Democrats Are Rigging The Primaries Again And The Backlash Will Drive Voters To Trump Just Like 2016
Democrats Are Rigging The Primaries Again And The Backlash Will Drive Voters To Trump Just Like 2016. How is it that Sleepy Creepy Joe Biden is the front runner for the Democrats?Perhaps its just name recognition and most Americans don;t actually care. Biden is familiar so he likely gets support by default. But when looking at engagement and donations it seems that Bernie is the actual frontrunner. He has raised nearly double what Biden has.But more importantly we can see how the democratic establishment keeps out people it does not like, notably Bernie in 2016 and now Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. The Republican establishment did not want Donald Trump but fortunately for conservatives they didn't rig their primaries so Trump won.A recent Suffolk poll has Tulsi at 6% nationwide. This makes sense because of the recent publicity she has had over the Hillary Clinton and the Russia accusations. But even though Suffolk is an approved pollster they refuse to recognize the results because it was published with the Boston Globe.In this Way the DNC has made it extremely easy for them to control who the people see and hear. How can we function in this way when establishment interests push out the voices of real Americans?I have no delusions of Tulsi and Yang winning the nomination but hey anything is possible. In reality I just expected a fair shot to state your case and have your ideas heard. But everyday it seems like the crony democrat establishment is more interested in keeping the machine churning even if that means Sleepy Joe, Creepy Joe, as their choice.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There are a lot of reasons why people think Donald Trump is going to win in 2020.
And the first and biggest is probably the economy.
Apparently, we had record sales on Black Friday.
People got money to spend.
Based on that, a lot of people don't want to rock the boat.
And historically, that means the incumbent is going to win.
And there's a lot of other reasons, too.
But I think probably one of the biggest reasons as to why Trump is going to win is that Democrat support is going to flip for Trump once again, just like we saw in 2016 with Bernie or Bust.
See, in this segment, I'm going to talk to you about how the Democratic primary is rigged, because we have two big problems.
What you're seeing on the screen is Joe Biden biting his wife's finger.
We'll talk about this.
Some people are defending it.
Either that's what Americans really, really want or the way the DNC has set up the debates.
And by selectively choosing certain polls, they can always make sure their person is front and center at the debates.
They can work alongside media to make money and prop up their preferred candidates and keep out anybody the American people actually want.
So here's the thing.
Nobody on the Republican side wanted Donald Trump.
I mean the politicians.
They hated the guy.
Outsider, anti-establishment, coming in making him look bad.
Ooh, they were angry.
Then you got a bunch of never-Trumpers who joined CNN and other outlets.
But the thing is, the Republicans didn't rig the primary, so Trump was able to win.
The Democrats did rig their primary, so Bernie was not able to win.
How can we function in a system like this?
If I say I personally would like an individual to be the nominee, and you disregard me and my will as an individual in this country has a right to vote and have their voice heard, why should I bother with your process?
Now, back in 2016, I knew some people who were big Bernie or bust people and I thought, you know, I can kind of understand, you know, the way they feel, but surprising, you know, 12 to 18% switched for Trump.
That I couldn't really get.
I'm like, look, man, I think Trump's a funny guy.
And when he won, I thought it was funny because the Democrats got comeuppance.
But now with what's going on with Yang and Tulsi, oh, you better believe I can feel Because the polls are in their favor, but guess what?
The DNC says we selectively choose which media partners are acceptable.
And that means they guarantee that Creepy Joe is always going to be the frontrunner.
And it's so frustrating because all I'm asking for is something reasonable.
And I'll tell you what, while Biden at least tries to be reasonable in terms of policy, the dude is clearly not all there.
So let's do this.
I want to talk to you a bit about Joe Biden because, man, he said some really creepy stuff.
And you got this viral article where he bit his wife's finger.
Some people are defending it, so we'll talk about it.
And I want to show you the polls.
And I want to show you exactly why there's probably going to be a surge of Democrats who say F you to the Democratic Party and go and vote for Trump or just don't vote at all.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several different ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
If you agree or disagree, if you think I bring up good points, if you think there's a reason people should hear what I have to say, the best thing you can do, share this video.
It helps me keep doing my work.
It's essentially my alternative to a big marketing budget, which I don't have.
These big media companies can put whatever they want wherever they want.
I rely on you guys.
So let's just check out the story.
The first story, which needs no real explanation, is a photo—well, it does, it does.
It's Joe Biden biting his wife's finger.
Here's the thing.
The story's going pretty viral.
They're calling it a bizarre moment.
Some people are mocking him.
And this photo is—it's really weird.
It's really weird.
Now, some people, even conservatives and democrats, have defended him, saying his wife was talking, she was waving her hand, he was being playful, so he nibbled her finger.
But I still think it's bizarre.
Now, I'm not highlighting this to say, oh heavens, oh no, Joe Biden's the worst candidate ever for nibbling his wife's finger.
No, I think it's silly, I don't care.
I think it was stupid to do, I think it is kind of weird, but I get what he was, he was being, you know, endearing to his wife or whatever.
But here's the thing.
Joe Biden is Creepy Joe, OK?
Here's a story from April.
Joe Biden's super creepy hair smelling skeeves out Trevor Noah.
We're all familiar with with Joe Biden smelling little girls and doing really creepy things and women calling him out for it.
But for some reason, Joe Biden's the front runner.
Look, man.
I prefer moderate policy.
I prefer someone who's probably closer policy-wise to where Biden is.
But I also care about fairness.
And I do not believe it's fair that you can have someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who's a major in the National Guard, respectable, honorable, with excellent points, who had major media moments, And somehow she is nowhere near the polling of Joe Biden.
Now, I get it.
I don't want to act like a sore loser.
Joe Biden is recognizable.
He's a former VP.
And who's Tulsi Gabbard?
She is not a top, you know, a front-running candidate.
The issue is, she recently got 6% in a New Hampshire poll, one of the most important states in the primary.
And the Democrats will not recognize it, even though it's from Suffolk University, I believe.
And that's an approved poll.
Or Suffolk, whatever it is.
I don't know if it's a university or whatever.
Because they partnered with the Boston Globe.
Oh, but they're not a media partner of the DNC.
You see what the Democrats do?
They rig it in many different ways.
So I want to show you.
I want to talk about this.
But the first thing I want to do is I want to remind you.
Here's a video that the Daily Caller just posted of Joe Biden.
In it, This is not for the... I guess it's... I'm just gonna say it.
Joe Biden talks about how little kids would rub his legs so that his hairs would go down and then curl up, and how he loves little kids jumping in his lap.
