Democrat Impeachment BACKFIRE Will Go Down in History, It Has Made Trump STRONGER "Like Godzilla"
Democrat Impeachment BACKFIRE Will Go Down in History, It Has Made Trump STRONGER "Like Godzilla." More and more outlets are coming to terms with the Democrats impeachment failure.Washington post, the Week, Mother Jones, all clamoring for a "plan b" to defeat Trump but some realizing it is too little too late.As Democrats start to falter on impeachment they look weak and it starts to become obvious how they have wasted our time.For moderate Democrats in Trump districts this is such bad news that it may go down in history if those 31 districts get swept up by republicans in 2020.Far left democrats for the most part seem safe however. They have never cared for the Democrat establishment and in the end its Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, And Jerry Nadler left holding the bag.In fact Ocasio Cortez has out-raised every other house democrat so far this year. interestingly Republicans have raised substantially more than Democrats in the house so we may very well see a historic defeat of House Democrats in 2020.Trump on the other hand is raising record funds, posting memes like crazy, and living rent free in your head.Tucker Carlson says that impeachment has made Trump stronger "like godzilla"
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Impeachment has been a massive failure, and it only gets worse.
But now we're seeing more media outlets start to recognize the problem.
You're looking at a story here from the Washington Post.
Democrats impeachment obsession is backfiring, saying, indeed, it could prove to be the biggest political blunder in modern times.
Dare I say it?
The Democrats impeachment failure will go down in history as a historical failure, a historical blunder.
We have this story from The Week.
Impeachment is failing.
Time for Plan B, where Damon Linker says it's time for censure of the president.
We've heard that before.
One of the safe blue Democrats in Michigan recently said, I don't know about impeachment.
How about Mother Jones, the left-wing outlet?
Yep.
Impeachment is a yawner.
It's not moving the needle or Al Jazeera saying Trump is turning political troubles into fundraising gold.
It's all right in front of you.
The amount of money Trump is raising is historic.
You have all of these left-wing outlets saying it has failed.
Tucker Carlson, instead of destroying Trump, impeachment appears to have made him stronger, like Godzilla, he says.
And now we have some really big news.
I gotta be careful about how I cover this.
But Gordon Sondland, the star witness so far, the one they claimed confirmed quid pro quo, has now been accused of multiple women of impropriety, of doing adult things, and his credibility has been shot.
It's not worth anything anymore.
Now, he denies this.
And some people argue the reason he flipped on Donald Trump, going from defending the president to saying, no, there actually was a quid pro quo, is because he knew the press had this story.
But the story came out anyway.
I'm not going to entertain any of those conspiracy theories.
The fact remains, this guy was their star witness.
He was the one person who said, we have a quid pro quo, even though it was just his presumption.
Well now it's come out that several women have accused him of not being a credible individual.
So can we really take his testimony at face value if we're learning these horrible things about him?
I think the answer is no.
So here's what I want to do.
We've got some new information, mostly about fundraising and about how this is bad for the Democrats as per usual.
And I want to show you a variety of stories and updates as well as the success of Donald Trump's epic meme.
And just talk about how this will be a historic failure.
And we'll start with this Washington Post story.
Now, before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
It's Thanksgiving!
People will be arguing with each other.
And maybe this will be, whether or not any of these anti-Trump people want to hear it, maybe they'll listen.
And maybe by sharing this with your friends and family on Facebook or on Twitter or wherever else you might share it, people might actually see at least an alternative or some new information they didn't consider.
But let me read from you this op-ed from the Washington Post first.
This, uh, Mark Thiessen says, it could prove to be the biggest political blunder in modern times.
Now he goes on to say things that I've already told you.
That after weeks of hearings, Democrats have utterly failed to make their case to the American people.
When the hearings began, super majorities agreed.
The president had done something wrong, but only a minority said his misconduct warranted removal from office.
The hearings were supposed to boost support for removal.
Instead, most polls show no significant movement in Democrats' favor, while some seem to even move in Trump's direction.
For example, in October, the Quinnipiac poll showed 48% of Americans supported Trump's removal, while 46% were opposed.
Today, after the hearings, the reverse is true.
So you know what they could have done?
The Democrats could have taken their winnings.
They were at the gambling table.
They said, let's put out this scandal.
You know what?
That actually worked.
It really did.
But then they decided to double down.
Let me show you something.
We'll come back to the story.
This is from 538.
Now, in reality, right now, this is some good news for Democrats.
We can see that when the news about the Ukraine scandal broke, support among independents for impeachment was 33.9.
Today, it's at 44.5.
That's actually good news for Democrats, but here's the thing.
If they took their winnings at the end of October and said, we will not have hearings to impeach the president, we will let the voters decide, they could have left on a high note.
But they decided to vote on an inquiry and hold public hearings, and boy, was that a mistake.
By pushing forward, they could have just accepted the scandal.
They had bad news about Trump.
They could have left it where it was and taken the win.
Instead, they said, let's go for impeachment.
And they made people angry and it actually soured and has dropped several points down to a low of 41, back up to around 44.9 and then down to 44.5.
So let me stress, there's some good news for Democrats.
You know, I'm not going to say it's all bad.
But now I think we're getting into the minutiae, you know, for the most part.
Because in the end, I think we are going to see a historic defeat in 2020 for moderate Democrats in the congressional races.
Let's go back to this story.
Mark writes, The failure to increase support for removing Trump is a big problem for the 31 vulnerable Democrats who are spending the Thanksgiving recess back in the Trump districts where they were elected.
They won their seats not by advocating impeachment but by promising to address kitchen table issues.
Now they're being barraged by millions in ads calling them out for their failure to do so.
At coffee shops and town hall meetings this week, voters are going to ask, what happened to all those promises to lower prescription drug prices, improve infrastructure and expand trade?
Why is nothing getting done?
They won't have a good answer because nothing is getting done.
And let me tell you, for all of the problems of Mitch McConnell blocking these bills from reaching the Senate, that's totally acceptable and I accept that.
I think it's a great criticism.
The Republicans are not clean in this battle.
But if the Democrats focused on these issues and told the American people, this is what we're doing, At least then they could come to you and say, blame the Republicans.
But they can't.
They all voted for the impeachment inquiry.
Except for two Democrats.
One in New Jersey and one, I believe, in Minnesota.
I want to remind you, you hired these Democrats to go and solve issues like your drug prices, like trade, like infrastructure.
You hired them.
You said, I am going to give you this job and the money from my taxes will pay you to do that job.
And instead of finishing the job, they're arguing amongst themselves about how much they don't like the boss.
I don't mean Trump is the boss.
I'm using an analogy.
Imagine hiring a group of painters, and when they show up, instead of painting, they just complain the whole time about how much they think the foreman should be removed.
And you're gonna say, listen, I don't know or care.
I didn't ask you to do this for these reasons.
They say, in Washington, the pundit class measured the wall-to-wall impeachment coverage by whether it advanced the case against the president.
But in these swing districts, each day's hearings again proved Republicans' point that Democrats are focused on the wrong thing, obsessed with removing the president instead of making progress for working families.
Now listen, you may disagree, and that's fine, and it's Thanksgiving, we're gonna have disagreements.
But I want to show you, TheWeek.com is not right-wing.
It is a left-wing publication.
It leans left.
They even say impeachment is failing.
They say it's time for Plan B. Plan B?
To censure the president.
Well, Mark says it's too late for that.
I argued earlier this month.
This is what Mark is saying.
The smart move for Democrats would be to drop impeachment and censure Trump instead.
But now it's too late.
Censure today would be seen as a sign of weakness, a signal that Democrat leaders might not be able to muster the votes for impeachment.
Indeed, they might not.
Only two Democrats voted no.
You know what they should have done before launching the inquiry?
They should have said, we're too close to an election.
We see that Trump has done wrong.
We will hold him responsible by voting to censure.
They would have passed that with flying colors and then said, Election is in less than a year, and it's up to you, the voter, to decide based on what you've learned.
Instead, they said, we're going to launch an impeachment inquiry, and everyone has conceded it's a yawner, it's a failure, or it's backfiring outright.
Impeachment hearings spur Trump campaign fundraising just about a week ago.
How the Trump campaign is turning political troubles into fundraising gold.
That's right.
All they've really done is rallied Trump's base and soured among independents.
There are now a large portion of independents who oppose impeachment.
You lost that goodwill, that people were willing to listen.
You could have gone for censure.
That would have worked.
I want to show you one thing before I move forward, because I want to show you what Tucker Carlson has to say.
This is a tweet from the president.
An epic meme.
It is an image of Donald Trump as Rocky Balboa.
You're probably saying, this is ridiculous, why should I care?
You should care because it has 181,000 retweets and 621,000 likes.
You've got Blair White, the famed YouTuber, saying, greatest of all time.
Meanwhile, many people on the left are outraged, shocked.
They're calling it bizarre.
There's a reason why I show you this.
Take a look at this meme that they're sharing over on the Donald subreddit.
Here's a Daily Beast article.
Trump tweets bizarre picture of his head on Sylvester Stallone.
Common Dreams, a left-wing activist site, both sad and funny at a whole new level.
Deadline, Donald Trump bizarre Rocky Balboa body swap.
New York Post, doctored photo of Rocky Balboa.
In the middle, it's Trump laughing, and it says rent-free.
Now, if you're somebody who doesn't like the president, you're probably thinking, so what?
So what?
People wrote about him.
This is the point.
This is another reason why impeachment will go down as a historical blunder.
Trump succeeds by living rent-free in your heads.
When the Democrats were on the debate stage, and I believe this is what Mark points out, they did not want to talk about impeachment.
Here's what Senator Bernie Sanders said.
We cannot simply be consumed by Donald Trump because if we are, you know what?
We're going to lose the election.
And there it is.
Donald Trump posts a silly meme.
They call it doctored, bizarre, sad, and funny.
That's exactly what Trump wants.
Now, impeachment was bad in some ways for the president.
Absolutely.
The testimony of Gordon Sondland did sound pretty bad for the president, even though he said it was a presumption and never received any orders.
That's fine.
The point is, are they winning the PR battle?
They've taken some steps forward, but several steps back.
Trump succeeded in 2016 with press coverage.
Free press coverage.
And the media and the Democrats are addicted to orange man bad.
Not only is Trump able to weaponize this to make money to fundraise, it's making him stronger.
It's giving him the press he wants.
Tucker Carlson.
It's not destroying him, it's making him stronger like Godzilla.
He's just getting bigger.
Tucker Carlson says, Big orange gone forever.
Banished to Mar-a-Lago.
The left back in power.
Order restored.
It'd be like the 2016 election never happened.
Like it was all a bad dream.
That's what Democrats thought they were getting for Christmas this year.
