California Plans FORCED Internment And Asset Seizure To Solve Homeless Crisis
California Plans FORCED Internment And Asset Seizure To Solve Homeless Crisis. California's growing homeless crisis has made headlines over the past year. Diseases are rampant and state and local governments have failed to do anything to solve the problem.A new state law would allow the state to forcefully "conserve" people with mental illness meaning that if you are homeless and determined to be not "self sufficient" the state can detain you and seize and control your finances until you prove yourself to be "self sufficient."In one town, Redding, they have proposed this in a letter sent to Governor Gavin Newson demanding state of emergency powers. This would allow them to essentially detain any person who is "unhoused" and take control of their finances.While California as a whole is a fairly leftist state and Democrats have proposed a state law to "conserve" the homeless, Redding is in a Republican district. They say that California is the future of the United States and I certainly hope not
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It reads, California is the future of American politics.
Trump is the last gasp of the conservative era and will bring down Republican rule.
What's coming next is in California right now.
And my response is nothing more than, dear God, please help us.
And I'm not exaggerating.
Take a look at this story from PRI.
California is living America's dystopian future.
There are a lot of problems in California.
Disease, rampant homelessness, human waste on the streets of numerous cities, mostly in San Francisco.
But we also have a problem with wealth disparity.
San Francisco is essentially like an oligarchy.
You've got global elites living atop their ivory towers while the poor are rummaging through the streets with waste everywhere.
It is not a pretty sight.
Add that to all of the natural disasters, earthquakes, droughts, and fire.
Yeah, I hope California isn't our future.
But that brings me to the most terrifying story I've seen yet.
You see, one of the proposed solutions to California's homeless crisis is the forced internment of the homeless.
Now, I'm not going to mince words.
I know, perhaps it's a little hyperbolic to say the forced internment.
But we're not talking about just taking a homeless person and putting them in a shelter.
Some people would call that jailing them or arresting them.
We're talking about the state seizing their financial resources.
We're talking about homeless people for being poor, being rounded up into places you can't leave.
And then the government assumes conservatorship, meaning they control your assets.
This is a violation of civil rights.
And I got to say, I can't believe I'm reading these stories, but yes, this is real.
California is literally embracing fascistic proposals to deal with their ongoing crisis, at least when it pertains to the homeless.
In one town, Reading, they have sent a letter to the governor demanding the right to intern people simply for being poor.
They want the right to take your assets.
Here's the story from Politico.
Before we read it, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this story, because I kid you not, there are a lot of people that, it's surprising to me, are kind of downplaying what the government is asking to do.
And if we don't pay attention to what California is doing, and we follow the same path they did, I assure you we will come to a point where the government asserts the right to seize your assets because they think you are unfit to control your own finances.
That's literally what they're asking for the right to do.
They've sent a letter, Redding, to the governor of California saying, we want to be able to take these... Let me read the story for you.
I kid you not, this is crazy.
The first thing though, it's not about one small town, it's about the state of California and what they want to do.
In this story from Politico, California's pending crackdown on homeless crisis, they say, Liberal California's pending homeless crackdown, state officials are considering aggressive tactics to deal with the escalating crisis of people with mental and physical illnesses living in the streets, Politico's Victoria Coliver reports.
The growing homeless encampments, which have led to a rise in human waste, trash, and open-air drug dealing, have united unlikely allies, progressive lawmakers and President Donald Trump, whose assailed California's politicians Over the crisis calling it a disgrace to our country and threatening federal intervention.
The crisis is so bad people's minds are really opening up and the policies are shifting, said Democratic State Senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco.
Legislation that would have had no chance five or ten years ago can pass.
Now I disagree.
I do not believe this will pass constitutional muster.
One possible approach.
Pursuing involuntary commitment.
A new state law, authored by Wiener, makes it easier for three counties to, quote, conserve or take guardianship over homeless people with severe mental illness or substance use disorders who bounce in and out of short-term psychiatric commitments.
And California voters could weigh in next year on a proposed ballot measure that would sentence homeless offenders to treatment instead of jail time.
But advocates are worried about ramping up involuntary approaches.
If we're talking about involuntary care, you're basically waiting until someone is in really bad shape before they get help, said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, a San Francisco advocacy organization.
Now, on its surface, so far, it's not that bad, right?
If somebody's in and out of a mental facility and they can't take care of themselves, then sure, maybe it makes sense for the state to come in and assume that control.
Maybe in some circumstances.
But who decides what is or isn't mental illness?
Who decides what is or isn't You know, warranted, warranting the government taking over your assets, conserving you.
Basically, they control what, where you can and can't go, and what, it's basically them taking over your life.
Now, here's the thing.
This one right here can be abused.
It's scary, and I don't think it will pass constitutional muster.
But what happens then when we go to a smaller town and see what they're proposing?
As Vice News reports, and I'm not, I don't necessarily trust them, and it's kind of strange considering I was the founding member, but hey, take it for what it is.
This California city wants to build a homeless shelter that's basically a jail.
Quote.
You need to get clean.
You need to get sober.
You need to demonstrate self-sufficiency.
And once you do that, you're free to go, said Reading Mayor Julie Winter.
California, this is insane.
And I hope, I hope the courts do not allow this.
Listen.
It's one thing to create a criteria of, you have a diagnosed illness, you've been in and out of facilities, and you've been homeless several times, but even then it gets dangerous when a government can simply say, we've determined you are not self-sufficient.
This language is particularly alarming.
What they're asking for would allow them, as far as I can see it, and I'll say this, based on what advocates of the homeless are saying and the opponents of this, that basically, they could come up to you and say, you're homeless, and detain you, and not have to worry about justification, and they could seize your assets.
And then say, prove yourself sufficient.
But what does that even mean?
If you decide to eat Twinkies instead of steak, does that prove you're not?
This is where things get really scary.
Let's read a little bit of this story, and then I'll show you the letter and what they're actually asking for.
Vice News reports, one California city is apparently warming to the idea of pushing homeless people into a shelter where they're not allowed to leave until they demonstrate self-sufficiency.
In other words, according to advocates, a jail.
But let me stop you there.
It's not jail.
When you go to jail, the government doesn't take over your life and take your assets from you, and you're not held indefinitely until you demonstrate some nebulous vague description or ability. When you go to jail, you are
tried by a jury of your peers.
A court sentences you and you know that in a certain amount of time you can leave. But
hey, we're talking about California, right? That's where Kamala Harris is from, where
she did a whole lot of terrifying things like keeping people past their sentences to use
as cheap labor, keeping innocent people locked up. At least that's my understanding of it.
I don't want to get sued. This is California.
It's becoming an authoritarian and failed state.
Listen, man, when you've got 25% of the country's homeless population, perhaps the failure is your politicians.
Resorting to some kind of vague description of what someone can do to leave involuntary internment is horrifying.
You want to call it a jail?
I disagree.
Jail is for when you actually break a law.
When there's a law and they say, this is the law you broke, this is how you broke it, and then they ask your peers.
What they're talking about is someone coming up to you.
What if you're sitting down in a park, leaning up against a tree, and you brought a snuggie or a blanket with you because you want to chill?
They walk up and say, looks like you're homeless.
What do you do?
What do you do?
They say, Reading Mayor Julie Winter mentioned her aim for a kind of lockdown homeless shelter in an interview this week with Jefferson Public Radio, a station that broadcasts in Southern Oregon and Northern California.
The interview concerned a November 19th letter the city drafted to Governor Gavin Newsom, in which Winter asked him to declare a state of emergency over homelessness to access funding typically reserved for natural disasters.
With that funding, the city of nearly 92,000 could build a shelter that effectively forces people with mental illness or substance use disorder indoors, according to Jefferson Public Radio.
Reading has seen an increase in homeless camps despite repeatedly sweeping the camps and making arrests.
Here's the thing.
Let me pull up this story from SFist.
San Francisco-ist, basically.
NorCal City asks permission to essentially incarcerate homeless populations.
You see the problem California's facing?
It's called the Constitution.
I'm not exaggerating.
The Supreme Court, I believe, I believe it was the Supreme Court, ruled you can't penalize someone for being poor.
Only if they refuse shelter.
And so California now needs to declare a state of emergency and say, you know what, instead of actually dealing with the problem, like helping people and working on solutions, you know, because Los Angeles, for instance, couldn't pass their housing bill, they couldn't even do it.
They're saying, you know what, state of emergency, authoritarian rule, just round them up, put them in this shelter.
I do air quotes when I say shelter.
And then in certain circumstances, we will assume control of their finances.
To me, that's nuts.
Let's read.
They say, homelessness in California is not just an urban issue anymore.
With the state now accounting for 25% of the U.S.
homeless population, the problem has grown acutely in rural areas as large-scale wildfires destroyed homes and left tens of thousands without shelter in its aftermath.
Many of those people have trouble getting back on their feet.
And the most recent Shasta County homeless point in time count showed a nearly 20% increase in homelessness since prior to the camp and car fires.
You know why this is so important?
Imagine you, a hard-working, red-blooded American.
Somebody who, let's say you're progressive.
You're a progressive fighting for social justice.
You're out there on the front lines making sure that everybody gets their say and all that stuff.
And then a wildfire happens.
Well, there's a drought.
There's, you know, power problems.
Failed infrastructure from the electric company.
Sparks go flying, your home burns down.
You are now sitting in a park with all your stuff saying, what do I do?
And along comes Johnny Law Enforcement under the new decree, a state of emergency, and he says, you can't stay here.
We're bringing you to a camp you are not allowed to leave.
It's a flash.