It is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard.
How is this man the frontrunner?
You want to argue that the American people are just stupid?
Maybe they're not paying attention?
I think, sure, fine, but why is that?
Why are the American people uninformed, if that's what you believe?
I don't believe the American people are stupid.
I believe they are being misinformed and manipulated by political interests that are trying to make sure their establishment candidates are front and center through various media outlets.
Here's the thing.
We know Joe's creepy.
We know he sniffs little girls.
And I'm frustrated because I think we got a couple great people.
We got Yang and Gabbard.
Look, you don't gotta agree with their policies, but you can recognize there's something totally different about them compared to these other crony, weird, you know, individuals.
And maybe you like Bernie Sanders.
I can respect that, too.
I think he's played too much of that game.
Not as big a fan of it as I used to be.
But I think it's fair to point out they absolutely are playing games.
Now they're propping up Pete Buttigieg?
What does Pete Buttigieg have to offer?
Look, I'm not trying to be mean, but he's very generic.
But I guess he's the best alternative.
You can look at Elizabeth Warren.
Check this story out.
September 13th.
The Weird Telling Joe Biden Debate Moment That Didn't Get Enough Attention.
Even Vox.com is pointing out that Joe ain't all with it.
So let's do this.
Let's take a look at the polls.
Elizabeth Warren came out, there's some stories here, and maybe they're misframing, but here's the thing.
Stories came out about Elizabeth Warren down in Brazil saying, yeah, you know, the Democratic primaries in 2016, kinda rigged.
Yeah, kinda rigged.
So, we know it, and Elizabeth Warren coming out and saying it says to me one thing.
She is, as it's been described to me and as I've said it before, she is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
She is the establishment player that is trying to pony up to those who might actually support Biden.
But I want to show you this.
This is individual contributions.
Why is it that Joe Biden is the frontrunner?
First, you can argue about name recognition, and I get it, but the reality is it's because the polls are chosen by the DNC, and they exclude people.
They exclude polls that are like, oh, that one's showing you doing really well.
No, we're not going to take that one.
I'll tell you what.
No one's ever polled me.
I've never received anything online or otherwise.
And I'm extremely politically active.
And I'm extremely likely to vote.
We'll see what happens.
So why not me?
Who are they polling?
It makes me wonder about why they choose these certain organizations.
For one, media partners of the DNC, seriously, when they do like a specific debate and say, we're partnered with this organization, well of course they're going to choose that outlet.
The other thing is, who are these organizations polling?
And is it favorable to the Democrats?
The Democrats say, we're not going to use that polling institution.
Why?
Is it because they're actually going to poll people?
Maybe it's because they'll find average people might actually support Donald Trump and make you look bad.
Or maybe it's because they'll support someone like Tulsi Gabbard, or even someone like Cory Booker.
Someone that is not your prime choice.
When we look at this chart here, this is from the New York Times, which Democrats are leading the 2020 presidential race?
I do find it strange that we can see in the polls Joe Biden at 27% in front, but Bernie Sanders having almost double the amount of money raised.
Even Pete Buttigieg having substantially more money raised than Joe Biden.
Look, Tulsi Gabbard is the bottom of the list, and she's got a little bit more in polling than Julian Castro.
But my question is, what's the disparity between polling and contributions?
Because I think money says a lot more, to an extent, right?
Because if you get a bunch of wealthy donors, you know, eh.
But these are individual contributions, so, you know, we'll take it for what it is.
Here's what it comes down to.
Take a look at this Baby Yoda poll here.
Now, I know you may be saying, what does Baby Yoda have to do with Democrats?
No, but this really is important.
Ignore Baby Yoda, and you'll see that social media interactions, the politically active, what are they talking about?
We can see it does not show us the same thing.
If anything, the real frontrunner is Bernie Sanders.
You don't gotta like the guy to accept that he gets more social media interactions, he's raised almost double the amount of money, and he's routinely ignored from mainstream press.
So we can talk about Bernie.
For me, obviously, you know, I'm a bigger fan of Yang and Tulsi, and they're being ignored in the press, and they get the short end of the stick.
But let's just do this.
You want to talk about the Democratic primary being rigged?
Yeah.
How about Bernie Sanders?
How about 2016?
It was happening then.
It's happening now.
You know, when we look to national polls, or actually, you know, I made this point.
I'm showing you 538, you get it.
Basically, if they can choose what polls are acceptable, then they know who the pollsters are going to be asking, how they ask it, and who that will put in front, and whether or not it's safe for them.
Like I said, it's, you know, the Republicans weren't They didn't rig the RNC.
Maybe they should have if they didn't want Trump to win, but at least Republicans can rest easy knowing that when they choose someone in their primary, if they really want him, they get it.
But people on the Democrat side, I can tell you this.
If you want Bernie, if you want Tulsi or Yang, sorry, it's never going to happen.
I guess if you want Kamala Harris or Booker, it's not going to happen either, but that's for a different reason.
And again, I don't want to be a sore loser.
I get it.
I get it.
Joe Biden has a ton of name recognition.
But you'd think after the press about him nibbling fingers, which is not so bad, but kind of weird, what, sniffing little girls?
Here's the latest news.
And I got another story.
Back this up.
Tulsi Gabbard campaign charges DNC deliberately ignoring poll, putting her at 6%.
See, here's the thing.
The DNC says, here's our approved pollster, combinations.
That's right.
They may say Suffolk is a great polling institution, but only when our media partner is the one who publishes the story.
That's the limit.
That to me says, straight up, you know it's rigged.
Because when your own polls are saying she's doing well and you don't accept it, let's read the story.
This is from today.
They say 2020 Democratic presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at the DNC committee late Friday, charging that the DNC was deliberately ignoring a recent Boston Globe-Suffolk University poll, putting Gabbard at 6%, her highest showing in the presidential contest.
And they kept her out of one of the debates.
The Suffolk Globe Poll, released November 25th, found Gabbard polling at 6% nationwide, a significant jump in position from other earlier national polls, which put Gabbard between 2 and 3%, well out of both the first- and second-tier candidates.
In the Suffolk Globe Poll, Gabbard competes directly with second-tier candidates like Senator Kamala Harris, and polls just behind the four recognized frontrunners, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Pete Buttigieg.
To appear on the DNC's debate stage in December, they must show a fundraising base of at least 200,000 donors and a significant showing, more than 1% support, in at least three recognized polls before the end of November.
If the DNC counts the Suffolk Globe Poll, Gabbard makes the stage.
Oh, they're not going to.
