Moderate Democrats Face OUTRAGE From Constituents Over Impeachment, Democrats Are QUITTING The Party
Moderate Democrats Face OUTRAGE From Constituents Over Impeachment, Democrats Are QUITTING The Party. A moderate democrat came home for thanksgiving to outrage and anger over her support for Impeachment. She even had the nerve to call this a "1776 fight" for the soul of our democracy.We all expected the impeachment backlash in moderate districts. These are places where Trump won nationally but Democrats won in 2018. They campaigned on health care, taxes, the economy but instead got right to "orange man bad" once in office. Naturally their constituents are not too happy.Meanwhile we are seeing Democrats defect from the democratic party either becoming independent or joining the republican party over the far left push of the democrats.It was a bad play and we all knew it. The Far left push has cost Elizabeth warren the top spot among 2020 democrats with moderates like Joe Biden and Now Pete Buttigieg either holding the top spot or gaining significantly in the polls.Suffice it to say orange man bad and far left policies are not winning for the democrats.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
CNN ran the story, you can forget about the predicted political backlash against Democrats for impeachment.
November 28th, about 11 days ago, they said there's not going to be a backlash.
Well, we've seen polls showing that independents are turning against impeachment.
But let's talk about what a real backlash is, because I'm sorry to say, CNN, your opinion piece was wrong.
Check out this story from Politico magazine.
That's right.
As predicted.
Now look, this is not surprising.
impeachment blew up. Moderate Democrat Mickey Sherrill returned to her district and a wave
of anger. That's right, as predicted. Now look, this is not surprising. I mean, we knew
the moderates ran on taxes, health care, the economy, and then the first thing they do
when they get to Washington, okay, not the first thing, but they get to Washington and
then all of a sudden they're playing the orange man bad game.
And that's why the moderates resisted this for so long.
But lo and behold, Democrats are defecting.
I'm not exaggerating.
We're going to read this story.
But a New Mexico Democrat has just flipped to Republican because of the far-left views.
A state senator Democrat and PA has flipped to Independent because of the far-left views.
And Elizabeth Warren is tanking in the polls over her push for Medicare for All.
And guess who's on the rise?
Pete Buttigieg.
Yeah, the moderate, along with frontrunner Joe Biden.
I'm sorry to say your far left and orange man bad narratives have failed.
This is the backlash.
And listen, man, I've said it time and time again.
You are reaching for moderate voters because they can choose Republicans if you abandon them.
And I'm shocked to see, well, actually, I'm not shocked to see a New Mexico Democrat flipping a Republican.
You know what?
Let's read this story from Politico magazine about the backlash the moderates are facing and why they very well may be voted out come 2020 from Politico magazine.
Before we get started though, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
You guys are my marketing team.
I don't spend money on ads.
You know, in order for me to grow and continue doing what I do, if you share this video, that's how I compete with billboard ads.
And let's be honest, CNN's in every airport and every hotel lobby.
That's tough competition.
Whether or not it's legitimate viewership, hey, let's combat that, and you can help out by sharing the video.
But let's read the story.
They say, one of Representative Mickey Sherrill's district directors began the town hall in a filled community center Monday night with her customary call for civility.
Much respect to that.
Hanover Township Boy Scout Troop 155 led the crowd in the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance.
An elementary school teacher sang a rousing national anthem.
Everybody clapped and then sat down together in rows and rows of plastic folding chairs.
Then came the first question.
And could you guess what that question was?
Quote, we sent you to Washington, Oman began, to get work done for us and for our country.
And it appears that for the last couple years, all that has been going on is investigations.
Sitting in the front, I could almost feel people's shoulders tense up.
Everybody knew what was coming.
The toe-headed scouts had filed to the back.
The adults had the floor now.
And impeachment was in the air.
Quote, we honestly, Oman continued, can't trust Adam Schiff.
She was drowned out by a wall of noise.
The space rippled with a mixture of boos and cheers and uncorked angst.
This was Cheryl's first town hall since the late September start of the formal impeachment inquiry directed at President Donald Trump, triggered in part by her.
When the new Democratic congressman from the state's 11th district, a mostly suburban Republican stronghold, joined six other moderate freshman members with national security backgrounds and called for impeachment hearings in an op-ed in the Washington Post.
Quote, we do not, they wrote, arrive at this conclusion lightly.
I don't trust you.
I don't believe you or any other moderate, okay?
Because I've been following this non-stop.
I have been tracking the scandals, the news, and talking about them every single day.
And I will tell you, there was not enough evidence to warrant any of this.
It is political posturing.
It was an attempt to win.
And that's why it was smart for moderates to resist.
Because I'll tell you what, Even if what Donald Trump did rose to that level beyond, say, inappropriate or tactless, the Democrats have been pushing for impeachment non-stop.
So we knew it was only a matter of time until they tricked people like you into saying, this is the one.
And what's happened so far?
Nothing.
Oh, the Democrats had their great Gordon Sondland moment when he said there was a quid pro quo and then later testified, but he presumed there was one.
Fine.
It was good for Democrats.
He said some bad things about Trump.
And then he was, dare I say it, credibly accused by multiple women of impropriety.
So, so what?
Are you going to take his word for it now?
ProPublica published that piece saying he did several, excuse me, adult things that I can't talk about because this is a family-friendly news program to an extent, okay?
So now his testimony's in question, because he's not credible.
Some people think the only reason he flipped on Trump was because they had that story on him.
I'm not gonna allege any conspiracies, but the dude clearly is not credible.
If he's going around abusing women or not, I'm not gonna trust it, sorry.
And this is the game you played, and now you reap what you sow.
Politico goes on.
Cheryl, after all, had spent months during the Mueller investigation towing an increasingly tenuous line, urging caution and preaching patience.
But the first rounds of reporting about the Ukraine scandal she believed had left her no choice but to change her mind.
I don't buy it.
This impeachment process, she told me tearfully in her office on Capitol Hill, was a 1776 kind of fight.
A fight potentially for the continued existence of the democracy.
She also said she knew she must explain clearly and carefully to her constituents why this extreme constitutional remedy had become a necessity.
And you know what?
You were wrong.
You were wrong, okay?
You know what this is?
The Democrats have no strategy for 2020.
The polls show Trump is going to win.
And this was all they could muster.
And I'll say, at the very worst case scenario, you knew this was a scam.
Best case?
You're just ignorant.
And walked right into the Democrats' silly trap.
And guess who is going to be left holding the bag?
The moderates.
Now hold on, I know.
You can hear that righteous indignation.
It's still possible Democrats win.
Because the reality is, Even though independents are turning against impeachment, support following the Ukraine scandal among independents for impeaching the president is actually up.
Now, it's flipped with most independents opposing impeachment, but the Democrats still made their gains.
We will see how this fight plays out.
I think.
And I'll tell you the reason why I'm frustrated and angry with this is because we know they're playing politics.
And they will tell you it's a 1776 kind of fight.
Okay, Alex Jones.
Please.
No, it isn't.
Trump made a phone call complaining about corruption.
You can argue the president is wrong.
You can argue he's a conspiracy theorist.
But he's the president.
He has a right to do these things, okay?
He's asking for an investigation.
They injected the political nature of it.
Now I will stop and say this.
I still... I'm not trying to act like I know everything and I'm 100% right.
I'm saying based off what we've seen so far, it is meritless.
There's gonna be some more hearings apparently, maybe there will be some evidence, I don't know.
The possibility is always there.
But for the time being, it sounds like this was a...
You know, the moderates got roped in.
And I'll tell you why.
You know, I'll tell you why.
Because we know that the far left ain't working.
The moderates are being dragged down because the far left is failing.
And this is what you get.
So this is what we see.
You know, you get the point, right?
It was a mixed bag at this town hall.
Some people were angry.
Some people... Well, everybody was apparently angry.
But not everybody opposed impeachment.
But here's a very interesting quote.
Let me read this for you.
So here she was, two months later, barely more than a year after she was elected, in a right-leaning part of her district, miked up, dressed in red shoes and a blue blazer, standing in front of a colossal American flag, explaining, quote, So as most of you know here, I did not run for office to impeach the president.
I ran on taxes and healthcare and infrastructure.
She told the more than 250 people on hand.
However, as somebody who spent her life working on issues of national security, as someone who spent her life working with foreign governments and our allies across the world, the president crossed a line for me when it seemed as if he had withheld critical military funding from a security partner because he wanted them to investigate an opponent of his in an election.
So many assumptions right there.
Let me stop you.
It seemed like it?
Okay, well, you didn't know.
And all you've done is angered everybody and stopped working on taxes, infrastructure, and healthcare because it seemed like he maybe did something.
But then you went ahead and injected an opponent of his in an election.
Really?
That's how you're playing it?
Oh, but because Biden is running for office, he's exempt from criminal investigations.
No, that doesn't fly.
I'm sorry.
Now, I think it's fine if you want to call in some people to testify behind closed doors.
It's complicated.
And then, you know, if you weren't going to be leaking selective information.
If Congress wants to get to the bottom of something they're concerned about, fine.
What did we learn?
Presumption.
Assumption.
Not a whole lot.
And because it seemed like Trump did something, she stopped working on national security and taxes and healthcare and infrastructure.
Now, I'm being hyperbolic, right?
I should probably stop working on everything.
But all we've gotten so far from the Democrats has been investigation, investigation, investigation, and that's why I'm frustrated.
Because it's like, dude, the first time I was like, alright, you know, let's see what's going on.
There's some accusations against Trump.
Hey, how about that?
Second time I'm like, okay, well, you know, we should still reserve, you know, some, some, you know, of our belief.
It may be that evidence comes out.
And I'm just like, you know what, dude, you've cried wolf too many times.
I don't care.
And then you get people on the left saying, yes, but the story of the boy who cried wolf is that eventually there was a wolf and no one believed him.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So even if now there came out some evidence, people would be like, I don't want to hear it.
I don't care anymore.
Now for me, I just don't believe it, but I'll tell you what.
Let's move on from this, okay?
Cheryl did go on to talk about other things she was doing.
This is not the first time we've heard about a backlash with the moderate Democrats.
It's happened before.
Protests out in front of their offices.
But the real issue here is the desperate play of Democrats to try and hold things together.
The far left is slowly taking over.
They're fractured.
The moderates... These moderate Democrats are in districts Donald Trump won.
And that shows you who these people are.
They're middle-of-the-road people.
Well now we have what was rather shocking to me.
A New Mexico commissioner switches from Democrat to Republican over far-left views.
