Comedians Just Doubled Down On Offending Woke Leftists, Far left Cancel Culture Is Losing
Comedians Double Down on Offending Woke Leftists, Far left Cancel Culture Is Losing. For a long time woke outrage and far left cancel culture would cause devastation to someone's career. It was not that long ago that Shane Gillis lost his job at SNL because of past offensive comments he made.But last week Michael Che of SNL made an offensive comment in passing about Caitlyn Jenner and the woke outrage brigade did their thing. Only this time instead of apologizing Che doubles down with an even more offensive routine. Whats interesting as this bit even went into detail about how he knows his jokes are offensive but he wants to tell them anyway.This comes after comedians Like Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan and others have called our woke outrage. Recently Rick Gervais made a seriously bold move with his joke about Jessica Yaniv. Unsurprisingly though,nothing bad happened to him. He wasn't canceled, he wasn't even suspended from twitter.Following Barack Obama's call out of woke cancel culture it seems that the tides are shifting and perhaps now we are through the fire and this wake of purity testing and far left outrage is failing.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I'd imagine there'd be an apology of some sort, saying it was a passive comment, we didn't understand, we're so sorry we hurt anybody.
That didn't happen.
You know what actually happened?
Michael Shea, again, this week, basically doubled down, making an even more offensive joke, and then going on to say that NBC didn't want him to make these following jokes, and then said even more offensive things.
And sure enough, people are outraged.
But guess what?
Nothing's happening.
Not too long ago I made a video about this, maybe last week.
Barack Obama said that woke cancel culture and these purity tests, it's not activism.
And there were actually people left and right, surprisingly the left, agreeing.
This woke cancel culture stuff, it's not doing anything.
We've also seen a bunch of comedians like Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais just stop caring.
Dave Chappelle recently had this really funny response to a question about being offensive and he said, yada yada yada, everything I'm supposed to say made a fart noise.
He just didn't care.
So what happens when Saturday Night Live is finally on the other side of that fire saying, you know what?
We know you're offended.
Don't care.
We're going to make an even more offensive joke this week.
It says to me that I really do think that Obama and other instances are signaling the end of woke outrage.
Now listen.
There are a lot of ways to implement true social justice without being an authoritarian.
And this is people pushing back on authoritarianism.
So today, I want to take a look at these stories about Michael Shea so we can get some context about what these jokes are.
But I must stress, It seems like this correlates with the demise of woke digital media.
And there's some stories here that I think are really interesting.
Notably, Mark Cuban wants some kind of regulation for media, which I don't think will work.
And I want to give you examples about how woke outrage was weaponized by digital media to push lies and smear people for political reasons.
And how all of this It signifies the end, at least I hope.
We'll get started here with this first story so you can understand the context about Michael Shea being under fire for calling Caitlyn Jenner a fella.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, of course.
The best thing you can do is share this video, because you know what?
Despite my better instincts, I decided to do a video talking about very offensive concepts, even though I know YouTube might derank, demonetize, and it's a risk.
But I kind of feel like It's not just these stories about Michael Shea, okay?
I got another story about a UK comedian, and even Ricky Gervais, making some of the most outrageous and offensive bits of comedy, which to me says, I think now we are on the other side of that hill.
That we're now, it's now understood.
The context of the joke and the comments matter.
While we're still not out of the woods completely, like I could get, I could get, this channel could get me banned, right?
It's hard to talk about.
But when we're seeing all of these mainstream personalities, comedians, politicians, now saying, enough!
I think they're losing their power.
And this is the perfect example.
Michael Shea.
He said, Michael Shea called Caitlyn Jenner a fella, and referred to her as former name during a live broadcast.
But that was the point of the joke.
He was saying that Kanye West is basically becoming Cathy, because now he used to be this cool hip-hop dude, now he's this religious, you know, guy wearing sweatpants.
And he's saying he's gonna turn to Cathy and then he makes that joke.
So anyway, before I move on, sharing the video helps, because there is still risk, but we still have this good news.
If, in the event, YouTube decides to derank and demonetize, you sharing overcomes that.
Let's read the story now and get into the meat and the potatoes.
They say Michael Shay is in hot water.
Is he?
After making a crack about Caitlyn Jenner that many fans deemed transphobic.
During the Weekend Update segment of Saturday's night show, Shay joked about Kanye West's new religious public persona, comparing him to Jenner, joking that the rapper is turning into an old white lady.
He said at first I thought Kanye was losing his mind.
And now I feel like he's fine.
He's just turning into an old white lady.
I mean, he used to be one of the coolest black dudes on earth.
Now he's showing up to events in sweatpants and orthopedic sneakers, listening to Kenny G and trying to get black people to like Trump.
It's like, how long before this guy changes his name to Kathy?
He then goes on to say, it might sound crazy, but there used to be a fella named Bruce Jenner, making the point that Bruce Jenner is also a Trump supporter, and then transitioned, and that's the joke he's making.
Now, many people felt that joke was transphobic, and thus Michael Shea is in hot water!
Did Michael Shea apologize?
Did Saturday Night Live do anything?
Surprisingly, no.
They did nothing.
Not only that, they doubled down.
Saturday Night Live star Michael Shea ripped by viewers for second week as he's labeled ageist, sexist, and worse, not even slightly funny.
Now I'm gonna have to admit, I can't even read these jokes that were on Saturday Night Live, and I'm probably going to have to blur part of the screen because the Daily Mail gets me in trouble on YouTube.
But essentially, he made jokes about a 67-year-old Chinese woman who recently gave birth.
And what was so remarkable about this is a few things.
He's just coming off of a week of woke outrage.
And not only did it not stop him, he's doubling down.
But more importantly, the joke itself is based upon the fact that NBC told him you can't say these things on TV, and then he says them anyway.
Taking this at face value, you might think he's really breaking script, he's really getting off of the cue cards and teleprompter and just telling people what really happened.
No, no, I don't think that's true.
I think that was the bit.
It was part of the bit that he was saying he wasn't allowed to tell the jokes, and it allowed him to make several more offensive jokes.
And it also does something interesting, whether it was intentional or not.
It allows NBC and SNL to say, hey man, he went off script, look what he did.
You know, we said we didn't want him to do it, oh no, it wasn't us.
I think it was part of the script so that they could tell those jokes.
And that's, to me, another signal.
That this woke outrage, losing its power.
But I got a couple more stories for you.
All of this is sort of happening around the exact same time.
Look at this.
This story's from today.
Jason Manford.
Cultural appropriation is a load of bollocks.
This is a comedian in the UK who was complaining.
They say Molly Hay Hogg slammed for cultural appropriation after Cleopatra costume.
And he said, what a load of bollocks.
They actually blur that word.
I think I'm allowed to say it.
I don't know.
I always feel like quite a lefty liberal until I read about cultural appropriation.
What a wokey term.
Why don't- Why don't we- Why don't we can- Can it?
Cultural appreciation.
Ah, I see.
And we be friends again.
Waits to be accused of white mansplaining.
Here's another comedian in the UK saying, seriously?
And this work gets kind of funny.
They say a follower opined that it was disrespectful to wear another culture as a costume as they tweeted.
Culture is important and shouldn't be used as a costume.
The same way I wouldn't dress up as a Native American, it's disrespectful.
I think there's other ways to appreciate culture.
To which the comedian responded, Well, if any ancient Egyptians want to complain, send them my way.
Cleopatra could hardly be described as a poor minority.
She was the leader of the most powerful culture on earth at the time.
And they mention this comes after comments from Barack Obama challenging woke culture and the practice of taking people to task on the internet last week.
Here we have two big moments recently where comedians said, don't care, get angry, you can't do nothing about it.
What's interesting about the SNL incident is that it was not that long ago that Shane Gillis was fired from his job.
So if you don't know the story, Shane Gillis was a new hire for SNL.
I guess he was going to be a featured player.
They fired him because he made offensive comments about Asians.
How long has it been?
A couple months?
And Michael Shea has now doubled down after being attacked for being offensive, a week later, makes offensive comments, jokes, I shouldn't say comments, jokes, about a 67-year-old Chinese woman.
Is SNL going to fire him?
Man, I'd be surprised if they did.
He kind of went off the rails.
So I'll put it this way.
Him doubling down, May not mean victory for him in the long run, but it is showing that mainstream personalities, this guy Jason Manford, you know, Michael Shea, are saying, nah, don't care, get angry, I'm not gonna stop.
That says to me that the woke outrage cancel culture stuff is routed and on the defensive and failing.
And now here's the big one.
The big one that's gonna get me in trouble was Ricky Gervais.
They say Ricky Gervais gets huge backlash after saying he'd dress up as trans women for Halloween, but specifically Jessica Yaniv.
Jessica Yaniv is a very, very, very controversial trans person that has been heavily criticized by the trans community because Yaniv was trying to get Brazilian wax companies, like individuals, to do work on Yaniv's privates.
The issue here is that Yaniv is a male.
Trans, but male.
And recently, Yaniv lost the lawsuits.
Basically, Yaniv was making phone calls to these different waxing, you know, businesses, which was typically just one woman, and saying, I want a waxing service.
As soon as they found out Yaniv was male, they said, I can't do that, for a variety of reasons.
So Yaniv, being in Canada, filed a human rights complaint against these salons.
Ultimately, I believe some of them settled and had to pay Yaniv, but when it came to the actual suit, a judge was like, nah, you can't do this.
Yaniv loses.
Well, Ricky Gervais is out of Fs to give, and so he tweeted that for Halloween he was going as this individual who he called weird and creepy.
Here's the interesting thing.
The story's actually wrong.
It says Ricky Gervais gets huge backlash for saying he dressed up as a trans woman for Halloween.
That's not true at all.
Absolutely not true.