We all saw what Hillary Clinton said.
Russian asset.
We all saw the media fall in line and scrub the story.
Do you know about this?
If you've watched my content, you've seen this.
Hillary Clinton said that she's a favorite of the Russians, and her and Jill Stein are Russian assets.
And everybody ran the story, saying she implied that Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Russians for a third-party run to stop the Democrats from winning.
But then, strangely, just out of nowhere, with no updates, stealth edits started to appear, and they changed it from Russians to Republicans.
You know why?
Because someone from the Clinton camp called these media outlets and said, change it to Republicans.
No, she was actually talking about Republicans.
Context matters.
We heard what she said.
She called her a Russian asset.
She referred to Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard as, you know, the favorite of the Russians.
What is that supposed to mean?
Oh, did you gaffe?
Fine.
But what does the media do?
Simply because the Democrat people called the press, they made that change.
How insane is that?
And I know the Trump supporters understand this, right?
There's the meme, you know, where it's James Franco with the noose and he's looking over and it says, first time, because Trump supporters get it all day and night.
Let's go back in time to this epic moment in the press between Mike Cernovich and I believe it was 60 Minutes.
See, the media routinely smears Donald Trump's mental acuity, saying that he's unwell and they're so concerned about whether or not he's all there and all that stuff.
Dude seems pretty spry to me.
But I'm not going to speculate whether or not Trump's got a mental illness or his brain's not working.
He seems healthy for the most part.
Went to the hospital.
We'll see what's up with that.
But back in 2016, the media kept saying all of these things about Trump's health.
When Mike Cernovich questioned Hillary Clinton's self, he was called fake news.
In an interview, and this is in his documentary, Hoax, it's really fascinating, the journalist says, that's not true, that's fake news.
And Mike Cernovich says, no, it's true.
And then the journalist, I think it's Scott Pelley, I'm not sure, says, it's not.
Mike says, how do you know that?
And the journalist says, the Clinton campaign told us.
Mike says, why would you believe the Clinton campaign?
And the guy's like, drops his glasses, and it's like, that's a really interesting question.
Why would the journalists smear Trump, but then just believe whatever the Clinton camp said?
Why is it that the DNC functions in such a way that when Hillary Clinton smears Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset, and Jill Stein, I won't leave her out, third party candidates are important as well, that all of a sudden, the media bends over backwards, starts issuing corrections without notice to change it.
Oh, was it because the Democrats were looking silly?
What's the guy's name?
There's some Twitter resistance guy who said Republicans made a pact with the Russians.
Yeah, okay, dude.
Let's read a little bit more of this, and then I want to show you a little bit more data.
In a statement released on Friday, Gabbard cried foul on that decision, accusing the DNC of deliberately ignoring the Suffolk Globe poll, even though it may be more reliable than other recognized polls.
But come on, Tulsi, we get it.
It's not about whether or not Suffolk is a good polling institution.
It's about whether or not they're going to let you into the club.
And the answer is no, because you don't play ball.
How can a democracy function this way?
I know we're a constitutional republic.
I mean our democratic institutions.
We're supposed to elect our representatives.
We choose who we want.
But clearly the Democrats are not allowing that.
Biden, the frontrunner?
Please!
It is just not reality.
Come on, man.
You know, there may be a lot of people... I'll say this.
It's entirely possible.
Everybody knows just how awful and crazy Joe Biden is.
But when you compare him to the other lunatics on the far left and these weird policies, yeah, you know, maybe, maybe people are just saying, I'd rather have Joe Biden than people giving away health care to non-citizens.
Maybe that's it.
So I'll put it this way.
I'm frustrated.
Okay.
I look, man, I don't expect Tulsi or Yang to win.
I'm not crazy.
I'm a realist.
I get it.
But I want a fair game, right?
I want to at least feel like you can succeed.
What do you think happens when so many voters feel like there's no light at the end of the tunnel?
That no matter what you do, they will never let your ideas be heard.
Well, then people say, I don't care anymore.
I'm not playing.
So for me, when I see this, I say, you know what?
I'm not playing.
Don't expect me.
What are they saying?
Vote blue no matter who.
Yeah, right.
If you gave, look, If you let Tulsi do her thing, be on the stage, recognize these polls, I don't think she's going to win.
But I want to hear what she and Yang have to say.
Not because I think they're going to win, but because I think the national conversation in our culture is helped by them expressing important ideas.
Automation, foreign wars, and a lot of other issues.
I think it's great to hear from these people, and I want them on that stage, and I'll admit too, man, Kamala Harris is awful.
I do not like her.
And Tulsi Gabbard played a key role in knocking her down.
That's what it's all about.
You know what?
That's what they don't like.
Maybe they really liked Kamala.
She was gonna play ball and be that insider and do whatever the establishment wanted, and Tulsi was bad news.
But I'll tell you this.
If I'm taking a part in some endeavor, and I can't figure out where the light is, I have no idea how to solve a problem, I'm done, okay?
It's almost like playing a video game where there's a grind that gets you nowhere.
It's like, why am I going to keep doing this?
What is my return?
Why should I entertain anything the Democrats are doing when they play this kind of game?
Now listen, I get it.
The DNC said, these are the polls we approve, these are the rules, everyone's playing by the same rules.
But you know what?
It's absurd to me that we're at a point now where Bernie's raising more than double Biden, but for some reason, you know, I get it, Bernie's still, you know, he's allowed in to an extent, and he's played their game to a decent amount, which I do not agree with, but I understand.
He still gets smeared and left out in the media.
But this brings me to the last major point.
Take a look at this story from Axios.
Democrats' 2020 chaos theory.
It turns out there may be another really big reason why Donald Trump is going to win.
You know, look, I'm frustrated because it feels like no matter what happens, I understand I'm not representative of every single person in America.
Tulsi's polling an average of like 1.3 and Yang's at 3.3.
I get it.
We're a strange bunch, the politically homeless.
Totally understand.
But I at least thought... I at least... Oh no, I'm not stupid.
I hoped that we would at least get a fair shake to a certain degree.
But it seems like the Democrats are all about playing games.
Okay?
I said the DNC.
I'm not trying to impugn the integrity of the individual Democrat voters.
Democrats' chaos theory.
You know what they're basically saying?
They're basically saying there's no frontrunner.
Joe Biden might win in one place, South Carolina.
Bernie's looking to win Nevada.
Buttigieg's looking to win Iowa.
Who's the frontrunner?
There isn't one.
The Democrats are fractured.
There's no leadership and there's no plan.
And I'm surprised Buttigieg is doing as well as he is.
