The Left Is Trapped In A Paranoid Delusion State, And It's Getting WORSE
The Left Is Trapped In A Paranoid Delusion State, And It's Getting WORSE. Nancy Pelosi recently spoke out about the impeachment inquiry and stated that "all roads lead to Putin."You'd think after 3 years and a massive investigation you'd realize that is an absurd bit of fake news but here we are with her and others still pushing the same nonsense. The media consistently claims that trump supporters and republicans are in a cult or an alternate reality but in reality the opposite is true.Recently Buzzfeed published a fake story claiming bots were pushing a pro trump meme. They had no evidence and it later turned out to be fake. The impeachment inquiry is based on the potential corruption of the Biden's and we know from the New York Times in 2015 and Politico in 2017 that these are real concerns that need to be investigated.Instead of investigating the left calls for impeachment over old stories we know to be true. The reason is that media keeps telling them there is no evidence and it ignore the stories you can see and read with your own eyes.Is it for money? Clicks? Politics?Probably all of the aboveBut for the left and democrats who are more trusting of media, they fall in line believing absurd nonsensical stories and half truths.If Obama calls you out for going too far leftIf Bill Maher says tone it downIf Chappelle, Rogan, Gervais, and other comedians say its time to calm downPerhaps you need to realize that its the left trapped in a paranoid delusional state.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
But the bigger point of this video is that I'm going to make the bold statement that the left is trapped in a paranoid, delusional state.
And I've got evidence to back this up.
Recently, a Vox article was published and pushed out by Brian Stelter of CNN.
In it, it said this, can the right-wing machine hold the base in an alternate reality long
enough to get through the next election?
And they go on to make several claims about the current impeachment inquiry, which are
misleading and only technically the truth.
When I see people like Brian Stelter and other journalists claim that it's the right-wing
media machine that's an alternate reality and not them, I have to wonder.
You know, I held my tongue a bit because I said, you know what, I gotta be honest.
When Brian Stelter comes out and rags on Trump and Trump Jr.
and all of these things about the right-wing, Is it really just that there are two factions who believe the same thing about each other?
Is it possible that I'm literally the same thing as Brian, but just kind of in that other bubble?
Politics and political alignment don't matter.
Brian Stelter is not overtly a political actor, but he does have a point of view counter to what the right is saying, and I have a point of view that's counter to what Brian Stelter and the left is saying.
I don't think it has anything to do with who you're voting for.
So I decided to do some digging.
I started with a basic fact coming from Jonathan Haidt's research.
He's an incredible researcher.
You should check out his work.
And it's a fact that moderates and conservatives can predict liberal behavior and liberals can't predict conservative behavior.
There's also the fact that in the 2016 election, conservative journalists followed the left and the right, whereas liberal journalists only followed the left.
And then I started to realize, this is not a game where both sides believe the exact same thing about each other and both are wrong.
The fact of the matter is, I actually am right.
Now, let me stop there.
I'll be a little humble, right?
I don't mean I'm right about literally everything.
I mean, if you watch my videos, you're more likely to be in reality.
And I've talked about this quite a bit.
Today, for you, I have several examples, starting with impeachment, that show the left is trapped in a paranoid, delusional state.
They believe Russians are out to get them, that the president is a corrupt figure who is hurting Ukraine so that Putin can make advances and so that he can win the election.
All of this is hyperbolic, exaggerated, embellished, only technically true.
It's misleading.
And in the end, you end up with people who live in a paranoid reality where they think everything is just a monster, a boogeyman out to subvert their lives and the good hearts that they hold dear.
In reality, the media is a maelstrom, sucking in people with fake news in a long game of telephone, where fake news becomes real news because it's repeated enough.
Now, if you're watching channels like mine, you're probably doing a bit better, but I'm not perfect, okay?
When I say that I'm right, what I mean to say is Brian Stelter, CNN, Vox, BuzzFeed, they are part of this delusional state, and I'm going to prove it to you.
We're going to start with this story, with impeachment.
America's epistemic crisis has arrived.
But then I really want to show you how BuzzFeed smeared Trump supporters as bots, likely perpetuating this paranoid, delusional state about Russian robots tweeting out phrases when in reality...
It was actually Trump supporters.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, if you agree with me that this is disrupting American culture, it's brainwashing people and trapping them in a delusional state, please consider sharing this video, for one, so that people can see it.
But more importantly, these networks, these news outlets, BuzzFeed, got way more reach than I do.
Vox, CNN, they're reaching a ton of people.
Well, yeah, I probably get a lot more views than individual CNN channels.
Technically, this message is substantially more powerful.
That robots from Russia, that Russian influence, that Trump is an agent, it persists.
Let me stress, Nancy Pelosi said a few days ago, all roads lead to Putin.
I thought we were over this!
No.
They still believe the insanity.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, yeah, maybe, maybe there's some truth here, maybe an investigation ultimately finds something, but I gotta tell you, man, after the Mueller investigation, I think it's fair to conclude it's just not true.
And I'll be the first to tell you.
To go and watch these other channels, to read these stories, to see what they have to say, and figure out if you agree or disagree, because I don't think I'm always right.
But that's what brought me to this video.
When Brian Stelter said on his show, do not watch the other side, that to me was shocking.
I kid you not.
He was talking about the hearings and he says, we need to tune these people out.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Be wary of anyone who tells you not to listen.
The left-wing activists in Antifa, they chant people down so they don't hear what they have to say.
Because, well, the truth would set you free.
And as long as they can restrict you from hearing the truth, they can keep you locked up and brainwashed and trapped in this paranoid, delusional state.
Let's get started with this Vox story.
So I'll stress again, the best way to help everybody, and especially me, is just to share the video, if you think I do a good job.
In the story, they say this.
That the Mueller report was essentially, it fizzled out, it was bland, hard to understand.
They say, however, unlike Mueller's report, the story behind the impeachment case is relatively simple.
Congress approved military aid for Ukraine, but Trump withheld it as part of a sustained campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching an investigation of his political rival Joe Biden's family.
There's a recording of him doing it.
There are multiple credible witnesses to the phone call and a larger campaign.
Several Trump allies and administration officials have admitted to it on camera.
Trump himself admitted to it on the White House lawn.
Heavens!
It sounds like Vox has this one.
Hoop, line, and sinker.
However, this is fake news!
It's mind-numbing to me to see that Vox is claiming the right is in an alternative reality and then outright lie in this way.
What they're doing is what is called technically the truth.
You can say some of these things, but I tell you this.
A sustained campaign to pressure Ukraine into launching an investigation of his political rival Joe Biden's family.
Okay.
Perhaps it's because we can go back in time to this story, which was entered in the congressional record.
I know you've heard of this, but I'll go through this quickly.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Is it possible that Trump saw this story and said, we need to look into what's going on with Ukraine?
Is it possible that Trump saw this story from the New York Times?
Joe Biden's anti-corruption message in Ukraine is undermined by his son's business connections.
From December 8th, 2015, To me, it's actually crazy that Vox would even assert this.
Multiple stories have highlighted this.
In fact, we learned from the testimony of Marie Yovanovitch just the other day, the Democrat star witness, that the Obama administration prepped her specifically on Hunter Biden's role at Burisma.
Why?
They were concerned it created the perception of a conflict of interest.
So let's go back to what Vox is claiming.
Trump withheld aid.
We don't know exactly why he withheld aid, and it's entirely possible he was vetting the new Ukrainian administration, as Jim Jordan asserts.
But we don't know.
Can we say for sure this is part of a campaign?
No, we can't.
The aid was ultimately released.
There was no investigation, no public announcement.
They say he's admitting to it on camera.
Trump admitted to it on the White House lawn.
Yes.
Under the premise that we have multiple stories talking about potential corruption, Donald Trump wanted an investigation.
It makes a ton of sense.
And it sounds like Trump was actually right.
In fact, in the impeachment inquiry testimony, George Kent said, yeah, we should probably look into what happened with Burisma and corruption.
Not particularly Hunter Biden, but yes, Burisma.
How is it then that Vox can push this narrative, claiming it's the right in an alternate reality?
That Brian Stelter's Twitter feed can be inundated with all of these negative things about Trump?
I tell you, the left has been wrapped up in a fake news narrative to drive traffic.
But now let me bring you to the point where they try and discredit actual Trump supporters.
This one is truly, truly incredible.
Twitter has suspended several accounts that tweeted, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch.
A spokesperson for Twitter said, they're looking into whether the phrase is trending organically.
The story originates with Ryan Broderick of BuzzFeed News.
Now, I know a lot of you are probably saying, yeah, but of course we know BuzzFeed News is putting out fake news.
Fine.
But listen.
The left sees this story.
They assume it to be true.
Let me show you his Twitter feed.
Just some extremely normal and uncoordinated and totally authentic Twitter behavior from Ryan Broderick.
And he's showing two images of a bunch of Trump supporters tweeting out, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch.
It's got 1,600 retweets from people who believe bots are pushing this trend.
He then says it's currently being spread by bots on Twitter, a statement of fact.
4chan users are, however, trying to pass it off as a legitimate trend.
These all have several retweets.
This tweet saying it was bots is 182.
But the insinuation in these images, I assure you, with 1,600 tweets, retweets, has people believing it's true!
Robots!
Heavens!
It's not just the Russians, it's the Russian bots out to get us!
And they really believe it.
And it's scary to me.
Because what do you think ultimately happened?
Do you believe that it was actually bots?
Well, I got news for you.
It wasn't.
But BuzzFeed asserted on Twitter, and it's still up right now, Let me tell you the trick, right?
Ryan didn't say at first they were bots.
He was just making it seem like they were.
This is technically the truth.
It's a framing technique.
Just some extremely normal and uncoordinated and totally authentic Twitter behavior.
That's a factual statement.
We know it to be true.
These were real people.
The way he's framed it makes it seem like it's bots.
He then went on to call them bots, and then published a story where he said Twitter was looking into the phrase.
At the bottom of the story, what do we see?
Although the tweet may have been amplified by automated activity, it wasn't, it does not appear to have originated in an inauthentic way.
The first account to post, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch, was a real person.