This is from the Epoch Times.
They say.
A Democratic Commissioner in New Mexico says she's switching to the GOP because the Democratic Party's far-left views on abortion and other issues.
I've been a Democrat my entire adult life, so this is not a decision I take lightly.
But the truth is, the modern Democrat Party does not share the New Mexico values that I hold to.
Isabel Solis, who holds a seat on the Doña Ana County Commission, said in a statement sent to the Las Cruces Sun-News, As someone who believes in the sanctity of life, pro-growth economic policies, secure borders and fiscal responsibility, I no longer feel there is a home for me in my former party that has embraced far-left views on these issues.
Solis, a vice-chair on the commission and a recent Las Cruces mayoral candidate, is in her first term.
She said she's not sure if she'll run for re-election.
Only Deborah Hathaway has announced her candidacy for the seat so far.
Hathaway, a Democrat, told The Sun News she didn't agree with Solis on the modern Democratic Party.
Quote, I believe that we have a very big umbrella.
We have space enough for people to have different ideas.
I think if we keep it that way, we can have a lot of Democrats with a lot of different ideas.
Well, I'll tell you what happened.
You see?
For the longest time, there is a far left in this country.
There's certainly a far right as well.
But these groups are not represented by any major political party because most Americans are in the middle, not the fringes.
The Democrats were weak.
They faltered and they fell apart.
Donald Trump shifted the party a little bit to the left.
That's right.
Believe it or not, the New York Times data shows, based on the metrics they've supplied having to do with the language and the policies, a little bit to the left on some issues.
Notably that Donald Trump was the first president to support gay marriage before becoming president.
I'm not saying he's good on LGBT rights, but he is a little bit better than those who came before him before entering office.
That being said, The Democrats couldn't hold the center.
And they started seeing primary attacks.
People, you know, like Ocasio-Cortez and the squad, targeting moderate Democrats through primary elections because they knew, in these districts, people will just vote blue.
If they could muster a little bit of support, they could undermine the moderate Democratic Party.
And now because of this, the party is split between those who are not Democrats who want in, people like Bernie Sanders and his followers.
Bernie's an independent, but he knows the Democratic Party is the only pathway in.
And those who know that this is their chance to take over.
And because of that, we see impeachment.
We see them desperately trying to say, OK, fine.
You know, Ocasio-Cortez said it was a big scandal.
The Democrats wouldn't impeach.
And sure enough, the moderates get roped in.
So is it surprising at all to see a Democrat saying they're switching to Republican?
No!
Because so many Democrats did that in 2016.
Now for an elected official to be like, you know what?
I'm out.
Yeah, it's kind of surprising, but not really in the end.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot more of this.
People leaving the Democratic Party.
Donald Trump got elected partly because people left the Democratic Party.
There are a couple stories.
One I highlighted just a couple days ago about Rust Belt voters who were two-time Obama supporters who voted for Trump.
There's another story from Wisconsin who has really soured on impeachment.
And there was an older woman they interviewed who was a lifelong Democrat flipped for Trump.
This is not new.
And you know what?
It's not the first time we've heard something like this.
Check this out.
November 20th.
Democratic state senator in Pennsylvania to become independent over increasingly liberal party.
As I pointed out when this story came out, please don't say liberal.
Liberal would mean increasingly free-loving, which is not the case among the Democrats.
No, they're becoming increasingly authoritarian and progressive.
The far left is failing.
And you know what?
The moderates might strike back.
So I did cover this.
And I always want to mention, I believe it was Justin Amash who went independent, left the Republicans.
It's not like it's a one-way street.
There's definitely political turmoil in this country.
But for the sake of this conversation, you know, I'll make sure I mention him.
And say that there are definitely people defecting from the Republicans.
There are never Trumpers.
In fact, never Trumpers came around the exact same time that Trump won.
So you have defectors from both sides.
However, Donald Trump's support among the current Republican Party is at like 93%, or 89 or 7, depending on which poll you look at.
Democrats are split six ways from Sunday.
Check this out.
Axios.
Moderate muscle rises against Dems' 2020 left.
Here's what happened.
Elizabeth Warren is tanking in the polls.
They say poll after poll shows voters like the idea of Medicare for All, but the second you tell them about the costs and the trade-offs, they turn on it.
Yes, that makes sense.
Imagine if I went to you and said, I got a 40-inch TV.
How would you like that?
You're like, 40-inch?
Not too big, medium-sized.
That's pretty good.
I'll take it.
And then I said, that'll cost you $500.
And you're like, I don't know about $500.
What if I said I had an 80-inch TV?
Now we're talking!
Whoa, 80 inches?
That's awesome.
That's huge!
I'd love to have an 80-inch TV.
Well, that one's going to cost you several thousand dollars, about $4,000.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Let's go back to the cheap TV, OK?
Because here's what happens.
We have Obamacare.
It's not perfect.
There's a lot of problems with it.
But some people are happy with it.
They know the cost.
They know the problems.
They want those problems fixed.
The left comes along and says, how about we just give you everything you've ever wanted?
Hey, that sounds great.
If I promised you an 80-inch TV, it sounds way better than that medium-sized one, right?
Until you find out it costs way too much.
That makes total sense.
Now here's the amazing thing.
Check this out.
For one, I want to show you this story from Newsweek.
Elizabeth Warren tanks from first to third.
Biggest drop for any Democratic candidate.
And it's, you know, conveniently around the time she's been pushing that Medicare-for-all-tax-the-rich plan, right?
Well, let's look at the aggregate.
I don't like looking at, you know, any one poll.
For the most part, I'll make some exceptions.
Here we can see from the RealClearPolitics average, Elizabeth Warren has been in kind of a free fall.
I mean, she's been falling from a peak of around 26.6, just 0.2 above Joe Biden, and that's when it all started crumbling.
Pete Buttigieg is skyrocketing in the polls from around 8.
Now, in the aggregate, Elizabeth Warren has fallen to third place from first.
That's true.
Pete Buttigieg is not above her, but in some polls, he actually is.
Now, I love how these polls always exclude Bernie Sanders.
You can't count him out, guys.
I know the media doesn't like to mention him.
They say, Sanders versus Warren.
Well, hold on!
Bernie Sanders has been above Warren and back and forth with her.
Bernie's in the race, and Bernie very well might take it.
But I'll tell you who won't take it!
To wrap up this video, for one, let me go back to those beginning points and just tell you, there will be more backlash.
There will be more angry moderates in these moderate Democrat districts, and I think they're going to vote them out.
We'll see what happens, okay?
I was wrong about 2018 with the blue wave.
I was wrong about that, okay?
So it's possible they win.
And maybe I'm just wrong all the time.
Hey, you should definitely watch other people's content too, not just mine.
But here's what I think.
I think impeachment has soured a lot of these moderate districts.
They're going to come out for Trump.
Trump's support is higher today, his favorability is higher today than when he was elected.
His base is larger.
He's raising record amounts of money.
The GOP is raising substantially more money than Democrats.
I think, based on these people defecting from the Democratic Party, yeah, we're going to see it.
Now let me close this out for you.
Cory Booker Super PAC shuts down after raising only $1.1 million of a $10 million goal.
Kamala Harris' 2020 campaign is falling apart from the inside.
Ex-Kamala Harris campaign aide signs up with Bloomberg.
So we can see, you know, Cory's a fairly moderate guy, Kamala Harris is too, but they're the corporate crony, stodgy plastic.
You know, I'll admit, I like Cory Booker.
Like, on a scale of 1 to 10, I give him a 6.
He's just above me not liking him.
Now, a 4 is me saying, I don't like you.
A 6 is saying, yeah, you're alright.
That guy's okay, right?
The problem with Booker is that he's plastic.
Kamala Harris, I think, is evil.
I mean, she locked up innocent people and kept them in prison for cheap labor.
There's a lot wrong with Kamala Harris.
Laughing at the idea of locking up single mothers.
I am glad she is falling apart.
And I would like to credit Tulsi Gabbard for being a key role in knocking her down a few pegs in that Democratic debate.
It was wonderful.
Cory Booker is just too generic.
I think he's okay because I've seen some candid videos of him where he really put down some baiting.
People were attempting to bait him into far-left positions and he's like, get out of here, you know?
And I'm like, I respect that.
And he talked about wealth creation on the debate stage.
Thank you!
I really respect that.
But, look man, Cory, I think you're an okay dude.
I don't like you that much, you know?
So in the end, look, I'll tell you what.
If the Democrats want to win, you gotta take a look at what the polls are telling you.
And the polls are telling you over and over and over again, moderate wins.
Because you are polling from a pool that can choose the right or the left.
You go far left, you're gonna lose the middle.
And they're gonna vote for Trump.
That's why I think these moderate Democrats are in trouble.
You combine Elizabeth Warren's fall, the rise of Buttigieg, the stable platform of Joe Biden, the stable polling, you combine that with the anger Seen at these town halls.
This is not the first time this has happened.
There were other moderate Democrats who saw protests and anger for supporting impeachment.
I assure you, if people keep pushing either, we're going to investigate, not get anything done, and if we do get something done, it's going to be about far-left nonsense, I assure you, the Democrats will collapse.
They're spread too thin.
Oh sure, it's a big umbrella, they said.
It's a big umbrella that's falling apart.
The woman in New Mexico, it's a big umbrella.
We have a lot of people with different ideas.
Yeah, and no one's unified around anything, so you're all fighting with each other.
And you're accusing everybody of being not a Democrat.
I'll tell you what, man.
I would most likely fall in a moderate Democrat camp, which is why you can tell what my opinions are.
Why am I angry at the Democrats?
For the same reason the other moderates are.
Because they tell you they're going to give you all these nice things, and then they go to D.C.
and start ranting about the Orange Man being a threat to our democracy.
Alex Jones goes on Piers Morgan and yells, 1776 will rise again!
It's like, I get it, it's showmanship, okay?
He puts on a show, he gets people all riled up and entertained.
Is that what you're trying to do?
You really think that I am going to believe you when you say that Donald Trump's phone call rose to the level of an existential threat to our nation while China is locking up people in concentration camps and Hong Kong is in a fight for its life?
You know what, man?
North Korea just filed a projectile And you're sitting here talking about Trump's phone call?
No, I don't buy it.
Alright?
Here's what I want done.
Yeah, I want Medicare.
I want medical problems solved.
Costs need to come down.
We need to figure out how we can help people to get access to healthcare.
We need to figure out how we stop people's lives from being destroyed just because they got hurt or sick one time.