I mean, look, man, I got no beef with Buttigieg.
I find him to be kind of lukewarm or whatever.
But I just want the people I like to have a chance to have their voice expressed, to shift that narrative on the debate stage, to bring up ideas, like Tulsi talking about Kamala Harris.
I'll say this too, Yang is the only real progressive.
Andrew Yang is the only real progressive.
And again, I don't care if you like the guy or not, like his policies or not.
I look to what these other Democrats are doing, and they're talking about ideas from a hundred years ago.
Tax this to implement this policy.
Well, you're not adapting to technology.
You're not addressing how our culture is being changed by technology.
What happens?
MSNBC, more than a dozen times, keeps Yang off the TV.
And so finally he came out and said, you want an apology?
Because they, look man, the whole system is set up so that people can get their people in.
And it's a dirty game.
The Democrats have no frontrunner.
They're spiraling out of control.
But I'll tell you what, man.
Maybe, maybe, maybe Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is right.
I know people are probably saying, like, what, Tim, huh?
Well, no, you know, he's made some good points, but he says, you know, that he was going to attack the democratic establishment to its core.
I'm not, I'm not rooting for Bernie Sanders right now because the fact that he would play their game to win is a red flag to me.
Tulsi Gabbard is unwilling.
She's defiant every step of the way, and I have tremendous respect for that.
Andrew Yang, defiant.
Challenging MSNBC in the way he did, I respect that.
And I'm glad they're doing what they're doing.
And I'll admit this.
One of the things I do like about supporting outsider candidates is how they specifically highlight how the game is rigged.
If you think that the game is rigged, it's not rigged.
You need only look at 2016.
Who were the popular candidates?
Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump.
The RNC gave in to Trump.
Trump won, and that was it.
A handshake, a hug, and an applause.
And Trump was officially the nominee for the Republicans.
They did not cheat.
You look at the Democrats.
Yeah, they shared questions with media outlets.
They're his preferred candidates.
Some people have referred to it as a bias.
No.
It's called rigging it.
And they're doing the same thing now.
And Biden is probably obedient.
And so Biden's their frontrunner, even though he can't speak.
He talks about rubbing kids and putting them in his lap.
It is insane.
Let me just end by saying this, man.
You gotta understand.
You probably get it, right?
Think about them telling you, this is the guy you have to support.
Vote blue no matter who.
Even if it's the guy who sniffs little girls and talks about putting kids in his lap.
I'm sorry, man.
You guys, you are out of it.
You are out of it.
You need to let go.
You need to let go.
But the Democrats, they can't do it.
And again, I want to make sure I made it clear, the Democrats I'm referring to as the establishment, okay?
So we're doomed, man.
You know what?
Trump's gonna win.
To those who want a reasonable choice to go up against Trump, you're not going to get it.
It's never going to happen.
The Democrats are too crazy.
Fractured.
No leadership.
And Trump will win.
At least I can say this.
You know, my frustration with the Democrats is... One of the ways you can understand me is that I'm substantially more frustrated with the Democrats than I am with Donald Trump.
I can accept losing, okay?
In a fair fight.
Trump is a boisterous, loud individual who interrupts, and he knows how to play that TV game and that media game, and he won.
I have no problem losing.
You want to play me in a game of skate?
It's a skateboarding thing, if you're not familiar.
And I lose?
I'll give you a high five and a handshake and say, good game.
It was a good round.
Donald Trump runs for office, he wins, and I say, well, you know, you don't win them all.
Am I concerned about some of his policies?
You know, yeah.
Am I concerned about his attitude?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But you know what, man?
You can't win them all.
And this country is governed through democratic institutions.
We vote for our representatives.
You know what I can't take?
You want to play a game against me and you start cheating?
You start pulling sneaky, underhanded BS?
You're gonna get me real angry, real quick.
And that's the big problem I have with the Democrats right now.
They're not playing fair.
They're using sneaky, sleight-of-hand techniques to keep out real contenders, to push people down, and it's Yang and Tulsi.
Surprise, surprise, the outsiders.
So I'm not happy with it.
I can accept losing to Donald Trump.
I can accept Trump winning, and I can say, yeah, man, you know, I'll do my best to try and understand what's going on.
I'll call out the BS in the media, and I'll call out the BS from the Democrats.
But the Democrats are playing a dirty game.
They absolutely are.
And that doesn't mean all Republicans are innocent.
I'm not a fan of Mitch McConnell blocking a lot of House bills, you know, and the Supreme Court nominee from Obama.
I think Obama was elected, and he was allowed to appoint somebody.
And if Trump, you know, because you know what they're going to do now?
You know, Mitch McConnell, Blocked Obama's appointee.
Was it Merrick Garland?
And he said, you know, we're too close to an election, the people should decide.
Well, they did when they elected Obama.
And now what's going to happen is Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in and out of the hospital, and it's going to come down to Trump, and then they're going to try and pull the same thing.
And I won't be surprised when the Republicans now say, oh, but this time it's different.
No, no, no.
I don't care for people playing dirty games, okay?
And right now, the problem's in the Democrats, and the reason they lose is because they can't be honest and respectable.
And here's the reality.
We can see it.
We have social media.
We're talking to each other.
Gone are the days where the people were kept like mushrooms.
You know the saying?
Keep them in the dark and feed them Crap.
That's what they're doing.
You can't do it anymore.
We have social media.
We can talk.
We can share ideas.
And so when you play these dirty games, don't be surprised when people say, you know what?
I'm not playing with you guys anymore.
And so you create a large swath of politically homeless people who are done.
And you know what should be more worrying to you guys?
Is that many of those people are going to vote for Trump to spite you.
And they will.
So I'll write this up.
I think you're going to see many, many blank or bust voters.
There's going to be Tulsi or bust.
They're going to say, if Tulsi's not the nominee, they're going to go vote for Trump.
There's going to be Yang or bust.
If it's not, you know, they're going to go vote for Trump.
Especially, especially because you are insulting and disrespecting them.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
It is a different channel, and I will see you there.
On Thanksgiving, Donald Trump was aboard a military transport to Afghanistan where he spent his family holiday not with his family, but with his American family, the troops serving in Afghanistan who weren't going to be with their loved ones.
It seems like an honorable, respectable thing to do.
I'm sure it was very morale-boosting for those troops who got to see him.
And, you know, those people overseas, they probably weren't expecting a great Thanksgiving.
It was going to be, you know, cafeteria trays with some cornbread and some turkey.
And lo and behold, the president actually shows up.