Carrie Kellerman, a pro-Trump influencer, whose tweet was then retweeted by Pesobic, Jack Pesobic, a far-right activist and host on One America News.
Pesobic, in a tweet, denied there was anything inauthentic about the tweet spreading the phrase.
Let me stop right here.
The story was updated.
Ryan Broderick called them bots.
BuzzFeed News published this story.
It's not news.
He says, although the tweet may have been amplified, and what did Twitter ultimately conclude?
He says, a representative for Twitter said the company was looking into whether the activity was coordinated.
Later in the day, several accounts in BuzzFeed News' dataset were suspended.
Twitter subsequently told BuzzFeed News that its initial investigations had not found evidence of bot activity amplifying the phrase.
But BuzzFeed said it was, definitively calling it bots.
Even in the story, saying it may have been amplified, even when they have a statement from Twitter saying it's not true, but I tell you what did happen, Twitter suspended several of the accounts.
So I tell you what.
These people are trapped in a paranoid, delusional state, fed by CNN, by BuzzFeed, by all of these media outlets, by the Democrats.
They are trapped, and they are nuts.
And I'm sorry.
I know many people... I don't want to be overtly offensive to them, because it's important they see this!
But I gotta tell you the truth, man.
These people, how do you shake them out of fake news?
I was at a supermarket the other day, and I was talking to a friend about the impeachment inquiry.
And some random guy turned around saying, Trump's lying.
It's in the transcript.
And I said, lying about what?
Trump is the one who released the transcript.
But these people don't know this.
Because when you turn on CNN, you get trapped in the maelstrom.
It's a game of telephone of insane nonsense.
I tell you what, man.
I'd be willing to bet after BuzzFeed News posted this, before they had any proof or any confirmation, people have started repeating it.
1,600 retweets, making the implication that these tweets were robots.
Well, now we know.
Why didn't BuzzFeed wait for the statement from Twitter?
I don't think they care.
I think their goal is to keep you trapped in a paranoid, delusional state where up is down, left is right.
Let me show you some real scary news.
It affects all of us.
Check this out.
These are two stories from Vice News.
One says, Gabbard's lawsuit is already exciting extremely online lefties like Tim Pool, a prolific YouTuber who routinely rails on the political establishment to his more than 1 million followers across multiple channels.
Below is a story just later.
They say, above is a story from July 26th, below is a story from July 10th.
In the first story, they say Tim Pool, a right-wing media figure who once worked at Vice News, was invited to the White House.
And a couple weeks later, they called me a lefty.
Why would that be?
Now, it's simple.
You've got two different people working for these companies.
The stories were not written by the same individuals, and they both have different views.
But it shows you there's no independent, there's no editorial standard.
They will tell you simultaneously two different things.
As we know from all of the research, the left overwhelmingly trusts the news.
What happens to somebody who believes both of these stories?
Who believes that there are bots out to get them?
Who believe that all roads lead to Putin?
You'd think after the Mueller investigation we'd be done with this.
But Nancy Pelosi is insistent either she's nuts or she wants to trick you.
And now we can see where we end up.
Axios on HBO poll.
Politics are driving Democrats mad.
To a certain extent Republicans, but for the most part, Democrats say they feel like strangers in their own land.
They say that literally everything they read makes them angry.
Let me read some of this.
They say, Americans as a whole are just plain mad and feeling like strangers in their own land.
Though a lower percentage of Republicans describe themselves as angry.
57 compared to 74% of Democrats.
Or feeling like a stranger.
They say those who talk about politics the most are also the angriest.
The Republican anger that animated the Trump rise and presidency gets most of the media attention.
It turns out this is the bipartisan era of rage and estrangement, fueled by rising interest in American politics.
They say that 58% of people report their friends, family, and co-workers seem angrier than five years ago.
83% of Americans who discuss politics report feeling angry at least once a day over something they heard or read in the news.
The opening statement, uh, so I'll leave it there, you get the point.
Democrats say that nearly everything they watch, read, or listen triggers their anger, even the soothing voices of NPR.
And I know why.
They're in an anger-induced, paranoid, delusional state.
Now look, Republicans are mad too.
Republicans don't trust the media though.
I want to walk you now to where there's some more evidence showing that this is the case.
And I hope that this message makes it to some people who are not so entrenched in the cult of the fake news left that they can actually think straight.
What's funny is The left says the right is an occult.
I think it was actually George Conway, Kellyanne Conway's husband, said she's an occult or something.
I'm sorry, man.
I can prove to you it's the left that's become a occult.
What do you do when Barack Obama calls out cancel culture?
And just the other day it was reported that he said you're going too far left.
Is Barack Obama in a cult?
Barack Obama is saying basically what I say.
What about when Bill Maher shreds ultra-woke liberals over and over and over again and says we need to tone down the rhetoric because a second civil war is possible?
I kid you not, just a couple days ago Bill Maher vowed to tone down the anti-Trump rhetoric.
Because a second civil war is entirely possible.
Who's in the cult?
The people who have moderates, conservatives, and even Barack Obama on their side?
Or the people who think Russia is out to get them?
That bots are taking over?
I'm sorry, man.
You know, there was that famous quote from Colbert where he said, reality has a liberal bias.
Maybe that was ten years ago, but I tell you this now.
The left is trapped in a paranoid, delusional state.
And this is where it gets scary.
This is an actual slide at a conference for science teachers in the U.S.
state of Washington.
Claire Lehman of Quillette.
The quote says, if you conclude that outcomes differences by demographic subgroup are a result of anything other than a broken system, that is by definition bigotry.
What they're basically saying is that when they do nation-level science and statistics showing that different demographic groups behave differently, that's bigotry.
Because the real reason that all of this is happening is because of a broken system.
I'm sorry.
That's a paranoid delusion.
I mean that literally.
If you think there is a patriarchy that white supremacists surround every corner coming to get you, you're paranoid.
If you think that science is being controlled by a cabal of white people, that's paranoid.
And now that brings me to the more important statement from Cori Clark.
I recommend you give Cori Clark a follow on Twitter at ImHardCori.
She's a social scientist who brings up very important points.
But the reason I say it's important to follow her is that she is a social scientist who researches political biases.
Responding to this slide, in other words, if you do not ignore data, delude yourself, and miseducate the public, you're a bigot.
This dogma is likely the greatest threat to modern social science because it stems mainly from the left and the left controls the social sciences.
The left believes there is a system created primarily by one racial group of people meant to hold you down and the data is fake.
You must reject the science because it's all part of a broken system.
That's paranoid delusions.
And now I bring you to the Young Turks.
Cenk Uygur.
I know I highlighted this the other day.
This is the Trumpification of media.
When a witness gives damning testimony of clear criminal wrongdoing by the president, but media complains the testimony wasn't entertaining enough.
Would it have been better if this sober-minded diplomat had threatened to pile-drive someone?
Cenk Uygur really does believe it.
Or he's lying.
I think he believes it.
He believes the insanity.
And now I bring you back.
NBC News said there were no bombshells in the first impeachment testimony, and that would be correct.
In fact, if there was anything that could be considered a bombshell at all, it's that one of the witnesses, George Kent, said we probably should investigate Burisma.
That kind of proves Trump right, doesn't it?
Strange.
They complained that Trump was acting through back channels against the intra-agency will.
But it was Trump who actually provided the military aid to Ukraine that they so wanted.
It was Obama who rejected it.
This tweet.
Shows no bombshells.
NBC News reporting.
And then goes on to show you Vox, it shows you CNN, and presumably Business Insider.
All twisting the narrative, calling it a bombshell, when no such thing happened.
I know I highlighted these points in my other video, but I need to break this down, man.
I do this video because, like I mentioned in the beginning, when I see Brian Stelter or I see people on the left, I try to be fair.
And I think to myself, it's possible that we're playing the same game, okay?
That I'm biased against them, they're biased against me, but in reality, the truth is closer to the middle.
Well, that's fair.
There are certainly elements of the right that believe fake news and are also in a paranoid state, constantly thinking the left is out to get them and all these things.
The truth is, moderates and conservatives are much more likely to be correct.
I can't tell you why.
I'm not saying always.
I'm saying in this instance, we can see several, several stories that are just plain not true.
When Vox claims the right-wing media machine is keeping the base in an alternate reality, but omits the facts, and doesn't understand exactly what's happening?
Either they're just dumb, or they're trying to mislead you, or it's what I refer to as the maelstrom.
BuzzFeed tweets out, this is inauthentic behavior, or insinuates it.
Other people see that and believe it and never see the correction.
What's the saying?
The lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can strap on its boots.
And that's what happens with BuzzFeed, who then later gets confirmation, no buts.
Why does the story exist?
I tell you this.
Why did BuzzFeed write this story at all if it turns out there was nothing inorganic about it and it just so happened to be a political trend by Trump supporters?
Why were those Trump supporters suspended?
Why did YouTube change its algorithm in April?
To hurt the recommendations of political channels.
According to the data we've seen, autoplay recommendations were removed around the end of April this year by YouTube.
My views, my autoplay recommendations were dropped.
David Pakman, a progressive YouTuber, noted the same thing.
In our stead, we were replaced by major corporate channels.
I ask you, why did this happen?
And I know the answer.
Because for the longest time, the left perpetuated a delusional, paranoid narrative that there was a rabbit hole on YouTube, that you would get trapped watching far-right content.
And now we know, based on research from the University of Pennsylvania, I believe, it's just not true.
So why did YouTube take this action?
Because YouTube read paranoid, delusional news and then acted upon it.
A front-page New York Times story claiming this, even though their evidence was to the contrary.
The New York Times ran a story about a man who claimed to have been alt-right and how he was let down that rabbit hole.
They then presented data showing that he started as a conservative, began watching the intellectual dark web, and then began watching progressive YouTubers and is now liberal.
That's the opposite of what they claimed.
Why would the New York Times lie this way?
Well, I'll tell you what.
They want to keep you locked down.
They want to keep you, you know, held in that narrative.
And I don't think it's a grand conspiracy.
I don't think there's a cabal of people doing it.
I think there are individual actors.
It's a standalone complex.