There was no huge backlash.
Ricky Gervais made the joke.
No one said a thing.
Now, there were some people, sure.
But in all these stories, where they claim that there's a backlash to Ricky's joke, there's no real comments from anybody, maybe a passive tweet here or there.
The thing is, Yaniv is weird and creepy to many people, and not representative of the trans community, and even trans activists were saying Yaniv is not a good person.
In which case, the left doesn't want to get behind this individual, and Ricky Gervais wasn't saying he dressed up as a trans woman, he was talking about dressing up literally as a specific individual.
But this to me was the most egregious in terms of sticking it to woke outrage.
And it's because of the rules of social media.
Twitter absolutely has a rule saying you can't misgender or disparage the trans community.
Ricky Gervais tweeted this!
Didn't care!
Now I think it's fair to point out, Ricky Gervais being an extremely famous personality, he's probably got some level of protection to him.
However, and I will say this too, it's his own personal Twitter account.
So it's different from working for a company.
And that's where I think things are interesting.
I'm not familiar with who this Jason Manford guy is, right?
He's saying it's bollocks or whatever.
I wonder if they're going to get mad at me for saying that word because it's not really an American word.
We'll see what happens.
But is that a swear?
They blurred it on Yahoo News on UK.
I don't know, whatever.
I'm not really familiar with him, but him and Ricky, they made these statements on their own Twitter accounts, okay?
About pushing back on the woke outrage, saying, yeah, so what?
That I can get, because what company is gonna be like, well, the comments were made on their own Twitter accounts, they can apologize for them, right?
They're not gonna... It's possible you get fired because you made a tweet, for sure.
But it's much different.
When you're on Saturday Night Live, you're actually a host on the show, and you use the show to push these comments, especially a week after you were already slammed.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I kind of feel like this is a sign that whatever that woke outrage wave was, we're on the back end of it.
You know, it started just before the 2010s with the rise of social media, but now these companies are all dying.
And this is where I think the most important play comes in.
Why now are these individuals allowed to be offensive without fear?
Over time, there have been a series of comedians and high-profile personalities who've made it safe.
It started probably with Jerry Seinfeld, then we get, you know, Joe Rogan, then Ricky Gervais, now Michael Shade, Dave Chappelle, etc.
All these comedians are coming out and saying, I can be offensive, chill out, you can't do anything, I don't care.
And because of this, people start feeling like, okay, if they can do it, so can I. It's acceptable.
Obama does it.
But I wonder then, why is it that these comedians started coming out?
Is it because they finally snapped?
Perhaps.
But still, you'd imagine the woke outrage mobs would be able to leverage some kind of boycott or something against these personalities.
I think there's one simple reason for it.
And I did highlight this before, but there's some developments.
It's because the digital media that normally pushes the narrative and amplifies the voices of the fringe minority is dying.
You'll get one or two people on Twitter, like this story, check this out.
You know, Ricky Gervais faces a backlash, but he didn't.
What they'll do is they'll take one or two tweets, they'll make it a news story, and then everyone will think something bad actually happened, and marketing companies and brands will get scared, and they'll back away.
But without the woke digital outrage, As these companies collapse, there's nobody to amplify the message anymore.
And you know what's even crazier?
The Daily Wire is doing really, really well.
So is my channel.
And weird channels that tell other people, chill out, it's a joke.
If these are the channels that are growing, and the other digital media platforms that are angry all the time are shrinking, it's no surprise we are seeing comedians get offensive and double down.
What you're seeing right now on the screen is Deadspin.com.
I've talked about it quite a bit.
This is a site that produces sports, and the new owners told the writers to just write about sports.
But they didn't.
They wanted to write about politics and woke outrage, among other things.
And they all quit.
Guess what?
They just published this story a few minutes ago.
They published this one today.
They have replaced them.
Seemingly with no problem.
And they just don't put a buy on anymore.
Guess what?
The woke outrage is losing.
These journalists who are all rallying around each other going like, oh no, you know, they're trying to stop us from writing about politics.
Yep.
They bought your company, you quit, you're gone, and they replaced you in two seconds, and guess what the lead stories are?
Football, football, football.
Well, and boxing.
MMA.
Yeah, you're gone.
The woke outrage isn't on one of the- This Deadspin?
They're the ones who wrote about Gamergate!
And now they have no more woke writers.
It's like this weird era of insane ideology is slowly being erased now.
And the other thing, too, is apparently they're going to be deleting a ton of archives from the whole Gawker network.
I don't know the full details, but there are user pages that hold a lot of individual stories.
They're being deleted.
They're being wiped out apparently soon.
The people who bought this, they're purging it.
I have to say, man, This looks like we're going downhill, right?
So there was an uphill battle where everything was offensive and these people had tremendous power.
We reached that peak and now we're about to go down like the roller coaster, you know, it's about to start speeding up.
With the collapse of these media companies, with more comedians coming out saying enough, you're going to see a wave of people saying, oh, I don't care.
And I got to say, it's a really, really good thing for Democrats because they've been trapped by this.
But here's what I want to do with the last couple of minutes in today's main segment.
You see, Mark Cuban grilled over proposed regulation of news media.
I think his heart's in the right place.
Basically, he's—actually, I think they have the tweet here.
Let me see if I can pull up his tweet.
He said any politician that says they will push for a law that says no TV or streaming network can brand, market, or name themselves a news network unless the six most viewed hours every night is 80% fact-checked news and opinion is clearly labeled as opinion only gets my vote.
In my opinion, it would reduce the partisanship in this country almost overnight.
Incorrect.
Wrong.
Your heart's in the right place, Mark, but you are wrong, okay?
I think it's a good start, and I respect you for it.
Please don't stop with the ideas.
I in no way want this critique to dissuade anybody from talking about how we solve the partisanship problem and the fake news problem, but this ain't it.
So I think this is relevant because it's probably in response to all of this fake news, of which Mark has actually been a victim of.
It was only a few years ago that Mark Cuban was taken out of context, and he said, people are taking me out of context, I'm just trying to tell it like it is, and he stood by his words.
I think because we've all seen this, you know, he was accused of being a racist, and he was like, what?
That's ridiculous.
He now wants fact-based news.
But let me tell you the problem, Mark.
Why this won't work.
See, not too long ago, it was reported that you were chatty with Steve Bannon.
Steve Bannon, who referred to Breitbart as a website for the alt-right.
Now, I understand there's a lot of nuance and context in here.
And then we also have this story, where Mark Cuban said, I stand by my words relating to Trayvon Martin.
The headline then becomes, Mark Cuban, known to associate with the alt-right, stands by offensive comments he made racially stereotyping an individual.
Fact checkers would say, that's true.
And they would break it down and say, the article was in reference to Mark Cuban saying, I stand by my words when people were offended.
And they would say, Mark Cuban is also known with, you know, of being chatty with Steve Bannon.
The problem is not fact checking.
The problem is that these people weaponized misleading information and technicalities to push a narrative and change what people think.
I'll give you an even simpler example.
If I said something like, Mark Cuban is a Cuban, that's a factual statement.
Any fact checker would say, Mark Cuban is in fact a Cuban.
I'm not referring to the country of Cuba and saying he comes from there.
No, my understanding is that he's Jewish and he grew up in Texas.
But the point is, he is a Cuban like I am a pool, right?
His family are the Cubans, therefore he is a Cuban.
But what does it really mean?
It's technically the truth.
These journalists would use this kind of misleading language to smear people.
And fact-checking doesn't do anything about it.
The problem of partisanship isn't necessarily coming from these companies.
It's a product of the culture war, as much as it also... It's a whirlpool, man.
This is why I describe it as a maelstrom.
Because they write the fake news, people believe the fake news, and then the fake news persists.
So I'll end with one final thought.
And I'll tie this all together for you.
Here's a story from the New York Times.
Those people we tried to cancel, they're all hanging out together.
Depriving people of a platform works in unexpected ways.
I'm not going to read this story.
I'm just going to let you know it's ridiculously wrong.
It talks about Dave Rubin, Bridget Phetasy, and other individuals who have never been cancelled, but they say we're cancelled.
They don't understand what cancel culture is.
So now we can tie this all together.
You see, Saturday Night Live just doubled down.
Will Michael Shea be cancelled?
I honestly don't know.
I don't know.
He's been controversial before.
But, we'll see.
But now you've got this Jason, uh, what's this guy, Jason Manford, was that his name?
I don't even know, Jason Manford and Ricky Gervais not caring.
And we're watching the media crumble.
The answer, I will tell you, is not creating some kind of ombudsman or regulation system for news media because even the New York Times doesn't know what it means to be cancelled.
Is that factually true?
No, this is fake news!
This story is ridiculously incorrect.
Context matters.
And I think, you know, Mark, your idea about regulating the media doesn't work.
We have cultural problems.
And that's why it's called the culture war.
But perhaps we're now coming out on the other side of that fire.
I don't know for sure.
Let me know what you think.
It's just another story in this line of stories.
You know, comment below.
The next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all next time.
I was told that diversity is a strength, and I understood the concept in a particular way that made me say, you're right, it is.
And let me explain.
When you have, say, American culture, and someone comes from Asia, they bring with them ideas and perspectives and even language that allows them to perceive things that we can't.
So long as they agree to adhere to the underlying culture and the rules and the laws and the norms that we have, everything works out just fine.
Say, you're producing some kind of technology.
Someone comes from another country that has a different take on that technology, and they say, did you know if you do X and Y, you will get a slightly better result?
And they say, oh wow, I never thought of that.
That's what diversity is supposed to be.
That people of different backgrounds have different experiences, and they can lend themselves to share ideas that we didn't have before.
I've talked about this in the past.
Tucker Carlson said diversity is not a strength.