Unfortunately for them, Santa got delayed.
They're not getting a pony this year.
They're getting a bag of hair.
Instead of destroying Trump, impeachment appears to have made him even stronger, like Godzilla.
It turns out that parading bureaucrats before the cameras to demand that you send money to Ukraine, shut up, no questions allowed, isn't very effective as a campaign strategy.
And as a result, support for impeachment has fallen even among core Democratic voters.
And that's true.
But here's the shocking takeaway.
An Emerson poll released last week found That among African American voters, for example, just 37% now support impeachment.
38% are opposed, while 25% were uncertain, which is itself significant.
Meanwhile, in the same poll among white voters, 44% support impeachment.
That's not among white Democrats, that's among white voters.
He goes on to say that Anna Navarro of CNN was so shocked when she saw the poll, she tweeted, zero chance this is accurate.
Zero.
The poll must have been conducted in the homes of Ben Carson, Kanye, that sheriff guy with the hat, and those two cubic zirconia and polyester spandex ladies.
That's right.
The news is so bad that CNN commentator Anna Navarro believes it must be fake!
There's no way this is real!
How could it be true that Donald Trump is winning, that support even among minority voters is going down for impeachment?
Support for Trump among the minority community is up!
They're shocked to see it, and they don't believe it.
But I tell you this, according to FiveThirtyEight, Emerson is the second most accurate poll out of around 20 or so polls of the top companies or organizations that they looked into.
Emerson was the second most accurate.
Take that into consideration.
Look, man, I'm not here to say that Donald Trump was right.
I'm not here to say Donald Trump did something wrong.
I think most people agree that what Donald Trump did, calling Ukraine and saying, hey, do me a favor, you know, look into this, you know, Burisma Biden thing, was inappropriate, was wrong.
But is it impeachable?
No.
So what happens?
The people that you told, I will fight for you.
And then instead, you got into an argument with the orange man.
Those people feel like you lied to them.
You let them down.
While we can all say, you know, maybe the president should have been making these calls.
Look, personally, I think we should investigate the Bidens.
You might not agree.
That's fine.
The point is, Hunter Biden had drugs in his system.
He's been found with drugs.
He shouldn't be on the board of this company.
And even, I believe it's Ken Vogel of the New York Times said, basically, the reason that Hunter Biden was given this role was because they knew it would help run interference with Joe Biden.
Joe should have recused himself.
He should have told his son not to do this.
And in the end, we are left asking ourselves, why the conflict of interest?
And it does need to be looked into.
Should Trump have been the one to call Ukraine and say, hey, you know, do me a favor?
Absolutely not.
Look, whether you think he should or shouldn't, the point is there are departments for this, the DOJ could handle this.
Whether or not it's appropriate for him to do, which I don't think he should, I think he should have other people look into these things, the fact remains it was bad strategy in the long run.
But I guess maybe not.
Maybe I'm wrong about that.
I'll tell you what.
In the end, impeachment just spells bad news for Democrats.
And it may be leaking out into Congress.
Check this out.
As I stated, there are these vulnerable Democrats.
They're moderates.
They were elected in districts that Donald Trump won.
Okay?
They said they would get you these kitchen table issues, but now they're just playing the orange man bad game.
Look at this story from the Daily Caller.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez outraises all House Democrats in third quarter.
Now, she's been wishy-washy.
I don't know what she... At first, she was like, how could we not impeach the president?
Then later came out and said, I'm bored with impeachment.
But now she's on board with it.
I don't know.
The point is, she's a celebrity.
And she's raised more than all other Democrats, but check this out.
Republicans have raised substantially more, nearly double.
While no House Democrats out-raised Ocasio-Cortez, several House Republicans did.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, 3.45 million.
They say House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, 2.6 million.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 1.6 million.
And Ocasio-Cortez, 1.42.
There are three Republicans above the top Democrat in terms of fundraising.
And Nunes, McCarthy, and Scalise are nowhere near the level of celebrity that Ocasio-Cortez is.
She's a celebrity.
She's raising money because she has like five to six million followers.
There are people all over the country.
These Republicans are not celebrities, they're politicos.
And most of you might not even know who Kevin McCarthy is.
You may only somewhat be familiar with Nunez or Scalise.
Everybody's heard of Ocasio-Cortez.
So she's raising this money.
The Democrats are falling behind.
They say the report states that the vast majority of AOC's donations were under $200, indicating strong grassroots support.
The 30-year-old firebrand is facing a primary challenge in New York City from council member Fernando Cabrera.
who announced his congressional campaign last month.
I'm not super concerned about that, it's off topic, but the reason I bring this up is I think it's fair to say
the ripple effect, the backfire, is going to massively benefit Republicans, period.
One of the reasons Devin Nunes may have raised as much money as he did, he's been the Republican leader
in terms of resisting the impeachment inquiry.
Every day when you watch those hearings, It was Adam Schiff and it was Devin Nunes.
Elise Stefanik, Republican, also raised a substantial amount of money in a short amount of time.
And she was one of the people who raised very important questions, which Republicans were essentially fawning over.
But in the end, following all of this, it seems like Donald Trump is going to be walking away the big winner.
We have a report now from the New York Times.
They say that the upcoming Horowitz report on FISA abuse will discredit Donald Trump's claims about him being spied on.
They then go on to say that there actually were some FBI informants meeting with members of his staff, and there was somebody who altered a document, the lead lawyer on the Russia probe altered a document.
It seems like I don't know if Democrats just felt they had no choice but to do this because they knew how bad it was about to get.
I don't know what their plan was.
But like I said earlier, man, after the Ukraine scandal broke, they could have walked away.
And they could have just taken the high road and said, look, you heard the bad news.
Don't listen to us.
That came from the press.
And now we're going to, you know, we'll censure the president.
And in the end, it's just going to end up with Trump, I guess, taking the cake.
But I will show you one more thing.
I think I have this story right here.
From BuzzFeed, 12 impeachment conspiracies you're likely to hear about at Thanksgiving.
I'm going to add this in to the back end of this video.
Just because it's Thanksgiving, many of you may be watching this, and I want to clear something up.
Because Ryan Broderick, who has published a few fake stories recently targeting Trump supporters, But there's just 12 quick things I'll go through.
up on your phone before you start arguing at the dinner table this year.
And in the event someone actually does, I would like to correct some of his misleading
reporting.
Now, Brian recent, I'm sorry, Ryan recently reported that a legitimate meme among Trump
supporters was bots.
And then it turned out later, for some reason he published a story.
Twitter confirmed, no, that's not true.
But there's just 12 quick things I'll go through.
First, he says Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 election.
This is a trick.
This is a trick to make people believe that Ukraine did not meddle in the 2016 election, which they did.
Russia also did, and Russia did substantially more than Ukraine.
The fact remains that individuals in Ukraine, some working with the government and some high-profile personalities, were acting in concert with Americans to harm Donald Trump, notably Alexander Chalupa.
What he does here is he says the conspiracy is that Ukrainians hacked the DNC server, not Russia.
Okay, well that's a more extreme version of the conspiracy theory.
It has been mentioned to an extent, like inferred to upon by Donald Trump, which would be incorrect.
But anybody who says Ukrainians did not meddle is wrong.
They did.
That reporting has been confirmed by The Hill.
Ukrainian embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016.
Next, where's the missing server?
Well, this is much less relevant.
That they believe it's in Ukraine.
I don't believe we have any information as of right now confirmed to prove that.
Now, I'm not saying this entire report is wrong.
Ukrainians run CrowdStrike, as far as we know, is not true.
This is... Roderick of BuzzFeed is correct.
It's run by somebody who is Russian-born that lives in the United States.
CrowdStrike helped the DNC frame Russia.
I think this one's irrelevant.
Again, not confirmed.
The FBI and Obama spied on the Trump campaign.
Fact.
Now, he will tell you it's a conspiracy, but in reality, it's true.
They're playing a semantic game here.
Paul Manafort was being spied on, I believe, in Trump Tower.
And according to the New York Times, the upcoming Horowitz report will show us that there was an FBI informant, an undercover agent, who were meeting with Trump campaign staff.
So yeah, it's a matter of semantics.
They're going to take a more extreme view, as if like the FBI literally planted something inside Trump's lapel to spy on him, when in reality it was, yeah, there were law enforcement agencies in secret communication with Trump, you know, individuals on his campaign to gain information, and yes, an individual solicited dirt, working on behalf of the DNC as a consultant, to harm Paul Manafort, and he's in prison.
That's where we go.
Chalupa colluded with the Ukrainian embassy.
Well, as I mentioned, that was confirmed by The Hill, a Politico report.
They're trying to discredit it, saying it's a he-shit.
He said, she said, John Solomon proved there was Ukrainian collusion.
John Solomon provided several sworn affidavits from Ukraine.
You can choose not to believe them.
Proved is a hard thing to say.
Once again, semantic games here.
The reality is John Solomon provided reporting which corroborates the idea that Ukraine was adamantly opposed to Trump and there were several instances where either they accused Biden of being corrupt or of, you know, DNC consultants colluding.
So they're going to try and claim, and they've been trying it for a long time, conservative journalist John Solomon.
Sorry, the dude worked for the AP for like 20 years.
The Democrats are breaking impeachment rules is also false, but it's a technicality.
See, the issue is the Democrats voted on a resolution, and that resolution gave them the power because they control the House.
They have the most votes.
So they created the rules.
The Republicans were not allowed to change them.
So no, they're not breaking the rules.
They have the majority.
They can do this.
So that's something Republicans need to accept as well.
We all know who the whistleblower is.
And he says it's not true.
He says BuzzFeed doesn't.
But the reality is, we, beyond a reasonable doubt, believe we know who this person is.
I can't say the name.
YouTube will ban this video.
But the reality is, the career history of the individual, the whistleblower, was outed by the New York Times.
That's how we know this person was.
They said, basically, it reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons, where Principal Skinner says, a certain individual brought this to our attention.
Her name is Elle Simpson.
Nope, that's too obvious.
Let's call her Lisa S. And then everyone was like, they knew who it was.
The New York Times released so much information, people easily said, like a game of Sudoku, it must be this individual.
So, from then on, people said, behind the scenes, in politics, this is the name everyone knows.
And it was reported by real clear investigations that this is the name that fits the bill.
Can I say that we know definitively, we've seen the documents?
No, we haven't.
But everybody knows, to a certain degree, in the sense that we believe beyond a reasonable doubt, we know who this person is.
Do we know definitively?
No, not really.
But it's important to avoid these misleading semantic games, and that's what they do.
The head of Burisma was indicted over money laundering related to the Bidens.
So, he does actually get into the left.
arguing for conspiracy theories and supporting conspiracy theories.