And within a couple weeks, you find your home destroyed, no access to resources, and just like that, they come and they lock you up.
Let's read on.
The Shasta County seat of Redding has seen a spike in tent encampments, particularly along the Sacramento River, according to the Redding Record Searchlight.
Mayor Julie Winter has sent a state of emergency request to Gavin Newsom.
We read that.
Let's go on.
They say, as Vice points out, that's basically incarceration.
There's a lot of reasons why this kind of approach is not likely legal.
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty Legal Director Eric Torres tells the publication, I would call it an internment camp or a concentration camp.
If it's not a jail, then what else could it possibly be?
And I gotta admit, first, let me say, we're not there yet.
But I am telling you this and I am a bit agitated because this is a nightmarish proposal.
How dare an American institution in any capacity propose this?
So here's what I did.
Before I started, you know, planning out, you know, what I wanted to talk about in this video, I said, what do I call this?
An internment camp?
I mean, it's typically talking about war.
Concentration camp's way too bombastic.
But I can't just say they want to arrest homeless people.
That's not what they're talking about doing.
They're talking about deciding they can lock you up indefinitely.
Unless you can show them self-sufficiency?
Well, how do you do that?
That's arbitrary.
It means you can be locked up and someone's subjective view can keep you there.
So this guy's saying internment or concentration camp.
Why am I not surprised it's California doing this?
Vice also spoke to the founder of the Reading Coalition for the Homeless, who noted this population has significant numbers of elderly people and displaced fire victims.
This strategy is not completely unlike the Mayor of Breed and Senator Scott Weiner-backed conservatorship programs, except this version is on steroids.
The proposed SF conservatorship program only applies to a small percentage of unhoused people and would only be used in cases of extreme and untreated mental illness.
Like I said, you know, if you've got a long rap sheet from the doctor saying your brain ain't working, perhaps at a certain point someone's got to come in and help you out if no one else can.
The Reading version, however, as written, could force any unhoused person into a shelter, and the local government could take control of their finances.
This is an aggressive move that would almost certainly end up in the courts, but shows how Californians are becoming increasingly more hostile about the homelessness issue.
This is quite horrifying, if you ask me.
Because I think about the potential for abuse.
If they're granted state of emergency powers to essentially lock up any unhoused person, what's to stop someone from just grabbing a random person off the street and saying, you're homeless?
What if you took a nap in a park?
Eh, you're homeless.
Now you've got to prove you're self-sufficient.
And they can seize your assets?
Listen, man.
We already have serious problems in this country with, you know, say, what's it?
Man, I'm forgetting the word.
But it's where they seize your money.
A cop pulls you over and they can just take your cash.
You've got eminent domain, which is already pretty scary, but these things are an escalation of that.
Going back to that first story.
Ah, the wonderful future of California.
Where Peter Layden writes, California is the future of American politics.
I certainly, certainly hope not.
But it seems like that may be the case.
Attitudes in California toward homeless are increasingly hostile, says the New York Times.
So what happens then?
California tried, look, they've got basically one party rule there, it's the Democrats, that's it.
And they haven't been able to solve anything.
You know what the problem is?
With having a state that's overwhelmingly one party?
Well, I can't say that's necessarily true for certain red states, but there's no political competition.
There's no reason to change your tune or to advocate for a different idea because everybody is just racing to the bottom, scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Well apparently, Donald Trump seeks to take action.
Some people are concerned that Trump would absolutely hop on board with this.
And of course the left would say he is, but I'll tell you what, for the time being, and hopefully he doesn't, it just seems to be the worst of the worst coming from this one town in Northern California.
But it seems like a state law would actually allow the conservatorship forced a seizure of assets from individuals they deem unfit.
Here's a story from the Washington Post from a couple weeks ago.
Trump administration ousts top homelessness official as White House prepares broad crackdown.
So I'm going to stop here, okay?
Trump got rid of Matthew Dorey, an Obama administration pick, led council tasked with coordinating government response.
I'm going to stop here and say this, okay?
Trump has certainly called out California.
We know their problems are getting worse.
The homelessness crisis is getting worse.
I can't tell you, I know what the solution is.
But I can tell you, I don't think the solution is internment of people who are unhoused because you couldn't solve the problem.
It might only get worse, because I'll tell you what.
There's something I refer to, and you've probably heard me talk about this before, as the scaling problem.
You know, if 1% of your population is homeless, and you have 100 people, you got one homeless guy walking around your town of 100, and yeah, that's, you know, old Jim, he's, you know, we do what we can.
But what happens when you have a million people?
That 1% becomes substantially larger.
Now these people are blocking main thoroughfares.
They're camping in one area.
And that large group of people, well that's going to spread a lot of disease.
And that's what's happening in California.
California seems to think their only true choice right now is an authoritarian push.
Look, I understand that to a certain degree, you know, somebody who's completely mentally ill and unwell should probably be, you know, helped in some capacity.
And maybe that means, yeah, you can't leave somewhere unless you can prove yourself sufficient.
I understand that the state law California's proposing for those who are mentally ill provably in and out of facilities makes sense.
But the abuse is horrifying.
Perhaps.
It should be treated like any other incarceration.
A set amount of time, a treatment, a jury of your peers, a judge, etc.
And maybe that's the case.
And if it is, well then I'll calm down a little bit.
But the Supreme Court, as my understanding has ruled, you can't just lock people up for being poor.
And therein lies the problem.
How hard would it be for this law to be abused?
And what constitutes mental illness?
What if you have obsessive compulsive disorder?
Should you really be locked up indefinitely because you flick a light switch too many times?
This is how things truly get scary, I suppose.
It's coming from California, of all places.
Well, Donald Trump seems to want to take action.
He's gotten rid of this guy Matthew Doherty.
He's heavily criticized California.
But we are seeing something else.
Now, I will briefly mention New York City.
Their solution was horrifyingly dystopian, but at least not nearly as fascistic as what California's proposing.
They say a lawmaker is asking for investigation into New York City sending homeless to Hawaii.
This is from Maui Now.
That's right.
New York City was exporting its homeless, just putting them on buses and sending them out to other places.
We can see that, across the board, things aren't looking too well.
But you know what's interesting?
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight recently tweeted that, it may surprise you, but California and New York absolutely are representative of large swaths of this country, because there are many urban centers that follow the lead of Los Angeles, New York, or California and New York as a whole.
If that's the case, this is what we have to look forward to.
When their policy fails, they will either put you on a bus and ship you off to the middle of nowhere, or just lock you up and seize your assets.
I can only say I hope I'm overreacting on this, but I'm not the only one saying it.
And surprisingly, you've got Vice talking about it.
Here's a quote from the mayor.
She says, it's a low security facility, but it's not a facility you could just leave because you wanted to.
You need to prove your self-sufficiency.
So yeah.
I guess I would call that an internment camp.
But I don't know, maybe you disagree with me, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe California is a dystopian nightmare and it's only going to get worse because instead of solving their problems, this is what they propose.
Locking people up, taking their assets until you can prove yourself sufficient.
But I tell you this, as I mentioned earlier, I'll make this one last point before signing off.
What if I decide that instead of, I don't know, say, buying a new car, I buy a Dance Dance Revolution arcade set so I can dance in my living room?
Is that responsible?
Well, you need the car for work, but the car's breaking down.
You could argue no.
Are they going to be able to say, you're not self-sufficient because you've wasted your money?
And therein lies the dangerous, the problem of someone asking for emergency powers to
round people up into a forced shelter, they call it, especially when saying it's demonic.
And then what?
How do we determine by law what constitutes your ability to be self-sufficient?
It sounds like, I don't know.
Fascistic?
Communistic?
Dictatorial?
Authoritarian?
Whatever you want to call it.
You are not self-sufficient if you buy unhealthy food.
What if I want to order a pizza instead of eating, I don't know, fresh chicken breast or something?
That's where I think we're headed.
And not only that.
I will say, too, I bet some of the homelessness is due to bad diet in the first place, causing people to be malnourished and unwell.
They can't think straight.
But do people have a right to choose what they eat and what they spend their money on?
In California, particularly in Redding, it sounds like the answer will be no.
You do not have a right to choose what you spend your money on because that would only prove you're not self-sufficient, and we're going to lock you up.
I get it.
I get it.
She's focused on homeless people, particularly those who are mentally ill.
I understand.
They're polluting the river.
Water is getting filthy.
I understand all of that.
But there is a basic level, there's a line we do not cross.
And if you can't solve the problem, this is not the way.
But I tell you this.
This is how dictatorships start.
The easy solution that California finds is not coming up with a comprehensive plan to help these people.
It's to say, you know what?
Just round them up and put them in a facility they can't leave.
That's not going to solve the problem for anything.
And I'll tell you this now, if we don't focus on this, and again, maybe I'm overreacting, but if we don't talk about it now, and California really is the future of this country, then I mean it seriously when I say, God help us all.
Stick around.
I'll see you all in the next segment.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
I have not watched The Mandalorian, and I probably won't.
I'm probably not going to see Star Wars next month either.
But there's a funny story going around mocking the Democrats, because apparently Baby Yoda has more than double the top social media engagements for the next, the top Democrat, which is Bernie Sanders.
You see before you, the chart, why Baby Yoda should scare Michael Bloomberg and Devil Patrick.
Average social interactions per story on 2020 candidates and Baby Yoda.
So if you're not familiar, Baby Yoda is a character.
Look, I didn't watch The Mandalorian.
I don't know too much about Baby Yoda, but there is literally like a Baby Yoda and it's got force powers and everybody loves it and the memes are going crazy and it's so popular.