And my counter was that Tucker actually has on his show a diverse range of opinions showing that it is.
It's important to highlight the good and the bad and have the conversation about it.
But I think a lot of people look at diversity and think it's disparate opposing factions crashing into each other.
And that doesn't make sense.
No, of course not.
That's not a strength.
That's divisiveness.
Divisiveness is not a strength.
So long as people are presenting new kinds of art, new ideas, but existing under the umbrella that is a particular culture, it makes sense.
So I was told that diversity was going to be a good thing, and this utopian view of it Is people of all different colors and backgrounds, everyone, you know, wearing different clothing, having different cultures.
Instead, what we ended up getting is this weird, twisted, and nightmarish future, where you're not actually allowed to partake in other people's culture.
They call it cultural appropriation.
You're not, they want everyone to be in neat little boxes separated from each other.
Well, that is the diversity that Tucker Carlson is talking about being bad.
That is not people coming together under one common set of cultural values.
That's you segregating people.
In the end, in order to create equality, they must pander to the lowest common denominator.
There will not be a beautiful future of vibrant colors and people of different backgrounds sharing and us looking at beautiful clothes because they're telling us it's not allowed.
And the art we're getting is dull and kind of creepy.
Check out this story from a few days ago.
Now I'll admit, I don't much care for emojis and I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world.
Well, this does provide an interesting example of how, for one, pandering to everybody produces the lowest common denominator of content, which is valueless for the most part, and it also starts becoming confusing and quite creepy.
Apple now offers gender-neutral versions of nearly every human emoji, and LGBTQ advocates are praising the company's push towards equal representation.
Okay, so they've created a third option.
Okay, that's fine.
I have no problem with that.
But I want to show you what we can expect when we come into this world where equality is a mandate.
Take a look at the first set of emojis.
For those that are listening, I'll just describe it.
You have a person with long hair.
a shoulder length hair and a purple shirt.
On the right, you have a person with short hair and a blue shirt.
And in the middle, you have a person with kind of short, like medium length hair and
a gray shirt.
I'll point out the first problem.
I was told that gender is a social construct and that anybody can wear any color they want
and men can have long hair and it's true they can.
Why, then, do they need to make a third option, when the individual wearing purple with long hair could very easily be male?
Why do they need to make a medium-haired individual?
Well, how about this?
How about instead of making emojis at all, you make a variety of people, I guess?
Instead, what do we get?
Well, the original emojis had color.
And now we have a gray and kind of bland figure.
This is the lowest common denominator.
There's no vibrancy.
There's no pizzazz.
There's no beauty.
It's being... It's generic.
I'm worried about a future in which... Here's the joke I made several times in the past.
A future where everyone's shaving their head and wearing grey jumpsuits with no pockets.
Because, well, we gotta have equality, right?
And I'm being hyperbolic when I say that's where we're headed.
But look at how the emojis are turning out.
In this one image.
It's a guy doing, I guess, meditation.
He's wearing orange.
And the woman is wearing purple.
Why did they need to make a grey version?
To me, that's just... In order to pander to those who say... Actually, let me step back.
I read that in the early 1900s or something, when babies were born, boys would get pink and girls would get blue, and at some point it switched.
I don't know if that's apocryphal, but I'm wondering, how is it that they can argue that males can have any color they want, but then advocate for gray emojis?
Why can't they just be happy with the emojis that exist, and use them to represent whatever idea they want?
Because they can't, I guess?
None of it really makes sense.
Now I'll stop here and say, okay, if you want to make a third option that's grey, dull, and lifeless, fine.
I don't care.
You don't have your emojis.
It's kind of a stupid idea.
But now we get to the point where I use this as an example to talk about how things actually are kind of creepy.
Take a look at this.
Emojipedia.
I know emojis are stupid, whatever.
They say, couple with heart now displays two people with an ambiguous gender inclusive design instead of showing with the same design as couple with heart woman, a woman man.
On the left, there is the, I guess the individual has lipstick on.
Long hair, purple shirt.
It's only half of their face.
And the other half is blue shirt, short hair, with a heart in the middle.
Ah.
That's cis-heteronormativity, I believe it's called.
On the right, you have two identical-looking people with gray shirts and a heart in between.
That may be one of the creepiest and most robotic images I've ever seen, but it gets better.
Family.
The emoji just below it on Emojipedia, they say.
In iOS 13.2, family now displays two adults and one child, all with ambiguous gender-inclusive appearance, instead of showing with the same design as family, man, woman, boy.
The first image, short hair, blue shirt, next to the man is red shirt, long hair, and there's a child.
I guess you could call it a boy, but girls can have short hair too, so I don't know what they're trying to imply, but it's a turquoise shirt.
Now here's where it gets truly creepy and strange.
And I think this is where we're headed.
It is two identical individuals with medium-length hair wearing grey, and a child with medium-length hair wearing grey.
And the joke I made is that both of these images are not family or couple.
Couple meaning relationship.
It's twin-cest.
You know what twin-cest is?
It's like incest, but between two identical siblings.
Take a look at- Okay, so for those that are listening, I'll explain it, but take- This one got slammed.
It got ratioed hard.
But really, seriously, look at these images.
Two identical figures that do still look quite masculine.
They still look rather male.
And a child who is ambiguous, and they're wearing grey.
Man, dude, a guy doesn't have to wear blue, a woman doesn't have to wear red.
But this is the only way to solve the problem.
If people are complaining it's not equality, the only solution is to strip out anything that would make it stand out or offend someone's delicate sensibilities.
So no, the colors must go.
Even though colors mean very little.
Lipstick gotta go.
I thought men could wear lipstick.
What's wrong with that?
Why don't they make the one character a drag queen?
Ah, because that would be offensive.
So herein lies the problem.
In the UK, there's this idea that by passing laws that are inclusive, you will get the result you expect.
In the US, there's, for the most part, in New York City, it's kind of been fine because what's happened is they used to have bathrooms that had multiple stalls and it would be for males or females.
With the new passing of these equality laws, new businesses now just create single-unit bathrooms.
Totally acceptable.
That to me is fine.
I actually prefer it.
You walk in behind you, you lock the door, you get your own room for a little while.
And instead of building two rooms with a bunch of toilets, they build like four rooms.
So there's less toilets, but you get your own private room.
That's complicated pros and cons.
I actually kind of like it.
Then no one can complain about anything.
There's no men or women.
There's just literally bathroom.
And you walk in one and you get your own private room.
That's kind of awesome.
Here's the problem.
For existing systems, You now have males and females sharing spaces.
In the US, for the most part, we haven't seen a big problem with this.
But in the UK, things are very different.
In response to these laws, they've now built massive single-unit showers.
And I covered this story a while ago.
It results in males and females in the same unisex shower.
Okay?
Guess what happened?
Lo and behold, there are now assaults on the rise.
The reason I bring this up is, The idea we were presented with was this beautiful, diverse future of all of these different colors and all these different people, and that's not what we're getting because everything is offensive.
If you want true equality, the only thing you can do is strip out any color from everything.
Let's say we were supposed to have this beautiful rainbow future.
Okay, well, here's the problem.
Apple doesn't want to offend conservatives or liberals or the Japanese or whatever, so they're like, just make everything generic and bland.
Unfortunately, it's still offensive.
There is no escaping this.
What do you do then?
Get rid of emojis?
You see how they've changed?
What literally is a family?
And also, the families can be of any skin color and hair type.
You can, like, hold it down and select a different one.
And the characters are yellow to begin with, so I don't know, is that supposed to be Asian or something?
So, you know, I think you get the point.
All they've done is made a new kind of offensive content.
What do you do?
The lowest common denominator would be bland, stripped of life, boring, and in this regard, it's actually really, really creepy.
Because you're no longer advocating for what is a traditional family, and you can argue whether a traditional family should or shouldn't be this way, but here's the thing.
You've created an image of identical twins in a romantic relationship.
That is not diversity.
That is not progressive or equal.
That is weird and creepy.
They didn't have to make them identical.
Ultimately, the big point I'm trying to make here is, first, who cares about emojis?
I know, I know.
People are gonna screenshot this video and be like, oh god, now Tim's ranting about emojis.
It's not the emojis that I care about.
It's what they represent.
It is just a simple example of, you add this one grain of sand to the heap of our bland, dull, lifeless future, and we are absolutely heading towards the point where people will have to wear grey jumpsuits because everyone else will be offended by everything.
And it's not even going to be a jumpsuit.
It's going to be those full body, you know, spandex suits so nobody can see anything.
And I don't know, it's just going to be grey blobs walking around.
Kind of reminds me of, what was it, A Scanner Darkly.
You ever see that movie?
Where they would wear those suits that were like flickering different identities because they weren't supposed to know who the other investigators were?
That's where we're going in my opinion.
This is not, you know, They pander to the lowest common denominator.
They pander to the outrage of the fringe far left.
And all it ends up doing is making a weird blob of offensive nonsense.
There's no way to pander to everybody who's always offended, but I will end with one final point on this.
While stressing.
I get it.
Just an emoji.
I don't care for emojis.
We'll move on.
The people who actually care about this and view gender as non-binary or neutral or whatever are a micro-fraction of our country, of our society, of our world.
You take a look at the American population and you'll see a decent percentage of people who identify as non-binary.
But take a look at the global population.
What is it?
0.00001% of people?
And now Apple, And it's not just Apple, I think Google does the same thing.
Around the world are creating this weird image.
Now here's what's scary to me.
Most people don't want this.
Most people think it's weird.
But they're injecting it into culture because of a fringe faction of authoritarian individuals who are so angry and outraged all the time, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And this will have an impact on people's perception growing up.
Let me just, I'll just wrap it up here, because I don't even know if I truly care too much about this.