The head of Burisma was cleared of all wrongdoing after Joe Biden came in and got rid of Viktor Shokin, who was the prosecutor they didn't like.
The new guy comes in and clears Zlochevsky, the co-founder of Burisma, of wrongdoing, essentially helping Hunter Biden.
And therein lies the big problem.
Now, coming into 2018, they are going to be looking into Zlochevsky, but they don't know where he is.
And then he says, no one is watching impeachment.
Yes, no one.
That's just hyperbole.
Ratings are way, way down across the board from the hearings of Russiagate.
Yes, ratings are down, but it's been great.
It's been a great windfall for media.
He says, here's one for your MAGA uncle.
Russian trolls turned people into Trump voters.
Russian trolls are fake news.
Here we have a story from Technology Review.
A Russian troll farm may not have been very good at its job.
Buzzfeed and several other outlets have reported, the Russia bot stuff is not reality.
I'm sorry, it's just not true.
And based on my expertise, I would say, if anything, The big story we have is that an organization called New Knowledge was implicated when their CEO launched a fake bot campaign to swing the Alabama governor election.
And that happened.
Look it up.
Show people.
I can't remember his name.
Jonathan Morgan, maybe?
New Knowledge was the company.
There are Democratic operatives, and he got banned from Facebook when they found out he made fake profiles with Russian names and bios, trying to make it look like Russia was supporting Roy Moore in Alabama, and it was fake news.
I'll leave it there.
I'll wrap it up.
I don't want to go too much into the Thanksgiving stuff.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
I hope you guys enjoy your turkey and your cranberry sauce and your stuffing and all that, or whatever it is you're doing.
I know, excuse me, not everybody supports, um, celebrates, excuse me, celebrates Thanksgiving.
But there you have it.
It's a special Thanksgiving episode of, while you're all enjoying yourself, we can rest knowing that impeachment will likely go down as a historical blunder, having helped Donald Trump.
And in the end, it looks like the news is going to be breaking in the next couple weeks or so, that there actually was wrongdoing targeting Trump's
campaign. Will it be as severe as Trump supporters think it'll be? Probably not. But we'll get
something out of it. I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out. Stick around. Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash
TimCastNews at 6pm. It is a different channel. I will see you there.
What's happening now is that YouTube cannot collect data on children.
Therefore, you must label your videos if they're for children.
However, it's not just whether or not you make a video for kids, it's whether or not it could potentially be for kids.
I mean, the cigarette companies argued Joe Camel wasn't for kids, and they said, we don't care, it's a cartoon mascot.
And that brings us to the big problem.
A lot of these channels... I'll use PewDiePie or Game Theory, for instance.
PewDiePie plays Minecraft a lot, right?
Minecraft is for kids.
Kids are the primary audience for a lot of these channels.
Now, adults like them, too.
It's a mix of the audience, but it doesn't matter if it's ten kids who watch it or a million kids who watch it.
If the audience includes kids, then you have to list it as for kids.
Now, there is a general audience exception, so a lot of these channels should be okay.
But here's what's going to happen.
Your favorite channels will not be able to make money.
That means they will start changing the content they make to work better for the new rules.
I don't think we're going to see YouTube just evaporate.
YouTube will still exist, right?
My channel will be fine because I do politics, commentary, and culture.
But you're going to see a dramatic change.
The content that was normally skewed towards younger viewers, people like Jake Paul, gone.
Okay?
I know Jake Paul won't be gone, gone, but what I'm saying is his viewers are primarily kids and he's admitted it, which means almost all of his content, it's not general audience, he's going to change the content he makes to adapt to the new revenue model.
This means everything we're used to on the front page of YouTube, everything you watch is going to change.
That includes video games, movies, people are going to skew a little bit more adult.
I don't think.
The banhammer will come down and overnight your favorite channels are gone.
You're going to see massive cultural shifts over an extended period of time.
As these changes start to come in, certain channels will realize, hey that video cost me money, I'm not going to make that anymore.
Now this is true for how demonetization worked.
Right?
We saw the removal of tons of content.
Some channels were banned outright.
Rules were changed.
And people realized, hey, if I do X, I can keep making money.
So they stopped doing pranks, for instance, right?
There are some YouTubers, because of the rule changes around pranks, are getting banned, suspended, community guideline strikes for videos from years and years ago.
And now they don't do these shock pranks anymore.
There used to be things where, like, someone would dress up like a clown and jump out and go, bleh, at somebody, and they would have a heart attack or whatever.
They don't do it anymore, because YouTube says these kinds of more extreme pranks are bannable.
So now the pranks are becoming more, I don't know, innocuous, like somebody getting hit with a pie, right?
They've changed the content they produced.
Now some people are probably upset, they probably liked some of that content, but this is what happens.
YouTube says, here's a rule change, and we don't know exactly how it will have an impact, but we can make some predictions.
Now here's the funny thing, right?
Misinformed YouTubers undermining the fight for children's privacy online.
Oh, please.
Stop.
Spare me.
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
We are seeing a dramatic push towards corporatism.
I don't know if corporatism is the right word.
Maybe it's something else.
But the corporatization of content.
Now, I get it.
Before YouTube and the internet, everything was controlled by a few companies and they've continued to monopolize the media market.
Like Disney now owns basically everything, right?
We're now coming to a point.
Or, let me go back.
Then YouTube started.
Facebook, Twitter.
And all of a sudden, everyone was talking.
And what was once a broadcast tower, leveled out.
And now you have people with small channels, medium channels, large channels, really big channels.
Like, you know, you have people on top like PewDiePie and people on the bottom with smaller, you know, 10,000 subs.
But everybody has a chance to create content that might fit a certain subculture or category.
You know, there are people who might do videos about, like, very specific techniques in, I don't know, sculpting.
That doesn't appeal to the mass market, but they're going to get tens of thousands of subs from people who do like that.
Because of these changes, what we're going to see now, major corporations are going to be the ones who survive.
They sell their own ads.
We are slow... I warned about this.
We are slowly seeing the removal of independent creators.
As the rules change, as monetization rules change, check it out.
CNN, Fox, whatever, these big channels.
They can sell their own ads, right?
So when it comes to demonetization, independent creators who rely on the YouTube ecosystem are punished, and then these same media companies write fake news about YouTube to get us all in trouble, so that YouTube then capitulates, and what's the latest change?
Back in April, there was, as far as I can tell, an algorithmic change to political content that shifted tons of viewership away from independent creators towards Fox News.
The reason, in my opinion, All of these outlets, like the New York Times, were writing fake stories about the rabbit hole, which is not real.
You know, we've now seen updated research from University, I believe, of Penn State, saying it's just not true.
And that backs up most of the data we've seen from other researchers.
But there are a few ideologues who are writing conjecture and opinion, saying, well, in my opinion, this happens.
And then YouTube says, well, a big news outlet wrote about it.
We better take away independent political commentary.
And now whenever someone watches my video, guess what happens?
Fox News plays next.
How does that make sense?
Fox News doesn't need the help, but it's CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Here's the other half of this video.
There's something very, very important happening right now.
This is Subverse.net.
Subverse is my company co-founded with a couple other people, and it is independent from my content editorially.
We do, for the most part, straight news.
We work on some documentaries, and we're expanding.
We're going to do culture and stuff.
It's growing.
It's growing.
It's new.
But this website is actually built on the Minds.com infrastructure.
M-I-N-D-S dot com.
I am telling you this not to promote my site, but because I want to show you what it looks like.
It actually looks really, really good on mobile.
The reason is, Minds just launched a partner program.
The one thing that guarantees YouTube continues to maintain a monopoly over the digital ecosystem for independent creators.
Including Facebook.
It's the partner program.
Now, Facebook does offer revenue sharing now, similar to YouTube, but YouTube owns the space.
The reason why everyone is on YouTube, even after everything YouTube is doing, is because YouTube pays.
Because YouTube automates the process of selling ads and then sharing revenue with creators.
If the individual creator had the ability to sell ads on their own, they would make more money.
But YouTube, as far as I understand it, is more likely to recommend content that sells native ads because YouTube makes money off it.
Therein lies the big problem.
When YouTube changes the rules and your favorite creators get deleted, banned, knocked down, or disappear, it's because YouTube says it's not commercially viable.
And now we're seeing the new rules that are going into effect in December state that YouTube will ban you, they could terminate your account, if it's not commercially viable.
So I'll tell you what.
I'm gonna keep using YouTube, okay?
I'm gonna use YouTube because it's an excellent way to get recommended, to, you know, generate revenue, and it works for who I am.
But I will also recognize there is an inherent pitfall to putting all of your eggs in one basket.
How many creators Dedicated their careers to just YouTube and then YouTube banned them.
Outright.
And there's been several people, several people who just have bad associations and followed the rules of YouTube.
Several political commentators followed all the rules, got in trouble anyway.
Or people like Steven Crowder, who YouTube admitted didn't break any rules but still took him out of the partner program.
Listen, Minds.com, I know the co-founder, I've worked with them, so, but this is not a paid sponsorship in any capacity.
I'm telling you this because this is the first step to displacing the YouTube monopoly.
Is it going to make you more, like, depending on who you are, you've got a better chance of growing a channel through Minds than you do YouTube.
Just a fact.
YouTube is saturated, to an absurd degree.
Minds.com.
M-I-N-D-S dot com slash pro.
And they've just launched a new revenue model for creators.
You get paid for traffic and referrals.
You can launch your own website, receive multi-currency tips and subscription payments from fans.
So basically, you create a channel on Minds.
You start uploading videos just like you would on YouTube.
It appears in a feed, just like, you know, any other social network.
And when you get views, you get CPM, which is, you know, Basically the same thing how YouTube works.
Every time someone views, you get a little bit of money.
You also can get tips just like Patreon or any other service so people can choose to directly give.
It works similarly, but there's one big difference.
It is an alternative to YouTube, meaning don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Some people have said, yeah, Mines is doing this now, but how long until they start censoring?
I don't know.
I don't care.
I don't think they will.
They do have their rules.
They do.
Let's be honest.
Nothing's perfect.
But they do better.
But here's the reality.
You need to diversify what you're doing.
More importantly, if you're a smaller creator, this is your chance to get started on a platform that's not saturated.
One of the biggest challenges to YouTube...
Is that when you go to YouTube.com, it shows you between 10 and 15 videos in the recommended box.
And that means you, when you make a video, are competing with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of videos.
For small creators, it's becoming harder and harder to gain any traction.
For me, when I got started on daily content, I had an advantage.
I already had tons of Twitter followers because I had built that up over years, and so that allowed me to bring some people in, get some snowball rolling, but it is getting harder and harder.
So there's an advantage there.
More importantly, Minds has no demonetization.
