Trump Is WINNING On EVERY Major Political Front, Everything Democrats Have Tried Has BACKFIRED
Trump Is WINNING On EVERY Major Political Front, Everything Democrats Have Tried Has BACKFIRED. Immigration, The Economy, Reelection campaigning, Fundraising, and Impeachment, Trump is winning on ALL OF IT.Democrats have failed to put a dent in anything Trump has been working on and now even media outlets like Huffpo, WaPo and CNN are forced to admit it.|Huffington Post called it the "dreadful truth" that Trump got his wall not just physically but legally.WaPo was forced to admit on CNN that Democrats are panicking over the impeachment failure.Impeachment backfires massively against Democrats resulting in independent voters souringAnd Trump is now seeing his support among minority communities nearly DOUBLE.As much as mainstream media doesn't want to admit it, or how much they will smear me for simply pointing it out. Trump is winning his political battles and Democrats keep failing.Obama tried to help, he tried to guide them but they rejected him and now even WaPo calls Obama a conservative.The Democrats are fractured and failing, impeachment is a mess, and Trump is facing a landslide reelection. The facts are there and fake news outlets are lying if they say otherwise.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On every major political front, Donald Trump is winning.
From impeachment, to immigration, to fundraising, re-election, support among minority communities, he is winning on all of these battlefields.
And now the media has no choice but to start recognizing this.
As much as they don't want to, because for some reason so many of them seem to carry water for the Democrats, it's happening.
Take a look at this story from the Huffington Post.
The dreadful truth.
Trump got his wall.
The dreadful truth.
Oh heavens, Trump is winning.
That's right.
Trump wants to investigate the origins of the Russia probe.
Well, now you've got an FBI agent under criminal investigation.
You've got the Durham probe, which is now a criminal investigation.
You've got the Horowitz report coming out on the 9th for FISA abuse.
These seemingly proving Trump right.
Trump's support generally is up amid impeachment, his support among Republicans tops 93%, he's raising record amounts of money, and all signs point to a landslide re-election.
But still, many Democrats publicly Are acting like they're not on.
They're not in dire straits.
But the truth is, even Jake Tapper called out Adam Schiff.
I was shocked to see all of these stories.
And I'm trying to figure out, you know, what's the big takeaway from this?
What's the big story?
Should we talk about Trump's wall?
Should we talk about his fundraising?
And then I realized in all of these stories, Trump is winning.
The Democrats are floundering.
Let's get started and learn about why the Huffington Post is so angry.
But I'll tell you what, possibly one of the most mind-blowing statistics I've seen so far.
A new Emerson poll showing that support from the African-American community for Donald Trump has nearly doubled from last month to 34%.
While not a majority, Trump is winning these fights!
My mind is blown.
And you'd think, if the Democrats were just a bit more honest about their shortcomings, and if they stopped the impeachment charade, which they're trapped in now, they might actually be able to win some ground.
But they're just, unfortunately, they're naive, they're ignorant, and they've played themselves.
Let's check out this first story.
The dreadful truth.
Trump got his wall.
The poor, sad Huffington Post.
Before we read it, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Now I know Thanksgiving is around the corner, and there's going to be a lot of people for confirmation bias reasons who refuse to read about the successes Donald Trump is having across the board.
And let me just say one very important thing for all the naysayers who say I'm wrong.
I am not saying Trump has won every single major fight.
I'm saying he's winning.
And it doesn't mean that in this war there are no casualties.
Trump has taken some hits.
He's been slowed down.
He's taken damage himself.
But for the most part, he is prevailing in so many ways.
Russiagate didn't work.
The new Ukrainegate, which the whistleblower's lawyer said the coup has started two years ago, not working either.
And Trump is succeeding no matter how hard they try.
They tried to stop the wall.
They couldn't do it.
So let's read the story.
I should say, if you want to support this work, my video, share this video.
It really, really does help.
And maybe some people who don't want to admit it might see this and be like, yeah, listen, if there's any takeaway from this, it's a Democrat strategy is failing and they need to be held accountable.
They are catering to the Twitterati mobs.
They are not talking about what Americans want, and they have betrayed the moderates by going after the Orange Man bad narrative.
Trump is winning because they don't have sound policy, no charismatic leader, and they just have no good ideas.
It's just failure across the board.
Here's the story from Huffington Post.
Trump got his wall after all.
And then as I scroll down, so when you try to scroll down the story, a wall builds of the American flag.
Huffington Post writes, In the two years and 308 days that Donald Trump has been president, he has constructed zero miles of wall along the southern border of the United States.
That's actually not true at all.
He has, to be fair, replaced or reinforced 76 miles of existing fence and signed it with a sharpie.
A private group has also built a barrier less than a mile long with some help from Steve Bannon and money raised on GoFundMe.
My understanding is, and I could be wrong, that currently there's about 80 miles of new
border being built.
But more importantly, this is an attempt to smear Trump as not succeeding.
The borders that were replaced were single-layer fencing that was falling apart that people
would just walk through or jump over.
Trump changed it now to triple-layer barriers.
The reason why these areas were changed first is because that was the high-volume areas
where most people were crossing.
It doesn't make sense for Trump to go and build a wall in the middle of the desert if this is where people are getting through.
No, you reinforce the areas you have, and that's what he did.
Let's read on.
They say along the 2,000 miles from Texas to California, there is no blockade of unscalable steel slats and heat retaining matte black, no electrified spikes, no moat, and no crocodiles, which is also fake news.
There's no evidence to suggest Trump actually made those claims.
Someone just said he said that.
Ridiculous.
The animating force of Trump's entire presidency, the idea that radiated a warning of dangerous bigotry to his opponents and a promise of unapologetic nativism to his supporters, will never be built in the way he imagined.
But you know what HuffPost is doing right now?
They're saying Trump can't get his wall.
But they're admitting, legally, Trump has created something more powerful than a wall.
Illegal and legal immigration is down.
No new refugees.
Trump didn't necessarily need that wall, but I'll tell you what they're doing right now.
Whether they want to admit it or not, Trump supporters are going to say straight up, there's the wall.
And as Huffington Post calls it in the URL, invisible wall.
They say it doesn't matter.
In the two years and 308 days that Donald Trump has been president, his administration has constructed far more effective barriers to immigration.
No new laws have actually been passed.
This transformation has mostly come about through subtle administrative shifts.
A phrase that vanishes from an internal manual.
A form that gets longer.
An unannounced revision to a website.
A memo.
A footnote in a memo.
Among immigration lawyers, the cumulative effect of these procedural changes is known as the invisible wall.
And there you've heard it.
Donald Trump told you.
He'd give you a big beautiful wall if you voted for him.
So far, he's got you some bollard fencing.
But even among immigration lawyers, they know that Trump's invisible wall seems to be substantially more effective.
And they're angered by it, with the Huffington Post calling it a dreadful truth.
They've lost on this front, and Trump has won.
They say denial for H-1Bs, the most common form of visa for skilled workers, more than doubled.
In the same period, wait times for citizenship doubled, while average processing times for all kinds of visas jumped 46%, even as quantity of applicants went down.
In 2018, the United States added just 200,000 immigrants, a startling 70% less than the year before.
This is the unseen victories of Donald Trump because the media won't tell you about it.
They want you to believe that Trump is failing at every step, but it's not true.
So you get the point.
They say this.
There's an invisible wall.
We get it.
Whether Trump can build his big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea remains to be seen.
Huffington Post says it's not true, but they do fully acknowledge When it comes to policy, law enforcement, Trump has absolutely won.
And he's built a legal barrier which is working better than any one of his supporters could probably have imagined.
But check this out.
Let's move on.
Let's move on.
It's not just about immigration.
How do you think the minority communities feel about Donald Trump?
This, to me, was probably one of the most shocking bits of information I've ever seen in the Trump presidency.
Trump's approval among blacks tops 34% in Emerson Poll.
Epoch Times reads, the number is notable because only 8% of blacks voted for Trump in 2016, according to Cornell University's Roper Center.
They say, the poll of 1,092 registered voters conducted November 17th to 20th, partly by automated landline calls and partly online.
The same poll taken a month earlier showed approval for Trump's presidency at 17.8% among the African American community.
It is nearly doubled.
I can only say, I think it's Kanye West, man.
I mean, there's probably a lot of reasons, but I gotta say, Kanye West is very influential.
And he's empowering the religious community, which is very, very important.
You know, they say that the black church is the key to getting those votes and that politicians always show up to speak to them.
Well, Kanye West is proud, defiant, and all of a sudden now, a month later, Trump's support has doubled.
I gotta say, I think Kanye plays a big role in this.
And I'll give him my respect.
It's very brave to do what he did.
Hollywood and celebrity industry is not right-wing.
He took a great risk coming out and standing up for what he believed in.
They say this.
So this is from Emerson Poll.
And I always want to make sure that when I'm talking about a single poll, we scrutinize it.
I think it's fair to say there are other polls that show the numbers are way lower, and that's fair, especially the aggregate.
But the reason why this one stood out to me is that according to FiveThirtyEight, Emerson College is the second most accurate poll Out of all of the polls they measured, with Google being the worst and CNN being near the bottom.
Even Rasmussen is considered to be not as good as the other polls.
But when you go up to the top, Emerson is considered the second most accurate.
And they're the ones who are saying this.
But it's not just that.
They're saying that among Hispanic voters, his number has gone up.
Check this out.
The poll also showed significantly higher approval among Hispanic voters.
38.2% in November compared to 26.2% the month earlier.
How is this possible?
Trump built the wall.
How could his support among Hispanics be going up?
I'll tell you what, man.
Perhaps Trump knows what the American people, at least most of them, are looking for.
Perhaps people are starting to realize that Donald Trump is speaking more to their community than anything else.
I'm not saying that's true, or I shouldn't frame it as realized, but that's the perception these individuals have.
All I can really say personally, in my opinion, is the narrative of the left is not working.
Now, I will concede, Emerson is one poll, take it with a grain of salt, but Emerson, according to FiveThirtyEight, is the second most accurate, at least out of the ones they've measured.
But come on, man, open secrets just a few days ago?
Democratic Party falls further behind GOP in October fundraising.
Incredible.
Donald Trump, month after month, has been raising record amounts of money.
And you know what really, really hurt the Democrats?
And I gotta tell you, I'm really, really frustrated about this, okay?
I'm really, really frustrated because they all supported this.
And it was the biggest backfire we have ever seen.
Possibly gonna go down in history.
I believe the impeachment attempt of Donald Trump will be one of the classic blunders in the history books.
Here's a story from Vanity Fair.
It is hard to read this as anything but a warning.
New polling suggests Democrats' impeachment push could alienate key voters.
Data exclusive to Vanity Fair shows impeachment could be a losing issue for Democrats hoping to recruit independents in 2020.
Lots of people who don't like Trump are still prepared to vote for him.
If that is not victory, I don't know what is.
That may be the most shocking sentence of them all.
Now, I chose this story from Vanity Fair for a couple reasons.
Over the past week, I've talked about how support for impeachment is on the decline.