And here's the sad thing.
The sad truth is that people care more about Baby Yoda than the Democrats.
Sorry, Democrats, you're not interesting enough.
Now, what's really interesting to me, I tried to find data on this.
Surprisingly, it's just the Democrats.
But what about Donald Trump?
Well, it stands to reason that Baby Yoda cannot defeat Donald Trump.
I want to read you this story, and we'll learn about what they're saying.
But on another story from Axios earlier this month, they mentioned that Joe Biden gets more than three times the social media attention than all Democrats combined.
Now, it's not one for one data, but you know, because they're saying total, look, Trump is the baseline.
They're comparing, everyone is compared to him because he is number one.
In one week, about 47 million engagements, Total interactions for October 27th, and this Yoda thing is average social interactions per story.
So these are just per story.
The Trump thing is for one week.
But if we, you know, extrapolate here, we can probably assume that Trump is getting substantially more traffic than all of them combined, which means Trump, in all likelihood, is defeating baby Yoda.
The Democrats couldn't do that.
Well, let's read, because you know what?
We'll start the morning a little silly.
Axios reports.
Baby Yoda, the juggernaut character from Disney Plus' Star Wars series The Mandalorian, is driving almost twice as many average social media interactions on news stories about it as any 2020 Democrat, according to data from Newswhip exclusively provided to Axios.
I'm bringing you only the most important stories to get your day started.
Why it matters.
The Internet's most memeable 50-year-old broke through the online conversation in a huge way since the show's November 12th premiere, and its viral success should worry the 2020 race's late Democratic entrants Michael Bloomberg and Devil Patrick.
No, no, they're not gonna win anyway, come on.
The big picture.
Both Bloomberg and Patrick staked their runs on the idea that voters would hungrily embrace a fresh face to shake up the 2020 race.
But compared to Baby Yoda, they're not exactly capturing the public's imagination.
Let's stop, okay?
Because the first thing I wanted to say when I saw this was, of course Baby Yoda's getting more interactions.
It's Baby Yoda!
First of all, it's Star Wars, which is extremely popular.
It's Yoda, but a baby.
You got all the ingredients there for a high-profile, you know, pop culture phenomenon.
And it's there.
You know, here's the thing.
I've always said, people don't care about politics.
People care about Game of Thrones and Westworld or whatever, or The Mandalorian, I guess.
It's the new big show, right?
People want to talk about the new movie.
They want to talk about sports.
And I'll tell you right now, I know I'd get way more views and make way more money if I did content about pop culture.
But you know what?
I just don't care.
I don't care about Baby Yoda.
I'm not going to watch The Mandalorian.
Maybe I'll watch it at some point.
But here's the thing.
I want to say that.
I want to say people don't care.
But I'm wrong.
Now you might look at this and say, Tim, clearly people care more about Baby Yoda than politics, but you're wrong.
Because Donald Trump is presumably beating Baby Yoda.
The reality is that Donald Trump has combined pop culture and politics.
And now you've got people who are more interested in talking about him per story.
And that's why we see Orange Man Bad Narrative dominating all these different news outlets.
It's why all the tabloid, online, clickbait, ragebait nonsense can't stop talking about the guy.
And I've shown you the charts before if you've seen the videos.
They talk about Trump like four or five times more than they ever talked about Obama.
Cause I tell you what, you take Bernie Sanders, politician.
But people like what he's doing, so he's got a big base.
You take Joe Biden, politician.
He's a default character, right?
He's just Obama Jr.
You know, he's a lot older than Obama, but you get the point.
So people are going to talk about him.
But Baby Yoda is pop culture, and pop culture is way more fun, and it's getting double the interactions.
What happens when you mix politics and pop culture?
You get Donald Trump, who gets three times the social media interactions of all Democrats combined.
Now, the data is not the same, but if we were going to take the same, you know, extrapolate, we could say that taking all of these, you know, democratic interactions combined, they beat Baby Yoda.
They do.
I mean, just Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden combined put them above Baby Yoda.
But, take Trump, and you combine all of them, and Trump's getting double, what, three or four times what Baby Yoda gets?
Sorry Baby Yoda, you can't beat Donald Trump.
That dude knows how to capture people's attention.
And that's the thing.
There's no such thing as bad press.
So, when I talk about how the impeachment thing has backfired and how it's bad for everybody, yes, we can see, and I always want to make sure this is clear, that there are some advantages Democrats have earned by doing the impeachment BS.
They've got more independents today than October who are in favor of impeachment, though it has turned on them.
It's still a little uptick.
So they got what they wanted, for the most part.
But I'll tell you what, Trump is going to win off name recognition alone.
There are going to be people who aren't paying attention.
I'll tell you this.
The people who tweet about Baby Yoda and not Bernie Sanders or Trump, when they go to the voting booth, they're going to be like, I don't know who Bernie Sanders is.
I know who Trump is.
Trump.
A lot of people aren't going to be politically engaged.
They're going to be middle of the road.
They're going to say, I don't know who the other guy is.
I know who Trump is, right?
Hey, a lot of people are going to say, you know what?
Things are going.
Things are going.
The economy is good.
I don't know what else, whatever.
Just keep it the way it is.
Trump needs press.
Trump plays the media.
We know how that works.
I gotta say, I was actually surprised to see that it's in all likelihood Trump beating Baby Yoda.
Because like I said, I want to say, you know, pop culture would always beat politics, but Trump's got both.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, Baby Yoda's introduction coincided with Bloomberg and Patrick announcing their bids.
Bloomberg officially jumped into the race over the weekend, but spent weeks telegraphing his run while Patrick entered on November 14th.
Both of the newest 2020 Democrats have had a significant number of articles written about them since November 12th.
Bloomberg ranks second among the Democratic PAC with 7,650, while Patrick slots into fourth with 4,044.
I also want to point out... Okay, no.
Patrick slots into fourth with 4,044.
I also want to point out, okay, no, go, yeah, anyway, let's read.
They say the media saturation doesn't necessarily translate to reader interest.
With Baby Yoda in the mix with the 2020 Democrats, Bloomberg ranks 14th and Patrick ranks 16th in terms of average interactions, like comments and shares.
Per a story about them.
And Baby Yoda has notched an average interaction rate ten times higher than theirs.
But come on, you guys, you're leaving out poor Amy Klobuchar.
You want to talk about who should feel really bad?
Amy Klobuchar!
Because, see, the thing is, Bloomberg just entered the race, and he's already generating more interactions than she is?
She's been in the race the whole time!
And she's beneath him?
Ugh, does not bode well for Amy.
I'll tell you what, though.
It looks like Booker is done.
It looks like Kamala Harris is done.
And I want to give a shout-out to Tulsi Gabbard for taking down Kamala Harris in that epic debate moment.
That's when everything fell apart.
And Kamala Harris is like, well, I'm a top-tier candidate, so of course she's gonna come after me.
And now she's done.
Campaign's falling apart.
People are publicly resigning and sending their letters in.
Yup.
Sorry.
You know what, though?
You should all be worried.
And I mean it, okay?
Because if Baby Yoda was on the ballot, I'd be willing to bet Baby Yoda would get way more votes than any of these Democrats.
I'm not joking.
I mean that.
People would be like, ah, Baby Yoda, it's so funny!
And they would check it off.
Of course, Baby Yoda.
I'd be willing to bet people are gonna write in Baby Yoda.
They're gonna be like, don't want Trump, don't want Bernie, I want Baby Yoda.
In terms of raw interaction, since November 12th, Baby Yoda's 2.28 million trail only the Democratic racist group of frontrunners Joe Biden 8 million, Bernie Sanders 2.9 million, and Elizabeth Warren's 2.53 million.
But the rate of interactions is massive when you consider that Baby Yoda would only rank 10th in terms of numbers of articles written, 1,368.
The bottom line, because this data only captures interactions with news stories, it doesn't take in the wealth of Baby Yoda memes, gifs, and content native to social media, meaning that the character's reach is probably far wider.
CNN compiled a list of some of the most popular Baby Yoda memes, and I am not interested in looking at CNN's opinion on memes, because they're probably terrible, calling it the cutest character to probably ever grace our collective TV screens.
The internet also freaked out over the weekend when Jiffy Temper Hurley took down all Baby Yoda gifs due to copyright confusion per Engadget.
So let me tell you this.
If we go off raw numbers, then the Democrats are getting more interactions, but it's because there's not as many stories written about Baby Yoda.
When you compare the average, a story about Baby Yoda will get substantially more interactions.
But check this out.
You see Joe Biden here with 2.6 million interactions?
That is not by average.
This is just for the week, right?
Trump has 47 million That's nuts.
I think that probably puts Trump like four or five times above Baby Yoda.
And you know what Trump does effectively?
Is he captures the outrage along with the support.
Whereas Bernie Sanders gets probably some outrage.
Actually, you know what?
There's a lot of people on the right who rag on all of these Democrats when stories come out about them.
I gotta say, in the end, it seems like no one really cares.
2020 is going to come down to whether or not you like or don't like Donald Trump.
Seriously.
And I think the Democrats know that.
I've mentioned this.
That's the point of impeachment.
They want to make as many people as possible hate Trump.
Because no one's going to vote for Bernie.
No one's going to vote for Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, etc.
Excuse me.
Like, yes, there's going to be people who vote for Yang.
There obviously will be people who vote for them.
But what I mean to say is, the votes they get are going to be just opposition votes to Trump.
No matter who gets the nomination, the people who are going to vote Democrat are doing it just because they want to vote against Trump.