Yeah, I don't know how we solve these problems because the reality is healthcare is a commodity, okay?
You can't guarantee everyone gets access to the latest technology or the latest treatments.
But we can do something different when it comes to healthcare compared to how the rest of the market works.
I don't know all the answers.
You know I lean a little left on these issues.
Which is why I'm so angry with the Democrats.
Look man, I'll say it because I've said it before.
I made a half an hour video praising Ocasio-Cortez when she got elected.
And then she went nuts.
I went through her list of, like, her main campaign issues, and I'm like, I agree with, like, half of them, you know?
And I'm glad she ousted these incumbent do-nothings, you know, do-nothing Democrats.
And now where are we?
She's lost it.
I don't even know what she's doing anymore.
She's flip-flopping on impeachment.
Now she's four.
I don't even know.
Where are the moderates, the sane, rational people who are going to say, listen, I'm not going to play these investigation games.
I won't do it.
Here's what a moderate should have said.
Here's what she should have said.
I'm not going to support impeachment.
OK?
Like Jeff Van Drew in New York Second.
He said, no.
The people don't want this.
And it gets nothing done.
And I'll tell you this.
The Democrats, you had your chance with Mueller.
OK?
You did the Mueller thing.
It was years of nonsense.
And it all proved false.
And now you've got the Horowitz report coming out.
You've got the Durham investigation.
It may come out that Trump was right on many of these issues.
So you know what?
I'm not going to get involved in this.
I'm going to make sure the work I do is to fight for a good trade deal, to bring back jobs, to bolster manufacturing, to make sure we can solve the problems facing Americans.
And I'll tell you something.
I'll tell you a hard truth.
Sometimes there is no solution.
Sometimes it's just a matter of fact that these jobs are gone and won't come back.
And if that's the case, we need to figure out how to protect Americans who have lost access to the economy through no fault of their own.
If you're a coal miner and the coal industry is drying up because we have fracking, we don't need that anymore, well, we're going to make sure we take care of you because it wasn't your fault the market changed.
This is why I am not an outright laissez-faire capitalist.
I don't believe it's fair that a postmaster, somebody who's worked for the post office for decades, who's extremely good at their job, is now left homeless because the world changed.
Or somebody who's the manager of a fast food restaurant.
Great.
We replaced your staff with robots and now we don't need you anymore.
We need to figure out how people can retain access to the economy even in the event of massive technological change or societal change.
I don't know the answers.
I'm not gonna sit here and draft a proposal, but I tell you what, that's what they should be working on.
But they're not.
Instead, she has the nerve to say, it's a 1776 kind of fight, this president made a phone call, and it may mean the end of America!
Aw man, you know what?
I'll see you guys on 2020.
We'll see what happens.
We will see what happens.
I know a lot of people are always saying, you know, Tim is saying he's gonna keep supporting Democrats.
No, no, no, stop, stop, stop.
No, no, no, shh, shh.
First of all, I live in New Jersey.
I probably won't vote.
Or I'll vote third party.
But more importantly, I will say, fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
We will see what happens.
Now, listen, I live in New Jersey.
The people who win are almost always, you know, gonna be Democrat.
But I'll tell you what.
I don't live in Jeff Van Drew's district, but he is really close.
I'm in South Jersey, and that's where he is.
And I got respect for the guy for saying no to this.
Now, I can't say the same thing for the guy who does represent my district, but we'll see what happens.
We will see how this plays out.
And I'm already extremely disappointed with Democrats.
And like I said, and many others, it leaves me and other people politically homeless.
Which is why you see this.
Let me wrap it up.
A New Mexico Democrat flipping to Republican or a Pennsylvania Democrat flipping independent.
This is who I resonate with.
This guy right here saying, you know what?
What this guy says, I think it absolutely speaks to where I'm at.
Yeah, I was more in the Democrat camp.
I voted for Obama, and that's where I've been for a long time.
And now they've gone so nuts, I am now independent.
And you know what, as he states, I believe he says he's caucusing with Republicans.
No surprise then, it's no surprise then that I defend left-wing policy ideas, While still talking about similar things that conservatives are.
Because that's what happens when you push out the moderates and tell them to screw off.
Or when you try and play this game with me, like, seriously, dude?
I cannot believe she had the nerve to say, tearfully, it's a 17th- You know what?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
I'm sorry.
I'll tell you what.
You wanna talk about a 1776 kind of fight?
You wanna talk about a 1940s kind of fight?
Let's talk about what's going on in China.
Alright?
If you come up and say, I'm not gonna talk- I'll tell you what.
You know who I'm gonna vote for?
I'm gonna vote for the person who walks up and says, don't care about Trump.
Don't care about impeachment.
Don't care about healthcare.
Yup, yup, yup, I'll dare say it.
I care about China.
I care about what they're doing to those people.
Before we move forward, we need to talk about that.
I don't know how we solve a problem of that magnitude.
I don't know if this means there's going to be war or trade war or what.
But I can say that, for one, Trump is taking on China.
And if you've got a problem with the way he's doing it, then make sure that comes up in these talks.
Because that's the real issue.
The left and the right need to recognize the petty bickering we're doing about the minutiae of how we're going to pay for, you know, whatever, healthcare or roads.
It's going to be stamp collecting compared to what happens with China.
I kid you not.
We're sitting here, spending our days arguing over about policies.
And hey, they're important.
You know, the American people are worried about jobs and healthcare.
Get it?
What do you think's gonna happen in 10, 20 years if China is left unchecked?
Man, I'm sure I'm banned from, like, anything related to China at this point, but I'm serious about it.
We can see what's happening in Hong Kong as they sing our national anthem, wave our flags.
We can see what's happening to the Uyghur Muslims.
We know it's going to get worse because China is expanding.
They're traveling across the world.
I'm going to leave it there.
I don't want to get into all this China stuff, but let me just end by saying, you want to talk about a real fight?
Get to your constituents and say, here's what I'm going to do for you, and here's the real issue.
It's not the orange man.
It's the red country.
Okay?
They're communist China, man.
I'll see you all in the next segment.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
Yesterday, Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Afghanistan to be with the troops on Thanksgiving.
A lot of people gave him respect and credit for doing so because instead of being with his family, sitting in luxury at a golf resort or at the White House, eating delicious food, he took an overnight flight, which I can't imagine was comfortable, landed in Afghanistan.
Well, it's Air Force One, so it's, you know, it's probably not that bad.
But he lands in Afghanistan.
He spends his Thanksgiving holiday among the troops.
And then had to take a late return flight.
So, not the hardest thing in the world, but no, respectable, right?
Of all the things you could have done.
Well, the media decided to run this story.
I shouldn't say the media, but at least one news outlet, Newsweek.
How is Trump spending Thanksgiving?
Tweeting, golfing, and more.
But you know what?
A lot of people ratioed this report of Jessica Kwong.
Ratioing is when someone replies to your tweet but doesn't share it, so the number is disproportionate.
Normally, someone will retweet it, they won't respond, but when most people are responding, you're getting a ratio.
It's not always bad, but sometimes is.
See, the thing is, around the same time she dropped this story claiming that Donald Trump was going to Mar-a-Lago and golfing, he was in fact on a secret flight to Afghanistan to be with the troops.
Something much more respectable, right?
But I tell you this, Donald Trump set them up and I think he knew it.
I think Trump played the media for fools.
You see, Jessica Kwong didn't make up that Donald Trump was tweeting.
She was looking at the president's schedule.
The bigger question, though, from a lot of people is, why were they ready to write this hit piece?
That's the real thing.
I think Donald Trump knew they were going to do it.
I think he set them up on purpose.
I think he planned this out as a PR move and he made the press look bad.
But you know what?
They deserve it.
Instead of fact checking, calling, they look at the itinerary and say, Trump's golfing.
Nope.
Not true.
Not true at all.
But here's the thing.
Trump probably knew the media was going to insult and smear because he was going to be golfing and tweeting or whatever.
He knew it.
So he said, why don't we go and do something nice for the troops and go and visit them?
And then the media is going to run rampant with the fake news.
And as soon as he lands, they're going to see, aha, they're going to say, aha, I gotcha.
Now, I don't want to insinuate Trump was pulling a gotcha move.
It was a surprise visit to Afghanistan.
So it wasn't announced.
The funny thing is, though, these journalists were so quick to be like, as soon as I see what Trump said on Thanksgiving, I'm going to insult him for it.
He should be doing something better on Thanksgiving.
What was he supposed to be doing?
When I first saw the story, it's like, how is Trump spending Thanksgiving tweeting, golfing, and more?
I was like, I don't care.
This was before we found out he went to Afghanistan.
I was like, good for him.
It's Thanksgiving.
It's like, dude, you want to complain about Trump golfing?
I hear you.
He spent a lot of money on golfing, okay?
He talks about giving up his salary.
Respectable, but how much money is spent protecting the president and traveling about going to these golf clubs?
Yeah, okay.
But I'll tell you what.
At least give the guy Thanksgiving.
This is what's crazy to me.
It was Nate Silver who said, the liberals seriously can't give Trump one good day.
Dude, if you told me that Trump was spending Thanksgiving in a jacuzzi with his feet up and a team of masseuses massaging his body and getting a mani-pedi, I'd be like, awesome.
It's Thanksgiving, dude.
People are allowed a holiday to relax and enjoy themselves, be it golfing, tweeting, or otherwise.
If you want to complain about Trump golfing some other time, fine, but remember, remember the Baghdadi thing?
They tried claiming Trump was actually golfing while that was going on.
Another round of fake news.
I think Trump knew it based on what happened with Baghdadi, and he was like, this is going to be hilarious.
I think they knew this is exactly what's going on.
Here's what happens next.
Here's the original story.
How is Trump spending Thanksgiving?
Tweeting, golfing, and more.
So what?
Why is this news?
Who would write about this?
I'm sorry, okay?
Jessica Kuang, she read the itinerary.
She got played.
But seriously, dude, why write about it?
I mean, I guess you could do a blurb.
I guess no big deal.
There's probably an editor saying, you want to write up what the president's doing for Thanksgiving?
Sure, but if he was golfing, it's Thanksgiving.
It all sounds like Trump's enjoying the holiday.
End of story.
Is that news?
That's crazy to me.
But here's the thing.
She says that it's according to his schedule.
So what ends up happening, let me just read for you.
President Donald Trump has been spending his Thanksgiving holidays at the Mar-a-Lago Resort in Palm Beach, Florida, which he calls the Winter White House, and this year is no exception.