Independent voters oppose impeachment.
It jumped by 10 points.
Four polls this month.
Well, now we can see that Vanity Fair's exclusive data showing Democrats may be losing on this one, and they're not going to be able to recruit independents.
We know that, according to Politico, Moderate Democrats are starting to feel the heat.
And they're worried the Democratic Party is leaving them behind.
They know they made a mistake.
But quite possibly, to me, what may be the biggest victory for Donald Trump of all is the admission that there are a lot of people who don't like him who are still prepared to vote for him.
And I'll tell you what, anecdotally, that's what I've heard.
I've talked to people who said they don't like the guy.
They can't stand his tweets.
There was one story about Rust Belt voters who are going to support him saying, I wish someone would take away that darn phone.
Yeah.
People.
I gotta say it.
If Trump is gonna get the votes from people who don't like him, dude, maybe it's safer to say in some areas the Democrats are just losing.
It's not about Trump winning.
If people who don't like Trump will vote for him, I think that stands to reason that Trump did not win those people over.
But the Democrats have failed them.
And that's what impeachment has gotten them.
Check this out.
This was crazy to me.
This is from a few days ago.
I saw Trump's approval rating going up among the aggregate of polls, not just a single poll.
Trump's approval rating during impeachment went up.
You know what, man?
I don't even know how to respond to that.
Like, how does that make sense?
You'd think all of the negative press and scrutiny.
Nope.
The press is not having it.
In fact, I think the impeachment, the constant scandals might actually make people dig their heels in and say, you know what?
Enough of this.
And now people who might normally not like the president are going to support him because they're tired of Democrats doing nothing but attack the guy.
I mean, at a certain point, you're like, dude, enough.
Stop.
I don't care.
I'm not a big fan of Trump.
That's how I feel.
I'm like, dude, I never liked the guy.
I was never, you know, but here I am having to admit that all of these people are going to support him.
Here's my favorite part, though.
I showed you the Huffington Post.
The dreadful truth, they call it, that Trump got his wall.
Here's one.
Washington Post reporter tells CNN Democrats are getting cold feet as public turns against impeachment.
Washington Post congressional reporter Rachel Bate appeared on CNN on Sunday and delivered bad news to critics of President Donald Trump.
When the Washington Post goes on CNN, of all places, and says straight up, Democrats are in trouble.
The public is turning.
Wow.
There you go.
Hey, you can call me fake news.
You know, Brian Stelter can refer to Fox News as the spin machine and say, don't listen to it.
Sure.
But this is a Washington Post reporter on your own network saying, Democrats, you're losing this one and you're losing it bad.
If we're going to see even, check this out.
I got this tweet from Benny Johnson.
Adam Schiff says that public support for impeachment has grown dramatically in the past two months.
He conveniently left out the polls from this week, showing a decrease in support, especially among independents, after finally allowing public testimonies.
The best part about this clip—I'm not going to play it, because it's YouTube.
You get it.
But in this clip, it's on CNN.
Jake Tapper, I believe it's Tapper, is talking with Schiff, and Tapper points out, no, the polls show that people are turning.
Now, support for impeachment has gone down a couple points.
Most of the polls do show support for impeachment, mind you.
But we've had four polls since the time of the public hearings showing independent voters have soured.
Even CNN has no choice but to acknowledge this.
So these are the big political battles, right?
Immigration, general support, fundraising for re-election.
Is Trump going to get re-elected?
Is he gaining support?
Is he making money?
And the impeachment fight.
The impeachment fight is less political.
It's a clown show.
It's a waste of time.
But these are the big political battles.
And through all of them, Trump is winning.
Trump got his wall, they call it the invisible wall.
Trump is seeing record support among the black community and the Hispanic community, which is seemingly paradoxical considering the wall, right?
You then have Trump raising all of this money, impeachment has turned, but there's still one more.
There's still some more stories.
A former FBI lawyer is under investigation for altering a Russia probe document.
And even CNN had to admit, check this out, They say that the possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in the investigation of connections between Russian election meddling in the Trump campaign.
The findings are expected to be part of the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's review of the FBI's effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page.
CNN couldn't just come out and say, this provides evidence to the claims that Trump said there was malfeasance.
Instead, they said, it's possibly substantive, and it's going to fuel accusations from Trump.
I get it, CNN.
It's the best you could do.
I know you don't really want to admit that this is proving Trump right, that there was wrongdoing.
Think about all of the stories.
Where, you know, the one I recall that's funny is when Trump said that Obama had my wires tapped.
And then CNN and those other outlets said that Trump was lying.
And then sure enough, the story emerged that, yes, Trump Tower was being spied on by the feds and Paul Manafort.
And now we know Carter Page, the documents about him were manipulated.
What does that mean?
I don't know.
Does it mean Trump's going to be vindicated 100%?
Not necessarily.
It could just mean that while Trump had a more exaggerated view of what was happening, at least he was slightly correct.
Even CNN begrudgingly admitted it.
My favorite thing is, in this video, You have this interview, Wolf Blitzer does, with the reporter Evan Perez, and Blitzer goes, this is going to help the Republicans!
And it's like, oh no!
Were they right?
Oh heavens!
Oh my stars and garners, was Trump correct about this?
Yeah, well, welcome to the real world.
You were pushing fake news.
You should have done your jobs.
You should have investigated what Trump was saying instead of just saying everything he claims is debunked without doing an investigation.
Right now, you have people like Brian Stelter of CNN saying the Ukrainian collusion interference story is a debunked conspiracy theory that's never been an investigation.
Boy, did they have egg on their faces after all of the mistakes they made.
And they're still doing it.
You'd think they'd have learned their lesson.
Now, this one is less of a victory, but it is still a victory for the president.
There has never been so much unity.
Trump's support among Republicans, solid, despite damning impeachment testimonies from the Independent.
Now, I get it.
Why wouldn't Trump have support among Republicans?
But according to, I believe, Emerson, I could be wrong, it's around 93%.
The media has tried claiming Trump was lying when Trump said it was 95.
Eh, Trump exaggerated a little bit.
But 93 and 95 ain't too far off.
Trump has record support among the Republican Party, even with these other, you know, primary contenders trying to challenge the president.
It's not working.
Name a political front.
And I've shown you all of the major ones.
Trump, Trump is winning.
The economy.
I mean, come on, man.
Record, record stock market, 20,000 points.
Was it Dow Jones?
The economy is doing great.
I know a lot of people think that's not the case.
There's a lot of talk of bubble and the debt, you know, the massive U.S.
debt and all that stuff.
I get it.
I get it.
But don't take it from me.
I'm not gonna tell you my opinion on the economy.
I'm just gonna say all of these stories are saying it's a good economy.
Not the best, but it is good.
And Moody's Analytics, Trump is gonna win.
I don't know how they're, it's crazy to me how much negative press there is about this guy, because for me, as most of you know, I'm ambivalent.
Like there's a lot of things I'm like, eh, not a fan, right?
You know, I think his attitude's a problem.
I don't like the, I think he bends over too easily for this foreign policy stuff, though I do respect him for pushing back in a lot of ways.
I just don't see him as the apocalypse.
I don't.
I just see a goofy president with a bad attitude and a guy I wouldn't vote for, but that's about it.
And I think that's why it allows me to see this and allows me to show this news in this way without being tainted by whatever CNN has been captured by.
Everything is bad about the president.
It's the beginning of the end.
How many videos have been made doing super cuts of every single time the press said it was the end for Trump?
Because if Trump can win based on his own merits, he deserves to.
And I know there's a lot of Democrats who would say, no dice, impeach, impeach, impeach.
At least Bernie's pointing out Bloomberg should not be dumping all this money.
This is not how the system should be working.
As far as I'm concerned, it's tantamount to cheating.
Manipulating, you know, it's tough.
I'll admit, like, Bloomberg, you made your money, you're allowed to, I get it.
But it's unfair to use this much power to alter an election.
One individual changing these things?
I've never been a fan of that.
That's why I've always been on the left.
That's why I was opposed to the Citizens United ruling.
I think we've got to have limits.
That's why I've supported the Young Turks and AOC when they say, get money out of politics.
I'm like, I agree.
I think, I disagree with whether or not they're principled.
But there is some other issues.
And I'm gonna do one thing real quick.
Maybe I'll do a longer segment on this.
But we have this story from November 12th.
The New York Times and Washington Post say mass immigration demographic changes fueled Democrat wins in Virginia.
There's a lot of concern that Republicans are going to fade into nonexistence because they can't change with the more diverse future.
Retiring GOP congressman Will Hurd issues dire warning to Republican Party.
But I will say one thing.
If there's one thing that Democrats and progressives are good at, it's erasing their own ideology.
They're not having kids, which means in the future there will be less people who will carry their ideas.
But they're also very, very pro-immigration, and the Latino immigrants that are coming to this country are very religious.
This is a story from Christianity Today, July 24th.
Latino immigrants are evangelizing America.
Despite financial and immigration hurdles, ministries led by first-generation pastors are more effective than the average church plant according to a new Lifeway
study.
The fact is, many of these Latino and Hispanic immigrants are Christians.
While they may be more progressive on economic policy, and that's an argument they will have
with Republicans, the Democrats who claim to be progressive, secular, or otherwise,
are opening the door to people who are Christians and in the end might actually end up supporting
Republicans if Republicans start embracing more socially liberal policies.
I might do a bigger take on this and read through this, but I'll leave it there.
The point is, the main takeaway you should have from this is that I think it's undeniable at this point.
Impeachment has failed.
Or it's failing.
It could turn around, we'll see.
Every single thing they've thrown at Trump, they've missed.
Trump has won.
The economy's great.
The wall is there.
He's actually building a wall.
They couldn't stop that.
Okay?
He's actually at the invisible wall.
His support is up across the board.
He's raising all of his money.
And impeachment is failing.
And the investigations into the origins of Russiagate are happening.
Trump's winning.
And I think he's going to win outright.
I think he's going to win 2020.
And I think he's going to finish out a second term.
And you know what?
Man, I say it all the time, but please, you don't have to like the person, okay?
There's gonna be so many people who are like, I refuse to listen to what Tim has to say, he's just chilling for Trump.
Listen, dude, if you don't want to believe reality, you don't have to.
But what, listen, let me ask you this.
If you think Trump is losing, how is he still the president?
They kept saying all of these things were gonna happen that never happened.
They said Russia, it never happened.
He is, he won, he won, he won.
And you know what?
These people hate him so much they refuse to accept it.
You will not defeat Donald Trump at the ballot box until you recognize what he has done is working and what you are doing is not working.
But I don't care.
I really don't care what you do.
Because like I said before, I'm ambivalent.
You know.
Not gonna vote for Trump.
Everybody knows it.
I say it literally 50 times a day.
And you know what?
I'm not stupid enough to ignore the facts in front of my face.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you there.
Donald Trump recently went to the hospital.
We don't necessarily know why.
According to Trump, it was because they had a scheduling conflict, decided to move his interim physical up a little bit.
The doctor apparently traveled with him the limousine.