That's the big play.
And I'll tell you what.
You want to talk about impeachment?
I'll tell you this.
Do you disagree with me?
Do you think that Democrats are acting on principle to impeach the president?
Okay, I'll tell you what.
It's not perfect evidence or proof, but if you need proof that's not the case, look no further than Baby Yoda getting more interactions on average than Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, all of the other Democrats.
What that should show you is that Trump, when the story comes out, people interact like crazy.
But when it comes to the frontrunner, Joe Biden, ain't nobody care.
When it comes to Bernie Sanders, people care a little bit more than they care about Joe Biden.
When it comes to Baby Yoda, they care twice as much.
This should show you that if we're going to do a hierarchy, of what people care about. It's Trump, it's Baby Yoda, and
then the rest of them.
And what that says to me is, Democrats, this is your silly view into how little people care about
what you're doing. Again, removing Baby Yoda from the equation, and Donald Trump is getting more
than three times the interactions of every Democrat combined.
How do you compete with that?
Then you have Axios slap you in the face by mocking you, showing you that Baby Yoda is more popular than your candidates, and all of them, by more than double.
But not Donald Trump.
I think this is the silliest way, but really is good evidence to show the best play Democrats have is to make Trump look bad because he is all they care about.
I don't know how you do it though.
Impeachment doesn't seem to be working.
The opposition is growing among independents.
It seems to be backfiring.
Just the other day I covered a story where a moderate Democrat went home for Thanksgiving and guess what happened?
She got anger.
There were booze.
There were cheers.
There was anger.
It was mixed.
And there were people complaining, saying, you didn't campaign on Orange Man bad.
You were supposed to be going to Washington and getting the job done.
Instead, what do we get?
They all go.
You know what, man?
I got to say, I hate to rehash this, because if you saw the video, you saw the video.
But look, man.
This Democrat lady, she comes home to her district and she says, this is a 1776 kind of fight, what the president is doing.
Oh, harumph I say.
It's like, dude, he had a phone call, man.
He had a phone call and maybe it was inappropriate, but there's nothing in this testimony.
You literally have nothing.
And now here I am doing a story about how Democrats can't get into any interactions and how Baby Yoda is more popular.
And I've already started talking about Trump.
Isn't it crazy how that works?
Because nobody cares about what the Democrats are doing.
We've all heard what they have to say.
Their policies are nuts.
They're not doing anything, you know.
Elizabeth Warren is tanking in the polls.
The far left is trying to squeak their way in, but they're all over the place.
The moderates are floundering too.
And Baby Yoda is gonna beat all of them.
I tell you what.
You put Baby Yoda on the primary ticket, Baby Yoda's gonna win.
You need to understand the power of name recognition.
That there's going to be a lot of people who don't know anything about any of these candidates.
Take a look at this.
You want to talk about value?
I'm not going to pretend like interactions speak to support, but Tulsi Gabbard is in fourth place, okay?
She's in fourth place for social media interactions on average per story.
She's beating Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris.
She is beating all of them.
So you want to talk about who people really care about?
These are the people they really care about.
Now, here's the thing.
Take a look at the polls.
These are not reflective.
Joe Biden is way above Bernie Sanders by a factor of two to one.
Pete Buttigieg, then you've got Joe, Bernie, Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren.
Tulsi Gabbard is nowhere near the top.
But when it comes to what people really care about, she is.
You know what that means?
It means when it comes to who's gonna vote, and who they're gonna vote for, they don't know anything about these people!
They don't care!
They don't know, they don't care, they don't interact, they don't engage, they just say, eh, I think I like that person.
So therein lies the big problem.
Not one of these Democrats has risen to that point where people care enough, or they care more than Baby Yoda.
I can't believe I just talked about Baby Yoda for 15... I'm done.
I'll see you guys at 1pm.
Baby Yoda.
A Canadian comedian is facing a $35,000 fine for telling an offensive joke something like 6 or 7 years ago.
I kid you not.
Now, initially they wanted him to pay an additional $7,000 to the victim's mother, because apparently he made fun of this guy here who's got some syndrome that makes it so he doesn't fully, his face isn't fully formed, and he made fun of him.
For a while, it was a joke about Make-A-Wish, and I'll get into this, okay?
And then apparently the court said you gotta pay his mom too, but they overturned that.
Still, they're telling him to pay $35,000 and he's refusing to do it.
Canada, of all places.
I can't say I'm surprised they've been continually falling more towards this fringe far-left ideology, but I'll tell you what, man, I don't know a whole lot about Canada.
I'm not Canadian, and maybe they've been this way the whole time, but I will say something before we read this, and maybe I'll bring it up later.
All of those people who are like, oh no, Donald Trump, oh heavens, I should move to Canada.
Please, please, please go move to Canada.
You know why?
Because then you can see what it's like to live without freedoms.
Because this is a joke, right?
Was it intended to actually offend the guy?
No!
In fact, the story isn't true.
He embellished everything.
He was just using it as a launching point.
How do you know whether or not someone can handle having a joke told about them?
When people make fun of me, I don't get angry.
Should I?
If someone in Canada talks smack about me, can I force them to pay me?
That's ridiculous!
So what happens if you go up to somebody in Canada and say, I think you have funny looking curly hair?
And they laugh and say, oh yeah, I think it is kind of funny looking.
You're fine?
But if they go, how dare you?
What if you compliment them and they don't take it as a compliment?
I really like your dimples.
How dare you mock me?
Who determines what is or isn't offensive?
A court?
They're gonna be like, what if in this joke he started by saying, what a great and proud and amazing person.
What if he framed it all as positives, but still made it funny in a negative light?
How do you police this kind of stuff?
It's absolutely... Let me read the story before we get carried away.
They say, a Quebec judge rejected part of comedian Mike Ward's appeal regarding a joke about a disabled boy.
Ward was ordered to pay $35,000 to Jeremy Gabriel who suffers from a genetic disorder that causes facial deformity and affects his hearing due to a joke the comedian told at shows between 2010 and 2013.
Two of three judges ruled Mike Ward's comments regarding Gabriel were not justifiable in a society where freedom of expression is valued.
I don't know if that's an editorial statement from Post Millennial or if that's literally what the judge said.
I'll tell you what.
Canada is not for free expression.
They are the opposite.
It's probably why so many Canadians come here to tell jokes.
They say war was originally ordered to pay an additional $7,000 to Gabriel's mother.
A fine which the courts overturned due to the indirect relationship between the joke and the boy's mother.
The joke in question was regarding Gabriel's disability.
In 2005, Gabriel sang to Pope Benedict and Celine Dion to flesh out his dream of becoming an international singer.
Ward's jokes called Gabriel a bad singer, stating that he was terminally ill, and that Gabriel not passing away meant that his make-a-wish was invalid.
Gabriel was not actually terminally ill, as Gabriel's genetic disease, Treacher Collins Syndrome, does not generally have an effect on lifespan.
He was also not a make-a-wish kid, as Ward was embellishing the story for the sake of the joke.
Ward added that he tried to drown Gabriel, but he wouldn't die.
So I- I- look, the joke is told in French.
I can only assume that what he's basically saying is, by drowning him, it would validate the make-a-wish, I guess.
It was a joke!
It's not a real story!
These people can't tell the difference between jokes!
So here's the thing.
Like I mentioned, how do you determine what's offensive?
Let's say there's somebody who's a jockey, right?
So jockeys who ride horses tend to be small people.
What if I laughed and said, this guy will never play in the NBA!
You want to be in the NBA?
Too bad, you're too short!
Is that what the guy's like?
What if I don't want to be in the NBA?
How do you determine the intent of an individual and whether or not it's offensive to make a statement about somebody who literally can't do a thing?
You see, the point I'm trying to make is this dude who's got this syndrome probably never gonna be an internationally recognized singer because only the it's point zero zero zero zero zero zero one percent of people Probably less.
It's a small amount of people who become internationally recognized singers.
I know some people who are famous musicians, you probably wouldn't even know their name.
And they play to big audiences, but they are not like Beyonce, and you probably do know that name.
So here's the thing, man.
Are we not allowed to point out that some people can't do some things?
I think that's really where we're going.
It's the craziest thing.
And it's got this overlap with socialism.
Where basically, you know, I was talking to people, I know it's kind of derailing from free speech into socialism, but there's a point here, right?
Think about what this is.
You must respect this individual who can't be a singer.
You must respect their wish to be one.
I don't gotta respect anything.
I live in America, I have a First Amendment right, and I'm glad I do.
Man, it's getting scary, I'll admit.
Especially with these social media companies not respecting free expression, and falling into this mindset, and we're doomed.
We really- I'll get into this, right?
But I'll tell you what happens.
Under this utopian socialist idea, everybody will just do whatever they want to do.
It literally makes no sense.
And I'm not exaggerating.
I got into a Twitter fight with the Socialist Party of Great Britain or whatever, and we were talking.
I wouldn't necessarily call it an argument, I'd say it was a discussion.
And I said, under socialism, what if I, I don't know, I've never built a car before, I know nothing about building a car, but what if I wanted to do that?
They said, well, you would just go and do it.
Well, how would I get the parts to build the car?
And he said, you would just go down to the factory and get the parts.
And I'm like, OK, why would the factory give me, someone who has literally no idea how to build a car, the parts?
Certainly parts are not infinite, and they'd want to prioritize them, right?
And they said something to the effect of, of course, the people who build cars would get first access.
I said, so what you're saying is that I can't choose because I would be last in line?
Well, see, under capitalism, I can work and trade as I see fit.