Bad timing on this story.
On Thursday morning, the president sent out a tweet wishing Americans a happy Thanksgiving holiday.
Listen.
How is Trump spending his Thanksgiving?
Tweeting.
Yes, he tweeted Happy Thanksgiving!
Why is this news?
Oh, man.
He played the media, man.
You know what?
Technically, he didn't.
Technically, Trump didn't do anything.
You might argue he was trying to make the media look bad.
Okay, hold on.
Trump just did stuff.
And the media walked right into it.
That's their own fault.
They say, the President and First Lady Melania departed from Washington DC for the holiday weekend at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday afternoon.
Trump held a campaign rally that evening in Sunrise, Florida, which is about 50 miles southwest of his resort, in which he claimed that there are people who want to change the name of Thanksgiving.
His claim caused war on Thanksgiving to trend on Twitter.
And it's really funny how the media's claiming that's not true, because it is true.
It's so weird, it's like, literally not every single liberal or leftist is saying, change the name of Thanksgiving, therefore it's fake news.
Like, no, that was an op-ed, there was a couple articles, some activists wanted to do it.
It's not like the Happy Holidays thing, where that appears everywhere.
Which, I don't even care, man.
I'm gonna call it Thanksgiving, never gonna change for me, fine, whatever.
Trump proclaimed November 28th as a National Day of Thanksgiving to encourage all Americans to gather in homes and places of worship to offer prayers, a prayer of thanks to God for our many blessings.
He spent Thanksgiving Eve from mid-morning to mid-afternoon playing golf at his Trump International Golf Club.
It was closed to the press according to his public schedule.
And there it was.
Trump actually boarded a secret flight to Afghanistan overnight so he could land in Afghanistan for Thanksgiving Day and spend it with the troops.
What a play.
What a play, right?
They go on and talk about, you know, whatever.
They say, on Thanksgiving Eve, Trump tweeted an image of his head on the body of Rocky Balboa, and the media is still freaking out over this.
Wow.
Here's the best part.
Updated 3.27 p.m.
EST, following the publication of this article, the president made a surprise unannounced visit to U.S.
troops in Afghanistan on Thanksgiving.
First of all, the update should say, correction.
The correction should be at the top, and the title should say, Trump visited troops in Afghanistan for Thanksgiving.
Here's what it says now.
How did Trump spend Thanksgiving?
Tweeting, golfing, and surprising US troops in Afghanistan.
And there's the photo!
This is... So check it out.
When they found out that Donald Trump was actually in Afghanistan, they just put a little blurb at the bottom.
A little tiny blurb at the bottom.
That's all they did.
They didn't change title.
Was he really golfing?
I don't even think he was golfing!
All Thanksgiving was spent either on a plane, in Afghanistan, and then a plane out.
So they're still trying to maintain that he was tweeting and golfing.
First of all, he tweeted Happy Thanksgiving.
And she's including Thanksgiving Eve to try and make him look bad?
How absurd.
Here's what we get.
Donald Trump Jr.
tweets, fake news gonna fake.
Fake news versus reality.
How is Trump spending Thanksgiving?
Tweeting, golfing, and more.
And then the photos on the right show Trump eating, or handing out, what looks like, a tray of, I gotta admit, man, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, doesn't look like the greatest Thanksgiving dinner I've ever seen.
And you know what?
I hope that the U.S.
is doing its best to make sure the troops are getting a good meal.
But admittedly, it's really hard to make... You know, look, man, when you have a family dinner, you get good cooking, right?
And it's really hard to do that at scale, especially when you're trying to feed all these troops.
And I can only imagine Donald Trump ate the exact same thing they did.
Trump, who's a celebrity billionaire, who could probably have a turkey covered in gold shipped from Italy to his plate at Mar-a-Lago in overnight import, I'm kidding, by the way.
But he could!
He could!
Instead, flies to Afghanistan.
Now listen, man.
I know there's gonna be people on the left saying, Trump's just doing it for PR.
I don't care why he's doing it.
He did it.
I can only imagine that the people in Afghanistan who are away from their families, who are in a stressful situation, are happy that they got to experience this.
It's morale boosting.
It's the right thing to do.
Trump could be good, bad.
It could be PR.
It could be press.
It could be re-election.
I don't care what it is.
He made people happy.
Go for it.
You know, there's always an argument about someone's motivations and their results.
And motivations are important, but results are... I don't know.
I like to think more important.
Admittedly, when it comes to philosophy, I think we need to think more and more about what the results will be.
Will the motivation eventually supersede those results because it drives you in the wrong direction?
But if the thing that gets done is good, I'm not going to sit here and argue about what you think Trump was trying to do.
He did it, okay?
It doesn't look like he's eaten the most delicious food in the world.
Granted, what makes Thanksgiving dinner is the people you spend it with and not the quality of your food.
Because I certainly didn't grow up eating, you know, fancy gold-covered turkeys imported from Italy.
No, you know, Walmart turkey and You know, some canned cranberry sauce that comes in that weird shape and, you know, like regular Americans.
And it was the fact that you were there with your family what made it.
So here's what really happened, and Don Jr.
tweeted, but Trump, not being satisfied having played the media for fools a few times now, tweets this.
I thought Newsweek was out of business.
I thought so too.
I obviously know Newsweek still exists, but the print edition, I think, ceased to be.
But I think they revived it.
I think they revived it.
So let me walk you through what happened here.
They released a public schedule.
The media immediately prepared their, I don't want to say hit piece, but come on, come on, right?
They're always looking for a way to make it seem like Trump is bad in some capacity.
And here, they had an opportunity To wait.
To call.
To see what was going on.
And instead, when they found out that Trump was actually in Afghanistan, all they did was put a tiny little blurb at the bottom.
Oh, just, you know, whoop, whoop, right there.
Just, you know.
We don't change the title.
We don't say Trump honored the American troops by spending his Thanksgiving in Afghanistan.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Not good enough.
Listen, man.
I don't like what we're doing in Afghanistan.
I really don't.
I think it's about time we stopped doing what we're doing in Afghanistan.
There's a lot of problems.
I think we spend way too much money in Afghanistan building roads when we should be fixing pipes in Flint.
This is why I like Tulsi, right?
Because, look man, you know, all of these people talking policy for 2020, it's mind-numbing to me to hear Elizabeth Warren be like, We need to tax these lazy billionaires!
And I'm like, okay, I hear you, dude.
But come on, man.
Why are our men and women in service in Afghanistan right now?
Can't we bring them back and spend that money fixing our own roads?
You know, and I'm not an America First, you know, hoorah kind of person.
Like, Nationalists or anything like that.
I think there is important things that we can do overseas.
And there is, you know, foreign aid that makes sense.
But come on.
Afghanistan?
Iraq?
Syria?
None of these things are making sense anymore.
Okay, you know, we were lied to to get into these wars.
It's about time we stop.
And before any of these politicians want to talk about taxing those lazy billionaires, how about we bring our troops home and we spend that money fixing Flint?
It's so crazy to me.
I'm sitting here thinking like I'm taking crazy pills that everyone's complaining about Flint's pipes.
And I'm like, yeah, that's messed up, dude.
Newark's pipes are bad too.
So how about we stop wasting money on foreign countries?
Fix our own infrastructure!
That's not the way it works.
So look, I can complain about what's going on in Afghanistan and still recognize that I'm not going to hold it against the troops that are there.
It's bad American policy.
I blame the politicians.
I respect the troops for signing up and doing the job that few would want to do.
A lot of people really do want to do it, man.
You've got to work really, really hard to be a SEAL or a Marine, for sure.
But I'm saying, you know, we get to live here and gain weight, eating 5,000 calories of turkey, cranberry sauce, turkey stuffing, all that stuff, putting our feet up, watching football, having a good life, while there are people in Afghanistan eating off a lunchroom tray.
So I have tremendous respect for that.
I think it's about time we bring these people's home, these troops home, end what we're doing in Afghanistan, give them a hero's welcome, spend that money fixing our own infrastructure, fixing our roads.
I think everyone can agree with that too.
I wonder why it is that there seems to be a consensus among Americans about what we could be doing with this money.
But anyway, anyway, I'm going off on a tangent here, okay?
You get me started on this foreign policy stuff.
I'll just wrap that up because I'll say this, man.
What I've always maintained is like, how are you going to talk about taxing more people, raising taxes, when we've spent trillions of dollars in the Middle East since 9-11?
It literally makes no sense.
I'm sorry.
It was failed.
It was a lie.
And now we're flushing money down the toilet.
Nah.
No, no, no, no.
Now, I get it, I get it.
A lot of the money we spend there does stay in the U.S.
I get it, because they build weapons here and they do things like that.
But come on, man.
We're talking about tax money that can go towards fixing our own infrastructure.
And that's a serious problem that needs to be solved.
And I'll tell you what.
Yes, I understand that money is being spent within our economy to a certain degree.
We are building stuff in Afghanistan and some of the money is staying there.
But fixing the pipes in the United States would also keep that money in our economy and it would also be much better for Americans instead of, you know, I don't know, drone bombing Yemen or something.
Jessica, who wrote the story, apologized, saying, Trump headed to Afghanistan to surprise U.S.
troops on Thanksgiving.
Deleting this tweet because it was written before knowing what the president's surprise visit to Afghanistan, an honest mistake.
Story has been updated as shown in the screenshot.
So I will first say, I don't really blame Jessica.
An editor probably came down and said, can you write about Trump's schedule?
And she looked at the public schedule and she wrote it up.
But I will blame the media for being ready to... You know what?
I don't think it's that bad that they would have written about Trump going to Thanksgiving.
I think it's stupid because it's, you know, it's like, so, so, you know, Trump's hanging out at his house for Thanksgiving, breaking news, you know, news, I love it.
But I will say, the fact that when they found out They didn't update immediately.
And look at this.
She tweeted that she was deleting it at 7.22 p.m.
Dude, we knew Trump was in Afghanistan the moment you published that story.
And it took, what, four hours for you to put a little tiny blurb at the bottom saying he's actually in Afghanistan.
The headline should read, Trump honors troops on Afghanistan with surprise visit.
That's what, you know.
Trump honors troops in Afghanistan with surprise Thanksgiving visit.
And the top line should have been, Trump is foregoing a family holiday this weekend, or this Thanksgiving, by taking an overnight flight.
It's, you know, they can't give him one good day.
You know what I mean?
Like, dude, Let me tell you something.
The way you never win an argument is by doing something absurd like this.