I'm just, I said I made the joke about living in a future where there's just no, no jump, you know, everyone's wearing jumpsuits, there's no color, everything's bland and boring and segregated, and this is an example of that.
Why?
You know?
That's where we're headed.
I guess, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think about the twin-cest emojis.
And, um... I-I-I kinda... There are a bunch of other stories going on with politics, and I thought I'd open today with something a bit more irreverent, in a sense, but whatever.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on my- on this channel, and I will see you all then.
If you're not familiar with Kyle Kalinske, he is a progressive YouTuber known as Secular Talk.
He's got a pretty popular channel, and he's actually an all-around really good dude, so I want to make sure I can, I'll give him a little bit of defense here, but I want to talk about a bigger issue around one of his tweets getting ratioed.
He tweeted, This is land by the Colorado-Kansas border from a plane.
Pretty cool.
I have no idea how or why it looks like this.
And in the image, you can see it's kind of a mosaic.
There are different squares of different colors, even a few circles.
Well, most people easily recognize this and understand this.
It's farming.
The first time I ever flew, I was like, wow, so that's what farms look like.
Kyle immediately got ratioed to oblivion.
5,600 responses, 500 retweets.
If you don't know what ratioed means, it's basically when you get more tweets at you
about something than people are sharing it.
And this shows us something interesting about urban liberals.
And they don't really, you know, I think many people who live in cities have a very left
and liberal view because they're only surrounded by their own bubble.
I want to make sure I make one thing clear.
A lot of people are being very mean to Kyle, and I think that's kind of a bummer, because when it comes to people who are progressive, Kyle's actually one of the good ones.
In fact, he may be one of the best individuals I could recognize as a progressive.
He's respectful, he's calm, he's reasonable, he's a cool dude, he's a good dude.
I watched one video, I think it was between him and one of the guys from Young Turks, and Kyle actually defended Carl Benjamin.
You know, trying to, dispelling essentially a lot of these smears, and I have tremendous respect for that.
He is just a guy with different opinions.
But there is something I want to talk about in this tweet that might not necessarily reflect specifically on Kyle.
So much as it does on what I think the problem with many people on the left, especially the socialists, is.
Or are.
There's more than one problem.
I find that, you know, as somebody myself who, I grew up very, very far left when I was younger, anarcho-punk, all that stuff, and I sort of became a bit more moderate when I got older, I started realizing that problems aren't so simple.
I'll give you one good example.
When I was younger, I said, you have all of these empty houses, like these investment properties, with nothing in them, and all of these homeless people.
It makes so much sense!
Just put the homeless people in the houses, right?
I mean, it's a simple solution.
And I heard this from other activists and lefty types.
They would say like, do you know that for every homeless person in Chicago, there's like 1.2 empty houses?
And I was like, What?
That makes literally no sense.
Our system is broken.
Empty houses, no people.
What is wrong with this?
And it takes me back to this idea I heard.
About the depression.
Where they would be like, empty factory across the street and a bunch of people in a bread line, this doesn't make sense, the system is broken.
Now to an extent I can say yes, you've identified a problem.
We have empty houses and homeless people.
But the assumption that they can somehow solve each other is completely incorrect.
I learned when I got older that you can't just take a homeless person and place them in a house for many reasons.
Houses have to be maintained.
So, while I'm not a big fan of investment properties necessarily, and that you have empty property that someone's just hoping to sell at some point, you can't just take a homeless person and put them in it.
There are certain programs we could probably implement to pay, to alleviate some of the pressure.
Homeless shelters, for instance.
But you need to recognize a few things.
The problem has depth.
Why is the person homeless in the first place?
Are they simply out of work?
Are they mentally ill?
You can't just take any random homeless person and put them in a house.
If they're mentally ill, the house might fall apart.
Is the house being maintained and who's paying for it?
That's another legal requirement.
An empty house has very little wear and tear.
Someone living in it.
You see other problems, you know, arise.
When I saw this tweet from Kyle, and I'm going to be critical on Kyle here, even though I think he's a pretty good dude, it shows me exactly what the problem is with many on the left.
They don't even know what farms look like.
Yet they want to impose policy that would have a blanket sweeping effect across the nation.
I'm not saying everybody should know every intricate detail about farms or anything like that, but I think if you're going to propose national sweeping reforms, and you don't know what farms look like, you gotta take a step back, man.
You really, really do.
That's why I'm pretty much a milquetoast fence-sitter.
Because I, for one, well, I mean, for one, I know what farms look like, I guess because I've been to them and I've, you know, lived on farm property.
But I think people are in bubbles and they don't realize the world is vastly different in different areas.
Take the Second Amendment, for example.
Liberals do not seem to understand why people in these places would need a firearm.
They say, who on earth would need an AR-15?
It's like, well, let me tell you.
When you are a hundred miles away from the nearest gas station and there are wild animals, dangerous ones, you'll do whatever you can to have the most effective weapon for defense.
But when conservatives say self-defense, urban liberals immediately imagine them sitting in their tiny box apartment in New York thinking, why would I ever need that?
That makes no sense.
They can't see outside their bubble, as exemplified by Kyle not knowing what farms look like.
I think it's fine if you don't.
But this brings me to the next big point I want to make about farms in particular.
Take somebody who comes from an urban elite circumstance who doesn't know anything about how farms work or why they look the way they do.
Then make them, you know, they're an ideologue and they say, why are there landlords?
And we get the age old classic problem.
When it comes to farms specifically, that's why I think it was an interesting way to highlight.
With these communist reforms we saw throughout the years, I know it's really, really complicated.
I'm going to be very reductive.
They essentially were like, hey, we shouldn't have wealthy landowners.
Let's take the land away and collectivize farming.
And that resulted in many circumstances with mass famine.
Because the people who know what farms are and what they look like, Well, they tend to be the experts on how to farm.
And if you take someone like Kyle, who doesn't know what farms look like... He knows what a farm is, but he just wasn't aware of why they're shaped that way and why they look that way.
And that shows that when it comes to the science and the technique of farming, he has no idea.
But that's literally your food, dude.
Right?
If you don't know how your food is produced because you're used to just walking to a store and it being there, then how can we trust that your sweeping reforms at a national level, which have major impact on these farms, are going to be a good thing?
For me, I end up being a milquetoast fence-sitter.
Because I think about it and I'm like, man, you know, I have some ideas.
Like, I used to be really, really big into universal healthcare.
Very, very much so.
Like Obama era.
And then I started talking to people about the healthcare system, the millions of jobs involved in it, and I started thinking, okay, hold on.
Let's walk this back.
We want to get from here to universal healthcare.
If we snap our fingers, we plow through the infrastructure, tear everything down, and create a nightmarish economic disaster for the world.
Elizabeth Warren recently said that, yes, two million jobs will be lost if they shift to universal health care because we have a system in place.
In which case, well, we can't just tear that down and destroy the lives of two million people, can we?
That's a problem.
Not only that, taking out the people who work in this industry, whatever the jobs they may be, Just what are we going to replace that with?
There's a system in place that's functioning in a certain way.
We can't just snap our fingers and change it.
So there has to be gradual changes to the system because I'll put it this way.
The system we're in is a gigantic structure.
And although we may be really upset at the old, you know, support posts from way back when that need to go, you can't just knock them all out.
You have to slowly replace them.
Otherwise the system collapses and everyone feels the brunt of this.
And this brings me to the next big point.
Now we can, you know, people can mock Kyle because he doesn't know what farms look like and I'm like, you know, listen man, I want to make sure it's clear that of all the people I've watched on YouTube, when it comes to attitude, when it comes to engagement, Kyle's a great guy, okay?
And so it bums me out that he's getting dragged for this so much because he's one of the more enjoyable left-wing hosts.
Here's the thing though, in this tweet from Jordan Ull, now I'm going to give you the serious criticism as I think Kyle's very, very wrong and why his policy ideas are very, very bad.
He said, here's Kyle Kalinske asking Charlie Kirk at Politicon if he thinks Jeff Bezos should help provide financial assistance for homeless veterans.
Charlie Kirk's response was that I hope he gives it voluntarily.
The question of authoritarianism versus libertarianism.
Kyle Kulinski's saying, should Jeff Bezos provide his money to these people?
The question at heart first is, should we force him to do it?
That's a tough question.
Charlie says no.
I can understand that.
The bigger problem arises when Kyle says Jeff Bezos has $150 billion.
Should he give 1% of that to end veteran homelessness?
Full stop.
Let me rewind you now.
We're going to do a callback joke.
Remember when I said when I was younger I thought the simple solution to the homeless in the houses was simply put the homeless in the houses, solves all the problems?
It makes sense on the surface.
Homeless person, placed in house, no longer homeless, no longer empty house.
But then we don't address any of the problems around, look, Properties have taxes.
It pays for plumbing, it pays for policing, schools, it pays for the community.
A homeless person, who doesn't have any money, can't maintain the house, isn't gonna have a job or food, so sure, technically they're in a space, how long will that last?
Will it fall apart?
You haven't addressed any of the problems that caused us to get to this point.
You're putting a band-aid over it.
Now to the point about Kyle Kalinske.
Just take Jeff Bezos' money and pay to solve veteran homelessness.
It doesn't solve the problem as to why the veterans are homeless at all.
It doesn't guarantee that in the long term the homeless will stay homed.
It does nothing for the underlying cause of the problem as to why there are homeless veterans.
Not only that, now to the point about farms.
Kyle Kalinske right here is saying he doesn't know what wealth looks like.
When you look at something about him looking at farms, it's very obvious you're like, wow, this guy doesn't know what farms look like.
But when he's talking about Jeff Bezos' wealth, most people also don't know what wealth looks like, and so they assume the premise of his question makes sense, when in fact, it doesn't.