All doing this to get clicks, to drive traffic to their stories, even though they know it's not real.
The BuzzFeed reporter.
He had no evidence.
But he did the story anyway.
Why is that?
Well, he probably got a decent amount of traffic.
BuzzFeed doesn't show how much traffic they got, I guess.
Some of the other sites do.
But I'd be willing to bet he got a lot of traffic.
Why?
That one tweet got 1,600 retweets.
That's a lot of engagement.
That's a lot.
It rewarded him.
And he knows it.
Without evidence, he made a claim that was later proven to be false.
But he benefited personally.
That's the important takeaway.
You have political actors like Nancy Pelosi who claim it's all Rhodes leads to Putin.
I'm sorry, that's fake news and it's already been proven fake news by Mueller.
You had the investigation.
It's what you wanted.
And now we can see how the media plays the same game.
You want to talk about grifters?
When it's this easy to manipulate people into engaging with your content, the grifters are on the left.
And now people are trapped in a paranoid state where Vox is telling them, Trump did it!
But Vox doesn't explain to you that the New York Times said this in 2015.
Let's say this, in 2015, December.
This is during the campaign season.
Donald Trump sees this.
Joe Biden's son is doing business with Burisma?
How is that anti-corruption?
So then Donald Trump later says, we've got to look into this.
A lot of people are talking about it.
I've seen the stories.
Politico reported it.
And now they're trying to impeach him because of it.
Why?
Some people don't know and don't care.
But the base that supports impeachment are trapped in a paranoid, delusional state.
I can say it for the millionth time.
This is the New York Times reporting this.
Politico reported a story about Ukrainian interference two years later.
John Solomon, who they now smear relentlessly, published documents he received through a FOIA request and sworn statements.
It doesn't mean it's all true, but it does mean we need to entertain the possibility that Trump was right to launch his investigation if the New York Times said the anti-corruption message was undermined by Hunter Biden.
So when Trump comes out and says it, they demand impeachment.
Elise Stefanik noted that Marie Yovanovitch in her own testimony said the Obama administration was concerned about how it looked that Hunter Biden worked for Burisma.
So when Trump wants to investigate it, they call for impeachment.
The people who are supporting this are paranoid.
They believe the Russians are out to get them, that Trump is this evil bad man because the media is keeping them trapped in an alternate reality, and keeping them terrified and delusional.
I don't know how you solve that problem.
But I will say this.
To an extent, we're all playing the same game.
I recognize how this might make you angry and how media typically does make people angry, but what do you do?
The reason I wanted to do this video, final thought, to reiterate, I wondered if I was contributing in the same way that Brian Stelter was.
And the reality is it's just not true.
And I hope this video breaks down why that's not the case.
I can't say the same for all conservative outlets.
There certainly are smaller blogs and right-wing individuals who do push, you know, delusional fake news.
But I think for the most part, you are more likely to be correct if you are in the moderate camp or the conservative camp.
That doesn't mean your politics lean that way.
Claire Lehman is not a conservative.
Corey Clark is not a conservative.
Claire Lehman is a writer, and Corey Clark is just a researcher.
Corey Clark is a researcher telling you the danger here is the left controls the social sciences, and they're pushing this dogma.
This is what a scientist is saying.
Now I know.
There are going to be scientists who tell you otherwise.
But listen.
Science is not fake news.
Science is not bigotry.
And that's the message they're spreading.
I think it's fair to say the paranoid delusions come from the left.
It's unfortunate.
And that's why you end up with people like, you know, Joe Rogan pushing back and Dave Chappelle and Bill Maher and Barack Obama.
We've got even high-profile mainstream left-leaning individuals recognizing this.
So they'll accuse me of being conservative because I'm right.
Sorry, that's not the case.
And I know conservatives feel that way, but I'm not a conservative.
I actually am quite a liberal left-leaning individual.
I think my ideological vision of a world is very left-wing.
But these people are nuts, and I'm sorry.
They're keeping you held down, and they're lying to you.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all then.
Sprite has released a new commercial that has no soda in it.
So what are they advertising?
Ah, they're advertising LGBTQ pride.
BizPackReview says Sprite's new LGBTQ ad is a rainbow-coated pandering mess with no soda.
They can say, you can now safely add Sprite to the list of corporations pandering to the LGBTQ community.
In a new bizarre advertisement for their lemon-lime soda, the company clipped together scenes of various members of the LGBTQ community getting ready to attend a pride event.
In one scene, a girl helps her friend put on a binder or an article of clothing commonly used by LGBTQ members to flatten their chests to present as male.
In another, an older woman is seen helping a drag queen lace up his corset.
Yet another depicts two young children painting a heart onto a rainbow flag, the symbol of LGBTQ pride.
You know what?
Oh, that sounds pretty heartwarming.
You know, there's one scene where it's like a father is dropping off his son and his boyfriend, I'm assuming, or it's like two young men, I don't know what their relation is, and they're going to pride, and then I'm watching this for the first time, I saw it on Twitter, and I'm thinking to myself, oh, what a heartwarming commercial for LGBTQ pride.
If people want to love people, you know, by all means, you do your thing, What a nice short film.
I have no idea what, why it was made or like what it was.
But yeah, you know, I've seen videos like this before, and I gotta tell you what, I'm a very freedom-oriented person.
I'm very much about freedom.
So if you want to make a commercial about people choosing to be who they are and live how they want to live, hey man, I'm all for it.
The way I describe it is, if you want to put on a ridiculous costume, if you want to dress like a dragon or a knight, or if you want to do something that's like got a larger culture, you know, be a furry or a dragon, hey man, I don't care.
Like, go do your thing, man.
I'm not going to ask you.
I'm not going to bother you.
You can walk around dressed as whatever you want.
You know, the way I put it is, if you want to put on a clown costume and juggle bananas, like, go do your thing.
But the moment you cross that line, start throwing bananas at people, we've got to stop that right now.
But this is not that.
This is a commercial where people are getting along, being happy.
Gillette commercial, where they did the toxic masculinity thing, and that was negative.
That was like a takedown of people.
This, I look at this and I'm like, yeah, I don't know, whatever, you know, what's the problem?
I understand a lot of conservatives are angry.
They say, Jesse Kelly called it societal rot.
I would not go that far.
I completely disagree with that.
Because the way I see this is, it's a positive depiction of people who are happy in doing their thing.
I'm not going to rag on somebody who's being free and doing their thing.
I will, however, ask the bigger question.
Why Sprite feels it necessary, or why Sprite thinks this will actually sell soda to people?
I think I know the reason.
The first thing I want to do for you, however, is show you some context.
This commercial did not come out of nowhere.
I know a lot of people are seeing it, they're confused, because it seems like Sprite, for no reason, just decided to make this big, long, short, like, or I shouldn't say big, long, but they made this, like, short film, it's like a minute and a half, and then you have no idea what it's for, and at the end it says Sprite.
And I'm like, I have no idea how that market sold it to me.
I do, however, have an assumption about why they did it, and I'll tell you in a second.
But this commercial was made for Argentina Pride a couple weeks ago.
So it didn't just come out of nowhere.
It was specifically made for a Pride event happening in Argentina, and it's about, I guess, like, parents loving their kids and friends loving each other.
And hey, man, I'm down with that.
I got no beef.
You want to be free and do your thing?
Hey, man, more power to you.
And what I see from this ad, as a film in and of itself, It's just people choosing to live how they want to live and being free.
And hey, freedom.
That's what I'm all about.
Do I like these subcultures?
Nah, man.
As much as I like golf, I don't know anything about it and I don't care.
I'm not going to get up in your business.
You go do you.
In fact, I think golf is silly.
I'm going to get attacked now because I'm comparing pride to golf.
The point is, not that they're the same, I'm just making a point that I know nothing of this culture and the subculture.
And if you get a little short film, by all means do your thing.
But, conservatives, let me explain to you why this commercial exists and why it will work.
You see, the left... Let me throw it to Bill Barr.
Bill Barr gave a speech to the Federalist Society, and he said that the progressives see their politics as their religion, that they're constantly striving for this, you know, paradise on earth, the deification of politics.
So, when they see a commercial, it speaks to them.
It's like a sermon, almost.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a distinction between their religion and politics, and in this country, we have a separation of the two.
It becomes particularly difficult to deal with when the left has an ideology that drives like a religion, you know, intersectionality is very much so a religion, and it's also politics in one, so it becomes complicated.
But I'll tell you this.
Sprite is going to put out this commercial.
Conservatives will, you know, Jesse Kelly calls it full societal rot.
I definitely disagree with that and I'll elaborate that in a second.
But you're entitled to your opinion.
I can respect that.
He'll call it full societal rot.
However, The people who watch football games, the people who go to church on Sundays, when they go to the store, they're not going to have that in the back of their mind.
They're not going to care.
And that's the thing.
Listen, this is the big problem conservatives have.
In a sense, they're too strong.
I know that sounds pandering and funny, but no, here's the thing.
When it comes to... Let's say you got a dude who's in the military, right?
He's actually seen some bad stuff.
He comes back to this country, and he's a good God-fearing man, and he's got a wife and some kids, and he's got a dog, and he goes to church on Sunday, and when he sees this commercial, he doesn't care.
When he goes to the store, he's like, oh, I don't care, man.
I'm not gonna get all bent out of his shit over a dumb commercial, and he's gonna buy Sprite.
You're gonna have people in middle America who are going to a football game, and they're gonna be like, dude, Sprite, it's soda.
Grab some soda.
I don't care what they are, I don't care what they're marketing.
There will be some people.
More staunch, ideologically driven people who are going to look at this and be like, I will not support Sprite.
However, if you find that to be the camp you're in, just know the left is all like that.
Okay, obviously not everybody, but you are outnumbered.
There are substantially more ideologically driven leftists than there are people on the right.
I could be wrong about that, but actually, let me put it this way.
I'll put it better.
The people on the left, I think, are... It's actually, you know, it's complicated.
I think there are more conservatives according to, like, the hidden tribes.
But I'm willing to bet that the average conservative is not going to care about these little things.
They're not going to get bent out of shape.
They're not going to get triggered.