You cannot be demonetized.
Maybe it'll happen in the future.
I don't know for now.
It's not a thing.
They support cryptocurrencies, tipping, so people can go to your channel, you can make content, and you can use the internal token system to promote that content by choice.
This is another big advantage.
Now admittedly, YouTube is massive.
What, like billions of people are, you know, bouncing around on YouTube at any given moment or whatever.
Or a billion plus, I have no idea.
And I know, I get around like 900,000 to a million views per day, and I don't get anywhere near that on Mines.
But, the only way we break that monopoly is by, for one, being smart about it and making sure we don't put all the eggs in one basket.
I put my stuff on Facebook as well.
My videos are uploaded to Facebook, they're automatically uploaded to BitChute, and I upload every day to Mines.
But Mines is the only one that's offering a legit partner program.
Here's the thing.
So there's cryptocurrency options.
One of the ways it works is, for your participation on the site, you generate tokens.
Those tokens can be converted to ads, basically.
So if you want your video to be recommended, you select that.
Not like YouTube, where YouTube is algorithmic.
I think Mines is, to an extent, in some ways, algorithmic.
But every day you're active, you'll earn some tokens, and then you can click boost your content and apply those tokens.
So, I'll put it this way.
I know the founder, I know the people at Mines, and I trust that they're trying to break a lot of the problems we see on YouTube and these other platforms.
So while COPPA may be a huge threat to YouTube, there is an alternative.
Facebook is a potential alternative.
It absolutely is.
But I don't like Facebook.
And there's a lot of problems, a lot of risks there too, and they do demonetize content.
Plus, I don't even know how the average person starts getting monetized on YouTube.
I'm sorry, on Facebook.
They don't make it easy.
More importantly, the one thing I think that it's a really big takeaway from what Minds is doing, is that it's not just about posting a video and hoping you get a thousand views, you make a buck or five bucks, because it's a $5 CPM if you're getting a hundred thousand page views per month.
And 100,000 and 1 million page views?
I don't know what that means.
But basically, a $5 CPM is actually really good.
Most people on YouTube get like two to three.
So if you get 100,000 views per month, that's, you know, I think you're making what, like 5,000 bucks a month?
Is that right?
Am I doing the math wrong?
Anyway, here's the thing though.
Let's say you make a page on Mines.
You can buy your own URL.
So that's what we have, right?
So we have subverse.net.
It functions on the Mines infrastructure, and here's what happens.
When we make a post, when we write an article, this is what, you go to subverse.net, and this is what pops up.
You get the article, you get the account, you get the comments and everything, and you can read the article.
I'm not, uh, this is not, again, for the millionth time, not paid, sponsored, or anything like that, but the reason I'm saying all of this...
If we don't break the monopolies of these big tech companies, they're going to slowly tweak and change the rules and make you all dependent on that platform.
No one will want to leave, but as I pointed out in a video not too long ago about social engineering, YouTube, for my main channel, youtube.com slash tincast, there are things I can't talk about that are mainstream news, because YouTube straight up Knocks them out.
There was one video I did where I briefly mentioned that a New York Times reporter was outed for antisemitism and YouTube removed it from recommendations.
It got no views and I was like, what the?
That's ridiculous!
And so I had to go and I had to blur a bunch of stuff and cut stuff out and then they restored it.
That's nuts!
That doesn't happen on Mines.
Mines, I guess for now, If you want to talk about politics in a way that is like the news and commentary, you can.
And you can convert your channel into a straight-up website that appears as a website.
So, you know what?
I'll leave it there.
I don't want to rant about this.
Look, I know this video probably is not going to be a billion views.
I could have talked about a million and one things.
It's Thanksgiving.
There's probably a lot of people this morning, you know, checking up on the news and stories.
And I could have got a ton of views if I did something about Trump or whatever.
This is important.
This is important.
If we stay just on YouTube and Facebook, and YouTube already has these ridiculous rules, you can't criticize immigration on YouTube.
I'm not kidding.
I am not kidding.
You can't talk about anything.
It's arbitrary, almost.
There have been channels that have been arbitrarily deleted, and we don't know why.
I'll tell you the one last thing about mine.
Their moderation system is jury-based.
If you get a video or a post taken down, it then randomly selects users to ask if that was right, and they vote on it.
So it's community-based.
Not perfect, but I'll tell you what, substantially better than YouTube just deleting your channel outright.
That's the risk.
There's people like, I'll give a shout-out to Mumkey Jones.
I don't even know what he's been up to, to be honest.
But he had multiple channels on YouTube with hundreds of thousands of subscribers deleted, and he broke no rules.
And they told him, basically, screw off.
So, I think there's a lot of platforms you can use.
Certainly, BitChute is a great alternative as well.
And my videos are all automatically uploaded there, so this will probably appear there as well.
This is the key.
The MindsPro system that actually pays, like a partner program, is how you displace that monopoly.
Because now people can actually say, if I get started on Minds, I can actually start earning revenue.
I'll be honest.
There's going to be a lot of people who sign up for Minds accounts and then think they're going to snap their fingers and make, you know, a million bucks.
It doesn't work that way.
But maybe if you produce content and you work hard for a year or so, Then you'll eventually get to a point where you've built up an audience, people expect your content, you've gotten better at what you do, and you can actually start making money.
That is how you displace the YouTube monopoly.
Mine's terms, like community guidelines, are substantially more freedom-loving than YouTube and more understanding of, you know, certain issues.
But there's a lot of people who want to smear, you know, them for whatever reason.
I think it's ridiculous.
I think these guys are trying.
I'll leave it there.
This is a long video for no reason, but, man, when I saw COPPA coming up, you know, for me, I do adult content.
I'm not super concerned about content being mistaken for kids, but a lot of people, a lot of your favorite channels are going to lose a ton of money.
And if you can't make money, you can't make content.
People have to eat.
And that's going to be the big change.
These big channels you really like, they make fun videos.
They're going to say, dude, look, you're doing a video.
About cartoon characters and video games?
I'm sorry, that's for kids.
And you have to label that because then YouTube's gonna say we can't collect data on that, it's gonna remove some of the ads, they're gonna say we make way less money when we talk about, you know, video games.
Let's stop doing it.
Or let's do it less.
So there's gotta be an alternative.
And, not only that, we can't let YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, these big tech companies just control everything.
Mines is not one of these big tech companies, but if we can get a large enough user base on Mines, then eventually it'll be a snowball effect.
Eventually it'll get to a point where there'll be so many people, it becomes more lucrative, the CPMs go up, people can start making a living, and maybe, maybe in 10-20 years, Mines becomes exactly like YouTube.
Okay, fine.
But that's no excuse to keep empowering YouTube to delete content or ban people or take away revenue from people who built up content on that platform.
I think Steven Crowder is probably the best example, if you're a fan of his.
We're not.
He's a political commentator.
He's conservative.
He broke no rules.
He was offensive.
He was edgy, but he broke no rules.
They didn't care.
They said, we're going to appease the mob and take away your revenue.
If you told him that was a risk, he would have not built up his career solely on YouTube.
I'm not saying he's solely on YouTube, but he's brought so many people to that platform for them to take away his revenue like that.
It's absurd.
So, you know, I'll wrap it up.
I'll wrap it up.
That's the point.
Check it out.
Look, I'm not going to act like everything's perfect or it's going to be easy.
No, if you want to get started and do this kind of work, it is difficult.
You can't snap your fingers and overnight be a millionaire.
That's not how it happens.
But if you work hard enough, this is an opportunity for smaller creators who want to get started today.
Easier than YouTube, if you were to ask me.
But you should definitely do both.
You should definitely do both.
And I think if you're a bigger creator, you should definitely be doing this.
Seriously.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm, and I will see you all then.
Donald Trump is in a tough spot.
With everything going on between the Uyghur concentration camps and Hong Kong, Trump still has to work out a trade deal with China, which is hurting farmers and other manufacturing in this country, to a certain degree, depending on who you ask.
But here's the main takeaway.
What's happening in Hong Kong with the Chinese Communist Party is horrifying.
Hong Kong deserves to be independent.
And maintain its freedoms.
It's a very complicated situation, as are most stories.
And we also have the concentration camps in China, where Uighur Muslims are being, like, they're having their organs harvested, and yeah, it's really bad.
But here's the thing.
Despite all of this, Donald Trump signed into law a bill supporting Hong Kong.
It was basically tons of bipartisan support, and there was a lot of concern that Trump wouldn't sign it, because he's trying to get this trade deal done.
But here's the really difficult position to be in.
By signing this, China is vowing retaliation.
Here's what the New York Times said.
China vows retaliation after President Trump signed new human rights legislation covering Hong Kong.
It denounced the law as illegal interference in its affairs.
Behind the harsh rhetoric, trade and the softening Chinese economy presents bigger problems.
So let's actually check out what this bill is.
Again, I want to stress, It's a tough spot to be in.
You know, you're trying to negotiate with China and say, we need favorable terms, we need to make sure we can benefit the American economy, at the same time with Hong Kong and these concentration camps, you can't allow that to continue.
By signing this, he has substantially hurt his negotiating power.
China's gonna be pissed.
But if China is dependent upon us, they will be forced to bend the knee.
Let's see what happens.
First, President Trump signed legislation into law Wednesday that shows American support for Hong Kong protesters in a move that will likely worsen relations with China.
This comes amid months of public clashes in Hong Kong that began over an extradition bill.
The region's government retracted the bill, but the pro-democracy demonstrations have continued in the streets.
Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act,
one of two bills Trump signed Wednesday.
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi Jinping, China,
and the people of Hong Kong, Trump said in a statement.
They are being enacted in the hope that leaders and representatives of China and Hong Kong will
be able to amicably settle their differences, leading to long-term peace and prosperity for all.
Excellent statement!
Seriously, I'm impressed by that.
Trump's usually a little bit off the cuff, but that was great.
The second bill, the president signed, bans exporting items such as tear gas and rubber bullets to Hong Kong police.
These items are often used for controlling crowds, and I believe one major company is based in Pennsylvania.
Rubio's bill previously passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate, Exxos reported.
Trump signing these bills admonishes China during a time when the two countries are in the midst of trade talks.
China previously warned that it would retaliate if the legislation became law, according to the outlet.
I applaud President Trump for signing this critical legislation into law, Rubio said in a statement Wednesday.
The U.S.
now has new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference from Beijing into Hong Kong's internal affairs.
That brings us to the outrage from China.
You know what, man?
There are a lot of people who demand Trump take counterintuitive measures because they're desperately trying to hurt him.
And this is a big political challenge.
I mean, it's true not just for Trump, it's for Obama, for Bush, for everybody.
The president knows the political opponents will condemn them if they do something that is perceivably bad, right?