Jeff Bezos does not have $150 billion.
I don't know what Jeff Bezos' actual liquid cash assets are.
I think it's really high.
Here's the thing, and I know Bezos liquified like a billion dollars recently, but he does not have 150 billion dollars.
He has a net worth based on the average price of an Amazon share, and shares go up and down in value depending on supply and demand.
I think it's really obvious to somebody who's actually traded stocks before, and watches, or cryptocurrency, and you can see how the system works.
If right now, one stock is worth $100, there's bids, okay?
So someone will say, I'm willing to pay $100 for a Bezos stock.
The next person under him says $99, then $98, then $97, then $96.
So Jeff Bezos arguably is worth $150 billion, assuming every share he has could be sold right now for $100.
Except, if Bezos starts unloading stock, you're going down the bid line and the value starts decreasing.
If Bezos sells a billion dollars, you go down to the next average price, which drops it very, very quickly because he's dumping stocks.
Now again, I know.
People are buying it up.
But it depends on how fast the buy in the sell goes.
It's a complicated process, and I know I'm not completely right on it, but the general idea is simply because your net worth is estimated at a certain height doesn't mean we can turn that into resources for homeless people.
What Kyle is talking about here in his argument with Charlie Kirk is a false premise, and this is the problem I think we see with many urban liberals trying to dictate nationwide policy.
And I'll fully admit, too, the problem goes both ways, with rural conservatives also not understanding the regulations required in cities.
But as we know from Jonathan Haidt's research, moderates and conservatives are much more likely to understand a liberal perspective than vice versa.
I just want to make sure I'm not speaking in absolutes.
I've talked about this several times.
When it comes to Jeff Bezos's net worth, his liquid assets are really, really not as high as his fictional net worth.
So let me give you a basic example of how the wealth tax and this idea doesn't make sense from the ground up.
Let's say you start a company.
Um, you go and file your articles of incorporation, you start a C-Corp.
C-Corps are their own entities, essentially, and they pay taxes, like, as themselves, but they can also issue stocks.
It's really complicated, I'm not an expert for the most part.
Let's say you decide to issue, uh, for investment, some stocks.
So you're totally private and you end up selling stocks at a certain amount and a certain number.
Let's say you sell 10% for $1,000,000.
The assumption then about the net worth is that if 10% is $1,000,000, the other 90 is valued at $9,000,000.
the net worth is that if 10% is $1 million, the other 90 is valued at $9 million. So essentially,
you have a $10 million company. Except if you start a company outright, it has no money,
no revenue, nothing going on, the value is nebulous. But for some reason, this is the
game that people play.
Now with Amazon, it's publicly traded, so it's more widely recognized that the value makes sense because the public has access to it.
I'm trying to simplify this and I'm doing a bad job.
Basically, you can be worth $9 million, owning 90% of that company, but literally have no money and no buyers for that company outside of that single investment.
You take a look at vice.com.
Shane Smith constantly talked about how the value of Vice was higher and higher and higher, making Shane a billionaire.
But guess what?
Nobody was buying into Vice except for private equity.
It doesn't work the way they're explaining it.
So let's use Vice as a specific example.
When I worked for Vice, around the time I had joined, it was when Rupert Murdoch invested $70 million for some percentage, giving Vice like a $2 billion evaluation.
All of a sudden, Shane, who held the majority of the stock, was worth a billion dollars.
Should Shane give a hundred million of his billion dollars to pay for homeless veterans?
Shane didn't have a billion dollars.
He only had 70 million in investment.
The net worth of the company could not be sold.
It doesn't work that way.
So not only could Bezos not take a bit of his 150 billion dollars, because there are no billion dollars, there's legal restrictions on it.
The other thing I want to point out in this regard, too, is that value is not necessarily fungible, right?
A unit of value in Amazon is not necessarily the same unit of value for a cupcake shop.
And this is the complicated process, and this is why net worth fluctuates so dramatically.
Anyway, ultimately the point I wanted to make is, When I saw Kyle's tweet about the farms, my first reaction was, I felt bad that all of these people are piling on Kyle.
And he's a good dude.
He's a populist left.
I think he's fair.
I'm not saying he's perfect.
I just think, you know, of all the people I've seen do media, I've got so much criticism for the Young Turks and how they attack and like yelling at me and all that stuff.
And I haven't seen that from Kyle.
So maybe I'm wrong, but I'm like, oh, that's a bummer, man.
But then I thought about how he really doesn't know what a farm looks like and why they're shaped that way.
Like the reason there are circles is because the irrigation thing spins around.
That's my understanding.
I'm not even an expert.
The first time I flew and I saw the farms, I was like, wow, farms from above.
Kyle's reaction was, I don't know what this is and why it looks this way.
That says to me, you know, it's a common problem I've talked about, and it makes sense when you look to, like, Jonathan Haidt's research about how conservatives and moderates can understand a liberal point of view.
I think liberals are all going around making assumptions about what conservatives think, and conservatives typically know what the left thinks and thinks they're wrong, which presents us with a very difficult problem.
First, Charlie Kirk made a, in my opinion, did not perform well.
In this video, Charlie Kirk and Kyle Kalinske arguing about Bezos paying for veterans, whatever, was, in my opinion, poorly addressed.
I fall on the left when it comes to policies, but not super far left because I understand that you literally can't take money that doesn't exist based on someone's idea of worth and use it to pay for things.
It just doesn't make sense.
Like I mentioned, if you own 90% of a company that brought in a $1 million investment, so they say you're worth $9 million, you literally have no money!
And if no one is buying or you legally can't sell, then you don't have money.
You can claim to be worth whatever you want.
But for some reason, because of the idea of net worth and the average person not knowing how it works, they assume it means hard cash assets.
It's complicated.
Nobody, like for the most part, everybody's all over the place.
Charlie Kirk's response should have been, Jeff Bezos does not have $150 billion.
We need to talk about what Jeff Bezos' liquid assets and the amount he can legally sell.
Because for all we know, in the company they say, they might have bylaws saying Jeff Bezos is not allowed to sell more than X shares per year because it will damage the company.
I don't know.
That's possible.
In which case, even if you want to wealth tax him and say, sorry, Bezos, you have $150 billion, you need to give us $7 billion because that's the wealth tax.
Bezos might say, I can't.
The company doesn't allow that sale.
It's not legal.
It would violate company bylaws and shareholders' rights.
In the end, the whole point of this video, I want to make sure it's clear.
I think Kyle's a good dude.
It's a bomber that is getting dragged.
He didn't know what farms were.
Nobody knows everything, neither do I.
So when people come out and they're ideologically pushing for this like big sweeping reforms
and they don't know how the country works or the economy works,
I'm just like, dude, you're advocating for your own destruction.
You know what I mean?
And that's why, in the end, Tim Pool is a milquetoast fence-sitter.
Because I recognize I don't know what I don't know.
And it makes it very, very difficult to advocate for hard positions.
Because I could come out and I could say something like, you know what?
I've decided we should raise the minimum wage to 20 bucks.
And then all of a sudden I get a bunch of people sending me these messages saying, Tim, here's why you're wrong.
And I go, oh, man.
I didn't realize that.
I was wrong.
I didn't consider these pitfalls.
So in all things, how I solve problems is I try and find the core elements to the problem, figure out how the system works, and then navigate from there.
In the end, I do think it's possible to have a universal health care system with a base level of coverage that handles very simple things we've already solved for.
First aid, heart attacks, you know, broken bones, etc.
But when it comes to more complicated diseases, it's going to have to be private because You know, when it comes to paying for new technology, we can't give it to everybody.
Not everybody in the world can literally have a new iPhone because they sell out.
They make iPhones, it requires new manufacturing, new jobs, new techniques, investment has to go into it, and then they can only produce a couple million, and then they sell out and say, sorry, due to a screen shortage, we can't sell any more phones.
It's not possible to give everyone in the world a phone.
This brings me back to medicine.
Medicine isn't unique in this regard.
New medicines are new technology that require new methods of production.
You quite literally can't give everyone every single treatment.
These are basic things that, you know, basic first aid and basic treatment that can be provided.
However, as much as that's my, you know, what I see being possible right now, I also think we have a giant system that was built that can't just be knocked down.
And that's why I'm in favor of a simple public option.
You can buy into it.
We'll need to figure it out.
But, you know, a very simple and reductive argument I would give in this regard is we don't complain about fire departments failing to put out certain fires.
If they don't do it, well, it's just unfortunate.
And everybody gets the same level of care when it comes to the fire department.
It's complicated.
Could we have a more technologically advanced fire department?
Possibly.
Possibly.
But I guess when it comes to fires, for the most part, there's an upper limit to what a fire really is and how it affects us.
However, we are always trying to solve for different ailments.
Even though we've cured most parasites, even though we've cured most diseases and wiped out and eradicated them, there's always something that is causing us to die.
That's just human life.
Organ failure.
How do we reverse that?
Well, now we're talking about senescence research.
So what?
If we finally figure out a gene therapy that can reverse aging, should Universal Healthcare be able to give that to literally everyone on the planet?
Like the Democrats have wanted?
Unfortunately, it's not possible.
This level of technology is rare and extremely expensive and can't be mass-produced yet.
And therein lies the big challenge as to why Tim Pool, Milk Toast Fencer.
Anyway, There you go, whatever.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast, and I will see you all then.
When Beto O'Rourke was running for president, or maybe you don't know, he's not anymore, but when he was, he made a series of insane statements that were so egregiously, I want to say hyperbolic, but he went full-on nuts.
He actually said, tear down the border wall.
The dude had no idea what was going on at the time.
I think the dude is a perfect example of what is evil.