There were some unusual things about it.
I think it's fair to say that Trump's official explanation for exactly what happened isn't entirely honest, but we really don't know.
So beyond that, I don't really have anything else to tell you.
I can tell you this.
It was unusual in that it was, I think, like three months early.
Trump went to the hospital.
He seems fine.
I haven't seen any videos of Trump coughing, gagging, collapsing, or otherwise.
But that's not going to stop CNN.
From running a story they call The Mystery of President Trump's Unannounced Hospital Visit, where Dr. Sanjay Gupta goes through tons of reasons why we must be concerned about the unusual nature of what's really going on with Donald Trump's health.
Now I'll tell you this.
We should be concerned with the health of the president, and the president should be honest to the best of their ability if they are facing some kind of serious ailment.
But CNN has run this huge story speculating about whether or not Trump is really sick, and I kid you not, there are a million and one reasons why somebody could go to the hospital, and a million that are not life-threatening.
Did Trump have a heart attack?
That's what they're trying to claim?
It doesn't look like it.
They claimed that, they stated that Trump didn't do any of the tests required for a heart attack or anything like that.
So, I don't know.
I'll tell you this.
It is irresponsible for the media to be running this kind of rampant... Well, you know what?
It's CNN, right?
But I tell you the main reason why I'm talking about this.
I don't care if CNN wants to speculate on Trump's health or not.
Whatever.
I know there's a bunch of, you know, unusual things about the trip.
Fine.
But it really could be like he had bloating and indigestion.
Seriously, Trump could have been, like, feeling really, really sick.
It could have been something super dumb, like maybe it was a kidney stone.
And they're acting like it's the end of the world.
Oh no, Trump's obese and he's got a huge BMI.
It's the end of the world.
And here's my main problem with this.
Look, if you want to blog and write about Trump's health all day and night, more power to you.
You do it with my blessing.
But what about this?
The New Birthers debunking the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy.
I kid you not.
And I know most of you know this.
I mean, look, Hillary Clinton was collapsing in how many videos?
You got one where she's walking into the car after the memorial event?
You have the one where she trips on the airplane.
You have one where she's being dragged up the stairs.
Actually, there's, like, seven photos of her being, like, carried up the stairs.
Something was wrong with Hillary, and it wasn't just pneumonia.
We don't really know.
Maybe it was.
I don't know.
She was coughing endlessly, all the time.
She would break out into coughing fits.
She would have these really weird moments where she would, like, stutter and stammer.
People were saying that she had Parkinson's.
There were a lot of conspiracies.
Okay, okay.
Everybody calm down.
But I'll tell you this.
When we saw Hillary Clinton getting sick, spinning up into a glass.
There's a video where she's drinking and she spits something into a cup.
Who knows what it is, lozenge, phlegm, I have no idea.
But she coughed relentlessly.
And so people were like, dude, she couldn't finish a sentence.
Something seems wrong with her.
What about Trump?
Trump seems like a spry old man.
Now Trump's old, for sure.
But I mean, what have we seen outside of Trump going to the hospital that shows that Trump is truly sick to the point where CNN is going to run a mystery?
I'll tell you what this really is, okay?
It's a conspiracy theory.
They believe that because Trump went early, because the doctor was with him, because the letter from Trump before was apparently dictated by Trump, it's all a big conspiracy among Trump and his supporters to downplay how bad his health really is.
And I think it's just so, I don't know, silly.
Let's read, though.
Here's what CNN has to say.
President Donald Trump's unannounced visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center last weekend spurred speculation about his health from the public and from doctors.
And yet, for some reason, when Hillary Clinton was collapsing every other Thursday, CNN was like, it's a conspiracy!
Old people fall down all the time!
Ignore this!
You ever watch, uh, um, Uh, Venture Brothers.
It reminds me of that episode where the gigantic weird space guy's in the car and he keeps yelling, ignore me.
You might not get the reference, but they're just like, Hillary Clinton falling down and CNN's like, ignore this!
Don't look!
Nothing's happening!
But Trump, heaven forbid, he goes to the hospital.
I'll tell you what else, too.
They say that it's weird that Trump went to the doctor early.
Maybe—I mean, Trump's on medication for—he takes aspirin every day.
Maybe they were like, why don't you come back, you know, as soon as you can, you know, if you're—you know.
And it may have been Trump being like, I think I want to go and make sure.
It could be as simple as that.
So I'll tell you what's irresponsible.
Is it irresponsible for the average person to be like, whoa, Hillary Clinton just collapsed, got tossed into a van, an SUV?
No.
I mean, people are really going to be concerned when she's coughing up a storm.
Is it irresponsible that the president is being proactive and going to the doctor and now CNN's running this big mystery about whether Trump really is sick?
It's like, Trump hasn't displayed any signs of illness.
Yeah, we can be concerned when he went to the hospital.
At least Bernie said that he had blockage.
Trump said that it was a physical, they wanted to check up on things, make sure it was fine.
They say Trump himself addressed the visit during a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, saying, I went for a physical on Saturday because he had extra time.
It was the first time he had been seen in public since that weekend's visit.
Now the new conspiracy going around?
There's a report that Trump is working from the private residence and at the Oval Office.
And so now everyone's claiming that Trump is, like, incapacitated or sick.
We just saw the guy on TV several times!
Like, what is... Dude, they will stop at nothing.
And, you know, The left has this really great ability to always claim it's the right doing what the left is doing, right?
Like, they're claiming now that Trump supporters are in a cult.
You're in a cult.
Dude, you guys are the ones saying, don't watch other news.
You're the ones saying that everyone's, you know, don't watch the other channel.
Don't listen to the spin.
That's what a cult would do.
It's literally what Antifa does.
When I was at a protest, they said, don't let anyone talk to you.
Yeah, because they don't want anyone to learn the truth.
Here's what they say.
We know that Trump is 73 years old, has heart disease, and is clinically obese.
For any man of that age and medical history, an unexpected visit to the hospital is concerning.
Was it unexpected to you?
So here's the issue.
It would be concerning if your grandfather got in the van and you were like, whoa, what's happening?
Grandpa, I didn't know about this.
But what about Trump, the people close to him?
And they knew that he had a scheduled physical.
And what if Trump was just like, do I really got to go?
Like, what are we doing right now?
We'll just go.
It could be that simple.
Or it could be like, Let's just go there.
Trump could have eaten the taco bowl because we know how much he loves those taco bowls, right?
Gotten some really bad bloating and gas and was in a lot of pain and was like, I don't feel good, man.
I think we should, you know, I need to get medication for this or something.
Maybe he needed something.
You know, it could be as simple as a kidney stone.
Like, does it really matter in the long run?
No.
Is it a private matter?
Probably.
Does Trump seem fine?
He does.
He was on TV for like seven interviews.
He just did an hour-long phone call with Fox and Friends.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, couldn't talk without coughing.
Over the past week, I've spoken to doctors who previously worked at the White House and those who are currently in touch with the White House.
They all say that what happened last weekend is unusual.
And I agree.
Sounds like it.
An unscheduled hospital visit for what was characterized as very routine testing.
Testing that could have been done at the White House.
Sure, but there's maybe some private matters.
You know what it really comes down to as well, which is really annoying about this?
Listen.
If Trump collapsed on TV, I'd be concerned about it.
I'd be like, whoa.
If Trump has a private health matter that's not life-threatening and he doesn't want to talk about it, great.
He's a human being just like everybody else.
It is true that he's 73.
Maybe he's got to get a catheter or something.
He's an old guy.
A surprise visit to Walter Reed.
Given the White House had previously given up plenty of advance notice about the president's past physical exams, last weekend's visit took everyone by surprise.
Okay, we get that already, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Also striking, the fact that the president's physician, Dr. Sean Conley, rode with Trump in the presidential motorcade.
Typically, the doctor rides separately from the president for security reasons.
A former White House doctor told me it had never happened during their time there.
Okay, that's one person, fine.
But let me also point out something very funny.
Trump is walking himself to his limousine with his doctor to go to the hospital.
I think it's safe to say Trump's official reason for what happened?
Probably not public.
But let me ask you something.
If you were constipated, and you were in a lot of pain, and it's not life-threatening, and you need to go to the doctor, get like a scan or something, and then get some medication for it, or something like that, or something to that effect, okay?
Because look, about five years ago, I had excruciating pain in my abdomen.
I didn't know what it was.
Turned out to be a kidney stone.
I went to the hospital, and I have no problem talking.
I don't care.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm kind of a gross person.
I'm not embarrassed at all by talking about this.
But Trump might know that simple ailments will be taken to the extreme degree like CNN is doing.
Maybe it was something just so simple and he walked to the hospital and he doesn't want to talk about it.
If I was gonna, you know, come up with a conspiracy theory as to what's really going on here, am I gonna claim, like, with black and white grainy photos overlaying the president's message with, like, red circles around Trump walking?
What is this?
They're, like, trying to make a conspiracy mystery, like...
Like, film noir about Donald Trump going to the doctor because he maybe stubbed his toe.
Like, what if Trump stubbed his toe and the nail got infected?
What if Trump had an ingrown toenail?
What if Trump was scratching his ear with something and then a piece of it, like, broke off?
It could be as simple as, like... It could be... When I was a kid, I was itching my ear with a pencil and the lead tip broke off and got stuck in my ear.
I had to go to the hospital!
And they had to pump water and get the... It could be something as so dumb as that.
I reached out to the White House to get further clarification on what testing or procedures had been done at Walter Reed Hospital.
In return, we received on Monday evening a memo from Conley, who wrote, Now I'm gonna get a little personal with y'all.
the president has not had any chest pain, nor was he evaluated or treated for any urgent
or acute issues. Specifically, he did not undergo any specialized cardiac or neurological
evaluations.
Now I'm going to get a little personal with y'all. You see, when I had a kidney stone,
the doctors didn't know if it was appendicitis.
And so they were very concerned and I went to the emergency room and they started doing a bunch of tests because the pain was in a similar area, it's in the ureter.
And so they were like, if it's your appendix, we gotta get that out quick.
Imagine Trump at 73, who likes to eat a lot of fast food.
I'm surprised you're not all grossed out by me talking about this.
It's also possible that he was having abdominal pain, which they don't mention, and it turned out to be something that would pass, non-life-threatening, and they gave him some painkillers.
Why would Trump need to go to the hospital?
Because if he was going to get painkillers or muscle relaxers for something like a kidney stone, that's what they would do.
CNN is just doing this in my opinion because, for one, they know the Orange Man bad narrative makes them, you know, makes them money, right?
And we know they're gonna play the game where it's like, we're so concerned about Trump's health, oh, it's so important that we know what's going on here.
No, they just want all, you're gonna see all of these amoral anti-Trump people I'm not saying just leftists, because they're never Trumpers.
It's people who just hate the president.
For some reason, they're obsessed with the guy, who are going to be going like, it's such a shame the president's so sick, and they're going to be doing that.
At least when people were ragging on Hillary for being sick, they were making fun of her.