Perhaps the right thing to do for Trump would not be to sign these bills until a trade agreement was done.
But in the end, Trump has decided to sign them.
And perhaps that really... I'm not saying it wasn't the right thing to do.
I'm saying you have to think about the challenges being faced by this country.
And when we sign these bills...
Look, man, it's already bad with China pressing in the South China Sea, oil exploration, colonization, etc.
I gotta say, man, it seems like there's real risks of war with China, especially the concentration camps.
I mean, at a certain point, that's got to boil over.
For me, I'm already shocked no one's done anything about it so far.
I mean, what about sanctions or anything?
In the end, this is what's scary about China becoming so powerful.
China is such an economic force that we are negotiating a trade deal with them out of fear that we're going to hurt our economy.
But meanwhile, China's got concentration camps.
What's the right thing to do?
If we don't do the trade deal, do we worsen tensions and push ourselves towards war?
By signing this bill, do we support our principles but risk war?
That's a big challenge.
I'm going to have to say it, man.
Listen.
At a certain point, we need to put our foot down about what they're doing to the Uyghurs in these camps.
It is nightmarish.
It is literally like horror movies, dystopian novels.
So the New York Times reports China condemns U.S.
over Hong Kong.
That won't stop trade talks.
Legislation signed by Trump poses a direct challenge to Beijing's rule.
But trade and the softening Chinese economy present bigger problems.
And that may be why China ultimately caves.
And that's what we want in America.
So we can say to them, listen, we have the power.
And if you want to deal with us, then you have to stop these things.
China might have no choice.
Check this out.
Hong Kong stocks, 78% collapse, adds to wave of sudden crashes.
This is intense.
I mean, look, if you're an investor, I mean, it might be time to start buying in Hong Kong.
78% collapse in Hong Kong stock?
That means you're gonna start buying stuff up for pennies in the dollar.
That's nuts.
Real estate is down.
This, I guess, Hong Kong special economics, I'm not even gonna call it.
I mean, they're reeling.
Check this out.
A third Hong Kong stock in less than a week lost most of its value in a sudden one-day plunge, underscoring concern that the $5.2 trillion market has become a breeding ground for wild volatility.
You want to know why China is so angry?
It's not just about Hong Kong.
It's also about China.
Asian markets retreat after Trump signs Hong Kong bill.
Asian markets retreated after US President signed a bill supporting Hong Kong protesters, a move that could potentially infuriate Beijing and complicate the US-China trade talks.
They say, China's Shanghai Composite dropped 0.5%, South Korea's Cosby Index fell 0.4, Hong Kong slipped 0.2, while Japan's Nikkei 225 dropped 0.1.
Some Chinese tech stocks advanced in Hong Kong, bucking the weaker trend.
Smartphone manufacturers only climbed 2.3.
So we get the point.
It's not, you know what, man?
This might actually all work out.
I mean, when you look at this, Actually be what Trump wants.
It sounds like it's actually perfect for a trade deal.
You think about the turmoil that Hong Kong is going through, and how this is negatively impacting China and Asian markets.
Trump's effectively saying, you know what?
If we come out against you, other people are not going to want to be on board with that.
And if we sign this bill, your market's going to go down.
And when that happens, you're going to be in a weaker position to negotiate.
So in the end, look, this really does bring us closer and closer to extreme tensions,
like militaristic tensions.
But if China wants to maintain a strong economy, they're going to have to play ball.
I think what we're seeing here is that while China is definitely powerful, they're not powerful enough.
So let's see what they're complaining about over at the New York Times.
They say, China vented on Thursday after President Trump signed new human rights legislation covering the protest-wracked city of Hong Kong.
It denounced the new law as illegal interference in its own affairs.
It summoned the American ambassador for the second time in a week.
It vowed retaliation.
Bring it on!
The threats sounded severe.
They also sounded empty.
Not too good for you, China.
Behind the harsh rhetoric, China has few options for striking back at the U.S.
in a meaningful way.
And it has bigger priorities, namely the increasingly punishing trade war between the two countries.
Though both sides are talking about their willingness to reach a deal, they have yet to sign even an interim pact that would head off potentially damaging new tariffs less than three weeks from now.
And I'll tell you what, man!
Record U.S.
economy.
Stock market through the roof, day after day, breaking 28,000.
Hey men, we are partying over here in the U.S.A.
To quote Miley Cyrus.
That's right.
China meanwhile's market's slipping.
They got turmoil in Hong Kong.
They got international outrage over these camps.
And it looks like their position is getting weaker and weaker.
Now they may be pushed into a corner, but I don't think so.
I think if there's one thing that will make sure there's not going to be any major war between the US and China, it's the fact that people like being rich.
And the rich people in China know that if all hell breaks loose, they're not going to be as rich.
And so it is international trade that essentially protects us from war and conflict.
We might not like what they're doing, but the trade makes sure that nobody wants to get hurt too much.
Now there's a problem here.
Because it also means people in America who don't want to risk our economy won't stand up and tell China to knock it off with the concentration camps.
And I gotta tell you what, man.
These camps are horrifying.
And I don't know when the appropriate point is to demand a UN Security Council meeting where every country sanctions China until they stop doing this.
I mean, come on.
You look at South Africa and the sanctions and everything that went on with apartheid.
Now we're looking at China, and they're doing something... You know what?
I'm gonna say people might get mad, but it's like substantially worse, okay?
Like, you want to be racist and have a racist system?
We gotta stop that.
We gotta shut that down.
But you want to start rounding people up?
Locking them up?
Organ harvesting?
Dude... Perhaps Trump shouldn't be doing a trade deal until they agree to stop.
And maybe Trump should put pressure on them, because I'll tell you what...
We're doing all right!
I mean, I get it.
There's subsidies going to the farmers, there are some concerns, there is an increasing national debt, but our economy, the stock market is up, theirs is down, and they're feeling the heat.
We gotta figure out something about these concentration camps, man.
And I, you know what?
I gotta say I'm conflicted because I don't know what the answer is.
I don't think we want to start World War III with China, but can we just sit by while they do this?
That's what's truly horrifying.
I know many people might say it's none of our business.
But at a certain point, it's the business of humanity.
Like, I understand Afghanistan, right?
You have these small areas, and people get their rights abused, and it's really, really bad.
But should we be stepping into places like Syria because they're in a civil war?
Not really.
But what if you had a country rounding people up in concentration camps. And I mean real ones, not like the
stupid AOC nonsense where she's like, detention centers that people chose to come to are
concentration camps. No, I'm talking about people who were forcefully abducted with bags over their
heads, thrown into vans, driven to an undisclosed location and tortured and electrocuted
and had their organs harvested.
At a certain point, we gotta say something about that. So, you know, I'll tell you what,
it looks like the US is is winning the trade war.
It looks like China is reeling.
It looks like things are bad, and unfortunately for Hong Kong, too.
But Hong Kong, you better... I mean, you gotta solve this problem.
And I think Trump made a great statement on it, but I'll leave it there.
Should we fear China's retaliation?
You know what, man?
Nah.
I wouldn't.
You know why?
I'm the kind of person that would take the risk.
If I encounter a situation where somebody wants to step on my toes and push me around, and even if they're bigger and stronger, you just ask for a fight, buddy.
So if you want to avoid a fight with me, Don't get cocky and don't assume that I'll back down, because I'll go down swinging.
That's the risk I'm willing to take.
Because if you stand by and allow these people, allow countries like China to get away with this, they'll keep pushing and pushing, and every inch back you take, they will take another mile.
So you know what?
Even if you're the little guy, you stand up and say, no, you're gonna have to knock me down, knock me out.
Fortunately for us, we're not the little guy.
Though China is comparable in many ways, I think we better make sure that, look, look man, you might not like this country, okay, you might complain about America, but you gotta admit, be it left, you know, if you're a far leftist and you complain about colonization and all that stuff, fine, so be it.
But I'll tell you what, Everyone can agree what China is doing in these camps is wrong.
Everyone.
And that is not the country we want to gain global power.
And they are.
And if we don't check them, if we don't get good deals, if we don't, you know, put pressure on them over Hong Kong, if we don't stand up now, it will get worse.
And imagine what happens if we lose the trade war followed by any actual military incursion.
I look to a future 100 years from now, and these camps will be commonplace.
It will be 1984.
It will be the nightmare.
And we're walking in that direction.
So I'll tell you what.
If there's any one thing that should be uniting all Americans, it should be some Democrat and Donald Trump talking about the threat we're facing due to China.
And the fact that they're running concentration camps, that should be the message.
Let's bring together the far leftist of the lefts.
You can be an open borders, communist, globalist, whatever you want to call yourself.
I think we can all unite to shut down what they're doing and then get back to bickering in the streets and punching each other.
How does that sound?
Right?
I'm not one to ascribe to the belief the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
But I certainly recognize the importance of laying down our swords or pointing them in the correct direction.
Because I can disagree with these Antifa types all day and night.
I think they're wrong, I think they're violent, but I'll tell you what...
There is a time and place for violence.
There absolutely is.
Self-defense is defined as protecting yourself or the life of someone else.
And at a certain point, we need to recognize that what China is doing is nightmarish, man.
You gotta read this stuff.
You really, really do.
There's a viral video.
Actually, I'll show you the story.
There was a viral video this young woman put on TikTok, where she was doing like an eyelashes tutorial.
And she's like, I'm gonna tell you how to get your eyelashes
nice and long, so you crimp here and then make sure you Google search Uyghurs in China and the concentration camps.
And it was this amazing viral bit she did.
TikTok banned her because it's owned by China or it's part, you know, however, owned by people in China or whatever.
And they reinstated and apologized.
That's good news.
But you know what's scary, man?
You wanna know what's really scary?
When the NBA, when celebrities in the United States start defending China, saying, oh, you know, we don't know what's going on in Hong Kong.
I will hold hands with the staunchest of the violent left, insane Antifa-wearing people if it is in the course of shutting down what they are doing to those poor people in their country.
I think that's fair to say.
We can all agree.
We can put our politics aside in this country and figure out a way to deal with what they're doing.
Man, I do not want to live in a world where we fight each other to the point where China takes over because I'll tell you what.
They're facing this turmoil over Hong Kong, but for the most part, the U.S.
has a special kind of political divide, and that's dangerous.
United we stand, divided we fall, and there are a lot of people in this country who completely and at their core disagree with each other.
But I think we better start talking about what China's doing, and that should be the unifying force.
Look, if you've ever read Watchmen, you know what brought the world together was an external threat.
Long story short, there was a staged extraterrestrial threat which made all the different countries unite in fear that they would be attacked from an outside force.
And that's kind of the idea that people, you know, it's a trope, right?