Well, you may have been following the news because Newsweek wrote a fake story claiming that Donald Trump was golfing and tweeting.
How could this have happened?
Well, we'll get into this because we now know.
Well, apparently we know.
But as it turns out, the reporter who wrote the story has been fired.
And this says to me, when I tell you what happened, apparently she was commissioned to write the story a week in advance.
The whole system is broken.
These people are corrupt.
You know what, man?
This reporter, Jessica Kwong, I feel bad for her.
Here's what happened.
Her editor commissioned her a week in advance to write about what Trump was doing on Thanksgiving, and she wrote the story, like she sent it in the day before.
You didn't even know what the president was doing, and you wrote this story.
And then when it turns out, Trump was actually in Afghanistan, of all places, leaving his family behind, while the rest of us got to kick back, watch football, and eat turkey.
The president was doing his job overseas, boosting morale, and giving up his holiday.
Well, when they found out, what did they do?
They put a little tiny blurb at the bottom of that story.
Why?
It's because the whole system is corrupt.
This is not holding the president to account.
It's the opposite of it.
One of the biggest problems I think we have in this country, as I say over and over and over again, is the media being a corrupt, money-making enterprise.
They don't care about what's true.
Their goal is to constantly make the president look bad one way or another.
And how do you make someone look bad for relaxing on Thanksgiving?
I honestly don't know.
But they wrote a story saying he's golfing and tweeting.
Of all things.
I don't care.
It's Thanksgiving.
As I stated the other day, if Donald Trump had five masseuses and he's in a hot tub getting a rubdown and they're all painted gold, I don't care.
It's Thanksgiving.
The dude's rich.
He's going to do what he feels like doing on a holiday.
Instead of having that day off, he went to Afghanistan.
Now, I'll tell you this.
Trump goes golfing a lot.
It's not like, you know, for me, I think Thanksgiving is an important holiday.
I don't really do anything with family.
So, you know, maybe Trump feels the same way, like, you know what, I can have a family gathering whenever I want.
I'll go to the trips on Thanksgiving.
Maybe it was for PR.
I don't care.
Listen, man.
Most Americans are taking that day off, okay?
It's a slow weekend.
It's a big travel day.
And Donald Trump said, today of all days, I'm going to go in the wee hours of the morning on a military transport, apparently not even Air Force One, and go to Afghanistan.
The question is, why would he have to do that?
Why does Donald Trump have to secretly go to Afghanistan to visit the troops?
Well, it's because the media would attack him for it.
Well, Trump masterfully played the media.
Here's the thing.
This reporter was fired.
And I feel bad.
I do.
She was commissioned by an editor to write this piece a week in advance.
But what does that really mean?
It's still her fault.
Okay, the editor said, hey, can you have something ready for, you know, Thanksgiving about what Trump is doing?
And she said, sure.
It doesn't mean she wrote the story a week in advance.
It doesn't mean they wanted her to write the story a week in advance.
It's that they said, come Thanksgiving, have a story.
So what did she do?
She wrote the story the day before so they could publish it in the morning.
Maybe if you reported on the news when the news happened instead of pre-writes, this wouldn't have happened.
But what we see here is that the whole system is broken.
Let me read you the story.
And I'm going to show you.
It gets worse than you think.
It's worse than just this.
Okay?
You know what, man?
They are already smearing Trump for having gone to Afghanistan.
I'm not exaggerating.
They're accusing him of doing it for a photo op.
It's like, you know what, man?
You will never, never win an argument with someone if literally everything they do is wrong.
If Donald Trump gives up his Thanksgiving and you try to attack him for it, it's like, dude, people are not going to take you seriously.
You could be one of the worst people.
You could be the oil baron from a small town who's trying to shut down the school dance to build an oil well.
And then you show up and do a jig and everyone's like, wow, he's not a bad guy, right?
The point is, I'm being silly.
The point is, even the worst person in the world can do something where you're going to be like, okay, well, you know, that I get.
Not Donald Trump.
No matter what he does, the media is going to go after him.
So they're writing a smear about him?
I mean, it wasn't the worst smear in the world, but it was clearly not being done as a positive.
I looked through Jessica Kwong's Twitter account, and yes, it's not overly emotional like a lot of activists, but it's very clearly adversarial towards the president.
Okay, and here's the thing.
If you want to be an adversarial journalist, much respect.
If Donald Trump says, I want to build a wall, and you say, let's talk about the cost, let's talk about the problems, and let's talk about why this doesn't make sense.
It doesn't mean you advocate for those positions.
It means you challenge people in power.
I can respect that.
But when Donald Trump is like, I didn't have Thanksgiving with my family, instead went overseas, and you're like, harumph I say!
I'm like, no, no, no, hold on, hold on.
That's not adversarial.
Not at all.
That's you pretending to be adversarial.
Check this out.
From the Washington Examiner.
The Newsweek reporter who was fired after writing an inaccurate article about President Trump's Thanksgiving Day
plans is deflecting some of the blame onto her editor, which is BS.
I added the BS part, mind you.
Newsweek initially published the article Thursday morning before the president's trip to Afghanistan was announced
publicly.
The story's initial headline was, how is Trump spending Thanksgiving?
Tweeting, golfing, and more.
And might I add, who cares?
Really don't care.
What if they were like, he's skydiving.
He's undergoing an oxygen therapy and a deprivation.
I don't care what he's doing on the holidays, man.
He can do whatever he wants.
He could literally be eating gold-encrusted turkey and I'd laugh about it.
It's Thanksgiving.
It's a day off for everybody to give thanks.
Instead, he didn't do it.
Kuang told the Washington Examiner that she was assigned to write a story on what Trump was doing on Thanksgiving.
The next day, Kuang reached out to the editor on duty and relayed the president's latest action, after which the story was published.
When the president's trip to Afghanistan was announced, that editor decided to assign another reporter to write a new story about it, but neglected to update Kuang's original piece in a timely manner.
Full stop.
This is part of the problem, okay?
We have two big problems on different ends of the spectrum.
For one, News outlets will rewrite stories without telling you.
You will have the same link, you will share it, and then all of a sudden you click it.
Totally different story.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You must update.
And if you have a story, you must update.
So the first problem is, you might see a story that says X happened to Y, you share it, and then later it says A happened to B, and you're like, whoa, that's not the story I shared, and this happens all the time.
They're called stealth edits.
Sometimes they do full rewrites.
The other problem is they ignore the old pieces and let the fake news persist.
Well, in this instance, she got fired.
The story, which received backlash from both the President and Donald Trump Jr., was updated hours later with a new headline, a note at the bottom of the story, and the angle of the piece was changed to focus on the President's trip.