Now, I don't condone that, but it's like, The people who are claiming to be so concerned about Donald Trump's health, you know they don't care.
At least the people who are making fun of Hillary were honest about what they thought.
They were laughing about it.
They still laugh about it to this day.
I'm not a fan of that.
I think that's kind of gross, but I get it.
Hey, I would rather have, look, I'll tell you this.
I would rather have a principled politician I didn't like or didn't agree with As opposed to someone who had no principles and was amoral.
So I looked at these people who are like, oh, we're so concerned about Trump.
I'm like, dude, you're lying, man.
You don't care.
You don't care about any of this stuff.
You're just like, oh, here's something that'll sell.
We'll get everybody all excited that Trump's sick.
And then they run this ridiculous, I mean, look at this.
Look at these photos, like the marker.
This is literally like the makings of a conspiracy theory.
They go on to say that, I'm going to assume this is true, but I don't trust CNN, that Trump dictated his letter about his health in his 2015 campaign, that the doctor didn't write it, they say that.
They say his then position, Dr. Harold Borstein wrote, his physical strength and stamina are extraordinary, et cetera, et cetera.
And they go on to say that he told CNN, I just made it up as I went along, but that he also, that Trump, Trump dictated that whole letter.
I didn't write that letter.
I just made it up as I went along.
So which is it?
Were you making it up, doctor, or was Trump?
CNN, we get the game you're playing.
So you know what, man?
I'll tell you what.
If Trump is sick, fine.
We should know about it.
If, you know, but... It's a double standard.
I think you all get it.
Whatever.
Why doctors are worried about Trump?
The question remains, why was there a need for President Trump to be at a hospital on a Saturday afternoon?
Food poisoning?
You know, Trump's a germophobe, right?
This is what I've heard.
I've heard he's a germophobe.
He doesn't like shaking hands, for the most part.
I've heard he's a germophobe, but that, depending on the circumstance, it's not like he's crazy.
he'll shake your hand, he'll hug, he'll do a kiss or whatever, but that he generally
tries to avoid things that he thinks might make him sick.
I was told by one journalist who covered his campaign that Trump only eats fast food because
of national standards and that it's concerned that a smaller restaurant might not have the
same standards as say like a McDonald's or whatever.
So Trump loves fast food.
It's possible that Trump is, I don't know, maybe he's a hypochondriac.
Maybe he was just like, I don't know, we gotta go to the hospital.
And it's like, there was nothing wrong with him.
Maybe he was panicking.
Maybe he had a fever.
Maybe he ate a bad cheeseburger from McDonald's.
You know?
Sorry, McDonald's, I'm not trying to drag you through this.
That is the reason why so many in the medical community remain concerned.
Both a former White House doctor and a doctor currently in contact with the White House have raised their unease with me.
It's concerning to me.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, you know, to do that kind of testing at Walter Reed without really, really without provocation.
And you know what, man?
I'm going to stop here.
I'm done.
I'm done.
Because all they keep doing is saying the same thing, and that's all I end up doing.
They say on Friday the President called in to Fox & Friends and said the hospital visit was done at the suggestion of his doctor.
The doctor calls, Sir, would you like to go out because I have three hours?
Would you like to go out to Walter Reed and do your first part of your physical?
Regardless of what prompted the trip to Walter Reed, the President's surprise visit to the hospital sends an important message.
Get checked out if you are having unusual symptoms.
While we don't know what symptoms, if any, pushed Trump to go to the hospital last weekend, it appears as if they have resolved and were unlikely severe or requiring intensive therapy.
Oh, and there it is!
Finally at the end, nothing happened.
Trump has done numerous press events.
They don't hold themselves to their own standards.
I'll tell you what, if CNN ran a story about Hillary Clinton back in the day and said, Hillary Clinton seems sick, I would have been like, okay.
And if they ran this story today, I'd say, OK.
Except they didn't.
With Hillary Clinton, they said it was a conspiracy theory that the lady was collapsing in the street.
That was a conspiracy.
She's not sick.
Well, the lady just fell down.
That's not normal.
That's not healthy.
I don't do that.
Is that normal for the CNN journalists?
They just walk down the street and they just fall to the ground?
And then they pick you up and toss you into a car?
Trump was playing with marbles and he shoved one up his nose and it got stuck.
And so he was like, uh oh, I can't go on TV now and he rushed to the hospital.
That's equally as plausible.
There was nothing done, nothing said, we don't know what happened, and if you want to make assumptions and act like Trump is sick and, oh no, what's happening, he's not being honest, like, dude, you need some more evidence than this.
Just the fact that he went to the hospital isn't enough to go on.
Especially if he's saying it was a physical, he seems fine, he's been on TV, I don't see what they're getting at.
Other than, CNN knows bad things about the president get traction.
They know that if they ran a story calling Hillary Clinton sick, their viewers would revolt.
They know that if they run a story saying Trump is lying, he's sick, their viewers will be happy.
If Sina ran a story saying, please stop pushing the conspiracy theories about Trump's health, people would be like, oh, haram faisay.
So you get it.
I'll see you all on this channel at 1pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I have received tons of messages about COPPA.
It is the Child Online Privacy Protection Act.
I think that's what COPPA stands for.
And basically, new rules are going to be imposed starting January 1st, 2020.
And this is the end of YouTube as we know it.
No joke, no lie.
This is it.
YouTube as we know it will end.
But YouTube will survive, and I'm gonna be rich!
Great!
I am so excited to watch all of these horrifying plans that YouTube is enacting.
Well, I can kick back and line my pockets with gold.
You see, the thing about child's content, I don't fall into any of these categories.
Which means, as COPPA comes into play, and they begin stripping ads from fun gaming channels, guess who's going to reap the rewards?
The ad spend will not go down.
The ad spends are increasingly going up.
So here's what happens.
If you make content that could in any way be for kids, they are going to take away targeted advertising from you, which is around 80-90% of your revenue.
On YouTube.
So here's the thing.
I am being a bit silly, but dude, I fully expect political channels.
It is going to be a windfall next year.
I'll tell you what.
Not only do we have 2020 around the corner, politicians are buying ads like crazy.
We got Tom Steyer, $63.4 million so far.
Steyer $63.4 million, Bloomberg $37 million starting this week.
All of that money is coming to political channels.
Combine that with the new COPPA rules, politics will be your king.
People are going to realize that if you make a video talking about, I don't know, you got the Bulls, right, and they're playing basketball and you show Benny the Bull, it's like, oh, cartoon character appealing to kids.
They take away targeted advertising, which means, basically, My understanding is advertisers can't choose your channel or specific things about your channel.
It can just be a blanket ad.
So here's the first thing.
A lot of people are freaking out.
Millions of views are, you know, people are saying it's the end.
And I think, to an extent, it is bad, bad, bad for everybody, okay?
Outside of news and politics, we are going to be laughing all the way to the bank.
Here's the thing, though.
If they get rid of targeted advertising for everybody, you're not gonna lose that much money, okay?
Let's be serious for a minute.
What's gonna happen is, if all of the big channels, like Jake Paul, PewDiePie, use targeted ads, but they all simultaneously lose targeted ads, your revenue will likely go down, but not by 80 or 90%.
A lot of people are freaking out.
Listen.
The only reason 80 or 90% of your revenue is coming from targeted ads is because everyone uses targeted ads.
If advertisers can't reach an audience that way, they'll still spend their money.
So, let's read this story, but I will stress...
To all those political YouTubers out there, I hope you're ready to line your pockets with gold as these new rules come into effect and all the politicians start dumping dollar bills on our heads.
It's going to make it rain.
It's going to be good for everybody.
This is bad for a lot of reasons though.
I think it's going to increase polarization.
And I think it's going to result in a ton of grifters, right?
Like, real grifters, you know?
It's a slur the left likes to use to accuse people who don't fall in line with their moral authoritarianism.
They say, you're a grifter, you're lying.
No, no, listen, man.
My opinions are my opinions.
I made a video the other day.
It got some dislikes, okay?
Because I gave some defensiveness to Sarkeesian, saying, like, dude, let her have her opinion.
A lot of these creators who have decent-sized audiences who do video games and stuff, yeah, they're gonna lose money.
And so you know what you do if you want to make sure your videos aren't for kids?
You just make it political because kids don't care about that stuff.
So here's a story from Variety.
YouTube starting this month is requiring all creators, regardless of a location and whether or not they produce content intended for children, to designate whether their videos are made for kids.
And many YouTubers are concerned that the new rules will hurt their monetization or even expose them to fines if their content is mislabeled.
I'll tell you what.
So here's what happened, right?
I got a notice on YouTube and it said you must go to the new YouTube studio and determine whether or not your content is for children.
Well, my content is easily not for children.
You know, anybody who watched my content and tried to claim that children would care about the current polls pertaining to impeachment is lying!
My audience is in their 30s.
So I'm sitting here.
I'm sitting pretty.
I'm like, man, bring on the change.
I don't care.
But, you know, so I went in and I had to hit a button saying all of my videos in no way will ever be for kids.
But here's the thing.
Almost all content is.
Almost all of it.
So this really is the end of YouTube as we know it.
Markets will determine what content is produced.
Jake Paul exists because eight-year-olds buy his t-shirts.
But if Jake Paul can't sell ads against eight-year-olds anymore, he will change his content.
Everything is going to become substantially more adult, but still kind of family-friendly, and a bit political.
Because I'll tell you what, man.
This new change It is going to make political commentary a gold mine.
They say the change is the result of YouTube's $170 million settlement with the FTC and the New York Attorney General for alleged violations of the U.S.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA.
The law prohibits internet companies from collecting data on kids 13 and under, and YouTube was accused of violating the law.
So basically, here's how it stands.
If an advertiser wants to target somebody, and it turns out Google knows the data of that individual, well, they broke the law.
YouTube has to then stop collecting data on any video on viewers who may be watching content for kids.
It's complicated, okay?
And they may be getting it wrong, but basically, If your video is for children in any way, YouTube has to be careful about who they're collecting data from, even if those kids are breaking the TOS.
So YouTube can't target those viewers based on the data they collect.
Now for my channel, which is for adults, YouTube can target them specifically.
This means, so I'll put it this way, when you buy ads on YouTube, You can buy an ad for one penny and just tell YouTube, throw it wherever you want.
Those ads are mostly worthless.
Why would I want to advertise my political content on a cooking show?
I wouldn't do that.
If I was going to buy ads to promote my product, which is my opinion and political and cultural commentary, which is relevant to only a small subsection of the population, I'm specifically going to target cultural and political channels.
I want my advertisement to appear on, say, the Young Turks or Lauderdale Crowder.
But imagine if the only option I had was to have my commercial appear on Jake Paul's channel.
That would be a waste of my money.
So I'm not going to spend a lot.
So let me explain how ads work on YouTube.
For those that don't know, when I buy an ad, I will say, I'm willing to spend up to X amount per view.
So every time someone views my ad, I will give you X amount.
Typically the numbers are relatively low, between 1 cent, maybe 10 cents.
If it's a really, really important ad and you want to compete, you can raise that really high.