So if I have something of value, I can go to the car people and say, you know what?
It's probably going to sit in my garage.
Don't know how to build a car, but I can do it if I want to.
And that's a hobby.
But here's the thing.
Ain't nobody got to pay me when I build a crappy car or fail to do so.
It's something I want to pursue and explore.
And that freedom allows us to expand and discover what we can really do.
And I'll tell you what.
That means this kid under capitalism would absolutely be allowed to be a great singer.
Oh, he's probably not going to be a great singer, right?
But he can sing.
Nobody's got to pay him to do it.
Think about the two scenarios that we would get under socialism.
For one, people who might be good at a job will not be allowed to do it because they'll be told, this is the job you're better at.
You must do this.
You won't be free to explore.
Or you have a society where people literally can just like, like the great, the socialist party said, anybody could just do anything, even if you're physically incapable of doing it.
So here's what I tell people.
Imagine you have a friend.
Actually, no, you need to imagine.
How many people do you know who play musical instruments?
You can probably say, oh, I know a handful, right?
How many of them would love to be a famous musician?
They got a leg up on this guy.
They actually play the instrument.
Ah, but then how many of them do you think would actually make it?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Probably none.
Some of them might be, you know, like a studio musician.
They can play the guitar, but they're not really good at writing.
And see, the thing is, in this socialist utopia world, they tell you that you, someone who is, you know, has a genetic disease that causes malformation, or I don't know, is that offensive?
I have no idea.
But you're likely not going to fit the bracket required to be a great singer.
Under their utopian vision, they would say, but you can do it anyway!
And we're gonna pay for it!
But if you're not producing something of value that people want, where does that money come from to keep feeding you?
Take it away from singing.
Singing's more abstract.
Let's talk about somebody who bakes cake.
Okay, that's food.
No, no, no, let's not even do cake.
Let's do, like, uh, I don't know, bread.
Basic necessity, okay?
General food.
Bread's not that great for you, you shouldn't eat it, but you make bread, right?
Let's say someone says, I want to be a baker, and in the socialist utopia, we must respect their right to bake that bread.
And they keep making crap that nobody wants to eat, nor can, because it's too hard, and it's just wasting resources.
That clearly can't exist, right?
Certainly someone must come in and say, dude, you can't do this anymore.
Well, guess what happens?
Then you can't bake bread.
Then you're never going to get access to the ingredients to make bread because the socialist system will say we're not going to prioritize resources towards someone for a hobby.
You see the problem here?
Is that there's this weird overlap between everyone should be allowed to do whatever, you have to respect this person, and if you don't, we will punish you.
Maybe that's how they'll end up paying for people to do ridiculous things.
But I tell you what, this kind of stuff, I know I kind of got into socialism on this, but it's a free speech issue.
It's all kind of interlinked between people who think they deserve everything.
Why should this guy get $35,000 because someone said mean words about you?
Are you kidding me, dude?
How about I say this?
What's this guy's name?
I don't know the guy's name.
Gabriel?
No, yeah, yeah, Gabriel, okay, Gabriel, I think you are a bad person.
Am I gonna have to be— Look, I get it, right?
Making fun of— It's hate speech, whatever, calling you a bad person, isn't— The point is, are we gonna leave it up to a court today to determine what is, and then it changes later?
It literally makes no sense, and it can't be enforced.
But all of these things are moving in a direction where everyone thinks they deserve everything, and they don't.
Let's read a little bit more, but I want to make the bigger point about free speech and the danger we're facing.
In a free country, it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide what constitutes a joke on stage, he wrote.
The people in attendance laughing already answered that question.
Ward's lawyer, Julius Gray, believes the decision seriously impacts the world of stand-up comedy.
In this particular case, if the judgment is maintained, no one will be able to dare to be a stand-up comic, because normally you make fun of things that are controversial.
Otherwise, it's not funny.
If anything that is controversial can authorize someone to say, I was hurt, I'm going to court, we're finished.
Yeah, I'd be surprised if stand-up comedians wanted to keep performing in Canada, because that's insane.
They're going to fine you because you were mean to somebody?
What if you insult the president, the prime minister, or otherwise?
You can't do that.
It's offensive.
You must pay a fine.
So I'll tell you what.
People then come to the US.
But you know what?
I'll take it.
I'll take that brain drain, right?
You're skilled elites.
Mike, come on down to Philadelphia.
Stand up.
People will clap for you and cheer for you.
You might get some protesters calling you bigot, but whatever.
At least nobody will arrest you.
Nobody will force you to pay a $35,000 fine.
Because even as a tourist or somebody here on like an artist visa, Those who enter the United States, even illegally, do have constitutional protections.
To a certain degree.
I don't know the exact, you know, how it exactly works, but you do have free speech.
And for a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm not gonna show too much, because it'll get me in trouble on YouTube, but I wanna make sure you know this is happening.
Angela Merkel gave a speech where she said, basically, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, and that they gotta ban hate speech.
And we have another story about Ilhan Omar's Republican, uh, I don't know, competitor or whatever?
Rival?
There's many people who wanna challenge Ilhan Omar, but one of her you know, contenders for the 2020 congressional seat, said
that Ilhan Omar should be tried for treason if this, you know, these rumors are true about her
passing off, you know, information to Iran, and if it is, she should be hanged because that's the
penalty for treason, which it is.
Well, this woman was then banned from Twitter for saying that.
But she was basically saying, this person has been accused of a crime, and if it's true, she should face the legal penalty.
I don't agree with what she says, and I think the story about Ilhan Omar is absurd and most likely not true.
But...
You gotta recognize the predicament we're in.
When a private company can supersede calls for the rule of law.
So we're in a situation where someone says, Twitter is banning people for legal speech.
Well, that's another issue because Twitter's a private platform, right?
What happens when someone says, I would like to see US law enforced and Twitter bans you because of it?
That means with Trump spending ridiculous amounts of money on Facebook, we know the power of social media.
These private companies can literally get rid of it.
They could ban anybody who says we should uphold our laws and promote anybody who says not to.
That's where we're headed.
That's where we're going.
Comedians getting fined and threatened over jokes.
The loss of free speech.
I'll leave you with one quick thing.
There's a comedian named Rafinha Bastos.
He's Brazilian.
So it's spelled R-A-F-H-I-N-A, I think.
So it's like Rafinha Bastos.
Look into this guy.
Actually, I know him personally.
He's a good dude.
He told a joke.
A dark humor joke on TV, and it was pretty dark.
But I get it.
It was funny.
And he actually got, I believe he got threatened with jail time over it.
That's Brazil.
No free speech.
And he was sued.
I think he's now in the U.S.
But you know what?
I think he's in the U.S.
I'm not entirely sure, but I'll tell you this.
All of these comedians around the world, just come on down to good old U.S.
of A and be as offensive as possible and we'll pay you to see it.
You know, I will give you cold hard pictures of dead presidents so that you can make offensive jokes because we have the First Amendment here.
You might have to, when you go home, they might, you know, arrest you.
I don't know.
But hey, I'm thankful to the Founding Fathers every single day.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel and I will see you then.
We got some big poop news out of California, and based on the fact that you clicked this video, I can only assume that you are deeply concerned about the big poop problem in San Francisco.
Now, this is an old story I got pulled up right here for you.
It's from April 19th.
The amount of poop on San Francisco's streets has hit an all-time high.
Guess what?
It got even higher.
See, this was 28,084 reports of poop in 2018 littering the streets of San Francisco.
And who would have thought it could get worse than that?
You'd think with this story and all of the news, everyone talking about how San Francisco has literally turned brown.
Somebody would have done something, right, while San Francisco's got their poop patrol.
But apparently, it's only gotten worse.
Check this out.
From KRON4, San Francisco local news.
San Francisco's poop problem is only getting worse.
The rental site Rentop examined public data from the city's website, including SF-311 complaints, where people can report a wide range of problems, including human and animal waste.
According to its analysis, San Francisco's seen over 25,000 poop complaints this year from January to November, the most the city's seen within the same time period.
And the city's Tenderloin neighborhood received the most complaints.
When thinking of a number of different neighborhoods, Glen Park probably doesn't come to mind.
Interestingly enough, this is the area that's seen a 205% increase in poop complaints from 2017 to 2018.
And it's seen another increase this year so far.
complaints from 2017 to 2018 and it's seen another increase this year so far.
What is wrong with California?
So the reason I wanted to talk about this is I was actually thinking of putting it in my main video where I talked about how the proposal from San Francisco to Reading is basically just round everybody up, bring them to a shelter, and I use air quotes because you're not allowed to leave.
So it's, you know, some people call it a jail.
I don't know.
I think jail is reserved for people who are judged by a jury of their peers.
But yes, because they can't solve the crisis, they're like, just round them up, put them in a place they can't leave.
Now listen, I can certainly understand why that may be the proposed solution, but perhaps, when you learn of these problems, you actually try to solve them.
I understand that rounding people up is a solution, but let me explain something to you, because, you know, I don't know how people will feel.
I'm sure there's some people who probably say, you know what, man, we gotta arrest some of these people, we gotta, you know, maybe putting them in a facility makes sense, but I'll tell you what.
They think the problem will be solved by taking the person and putting them somewhere else.
And I assure you that will not solve the problem because there is something causing the peop... Here's the real problem.
Something is causing people to go poop in your streets.
Taking that person doesn't change the fact that people are still coming and pooping in your streets.
All that you're going to do is put those people in one place where they all poop in the same place And I guess it's the best you could do.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think it's kind of messed up because the law is going to be abused.