Because people are going to see this and say, dude, come on, man, that's unreasonable.
Trump could have been sitting by the warm fireplace, eating cranberry sauce and turkey from the finest chef in all of New York, of all of Florida.
He could have been living the high life, and he decided to spend it with the troops.
And that is respectable and honorable, and you gotta give him that, okay?
You can complain about policy, you can complain about his attitude, but if you refuse to concede that he gave up his family holiday to be with the troops, to give them a good day, then no one's gonna take you seriously.
Everyone's gonna see this and say, why would I think you're arguing in good faith against the president when you refuse to acknowledge that he did not spend Thanksgiving with his family?
gave that up while we got to do it.
If you reflect, it's plain as day, man.
This is what the media does.
It's why I don't trust them.
It's why so many people don't trust them.
Because now they're going to come out later and say, you know, Donald Trump punched a
dog and you're going to be like, I don't believe you.
I really don't.
Because it turns out like the dog bit Trump so he punched it trying to get it off of him.
You know what I mean?
Like some story will come out saying, you know, Trump slapped a child and you're like,
oh man, why is this story so bad?
And then it turns out it was actually, like, a child alligator that was biting his leg.
Like, they misframe it, baby attacked by Trump.
And it turns out it was a baby gorilla beating up a bunch of random people.
Look, the point is, I'm being silly right now.
They'll give you only tidbits so that you assume it's bad.
They'll refuse to acknowledge what Trump is doing that's respectable.
And then when you do that, when it comes time to say, but now let me explain to you what I don't like about it, no one's going to want to believe you!
They're going to be like, dude, it...
You know what, man?
It's a matter of principle.
It says to me the media is not interested in telling you the truth.
Because I'll say it right now.
Bravo to Donald Trump for foregoing Thanksgiving.
I know that means a lot, man.
People, it's the one time a year you come together with your family, you have a big meal, and then everybody sees each other, everybody travels.
It's the holiday.
It's what so many people wait for.
It's a relaxing day.
You take time off.
Trust me when I say I really do feel these ways.
Friday, you storm through the front doors of Walmart trampling over everybody else,
leaving them injured so you can get a 50% off, you know, 70 inch TV or whatever.
I'm kidding about that part, but not really.
So I can respect that and then also criticize, you know, Trump's attitude.
I can criticize what we're doing in Afghanistan.
And then it's like, trust me when I say I really do feel these ways because it's, I
really doubt there will be a rational, good faith American who looks at what Trump did
Afghanistan in a negative light.
But when they look at what the media did, they're going to be like, that's kind of messed up, dude.
Like, come on.
You know?
Anyway, you get the point.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around!
It's Black Friday.
I wonder what will happen today, and it's probably not going to be pretty, but I will see you all at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out again.
There's been an ongoing breaking story over the past couple of hours.
There was a stabbing in London.
London Bridge was shut down.
There is viral video showing the police.
It appears.
It appears.
The police shoot the guy.
So this is nuts.
The mayor of London said that they believe it's terror-related.
I'm seeing reports now that they believe it was terrorism.
There are some reports, including this one we have from the Daily Mail, saying that the man may have been wearing a fake bomb vest.
So, I don't want to mince words.
We'll just read through.
Where we're at so far, and remind you, this is a developing story.
By the time you watch this video, there will probably be a lot more information.
So I've got a couple sources I've pulled up, and a statement from the Mayor of London.
Let's read.
The Daily Mail says, the moment police shoot knife men on London Bridge after he stabs five people, hero passersby struggle with maniac before officers open fire.
Warning graphic content.
The Daily Mail reports armed police shot dead.
A man on London Bridge today in a shocking incident that has left one person dead and up to five more injured.
As Scotland Yard said, they're treating it as terror-related.
I'm curious now if they're saying the man who was shot dead is the one person dead.
They often do that, so let's read.
Up to five people were stabbed at Borough Market before the knife maniac ran onto London Bridge shortly after 2 p.m.
And this is London time.
Where dramatic video showed he was tackled to the ground by at least six heroic members of the public.
Seconds later, police told people on top of the suspect to move away before dragging the last bystander to safety and opening fire.
Witnesses said they heard police shouting, stop moving twice before shooting at close range.
There is video of this.
I'm not going to show you, but there is video of this.
One of the bystanders was seen holding a knife, which appeared to have been taken from the suspect.
The suspect lay wounded on the ground, but still moving as officers backed away, clearly fearing they were still in danger.
The guy was wearing... This is what's being reported right now.
Again, the information may change.
A hoax bomb vest.
So this is likely why the police took him out.
Likely why they were backing up, because this guy might have exploded.
While the episode unfolds this afternoon, hundreds of frightened bystanders look on and begin screaming and running for their lives as shots are fired.
Witnesses describe a scene of panic around London Bridge.
So I do have some footage here that's playing on the Daily Mail.
Police this afternoon refused to say if the shot man had died or if another person had been killed in the incident.
A spokesman said, we don't know and we're not releasing any more information.
So it sounds like if there is one person dead, it was likely the man who was committing the attacks.
We can see here, Daily Mail has circled one of the bystanders holding a long knife.
Looks like some kind of kitchen knife.
And we can see, this was the moment just before the shooting took place.
I believe it's this officer right here to the left.
For those that are listening, I'll just describe it to the best of my ability.
There are four people standing behind the police.
There are two men on the ground.
A police officer pulls one of the men up, who appears to be a bystander, and then, within seconds, fires at the man laying on the ground.
Again, it's being reported this guy may have been wearing a fake bomb vest, so as far as the cops knew, this guy was wearing, had bombs.
Alright?
We can see that they have more photos now.
A knife laying on the ground.
Interesting.
So perhaps this man had more than one knife.
And we can see one of the bystanders picked up a knife.
I gotta say, man.
Don't pick up that knife and run with it.
Kick it away.
Do not pick it up.
This is the last thing.
You know, I understand people are freaking out.
This guy apparently was helping to stop this maniac.
After you secure that weapon, get rid of it.
Kick it away.
Okay?
The last thing the cops need is to see another dude holding a knife.
Alright?
So, let me do this.
Let me come back to the story.
There's a lot of photos here.
There was apparently another man detained, so this may have involved a couple different people.
But I want to read for you the statement that was just released by London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
We have it here from NBC.
The mayor said, quote, The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that as a precaution the horrendous incident at London Bridge is being treated as though it is terrorism related.
I remain in close contact with the Metropolitan Police and am being kept updated with events.
It has been confirmed that people were injured in the attack.
My heart goes out to them, their families and all affected.
Thank you to our brave emergency services who responded to today's horrific attack.
Every day they put their lives on the line for us, running towards danger in order to keep London safe.
We must and we will stay resolute in our determination to stand strong and united in the face of terror.
Those who seek to attack us and divide us will never succeed.
The London Bridge area remains closed.
Please avoid the area at this time and follow Met Police for further updates and TFL for travel updates.
If you are near the incident, please follow the directions of any officers on the ground.
So let's go back to what they have here from The Daily Mail.
One video showed what appeared to be police pulling equipment out of a nearby vehicle.
Those in the video could be heard saying they've actually got guns out.
Onlooker Zach Shooter said police almost knocked him over as they ran towards the incident, adding, In fact, some people reported several gunshots, so there may have been other shots fired before or after.
Police evacuated London Bridge Station and the surrounding area.
A cordon was set up at Borough Market while evacuation continued from shops and businesses.
The response from officers led scores of people to run down St.
Thomas Street.
Police said they were treating the evacuation of the area surrounding Borough Market as a major incident.
Now, I want to stress, It has been reported that in the past, there have been people who have worn fake bomb vests.
Apparently, it's a scare tactic, a fear tactic.
It makes people feel like the threat is substantially larger than just someone wielding a knife.
However, I gotta say, man.
Yes, in certain circumstances, a knife is not the worst possible weapon someone could have.
A gun is, right?
However, in short-range, high-density areas, a knife can actually be substantially worse, and it's hard to know who is committing these attacks.
Fortunately, I know it's a very, very frightening and unfortunate incident.
There were some bystanders who took this guy down at great risk.
You gotta imagine, This guy's stabbing people and was wearing what looks like a bomb vest.
Much respect to those people who tackled that guy.
Because if he actually was wearing a live vest, you know those people just risked their lives.
I mean, whether or not he was, with that knife, they're risking their lives.
I have tremendous respect for those that are willing to stand up to this kind of insanity.
They say the response from officers led scores of people to run down St.
Thomas Street.
Police said they were treating the evacuees... I'm sorry, I read that already.
Station staff at Monument claimed five people had been injured in the London Bridge knife attack.
The tube station has been closed off as armed police investigate.
There is an ongoing problem of knife violence in London.
Now the vets, my understanding is they have strict gun laws.
But guns aren't completely illegal.
I'm not entirely sure how it works in London.
I don't know much about how the UK handles this stuff.
I believe there are still ways that people who live in rural areas are able to get hunting rifles.
But again, I'm not entirely sure.
In this incident, it's a knife, okay?
And they've had an escalation of knife attacks in London as far as I know.
And they've been trying several different ways to deal with this.
I have a story back from June.
Blunt blades, GPS trackers, and longer school hours.
The hunt for an answer to Britain's knife crime crisis.
So certainly you're going to hear people say, if they had rampant guns like the US, this would have been a whole lot worse.
And I think that's true, but I didn't stop the problem that Crazy people are going to do crazy things.
Now, I get it.
They'll say, well, at least he didn't kill X amount of people.
But you know what?
The challenge is, we don't know.
We just don't know.
And in high-density areas like London, it could be actually worse.
Because, listen.
When someone has a certain kind of gun, those are loud, people notice, people run.
When someone runs up to someone else and knifes them, most people don't know anything is happening until someone shouts and they still don't know what's happening.
And in close quarters, a knife can be much more dangerous than a gun, which is another reason why the cops probably shot him, okay?
If you don't believe me, seriously, you need to watch these videos where police talk about You know, you'll hear stories where someone had a knife, so the cop shot him, and they'll say, but why?
He only had a knife.
Watch the training videos.
I think Mythbusters, I believe, did it.
They said your average, you know, individual with no physical training, not very in shape, could close 21 yards before an officer could pull out their weapon and fire on this individual.
They could close 21 yards and create a lethal wound Before the officer could even fire.
So yes, knives are a different kind of dangerous.
Never assume anything is going to be more or less.
They're like, you know, listen, this guy could have been wearing a live vest.