Here's what happens.
If I say I will spend 10 cents per ad, And Coca-Cola says I will spend 20 cents per ad.
Guess whose ad gets played?
Not mine.
Google takes the highest bidder.
If I can't choose where my content appears, I'm not gonna spend a lot of money on it.
It's gonna drop ad rates significantly.
So here's the big challenge, I suppose.
Ad rates will go down, but the ad spends will stay the same, right?
If Coke has $50 million to spend, they're going to spend $50 million, but now the value of the ad has dropped significantly because they can't target specific demographics with their commercials.
But the supply will not change.
This means channels like mine.
This is going to be nuts, man.
I can only imagine my revenue skyrocketing to a ridiculous amount of money.
Because now you're going to have people who want to target adult, you know, content.
They want to advertise for things not for children.
And they can do that.
And if the ad spends are going to be the same, but the value will drop dramatically, it's going to be a massive wealth inequality between adult channels and kids channels.
So if you can make a channel for adults For adults, but is still not swearing, not suggestive, kinda like cultural and political commentary with your favorite milquetoast fence-sitter, you're gonna face a windfall.
Meanwhile, people like Game Theory, people like Casey Neistat, they are going to take a substantial hit in their revenue.
So let me show you something.
This is what Game Theory, uh, you know, they highlighted these rules.
This is on YouTube, uh, tons of views on this.
Intentionally aimed at kids.
Arguable.
Obviously my content is not intentionally aimed at kids.
When I make a video titled, like, Independent Voters Revolt Against Democrats, no one in their right mind would think a child is gonna watch that.
Includes characters, celebrities, or toys that appeal to children, including animated characters or cartoon figures.
They don't.
My videos don't contain that.
But guess what?
Game Theory does.
Game Theory is general, like, PG content, right?
You probably... I wouldn't rate it G. It's not for kids.
But it could be.
Talking about Mario and other, you know, video game characters and stuff?
Yup.
Think about every video game channel.
Has a predominantly child audience.
Well, that's Jake Paul.
That's not really PewDiePie, but depends on what the definition of child is, under 18.
Contains activities that appeal to children.
Boom!
There it is.
Literally everyone.
What doesn't appeal to kids?
Like, if you were playing golf, you could argue that it appeals to kids.
Come on!
Kids play golf.
You got, like, where do you think, how do you think people become pro at golf when they're kids?
And you might say, I don't know, man.
The people who watch golf on TV are old, yes, but kids still play sports.
And they will argue, on the safe side, why would YouTube take that risk?
And that brings us to the big takeaway.
I think that, game theory, revenue gone.
You're gonna see way more, you're gonna see way less monetization, and you're gonna see way more, like, sponsor spots.
You already see Audible and Virtual Shield and all these companies, and what's the other one, like, um, Dollar Shave Club?
You're gonna see way more.
There's also some good news, though.
Those ad rates are going to go nuts.
So if you're somebody who sells ads for, like, Dollar Shave Club, right?
You're gonna say now, listen man, I reach a million viewers, and if you want to buy, it's expensive because we only go through you now.
There's gonna be massive changes.
I can't tell you exactly what's gonna happen, but it's fair to say YouTube as we know it has officially come to an end.
Starting January 1st, things are going to change dramatically.
If all of these channels They have a specific kind of content that attracts viewers that makes money, but they can't do it anymore.
When they start seeing their money go down, they're going to start adapting.
The content will change.
Everything will become substantially more adult-oriented, which means less gaming channels.
Gaming channels are lucrative.
Sorry, not anymore.
They're aimed at kids.
So I don't know if YouTube has... Let's read more of the article to figure out, you know, see what Variety has to say.
They say YouTube is putting the onus on creators to comply with COPPA.
If you fail to set your audience accurately, you may face compliance issues with the FTC or other authorities, and we may take action on your YouTube channel, according to YouTube's Help Center.
Creators are subject to potential fines for running afoul of COPPA.
According to the FTC, the law allows for civil penalties up to $42,000.
to $42,000 per, $42,530 per violation.
According to the agency, however, the FTC considers a number of factors in determining
the appropriate amount, including a company's financial condition and the impact a penalty
could have on its ability to stay in business.
That alone has sent shockwaves through the YouTube community, and has led some creators to delete videos or threaten to leave YouTube altogether.
This Kappa S is terrifying, Daniel Pitts, aka Doopie, a YouTube animator and voice actor, tweeted this week.
My videos aren't directed to children, but I can still get fined $42K for marking my videos as meant for adults because it isn't mature enough?
Because it can easily be mistaken?
I'm heartbroken YouTube was my dream.
Slow down there, cowpoke!
The FTC I wouldn't call a particularly efficient organization in the sense that they don't make mistakes.
Obviously, the FTC can make mistakes and have opinions you disagree with, but the idea that the FTC is going to come down on your YouTube channel because you mislabeled a single video... You know, it's crazy to me how everyone is so terrified of the government.
I mean, there's a lot of reasons to be in a lot of ways.
But I always, they weaponize this fear, like you get fake phone calls from the IRS saying you owe them money and they're gonna arrest you.
Not true, they don't do that.
You get a letter and they just keep sending you letters.
When you owe the IRS money, they don't show up with like a SWAT team unless you get to a certain point.
Yes, it's happened.
But if you don't pay your taxes, eventually a guy shows up in a suit and he was like, just wanted to make sure you got the certified letter and he walks away.
I have had tax liability before that was like two years late that I didn't know about because I didn't get the letter and it was just a letter saying you owe money.
That was it!
That was literally I was like I'm sorry about that and I paid my taxes.
The FTC isn't going to show up and try and destroy everything you have.
They're going to show up and say you need to make sure you err on the safe side and label these correctly.
Okay?
Not only that, If your video isn't- Listen.
A lot of people are gonna claim, my video's not made for kids, I swear!
It's like, dude, if you're doing cartoons, and it's like family-friendly comedy, okay, you're making videos for kids.
Some YouTubers are issuing dire predictions, like this one, about the impact of the platform's new COPPA rules.
If it doesn't get more attention, you can pretty much expect the end for gaming, animation, and cartoon videos on YouTube.
I completely agree with that.
You can't- Look, man, I gotta tell you.
It is already ridiculously hard to run a high-production-level channel.
Look at the content I produce here, right?
I read the news, I turn the camera on, and I talk about what I know.
It is low cost.
Because of this, there's been a massive explosion of channels that do political commentary because of the ease of access and the ability to make a living doing it.
I am not unique in this space.
I mean, I am unique to Poole, but there are a lot of people who do what I do.
Maybe not as successfully as I do, and maybe more successfully.
But the fact is, cartoons and animations?
Difficult.
Now it's not even worth money?
Over.
It's already hard enough with Patreon.
You know, one of my favorite animators is David Firth.
He does the Salad Fingers stuff.
It's probably top tier, some of the best content ever made.
But it's already hard enough to dedicate all that time and energy to animating, and now you can just say it's for kids and you can't sell ads against it?
You know what, man?
This is going to change the landscape more than anyone can predict.
But I'll tell you what, I've already started going through my accounts like, oh man, I can expect all that money to pour into my pocket.
You're going to see the Young Turks, they are going to explode.
Political content, adult humor is going to take off.
I don't know what you do, but everyone's going to try and be doing it now.
So in the end, I think what will really happen is, you know, let me rewind a little bit.
Am I really going to see a windfall and get rich off this?
My revenue will likely go up, so will all political commentators.
But with all of the other YouTubers now adapting to that, it's probably going to stay the same.
Everyone's going to probably make around the same amount of money.
The content will change dramatically.
People will do everything in their power to make sure their content is for adults.
Because for the most part, I don't have viewers.
I think it's like less than a percent of the people who watch my content are under 18.
Most people who watch my content are like 25 to 34, I think is the demographic, followed by 35 to 54, and then 18 to 24.
I think those are the numbers.
And they're mostly dudes, anyway.
So, you watching this, you are probably a 33-year-old man.
Well, let's read a little bit more.
There's another part of YouTube's COPPA compliance rules that is causing major concern.
Starting in January 2020, YouTube will limit the data it collects for videos marked as made for kids under the government settlement.
For starters, that means YouTube videos designated for kids will not be able to include targeted advertising.
In addition, a whole slew of other features that depend on user data will be disabled, including comments, channel branding watermarks, the donate button, cards, end screens, live chat, live chat donations, notifications, and save to playlists and watch later.
It is the end!
Of YouTube as we know it.
You know what, man?
When you go to a place like Netflix, where they control for the content produced, they don't have to deal with this.
They don't sell ads, they sell subscriptions, and they screen everything that comes in.
Perhaps a world in which users can create content on their own will no longer be the case.
They say, Plus, the kid video designation will also apparently make them unsearchable.
On Thursday, Perry Grip, a daytime Emmy-winning songwriter whose long-running YouTube channel features songs about food and animals, noticed that videos marked in YouTube for kids don't show up in Google search.
Well, I got a video coming up in a few minutes.
And guess what it's about?
It is about Latino support for Donald Trump and the expansion of the evangelical immigrant community.
I'm pretty sure children will not want to watch that.
In no way is it aimed at them because they can't vote.
And so advertisers can target the viewers because they're looking for voting age individuals because I talk politics.
Now it's true.
I do talk about Star Wars sometimes.
But it's typically a political slant.
So I definitely will be affected by this in some way.
But I tell you this.
Almost everything I do is news-oriented, not for kids.
So I'm not facing the threat.
I know that even if I make a video about The Mandalorian, like I did the other day, I was mostly talking about, you know, cultural issues and politics.
And The Mandalorian was a backdrop.
They could argue that it contains characters that are popular for kids.
But I have no problem saying it's not.
And if the FTC wants to argue that my commentary on intersectional feminism and how it affects the gaming community is something children would want to watch, by all means, I'm willing to have that argument.
And if I'm wrong, so be it.
I'll change that.
But I really, really don't think so.
I think a lot of people are overreacting.
But I do think this is a death knell for some big channels.
You know, there are political commentators who do more cultural stuff than me.
I'm very, very political.
But there are people who are inverted, where 80% of the content is video game commentary.
But look, man, if you're talking about Star Wars, you know, Fallen Order or whatever that game is called, and you're talking about the politics around it, I don't think you have to label that for kids.
Don't overreact.
Like, the FTC is not run by robots.
Some of them, you know, it's... Stop being so terrified.
If it turns out you did something wrong, the last thing they're going to do is destroy your business.
And I assure you they're going to say, err on the side of safety.
But yeah, I don't think you've got to worry about getting a fine or having everything deleted, but I do think your money's going to dry up.
You know what this means?
Guess who will survive?
Those who sell ads on their own.
This is the end of YouTube as we know it.
I will say it for the 50 billionth time.
What makes YouTube work with individual creators is the ability to make content, and if it works, it works.
If it gets views, you make money.
But now that's changing.
Because if you want to make mass appeal content, like I've... You know what?
Let me end by saying this.
I've talked about how.
I would make way more money doing a Minecraft channel.