I'll tell you what.
If we start talking about this, if Fox News and MSNBC said, we need to do more news on what China is doing, you'd see the political divides start subsiding.
Because I can argue with, you know, Uncle Bill or whatever over Thanksgiving dinner, but I'll tell you this, let me end with this, if you made it this far, I'm going to wrap this up.
If you're sitting at Thanksgiving dinner right now watching this, and people are arguing about politics, change the discussion to what China is doing.
Change it to Hong Kong, change it to the Uyghur Muslims, because then you'll all probably agree.
And then you can actually say, you might not like Trump, you don't have to like Trump, but we need to talk about China, okay?
And maybe Trump's not the right guy, although he thinks he is.
You wanna have somebody argue for or against Trump?
You can tell someone, I know you like Trump, and you know what?
Why don't we get someone who's heavily focused on dealing with China?
Why don't we back, to the best of our abilities, what Trump is doing?
And if you don't like Trump, then vote for someone who's gonna promise to do that.
I gotta say, man, when it comes to the real existential threats we're facing in this country, I really don't care about, you know, a movie with a woman of color beating me over the head with feminist ideas.
Charlie's Angels flopped, you know what I mean?
Like, they can make their movie.
If it doesn't make money, they won't make any more.
It's interesting to talk about these cultural ideas and debate these things in American culture and politics.
Meanwhile, we have a real threat growing behind us.
So, I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm at youtube.com slash timcast and I will see you all there.
It was the meme scene round the world.
Donald Trump superimposed his face onto Rocky Balboa's body.
Now see, sane human beings understood the president is joking.
He's being funny.
He's an entertainer.
I saw the tweet, and I laughed.
And I couldn't believe it.
Because we're so used to presidents being stodgy and formal and boring, and here's a guy who's having a good time.
For whatever reason, man, we have a right wing in this country that is increasingly embracing humor, silliness, irreverence, and just, like, edginess.
Just relax, you know?
It's like, calm down a bit, right?
Let's just chill.
It's funny.
It's kind of weird.
And I'll tell you what happened.
We all saw the meme.
We all had a good time.
And now for the more terrifying reality.
You see, Mediaite and many leftists verified on Twitter believe the photo was doctored.
Team Trump responded to the Washington Post by saying, Washington Post claims, without evidence, that real Donald Trump shared a doctored photo.
It's a joke!
Dude, the photo's not real.
The joke here Is that calling a meme doctored is a trope.
It's a meme in and of itself.
And saying without evidence is a meme the media likes to do as well.
It's this weird trope they do.
Where it's like, Donald Trump will say something like, you know, I heard that that dude over there is a bad guy.
And the news will say, Donald Trump says, comma, without evidence, comma, this guy is a bad guy.
As if everyone is always supposed to be holding a manila folder full of evidence for literally everything they're going to say.
So Team Trump made a joke.
Obviously the photo's not real.
They're mocking the Washington Post.
And if you go by the true definition, what's the Washington Post's proof?
That Trump was actually trying to trick somebody with a photo of his head on Rocky Balboa's body.
Now, here's the best part.
Not only did a bunch of leftists try claiming that Trump's team is trying to assert that it's a real photo, Mediaite tries to defend the logic of Washington Post being correct by claiming this.
I don't know what's going on.
They don't know what a joke is.
They don't know what a joke is.
Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Like, I gotta grab you by the shoulders and shake.
They don't know what a joke is.
I'm freaking out, man.
You know, I've talked about how the left doesn't know what jokes are.
And I know that for the most part, it's meant to be, like, a bit facetious, a bit hyperbolic.
And here I am.
I feel like I'm a crazy guy, shaking, holding up a sign, yelling, the end is nigh.
Because the left seriously doesn't know what a joke is.
They think everything is literal.
They get offended by everything.
That's why when, you know, South Park does a show, they're like, how dare you, South Park?
It's a joke.
It's not real.
It's a cartoon exaggeration meant to be humorous because it doesn't exist in the real world.
But they don't know.
Makes me scared.
Like, what is it that affects your brain that you can't tell the difference between a joke and a factual statement, right?
Look, if you work for a university, please, scientists, researchers, psychologists, psychiatrists, whatever, whatever you're doing, start taking notes.
We need to figure out why there are a group of people that literally don't know what a joke is.
But the official Team Trump Twitter account took exception to one such report by the Washington Post, headlined, Trump tweets doctored photo of his head on Sylvester Stallone's body.
Unclear why.
No, no, no, no, no.
Oh, that's what they responded to, yeah, because it says doctored photo, right.
They said Washington Post claims without evidence that real Donald Trump shared a doctored photo.
It's a joke.
They're making fun of the without evidence phrase.
They're not literally saying the photo is real!
The Team Trump-er's claim, however, is false.
No, it not!
What?
On the first count, though without evidence claim, the Post did provide evidence, if not ironclad proof.
The image appeared to have been taken from promotional materials for Rocky III, the article noted, which qualifies as evidence.
Okay, let's take their joke at face value.
Let's take their joke literally.
What evidence does the Washington Post have that Trump was intending to deceive anyone?
None.
Because you can't prove it.
That's really hard.
And I'm pretty sure, based on what the photo is, Trump's not trying to trick anybody!
I don't think Trump was thinking like, man, people are gonna think I'm ripped.
What?
No!
There was no intent to deceive.
Any sane human being would recognize that.
The second count, that the photo was doctored, requires a bit more explanation.
Some wiseacres on Twitter took the Trump campaign tweet as a claim that Trump actually does have the physique and costume of a young Stallone.
My first response is going to be like, maybe they do know and they're lying.
They're just lying because everything's got to be negative Trump, right?
No, I think they're really just mentally stunted.
I think they might have like really low... I'm not trying to be mean.
I mean this seriously.
I think what happens on the internet...
Is that really low IQ people will start bunching together because they easily believe fake things.
And you essentially have like a Pied Piper, you know, leading all of the really low IQ people like, Donald Trump is not Sylvester Stallone.
Meanwhile, independent thinkers, critical thinkers, professors, intellectual dark web, as well as Trump's base and some moderate leftists are sitting there going like, I thought for two seconds and I realized it's a joke.
Less than two seconds.
I saw it immediately and I said, what a funny joke from the president.
Here's what this person says.
MAGA morons appear to claim Trump's Rocky Balboa photo is real, silly MAGAs.
Wow.
Look how many likes it's got.
It's got 1,477 likes.
Look at this one.
I love getting to the verified ones.
I swear Team Trump watched High Castle and other Hitler-themed shows and decided, yes, this is how we run this, S, by gaslighting manipulation lives.
It's a picture of Trump as a boxing champion as Rocky Balboa.
If you believe that's real, It's your problem!
You should feel stupid.
Verified! I guess everyone was wrong.
That was an actual photo of Trump in the ring. He's in great shape.
I feel so stupid for thinking the photo was fake.
You should feel stupid.
This is the best one.
Trump campaign claims Dr. Trump Stallone photo was real.
Dude, man.
You know I'm laughing. I'm having a good time.
But I'm terrified inside.
I'm shaking, I'm getting anxiety, and I'm like, uh, this is the end, man.
Like, dude, if your population doesn't have the critical thinking ability to understand what a joke is, like, we're doomed.
It's over.
Like, these people are drones.
Seriously, it's like, they don't understand what a joke, they don't get it.
Like, this gets better.
Mediaite actually tries to debunk the joke.
That probably is what they meant.
But for the sake of argument and my word count, let's say they were making a technical point about the use of the word doctored.
Wait, you think they were actually claiming it's a real photo of Trump?
What is wrong with you?
Let's say they were making a technical point about the word doctored, which some have argued suggests the intent was to deceive people into believing the photo was an accurate representation of Trump's physique.
Yes, doctored means deception.
This is where things get complicated, of course.
Complicated because in order to prove the Washington Post wrong under those terms, Team Trump would need to provide evidence that the intent was other than deception.
What do you mean?
No, no, it's a picture of Trump as Rocky Balboa.
You gotta prove he was trying to trick you.
Wow.
Otherwise, the post is maybe wrong at worst, but maybe right as well.
Who can know what the intent was?
Well, you have to prove your claims.
If I'm going to say you're a liar, you gotta back up your claim.
Who can know what the intent was unless Trump called someone on the phone and said, no intent to deceive.
However, That argument is academic because that's not what the word doctored means according to Merriam-Webster.
Or rather, it's not all it means, and it's not even the first definition.
Well, if you Google it, it says, with deception, to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment.
Doctored the play to suit the audience.
The drink was doctored to alter deceptively.
Accused of doctoring the election returns.
The pitcher tried to cheat by doctoring the baseball.
Doctoring the baseball?
Is that really something?
That doesn't seem right.
Whatever.
Whatever, man.
I just... I don't even know.
I don't even know.
I just... I give up.
These people have no critical thinking ability.
So how do you expect them to vote?
If there was ever an argument for an authoritarian dictatorship, it would be this.
Although I... That's a joke, by the way.
You know, I was talking to someone the other day and I was like, When you look at things like this, it really makes you realize that having an authoritarian dictator who can tell the dumb people to shut up is a great idea, up until his son gets elected and his son's a moron and uses that power against you.
Therein lies the point.
That's why authoritarianism is bad.
But guess what?
Stupid people don't know that.
So it's no surprise that the people who don't know what a joke is are also simultaneously moral authoritarians who want to restrict speech and rights.
Welcome to 2019.
As we enter 2020, I hope you keep this in mind as you consider your elected representative, or your choice for such, moving forward.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment in just a few minutes.
Journalism died a long time ago.
Now, it's not a black or white claim.
It's not like there's no journalism anymore.
There's some great journalists.
There are people who are trying to inform you and break through the narrative to tell you what's actually going on.
They exist.
But as the industry expands, people know that political power lies in the ability to spread a message.
Advertisements are being blocked by Facebook, and thus they've figured out a way around that.
You see, Twitter, for instance, is going to ban political ads.
Well, here's an easier way to get around that.
See, all you have to do is make a fake news outlet that pushes left-wing talking points and buy ads for that fake outlet.
That way, the more people who read your content, you can manipulate them into believing your left-wing talking points.
As these media companies say we have to have restrictions on political ads and laws on political ads, these democratic operatives have figured out, let's just pretend to be journalists.
But guess what?
It wasn't created necessarily by the left.
It goes back a long time.
I do think the activist base for this alternative media tended to be left-wing, but we do see right-wing individuals claim to be journalists.
There are people who got started as political activists and realized there was more power and protection in claiming to be a journalist.
I'm not going to name anybody, but they exist on the right and the left as well.
But now we're seeing the more damaging aspect of this.
Bloomberg Businessweek.