Some people might get mad.
Some people might point out they think it's societal rot or whatever.
But in the end, I think the average person's going to be like, Let's move forward with our lives.
With our life.
This is not the biggest deal in the world.
You look at the social justice activists, and it literally is the end of the world.
They look at Trump, and they're like screeching, oh no, it's the end!
The orange man has come to destroy everything!
So when they see a commercial about Sprite, or when they see a commercial like this, and it panders to them, it's like preaching to the religious.
And they're like, yes!
So I'll tell you what's gonna happen.
Conservatives will see the commercial.
They'll complain about it.
But a lot of them will be like, eh, I don't know what I want to buy Sprite.
Are they going to have a big boycott?
Are conservatives going to mount a major campaign to say no more Sprite?
No.
It's not going to happen.
The left, on the other hand, will be like, ooh, I want to go get a Sprite.
And they'll go get a Sprite.
They'll take selfies.
And they'll be like, this is really cool.
They're supporting us because it means a lot more to them.
Let me read a little bit about what BizPac says.
Cassandra Fairbanks.
Nobody even drinks a Sprite in this ad, lol.
We get it.
You want to pander to SJWs, but shouldn't they still include the product?
Does anything matter anymore?
See, I can agree with this, okay?
Like, I would understand if there was at least a Sprite in the commercial.
This, to me, is just them preaching to their religious masses.
This should actually, if you find yourself to be like a moderate individual, someone who's not overly ideological, I mean, I take that back.
I'm pretty ideological when it comes to freedom.
But I think if you're somebody who believes in like rational thought, calm, collected, like stoic pragmatism and things like that, this kind of stuff should alarm you.
Not because it's a pride ad.
I actually like the message.
You know, it's like a dad who loves his kid, and a mom who loves her son, and it's heartwarming.
And it's really about people choosing to be free.
Tremendous respect to that.
Like, you know what?
That's awesome.
You should be... Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
So long as you're not infringing on the rights of others, you should be allowed to go do your thing.
The problem here is corporatism.
Corporate activism.
Now, here's what bothers me.
Okay?
When Pepsi did that stupid commercial where the Jenner woman gave the Pepsi to the cops, everybody's screeching about, you know, what they call rainbow washing.
They're screeching about, oh, this is, you know, they're mocking social justice.
This is a terrible commercial.
And it's probably because she was giving the Pepsi to the cop.
And it was supposed to be like the protestors and the police like smiling together and having a soda.
Terrible!
They don't understand what they were doing.
However, with this, what we have is nothing to do with soda, complete corporate activism.
I do not believe Sprite cares at all.
But now they're cheering for it.
Now they're calling it this great new ad that's taking over social media.
And I'm like, no, dude.
This is corporate pandering.
They're manipulating you.
You know what?
It's gonna work.
It is gonna work.
I think they get it.
These marketing people aren't stupid.
Marketing works.
They know it works.
It's gonna keep working.
I always tell people, You know, I understand the basics of... There's a school of hacking called social engineering.
A lot of people on the right colloquially use social engineering to refer to, like, Google manipulating search results, causing the masses to, like, flow in a certain direction.
And that's, to an extent, it fits, but the core of social engineering is human hacking, understanding how the human mind works, telling it what it needs to hear so that you can get it to do a certain thing.
Marketers are masters of this.
They've made mistakes.
Gillette was a mistake.
Man, that Gillette toxic masculinity thing was a big mistake.
Okay?
I mean, depending on who you ask, they said, started a conversation and bumped our brand recognition.
Nah, sorry, dude.
But now you have stories like this.
Success.
Conservatives will complain about it, but conservatives don't get, aren't, it's not the end of the world.
This is your big disadvantage, conservatives.
Your unwillingness to be triggered.
It really is.
Like, think about it.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
When the left shrieks and waves their arms in the air and screams, demanding they want something, and the conservatives are going like, yeah, yeah, yeah, calm down, what then ends up happening is these social network companies, these marketing companies, these soda companies, they say, can we shut them up?
Okay?
What can we do?
The conservatives aren't bothering us too much, but they won't shut up!
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
So if they only have a little bit of energy to go around, they're not going to give it to the conservative side, they're going to give it to the progressive side.
I'll put it simply.
Dollars for dollars.
I'm willing to bet conservatives will see this, roll their eyes, and be like, I got more important things to worry about in my life.
Are my kids going to go to school?
But the left is going to be like, this is all that matters.
The ideology.
The religion.
And it'll work.
So here's the thing.
When you look at the Hidden Tribes report, you can see that conservatives are actually a bigger group than the progressive activists.
But the left falls in line.
That's the problem conservatives have.
If the woke far left demands it, and there's a fringe minority, then the regular liberals just say, whatever you say, and they fall in line.
They just go along with it.
There's been a break recently.
We've seen comedians, we've seen, you know, personalities like, you know, even Barack Obama and Bill Maher saying like, no, no, no, enough of this.
You've got traditionally left-identified individuals like, I don't want to say Dave Chappelle's on the left, but I mean, he's certainly not a conservative.
And there's comedians now pushing back.
But for the most part, if someone comes out and says, you need to go buy Sprite because they're supporting Pride, then you're going to find a bunch of regular passive liberals who aren't paying attention being like, oh yeah, we should.
They're going to go to the store, and they're going to see a Sprite pack with a rainbow flag on it, and they're going to be like, ooh, get that one.
Conservatives, on the other hand, aren't thinking and aren't caring about that.
You're having a Super Bowl party, I'm sure.
I'd be willing to bet Some of you know people who have seen this already and probably just went to Walmart and bought Sprite.
Because it doesn't matter to you.
There's the big problem.
If you're somebody who's more stoic and pragmatic and is willing to let things roll off your back, and if you're somebody who believes in, you know, live and let live and freedom, you're at a disadvantage.
And to me, I find this kind of scary.
Major corporations making commercials that have literally nothing to do with their product, to me, is a problem.
But the problem isn't so much the company made it.
The problem is that the company knows this will work on people.
Here's the thing, you know, I'll wrap this up.
When it comes to the Pride commercial, which again, I thought it was nice.
You know, people loving each other and being free.
I think that the bigger issue is corporate rainbow-washing, but we're not seeing that outrage.
Why is it?
Why is it that they all complained about rainbow-washing for the longest time, when the ads were bad, but now that they have this, they're calling it like an amazing viral sensation.
It's because the marketing company figured it out.
They did it right.
They know how to manipulate you.
Gillette made a commercial where it was about toxic masculinity and there was outrage.
And you know that they were scared because they almost immediately put out another commercial where it was like a blonde hair, blue eyed family and a guy coming back from the military and shaving.
And I was like, dude, you swung too far in the other direction.
No one's asking you for a depiction of like the traditional American family.
They're just saying, don't rag on people.
If you want to make an ad, you just need to make it positive.
Make it nice.
And they did.
But I will say, I find this scary.
When marketing companies realize that politics is a path towards sales, it is polarizing.
Jesse Kelly called this societal rot.
Now let me address that real quick, because I'll tell you what, man.
If you want your ideas to survive, the best thing you can do is instill your ideals in your kids.
It's really about that.
I look at this, I have no fear and no concerns.
I thought the commercial was nice, I just don't like the corporate pandering, and I don't like the fact that the sale of products is now being tied to some ideological, you know, political movement.
That scares me.
But don't call it rot, even if you don't like it, even if you think it is.
You're not going to win anyone over.
You sound mean.
And I understand you might be saying, so what if I'm mean?
But hey, I'm not saying don't be mean.
You can be mean all you want.
It's America.
It's one of the best things about America is I can tell the president to go screw himself.
It's fantastic.
You can't arrest me for it.
But, if you want to win over hearts and minds, if you want to convince someone that corporations shouldn't be doing this, you don't do it by being mean.
In the end, I look at what Jesse Kelly tweeted, and I mean this with all due respect, Jesse, that I think you will rile up the people who agree with you, in a sense, you will rally the people who agree with you, and they'll say, yes, you know, thank you for saying this, but there's going to be, you know, people who are uninitiated who don't know.
And all they're going to think when they see this is you attacking people who didn't do anything to you.
Whether you think it's right or wrong, I'm just telling you how people will think and respond.
If you want to convince people that corporations shouldn't be doing this, or that this is bad for society, you do it with a smile and a handshake and you say, listen, you know, should companies that sell soda be manipulating the struggle that people go through to sell a product?
Personally, that's the big problem for me.
Sprite doesn't care about you.
They don't care about pride.
Please, let's be serious.
They want to make money.
They want to sell things.
Everybody does.
And they know they can manipulate you.
That, to me, is a problem.
And so long as this exists, I mean, if this success, if it works, and I think it will, expect to see more of it.
They've been trying to figure out this for a while.
They've had failures, they've had successes, and now they have this one that the LGBTQ community really likes.
So if you want to talk about what you don't like about it, don't do it from a, you gotta be careful.
People don't like mean people.
They say, people won't remember what you said, but they will remember how you made them feel.
And if there's somebody who's in the middle of the road and you think this is bad, for whatever reason, be it you don't like the message or you don't like the corporatism, you do it by saying like, hey, you wanna have a beer and have a conversation?
The right's been really, really good at this.
The left has not.
So, in the end.
A commercial made for Argentina Pride that has nothing to do with Sprite made by Sprite.
Not a fan.
I am not a fan of corporations making these weird commercials.
I'll tell you this.
I'm not a fan of corporations making commercials that are like comedy bits.
Like, commercials in general are weird to me.
If you want to sell a shaving kit, show someone shaving and explain why it works, and I'll consider buying your product.
But what marketing companies have figured out, what really sells, is making you just identify with that brand.
That's what they're doing.
They know that it doesn't matter what you drink, they know that people will drink whatever, soda sales are down, so they're attacking you at your core, your feelings and your politics.
This is one of those stories about, what do they say, get woke, go broke?
Starbucks open bathroom policy may be hurting foot traffic, new study finds.
A study between two universities found that foot traffic has dropped since they instituted this open bathroom policy.
Now, I want to give you a simple reason why that might be the case.
It's not so much the open bathroom policy.