That is a fact.
People have said, Tim Pool's a grifter, and I'm like, dude, please.
If I really wanted a million views, I would be playing Minecraft or Fortnite.
I play video games all the time.
I'm moderately good at video games.
I'm not going to act like I'm a pro or anything, but I could make enjoyable gaming content and I'd get way more traffic.
I could do way more culture commentary.
I could talk about movies all day.
I don't really do that.
I talk politics all day and night.
It's because I care about these things and what I find interesting.
And if people don't want to watch that, guess what?
They don't.
I know that if I played games, I'd make money.
But guess what?
With these changes, the reverse is true.
I now know that if people are going to see this, if you want to make money, talk about Donald Trump.
If you want to make money, talk about Bernie Sanders.
The last thing you want to do is ever include anything!
That could have anything to do with something kids might like.
You might start seeing people open their videos with overtly adult things, so that no one could ever argue it was for kids.
Like, you know, game theory for instance, which, I'm gonna say it man, I'm not, I would never claim game theory is specifically for kids intentionally, but it does fall absolutely in all these categories.
He talks about movies and games, you know, film theory, game theory, and it's pop culture stuff that kids absolutely will watch.
But I also want to make sure I'm clear, too.
I think the FTC is going to differentiate between, like, Blue's Clues and Game Theory.
This is predominantly not for people under 13, but people under 13 could watch it.
So, you know what, man?
I think you might start seeing channels like Game Theory open the video with something overtly adult.
Like, every video will start By telling you the latest poll from, you know, Donald Trump's approval rating was just seen spiking at 47%, which is a near high for the president.
Now onto game theory!
That way it can be like, look, I was talking... So, not as overt as that, because obviously the FTC is going to be like, nice try, dude.
But you will start seeing more adult-themed things, economics, business, politics, littered into stuff like this, so they can try and argue it's not for kids and make some of that green.
But in the end, I'll just tell you what.
It doesn't matter what the individual outliers do.
It matters what the ecosystem does.
And if the ecosystem is making a dramatic change, where content like this can't make money, then people will stop making it.
I will see you all in the next segment, youtube.com slash timcast, where I talk about how Latino immigrants are evangelizing the U.S.
and causing a boon in Christianity, along with Kanye West, who is doing the same thing.
Man, the future looks strange, doesn't it?
Looks more conservative and Christian.
I will see you all at 4 p.m.
on youtube.com slash timcast.
Friends, you're being mind-controlled by Donald Trump and you must break free.
Fortunately, we have the strong mind of Brian Stelter to help navigate this difficult time.
The Daily Wire, watch, CNN dissects Trump's mind control in Americans, explains how to deprogram people on Thanksgiving.
Thank you, Brian Stelter.
Now, of all of the networks to claim that someone is being brainwashed, I can't say I'm surprised that it's CNN.
But the reality is, no, Trump supporters are not brainwashed.
And in fact, according to most research, conservatives can understand liberals, liberals can't understand conservatives.
You look at Jonathan Haidt's research, the Moore Foundation's test, then it stands to reason if anybody's being brainwashed, it's not the right, probably the left.
But I don't want to say everybody always.
There are certainly people on the right who believe literally everything Trump says.
And there are people on the left who do read the news.
But I think it's fair to say the tendency is that people on the left tend to not explore.
They don't go on YouTube.
They don't even watch videos.
I mean, I'll tell you what.
I made a tweet today about Star Wars, because there's a new clip from the Star Wars movie where there's Imperial, well, they're First Order jump troopers.
Basically, stormtroopers with jetpacks.
And I said, the clip shows they're shocked.
I put a link to the Imperial jump trooper.
I know this may be irrelevant to some of you.
The point is, nobody looked at what the link was.
They just said, Tim, there have always been stormtroopers with jetpacks.
I'm like, that's literally what I said.
So I know most people will do this.
They'll ignore the story, read the headline, and carry on.
But this idea among CNN, Brian Stelter, and their viewers that it's only the Trump supporters who are brainwashed is absurd.
Everybody Everybody, okay, is getting trapped in echo chambers.
We all know it.
And the best thing you can do is watch as much as possible.
Strangely, though, it tends to be the Trump supporters saying that.
And on the left, Brian Stelter said, tune out the spin, showing a bunch of Fox News clips.
No, don't tune it out.
See what people have to say, including Brian Stelter.
Let's read the story from the Daily Wire.
They say CNN dissects Trump's mind control on Americans, explains how to deprogram people on Thanksgiving.
Apparently, Trump supporters are victims of mind control, but fear not, CNN is on the case.
During a segment on CNN's reliable sources, controversial one-sided media critic Brian Stelter dissected the cult of President Donald Trump and his use of, yes, mind control.
Now, I'll stop here, okay?
I'll give Brian some credit.
There was a tweet recently from a Trump email where Trump said not to listen to Hillary.
And Brian pointed that out.
Good.
You should.
You should listen to Hillary Clinton.
You should listen to everybody.
And I'll also point out, for the most part, I'm clearly on a side, the freedom-loving libertarian side.
But I think the thing about Brian Stelter is that when he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for content, he'll actually go towards like Donald Trump head typos and do a whole segment about it.
And it's like, dude, look, look, man, if you can't admit that your viewers are trapped in a bubble, because I can say the same thing, right?
There are Trump supporters in a bubble, there are liberals in a bubble, but data tends to show it.
It tends to be the left, but it's not like literally everybody.
To come out and say, excuse me, to come out and act like there's a cult and he was promoting a book and I think it's just, you know what, let's just read.
During a segment on CNN's Reliable Sources, oh we read that, Stelter hosted mental health expert Stephen Hassan, who happens to be pushing a book called The Cult of Trump.
To tackle the issue on Sunday's show.
I define a destructive cult as an authoritarian pyramid-structured group with someone at the top who claims to have total power and total wisdom, and that uses the deception and control of behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions to make people loyal and dependent and obedient followers.
Hassan told Stelter, as reported by BizPacReview.
Which brings us to the first problem, Ryan.
Uh-oh.
I have repeatedly pushed back on your content.
I'm not a Trump supporter.
Never given him money.
Won't.
And won't vote for him.
But, I'm a media critic.
You see, there's a big difference.
If you want to act like all these Trump supporters are in a cult, you have to explain people like Scott Adams, who is like, more so like a tacit Trump supporter.
I don't want to ascribe to him what his beliefs are.
But there are a lot of people who are kind of just in the position of Trump's not that bad, the media's lying.
How do you then describe the intellectual dark web?
They're not Trump supporters, but they certainly would push back on what you're saying.
Yeah, the fact of the matter is it's the CNN viewers who are trapped in this whirlpool.
So for me, the issue between an ethical, healthy cult—oh, the one you're in, is that it?
Where you're free to think and free to leave versus a destructive cult.
I'm referring to Trump's organization and followers as a destructive—followership as a destructive cult, where people are being fed propaganda and they're not being encouraged to think for themselves.
So weird.
Like the whole IDW, right?
He continued, they're not being encouraged to really explore and look at details and
arrive at their own conclusions.
Much of what they're hearing is emotionally driven loaded words, thought stopping and
thought terminating type cliches like fake news or build the wall or make America great
again.
Stelter then asked Hassan how one could prove Trump's supposed use of mind control.
We can start with the pathological lying, which is a characteristic of destructive cult
leaders.
Self-styled expert, man, you are looking way too, too much into this.
Trump is typically what went, okay, here's the thing.
When the media says Trump is lying, it's typically that Trump is just wrong and that's it.
I don't listen to every single quote and do a fact check on them.
But yeah, Trump is wrong.
And Trump does lie.
Surprise, surprise.
People in power lie.
You know, I think when Trump went to the hospital, I don't believe what his statement was for the most part.
But it's also the implication that Trump is doing something nefarious.
I think most of the time when Trump's misleading people or lying, It's to, like, protect his ego.
And they look at it like he's trying to manipulate people with mind control techniques because Trump says stuff like, we have the best of X or whatever.
Or when Trump gets, like, a minor detail wrong, they call him a liar, and it's like, dude.
Trump probably lies way less than both of them combined.
The Intercept even called Trump the most honest president we've had in a long time.
And they were like, because Trump just blurts things out.
You know, he just can't stop himself.
He just talks about it.
Anyway, let's read.
Saying things in a very confident way that have nothing to do with facts or truthfulness, the blaming others and never taking responsibility for his own failures and faults, shunning and kicking out anyone who raises questions or concerns about his own behavior, his use of fear-mongering immigration is a horrible thing.
Cults usually, well, I'm not going to get into it for the most part.
We'll read on.
But what you're describing is narcissism.
Arrogance.
That's not necessarily what a, you know, yeah, sure, that can play a role in cults, but come on.
Hasan also suggested on CNN Airwaves that Trump supporters be deprogrammed on Thanksgiving.
Oh, really?
The first step with anyone who's a true believer is contact with people that are outside the bubble.
Cult leaders want to isolate their people.
They want their family and friends to just disappear rather than keep engaged.
Hey, did you read that article?
What do you think of it?
You know, I'll watch one of your shows.
Watch one of my shows.
In other words, appealing to the person's true self, their authentic self, that wants to be a good person, that wants, that believes in America and democracy and truth.
Which faction is it that's trying to censor speech?
It's not the conservatives and the Trump supporters, I'll tell you that.
For the people who are dreading Thanksgiving, you're saying it's an opportunity... Yeah, they're dreading it because they're in the cult!
Exactly.
We're family, we're friends, let's talk.
And you know, truth will come out, truth will stand up to scrutiny.
But you know what?
At least they're saying that much.
Yes.
Come Thanksgiving, talk to your friends, talk to your family.
Stelter has repeatedly been criticized for his partisanship, though he claims to be an objective media observer, that is absolutely not true.
Most recently, a massive ABC scandal barely made a blip on Stelter's radar, and when it did, Stelter defended the news network.
Let me tell you something.
Brian Stelter is not an electoral partisan, but he is a culture war partisan.
He only ever cares to talk about what the right-wing media is doing, but I'll tell you what, I think it's fair to point out that I typically point to the mainstream press and what Brian Stelter is doing, absolutely.
Stelter is talking about the underdog to an extent, but more importantly, When you have to dig to, like, Donald Trump has typos.
Come on, man.
You could have talked about something else.
There were so many other issues that Brian says I could talk about as opposed to Donald Trump's typos, and he won't do it.
Notably, he won't talk about ABC because it's part of his tribe, and he doesn't want to accept it.
You know, let's read a little bit more.
As noted by the Daily Wire video from James O'Keefe Project Veritas, it showed ABC anchor Amy Roback detailing, you know, Jeffrey Epstein and all that stuff.
Yeah, right.
So I'll ask this question.
This is from, I believe it was Jesse Kelly.
He said, in that interview, ABC News anchor said, we had Clinton.
We had everything.
They had evidence on presumably Bill Clinton.
Brian Stelter, don't you think that would be a very important subject to bring up when dealing with media?
Don't you think you should have ran a segment talking about the issue of why?