However, the first update, as far as I could tell, only put a little blurb at the bottom.
I'll say this.
It's not necessarily her fault.
It is, it is.
But I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
It's definitely her fault.
What I mean to say is it was harsh to fire her over this.
But it shows you how the whole system is corrupt.
First, she wrote a story the day early, a day before Thanksgiving.
You didn't even know it.
It wasn't even Thanksgiving.
How could you write about what the president was doing on Thanksgiving before Thanksgiving even happened?
You could have waited the next day, checked his schedule, and then sure enough, at 11 a.m.
when we found out he had just landed in Afghanistan, you could have been like, whoa, this is huge.
The president just did a surprise visit to Afghanistan, breaking news.
So how can you claim to know what the president is doing on a day that hasn't happened yet?
Isn't that strange?
The whole system is broken.
But trust me, it gets worse.
Let's read through this and I'll show you how it gets worse.
They say, the new headline reads, how is Trump spending Thanksgiving?
Tweeting golfing and surprising US troops in Afghanistan.
He's clearly not golfing, dude.
While the note at the end of the story reads, the story has been updated.
Yeah, we know all that stuff.
Quang apologized on social media for the story, saying it was an honest mistake, and that the story has been updated after she deleted a tweet about the original story.
Quote, Newsweek investigated the failures that led to the publication of the inaccurate report that President Trump spent Thanksgiving tweeting and golfing rather than visiting the troops in Afghanistan, a Newsweek representative previously told the Washington Examiner.
Quote, The story has been corrected and the journalist responsible has been terminated.
We will continue to review our processes and, if required, take further action.
Newsweek did not answer additional questions about the editor's status with the outlet or if they would face any consequences over the publication of the story.
You know what the problem is?
How is it that this reporter did this in the first place?
How can a system exist where journalists routinely get away with writing news before it happens?
They're called pre-writes.
They happen all the time.
There have been a few notorious examples, I don't have any pulled up, but yes, it happens all the time.
This is one of them.
She's probably sitting around like, eh, I'll just write the story tonight, and then she writes up something based on a schedule.
Sure enough, it was fake.
If she had just waited.
Check out this story from Politico.
They say, it's headlined, behind Trump's secret war zone trip, a Mar-a-Lago escape, a twin Air Force One, and a Twitter plan.
So maybe he was in a comfortable flight, I don't know, but they say this, this particular Wednesday, the night before Thanksgiving, ended with Trump escaping Mar-a-Lago without the usual presidential motorcade, a spectacle, boarding a military transport to Washington, And then embarking on a 13-hour Air Force One flight to the heart of America's longest war.
So he was on Air Force One, okay.
He took a military transport back to D.C.
from Mar-a-Lago.
Probably not super comfortable.
Air Force One's probably pretty comfortable, you know.
Although, you know, a lot of people don't know this.
When you're flying, and I've flown, I used to fly a lot, like, for a couple years, I was flying, you know, twice a week almost.
When you're flying, your body is constantly updating to all the shakes, like the turbulence and the minor vibrations, and so it does expend a lot of energy, and that's why you get tired on planes.
You also get very dehydrated, it's complicated.
So yeah, Trump, you know, gave up his comfort and his Thanksgiving with his family, and I believe they even said that he left Melania behind.
So he went and did this on his own.
And so yeah, it probably wasn't super comfortable, but here's what we end up getting.
For one, Politico talks about, you know, what happened.
We had the fake news.
The journalists who pre-wrote.
And here's what happens afterwards.
I kid you not.
Trump's photo op play.
Facing impeachment, the president strives to look hard at work.
Are you kidding me?
You know what, man?
They will never give the man one day.
And let me explain something to you guys.
Because people always like to make fun of me saying things like, Tim always talks about how he doesn't like Trump.
And he won't vote for him, but then he makes these videos defending him, and it's like, no, no, no, hold on, hold on.
Yeah, I'm not, I'm, yeah, right, okay.
Isn't it weird that we're in a place where I can be, like, totally understand why people like Trump, not a big fan of the Republican platform and a lot of those policies, I lean left on a lot of issues, but I think, you know, liberals and conservatives, like true liberals, agree with conservatives on a lot of issues.
The issue for me is, how do you get someone else besides Trump?
It's, well, you've got to give him respect when he deserves it, and have cogent and rational arguments for why we should try something different.
Now look, I understand my biggest concerns politically don't necessarily align with the average American.
That's a fact.
I think foreign policy is a huge issue.
I think character is important for a president.
And I think Trump, while he has a kind of character that appeals to a lot of people and he's great at getting press, you can look at the response from Rust Belt voters.
This has been covered.
It's not just me when I say this, that Trump's attitude is his biggest downfall.
It may be one of his biggest advantages because it gets him the press and it gets him a certain kind of support.
But from the people I've talked to and from the interviews, people usually say, like, they think he's the only one who's actually fighting for America, but they just wish he would stop tweeting or stop speaking this way.
Look, he went up at a rally and mimicked body-slamming a reporter.
It's not the kind of, you know, candor, demeanor that I think is becoming of a president.
But you know what?
I have no problem.
I have absolutely no problem being like, respectable.
Thank you, Donald Trump, for giving up your holiday and going and spending it with other people who also aren't going to be having that same holiday.
I respect that.
I think he's done some good things foreign policy wise.
Pulling back on the Iran strike was a smart move.
I don't care if he started it.
You know, all these progressives are saying, don't give Donald Trump credit for canceling the strike on Iran because he called it in.
Yeah, and so would literally every other president.
Hillary Clinton would have just done it.
So you know what?
You give people credit when credit is due.
If the president says, I want to go blow up a bunch of ships in Iran, I'm like, no, don't do that.
And if he says, OK, fine, I won't do that.
I'm like, great!
Thank you for not doing that.
Or when he announced he wanted to have the G7 at Trump Doral, I was very critical.
I made like two videos.
I did a bunch of tweets.
And then people, you know, look, man.
Trump came back out and said, OK, I'm not going to do it.
I said, great.
Thank you.
That's the right thing to do.
It's insane to me that you either have to love the man or hate him with a passion and think he's like the evil incarnate.
No, dude.
He's just a boastful, arrogant individual.
He's done some things that have worked out really well.
I can't argue with the economy, and I can respect that.
And that's why I fully expect him to win.
But you don't have to expect me to vote for him.
You know what I mean?
I think my position is this very clearly.
Take a look at this article.
Trump's photo op play.