Starbucks said anybody can chill in Starbucks whether they're a customer or not.
That may be hurting foot traffic, because now you have people chilling inside, doing nothing for long periods of time and not buying anything, so other people walk past Starbucks and say, it's too full, I'll go somewhere else.
But those aren't customers.
So I'll put it this way.
If somebody goes in to buy something and then leaves, There is open space.
But if a bunch of people come in, sit down, and do nothing, other people who might just want to walk in and walk out are like, too crowded, I'm not going in there.
However, they say there's other reasons.
The bathrooms are filthy.
There have been stories about Starbucks just shutting down the bathrooms because they're too filthy.
Homeless people going in and showering.
Well, guess what?
You let anybody come in, this is what you get.
But before I read this, I want to read you a story.
Let me stop.
There's a study between University of Texas at Dallas and Boston College saying 7% drop in foot traffic after Starbucks did this.
Starbucks is feeling it.
They're angry.
It's not true.
It's not true.
We reject this.
Outright.
But let me start with a tweet from Kirstie Alley.
She said, was in San Fran in Starbucks.
A drunk street guy ran in screaming.
It was terrifying.
He began grabbing sandwiches and anything he could steal and ran out.
I asked the Starbucks girl to call the police.
She said he does it four times a day.
Beautiful San Fran is becoming a tragic mess.
While this tweet has more to do with San Francisco and their problems, it was in a Starbucks.
And I think it also shows that Starbucks is, well, they're in a dangerous position.
It's not just local policy.
The Starbucks staff are probably concerned if they do anything about this, they're going to get attacked in the press again.
So what do they do?
Let the guy come in and steal it.
He does it all the time.
Wow!
How do you run a business that way?
California, you got problems.
But let's read the story and see what's going on with Starbucks bathroom policy.
Yahoo Finance reports, Starbucks changes to its bathroom policy appear to be impacting foot traffic for the coffee giant despite sales that have outpaced expectations according to recent data.
Since opening its bathroom doors to the public in the wake of a controversial incident in Philadelphia, the coffee giant has seen a 6.8% drop in store attendance per month relative to other coffee shops nearby.
According to the findings of a joint study, the University of Texas at Dallas and Boston Of a joint study from University of Texas at Dallas and Boston College.
Now, this is important.
Relative to.
This means that they controlled for whether or not there were trends in people don't like coffee or whatever.
If they only looked at Starbucks, Starbucks would come out and say, well, you know, everybody's foot traffic is down.
It's not about us.
Nope.
Relative to other shops, Starbucks is hurting.
Quote, when you throw open the policy to let people come in and just use the bathrooms and the tables, maybe people come in and find the bathrooms are dirty and the tables are crowded, David Solomon, assistant professor at Boston College Carroll School of Management told Yahoo Finance PM.
And so they don't buy the coffee as well.
Yes, you've opened your business to people who don't buy coffee and they're cluttering up the space.
The study was based on anonymized location data related to 10,752 Starbucks stores from January 2017 to October 2018.
The study collaborated with Safegraph, a company that compiles anonymous smartphone location data and algorithmic analysis.
The results in our study highlight the difficulty companies can have when trying to engage in different forms of socially responsible behavior.
There it is.
Starbucks.
Get woke, go broke.
Now, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is about socially responsible behavior, but more importantly, it's about the perception of socially responsible behavior.
Because let me tell you, there is nothing socially responsible
about saying anybody can come in and use your bathroom.
You are creating a private space for bad things.
The average person who wants to use the bathroom who comes in,
you're probably going to let them just use the bathroom, right?
But now you've straight up said, we won't kick you out even if you don't buy anything.
So now you have people who have no reason to- That's not responsible!
That's irresponsible!
You are saying, if you need a private space to do something, it's now available.
I know people were probably already using Starbucks bathrooms for drugs and other horrible things, but now you've just codified it.
Quote, our team was very interested in what the economic consequences would be of an open bathroom policy as an example of providing a public good.
It's not a public good.
See, this is what really bothers me.
The assumption that giving away something for free is a good thing.
What is it saying?
Teach a man to fish, feed him for the rest of his life?
Yeah, saying anybody can come in and do something is not a public good, it's a cop-out.
Public good would be teaching people to fish, not giving them fish.
I understand.
It's complicated.
Policy-wise, I do support a lot of welfare programs.
There's a difference between saying, you know how to fish, but your fishing pole broke.
Let me support you by buying you a new fishing pole and send you on your way.
That's like a welfare program, too.
You see the difference?
It's actually a really good analogy.
But what the left ends up doing all the time, like Starbucks in this case, is saying, don't worry, your fishing pole broke, let me give you fish.
Well, the next day, the guy still can't fish, his pole's broken, he knows how to fish.
Okay?
So, when it comes to what Kirstie Alley was saying with the homeless guy running in, the problem of homelessness, it's a blanket proposal from the left.
Oh, just, you know, give them houses.
That's not solving the problem.
Some homeless people don't know how to fish.
Some are incapable of fishing due to disability or mental illness, and some just have a broken fishing pole.
For me, I lean a little bit left on this, saying, we want to err on the side of making sure those that can fish are getting their fishing poles fixed, and those that don't know how are taught to fish.
And then sometimes you gotta recognize, we're gonna take care of those who are really in trouble and just don't have the ability, disability.
If someone's disabled, man, I want to be there for them, right?
Let's read on.
They say, while the hope is always that providing public goods can be rewarded by the market with increased sales and new potential customers, that this isn't necessarily the case.
No, it's not the case, and it won't be the case.
Offering up space under the guise of doing good, you're not doing good.
You're doing bad.
You are hurting people.
You know what's funny?
There's a meme that goes around, a lot of conservatives share, where it's like, it's a sign that says, please don't feed the animals because they'll become dependent on human, you know, food, and they won't be able to hunt and survive on their own.
And it's like, why do we recognize that animals do this but not people?
No, people do it.
If you put people in a position where they can only get the fish from you, they're not going to ever go out and fish.
How about we repair fishing poles?
You see, that's the point.
Someone becomes homeless, we say, we want to make sure you can figure out how to get back on your feet and support yourself.
Those are the kind of programs I'm all about.
Back in May 2018, Starbucks vowed to implement a third-place policy, meaning anyone could use the coffee chain's facilities without having to make a purchase.
You know what's really funny?
It's kind of a funny analogy for, like, immigration, where you're like, anybody can just come in and do as you please.
Nah, man.
You see, Starbucks is in trouble now.
Their foot traffic is down.
They're making money, though, okay?
So that's another argument.
But it's crowded, and people don't want to go there, and the bathrooms are disgusting.
We see real customers.
The company disputed the study's findings and took a shot at its methodology.
Customers are visiting Starbucks at record numbers, a spokesperson told Yahoo Finance.
Who am I going to believe?
Two different universities and a third-party analytics company?
Or the company that's being humiliated?
Sorry, Starbucks.
I'm not buying it.
I'm going to defer to the universities.
Rather than tracking cell phone data without user knowledge, we see real customers in our stores and the connections they make with our partners, every day across more than 31,000 stores.
Meanwhile, Solomon told Yahoo Finance the study's findings are not something that can be found in the company's public disclosures.
Because you don't have the same comparison group of matched nearby coffee shops to see what's going on, he said.
Solomon added that customers are paying for more than just caffeine.
What you're actually getting is a bundle of goods.
You're getting the coffee.
You're getting a pleasant table to sit at with your laptop.
You're getting a bathroom to use when you need a break, he pointed out.
Let me just tell you.
I used to go to Starbucks kind of, you know, frequently just because it was there, it was available.
I don't anymore.
Well, for one, I moved out of the South.
I don't live in New York anymore.
But when I did, man, it was like every time I'd walk past Starbucks, just crowded.
Like, there's literally no chance.
I'm not gonna wait in that huge line.
And then, you know, but let's break this down for you.
Let me give you the straight take on this.
I'll break it down.
Starbucks traffic is up.
Okay, no one disputes that.
They're saying record numbers.
But relative to other coffee chains, Starbucks has gone down in foot traffic.
That means, well, you know, you can play these games, and Starbucks definitely will because they want to, you know, brag about how their policy works.
They're going to say record numbers of customers.
Here's the thing.
If you're an investor, if you're someone who's tracking the data, and now you can compare Starbucks' growth to other, or foot traffic and growth, to other cafes, we can see that they're doing bad.
So it's important to break this down because, you know, people will try and mislead you and say, look, we're doing really well.
Okay, okay.
I see the growth, right?
But could you have done better?
In the end, we can see, I'm sorry, Starbucks.
Get woke, go broke.
Look, for those that aren't familiar, some guys were in Starbucks waiting for a friend and Starbucks tried kicking them out.
The police came and arrested them, I guess.
And it led to this big social justice outrage over, like, racism and whatever because people normally sit.
And I gotta say, man, dude, how does it escalate to that point?
I think they got arrested.
I don't know.
Just kick them out or whatever.
But it's tough.
It is.
Because people are going to weaponize social justice for political gain.
The left is going to jump the gun and wield that power against you.
And too many people fall in line and just play the game.
Well, Starbucks, you get what you deserve.
You reap what you sow.
And now you've got Kirstie Alley.
How many followers does she have?
She has 1.26 million followers tweeting out about Starbucks in San Francisco.
I can't, you know, I can relate to experiences like this where, like, not specifically, but I've gone to Starbucks where it's just filthy.
I've seen the stories where the bathrooms are disgusting.
I have been to Starbucks where the bathrooms are disgusting.
Add San Francisco to the mix and you got a whole other story.
San Francisco's got major problems.
So let me end by saying this.
We can do good.
The problem I see with the left and how they approach welfare and social good is the assumption that you can snap your fingers and do good.
You need to think about what comes next.
You need to think about what your policy would do.
And just because a couple people got kicked out and everyone got angry doesn't mean this is the solution.
It was a knee-jerk reaction that resulted in problems for your company.
Perhaps you should have sat down and actually thought about the right way to deal with this.
Perhaps there was no solution.
Perhaps you should have stood up to the outrage mob and said, listen, there's nothing we can do.