But it won't stop what's causing the people to come poop in the streets in the first place.
Because they keep coming.
It's like New York, right?
New York, they export homeless people.
unidentified
And it doesn't solve any of the problems because some people just come right back.
The cause of the problem is what needs to be addressed, not the person pooping.
It is short-sighted to say, that person pooped, put him over there in that room, and then we solve the problem.
No!
No, because something is making this happen.
California, you are a deeply sick state.
Okay?
Let's read more.
It's a serious public health concern.
It's a public relations concern.
When you have a city that's driven by tourism and conventions and visitors from all over the world, it's frankly embarrassing, explains a San Francisco resident.
According to rental website Rentop, the city's reporting system SF-311 received 28,315 feces complaints in 2018.
That's up 35% from the previous year.
215 feces complaints in 2018. That's up 35% from the previous year. Okay, okay, so so they say
Let me stop read so far this year the city seen 25,000 complaints about 7% more in the same period in
So I want to make sure I clarified that.
That it has gotten worse and it's by about 7% because the year is not over yet.
You still got a whole month to get a lot more poop racked up.
SF, if you want to beat your record, you got to get those guys out there pooping in the streets.
One San Francisco native explains, My wife and I both work in the Civic Center area, and that's obviously the worst.
The worst?
But I can definitely notice it's starting to creep out.
Oh, it's definitely not the worst.
But I can definitely notice it's starting to creep out from the city center.
Okay, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
It's so bad the city has its own poop patrol, who cleans up human waste.
Think about that, man!
What do they say?
Mostly in the city's Tenderloin neighborhood.
We have firefighters, we have the garbage men, we have police, we have paramedics, and we have poop cleanup.
That's one of your main city services.
That's amazing.
So far this year, the neighborhood's received the most feces complaints.
Nearly 7,000 per square mile.
What?! !
Wow, that is a lot of poop!
Business owners like Zoel Fages were surprised to learn the city's Glen Park neighborhood made a headliner on RentHop's list.
Glen Park saw the largest year-over-year increase, where complaints jumped 205%, however this only added up to 61 complaints.
I personally, in 12 years, I've been here, not really ever noticed human poop, explains Phagis.
Those numbers are alarming, and if you've been in the city before, many people have stumbled upon these problems at least once before.
It's important to note that those numbers lump both human and animal feces into one category.
Well, you know...
You probably do have a problem with people walking their dogs and not cleaning up.
But I'll tell you this, man.
There was a viral tweet that was really funny.
And it was someone saying, like, I'm at a fancy restaurant in downtown San Francisco, and I walked outside and realized this was the only city I've... No, no.
It was something like, I've been all over the world to Egypt and, you know, Brazil, and San Francisco is the only place where I can walk out of a fancy restaurant and accidentally step in human ass.
Can't swear on YouTube.
But I have good news.
I do.
California, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
When God closes a door, he opens a window.
Because while you may have a poop problem that is only getting worse, the good news is you have been named Poop Capital of the US.
Why yes, you have earned the outstanding title.
Of poop capital.
Now, I'm joking.
That's actually a terrible thing to have earned.
But that's the, you know, congratulations.
And I guess they mostly just, oh, I'm sorry.
There is a comparison of Chicago, New York, and San Francisco, and they won.
Wow!
So I knew it was bad in SF, and I assumed it was the worst, but this is good news.
You've beaten Chicago and New York City.
They say.
San Francisco has been named the doo-doo capital of the United States with 20,899 poop complaints reported in 2017.
Well, it's up from there.
This story is from a year ago.
Congratulations.
We ought to make trophies for SF, you know?
And we can hand it out to the politicians, like Nancy Pelosi.
She represents SF, doesn't she?
We can give her a big turd on a wooden plank and say, this is for you.
For your city.
Congratulations on winning.
RealityHop did a comparison of 311 poop complaints in Chicago, New York, and SF.
The study includes dog and human poop sightings.
While 2017 was the worst year on record in SF, research shows that 2018 is on track to beat that, and boy howdy!
2019 is on track to beat that.
Okay, I get it, I get it.
I'm rehashing this old story.
Let's have a conversation.
Why is this happening?
No, seriously, if you're listening, if you're watching on YouTube, let me know why you think this is happening, and I will tell you this, man.
I've often thought that this probably has something to do with the homeless crisis.
And then there's some people who think it's related to, like, a broken windows theory kind of thing.
If you're not familiar, basically, the general idea is if you find a building and there's a broken window, you assume that the building is trash and you're more likely to break a window.
Or a better example is, like, if you walk somewhere and see trash on the ground, then most people might just be like, whatever, and throw their trash on the ground, too, thinking, who cares, there's already trash here.
But if you make sure everything's clean, then people won't litter.
Like, they won't spit gum, or they won't, you know, put, you know, throw their trash in the ground.
That's the idea.
I don't know if it's actually true.
It was one of the leading theories for, like, law enforcement in New York City back in, like, the late 80s, going into the 90s or whatever.
But I think that, assuming it is true, that may be one of the big problems, because apparently the poop that they're facing is not just from Reality Hop, it's not just about human waste, animal waste too.
So I think what you really have is a more endemic problem to a very progressive area.
Okay, and this is going to be the controversial thing, but I'll tell you this, man.
I think you've got a city full of people who don't care about anybody else.
They pretend to.
They live in these fancy, super expensive buildings.
They work for these massive tech companies where they think they're better than you.
Meanwhile, there's homeless people all over the place.
And the problem with poop is twofold.
When you don't take care of the homeless and only serve your own interests, the homeless will probably poop places.
But it also shows that these rich people, wealthier people, are probably walking their dogs and not cleaning up after them because they just don't care.
So while it may be a kind of broken windows thing, where because the homeless are pooping, they're like, why am I going to clean up my dog's poop when there's human poop right next to it?
I think the cause is a cultural problem of not caring about people.
They claim they do.
They really don't.
That's why they're people.
They live in these ivory towers.
They get paid ridiculous sums of money to work for big tech firms.
I'm not saying I know what everybody in San Francisco is doing.
I'll tell you what.
Chicago and New York, they have some of these problems, not nearly as bad.
California has it the worst.
I think California is just, it's, you know, as South Park put it, smug.
I don't know if you saw that episode where they're all driving hybrids and it creates a cloud of smug which destroys the state, basically.
Or I believe it, like, destroyed San Francisco.
The point is, this state attracts people who think they're better than you.
Not everybody in California.
I know a lot of good people who live there.
I have a lot of friends who live there.
But I think it's the kind of state that attracts these people who think they're smarter and better, and they're snooty, and they virtue signal, and they pretend, but they don't really care.
So they'll say things like, oh, we must help the homeless, and then they'll run away.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Congratulations, California.
Congratulations, San Francisco, poop capital of the country.
I will see you all in the next segment coming up in a few minutes.
Over in Hong Kong, the protesters are marching, demanding freedom, challenging communist China, and they are waving the one true symbol of freedom.
You may say, Tim, are you talking about the American flag?
No, I'm talking about swole Donald Trump.
That's right.
Hong Kong protesters are marching around holding up pictures of Donald Trump as Rocky Balboa.
Because for those that have been sleeping under a rock, the president, just the day before Thanksgiving, tweeted an image of his head superimposed onto the body of champion boxer Rocky Balboa.
Fictional champion boxer.
And the media went nuts.
And they started saying, this is so bizarre.
What are you doing?
And there were leftists that were outraged by it.
And I'm sitting here thinking, like, dude, is a joke?
Calm down.
And then this whole thing, like, man, I got to say, It sparked a wave of press.
It's the weirdest thing.
But I'll tell you what, Trump knows how to command attention.
Well, certainly now.
I'm kidding, by the way, about this Trump boxer being a symbol of true freedom.
The American flag certainly is.
But I was kidding.
But the point is, they really are doing this.
And the Washington Post wrote the story.
Hong Kong protesters wave swole Trump posters at Thanksgiving rally.
The Washington Post is actually writing about this.
This is your president, ladies and gentlemen.
He has not only inspired massive outrage, but massive admiration over posting an image of himself as Rocky Balboa.
The Washington Post reports, pro-democracy protesters in central Hong Kong celebrated US lawmakers and President Trump on Thursday night.
Thanking them for passing and enacting legislation that promises to punish officials who restrict freedoms in the territory.
Of the thousands at the Thanksgiving rally, many draped themselves in American flags and sang the Star Spangled Banner.
And some lauded Trump as an international hero by waving posters depicting a strong, shirtless American leader.
The quote, swole Trump image, the president's face superimposed on the body of Sylvester Stallone as fictional boxing champion Rocky Balboa, circulated on the pro-Trump internet even before his Twitter account posted the picture Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving.
Yes, there are many images.
Didn't Trump once post a meme of him, like, riding a velociraptor with an automatic gun and, like, explosions and the American flag behind him?
Then there's one where he's, like, riding on the top of a tank.
There's one of Trump, uh, like, it looks like the painting of Valley Forge in George Washington.
There are tons of memes of the president.
Sponsored by prominent bipartisan lawmakers, including Marco Rubio, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act authorizes sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials for human rights abuses, and requires an annual review of Hong Kong's special trade status by the State Department.
The bill, enacted amid negotiations with China to end a year-long trade war, enjoyed overwhelming support in Congress.
The House passed it by a vote of 417 to 1.
Okay, so we get all that stuff, right?
They say, as the Post previously reported, the swole Trump image, which cartoonist Ben Garrison described as depicting a handsome alpha male, suggests that Trump is not only strong, but that his critics are weak.