And when I say evil, we'll use the Dungeons and Dragons definition of chaotic evil, and that he was doing everything with reckless abandon, hurting the Democrats to just benefit himself.
That's what Beto O'Rourke was building his whole campaign on, and it failed.
A good example of this is when he said that he was going to go and take people's guns.
He tried dancing around the issue, but yes, he said that eventually he'll get a visit for law enforcement.
It was then said by other Democrats that the comments made by Beto would haunt them for years to come, or something like that, because Beto just played into the fear that many Americans have, because surprise, surprise, even in many blue states, people are pro-2A.
This group of individuals that want to ban guns outright like Beto are a fringe faction that exist in major urban centers.
But you go to Vermont, New Hampshire, and other blue states in the Northeast, yeah, they're pro-2A.
So Beto says, we're going to come and take all your guns and all this other stupid stuff.
Well, that will haunt the Democrats.
But guess what?
On The View, Joy Behar says, Beto, you're crazy?
I can do one better.
Hold my beer.
Joy Behar to Dems, don't tell voters ahead of time before taking away guns.
If you are going to take people's guns away, wait until you get elected and then take the guns away.
Joy Behar on The View just signaled to moderates, independents, and even some Democrats who are pro-2A, we're going to lie to you.
We're going to tell you one thing, then do another.
We won't be implementing what's in your best interest and what you want.
We will just say one thing, and then as soon as we get elected, seize your constitutional rights.
Bravo, The View!
This is ten times what Beto was capable of pulling off.
I'm impressed.
Well, let's read the story and see what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can do it, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
And I really do mean it.
I'm competing against these big players and YouTube is actively trying to get rid of this kind of content.
And there's been a lot of background investigation.
We had a big expose about throttling.
If you like what I do and think I should do more.
Please help me grow the channel and survive by sharing.
Let's read.
The Daily Beast writes, In a segment that will most assuredly draw howls from conservative media and politicians, The View co-host Joy Behar declared Monday that Democrats need to stop giving American voters advance notice that they'd take away their guns.
Instead, she said, just wait until you're elected to do it.
Let's stop.
You said the G word.
Let me rephrase this for you.
Joy Behar declared Monday that Democrats need to stop giving American voters advance notice that they would take away their constitutional rights.
Instead, she said, just wait until you're elected to do it.
Think about that comment, that mentality she has.
Now, she's not running, but is anyone going to believe that she's an outlier when it comes to the left?
This is going to freak people out, and it's going to hurt Democrats more than you can imagine.
For me, when I see this, I think of a few things.
2A.
It's in the Constitution.
You want to change that?
You need, what, two-thirds state ratification?
Fine.
1A.
I really, really care about 1A.
Am I going to now assume that Democrats will be deceitful, defend free speech, but as soon as they get into office, try and revoke our constitutional rights?
I mean, look, let's be real.
They've been doing it.
The erosion of our constitutional rights has been happening for a long time.
But now, what she's done is not actually tell the Democrats to do it.
On the surface, let's ignore the surface, what she's done is she just fired a signal right over the heads of conservatives and some moderates saying, this is what we plan to do and you can never trust us again.
While discussing Beto O'Rourke's decision to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary, the view panel debated why the former Texas congressman was unable to break through despite early hype.
Quote, well, not everybody is born to be president, I guess, co-host Abby Huntsman said, referencing O'Rourke's highly mocked claim to Vanity Fair when he first announced his candidacy.
After the table wondered aloud whether this should be a signal to other also-rans and low-polling candidates to drop out, conservative co-host Meghan McCain, who has engaged in a very public feud with O'Rourke over his anti-gun stance, weighed in.
Beto, when my husband told me he got out of the race, I think he's actually like a beta test for why going so national and being beloved by the media is so dangerous, she declared.
The ex-Fox News personality said that O'Rourke's gun buyback proposals hurt him, noting that other Democrats have said clips of the ex-Congressman saying he'd take away AR-15s and other such weapons would be used by the NRA and other conservative organizations for years.
But it's not...
It's not about him saying that it was going to be a buyback.
It was straight-up confiscation.
He tried tiptoeing on this issue saying, it'll be a national buyback program.
Yeah, a mandatory one.
And finally, when he was asked, what does that mean if you don't turn it in, he says, I think people will obey the law.
CNN!
CNN of all outlets said, you think these mass tragedy carryout people, I got to be careful how I say this, are going to obey the law?
And he was like, oh, blah, blah, blah.
And then finally he said it.
Well, if you don't, you might get a visit from law enforcement.
And there it is.
The idea that Beto would endorse door-to-door confiscation in violation of 2A rights.
That alone is scary.
And now you can see what they're saying next.
We're gonna do it anyway.
We just won't tell you beforehand.
This prompted Behar, a regular sparring partner of McCain's, to jump in with her own advice for Democrats.
They should not tell everything they're going to do, Behar explained.
Like, if you're going to take people's guns away, wait until you get elected and then take the guns away.
Don't tell them ahead of time.
While many in the audience laughed and clapped, McCain sounded off.
By the way, that's what people like me- like me think they're gonna do, she responded.
That's why people like me think it's gonna happen, so I appreciate his honesty.
Let's go back for a second.
She says, not tell them everything they're going to do.
Yet, Meghan McCain, it's not just about them taking your guns.
It's about the fact that she is literally saying Democrats who want to do things should lie about it.
What if an idea won't work?
What if these mass gun buyback programs and red flag laws result in violent outbursts?
What if you shouldn't be violating our rights in the first place?
This is actually how they think.
And I think this is really what's... This is so bad for Democrats in the long run.
And I'm not gonna give any spare... I'm not gonna spare any Republicans on this.
Because I think in the end...
What you really get is what Hillary Clinton described as a public and a private position.
Here we go.
It's being reaffirmed.
I'm gonna have to say, Republicans kind of wear their thoughts on their sleeve to their own detriment.
Talking about tradition and family, being offensive, and it doesn't play well.
Democrats do the opposite.
They pander to groups, offer them pie-in-the-sky utopian nonsense, And it works.
Let's go back in time.
Hillary Clinton apparently, I think it was a leaked email, she said that something about you have to have a public and a private position.
What that really means is lie to people to get their support because once you get elected you can do whatever you want.
And apparently we learned, I could be wrong about this so fact check me because it was a while ago, Hillary Clinton still opposed gay marriage up until 2016.
So now we have on The View the, I don't want to say Joey Behar is overtly Democrat, but the more left-wing personalities pushing back on Meghan McCain, saying, this is what we should be doing, taking away people's rights and not telling them.
It reminds me of this episode of The Simpsons.
Maybe I should, no, I'm going to do it anyway.
When Kang and Kodos on the Halloween special says that they were going to go and purge Congress, and Homer and Marge look at each other like, you couldn't take out every politician, and they're like, watch us, and they left.
When I was a kid, I didn't understand it.
Well, now you can understand why people probably do.
You actually have these elitist personalities who make it a point of argument to say, perhaps the mistake Beto make was not telling you he would seize your rights, it's that he... Hold on, let me rephrase this.
The problem wasn't that Beto O'Rourke was going to seize your rights, it's that he told you the truth.
Think about that for a second.
And think about that when you go to vote.
Now, as I mentioned earlier on a segment around 1pm, I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter for a lot of reasons.
I don't think I know everything.
So when it comes to 2A, I'm pretty much down the middle.
I think there's a conversation to be had.
I think that, to an extent, there's an argument around background checks and things of this nature, but I understand the conservative argument.
The concern is that background checks actually just lead to a database.
And that's the next step in eroding these rights.
What do you think's going to happen now to all these moderate, independent, or left-leaning voters who are told by national television, one of the highest-profile shows, Beto O'Rourke made a mistake being honest about seizing your rights.
Next time, we'll just lie to you.
Are they going to now trust the next politician who says, no, no, no, we're not going to do that?
I don't think so.
So if Beto O'Rourke made a comment that was going to hurt Democrats for years to come, congratulations on the view of taking it a whole order of magnitude further than that.
I'm going to keep this one short.
I'll leave it here.
Excuse me.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys, is looking to run for Congress, it would seem.
The story from the Washington Times, they say Proud Boys chairman mounts Republican campaign for Florida congressional seat.
And that is the most important bit of information you need in this story so far.
I do believe it's fair after the fact to provide some context as to who the Proud Boys are and what this might mean.
But first and foremost, that's just the news.
And there's a reason why I'm framing it this way.
Because what I really want to get into here is how journalism is dead and why.
And I'm going to show you.
Because what do you think the response from digital media companies and legacy media was to this announcement?
Do you think they simply just told you that the Proud Boys is a group of self-described Western chauvinists who have gotten into fights with Antifa at various political rallies?
And we can even go further and say that many of these individuals were at Charlottesville, and it's a complicated history.
Enrique Tarrio is himself not white, though the group has been accused of being white supremacist.
I think that's fundamentally flawed on its premise, but Western chauvinist.
You can accuse them of being, you know, right-wing or whatever you want.
You can talk about the context.
It's all fair.
But I'll tell you what blows my mind when it comes to modern journalism.
First, let's try the front page of the Miami New Times because, you know, Tarrio is running in Florida.
Notice anything?
Wait a minute.
What's this story?
Local douchebag announces 2020 congressional run.
I couldn't believe it when I saw that.
That's the story?
And sure enough, yeah.
That's how they framed it.
Local douchebag announces 2020 congressional run.
I mean, look, you don't have to like the guy, but the goal of journalism is to provide information, not your opinion.
I don't know what local douchebag means, okay?
Now, look, I get it.
I know who Tarrio is.
I've talked to him before.
He's a Proud Boy.
The Proud Boys are controversial.
Recently, some Proud Boys were sentenced to prison for a fight they got into where they crossed the line.