It's one instance out of 31,000 stores.
We had one instance.
Where people were kicked out.
One.
And blamed the police over it.
But Starbucks, in an act of desperation and pure insanity, if you ask me, bends the knee to an outrage mob over one instance out of 31,000 stores, making sweeping changes to all of their stores, and now their foot traffic is down relative to the rest of the industry.
Congratulations, Starbucks.
It's what you deserve.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
I will see you all then.
The main segment I did today over at YouTube.com slash TimCast was talking about how the left is trapped in a paranoid, delusional state.
And we have a nice little tidbit here to show that's the case.
This is great.
Check this out.
From the Daily Caller.
Focus Group finds average Americans don't even know or care what impeachment is about.
My word.
What do they care about?
Kitchen table issues.
Solving their problems.
Why do they care about the political bickering in Washington?
Could you imagine if you hired someone to work in your house and all they did was complain about the job nonstop?
You'd be like, dude, I don't care about your complaints.
I don't care that the guy mopping the floor and the guy washing the dishes are arguing about who's supposed to be doing what.
Imagine this.
You hire some people to clean your house.
They come in and they're working and you're like, great, I got problems.
Dirty dishes, messy floor, dog hair everywhere.
And then all of a sudden you hear fighting.
And you're like, I don't know what they're fighting about.
And you go in and one guy's like, he shouldn't be in charge of washing the dishes.
Why?
I didn't do anything.
And you're just like, enough.
That's where we're at.
Americans don't care.
Here's the best part.
You're going to love this.
Here's a story from The Hill, an opinion piece.
Impeachment hearings likely to get worse for Republicans.
The Hill's really great.
This is an opinion piece by Albert Hunt.
There's like another story from NBC where it's talking about Trump, all three branches of government are falling apart or whatever.
And it's like, dude, you live in a paranoid, delusional state.
You are frantically waving your arms about things nobody cares about.
Let's read this story.
Daily Caller reports, key independent voters are uninterested in the details of the impeachment
inquiry against President Donald Trump, according to focus groups conducted by America First
Policies AFP. Now, here's the funny thing. Apparently, Democrats were calling it quid pro
quo. And this might not be true, because I saw some murmurs.
I don't have the source pulled up.
But apparently, they did a focus group, and the focus group thought bribery sounded worse. So,
So also the Democrats changed what they were saying.
It is all marketing.
Let's read.
AFP held 18 focus groups over the past two months.
In Charlotte, Columbus, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Des Moines, Orlando, Phoenix, Miami, with self-identified independent voters on the 2020 election and impeachment, the voters did not know they would be talking about politics when they were selected for the focus group, a source close to AFP explained.
The voters did not mention Ukraine, an alleged quid pro quo, Rudy Giuliani, or any other key details about the House Democrats impeachment inquiry, according to videos of the focus group reviewed by the Daily Caller.
Instead, the focus groups expressed concerns about the largely closed-door process and the fact that the inquiry is a distraction from other issues that they care about.
Quote, I don't think the majority of the country cares.
They want the problem solved, one focus group member said.
Well, another question, why the focus on impeachment when you can vote Trump out next year?
Yes, that's exactly the point.
It's because they can't vote Trump out.
They want to subvert the system, the electoral process, because they know Trump is going to win.
That's what's scary.
Think about it this way.
We have an electoral college, which means it's not majority rule.
Right now, Trump was put in place not by the majority of Americans, but by the electoral college by a wide margin.
This is a protective system meant to prevent majority rule.
Because a direct democracy just ends up with the masses choosing the lowest common denominator issues.
Now, that's still true.
It's not a perfect system.
But here we have it.
The Democrats, even with the majority of the population, even knowing the rules and playing the same game as Trump, couldn't win.
What's scary?
They still can't win.
They're trapped in a paranoid state.
They're delusional.
Barack Obama's coming out saying, you are going too far left.
Stop.
The wokes.
It's got to stop.
Bill Maher saying, guys, stop.
When you think Bill Maher and Barack Obama have become Republicans, you've lost the plot.
And regular Americans, they're not here with you.
Here's the thing.
These Democratic 2020 candidates, that's who I'm really speaking to.
Because the regular independent Americans are like, I don't care about this!
Just vote him out!
Well, there it is.
Us politicos know Trump won't be voted out.
I mean, it's possible, it is.
But I mean, you look at this, I'm sure the Democrats are looking at the same data the rest of us are, knowing.
Trump could sit on his hands and probably win, because everything's going really well right now.
It's like he could coast all the way to victory.
Moody's Analytics.
Most accurate.
They're saying it.
The Democrats know their only option is to remove him, because they will not win.
Keeping in mind, don't rest on your laurels.
Trump could still lose, okay?
I think it's silly.
A lot of Trump supporters might fall into that same trap as Hillary Clinton, where everyone was so convinced he was going to win, they just sat on their hands.
Let's read.
The more they try, the more they fail.
It's a waste of funds, one individual said.
You know, these people speak to me because I'm in like the same place.
I'm like an independent, you know, in every capacity.
Slightly leaning to the left, but very independent, you know?
I try to step in, see what people are thinking on the left, on the right, in the center, people who aren't politically active, to see what's going on.
And I'm telling you, this is it.
And now we have the focus groups to say so.
Several focus group members compared the current impeachment inquiry to the Russian collusion narrative, pointing out there was no smoking gun in the entirety of the Mueller probe and accused Democrats of using the process to further divide the country.
Others said Democrats are not going about the inquiry the right way, asserting that the sneaky process proves they don't have anything.
That's right.
One dude who testified, and like some leaks came out about his testimony, shows that he was not concerned at all about Trump having done anything illegal.
He's like, no, it never crossed my mind.
I thought the call was fine.
But the Democrats leak selective information.
That's the problem with the closed-door process.
The focus on the process suggests that Republican talking points are reaching independent voters.
House GOP members repeatedly hammered the fact that the first round of hearings were conducted behind closed doors, in a skiff, and without representation on behalf of the President or the White House.
We want to know what they're talking about, period.
One voter in a focus group declared.
If they're talking about removing Trump, we want to know what they're talking about.
Here, here, I agree.
We're talking about removing the president.
You better explain to us exactly why and what's going on.
In my opinion, while I understand the closed-door proceedings, I do not believe they have justified their reason for having them.
They then, look, they have the closed door meetings, they leak information, the press goes wild, and then they have them testify publicly.
What's the point of any of it?
It's a waste of time.
It's a PR strategy.
If they're going to talk about removing the president, we have a right to know.
Everybody.
The focus group responses bolster Democratic concerns that the details of the impeachment inquiry are too convoluted for the non-DC crowd to follow, to follow along.
Democrats have quickly shifted their rhetoric surrounding impeachment, abandoning allegations of a quid pro quo and instead using the word bribery, which is insane because there is lit—no.
Quid pro quo, somebody said it, everyone followed suit, but there is nothing—no, there's no bribery.
What bribery?
Seriously, what bribe?
A bribe is when you hand someone cash in exchange for something.
The military aid was already going to Ukraine.
Trump held it up.
That's the opposite of bribery.
That's saying, I'm not going to give you money.
Now, you can call it extortion, saying, oh, that money you were supposed to get?
That I understand.
The problem is, Ukraine doesn't even know about it.
I did a conversation with Sam Seder, and he says, the frame of mind of the victim is irrelevant.
I'm sorry, dude.
I listened to what you had to say.
I can respect you coming on.
But let's be real.
Extortion does require the other person to know that something bad might happen.
And it wasn't fair.
No smoking gun.
Just more nonsense.
They say, they believe it resonates more with Middle America.
A source close to AFP agreed.
Closed.
Unless you're living in DC, you can't keep up with the show.
People find impeachment to be too much, too confusing.
They brought up Russia, but no one mentions Ukraine.
The individual familiar with the focus group said, there's frustration that they're not getting anything done.
Yes.
Let me go back to that analogy in the beginning because I love it.
You hire a couple guys to build a shed in your backyard.
And instead of building the shed, on your dime, they're arguing about why the foreman's in charge.
And you're like, dude, I am paying you to be here.
Because keep in mind, you as Americans are paying the salaries of these people.
You hired them, and that's what they're doing.
Think about it.
You're in your backyard watching these three construction workers, and they're fighting instead of doing any work.
And you get up and you say, please start building the shed.
And they say, no!
The foreman must be removed because his plans are bad plans.
And then it turns out, his plans, while unconventional, actually seem to be working pretty well.
And now you're confused.
I don't get it.
Now look, I understand some of what he's doing is kind of weird and maybe inappropriate.
Maybe he said bad things, lewd things.
But please just build this.
Because once you're done, you can move on.
You don't got to work with the guy.
And we can hire somebody else.
But for the time being, you're in the yard.
Build the shed!
What people don't seem to understand, especially when it comes to this, you need to remember, these politicians are being paid by you!
That's right, you're paying them to sit around complaining about Orange Man.
And I know a lot of people get it, but for me it's the most frustrating thing.
If you're going to hire someone for a job, do the job.
These people, predominantly the moderates, the moderate Democrats who are now supportives, were not hired because they said, we're going to depose, we're going to remove the Orange Man.
They were hired because they said they were going to bridge the divide.
They were going to do right by the American people and solve problems and bring up kitchen table issues.
Instead, once again, all that's happening, all of the press, is around whether or not the orange man is bad enough to be removed from office.
I hear there's the USMC got a great trade deal, apparently, they could be voting on.
No?
The more important question is whether or not the orange man should be president.
Well, guess what?
Donald Trump is working.
He's like the one guy who was elected to do his job, and the economy's going great.
So think about it this way.
You hire three people to build a shed.
The guy in charge is working away.
He's saying nasty things, and you don't like him, and he smells bad.
Don't put it that way.
The other two guys are complaining nonstop, not doing any work.
Okay?
Who are you going to remove?
Listen, man, I understand Trump may have all of these bad things about him, and I don't like—I lean away from a lot of his policies.
But he's the president.
He's the guy running the show right now, and he's being paid by the American people.
Actually, he's foregoing his salary, my understanding.
But he's doing the job.