The point is, I don't see how the UK solves this problem other than like what Sadiq Khan said, part and parcel of living in a big city is, you know, dealing with these kinds of things.
I'm not trying to take them out of context.
I know a lot of people are going to freak out.
The point is, what can you do to truly stop these maniacs?
It is a serious challenge.
It really is.
They say staff working for News UK, whose offices are by London Bridge Station, reported being held in their building as police dealt with the incident.
Dan Wooten, executive editor at The Sun, tweeted, Police dogs at work on London Bridge.
We are currently in lockdown in the news building after advice from police.
So we have this photo here.
A woman is carried away from the scene by police officers at London Bridge.
Now, we're not sure exactly what's going on at this time.
By the time you find this video, there may be updates, so keep that in mind.
There are dogs patrolling the streets.
The area's been locked down.
We've got several officers.
We've got a truck jackknifed across the bridge, blocking it off.
And as they're reporting now, this is a terror incident.
So, I think, you know... There's a lot of updates I could give you, but I think, you know, this is the most important bit of it.
A witness who was on a bus going over the bridge said she thought she saw a stab vest or some sort of explosive vest worn by the person lying on the bridge.
Kirsten Jones told BBC News, So, you know, I'll tell you this.
thought it looked like there was a fight going on, people sort of tussling with each other,
and then you realize it was police wrestling with one tall bearded man.
So you know, I'll tell you this, I'm going to keep this one short, there is a lot, a
lot more to go through, and there is a ton of footage, okay?
There is video of the live incident.
There is video of the police firing.
I'm not gonna show it.
It's probably- YouTube's already mad at me enough for even covering the news, but this is extremely important.
Needs to be talked about, and it needs to be talked about in the context of the UK's ongoing knife problem, as well as terror problems.
All right?
Let's take this one seriously.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
The next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash TimCast at 4 p.m., and I will see you all then.
Not too long ago, there was a horrifying story of two lesbians who were on a bus when they were harassed and attacked by some teens.
Apparently, these young people, this was in London, I believe, were saying homophobic things to these lesbians and then attacked them.
And we now have more information.
Now, everybody was calling this a homophobic attack, and the first thing that happened When the story came out, it turns out the boys were saying things that were offensive but not homophobic.
Technically, you'd say it was, I don't know, in favor of, you know, basically these young men.
We're asking them about how they engage in lovemaking and things like that.
So to call that homophobic, I think, is a stretch because that would typically imply they were saying, hey, why do you?
You shouldn't.
You're wrong.
Instead, these guys were poking fun at the fact that they did.
So I guess you could call it homophobic, fine.
But as it turns out, Surveillance footage was released, and the shocking thing to me that no one is talking about, even with the footage, is that technically, in terms of a physical fight, it was the lesbians that started the fight.
Technically, based on the footage.
It's complicated.
The reality is, I still think, you know, I'm going to go ahead and side with these two young women here, because here's what happens.
Basically, you have, and there's going to be, I'm going to show you a graphic photo, so I understand, you know, some might want to see it, but it shows the one after they got beat up.
And I'm going to tell you something.
I am on their side, but I think it's important that the news media reflect what actually happened.
And I'll tell you what really happened.
Some teenagers were acting a fool, and then they got into a fight.
Am I going to act like everybody was innocent, they were sad victims of these poor women?
No, no, no, no, no.
Hold on, man.
They got beat up because the woman with the blonde hair started a fight.
Now you can argue what it means to start a fight, and I'm going to tell you this.
I'm still on their side.
I'll tell you why.
The kids pleaded guilty to threatening these young women.
And according to this story, my understanding is that it's confirmed, they were flicking coins at them.
And this woman here said, do that one more time and see what happens.
And then got up, walked past a couple of the kids, and started punching one of the guys in the face.
Here's the thing.
While morally, I totally feel for these young women, I get it.
Legally, I'm surprised.
I mean, it's London, but in the US, I'm pretty sure they'd be the ones getting in trouble over this.
However, the young kids then did steal their purse.
I'll tell you what, man.
I've seen fights break out, and typically you gotta be the bigger person and stand down.
Protect yourself, defend yourself, walk away.
And that's actually the basic legal standard.
Let me read the story, I'll break down for you what actually happened.
But the main point is that everyone in the media is framing it like it was just these poor men who were brutally attacked, when in reality, she escalated the fight.
This woman got up, walked up to a guy and started punching him in the face.
When that happens, don't be surprised when you get hit back, okay?
I feel for them, because I'll tell you what, you start flicking coins at me and saying disparaging things about me and my girlfriend, say it again, see what happens.
I totally respect that.
But, I'm surprised the media is not telling that story.
You know what I mean?
Let's read.
They say one of the women targeted on a London night bus in an allegedly homophobic attack says she felt physically cornered during the incident.
That's not true.
Okay?
And look, man, I can respect how she was feeling and why she wanted to, you know, knock someone down.
That is not true.
She walks past people that could have got off the bus.
Christine Hannigan told a court on Friday, three teenagers threw coins at her and her girlfriend, Melania Gaminet.
That's true, but what they don't tell you is that it was actually Hannigan who gets up and punches the other person in the face, starting the fight.
I believe it was Hannigan, I could be wrong.
Gaymanette also gave evidence saying, the impression I got was that they were all as a group egging
each other on.
During the confrontation, Miss Hannigan was punched in the face and
Miss Gaymanette's bag was stolen.
That's true, but what they don't tell you is that it was actually Hannigan who gets
up and punches the other person in the face, starting the fight.
I believe it was Hannigan, I could be wrong.
But they got footage.
Let me show you the footage, all right?
They say, and this was crazy to me, like, we can see what literally happened.
They say, it appears that one of the group of the boys makes an offensive gesture at the woman.
You can see it's the blonde woman walks past two guys and immediately starts punching the other dude in the face.
She's shoving him and clawing at him, and then he starts hitting her back.
Bang, bang.
And there it is.
YouTube's gonna... I'm gonna get in so much trouble on YouTube for showing you this footage.
But let me just walk this back for you.
This is not appearing in any of these stories.
Okay?
Let me show you.
There's these two guys here.
These two guys.
You got the blue jacket, the gray jacket.
Not good people.
Sounds like they're dumb kids doing dumb things.
Totally get it.
Then you get the woman, who I believe is Hannigan.
All right, let me do a better job of playing this.
And then she walks, there you go, they get out of her way.
She walks past them.
You can see her then walk up, there she goes, her fist goes back, and she punches the guy more than once.
It looks like two or three strikes to his face.
You can then see her clawing at his neck and shoving him, and then he pushes her off and starts punching her in the face.
One, One hit, it looks like.
Then, the other woman, who I believe's bag was stolen, chases after them as they steal her bag.
Yeah, they're not good dudes, I hear ya.
She runs after them, and then someone apparently then punches her in the face.
Bam!
And then she goes down.
So let me tell you something.
Let me tell you something.
First of all, I would say from a circumstantial, like, From a general understanding, if someone were to tell me what happened, I'd say, those dudes started it.
They were saying disparaging things about this girl and her girlfriend, and they started flicking coins at her, and so she got up and said, do it again, see what happens, he did, and bam!
You get knocked in the face.
You know what, man?
I can respect that.
But guess what?
Legally, you started the fight.
You could argue he was flicking coins at you, but I'll tell you what, in the U.S.
and most jurisdictions, if you say a guy flicked a coin at me so I got up and punched him in the face, they're gonna be like, dude, Like, were you in danger because someone was flicking coins at you?
No.
Even though that is assault and or battery, depending on the place you're in.
Like in Chicago, that'd be assault and battery.
So typically what would happen is, you started wailing on somebody, yeah, they're probably gonna be like, well, you were flicking coins at them, you know, what do you expect?
Most fights like this, you're gonna see the cops get up and be like, everybody go home, walk away.
But what's surprising to me is that nobody's bringing up the fact that they could have walked away just fine.
These dudes aren't nice people who started all this, who were insulting them.
But I'll tell you what, man.
The other thing is, you need to understand, if you choose to get into a fight and you lose, Well, what can we say here?
Those guys weren't hitting you.
You got up, punched a dude in the face, he hit back harder, you went down, and then they punched your girlfriend.
This is what really bothers me about a lot of people.
It reminds me of those movie tropes where the girlfriend's always like, my boyfriend can beat you up, and the guy's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop!
Like, I don't want to get into a fight, you know?
It's not going to be you getting hit.
She got up, she hit the guy.
Fight breaks out, find out what happens, right?
I'll tell you what.
You can say, flick a coin at me again, see what happens, and then their response is going to be like, do something about it, hit me, and you see what happens.
Choose not to fight.
They say the teenagers were 15, 16, and 17.
That's the other thing, man.
They're not kids, but come on, man.
They won't be named because they're minors, but they said it wasn't because of these women, their orientation.
He was in court on Friday to establish whether the attack was homophobic.
Hannigan told the court, from behind a screen she stood up when the boys started throwing coins and said, throw another one and see what happens.
She said two boys then surrounded the couple and made comments about scissoring while asking the couple to show them how they, you know, engage each other.
So she pretended she was going to throw up so they would leave us alone.
The American woman said she found them aggressive and it was scary, frankly.
Put up with a lot of homophobia in London.
Felt like, felt they didn't deserve a response from me.
She said she did not realize they were so young until the couple were in a physical confrontation with them.
Denying the boys could have been hitting on the women, she said, their standing up and moving to the front of the bus was motivated by us being affectionate to one another.
They were being extremely aggressive verbally, then THEY made it physical, did they?
She said this.
Ms.
Hannigan said she then walked past the two boys to another one, who was throwing the coins from further back in the bus, and told the court, Yes, that was punching him in the face several times.
And then, and look at this.
She said she was then punched in the face.
You know what, man?
Tell people what really happened.
I'm on their side.
You know what I mean?
I think these kids should still be the ones getting in trouble.
They stole the purse.
They were yelling.
They were aggressive.
They were flicking coins.
But come on, man.
Be honest.
They got up.
She got in his face.
Punched him several times.
Got hit back.
Okay, you start a fight.
Expect it to get finished by either you or them.
I can't stand the news how they do this.
They're still desperately trying to make it seem like it was an unprovoked attack.
No.
You had a couple annoying teenagers flicking coins at you.
I get it, man.
I'd want to hit them too.
But you know what?
Legally, I can't do that.
Now I guess, in my opinion, the only reason that's the case, and I'm going to say it, is because they're a marginalized group.