Yep.
You can talk about all of Gavin McInnes' shortcomings, the calls to violence he's made in the past, and what the Proud Boys have done wrong, and it's all fair.
They're not an innocent organization.
I certainly think the media smears them a lot, for sure.
And I think it's fair, like, in my opinion, I think Antifa goes several steps further, and then they are very different.
A lot of the criticism about the Proud Boys is due to their... I guess, you know, my criticism of them would be they are essentially decentralized, in a sense.
That they allow people to just join and say they're a proud boy, and then you end up with really awful people who have to be disavowed later.
It's the problem with forming organizations like this.
So in a sense, they do function in a kind of open way that results in bad people doing bad things.
There you go.
But certainly the media calling Enrique Tarjo white supremacist is kind of strange, considering the dude's not white.
So yes, the media smears him.
No, they're not perfect.
Yes, they've done things wrong.
Hey, we'll call it like it is.
But this is different.
My criticism here is not about the Proud Boys.
I'm not here to say anything in defense of the Proud Boys.
Absolutely not.
The problem is journalism.
Local douchebag announces 2020 congressional run.
I wonder why that is.
I gotta admit, when I first saw the story, I thought the site may have been hacked.
I looked into the history of Miami New Times, and there's supposed to be some prestigious, verified, long-standing publication going back to 1987.
In fact, the writer herself of this story, we can see, is... Her name is Jessica Lipscomb.
According to New Times, she's been a finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists.
Now look, I told you Enrique's running for Congress.
You got the news.
Anything else you want to read about him, what you believe about him, what he said, what people have said about him, I can only tell you, there's a million and one things to go through.
So for me, when it comes to reporting the news, I can say something like the Proud Boys have been accused by their worst critics, though they deny this, and even that is a very difficult thing to parse.
Just because someone accuses you of something doesn't mean it's fair to report the accusation.
I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist.
I don't believe it's fair to report that accusation.
You can talk about the Proud Boys fighting people, but giving you the news and trying to get rid of all of the mishmash of culture war nonsense is simply what self-described Western chauvinist group chairman Enrique Tarrio announces his run for Congress.
If you don't like the guy, and you're politically and ideologically opposed to him, make an opinion piece.
This is the problem.
This really, really offended me.
The Livingston Award.
You know the Livingston Award?
The Knight Foundation, whatever, Knight-Wallace Fellowships for Journalism and Livingston Awards from Wallace House, University of Michigan.
And this is what we get.
We get what we deserve.
I suppose I should actually read you the story.
Now here's the thing.
Washington Times is the right opinion and reliable reporting.
And notice they don't call him a local douchebag.
And therein lies the big problem.
See, I don't care about your opinion.
I don't.
Okay?
You don't like the guy?
Fine.
I want to know what's happening.
Why is he running?
What does this mean?
What has he raised?
What's going on?
But you want to inject all of your stupid opinions.
Okay?
Everybody's got them and they smell bad.
Let's read the story.
They say the leading member of the controversial Proud Boys groups registered Friday to run as a Republican candidate in 2020 against Rep.
Donna Shalala, Florida Democrat.
Mr. Tarrio filed paperwork with the FEC to compete in next year's race for Florida's 27th congressional district, which includes part of Miami and the surrounding area.
Now it's getting really interesting.
Can a news organization make a statement like that as an overt news statement?
This is the challenge, right?
You know, Mark Cuban, I talked about this in my main segment earlier today, he wants regulation on media.
You can't do it.
But this is a good explanation for why he's trying, at least.
Because calling Enrique Tarrio a local douchebag is an overt opinion piece.
I'm not going to trust your assessment on what the news is when you open the story that way.
And it's been up for days.
So apparently it's on purpose.
This is the problem.
These news companies aren't news anymore, okay?
They're fringe, ideological outrage.
I don't care, man.
Look, this guy's gonna run for Congress, and this is a huge impact on politics.
But you inject it, you, like...
If you wrote a story and you talked about the controversy around them, fine.
But when you open the headline by calling them a douchebag, you have poisoned the well and people are going to exit out, they're not going to read it.
Congratulations, you'll get your standing ovation from your woke virtue signaling class of 2019.
But will anybody who needs to know what's going on take you seriously?
You're going to get a ton of people saying, what is this?
This is not informing me of anything.
They say established in 2016, the Proud Boys, we know who the Proud Boys are.
They say that Jacob Engels, an activist and societario, issued a statement attributed to the newly declared congressional candidate.
Our founders were simple men who wanted a world away from tyranny and away from government interference into our lives.
A place to raise their children, watch their families grow, and build their businesses.
A place to worship freely and speak freely.
Unfortunately, career politicians like Donna Shalala have become obsessed with moving America away from these founding principles and towards a communist police state that thrives on robbing us of our God-given freedoms.
Shalala is more concerned about being Hillary Clinton's puppet than serving the needs of District 27.
They say that Shalala was elected to the House in 2018 after winning the seat held for decades by former Rep.
Ileana Ross-Lettinen, a Florida Republican.
Excuse me.
A message requesting comment from her re-election campaign was not immediately returned.
Several members of the Proud Boys were arrested in October 2018 in connection with a fight that broke out following an appearance by Mr. McInnes at the Metropolitan Club in Manhattan.
McInnes subsequently announced he was officially disassociating himself from the group to show jurors they are not dealing with a gang and there is no head of operations.
They say that Tarrio, a Miami native, previously acknowledged attending the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a local anti-racist activist was murdered after a party... Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, we get that, right?
You're dragging me through this stuff.
Twitter subsequently suspended several accounts associated with the Proud Boys, including Tarrio's... No, no, no, hold on!
Okay?
I mentioned earlier that what you choose to report is going to have an impact on the perception of the reporting.
And the most important thing to know is that Tarrio is running.
He's a Proud Boy, and the Proud Boys were formed in this, that, and this, and they've been involved in these things.
Beyond that, you start getting into more critical assessments.
You could mention that the Proud Boys have done something positive, if you want, but they do, even the Washington Times reference things that are critical.
Again, I do not care to defend Tario or the Proud Boys.
They've done a lot of bad things.
There you go, right?
We can criticize them for the things they've done, and we'll be honest about the criticism.
The problem arises for me, what really frustrates me, is that journalism is dead.
Journalism is a group of angry, whiny babies that want emotional vindication.
Did they do anything effective in calling him a local douchebag?
Do you know the guy?
What's the point of this story?
Other than to just make journalism, make sure everybody knows there's no journalism anymore.
Miami New Times.
This is a local paper.
It's supposed to have its feet on the ground to understand what's happening.
Even if you don't like the guy, you'd go and talk to him, him being a native to Miami, and running for the 27th district.
You'd go and talk to him, and you would challenge him on these ideas.
Journalism's dead.
This is what you get.
So you deserve all of the outrage.
I'm not talking to everybody.
I'm saying the people who do this, don't be surprised when you get a Donald Trump president.
Because a regular person will see this and go, whoa, like, what is this?
Then Trump comes out and says, it's the fake news.
All they do is lie.
And they're like, yeah, headline calling a dude a douchebag.
That's crazy.
I don't even know who this guy is.
That's what you're going to get from regular people who are just confused.
What do you think is going to happen when Taru comes up to run now and he says, look at what the news does in this town.
Look at how they lie and they smear.
They're going to be like, yeah.
Because they're not going to see past the headline.
Because you didn't give a fair assessment, a fair criticism.
You created an opinion piece.
If it's an opinion piece, fine.
I don't see labeling for opinion.
Maybe I'm wrong.
And it's written by someone who's supposedly a finalist for this prestigious award.
That's what we get now.
Journalism is dead.
It's broken down.
And I get really, really frustrated because what's happening is these news outlets will smear and lie and defame and insult Republicans, conservatives, and the Proud Boys.
I don't want to defend the Proud Boys.
I just did several videos criticizing them.
I do think it's excessive how much prison time they got, for sure.
But come on, there's stuff to criticize them over.
I'm not saying they're all evil, awful people.
But, like, surely the media smears them.
And every time they do, I have to say, chill out, okay?
You are not going to convince anybody when you do this.
All you do is, at the times, look like trash.
Well, I reached out to them for comment and they don't have a system where I can actually do that anyway, so I left them a message.
Whatever.
This is journalism.
It's dead.
It's been trashed.
I care about a world where I can tell you an honest assessment of who this guy is.
You can go figure it out for yourself.
Do you like the guy or not?
Is he perfect?
You choose, okay?
I don't think he is.
I think you can criticize him.
But this?
This is not journalism.
This is you spitting on the grave of journalism and laughing while you do it because you're awful people.
I'm just so sick of it.
And you get journalists tweeting this out.
They've become overt ideologues, and all they care about is themselves.
I'm gonna wrap this one up.
I got another segment coming up in a few minutes, and I'll see you shortly.
CNN's S.E.
Cupp sees early warning signs of Democrat disaster.
Impeachment farce may help Trump.
Well, look, man, we've said it over and over and over again, that impeachment is going to backfire, that it's hurting moderates.
And it's still up for debate.
I lean towards it's probably going to hurt them.
Democrats think it won't.
Republicans think it will.
We'll see what happens.
But in the end, I believe all of this is going to blow up in the face of the Democrats for one important reason.
Regular people don't know, don't care.
It's that simple.
Joe Biden is still in the lead.
I kid you not.
Which poll do I have here?
This is impeachment.
Here we go.
Joe Biden actually went up recently.
How is it possible?
The dude just thought he was in Ohio when he was in Iowa.
It keeps happening.
Even CNN employees in leaked Veritas videos are like, Joe Biden will be like, hey, you know, Nebraska.
And they're like, dude, you're in Iowa.