Oh, is that so?
Democracy supporters in Hong Kong have voiced admiration for the U.S.
Yes, yes, we know all this stuff.
So what do you think China's response was to all of the support and all that stuff?
Well, China's response was Call America racist.
That's right.
China, who operates concentration camps that are rounding up people for believing certain things they don't like and harvesting their organs, is accusing us of being racist?
China, you ran a commercial where you put a black guy in a washing machine.
You are racist.
Everybody knows China is racist.
And China's trying to... You know what, man?
No, no, no, no.
We're not playing that game.
We know exactly what you're doing, China.
Here's the key point, they say.
It couldn't be much clearer that Beijing is hoping to dilute the impact of a rare bipartisan effort by Congress and the Trump administration to highlight China's human rights abuses, writes Jake Novak.
So here's what Li Jianzhao said, In Washington, the white seldom go to the southeast area,
as it's an area for the black.
President Trump even demanded four women lawmakers of color to leave U.S. out of respect for President Trump.
U.S. and the black there, please follow America First policy
and take care of racial discrimination.
No, no, no, hold on, actually.
I will agree to an extent.
Yeah, the U.S.
should be taking care of our internal problems.
That's a fact.
And I do think it's worrisome that in many ways the U.S.
will send our resources overseas to countries that aren't America.
I'll tell you something else, though.
Sanctioning China is not us sending weapons and blowing up kids in the Middle East.
Sanctioning China is saying, we ain't gonna do trade with you because you are violating the rights of people in Hong Kong and the Uyghur Muslims.
That's a whole lot different.
In fact, that's actually quite America first.
We're gonna do right by us and our principles and not deal with you, and we're gonna ask our friends not to as well, while we deal amongst ourselves.
It's still kind of America first.
But you know what?
I can say this.
Absolutely.
The U.S.
has problems.
China?
You think you're gonna... Okay, look, you know the mistake you made was that your problems are substantially worse.
You're complaining that there are racial segregated areas in this country because people choose to live in certain areas or because of class barriers?
I admit it.
You know what?
We do have some problems.
A lot of people are racist.
Doesn't matter what race you are.
You can be racist.
A lot of people are classist and it is hard to move up.
Gentrification can cause some problems, can help some people.
It's a complicated process.
Yeah, I'll tell you what, we'll work on that.
But you know what you should do?
If you're concerned about how we're not, you know, choosing to live by each other, how about you forcefully harvesting the organs of people who happen to be Muslims?
I think, you know, normally I would say pot meet kettle, but we're not even in the same league as what you guys are doing.
Sorry.
And I would say something like, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
And that's probably a better way to put it, but man, it's not even a glass house.
Like, it is a house of a thin, I don't know, brittle material that will be, you could flick it and it would collapse.
You guys literally operate concentration camps, so no.
Please don't lecture us on the fact that people in certain areas choose to live in certain areas, and sometimes they don't.
It is hard to move up.
Totally get it.
I'll tell you what.
We passed some laws back in, like, I think, like, you know, 1964 that make it illegal to discriminate based on the race of religion, national origin, you know, sex, age, gender, etc., and race, and you are currently detaining people and harvesting their organs.
Bravo.
So NBC writes, CNBC writes, of all the angry responses to President Trump's decision to sign bills supporting the Hong Kong protest movement, the oddest one of all is an online campaign to label America as racist.
You know, we're probably the least racist country on the planet.
Actually, maybe that's not true.
Some Scandinavian country, probably Sweden or something.
But they're actually, in my opinion, my experience, yeah, Swedes are pretty racist.
It's coming straight from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the form of Li Jianzhao's Twitter feed.
Zhao is the Deputy Director General at the Ministry's Information Department.
So this is obviously an officially sanctioned move by Beijing.
Now here's the thing.
Lijian, who are you trying to convince with that tweet?
American progressives?
First of all, any American communist who already agrees with what the communists are doing, you don't need to argue for.
And even the progressives recognize that you harvesting the organs of Muslims is a whole lot worse.
So I don't think anybody's taking your tweet too seriously.
I don't know who you're trying to convince.
You're trying to convince countries like Sweden, I guess?
Dude, you have concentration camps.
But okay, okay.
I can make fun of China all day, and I think it's hilarious that people in Hong Kong are walking around holding up the picture of Trump as Rocky Balboa.
Truly an inspiration.
But you know what really blows my mind?
You know, no matter what Trump could have done, the media would have attacked him, okay?
So, we get this bipartisan bill saying, we're gonna condemn China, we're gonna, you know, we'll sanction them, we'll review what they're doing.
Totally get it.
Because Trump is currently negotiating with China, he was in a tough spot.
Do I not sign this bill, and then everyone complains I'm not supporting Hong Kong, or do I sign it and make China angry and screw up this trade agreement?
No matter what Trump was going to do, the media was going to come for him.
So Trump said, you know, so you probably realize it.
You know what?
Just sign with America on this one.
Sign the bill.
Support freedom.
Support Hong Kong.
CNN runs the op-ed, Trump's risky move on Hong Kong.
You see, CNN's in a tough spot.
They wanna write negative news about Trump, but they gotta be careful because Trump is on the right side here, supporting freedom, right?
But sure enough, they're going to write this article saying, oh, it's risky now, you're gonna make China angry.
They say, Trump cast doubt on his support for the Hong Kong protests when he called into Fox & Friends and said, we have to stand with Hong Kong, but I'm also standing with President Xi.
He's a friend of mine, I'd like to see them work it out, okay?
But Trump defied the expectations of many on Wednesday and signed the Human Rights and Democracy Act, as well as the Protect Hong Kong Act, both of which have bipartisan support.
We get it, we get it.
But they say this.
Trump's move, heralded as an early Thanksgiving present by protesters in Hong Kong, was met with swift condemnation from China amid ongoing trade talks with the US.
But was it a casino roll by Trump to legitimize his credentials on the foreign policy field?
Or a risky attempt to show Beijing amid trade talks that America means business?
Well, CNN calls it a risky move.
And, you know, I don't think they're wrong.
But I do think it's fair to say that no matter what Trump would have done, he would have been attacked for this.
And I won't be surprised if we start seeing people mock Donald Trump because of this.
And they're going to say, oh, our president's not serious, he's being ridiculed and all that stuff.
The media was shocked and outraged that Trump posted this meme of him as Rocky Balboa.
In the end, I think, as I've said many times before, if we as a country can come together, left and right, Over the issue of China.
Then I think we're better off.
And I think that's the most important thing we should say.
So, yeah, was it risky for Trump?
Sort of, but listen, man.
When you have bipartisan support saying yes to Hong Kong, it's not risky for Trump to do that.
It's good that Trump did that.
It was the right thing to do.
Democrats and Republicans can agree.
The risky move would be if he didn't support the bill.
Because then he's alienating Americans.
For what?
Support of China?
You know what, man?
In the near future, it may get really bad between the US and China.
And so, the best thing you can do is say, we as Americans will show up our defenses, we're gonna go on the offensive and make sure we stand up for our principles, and not bend the knee to China like these NBA players and these video game companies have done.
Anyway, all that really matters, seriously, is that a bunch of people in Hong Kong were holding up pictures of Trump.
They went and printed these out.
Bravo.
Bravo to Trump and the Hong Kong protesters.
Y'all must be having a great time.
Hopefully things work out for the best.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Back in 2017, so just about two years ago, Jose Canseco got in trouble for his bizarre rant saying women only accuse ugly men.
Well, that statement is a bit hyperbolic.
It's not that they only accuse ugly men.
It just seems like they tend to, right?
I'm gonna sit back, I'm gonna put my feet up, and I'm gonna let you wallow in your anger as I say women are typically only going to accuse ugly men of assault or harassment.
And I'm going to sit here and wait for a second so you can get really, really angry
and be like, how dare you say that, Tim? I'm so mad.
And look at this story.
Look at what Jose Quintego said. He launched a social media firestorm
when he initially suggested there's a double standard with women calling out men
they feel have acted inappropriately towards them.
What is going on with all these politicians groping women?
I'll tone down the language a little bit.
I've been groped by several women and I've never complained.
An avalanche of comments asking him to stop with his twisted train of thought only spurred more activity.
Kenseiko, a six-time all-star best known for his years with the A's before his ties to performance enhancing drugs tainted his success.
Next, attempted to clarify what he meant by women groping him.
Okay, I'm just gonna say it.
YouTube's gonna demonetize me.
Molesting.
Well, I mean, I've been beaten by women, taken advantage of by women, and molested by women, he wrote.
I never complain, but it was kind of a turn-on.
Kinseiko, perhaps confusing the tweets for a direct message, paid particular attention to one female Twitter user who repeatedly told him to quit the stream of consciousness.
Hi, Sarah, he began adding.
Sarah, you're the only woman who has ever told me to stop.
Well, now you're getting a little extreme, but maybe it's all the truth.
Kenseiko53 continued to boost his ego, tweeting about his relationship success with women and dragging his argument further through the mud.
Anyway, here's the reason why I read this story.
What if I were to tell you it has been scientifically proven that, for the most part, women are more angered by ugly men than by attractive men.
And I'm not talking about assault or harassment.
As it turns out, women are more likely to perceive a sexual advance as flattering or as assault or harassment depending on the attractiveness of the individual.
And guess what?
The same was true for men.
In other news, water is wet.
See, here's the thing.
Most people know this, okay, because you see it every day.
It's one of those things you see all the time in your life.