Facing impeachment, the president strives to look hard at work.
That's not reasonable.
That is not sane or rational.
A regular person can say, you know, Trump's kind of a dick.
You know what I mean?
He's like a mean guy.
He makes fun of people.
He calls them horseface.
He posts these ridiculous tweets.
Come on, he should not have been tweeting about Maria Ivanovich during the inquiry.
What is he doing?
But I can tell you what.
The dude went to Afghanistan for Thanksgiving.
What is wrong with the media?
We know it's not real.
It's not a genuine argument.
And I'll tell you what really bothers me about it.
There's a video you should watch.
It's a comedy sketch called Stop Making Me Defend Donald Trump.
And I fall very easily into this area where it's like, dude, you can argue about whether or not we should spend money on a wall versus technology, other solutions, fine, whatever.
You can argue about whether it was right for him to pull funds from other areas if Congress wasn't approving it.
These are challenges.
You can argue all of that.
We can sit down for a nice glass of tea and discuss, does Donald Trump have the right to do X or Y?
And there's been some good arguments.
Saying reasonable ones.
But what happens then when you see a story like this, dude?
They're seriously trying to smear Donald Trump for forgoing Thanksgiving with his family and spending it with the troops in Afghanistan.
It's like a 36-hour trip.
You know, he's on a military transport, Air Force One overseas to Afghanistan.
It's like a 12-hour flight.
And then he spends a couple hours, you know, eating from a cafeteria tray with some other troops, boosting their morale.
I'm sure he made those people happier than they've been in a very, very long time.
Getting to meet the president, showing the respect that they're over there.
They don't get to be with their families.
Well, you know what?
The president will be there with you.
Is Donald Trump fighting on the front line?
No.
Is he a perfect man?
Absolutely not.
Is he the nicest, most charismatic individual?
I certainly don't think so.
But the dude literally gave up his holiday.
You can at least say that.
So here I am.
I find myself in this position.
Where I see the Democrats are nuts.
You know what, and I'll say this too, because I was saving this for another segment, but it's all, it's, it's, it's, it's... I am very angry, okay?
One of the main reasons I like Tulsi Gabbard, like the principal reason, foreign policy, I am sick and tired of these Democrats like Elizabeth Warren saying, we're going to tax these do-nothing billionaires!
And it's like, dude, we spent trillions of dollars in these countries, why do we care if they're a democracy or whatever?
I know a lot.
I know everything.
Okay, but I know a lot about the pipelines, the oil, Qatar Turkey, Russia, gas problem.
I know a lot about this.
And you've not sold me on why we should be spending 20 years in Afghanistan and spending trillions of dollars, some of which does stay in the US, I understand that, and a lot of which goes to a foreign country, when we could fix the pipes in Flint.
You want to have an argument about socialism, healthcare, Medicare for all, whatever.
Fine, I'll tell you what.
If the first thing you have to do is talk about where that money is going and where it should be coming from.
You want to tax people?
You want to raise middle class taxes?
How about we get rid of this stuff?
Bring our troops back from the Middle East?
Stop building roads in a country where none of us live?
And then use that money towards fixing the pipes in Flint.
So I like Tulsi Gabbard when she talks about this.
I disagree with a lot of her policies, but for the most part I'm like, I want to see her on the debate stage.
I don't think she's going to win.
I'm a realist, but I do like the idea of having a major in the National Guard who really does care about this country, who wants to put Americans first.
And I mean that as somebody who's not a hardcore only-America-first.
I'm actually a bit of an internationalist.
I'll leave it at that.
I am not a staunch nationalist.
But I do think if we're spending money as citizens, we shouldn't be spending it overseas, for the most part.
Actually, I'm pretty okay with a lot of foreign aid.
I get it.
It gets complicated, as I say that often.
And I like Andrew Yang because he has a lot of very well thought out comprehensive plans for how to solve problems, but they both seem like individuals willing to listen.
I don't think they're going to win.
I just want to see them up on the debate stage having that conversation because I recognize the presidency isn't everything.
But I'll wrap it up with this.
This is a story about a reporter who, before the day even existed, Thanksgiving had not yet happened, wrote a story telling us what Trump had apparently done on a day that hadn't come yet.
So, yes, you get fired for that.
And, you know, to the extent you want to blame the editors, it is silly that the editors are saying, can you write an article about this a week in advance?
But you have to think about it like you're assigning a writer, say, hey, come Thanksgiving, can you write about what the president is doing?
Sure, but she wrote it a day early.
So you know what?
It's not just about this one writer.
It's about what we get from our media.
Why did the Washington Post try to make it a negative and impugn the integrity of Donald Trump when he was giving up his holiday weekend is beyond me.
I get it, though.
I get it.
It's what gets clicks.
You know, instead of saying something like, you know, they could have written, the president has finally done something presidential, or the president does something respectable.
They could have written it.
They don't want to.
They can't.
They can't do it.
The Orange Man bad narrative is an addiction.
And so here I am as someone being like, I gotta be honest, OK?
He's just a president.
He doesn't own the world.
He doesn't control the world.
He doesn't write laws.
He can set policies.
He can sign bills.
He is one branch in a three-branch system, OK?
He's appointing judges.
He's doing a lot of things.
But the president isn't everything.
Congress does have power.
Senators have power.
Congressmen have power.
The president has power.
But people seem to act like Donald Trump is literally king of the planet.
It's like, dude, it's temporary, man.
Calm down.
But more importantly, and I'll wrap up with this because I said it already, but I'll say it again, you don't defeat Donald Trump by insulting the man for giving up his holiday and going to Afghanistan.
And when you want to pre-write a story before something has even happened, it shows us how corrupt the media really is.
I'm just, you know, I get so... It's, it's... Can they give him one day?
He took out one of the most evil men on the planet, and they still attacked him for it.
He gives up his Thanksgiving holiday, they attack the man for it.
It doesn't mean I like him.
It means I understand there's a line of decency, where I can say, I disagree with you, I think you can improve your behavior, but I will give you respect for taking out Baghdadi, and I'll give you respect for giving up your Thanksgiving.
It's, it's so absurd to me.
I just can't, you know...
I said it 500,000 times.
The reason I keep saying it, I gotta be honest, is because I feel like no matter how many times I say it, they don't understand.
Nor do they care.
They're running themselves off a cliff.
They're chasing a narrative that is so insane, they're making fun of a guy for flying to Afghanistan on Thanksgiving.
How insane is that?
It's one of the most insane things I've seen.
I gotta admit, the Baghdadi thing, that was insane.
Okay, this is insane.