Because the media and the police knew what they were dealing with, and the media runs with the fake news.
Because I'll tell you what, if it was a man and a woman and a fight broke out, we wouldn't be hearing about it.
Let's just be real.
We would not be hearing about it.
They're calling it a homophobic attack.
She got up and she punched him.
What was the attack?
Flicking coins at her?
Because I'll tell you what, I don't like these guys.
I think these teenagers are bad dudes.
I think they started the altercation in the first place, but she got hit because they were defending themselves from her initiating a physical fight.
You might not want to admit it.
You might say that's not fair.
They were harassing her.
Yeah, that's true.
I agree.
And I also think they deserve to get a whomp in the face to an extent.
Violence isn't the answer.
But it's like, you know what, man?
I'll tell you who the bad guys are.
The bad guys are the kids, alright?
They started everything.
But the fight started with the woman.
So you wanna call it a homophobic attack?
I'm gonna tell you that ain't true.
Sorry.
And what's crazy to me is I've gone through all these videos, and the crazy thing is even though the footage shows her punching the guy first, they're claiming these guys started it.
Or they're making it seem like they got physical with her.
I think, you know, these dudes, you want to talk smack?
Then get smacked, right?
But I'll tell you what, man.
You're gonna get arrested.
If you're out with your girl and some dude starts hollering at you and flicking coins and you go and punch him in the face, you are gonna get in trouble for that.
They're gonna ask you, were you in immediate danger?
No.
You got up, walked past two guys, and punched a dude in the face?
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Stanford is cracking down on misgendering and citing a Ben Shapiro event.
Yes, they are saying, I don't know how they're going to do it, that they want to rid the college of people using the wrong pronouns.
Listen, man, you can't do anything about this.
It's the weirdest fight, if you were to ask me.
How do you force people to use the right pronouns?
You literally can't.
It's talking.
Now, I get it.
Some people don't say certain words like slurs, but hold on.
We have to use pronouns in everyday language.
Now, before we read this, okay, and I want to make some... I have a point to make.
I want to say something about the singular pronoun, they.
A lot of people have been saying, you know, if someone's gender neutral, you call them they, them.
You call them they, them.
Okay, I get it.
They, them functions as a singular when we're referring to a person by a title or a position and we don't know their gender.
Let's say you, a couple, I'll give you a couple examples.
John entered the room.
We know John is a male name.
Most people would say, John entered the room and he did a backflip.
Perhaps, however, it's a foreign individual and John, it's actually a woman.
Well, then you'd be corrected because you misgendered them.
That we understand.
Jane entered the room.
She did a backflip, right?
Okay.
A doctor entered the room and they did a backflip.
We would use they as a singular because we don't know the gender of the doctor and we all recognize that.
We would actually use the plural... I guess syntax?
I'm not a language expert, okay?
I didn't go to... we'll leave it there.
But we would use the plural... they as a singular in a plural context.
So, a doctor entered the room, they are doing backflips.
Even though they are is typically referred... saved for plurals, right?
Here's where the problem arises.
I was reading an article from Vice, talking about World of Warcraft, and one of the individuals was gender neutral, but they were referring to a couple different people, and then tried using a they as a singular, and it literally made no sense, and I was confused, and I had to try and understand it.
Because when you say Sam and Pat, let me give you an example of how the pronouns thing doesn't make sense.
Here we go.
Sam and Pat want to go out on a date.
Sam says they are not hungry.
Pat says they are hungry.
What does that mean?
What did I just tell you?
Okay, if you go to a regular person and say Pat says they are not hungry, that kind of sounds like you're saying Both of them.
You're referring to two people.
I use Sam and Pat for a reason.
And then, Sam says they are not hungry, but Pat says they are.
How can they have an argument about if the other is hungry or not?
How would they know?
Oh no!
It's because they're gender neutral, and we're using they in a gender neutral context, in which case, they are saying that each individually one is and one isn't.
You see how that doesn't work?
It also doesn't work when you say something like, John goes by the pronoun they, and Sam goes by the pronoun he.
And then you say, they think that gender pronouns are appropriate.
Okay, hold on.
Are we talking about both of them now?
Or are we talking about one person?
John uses the pronoun they.
Sam uses the pronoun he.
They think that gender neutral pronouns are appropriate in college.
Was I telling you that both think so?
Or was I telling you that only John was, because Sam goes by he?
I don't know!
That's the problem with language.
Gender-neutral pronouns make sense when there is a singular in which we don't know the context.
Now check this out.
Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro visited the campus of Stanford University on the 7th to deliver a speech in which he exposed the dangerous game being played by the alt-right.
Yeah, we get it.
They say Shapiro has consistently pushed back against the policing of speech, ardently defending the First Amendment right to free speech, against the left's disingenuous attacks on it via declarations of subjectively divined hate speech.
Shapiro has also argued against the unconstitutional notion of forcing people to refer to others with their preferred gender pronouns.
Guess what?
You can't force me to use your name.
Let's stop the pronoun thing real quick.
Is there a rule anywhere saying I can't call you whatever I want?
There is not!
But for some reason, pronouns?
So let's say your name is John, and you go by the pronoun they.
I can call you Florbo?
Yup, nothing's stopping me from calling you whatever I want.
Okay, then I won't use pronouns.
I hereby decree I will no longer use pronouns, but I'm gonna call you Florbo Flaxenbox.
I can call you whatever I want.
I can call you a garden gnome.
I can call you a flower.
I can call you literally anything.
There is nothing anywhere saying I have to use your name.
I'm gonna call you... I'm gonna call you Squeaky Snowflake.
I don't think it's an insult.
Are you offended by it?
Too bad!
Like, listen.
Calling someone dumb.
Negative.
You're saying they're not bright.
Calling someone smart.
Positive.
Compliment.
You're saying they're good at what they do.
Says who, though?
It's subjective, right?
Therefore, I can call you Dumbo and, well, it's not a pronoun.
It's just my nickname for you.
Are they gonna ban that?
This doesn't make sense.
It can't work.
Let's read on.
In a letter to the Stanford community sent on November 18th, Stanford Provost Persis Drell announced the university's new focus on promoting gender inclusion, in part by forbidding the use of incorrect pronouns.
It is so insane!
From now on, here's what I think people should do.
Anybody who says that they have specific special pronouns Period.
Call them Florbos.
Just Florbo.
And I'll tell you what.
You know why?
Because we don't know the pronouns of every person.
And if we always enter a conversation using assumed pronouns, we're likely to end up offending people.
I propose the word Florbo for anybody who may not prescribe to traditional English language.
Because pronouns don't exist in every language.
Therefore, Florbo, if someone says my pronoun is Zee or Zer, I will say Florbo.
I will call you Florbo, that way everyone's happy, right?
So I'm not gonna misgender you.
Florbo just means gender neutral name.
And it's not a pronoun either, it's a proper noun.
A Florbo is a specific type of special person.
I am writing today about a dimension of diversity that is still too often overlooked and that needs to be... You know what?
Let me stop.
We get it.
She says, who makes the point of specifying in the letter that she personally prefers the pronouns she, her.
At the national level, we have seen protections for gender inclusion rolled back.
For example, a few weeks ago, a federal judge vacated a portion of a federal regulation protecting transgender individuals from discrimination in certain healthcare settings.
While at Stanford our non-discrimination policy protects gender identity and gender expression, students, staff, and alumni have made it clear to me that we have much more work to make Stanford fully gender inclusive.
Okay, a couple points.
If they're going to specifically say gender pronouns are gendered, then you simply need only call them a Florbo.
Because Florbo is not gendered.
It's just a nickname.
It's just a person who prefers... I'll tell you what.
Florbo has no gender.
Florbo has no gender.
But Florbo refers to people who don't use traditional pronouns.
Therefore, anybody who has a specific pronoun can be called a Florbo, and it's not an insult.
It's literally a random word I made up.
And my compromise is this.
If someone doesn't want to call you a pronoun that you want them to call you, everybody can just agree on a random word, right?
You might say Z or Zurn.
Well, let's say I don't agree with your worldview.
Call him a Florbo.
A Florbo is not gendered.
A Florbo is a person who doesn't prescribe to using pronouns.
There you can say Florbo.
Florbo said it.
Florbo wants to know if you want to go, you know, buy some turkey for Thanksgiving.
There you go.
Here's the other thing.
Look, man, if they want to make it a rule that people have to use a pronoun and you disagree with this, I mean, the answer is simple.
Make up your own pronoun.
I know people have made jokes about it, fine, but I mean seriously.
Why not just make up your own pronoun?
Drell explains that she has met with transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary members of the Stanford TGNC, there's a new thing for it, members of the Stanford community, and has decided that some major changes are in order to crack down on misgendering and prejudice.
So let me make sure this is clear.
I am not trying to be disrespectful in any way.
If somebody, like, because I'll tell you what, there are people who would insult the individual
who wants to use a gender neutral pronoun.
No, I think that's wrong.
Treat people with respect, but respect is earned, not given.
If someone comes up to you and makes a demand of you and you don't want to use a pronoun,
you don't want to speak a certain thing, the first thing you do is just use their name.
That's it.
End of story.
And if you don't want to use their name and you don't want to insult them, use your own word.
And if you want, if you think people are being absurd and they're trying to exert force over you, then you too can make up your own pronoun and they must adhere to it.
This is the big problem with rules like this.
If you're saying anyone can use any pronoun, then I can make a list of 800 pronouns.
Also, you need to understand in what context are pronouns used.
When would someone say he, him, Tim, Tims, etc., you could make up a series of pronouns for different syntax and different circumstances that don't exist outside the norm.
Oh, you could only say my proper name on the third instance because pronouns typically are used in the sentence following a proper noun, but because, you see what the point is?
Who defines how language functions?
In reality, language functions as a tool to convey ideas, and it changes over time.
They are now trying to force made-up words and new words into the language that people are not familiar with.
I propose a solution.
Florbo.
There you go.
Am I done?
This is so dumb.
Yeah, I'm gonna keep this one short.
I'm gonna wrap it up here.
You get the point.
I will come back to, just very quickly, I'll wrap it up with a couple points.
Look, you can't police speech.
It won't work.
Especially in this thing.
You can tell someone you can't say a slur, but that's because slurs are not necessary to convey an idea.
Pronouns are.
Let me leave you with that specific example, once again, so you can explain to someone.
If someone says to you, just say, they, them, because it's singular, say, okay.
Jack and Ted go by different pronouns.
Jack prefers they, Ted prefers he.