You'll be sitting there and you'll see this really handsome guy
say something kind of lewd, you know, maybe a little over the line to a woman,
and she'll giggle and laugh, and then they'll walk away hand in hand.
You'll see the same thing from a fat neckbeard wearing a duster and a fedora,
and she's gonna be like, ew, get out of here, creep.
It really just depends on who the person is and if they're attractive or not.
Because I'll tell you this.
If someone is sexually attractive and they say something to you and you like them, you're gonna be like, this is great!
Then, you know, we can, you know, do our thing together.
And if they're ugly and gross and you don't like them, you're gonna be like, dude, not cool, I don't like that, right?
Everybody knows it.
I remember when I was a kid, there was an episode of, there was an edition of Mad Magazine.
It was a mad look at dating, I believe it was.
And one of them In one of the comic panels, it showed a beautiful man and a beautiful woman, and they were hugging and kissing with a heart above them, and all of the onlookers around them—it was a public display of affection, I think it was a mad look at PDA or something—they're all going like this, like, aww, and they're like, you know, fawning over it.
The next panel was two ugly people, and everyone was all angry and yelling at them.
And they also, I believe, it's been a long time, made fun of the fact that when an attractive guy makes an advance on a woman, she's like, oh, hee hee!
And then when it's an ugly guy, she's like, ugh, get out of here, that's gross!
So that's what Jose Canseco was saying, right?
That's an old story, but I'll tell you this.
This study is from the 25th of November, 2019, and it says, From an evolutionary perspective, the perception and interpretation of advances depend on sex-specific mechanisms, individual differences in the perceiver's mating strategies, and the actor's attractiveness.
In two studies, participants evaluated hypothetical situations of sexual advances from a co-worker varying in attractiveness and physical appearance or status.
In both studies, men perceived advances as less negative than women.
That one's obvious.
Especially when the advances arise from a physically attractive actor.
And there it is.
That we knew.
Furthermore, the higher the socio-sexual orientation of the participants, The less harmful these advances are perceived.
Finally, the same behavior from an attractive or physically attractive actor is perceived as less harmful than from an unattractive actor.
Results are discussed from an evolutionary perspective on the perception of sexual advances.
There you go!
I get it, it's one study, but come on, man!
Everybody already knew this!
Whether or not anyone wanted to admit it, when Jose Canseco pointed out That women are only ever accusing the ugly guys.
Everybody kind of was like, eh, for the most part.
But you can be an attractive, you know, bad person who says offensive things and get accused, for sure.
You can be an attractive guy who crosses a line and assaults a woman, absolutely.
The point is, though, when it comes to someone walking up to a woman and, you know, grabbing her arm or something, there was a story recently in the UK where some, like, nervous young guy touched the arm of a young woman and she accused him of assault and he got convicted or something.
So yeah, if the high school popular guy that everyone loves, the dark mysterious guy is like, hey, what's up?
You're looking really fine.
She's going to be like, oh, I can't believe it.
But if the fat nerdy guy with acne has got a double chin, walks up and goes, you're looking fine.
She's going to be like, ew, gross, get away.
We all get it.
And guess what?
I got one more study to round things off.
I'm not going to leave you hanging, because guess what?
Here's an article from Sage Journal.
This one's from May, a little bit older, but I thought it would be important to add this to, I guess, to the segment.
Are sex differences in preferences for physical attractiveness and good earning capacity in potential mates smaller in countries with greater gender equality?
Now, I want to read this for you and give you the more specific details, but my general understanding is, in fact, We learned this from, there was a story about like these gender, you know, more gender equal countries like, you know, Sweden or whatever.
And it turns out, in countries where it's more socially acceptable to be, you know, like a female CEO or whatever, or a male homemaker, We find that gender differences are actually more pronounced.
It seems paradoxical, they say.
Well, what do you think happens then?
Women are attracted to men with good earning potential, and men are attracted to physical beauty.
Here's what they say.
On average, women show stronger preferences for mates with good earning capacity than men do.
That's weird.
While men show stronger preferences for physically attractive mates than women do.
Studies reporting that sex differences in mate preferences are smaller in countries with greater gender equality have been interpreted as evidence that these sex differences in mate preferences are caused by the different roles society imposes on men and women.
Here, we attempted to replicate previously reported links between differences in mate preference and country-level measure of gender inequality in a sample of 3,073 participants from 36 countries.
Although women preferred mates with good earning capacity more than men did, and men preferred physically attractive mates more than women did, we found little evidence that these sex differences were smaller in countries with greater gender equality.
Although one analysis suggested That sex difference in preference for good earning capacity was smaller in countries with gender equality.
This effect was not significant when controlling for Galton's problem or when correcting for multiple comparisons.
Collectively, these results provide little support for the social role account of sex differences in mate preference.
Let me just try to round that up for you.
They found 36 different countries, for the most part, women like dudes who make money, dudes like women who are hot.
In other news, they're basically saying, water is wet.
Why is it that there are certain things that we kinda just know, but that we have to have these studies done?
And I think the reason is politics.
There are people who would like to tell you that, well, gender is a social construct.
Sorry, that appears to not be the case.
So here's a question I asked on Twitter, and everybody started going like, whoa, Tim's gonna get banned.
Listen.
I said, if gender is a social construct, does that mean in some cases a gender dysphoria is due to social pressures?
That was a question I asked.
I'm not saying it is or it isn't.
And certainly a ton of people were saying yes.
No one really engaged with me who wanted to argue saying it's not.
But there's a paradox here.
If you want to argue that gender is a social construct, how do you explain the science proving That, for one, harassment is based on attractiveness, but more importantly, that even in countries with greater gender equality, women are still attracted to guys who make money.
This presents us with a very serious problem.
I'm going to round off this video by making a very, very, I don't know, I guess controversial point.
As feminism results in more women earning money, those women are less likely to be attracted to men of equal earning capacity.
Based on this, I will just make a hypothesis.
Perhaps, if a man and a woman are in the same job making the same money, the woman will look at him as no better than she is and no more capable than she is and she wants someone with good earning potential.
But if she's earning the same, is that really good earning potential?
I guess you could argue theoretically, yes.
The amount of money she makes is relevant.
But I would actually say, I think women tend to want to, I don't know, date up.
And guys want a hot wife or girlfriend or whatever.
In which case, If more and more women are getting jobs and making money, and more and more men are becoming unemployed, perhaps the decline in marriage and fertility rates at least has something to do with the fact that women are out-earning men and don't find them attractive.
In fact, I generated a ton of controversy apparently by making a series of videos, I made like four, talking about the problem of 30-year-old women with careers being unable to find attractive men.
And I will wrap this up with that, just to rehash, so that everybody can get angry at me again.
I don't care if you're mad.
It's apparently science, right?
You have a problem right now, where you've got these, you know, early thirties women, who have careers, and they're having trouble finding men who make as much or more money than they do.
And I said, you know, there's a couple reasons for that.
For one, we are seeing a decline in men getting jobs and degrees and things like that, for sure.
But what about the fact that men want younger, physically attractive women?
Listen, if women are attracted to men who make more money than them, and men are attracted to beautiful, young, attractive women, we got a cultural paradox occurring right now.
Basically, these women are getting a little too old for what the average guy wants, and they're making so much money that they're less attracted to guys who are making around the same as them.
So if a woman is 30 years old and is making $50,000 a year, and there's a guy who's decently attractive, who's smart and charismatic, but only makes $40,000 a year, she will likely be less attracted to that because he has bad earning potential.
She will then say, I can't find any good guys.
If the woman wasn't making any money at all, she'd find a guy who made $40,000 a year and be like, hey, he makes money, right?
That's something.
She is above him, in terms of economic status.
She's probably unattractive.
Okay?
Based on this.
That's my assumption.
Then take the other fact.
The other side of things.
A guy who is making a substantial amount of money is not going to choose a woman who's older and making money.
He's going to choose a younger, physically attractive female.
That's what the science shows us.
You can be mad about it all day and night.
But it has nothing to do with social constructs and gender roles.
It apparently has to do with nation-level averages for what men and women want.
But I'll tell you this.
Don't worry about the science.
Don't worry if you can't find the perfect person.
You're never going to find Prince Charming or Snow White or whatever.
You've got to find the person who's right for you.
And if you sit around all day complaining about how the person you found isn't perfect, well then you'll never find anybody.
Because that's just life.
So you know what?
To those women who are complaining about being 30, making good money, not finding a guy, well, you gotta settle, man.
You're not gonna find your Bill Gates.
Well, maybe Bill Gates isn't a good example.
Brad Pitt.
He's rich and handsome, I guess.
There you go.
You're not gonna get Brad Pitt.
Oh, I don't know.
What are young girls?
Who are they fawning over?
The Jonas Brothers?
Are they still a thing?
I have no idea what women are attracted to.
Whatever.
Just be yourself, okay?
And constantly try to improve yourself and do better.
But I'll tell you this, man.
To all the people who are arguing all day and night about social constructs, look.
There is some evidence to suggest right now, if it's true that gender equality does not have an impact on whether or not women are attracted to earning capacity, well then we're going to have major societal problems as we shift towards a more egalitarian society.
If women are making more, not even egalitarian, matriarchal, if women are making more money going to college and running industries more so than men, those women aren't going to find guys they're attracted to.
And there have been some pretty offensive opinions, I'm not going to name them, about certain religions and stuff.
Whatever, I'll leave it there.
But to fill the role, to say, of the strongman.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Bring on the downvotes.
I absolutely expect a whole bunch of leftists are going to start screenshotting this video, pulling things out of context, and screeching on Twitter like they did last time, but I don't care.