He's like, let me do the job.
OK, fine, man.
I didn't pick him to be in charge, but that's fine.
Do the job.
Who are these Democrats that sit around on our tax dollars doing nothing, when even other independents are... OK, I'm going to stop.
You get the point.
What are they doing?
I do not want politicians whose sole job is to just maintain power.
And that's why I do like a lot of the more progressives, because at least they actually have ideals.
People like Pelosi, Schumer, and yes, McConnell, and others.
They're just... They flip-flop back and forth.
They're career politicians.
I don't... I don't... You know.
Are we just paying them to sit around and they're tricking us into paying them more?
Whatever, man.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Let me ask you a question.
You probably already know the answer because you've seen the title of the video.
But what do you think happens when you take an old franchise and stuff it full of sneaky feminist ideas and then try and remake it?
If the answer is, the movie will flop miserably and the director will get angry and demand that men come see her movie, that's what happens.
Elizabeth Banks relaunched Charlie's Angels, and apparently she said, my film is loaded with sneaky feminist ideas.
All right.
I like Elizabeth Banks.
I actually thought the Pitch Perfect movies were funny and fun and silly.
And I think she did a great job.
And I can respect her wanting to get women in lead roles.
But I'm going to have to say, Elizabeth Banks, I did enjoy Power Rangers.
But this is bad.
I'm sorry.
It's just bad.
Here you go.
Here's... I'm sorry, this is the wrong one.
Here we go.
Because I was reading these.
Deadline.
Charlie's Angels fell from grace at the box office with an $8 million opening.
$8 million.
That is abysmal.
You know what's crazy about this?
Why it's so bad?
Because they did a big play for this.
They had like some music video with Lena Del Rey, Ariana Grande, and Miley Cyrus.
The music video's got 117 million views, and the movie... Sorry.
So here's what we get.
I'll tell you exactly what it is.
Would you want to go see an action movie that doesn't have action in it?
I'd say the answer is no.
So here's the way I take it.
Men and women don't like the same things, on average.
This movie was targeting women ages 13 to 39.
It is an action, power, girl power movie.
They didn't go see it.
Typically, the stereotype is that women like rom-coms, men like action.
And I was reading something about how that fits the average trope, the average perspective that men and women have, or the stereotype of it.
That guys are macho dudes who want to like rush into a burning building to save the puppies or the baby or whatever.
Save the damsel in distress.
The damsel in distress.
Whereas women Enjoy these movies where they have like a silly social adventure where they find Mr. Right and then there's miscommunication and then everything works out in the end and the guy chases after the airplane, runs to the airport.
There are tropes about chick flicks, like we actually have a word for it, chick flick.
What do you think happens if you take a movie that is skewed towards what men prefer but stuff it full of feminist ideas with all female characters and then take out the action?
I don't know what this movie is or who this movie was for.
So let's read a little bit from Deadline.
The Deadline story says...
Sony knew Charlie's Angels was a one-quadrant movie, eyed at women 13-39, especially given its lack of action scenes, and wisely limited their exposure to what I hear is 50% with co-finance partners, 2.0 Entertainment and Perfect World.
Sony claims the budget is $48 million.
We've heard in the mid-$50 million.
Tax incentives were taken in the pics Berlin and Hamburg shoots.
Perhaps Sony should have spent more, because Charlie's Angels' biggest problem is that it has very low octane.
We've seen it all before action scenes.
Heck, there's more action in a 1980s Chuck Norris movie.
After watching Charlie's Angels earlier this week, I put the first two McG movies on Netflix.
So talking about The original Charlie's Angels with Lucy Liu and all that, there was action.
And Charlie's Angel was about these women who were fighting crime, international spies, etc.
She turned the movie into a feminist movie.
They took out the action?
Who is this movie for?
I think this is the big problem.
The cultural tropes that we have are not designed or not built by patriarchy.
There wasn't some man who decided, movies for men must be the hero's journey, action stories, and movies for women must be chick flicks, must be rom-coms.
No, it's that over time, an industry was built based on what's sold.
It's a decentralized computer.
Now the left will argue, women only watch those because they were conditioned to watch them, and if you give women an action film, they'll go see it.
Wrong.
Look, in some capacities, that's true.
You can attract general audiences with big blockbuster films.
Look at Hunger Games.
You had a female lead.
Alien, female lead.
It's possible.
You can have movies with female lead characters, but when you try and make them feminist films, first of all, it's not even about the stereotypes over what men and women want.
It's about, before the movie comes out, I'll tell you this.
I see something like this a week ago.
My film is loaded with sneaky feminist ideas.
Okay, I'll pass.
Dude, you want to attract a general audience?
Show us some explosions, apparently everybody wants to go see Transformers, even women!
But when you make an action movie with no action, what are you doing?
Like, I don't even know, look, I'm not gonna go see the movie, and I'll admit, I knew the movie was coming out, but here's my favorite part.
Apparently in this story from just 10 days ago, they say Elizabeth Banks made Charlie's Angels to celebrate women at work.
The actress, producer, and director shares her motivations for making the latest Charlie's Angels film and what it takes to succeed in Hollywood today.
And she goes on to say that, like, she wants men to go and see her movie because women go and see men's movie.
Movies.
I'll tell you what.
I think women like movies.
I think women like action movies.
I think the reason why big blockbusters are explosions and helicopters and Bruce Willis launching a car into a helicopter and jumping off a building is, you know, die hard.
You get the point.
It's because men and women both like that.
I think to an extent, when it comes to action movies, you get what you don't get from other visual arts.
So one of the funny things that's often brought up is, on the cover of a man's magazine is a woman.
On the cover of a woman's magazine is a woman.
Not always, but that's the joke.
It doesn't mean it's like the overall majority, but that's a joke people often bring up.
You go to a magazine stand, take a picture, and it's all women.
And it's because when it comes to what both men and women want to look at and what they perceive as being beautiful in a still image, it's a female.
But what about when it comes to ideas and action?
I don't mean action like explosions, I mean like doing something.
In my opinion this falls into the trope about Men are attracted to appearance.
Women are attracted to status.
Think about a movie like Die Hard.
I don't know if all women are going to want to go see Die Hard.
The trope is they don't.
But you can look at certain movies and see that even women want to go see them.
Star Wars, the man rescues the damsel in distress.
It was not only men who went and saw this.
In fact, there's a very famous photo of a woman who created a rebel pilot outfit from going and seeing the movies in the 70s.
Talk about dedication to the fan base.
And there's a trope about, you know, men mocking women because women weren't into that stuff, but women are.
So I wonder why women would be into these movies.
Perhaps because they relate to the same ideas of being a hero and saving the day, same as men?
And this flies in the face of what you actually should be doing?
You don't need to make a sneaky feminist film to get women to go watch it.
You make The Hunger Games, and men and women go and watch it.
This is the biggest problem with the injection of politics.
Let me read this right here.
On making movies from a different lens.
Banks believes there is one factor that differentiates Charlie's Angels from most action movies.
Women don't typically walk into a room and start fighting, she said.
We need to use strategies in our lives to avoid violence.
She described a typical scene of an action movie where a man is usually the protagonist.
The guy walks in, pushes his sleeves up, and comes to the camera.
While there is plenty of that in Charlie's Angels, Banks said that she really wanted to emphasize the message that those kinds of scenes are often the last resort.
The mantra is that women fight smarter, not harder.
Dude, come on!
You see, this is the injection of weird perspectives that nobody cares about.
Reflecting on her directing experience with Pitch Perfect 2, Banks says that there are many parallels between directing an action movie and a musical.
And there's the big problem.
You know, I can just say it's simple, man.
You are not the kind of person who could direct this kind of movie.
And you tried.
And if you think, you know, musical numbers and action set pieces are designed in a similar way.
You can't stop a movie to be like we're going to sing and dance.
She went on to say, you also don't stop a movie to film a shooting scene.
You have to include character development and check many other boxes at the same time.
Yes, but they're very different.
Like, I don't think Jackie Chan could make a musical, dude.
But he can make some of the best fight choreography we've ever seen.
Dude, it's a legend.
Amazing, the fight with the ladder and he like goes through it.
Man, awesome stuff.
And here we go.
This is it!
I saw this before, and I knew I was not going to see this movie.
The importance of inclusivity in Hollywood.
Let me stop.
I think inclusivity in Hollywood is very important.
You know, we had the first three big franchises of Marvel, white dudes.
You had Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor.
And they're all white males.
Here's the thing.
That's fine.
I don't care.
I rather enjoy those movies.
And the fact that they're all white males literally doesn't bother me in one bit.
Doesn't bother me one bit.
But there are a lot of people who DEMANDED we get a movie with a woman.
And so they made a terrible movie.
Captain Marvel.
I'll tell you what, man.
You know what movie was fantastic?
Into the Spider-Verse.
And they had an Afro-Latino, Miles Morales, Not white.
You got your diversity.
You got Spider Gwen.
She was pretty awesome.
And it was a great movie.
You can bring in that inclusivity and diversity.
I do think it's important.
I think it's great to see.
But not when you ham fist and shoehorn in some random ridiculous concept.
And here's the best part.
She says this.
Oh man, here we go.
When you think about what has been put out in the media, it's mostly from a cisgendered white male perspective.
Everything that's not, that feels a little bit fresher, and so it feels like pretty good business.
I'm the audience.
I want things I haven't seen before.
My real plea is for men to have enough empathy to go see movies starring women, because I've been asked to go see movies starring men my entire life.
And I've happily done so.
I don't know why men can't return that effing favor.
Aw, I'm so sorry.
Dude, you've happily gone and seen these movies?
Well, I'm not happily gonna go see your movie, and I'm not gonna be guilted into seeing it either.
Maybe the movie's good?
It flopped, it got bad ratings from some people, and I'll tell you exactly why I will never see your movie.
That's why.
When you tell me the movie's gonna be political, I'm like, oh no, here it comes.
Same thing with Captain Marvel.
It was like a, I don't know, C-D+.
And they loaded the commercial, it was like, it said, uh, uh, her, and then her turns into a hero, and it's like, oh no, no, no, no, no.
Dude.