Even if you want to agree with ABC, couldn't you sit down and say, let's talk about why ABC might have done this?
No.
Instead, it's like, orange man bad, once again.
Well, yeah, I get it.
I get who butters your bread.
I'll tell you what.
I have no problem making a video, and if it does bad, it does bad.
Whatever, man.
Whatever.
You know, I made a video the other day about some social justice activists, and some people disliked it.
Oh, woe is me.
Yeah, every so often I get some videos I could downvote.
I did a debate with Sam Seder, it got way thumbs down.
Don't care.
I'm gonna talk about what I wanna talk about.
It is what it is.
And I get it.
To an extent, you'll do the same thing.
But I gotta admit, when you do a segment about Trump's typos, and you accuse Trump supporters of being an occult, Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say I think you're operating in bad faith.
But I'll leave it there.
Sorry, Trump supporters.
Unless you want to watch Brian Stelter, you're gonna have to be stuck in your cult.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Will Hurd, a Republican, retiring, issues a dire warning to the Republican Party.
And his warning is basically, y'all better embrace diversity or y'all won't exist.
And I completely disagree.
There are a lot of problems that need to be broken down.
Unfortunately, too many white progressives are racists, which results in this exact problem.
So Will Hurd, I disagree with you.
But I'm willing to entertain a conversation and talk about these ideas.
So let's read.
What is Will Hurd's concern?
They say.
He told PBS's Firing Line with Margaret Hoover last week that the Republican Party needs to rapidly start making changes in the faces that represent the party and in its messaging if it wants to remain a player in U.S.
politics or else there won't be a Republican Party in America.
Okay.
There's a lot of problems here, but let's read on.
There's this term, texodus, which refers to the six Republican members of the House of Representatives from Texas who are not running again.
Margaret Hoover asked, what's going on?
Every member has their own, you know, reason for why they're leaving.
Herd responded, mine is simple.
I think I can help my country in different ways.
I don't think just because we don't have term limits doesn't mean we can't walk away from these jobs.
I've always said to do this job well, you know, you have a shelf life of six, seven, eight years.
Some of my other colleagues have been in Congress for several decades, and they're looking forward to spending more time with their grandkids.
So I think this notion of Texas and whether Texas is in play, I think these are two separate issues, and I also believe Texas is in play.
He calls Texas a purple state!
All right, so let me break something down for you.
There's a very, very obvious reason why Republicans are overwhelmingly white males and Democrats have substantially more men and women of color.
It's because in rural areas that have not been impacted by immigration for a long time are predominantly white.
Is it a surprise to anybody that in a rural state that is mostly white, that the person who gets elected turns out to be white and male?
It shouldn't be.
That's what's really crazy to me.
The Democrats like to make fun of the Republicans because they're mostly white men.
And it's like, right, but they come from districts that are mostly white.
It's like they don't seem to get it.
There's a viral tweet going around, and it's like Miss Scotland or something, like the Miss Universe pageant.
And it's a bunch of Scottish women.
Guess what?
They're all white.
And someone's comment was, you know, what a lack of diversity from Miss Scotland.
And people were like, dude, it's Scotland.
Like, most people there are white.
So yes, the contestants will be white.
This is what happens with the Republican Party.
So I don't know what Will Hurd thinks, right?
The problem is...
White liberals absolutely will prop up minorities for the sake of saying, look how diverse we are.
When in reality, even in many urban areas, it's still predominantly white.
If you're in a Republican area where it's like 3% minority and 97% white, are they going to purposefully just choose that minority person to represent them?
No, they're going to do a regular election.
Whoever wins is going to win.
And because 97% of the people are white, guess what?
You get a bunch of white people in Congress for the Republican side.
Let's read on.
He says, I think Democrats have the real shot of taking over a majority in the statehouse in Texas, which means they're going to be responsible for redistricting in 2021.
So the trends that we saw happen in California, then the Northeast, and recently in Virginia, all of those trends are in place in Texas.
But hold on!
This brings me to the next big issue.
Where do we go in the future?
Will the future be liberal, progressive, conservative?
Perhaps.
Actually conservative.
And I've talked about this quite a bit, but there's several things we can go over.
And now we'll go over the issue of immigration.
See, according to the Daily Wire, they say, Recent reports from the New York Times and the Washington Post confirmed Hurd's comments as both left-leaning publications admitted that mass migration and changing demographics were key to the Democrats' wins in Virginia.
And they link to another story from the Daily Wire.
Yes, NYT, WAPO, Mass Immigration Demographic Changes Fueled Democrat Wins in Virginia.
They go on to talk about how they say, here's the New York Times quote.
Not long ago, this rolling green stretch of northern Virginia was farmland.
Most people who could vote had grown up here, and when they did, they usually chose Republicans.
The fields of Luden County are disappearing.
In their place is row upon row of cookie-cutter townhouses, clipped lawns and cul-de-sacs, a suburban landscape for as far as the eye can see.
Unlike three decades ago, the residents are often from other places, like India and Korea.
And when they vote, it is often for Democrats.
Can I start thinking about this?
So the New York Times and the Washington Post say this is true, right?
Once the heart of the Confederacy, now it is full of, what do they say, Indian grocery stores, Korean churches, and Diwali festivals.
The state population has boomed, up by 38% since 1990.
So let's go back to what Will Hurd was saying.
He said, the face of the Republican Party have to represent America.
Well, no, they have to represent the places they come from, which are overwhelmingly white.
You now have places like Virginia, which are becoming more diverse, and you'll probably start seeing more Republican candidates who are not white, for sure.
But this brings me to another point brought up often by individuals who are concerned that immigration is going to make everything far left, the Democrats are going to keep winning.
Well, I mentioned this a little bit at the end of my main channel video, but I believe the future will be conservative for many reasons.
First, as I've said time and time again, liberals don't have kids, right?
We saw in 2006 the study showing liberals are having less kids than conservatives, and that brings us to today where Gen Z is slightly more conservative in many areas, This is likely due to conservatives having more children.
But this brings me to the much, much more important point about what the future of America will look like.
It is true that immigrants vote Democrat, but it's also true that most of these immigrants are quite religious.
I mean, for one, Muslims are literally conservative religious folk.
Now, conservative Christians might disagree with them on a lot of issues, but they probably have a lot in common that Muslims don't have with progressives.
But more importantly, It's a fact.
Latinos are religious.
These Hispanic, you know, individuals who are emigrating to the United States, legally or otherwise, are probably Christians, okay?
So here's what happens.
They do vote in favor of more social policy, so they are to the left of conservatives.
But these secular atheist progressives who are championing bringing in Latino immigrants
are eventually going to displace the secular atheists.
You know what this means?
I think you might see a pro-life future.
I do.
Because I don't know what the average Latino thinks about life or choice, but I do know
they're Christian.
You now have Kanye West coming out doing these Sunday services.
He's very religious.
I mean, he always has been, but now he's really going for it.
I mean, all signs point to at least a resurgence in Christianity.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
Because the trend right now is that religion is going down.
But if they keep bringing in more immigrants, if the immigrants are winning in Virginia, yeah, the Democrats might win, but the Democratic Party will change and become religious.
Let's actually read a little bit.
This is a story from Christianity Today, July 24, 2019.
They say, first-generation immigrants are leading the Latino evangelical expansion in the U.S., drawing in more unchurched believers and new converts than the average church plant, despite having smaller congregations, less funding, and tensions surrounding U.S.
immigration policy.
The study, sponsored by the Send Institute at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center, funded by Twelve Denominations and fielded by Lifeway Research, surveyed 218 Hispanic church plants, along with new ministry expressions, such as added campuses or church mergers.
It found that 80% of their founding or lead pastors were born outside of the U.S., as were two-thirds of their members on average.
So, this will be interesting.
I think one of the challenges we have right now is that people who grow up in rural areas are really about grit and hard work.
And so a lot of Republican policies are centered around that.
But you have a lot of immigrants who, interestingly, are also centered around hard work and small lives, but are much more communal, I suppose, in the end.
Will the country move to the left?
I don't think so.
These people do vote Democrat.
That will change things.
But as they slowly take over the Democratic Party, you're going to see religion playing a larger and larger role.
And that, in my opinion, is going to push the Democratic Party closer to what Republicans are interested in, in some ways, in some ways.
I think you'll always have the tax versus no tax, the regulation versus deregulation arguments.
But all of these things you see, like I'd be willing to bet a lot of the trans stuff, gone.
LGBT rights, gone.
They don't get it, man.
Why is Pete Buttigieg, why are his polls so abysmal among the black community?
Some people have said because of religious homophobia.
I don't know if that's the right way to frame it.
Some people have said it's homophobia, it could be due to religion, or a combination of the both, but the fact is, that's what some people believe, and if they don't take it into account, then it's going to be an issue.
I'll tell you what though, man.
I can't speak at the national level, but at least in my experience, I think there's a real threat to a lot of the progressive values.
All you gotta do is look over at, I think, Birmingham in the UK, where they were doing LGBT courses for children, and the Muslims protested it.
The left is propping up these religions, and the left is bringing in these immigrants.
I'll tell you what.
What they're doing is they're bringing religion back.
They don't have kids.
Their ideas will die.
They're pro-choice, so they're more likely to get rid of the kids they might have had.
And they bring in individuals who are religious.
So I'll tell you what.
Wilhurt is wrong.
The Republican Party will always exist.
It'll drift to the left or to the right or it'll change.
I think the Democratic Party is going to rebound back towards the center very, very quickly.
We'll see what happens.
I think it's unfair to blame the Republicans for the fact that there are white places in this country.
That's just going to happen.
But I think you need to consider that while a lot of these immigrants and people in the black community vote Democrat, They're religious.
And I think what needs to happen for the Republicans, if they want to win, is they really need to talk about specific religious values.
Not necessarily the religion, but specific religious values.
Because, you know, Republicans, in my understanding, are more likely to be conservative than Democrats, by far.
But then you have these immigrants, and it's always been crazy to me, because I've heard this before, and the question is, or I should say, my experience is a lot of these immigrants are concerned about deportation and other issues.
So they don't want to vote for Republicans.
Democrats are saying, we won't deport you, we'll decriminalize border crossings, we'll give you whatever you want, please vote for us.
But they're ponying up to people who in the end will turn on them.
Look, I'll tell you what, man, I'll end with this.
I don't know what the future will look like, but I do believe it's going to be very, very conservative, and I think religion will have a resurgence.
But the Democrats, in their desperation to get votes, or at least, you know, look, maybe it's principle, they're like, I believe we should not deport people.
Okay.
Well, when these people come in, and they're religious, and then you also say, I believe in LGBTQIAPS plus rights, and they say no, You've just lost your party to religious conservative types who just so happen to be a little bit more progressive than the Republicans in some tax areas.
So I don't know.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Recently, a film came out called Charlie's Angels.
It is a feminist film with sneaky feminist ideas hidden in it, and it flopped.
Miserably.
One of the worst flops in a long time, actually.
And you know, I feel bad.
Elizabeth Banks, I think she's pretty rad, she's cool.
