticize the cops for being heavy-handed, it wasn't like the dudes are dead or in the hospital.
They just got roughed up.
It wasn't like a nickel ride.
It was literally like a dude was fighting and a cop punched him back.
Like people were fighting the cops like, everybody move!
And the dude does something and then he punches them.
I could be wrong about that.
And I certainly think cops should be criticized when they step off the line.
But this protest, it shows in my opinion, it used to be about police brutality.
Now it's about police arrested a guy?
Seriously, a guy got arrested and they said, why did they arrest him like that?
That's crazy.
And it's like, they went on a train, they surrounded him, they threw him on the ground, a little rough with him.
I don't think it was that outrageous.
And now they're saying it was excessive.
It's like, that's what's getting you mad?
Now you're protesting?
And they added a bunch of rhetoric about the fare and fare hopping.
So AOC is defending them.
I'll wrap this up.
You get the point.
The fare is there because you have to fix the infrastructure.
There are not infinite trains.
Trains break down.
Trains need to be fixed.
Someone has to do the job.
If you think you can give literally everything away for free, eventually the whole system collapses.
It doesn't make sense.
But they don't think about this.
So here's why I highlight this.
Because I did a segment earlier saying maybe Nancy Pelosi should be primaried by someone who's on the far left.
And I mentioned her name several times, Agatha Bassler.
I then criticize AOC so you can see the inherent risk to bringing on a young, inexperienced progressive who's more idealistic than rational, and it can actually make things worse.
AOC cost New York the Amazon deal, and they needed that tax money to fix infrastructure.
At the same time, still.
I lean towards—get the incumbents out, man.
They're old, uninterested, corporate interests, career politicians.
I'd rather have an activist than a career politician who doesn't care about anybody, wants to have a fancy steak dinner down in D.C., and is a do-nothing.
That's just me.
And if it's AOC, you know what?
I'll admit it.
I would rather have AOC—and let me say a few more things.
AOC is infinitely better than Crowley.
Crowley, I mean, look, people probably like him.
I can't tell you much about him.
But AOC has done a few things.
For one, it's about time there was a change in this country in terms of these old incumbent career politicians.
AOC is not that.
She was a bartender, okay?
She is somebody who came from the people, and she may be ignorant, she may have bad ideas, but you know what?
Hey, that's America.
We get to see these ideas.
Here's the next thing she's done.
She's allowed us to see a high-profile character with these ideas, and we've been able to talk about them instead of allowing them to fester and hide behind crony corporate Democrats and career politicians.
Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, you get the point.
They don't care about anything.
They have no principles.
They are just there to say whatever— Listen, Pelosi and Schumer may as well go up on stage and go, yada yada yada, whatever I'm supposed to say, and walk away.
The thing about when Dave Chappelle did that is that he was pushing back on those who demand he tow the line.
The Democrats willfully, willfully just tow whatever safety line they can, whatever makes the most sense, so they can get re-elected and do nothing.
What are they doing?
So you know what?
At least with AOC, we can talk about it.
We can argue against it.
We can call her ignorant.
And we can shine a light on these problems.
Because I'll tell you what.
The one thing these protests did, they accomplished their goal in the long run.
We are talking about the infrastructure needing to be fixed.
We're talking about the problems.
We're talking about policing.
We're talking about it.
And that is so much better than sweeping under the rug and doing literally nothing.
And I can respect that.
So yes, I am, I would prefer AOC over any of these other, you know, do-nothing corporate career politicians.
I would rather have an ideological activist as opposed to one of these corporate leeches that want to get elected for the sake of being like, I get elected, and then do nothing.
I don't know, though.
I don't think I'm always right.
I could be wrong.
Maybe it's better to have do-nothing politicians.
I can't really tell you.
But I kind of feel like the Democrats have been riding this wave for a long time, and it's caused this anger and outrage to fester up, not just on the left, but on the right, too.
And Trump was the result on the right.
And the left is angry about it.
Well, I'll tell you what, the problem isn't Trump.
Trump is a symptom of this greater cultural phenomenon, and he replaced the old establishment politicians.
Maybe the same thing now needs to happen on the Democrat side.
Anyway, I'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