When you run this narrative, it tells me that your story is lacking, it's weak, and I think this is an excuse for a trash movie.
So I'm not surprised your movie bombed.
And I'm sorry to hear this, man, because I really do like Elizabeth Banks.
I thought Power Rangers was a lot of fun.
It doesn't have to be the best movie in the world.
And I think she does a good job, and I like the movies she's in.
So it's on... And The Hunger Games, specifically.
And I'm... It's unfortunate that this is what she's pushing.
Come on, dude.
Just be a real human.
Make a regular movie.
Make things that are fun.
Stop trying to inject your politics into it, because no one wants that.
We want to have a good time at the movies eating popcorn, not being preached to, and to have someone tell us, have some empathy and go see my movie.
No!
I go to movies to have a good time, not to pity you.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I think you guys got to give Colin Kaepernick a lot more credit.
You know, so many conservatives are outraged over everything he's doing.
They say that he's, you know, he's distracting everybody.
It's all about him.
And it is.
That's literally what he's doing.
Give him some credit.
He's playing that marketing game and he's playing it well.
He knows that your outrage will do right by him and the left's outrage will do right by him because he's an average player.
I don't know much about football, but I'll tell you this.
There was some workout where people were supposed to be able to see him train or whatever, and he ends up ditching it because he wanted a film crew.
And so all these people are like, Colin Kaepernick's only in it for himself.
Yes!
And it's great business!
It's working for him.
I'm not saying he's a good person.
And his politics are a lie.
But come on, he knows what's up.
He's played this game and he's played it well.
Think about it, man.
What's the longevity of a football player?
Not very long.
There's this famous viral image that says like, Only a small percentage, like 3% or some tiny percentage, ever make it to the NFL, and their average salary is like $500,000, and then they're out of a job.
And then what?
You're in your 30s, late 30s, the average person?
You got no work, you go manage theater or something like that?
Nah, Colin Kaepernick knew it was up.
He's an average player, he's never gonna be the best, but he can be, he can generate mass press attention and make himself something more.
I gotta say, From a business point of view, from a PR point of view, the dude's got it.
Absolutely.
When it comes to football, he's just getting in the way.
Check this out, let's read this story.
There's like, apparently a bunch of scouts are like, yeah, you know, he's kind of inaccurate, he's kind of average, and this proves the point.
How did Kaepernick's workout go?
Here's what the scouts are saying.
Colin Kaepernick dissed the NFL by skipping out on an organized tryout by the organization on Saturday.
Instead, he set up his own workout, and according to scouts who saw his playing, Kaepernick is essentially average.
Don't miss the lead here.
Don't miss the point.
That's exactly it.
He wanted to bring in a film crew to the NFL workout, and they said, no, you can't do that.
So he did his own.
He did it for this story, for this video, for the press attention.
He's gonna sell more pictures of his face, and he's now got a career as a political activist.
It was smart.
I think it's duplicitous.
I don't trust this guy.
I think he's doing it for money and career.
But I'll tell you this, Kaepernick is gonna be worth more money than the majority of pro football players, because it's all about being famous.
NFL Network insider Ian Rapoport spoke to four scouts and reported on their general findings.
Here's one.
There were 60 scripted throws, no runs, no agility work.
He was in good shape, as we thought he'd be.
Arm strength was definitely still there, and he had some real zip on the ball.
But he had some accuracy issues on his deep throws.
Good enough to be on a roster likely backup level.
He was in good shape and he has a fast ball.
The velocity was real good.
Accuracy and touch were inconsistent.
On deep balls he was ordinary.
He can still run well.
Essentially average overall.
Good velocity, accuracy, and touch were average.
Good showing.
Thought he looked like he did when he was last on the field.
Now I will give some defense.
Absolutely.
I say this.
Kaepernick filed a lawsuit against the NFL, which was settled earlier this year, alleging that the team owners and managers, and allegedly Donald Trump, conspired to lock him out of a position with a new team after he turned down a one-year contract extension from the San Francisco 49ers.
The Daily Wire's Emily Zanotti reported last week, Kaepernick by then had become famous less for his arm than for kneeling during patriotic pre-game festivities in protest of institutional racism.
Here's the thing.
If nobody wants to sign the guy because he's toxic, then I understand that.
If they're saying that's not the reason, and he's just not good enough, I actually don't think that's fair.
Look, the dude's average, clearly.
The scouts are saying he's average, and he looks like he did what he was asked in the field, and he's good enough to be backup level.
You'd think he'd get signed if that were the case.
So it seems like his political stunts really did negatively impact him.
I don't think it's fair to say it's a conspiracy between, you know, owners and managers.
There's way too many.
The real problem was he was toxic.
His brand is toxic.
I'll tell you what, he's still going to win out though.
You might not want to hear it, or you might want to, I don't know, whatever your political leaning is.
You might not care.
But what we're seeing here was clever.
The dude's average.
He knows that his time is short.
He could get cut at any moment.
So what does he do?
Goes for the political play.
Smart, smart move.
Bad for the country.
Sure.
Divisive.
Making everybody fight each other.
But... And that's bad.
I'm criticizing that.
Mind you.
I'm just saying, like, you gotta hand it to the guy.
He knows how to strip the goodwill of the American people for personal gain, huh?
The NFL, clearly giving Kaepernick preferential treatment, organized a private workout for the famed anthem-kneeler on Saturday in Atlanta.
The session, meant to help Kaepernick secure a position on one of the NFL teams, was to include a taped workout and interview session with teams.
Kaepernick was on board with the treatment, tweeting, I'm just getting word from my representatives that the NFL League office reached out to them about a workout in Atlanta on Saturday.
I've been in shape and ready for this for three years.
Can't wait to see the head coaches and GMs on Saturday.
That all changed about a half hour before the workout.
However, when the 32-year-old bailed because of a liability waiver from the NFL and the denial of the quarterback to bring his own camera crew to the workout, his agent and lawyer said, oh, is that it?
You wanted to film a little special?
Maybe sell a Netflix documentary?
Maybe make a couple mil in the back end?
I see how the game goes.
Mr. Kaepernick requested all media be allowed into the workout to observe and film it for an independent film crew to be there and for an independent film crew to be there to ensure transparency.
No.
I mean, look, it's a clever play, and I can respect it from a business point of view.
He wanted press attention.
Listen, do you know why the Democrats do the impeachment stuff?
It's because if you got Adam Schiff to, like, if he walked around the halls of Congress, nobody would put a camera in his face.
But the impeachment inquiry allows him to grandstand and talk smack.
That's what Kaepernick's doing here.
Kaepernick wants the media and a film crew to be there to give him an opportunity for a press conference.
Otherwise, what can he do?
The NFL denied the request.
The statement said, according to CBS Sports, based on the prior conduct by the NFL League office, Mr. Kaepernick simply asks for a transparent and open process, which is why a new location has been selected for today.
Mr. Kaepernick looks forward to seeing the representatives from the clubs today.
The waiver Kaepernick was upset over was a standard liability waiver based on the waiver used by the National Invitational Camp at all NFL combines and by NFL clubs when trying out free agent players.
I gotta admit, not a football person, know basically nothing about football.
And the first time someone ever said to me, line of scrimmage, I said, there's no way that's a real word, you made that up.
Not a football person.
So keep that in mind.
Moreover, Kaepernick's request to have his own personal camera crew attend the event was not made until Friday night, the leak said.
We heard for the first time last night, around the same time we heard from Nike, that Colin wanted to bring his own video crew.
We heard for the first time this afternoon that Colin wanted to open the event to all media.
I tell you what, man.
He didn't get signed, okay?
So now, you know, he wants to be playing football again.
And if he's got the chops, then by all means, let him.
But I'll tell you what.
I made a couple of videos today talking about Get Woke, Go Broke.
The first was questionable.
Sprite.
The second was Starbucks definitely got woke when broke.
I'll tell you what, man.
Kaepernick is Get Woke, Get Paid.
You know, Get Woke or Go Broke is not a law.
It's not definitive.
But it does happen a lot, so people like pointing it out.
In this instance, Kaepernick got woke, and it was one of the best things he could have ever done.
He is an average player.
No one in any other circumstance would care who he is, or what he's about, or what he thinks.
But he did something.
He used the system to his own personal advantage.
He exacerbated the massive political divide, and for that, I kind of think he's a bad dude.
I don't trust him.
I think he's doing this for money.
So listen.
He decided to play into politics to extend his career.
And it's the perfect example how many of these companies that do get woke know if your product is crap, this is what you do.
So why would Sprite, for instance, make a woke commercial?
I'll tell you what, man, what are they gonna do?
Tell you we make lemon-lime soda, go drink it?
Yeah, everybody knows that.
They're not telling you anything new.
So they're desperate.
And they know that for the most part, when it comes to this kind of stuff, conservatives say, yeah, whatever, I got other things to worry about.
And they know the left might actually be incensed by these things.
Because as we saw from all the news, that Axios study.
Democrats are made angry by literally everything they read.
I kid you not!
It's the actual study that Axios published.
70% of Democrats think they're strangers in their own land.
It is really easy to get them riled up and get them behind something.
Conservatives, not so much.
That's why the play always falls on this side.
Is there any football player who defied a protest and stood up and put his hand on his heart and is now getting all this press attention?
Listen, man.
Maybe the best thing that conservatives can do?
Stop talking about him.
I'll tell you what.
I've said this before.
Stop talking about AOC.
You're empowering her.
Stop talking about Kaepernick.
And people say, Tim, why don't you stop talking about him?
I'm not a conservative.
I don't care.
Colin Kaepernick can do whatever he wants.
I don't think he's a good dude.
I don't trust him.
I think he's causing problems for other people in exchange for his own personal financial benefit.
But I don't care if he's on a football team or not, dude.
If he can play, he can play.
It's fine.
But this is it.
The big game and the big money in sports is all about recognition.
And unless you're the best, you know, Steve Kerr, is that his name, always getting those three-pointers?
I don't know what you kids talk about these days.
I'm a skateboarder, right?
But he's famous for being good.
Now, what if you're not good?
What if you're inaccurate and average and a backup player?