The left's plan to slip vote-swinging news into Facebook feeds.
You mean fake news?
Is that what you're saying?
Oh no.
The stories are real.
But it's the framing devices and only showing you one side.
It's selective information.
Democratic strategist Tara McGowan's Courier Newsroom is out to counter the right-wing echo chamber with a dose of hyper-targeted hometown news.
See, the thing is, left-wing media has been collapsing.
These digital outlets like BuzzFeed, Vice, Vox, etc., they are failing.
Local media is also failing.
These local digital outlets can't compete because I'll tell you what, man.
Most people just go to the New York Times, they go to Wall Street Journal.
They're not going to go to, like, the Courier Post of Massachusetts or whatever.
As this hole emerges, there still is a demand for these local websites.
This individual right here, Tara McGowan, realized that you can't necessarily support a local newsroom.
It costs a lot of money.
What you can do, however, is create a national newsroom operating a ton of smaller local affiliates where you can save money, but also receive money.
I'm not going to accuse her of anything.
I'll be very careful.
But she's a political operative.
You can get tons of money.
Check it out.
Oh, I'm sorry, you can't make a donation to a certain organization above a certain amount?
Don't worry!
We're a news company!
Just give us all that money and we'll report the news!
And the news just so happens to support a political message.
Now here's the funny thing.
When I shared this, I said, as journalism dies, political operatives begin filling in those gaps claiming to be journalists.
And it was funny because there was a bunch of people like, what, I don't see you complaining about Sinclair buying up all these outlets.
I'm like, Sinclair's literally in the article, dude!
Like, did you read it?
The headline of the article is how the left is attempting to do this.
But yes, they talk about how Sinclair is conservative, to a degree, and how they bought up a ton of local outlets.
Yes, that's the point.
Political operatives, I don't care if they're on the left or the right, they all get how this works.
And now you have people who are journalists, who are actually just paper readers, script writers, and what they do is They show up for work, and they're like, I'm a journalist!
And they say, here's the script sent from D.C.
And they pick up and go, in today's news, the orange man is bad.
But how bad is the orange mad?
Next up, we'll be talking with a local expert about how bad the orange man is, but first, the orange man, the worst, or just almost the worst?
That's the game, right?
Now, admittedly, Sinclair is, for the most part, conservative, so you don't get that, right?
Well, we read this story and what's really fascinating about this, and I gotta be honest, I don't care to read too much about it.
They talk about how this woman worked for, I believe she worked for Obama.
They say she watched how a Democratic strategist watched all of this unfold, how the Republicans and the memes and everything.
You look at Elizabeth Warren trying to do the meme team, it doesn't work.
They say, she is the founder of Acronym, a non-profit digital strategy group that organizes progressives online to vote and volunteer.
Lately, she's gained notoriety for her outspoken criticism of her party's inability to challenge or even clearly comprehend Trump's dominance of the digital landscape and the threat it poses to Democrats' chances in 2020.
Facebook's decision to allow political ads with false information has only intensified her worry.
Here's the thing.
You know one of the biggest channels, the two biggest channels on Facebook, I think generally are Fox News and the Daily Wire.
I think the Daily Wire tends to be the biggest.
That's Ben Shapiro.
That's conservative.
Guess what?
Ben Shapiro will tell you outright he is Ben Shapiro.
He will tell you it's the Daily Wire.
He is running a media business and conservative commentary, and it is literally coming from him and his cohorts.
And when you see that, you know.
What she is doing is, I guess because you can't win on your merits, lying and creating fake websites that pretend to be local news to push left-wing talking points and convince you that their framing of the narrative is true.
Let me show you an example.
I bring you here to the Arizona Copper Courier.
Now, this is part of the Courier newsroom, and my understanding is that that is what she's selling, so we can see here.
Several months ago, without fanfare, McGowan launched the first of her newspapers, the Virginia Dogwood, your source for Virginia news.
The next, Arizona's Copper Courier, followed in early October, and the rest are scheduled to make their debuts sometime around year's end.
Well, for the time being, As many of you know, I use NewsGuard, a third-party rating agency, to determine the credibility of certain outlets.
NewsGuard is not perfect.
I disagree with them on many, many things.
But I like the idea of a third-party check on my own personal biases and what they've done.
You know, they give the Daily Wire a green check, a pass for being factual.
They give conservative outlets.
A lot of journalists were outraged when it turned out Fox News was credible.
So Newsguard's pretty good.
They're not perfect, but I like them.
And they are still in the process of reviewing Copper Courier.
If they come out...
And give a green checkmark, which I imagine they might.
I will be outraged.
Look at the top story here.
The Copper Courier.
Work.
Will American farms finally get help in solving their worker shortage?
Oh, what's this?
A narrative about worker shortages?
Oh, it's a pro-immigration story.
How about this one?
Immigration.
Politicians, dreamers, speak out against Trump's attacks on DACA.
Oh, the framing of the narrative as a pro-DACA.
Health.
Steep health care costs pushing Arizona seniors into financial hardship.
You see what they're doing?
Winslow's Holiday Parade honors veterans, country, and culture.
They sprinkle in some fact-based news and surround it by left-wing narratives.
Oh, a farmer shortage.
Let me tell you something.
ICE recently raided a bunch of chicken factories in the South, like processing plants.
And the argument has always been that only the illegal immigrants will work these jobs because Americans don't want them.
Well, after several hundred people were deported in like a single weekend or something, Guess what?
A bunch of Americans showed up for those jobs.
And some local reporters asked these people showing up, why are you here for the job fair?
And they said, because it pays better than fast food.
There it is.
There absolutely are Americans who want these jobs.
These jobs don't pay less than minimum wage.
They pay decently.
Not great, but decently.
So the problem we have now is that, while we do have record unemployment, that's great.
I wonder if there is a correlation between the massive amounts of deportations over the past couple administrations from Obama into Trump, with Trump restricting immigration.
It's down, legal immigration's way down.
I wonder if there's a correlation between unemployment and the fact that Trump is keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, and legal immigrants.
That means that there will be an increase in jobs, a decrease in immigrants, meaning those jobs gotta go to Americans.
Lo and behold, unemployment goes down.
It's a combination of the economy, the expansion of industry, the need for jobs, but also it's just basic math.
A lot of people try to claim that immigrants don't displace jobs.
They literally do.
It's impossible for them not to.
If we have 100,000 jobs this quarter or whatever, And we have a certain amount of people unemployed, but then you bring in immigrants.
I have nothing against immigrants.
I think we should be bringing in more immigrants, so I disagree with Trump to a certain degree.
I'm not an extremist on that, but Trump has dropped it by around 70%.
But when you bring in legal or illegal or otherwise, these people are then competing for those same jobs that were created.
If you keep the immigrants out, illegal or otherwise, you have 100,000 jobs, you have all those unemployed people, guess what?
You take what you can get.
So, look, man.
Let's get off the immigration thing.
I think for the most part, I'm of the traditional Democrat liberal position of legal immigration can be a great thing for this country.
Diversity in the sense that there are people who want to live the American dream, believe in America, come here but bring a different perspective is a good thing.
But what we're getting now is leftism, where they're like, decriminalize border crossings, allow everyone to come, and it's unsustainable.
But I digress.
I don't want to get into all that.
The point is, we have a serious problem.
A very serious problem.
And it's scary to me that Bloomberg is writing the story as a positive.
This should be a smear against this woman.
Look, I get it.
She's smart.
She's doing what she's doing to win politically, and more power to her.
I respect that.
I think she's very, very smart.
But I think what she is doing is poisoning the news industry.
I have no interest in helping anyone win or lose, for the most part.
You know who I like and will probably vote for, and I tell you this not because I want to support Tulsi or Yang, because I want you to vote for them.
I'm just telling you how I feel, okay?
I understand it's good for them, to an extent, but it's part of me doing honest commentary, to the best of my ability.
Trying to say, here's what I think and here's why.
I am not interested in endorsing people and campaigning for people and trying to convince you to vote.
None of that.
That's what she and others bring to media, and it's dangerous.
We know the media is biased.
We don't need fake news outlets pretending to be local news outlets to spread this information.
We know she's faking it.
We know what they're doing.
NewsGuard better give them a straight X across the board and say the goal of this site and their other sites is to trick you into voting the way they want you to vote.
We're doomed, man.
I'll tell you what, we're doomed.
This is the future of media.
Because politics is power, and people know it.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Because millennials are losers, Vice knows they will get some clicks if they give millennials a reason to blame boomers for all their problems.
See, what they're saying is that around the same age when boomers were from 25 to 43, they owned 20% of the country's wealth.
But millennials, around the same age, own only 3%.
Never mind their data is off and is broken, let's take into consideration that, you know what, let me stop.
It actually is Boomer's fault.
I mean, Boomers raised millennials for the most part, but it's not an issue of boomers, uh, millennials being angry that they don't own the wealth.
The problem isn't that the system is rigged against millennials.
The problem is that boomers raise millennials to be whiny losers who don't go and build things.
Listen, man.
I get it.
I think we need student loan forgiveness to some degree.
That does not mean a wipe of everyone's debt.
I think it means eliminating interest rates, make everyone pay on the principal starting now.
But that's my general idea.
You gotta pay back the money you spent, but maybe we can get rid of the interest rates.
Listen.
Millennials were tricked into going to college.
You don't need it.
It was a waste of time.
It taught you nothing.
And it's fueled this ridiculous machine of ever-increasing prices, college textbooks.
It is a bubble.
It will burst.
It is bad across the board.
It has stunted millennials.
So I'll tell you what.
You wanna be mad at boomers, be mad they kept screeching, go to college, cause they were wrong.
I was fortunate enough to know they were wrong and didn't go.
And it's been great, you know why?
Because I didn't go to college.
I spent those years, actually I jumped out of high school at like a young age, but I spent all those years doing my own thing, building my own skills, observing, learning, traveling.
And I had no debt.
So when I needed something, I had to figure out how to get it.
Get a job.
Make some money.
Yes, that's what I would do.
I even used to play guitar in the subway in Chicago a little bit.
That's actually really good money.
The best money I've ever made outside of, you know, doing successful media stuff.
Career-wise, I've worked for non-profits, but the most hourly was when I would play guitar out in front of Wrigley Field in Chicago.
So you know what happened?
While all my friends were in college, being told what to do, and burning through debt and all this money, I picked up my guitar and said, I know how to play a bunch of songs.
Me and my friend would go stand out by Wrigley, and we would play Top 40s.
And we had, like, people would come out all drunk and happy, and we'd play some Neil Young and some CCR, and they would just start singing and cheering with their, you know, all drunk and like, yeah!
And they're just throwing money at us!
Because we were problem solvers.
Because we were broke, but we knew Why don't we go jam?