They think that using gender specific pronouns is appropriate in a college setting.
Now, I'm asking you, did you learn anything from that?
Let me put it another way.
Jack and Ted Believe, you know, both go by he.
And he thinks that yadda yadda.
You know, you get the point.
I'm done.
This is so dumb.
I can't believe it.
Whatever.
Florbo, there you go.
That's your word.
I'm not kidding when I say I'm going to use that.
I'm being absolutely serious.
Because if you want me to use a word that you made up, and you don't want me to use a word that exists, the compromise is I'll make up a word to use for everybody.
Are we done?
Okay.
I'll see you all in the next segment coming up in just a few minutes.
I'm gonna let you in on a big secret when it comes to politics and justice.
People are fighting for themselves.
That's really all it is.
People are fighting for themselves.
No matter what you might think.
No matter what someone might say.
I'm fighting for other people.
No they're not!
No, they are not.
Let me tell you.
Here's the story.
The women demonized for championing men's rights.
They devote their lives to a deeply unfashionable cause, helping downtrodden men in the age of gender politics.
And they've provoked a bitter divide.
Here's the thing.
You may say, hey, Tim, that's contradictory.
Women?
You just told me that people are fighting for themselves.
I don't mean that everyone is selfish.
To an extent.
I mean that people have an internal perspective over what is the right way to do things.
And so they pursue that even to the detriment of others.
And I'll give you an example.
These women are fighting for men's rights.
Because there are a lot of things that men are struggling with.
Men aren't going to college as much.
Millennial men actually are in some areas making less money than women.
They're not getting married.
They're not working.
They're doing pretty bad in some respects.
So it would be honorable to then defend those rights of men.
However, you then enter the feminists who think these women are internalizing patriarchy and fighting against them when they're not.
The point is, first, it has to do a lot with perspective.
What are you hoping to achieve and are you going to hurt or harm someone or help someone else?
There are feminists who claim to be fighting for equality.
They're not, because feminist literally is femme.
It is a word describing just one faction trying to gain something.
You can argue that in the past, when women didn't have equal rights, then, yes, it was a fight for equality.
Now that women have equal rights, I mean, they vote, they work, they can be CEOs, all that stuff, we have other social problems around that that need to be alleviated, but the rights are all there and guaranteed.
You now have feminists claiming to fight for equality when, well, they already have it and then some.
There are some areas where women are at an advantage and some areas where women are at a disadvantage.
But for the most part, under the law, women are protected in the U.S.
and the U.K.
It's not perfect, but men and women are not identical.
You then have men's rights activists who are fighting for certain issues where men are underprivileged, being told that they're the oppressors.
Here's what it comes down to.
If you think men are oppressing women, then you see these women as being evil.
If you think that men and women are mostly equal under the law, and that men are facing serious problems that are being ignored and want to fight for them, you probably think the feminists are the bad guys.
I don't want to say this.
I shouldn't say evil for either, but you think they're the bad guys, right?
People only fight for what they can see.
If a feminist doesn't see the problems men are facing or doesn't believe it, she's going to think you're the bad guy.
Everybody is the hero of their own story.
So in the end, everybody is fighting for what they think will make their world better, but here's the thing.
There are even people who understand men and women are going through these problems, but there are women who believe men had their turn.
Now it's women's turn to be in charge.
There are women who think that men can't lead and shouldn't.
They're just as sexist as the masculists who think women should be in the home.
Or traditionalists or whatever.
But let's read a little bit about this and learn about these women who are being demonized for championing men's rights.
The gender pay gap, the lack of women in top jobs, the MeToo movement, and the exploitation and abuse it exposed.
There is a damning list of evidence that the fight for equal opportunities and rights for women is far from over.
Let's go back in time.
Let's rewind a little bit.
Not go back.
Not that far back.
Gender pay gap.
Are you referring to job for job?
In which case, the reason there is a 3-5% gap between men and women is that women don't negotiate.
The lack of women in top jobs.
This has to do with the fact that gender equality is relatively recent.
And so there's nothing we really need to do other than have women work.
In the next generation, you will see more women CEOs.
In fact, the military-industrial complex is all headed by women.
The MeToo movement and the exploitation and abuse it exposed.
First, MeToo has exposed the abuse.
I would say that's a major victory.
The other issue is that, yes, men tend to be, you know, the ones who perpetrate crimes against women.
That's just crime.
I'm not going to call crime oppression.
Sorry.
People commit crimes.
Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime.
We're not going to claim that men are facing some kind of problem because men are committing crimes.
The fact is, if an individual commits a crime, they shouldn't.
The law already protects you.
The issue here is that women need to negotiate, They need to take these jobs, and they need to speak up.
If you think these things are still problems, then the problem lies something in the behavior of these women, and not in society.
Because I will stress, Me Too, what happened to these women, was already criminal, therefore they're protected under the law.
It is illegal to discriminate based on gender or sex, so yes, women could be in these jobs.
And the gender pay gap is also illegal, and it's due to women not negotiating, so congratulations.
This makes it all the more surprising that a small but increasingly vocal band of women is fighting for justice, not for women, but for men.
Surprising?
Not really.
These women have dedicated their lives to addressing what they see as a crisis of masculinity and the unfair treatment of men by society.
They come from academic backgrounds or began campaigning for women's rights before focusing on the problems of the other sex.
So what do they say?
Courts punish men, and kids lose out.
Well, that's true.
They say Britain's family courts are engaged in practices that separate fathers from their children, knowingly or not, Allison believes, she says.
The pressure groups springing up, some of which are advising the Ministry of Justice on domestic violence cases, have an anti-male agenda.
I see fathers marginalized and excluded from their kids' lives.
Let me tell you a story.
I don't have all the stats.
But, uh, there was a story a while back...
This is local news in Chicago.
A man and a woman were fighting for custody of three kids.
The man asserted the woman was a drug addict and that she shouldn't have the kids because she was a bad influence, she couldn't afford it, she couldn't support it, and she was wasting the child support on drugs.
The court ruled in her favor, saying something to the effect of it would be too painful for a woman to be separated from her kids.
Guess what?
She killed all her kids.
Something happened.
I don't know what happened.
She ended up doing a bunch of drugs.
The kids ended up dying.
There was a story where a woman won the rights of the kids after the father said she was nuts and then she bludgeoned the kids to death.
I'm not saying it's all the time this happens.
I'm not saying that it's evidence.
It's anecdotal.
But there are a few stories where it stands to reason that, at least in these cases, the men should have won the kids and didn't.
And that goes in line with some of what people are saying.
But you're gonna have to look those stories up because it's been like 15 years since I saw those local... It was like an Illinois story.
She says false allegations are more prevalent than people realize and supervision orders disproportionately happen to fathers.
So I guess is that the only reason they're highlighting?
Boys need more emotional support.
She says Belinda Brown, 54, is a social anthropologist and co-founder of Men for Tomorrow, a widow with two children.
She lives in London.
Okay, okay, we get it.
We got some women who are fighting for men's rights.
Fathers pay the price in divorce.
That's a fact.
She goes on to say she's all for equality.
and a bomb scare. Erin Prizzy, 80, founded Women's Charity Refuge. She is now a patron
of the charity Families Need Fathers. She lives in South London and is divorced with
two children. She goes on to say she's all for equality. So let me tell you something.
I'm not here to tell you one side what men got it better, women got it better.
The reality is, no matter where and when, there are advantages and disadvantages.
You know, some people want to sit around all day doing nothing.
Well, that's a lot easier to do for a woman than it is a man.
Now, women may be angry to hear that, but that's just the fact.
Let me tell you something, man.
As a woman, you don't know what it's like to be a guy.
You don't know what the pressures men face, the risks they face, and the things they know and hold on to deep down inside.
As a man, you don't know the pressures women face and the things they hold on to deep down inside.
You don't know what it's like to be a woman.
The fact remains, neither knows what it's like to be each other.
Now there have been some instances where people are trans and they explain the difference.
That's still not good enough.
There is a substantial difference between growing up male and growing up female.
And let me tell you what I've seen from the data.
And I'm not saying it's true.
First, let me tell you my experience, growing up male.
You're treated like crap, you're told you're worthless, nothing you do is good enough, you are a waste of space and a waste of time, and you'll be lucky if anyone does anything for you.
That's right, men have no discernible skills and no value to society.
And when you look at data from dating websites and, you know, other, like, job sites and things like that, we can see that women have a massive societal advantage at a young age.
Women can get entry-level jobs substantially easier than men can, but men tend to move up higher to CEO positions.
There's a lot of complicated data behind this, but I'll tell you what, man.
From being homeless, myself, and trying to find a job, all of the most abundant jobs, say, restaurant industry, for instance, don't hire guys.
Sorry.
I went all over Chicago, and everywhere told me the same thing.
I had one guy say to me, listen, man, when it comes to getting a job at a bar, unless you're like a, you know, you know somebody who works there, Or you've been a regular there for a long time and you happen to be at the right place at the right time.
When it comes to these trendy spots in the north side or downtown, they're looking for young women bartenders who are going to convince older guys to spend more money.
And the older guys make more money.
So you know what ends up happening?
For younger women.
I'll say this.
It's my anecdote.
It's my experience.
I've gone to all these jobs and they all easily employ younger women.
Younger guys don't get those jobs because what's a young guy gonna bring in, right?
So then guys know they have to fight ten times as hard to make that money, to become the CEO, to have the money to go to the bar and spend it.
Men, at a younger age, are considered valueless by society.
That's the data we see from dating websites.
Young women are considered inherently valuable, and that's the data we see from, like, evolutionary biologists.
I'm not one, so fact-check me, you can look into it.
The point is, each side has their advantages and disadvantages.
It seems at a young age, women have advantages, and as they get older, it gets worse.
And for young men, they have young age, at a young age, disadvantages, and as they get older, it gets better.
It's no surprise then.
If someone begins life high, like everything's great, skittles, rainbows, everyone loves you and protects you, and as you get older, it starts fading away, you're gonna feel like it's not fair.
Hey, I used to get X amount of love and now it's going down.
For young men, you have, on a scale of one to ten, one.
One love.
And as you get older, it slowly increases and you're like, wow, life is getting a whole lot better.
It's all perspective and it's all relative.
So anyway, you know what?
I don't know.
I don't know what the point of this is.
I just saw this.
I want to talk about it and tell you, you know what, man?
Everybody thinks they have it the worst, but everybody has a different hand to play.
Happiness is relative, and you got to figure it out for yourself and stop blaming other people.