And it's like, oops.
Joe Biden is a gaffe machine, but he's still in the lead.
How can that be possible?
What does this mean?
Well, I'll tell you what.
The reason why I started with impeachment and why I believe impeachment is going to blow up in the face of the Democrats... We'll see, though.
I could be wrong.
It's because regular Americans aren't paying attention to the day-to-day nonsense.
They're burned out from it, from Russiagate to Ukrainegate.
It just never ends, and people have tuned out.
So much so that, I kid you not, the people who want Trump to be impeached, it's actually gone down quite a bit in the past week.
Now it's gone up a little bit.
There you go.
You know, a little bit up.
But around, what is this?
October 20th, it started to go down.
The people who want Trump impeached and removed was going down.
And we have these polls from the New York Times that I'm going to look at and then extrapolate to tell you why this won't work.
Now, as I said, regular Americans don't care.
Take a look at this.
They say, despite low national approval ratings and the specter of impeachment, President Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states, likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from the New York Times, Upshot, and Siena College.
Take a look at this.
Signs of the President's advantage in the Electoral College has persisted or even increased!
What do you think the average person is doing right now?
Do you think they're sitting there screaming about, you know, Trump scandals?
Nah, they're probably, I don't know, watching some sports game or going to Buffalo Wild Wings or something like that.
I imagine football is involved somehow.
I think baseball is big right now.
No, no, no, baseball just ended.
Yeah, the Nationals won.
So we got some charts I want to show you.
These are the important battleground states.
I believe they're saying, yeah, okay, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
There's two really bad things for the Democrats.
First, Elizabeth Warren in Michigan.
Trump plus six.
Yeah, I'm not surprised Warren does really, really bad against Trump.
Now, Sanders is pretty even, okay?
He's got three out of six of these battleground states they're listing.
Biden is plus three across the board.
Now you may be saying, Tim, Biden being, you know, plus three, plus three, plus two, plus five, he's got, he's got four out of six and he's tied for Michigan.
Hey, that's really good news for Democrats.
I say, sir, No, it's really bad news for Democrats.
Joe Biden, at an event, thought he was in Ohio, okay?
And he was like, I'm in Iowa.
Joe Biden recently turned his back to the crowd and started talking to a gigantic mega screen.
Like, I don't even know what he was doing.
He apparently didn't know what the crowd was.
Joe Biden is gaffe after gaffe, who recently said he was going to bring America back into the Paris Peace Accords.
Was it Vietnam or something?
If Joe Biden can say all these nonsensical things to applause and he's winning, to me it says Americans don't know, don't care, and the fact that they would support Biden means they're not paying attention to impeachment.
Now I tell you, this may be bad news for Trump to an extent, in that Biden might beat him, but I don't see that being the case, especially when you look at Moody's analytics.
So let's combine a few things.
I kind of talked about this before.
About yesterday, with Nancy Pelosi saying, oh no, the far left, we gotta win the Electoral College.
Dude, if regular people are not paying attention to what's going on so much so that they're actually supporting Biden, or, I tell you this, they would actually support Biden over Sanders, man, you got other problems.
Let me stop right now.
Let's imagine these people, maybe I'm wrong, maybe these people who support Biden actually are paying attention.
And they still support him over Sanders and Warren?
Yikes.
I'll tell you what, man.
I would take Bernie or Warren over Biden any day.
And I disagree a lot with their policies and don't really like them too much as people.
I can say that for a lot of politicians.
I think Warren's got some good ideas when it comes to big tax, so that's fair.
But she would not tell the truth about taxing the middle class, and Bernie would, so I can give them respect.
So you know what?
I can disagree with them, but at least I think they're all there, just wrong.
Biden's not playing with a full deck of cards.
And if people are gonna support that over Sanders, we got other problems, man.
Come on, let's be real.
The reality is nobody's paying attention.
So impeachment doesn't do anything.
In the end, all impeachment does is rile up Trump's base.
If people are going to support Biden, this is just 2016 all over again.
But I'll tell you what.
Check this out.
We scroll down.
Here we have among likely voters.
In this case, Biden's got a big sweep, you know.
He's got less of an advantage in some states, but he's taken and he breaks the tie in Michigan.
Look at this!
Among likely voters, Warren's just out completely, and so is Sanders.
So they really think Biden's gonna win?
Man, I got allergies, I'm sorry.
It really does feel like nobody cares, nobody's paying attention.
All they know is Biden familiar.
Check the Biden box.
I don't know what it is, because I'll tell you what.
I'm not convinced how people... No, no, no, I'm going to stop, I'm going to stop.
I was going to say, I'd have to assume people know some press, right, if they're going to oppose Sanders or Warren, but no, I think it's simple.
Sanders or Warren, for the most part, are just the socialist candidates, even though Warren says she's not.
But they're also not longstanding and familiar, and Joe Biden is basically the Obama-era comeback.
But if his lead is this low in these polls, we base it off 2016, I think Trump's actually in the lead.
But now I want to show you the funnier thing.
I love this one, because this says to me, I know why Trump wins.
Somebody posted this, a lefty, and they were making fun of Trump supporters.
My heavens, take a look.
What different types of voters said?
White, college-educated.
Clinton.
They all said Biden, Sanders, and Warren.
Black.
Clinton.
Biden.
Sanders.
Warren.
By huge margins.
Hispanic and other.
Across the board, all these different groups.
But white with no college are Trump plus 26.
Trump.
And they were showing this because they were trying to make a point about how stupid Trump's voters are.
They're so dumb!
They think you don't need college!
Oh my god, they're so dumb!
Let me tell you something about people who don't go to college.
They run businesses.
They have trades.
They work in the real world.
These people went to college, work in very specific sectors.
They work in white-collar jobs.
They don't have connections to real work.
And this brings me back to the video I made earlier about Kyle Kalinske, where he flew over, you know, he was in a plane, he was flying, and didn't recognize farms.
I'm like, there you go.
Do you realize that people who act like, you know, it's so frustrating, the assumption that going to college makes you smart?
No, going to college is where you get institutionalized for 26 years, and you might become a specialist, but smart is a whole other thing.
Whether or not you have critical thinking skills doesn't come from college.
College teaches you to memorize certain ideas.
And there was this funny thing I read once.
They said what college does is it takes people who may or may not be intelligent enough for college, forces them to memorize things, and then because all they've done is memorize and not understand, they mishmash them together and come up with crazy ideas that make no sense.
I read somewhere that said there's an intelligence threshold for whether or not you should have higher education.
But just because you didn't go to college doesn't mean you're going to be smarter or better at business or understand the world.
Case in point!
Me!
I didn't even finish high school, okay?
And I love how the left likes to use that to make a point about how dumb I am.
And it's like, you know, man, let me ask you a question.
You can't figure out how to get a job, how to start a business, how to even get Hillary Clinton elected.
And you're going to criticize me, who's got millions of followers in a successful business, who founded one of the fastest growing news organizations in history and worked for these big companies.
You think you're smarter than I am because I didn't go to college.
I'm sorry.
There's a sad reality to this.
Intelligence is not from college.
You can be intelligent and choose to go not to college, right?
But here's what I think.
When it comes to high school, for instance, I think there's a difference between... The assumption is that if you dropped out, you must be dumb.
No, no, no, no.
Some people who are lazy and uninterested drop out.
Some people who are interested in other things drop out.
Rob Dyrdek hosts a successful show on MTV, and I'm pretty sure he's a dropout, and he's probably a millionaire.
Pretty sure he is.
Just because you drop out or don't go to school doesn't imply anything about your intelligence or capabilities.
In fact, I would argue the inverse.
To these people who are saying white with no college, you've got a potential group of people here.
People who knew they didn't need to go to college because they knew what they needed to do and what was going to work for them.
People who went to college, for the most part, did what their parents told them to do.
And this is what I've found when it comes to hiring.
You want to talk about critical thinking and ability?
People, in my opinion, who haven't gone to college tend to be better workers for two reasons.
For one, they may be dumb, and they may not have been able to go to college, but that means, in order to survive, they had to do hard, menial labor.
Working at McDonald's or other low-tier jobs, they said, hey, I know what I have to do to work.
Not all of them.
Not all of them.
Some of them are high school dropouts.
But you have that group of people, hard workers, who know they weren't cut out for college and higher education and said, I better figure this out.
You also have people who said, I know what's right for me, and no one can tell me because I'm confident in my own abilities, I'm gonna go do something else.
But let's be honest, the other group is just tradespeople.
Somebody who grew up and said, if I go to college, I'm gonna rack up debt, or I can go and be an electrician.
That's what's really funny about this.
The assumption that college means you're smart.
You're wrong.
A lot of these Trump voters make more money than you, run businesses, and know more than you.
You know, take an electrician, who has a better understanding about the fundamental forces of nature, electricity being the first one, than a college grad who writes a blog about Brad Pitt's junk for deadspin.com.
That's what you get.
These college grads are snooty elitists.
So in the end, I guess I wrote this up, the reason why I think impeachment won't matter, the economy is good, regular people don't care, but more importantly, these college-educated individuals who write for these woke blogs, who think they're smarter than you, are elitists who can't see their own faults.
And because of that, because they don't learn, they're in the same trap they were in 2016.
Complaining about, you know, people not being woke enough, insulting Trump's base, not knowing what farms are, etc.
Whatever, you get the point.
In the end, is anyone gonna watch the depositions and read the testimony?
No!
So, I think the Democrats might capitalize on that, knowing they have a nothing burger when it comes to impeachment, and hoping it just sounds bad enough.
But in the end, I think your average voter, who Trump is probably gonna get, are people who are like, I don't know, Commie's good, I'm just gonna, you know, just, we'll just vote for the incumbent.