Why don't we figure out what needs to be done to earn that sweet, sweet green?
Meanwhile, the kids I knew in college were just burning through money partying, and when they graduated they were like, oh no, heaven's me!
So listen, I get it.
College is a problem.
But here, Vice is trying to argue that Millennials are angry they don't own wealth.
Here's what they say.
Back in 1989, when boomers were between 25 and 43, they already owned 20.9% of the country's wealth, according to data from the Federal Reserve, updated earlier this month.
In 2019, Millennials are between 23 and 38, and they currently own a whopping 3.2% of wealth.
23 and 38 and they currently own a whopping 3.2% of wealth.
Well, hold on first your math is wrong a
It's possible that from 38 to 43 is when most people start acquiring wealth.
Maybe it's because your parents are dying, like, you know, heaven forbid, but people's parents might be, you know, coming to that age where they're passing away, you're receiving an inheritance maybe from your grandparents, things like that.
There's a lot of reasons why that five-year gap could explain a huge jump in wealth.
But it's also more important to point out that millennials aren't building anything.
Yes.
If you want wealth, you gotta make it, man.
It isn't just a peer out of nowhere.
And so it's no surprising that these people who haven't built anything are demanding they take something from somebody else, because millennials tend to be socialists, or at least to a greater degree.
I think it's less than half, but still, that's a lot of people.
Boomers raised millennials to spend someone else's money to go to college, to be told what to do, and then when they graduate, they are worthless to a labor market.
You know who makes money right now?
I don't know, construction workers, plumbers, contractors.
Man, I tried building a miniramp in my backyard.
It was so insanely difficult because everybody I called was overbooked.
I'm like, these people are making literally as much money as possible.
So I started to say, okay, well, what if I paid you more?
And they'd say, sorry, we're already overbooked for eight months.
Your feminist dance class has made you ineligible for the labor market.
But no, I'm joking on that, right?
The reality is, most of these people are graduating with degrees, but they're still worthless.
Let me tell you something, man.
You want to be mad at boomers, be mad about college.
Millennials are screwed over because they don't know anything.
I'll tell you a story.
I'll make this as vague as possible.
I knew a buddy who ran a business, and he thought that in order to expand his company, he needed some people who were at least college grads.
He was concerned that people who were high school graduates just wouldn't have the general social understanding and the business acumen, I suppose, to work in this environment.
Turns out, they couldn't solve any problems, and every time a problem emerged, he'd get a phone call and a complaint, and he's like, I'm in a meeting, I can't deal with this, do your job!
So he had to fire him.
Then he decided, OK, I fired those two people.
I've got to hire two more.
Same thing he did.
He said, minimum bachelor's degree required.
Here's the job.
Same exact problem.
These college grads came in saying, I have a salary demand because I've got to pay back my student loans.
And he said, that's fine.
And then they said, OK, we'll take the job.
He gave them the job.
And sure enough, every single time a problem happened, they would call saying, what do I do?
And he said, I don't know.
I hired you to do this job.
If I knew how to do it, I wouldn't have hired you.
I'm like, imagine if you hired a plumber, and they showed up and said, okay, so how do I fix that pipe?
I don't know, dude, you're the plumber!
Okay, if I knew how to do it, I wouldn't have called you!
So here's what ends up happening.
He fires these people, now he's broke.
He's wasted so much money, they haven't gotten the job done, so he just put, no college required.
He ends up hiring a couple of high school graduates.
And it turns out these people moved to California to become famous actors.
And he was worried they were going to be, you know, narcissistic, nihilistic, egotistical.
But they never called it a complaint.
There was never a problem.
And he started getting worried, like, they're not calling me about any issues.
And they'd always be like, don't worry boss, we'll take care of it.
And he'd say, but there were no problems?
Oh, there were, we figured it out.
You know, one client had this problem and we just, we worked through it.
These kids who didn't go to college, Decided for themselves, I have a problem, here's how I solve it.
They wanted to be actors, so they moved to Los Angeles with no college saying, I am going to figure it out.
Just like that.
No one told them what to do, they chose for themselves.
And so what he realized was, these other people with college degrees, their whole lives were told what to do.
So when a problem arose, they'd look around saying, is someone going to tell me how to fix this?
No, no one will.
You have to solve your own problem.
But these young people who moved to California to be actors were like, I'll figure it out, don't worry about it.
And they were of the mentality, it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Which is a good thing in many ways and bad in many others.
But I tell you what, when you want to run a business, the last thing you want is someone being like, so what do I do?
So what do I do?
I've hired people with college degrees.
Master's and otherwise.
And I find this to be typically true.
That they've spent their entire lives institutionalized, where there was always an authority saying, here's how you have to do the job.
We have an exam.
Here's your key to tell you how to do the exam.
Well, in the real world, when it comes to business and generating wealth, that doesn't exist.
If you want to build a mini-ramp, guess what?
Figure it out.
The first ramp we built, we just kind of strung it together.
I was like, here's what it's supposed to look like.
And it wasn't that great, but hey, it kind of worked.
I had some fun, but it fell apart.
It fell apart because of weathering, not because we built it wrong.
We actually built it pretty okay.
Wasn't the best ramp in the world, but it was doable.
I then contacted a better company, and we upgraded from there.
The point is, You wanna know why these millennials don't have wealth?
It's because they're sitting on their hands saying, but why won't someone do it for me?
Well, along comes Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and otherwise, presenting these far-left policies that won't solve any problems.
I tell you this.
Millennials, you have no wealth.
Vice says you have reason to be angry at boomers because of that.
Yeah, because they led you astray, not because they owned wealth when you didn't.
But what do you think happens when you take people who think they deserve that wealth, like Vice is posturing here?
What do you think when you take those people, put them in the voting booth?
They vote to take wealth from others, but who is making new wealth?
Nobody.
Now, why did the boomers own the country's wealth?
Is it possible that they created some of it?
Not all of them.
I think you go back in time, you'll find a lot more people creating things.
How many millennials have built a house?
Programmed a video game?
Drawn a picture?
I know a lot have.
It's not like millennials are doing nothing, but there's a lot of millennials who literally do nothing.
They go to college for, like, what?
Crypto-Marxist feminist dance.
And then it's like, what are you supposed to do with this?
Okay?
When you go to school, you get these degrees, it's fantastic that you learned about colonization or whatever, but is that going to help you build a fence?
What can you do that someone will want and pay you for?
Sorry, college doesn't give you that.
More importantly, why are you so focused on working for someone else?
You know what, man?
Everybody?
I get all these emails from people saying they want to work with me.
Just do your thing!
Start!
It's not like I just like... What do you think I did?
I've been doing my own thing.
That's all I do.
And where I am today is literally due to me being like, I do exactly what I want to do, no matter what.
And if that means I'll end up sleeping in the gutter, hey, it's happened before.
And I'm going to keep doing my thing.
Now there are some people who don't want to do that, that's fine.
You want to get your paid time off, you want to make your salary, that's fine too.
But I tell you what, if you want someone to hire you, they're not going to hire you if you're sitting there saying, what do I do?
I don't know how to do this.
How do I solve this problem?
Because if I know how to do it, I ain't going to hire you.
One of the biggest challenges right now, and I tell you this man, in the YouTube industry, here's the secret.
I've talked to some big YouTubers, and this rings true for myself as well.
Why don't we just hire people to produce and edit for us?
And the reality is, the average person can't do it.
They can't.
They don't know how to do it.
So I'm not going to hire someone who's going to be like, so what do I do?
Dude, I'm sorry man, I can't tell you.
If you don't know how to do the job, why would I hire you?
What ends up happening then is so few people know how to do these systems, how to run YouTube channels, run social media, how to graphic design and video edit, that they end up just doing it for themselves.
It's like, dude, if I know how to do everything to make a documentary, why am I going to hire you to do it?
I'm not.
I'm just going to do it myself.
More importantly.
Most people I've worked with have always come down to the, just tell me what I should be doing.
No, no, no, no, no.
If I hire you, it's so that you go do what needs to be done.
So you want to talk about why millennials should be mad?
Here's a quote.
I definitely think millennials have a bunch to be uniquely annoyed about, said Josh Bivens, research director at the Economic Policy Institute.
Lots of them graduated into a horrible labor market, and they've probably been very stunted in their ability to get on the treadmill of earning enough to actually save anything.
I don't care about the labor market.
I don't.
You know what?
I gotta be honest.
It's kind of an excuse.
Now, not completely.
I feel for people who did get legitimate degrees, like, you know, STEM fields and stuff, and then the market tanked because of banking and housing and things like that, but I tell you what...
You should never rely on someone else's industry to support you.
You should never be sitting there thinking, whose pile of gold can I climb up?
You should be thinking, can I build my own pile of gold?
And I'll tell you this right now.
I will tell you a secret.
If you're sitting there on your hands, not knowing what to do, go out in your front yard.
Find a stick.
I mean this seriously.
Find a stick.
A big one, okay?
Not too dangerous.
Don't go too far in the woods.
Go to the woods.
Find a big stick.
Go to a dollar store.
Ask someone to lend you a dollar to buy a knife.
And start shaping that stick into a little boat.
Or into anything.
A little man.
Give it a face.
Guess what?
You can then sell that for five dollars.
I assure you, if you take that little stick figure and bring it downtown somewhere or to the market and say, I'm selling this little figurine I made, someone will be like, ooh, I'll buy that.
That's cool.
Congratulations.
You found a stick that belonged to nobody.
Someone lent you that dollar.
I understand you got to get the dollar.
That's fine.
I don't think it's too hard to get that butter knife.
You can go to a thrift store and tell them you're broke and with this knife you can whittle something to sell.
And maybe they'll spot you.
Because you do need a little bit of that help.
That's why I tend to be someone on the left.
I recognize that.
I recognize as a community we're gonna be like, I'm gonna hook you up and get you a little carving knife.
And congratulations.
You have, from nothing, created wealth.
That stick was worthless.
You applied an abstract concept to it.
Congratulations, it is now valuable.
Not the most valuable thing in the world, but you've created art.
And a lot of people might say, I really would like to have that.
It looks cool.
I don't know how to do that.
I don't have the time to do that.
But you did it, so I'll give you five bucks.
And then someone might eventually say ten bucks.
Guess what?
A year from now, you will have a chess board of all the little figurines you made, all the little sets, and then you're gonna have some people being like, this is an incredible piece of work.
Not only then, not only have you become an expert at carving wood into shapes, You've expanded into sealing them with epoxies and polishing them and you've made custom chess boards and custom, you know, horse figures and statues and designs.
You built something from nothing.
You created value and created wealth.
And then you will see that number go up.
But if you spend your whole life saying, why don't I have what they have?