But you know what, men?
Why would you make a feminist film?
Why not just, I don't know, make a film?
Like, Hunger Games was great, Wonder Woman was great.
It's something that's said literally every single time this happens.
When you try to sell some political- It's like you're trying to sell health food to people who are trying to go out for dessert, you know?
That's how I usually frame it.
We have this article from Spike that I thought would be interesting to read.
And I know we did talk about this, but I think it's, uh...
I think it's worth talking about.
As we move forward, we're going to see more and more companies think they can inject politics into content, and I think it's a bad idea.
I think you can do it without bashing someone over the head with it.
Just make your character.
You know what the problem is?
I'll use Star Wars as an example.
There's a new clip that came out, and the First Order soldiers, which are basically stormtroopers, have jetpacks.
And then the heroes go, they can fly?
They fly now!
Oh, great, we got it, you don't need to tell us.
One of the biggest problems with a lot of these films, like the new Ghostbusters, is they make sure to say it in no uncertain terms so that they leave nothing to the imagination and don't think you're smart enough to figure it out.
Let's read what Spiked has to say.
Marentom writes, Why feminist films flop.
No, misogyny is not to blame for the box office woes of the new Charlie's Angels film.
The new film reboot of the Charlie's Angel franchise will be released in the UK next week.
It is written, directed, and produced by Elizabeth Banks, who also stars in it as the wisecracking Bosley.
Maybe she did the catering, too.
Bosley was typically a dude, but they decided to change it.
Bosley is now a rank... I don't know.
I didn't see the movie.
Don't ask me.
Banks is a genuinely funny actor.
And the Pitch Perfect movies she produced are highly enjoyable.
But I was not excited to see Charlie's Angels.
And that seems to reflect the wider sentiment.
The film bombed at the box office.
It cost $48 million to make, but only brought in $8.6 million.
That is bad!
There are several competing theories as to why this happened.
Some cite the film's lack of star power.
No, come on.
They got Kristen Stewart.
She's a star.
Others point to a reboot fatigue.
Nope, nope, nope.
Some of the more feminist reviewers have aired their disappointment that while the film is a more feminist take on Charlie's Angel, it doesn't do enough to shake the jiggle television of the original TV show and the two early 2000s films.
Someone pointed out, listen, the original Charlie's Angels was selling sex appeal.
Beautiful women fighting crime and doing all that stuff, but it was really about them being sexy ladies.
You can't really do that in a feminist way, I guess, unless you made like a spy movie, but then it wouldn't be Charlie's Angels, so don't call it Charlie's Angels.
The main factor here seems to be a lack of public interest in feminist remakes.
Recent films like Charlie's Angels, Ocean's 8, and Ghostbusters all sold purely off the back of their female-led cast, and in some cases female-led crew, failed to attract an audience.
And some have inevitably claimed this is because we live in an inherently misogynistic society.
Can I just point out, Oceans 8 was like, Danny Oceans wasn't his cousin or something?
Like, you're a lady and you're just like him and we're gonna do a lady heist.
I did not see that movie either.
But that one actually didn't do that bad.
That's not a stereotype!
That's like a marketing fact, dude!
But it's not true anyway, okay?
Let me just, okay, you know, I'm going there.
If this movie doesn't make money, it reinforces a stereotype in Hollywood that men don't go see women do
action movies.
That's not a stereotype! That's like a marketing fact, dude!
But it's not true anyway, okay?
Let me just, okay, I'm going there.
Wonder Woman. Hunger Games 1, 2, 3, 4.
I mean, what about Twilight?
Twilight made money!
I didn't see Twilight.
I actually did see some of the Twilight movies eventually.
She even had an answer for why Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, which both have female lead characters, were major hits.
Oh!
Men will go and see a comic book movie, because that's a male genre.
Hunger Games!
So even though those are movies about women, they put them in the context of feeding the larger comic book world.
Yes, you're watching a Wonder Woman movie, but we're setting up three other characters, or we're setting up Justice League.
Alien and Hunger Games are particular, like, you know, Examples of movies that are not comic book, I guess.
You know, you had this wave of, like, young adult post-apocalyptic films that came out.
Come on, man, you made money.
Just make a good movie, we'll watch it.
Whether or not men are as simple-minded as Banks suggests, her explanation doesn't account for why her film's target audience, young empowered women, have also stayed away from the cinema.
And there it is.
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you to the main reason why I wanted to go through this article.
Because the reality is, young empowered women don't care.
Let me tell you something, you watching this, I'm gonna bet that you're 31 years old, you're a male, and your name is John.
All of a sudden now a bunch of you are going like, what?
The fact remains that on YouTube, at least for me and many other channels, and I should probably ask a bunch of other political channels, when I do a video about Donald Trump's approval rating, women don't click it!
Now some of you may be female, because I believe around 8% of my viewers are, which means if this video gets 100,000 views, about 8,000 women watching.
So I ask you to comment.
Why do you watch?
I don't know.
I'm not trying to imply it is all about women.
Maybe biology.
Maybe it's social.
I have no idea.
But she made a movie specifically for empowered young women.
That's the demographic.
They're targeting like, I think it was 13 to 39 year old females with an action movie.
And it flopped.
So, why are you complaining that men didn't go see it?
Men did go see it.
Men and women did both go see it.
Okay?
The problem was, not enough people in general went to see it.
And why is it then, if you make a movie with Brad Pitt, literally everybody goes to see it?
It's not about the character.
It's about a movie being bad.
It's that simple.
Now, it is true.
Certain subjects and certain genres probably just play better to men and women.
For whatever reason, be it biological or social, I'm not gonna tell you which one.
I'll tell you what.
There are some channels that men don't watch.
Like makeup channels.
Guys don't wear makeup.
Some do.
Most don't.
So that's probably overwhelmingly female.
Political channels tend to be overwhelmingly male.
Don't ask me why.
That's just what's happening.
You want to change it?
I don't know what you want me to do.
You know what I should do?
I should do a feminist reboot of one of my videos and see if it attracts them.
And no, it'll probably get no traffic at all.
I don't even know how you would do that.
A feminist reboot of political commentary.
They say, The more mundane truth here is that the whole concept of this feminist Charlie's Angels reboot is fundamentally flawed.
It wants to keep the silliness of the original TV show and be a modern high-tech spy thriller, and it wants to make feminist points along the way.
Inevitably, the po-faced feminism of the film sucks the life out of the silliness and thrills.
You know what other movie bombed?
The, the, the, whatchacallit, the, um, Hellboy.
Yeah, that movie did really bad, and it was actually kinda pretty bad, too.
That had a male lead.
How come when, when, when any other movie bombs, they don't say, it's because women didn't wanna see, uh, I don't know the actor's name.
Women didn't wanna watch a movie about a male demon.
No, it's because the movie was kind of bad and the marketing was bad.
It's so crazy, you know what I mean?
You make a movie where instead of just telling us a fun story and having a good time, you just beat us over the head with your political ideology and then complain that it doesn't mix together.
Look, I'll tell you what, man.
Let me give you some sad truth.
Some flavors don't mix.
And you gotta figure out that recipe.
You know, I was surprised the first time I ever had, I think it was a turkey sandwich with jelly on it.
And I was like, I am not eating fruit jam on a turkey sandwich.
It was delicious.
I'm like, wow, you can make it.
You can figure it out.
Right?
There are a medley of flavors that can be brought together to figure out what's not common.
Perhaps there is a food you've had where you're like, I never thought to combine those flavors.
Like, I remember the first time I had cheese and jam, which is like a fancy delicacy thing, you know?
I think I was at a cafe or something, and it came with cherry, raspberry, and fig, and a bunch of cheese.
And I was like, what am I supposed to do with this?
And they're like, you put the jam on the cheese.
unidentified
And I'm like, why am I going to put jelly on cheese?
Point is, what you're doing here is combining flavors, and it's just too much.
Can you make a feminist spy thriller?
Yes.
Can you make a comedic, sexy feminist spy thriller?
Probably not.
And then, can you do all of those things, but before the movie comes out, accuse men of enforcing a stereotype by not seeing it, and then chastise people for political issues, and claim you're injecting politics into your film, and then, and then get mad that people didn't see it?
They're going to say that the 2000's Charlie's Angels worked because the stars Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu made fun of themselves.
They knew they were playing ludicrous characters and embraced this.
The new Angels, by contrast, are humorless and woke, adept at lecturing, sneering, and putting down unreconstructed men.
And no one, male or female, wants to be condescended to during their afternoon out at the cinema.
Dude.
When I go to the movies, it's basically like a cultural dessert.
All day.
All day I get news and politics.
That's my vegetables, meat and potatoes.
I get it.
I'm eating healthy, but every so often I want to go sit back in a chair and just let the drool pour out my mouth while I'm watching some sexy lady punch a robot.
I have no idea what goes on in that movie.
But you get the point.
We don't eat ice cream every single day.
But when we go see a movie, it's because the real world can weigh you down.
And for once, you just want a sweet, sweet dessert to say, you know what, man?
I ate my vegetables all day.
They're not all bad.
You can cook vegetables right.
But you know what?
I admit it.
That cherry cheesecake with a scoop of vanilla ice cream on the side or that warm apple pie, it's not something you eat every day.
But it's sometimes just what you need to lift your spirits.
You know, something you can strive for, that one special thing you get.
So I'll tell you what.
When I hear on the news all day, all day, men, patriarchy, bleh.
You think I want to go and buy more of that?
Dude, I get enough of it for free and I kind of don't like it.
So when it comes to video games, movies, books, etc.
Listen, man.
I get enough of it from the TV.
I get it.
Carry on.
I'm not going to pay more for this.
I'll put it this way.
Feminism is in sheer abundance.
Everywhere.
Literally everywhere.
You can't go on Twitter without someone screaming the word, you know, intersectional feminism in some capacity.
For or against?
You think after all of that, I want to take my hard-earned cash, walk into a recreational facility of some sort where I'm supposed to be relaxing and say, you know what?
I've decided that even though I've got inundated by this for eight hours today, I'm gonna give you 20 bucks for more!
Never gonna happen.
So that goes for video games too.
There are some video games that have done wokeness right.
And I'll tell you how you do it right.
As I say all the time, make the film, you know what they should have done?
They could have made Charlie's Angels and literally just made it a fun spy thriller with a good story.
Ignore the overt feminism and you create three strong female characters who succeed.
And that could have worked.
If there was a gritty Charlie's Angels reboot that turned the organization into like a spy cell, I'd be interested in seeing it.
When you tell me before the movie comes out, oh, and by the way, we've injected politics into this, I'm like... I don't know, man.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
Yep, that's it.
Let me just reiterate for the final thought.
I'm never gonna see this movie.
Reiterate.
Don't be surprised that you bash someone over the head over how they're supposed to act, how they're supposed to behave, all day, every day in the news, And then when they go to buy a product, you try telling them again.
They're going to say, I don't want to buy that, dude.
I came to the ice cream shop not for a bowl of broccoli.
My wife made me eat broccoli all last night, okay?