It's like, even Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight was like, dude, can you not give him one day?
That's, you're not gonna convince anybody.
Cause they're gonna look at you and they're gonna say, I don't believe you.
Donald Trump could rescue a bag of puppies, a big bag of dozens of puppies from a burning building, come out gasping for air and fall to his knees, burned and charred, and save those puppies, and his last dying breath said, I did it all for the puppies, and they would still attack him!
They would be like, Trump tries to make himself look good sacrificing himself for puppies.
It's like, dude, you know what, man?
Okay, I'm gonna wrap it up.
Otherwise, I'll say the same thing a million times, but you get it.
I'll see you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
Capitalism is typically viewed as a system where the individual, the private citizen or entity, has a right to control the fruits of their labor.
In our system, we have certain rules and regulations to prevent people from, I don't know, doing evil, I guess?
Snake oil salesmen, you know, manipulators.
People will take advantage of you.
We want a free market where people can compete, but there are bad actors.
So we have some laws.
It makes sense.
Typically, those of us in the United States have a disagreement as to how far towards regulation or deregulation we should go.
That was typically the left versus right debate.
And there were some other cultural issues, too.
Today, it's basically like every solution to every single problem viewed on the left is socialism, and that literally doesn't make sense.
See, I care about the environment.
I care about the environment, I would say, much like Greta Thunberg probably does.
But I'm not a crazy person, okay?
And I guess, I mean no disrespect to Greta to an extent, but I believe that she is an ignorant, naive child who is calling for extreme action.
Like, extreme action.
And she cites these things in science and all this stuff, and it's like, listen, listen.
I ignore the scientists.
I think we've got to change things.
But I think you are wrong about destroying colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression.
It's not really about the environment, and it never was, was it?
The Green New Deal isn't about the environment, and it never was, was it?
No.
According to Sycat Chakrabarty, it was about transforming the economy.
Because these people don't want you to control the fruits of your labor.
Look no further than Michael Bloomberg.
There's a video going viral where he said, it's good that we tax the poor.
Because they buy things they shouldn't.
Oh my.
You know, I did a video the other day about the forced internment of homeless people in California.
I, as a freedom-loving individual, find that shocking.
That the state wants the power, the state of California, to seize your assets and detain you indefinitely up until you can display evidence of self-sufficiency.
And therein lies the big problem.
And that's what we're seeing across the board.
They don't think you know what's best for you.
And you know what?
I'll admit it.
I think people can be pretty dumb, right?
If given the choice, people go out and drink two gallons of Pepsi instead of just drinking a nice little bit of water.
People spend money on things they don't need and are unhealthy because, you know, humans... Humans are a result of evolutionary biology.
We evolved a certain way.
There are certain things we desire.
But instead of changing the culture, Respecting freedom and finding solutions to our problems as they come about, which is probably the best thing we can do to respect individual liberties and actually adapt the fastest.
You have people like Greta Thunberg crying about how we must stop.
You have stolen my childhood.
Dude, you're going to the UN, you're meeting world leaders, you're traveling around boats.
You have one of the most privileged Perfect childhoods.
When I was a kid, there was a bunch of things that I wanted to fight for and nobody would listen.
Okay?
You want to talk about having my childhood taken away?
It was when I was told, you can't fight for these things.
Go work in fast food.
No one cares what you have to say.
That's my childhood.
Yours is traveling around the world in prestige and comfort.
So here's what happens.
Here's a story from the Daily Wire.
They say Greta snaps.
Change everything.
Climate crisis about colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression.
Fossil fuel literally killing us.
Well, in her op-ed she said...
This action must be powerful and wide-ranging.
After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment.
And there it is!
You're liars.
You are liars.
You are snake oil peddlers.
You are trying to trick us into giving up freedom.
And you say all of these really awful things about capitalism, and what you're really doing is misframing and not telling people what's really going on.
You are tricking them and lying to them in order to get them to bend over terrified.
It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.
Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.
We need to dismantle them all.
Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.
You know what?
You know, no, I'm gonna do this.
I'm gonna agree with you, Greta.
Me, as the child of two generations of mixed-race families who comes from a poor area in one of the most dangerous parts of the country, I'm going to have to tell you to check your privilege, you white, wealthy Swede.
You do not get to tell me and come and preach to me about what I should do and what I need to give up because you're wealthy enough to go on a yacht across the Atlantic Ocean because you don't want to pay for a flight.
You know what, man?
Not only is the total cost of carbon emissions for her little stunt greater than that of a flight.
What person could afford to do any of that?
You are the pinnacle of privilege, ivory tower whiteness that you so decry, preaching down to us lowly peasants, telling us we must sacrifice.
Because you are scared.
And what you're really doing is you're telling us to give up our individual rights, the right to explore the world as we see fit, to apply our labor as we see fit, because of your boogeyman of patriarchal colonial racism.
Dude, you are literally the epitome of white, Swedish, wealthy.
You come from one of the wealthiest places in the world.
And you are sitting here telling all of the other poor people what they should do.
This is why I can't stand about these people.
They don't care about the environment.
They care about being some, like, I don't know, narcissistic, arrogant savior who thinks they know better.
They're literally the nobles.
Now, look, I don't care if you're white.
I was poking fun at her stupid ideas.
But this is literally the nobility.
People like Bloomberg saying the poor are too stupid to know what they want.
You know what?
Maybe this world isn't about what you think it should be.
And it's about what the individuals want to accomplish and do with their lives.
And you know what?
Therein lies the great problem.
Do we want to live under your twisted ideology?
No.
You know why?
Because it will fail.
Here's the thing.
You know what I want more than anything?
A Star Trek future.
How great would it be to have artificial gravity, inertial dampeners, to travel at warp speed throughout the galaxy, at least as far as we can, because even in Star Trek they can't travel that far, relatively.
You know, they're limited to just the galaxy, and there's so many other galaxies out there.
So much going on, we can't even see, we don't even know what's going on.
And how great would it be if we could continue to expand our knowledge and truly create a world of free thinking, intelligent, you know, post-scarcity.
Here's how I think we get there.
I think we get there by using the distributed intelligence of humanity.
What you are proposing, and what others like or propose, is called command economies, or just general centralized command.
So here's the problem.
Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else.
How old is Greta?
She's like 16.
And she thinks she's smarter than everyone else.
That we must dismantle all these things.
Dude, you're 16.
Now, I get it.
There are some smart 16-year-olds.
When I was 16, I was pretty smart, but I didn't know everything.
And certainly, the trope is true.
Young people think they do know everything.
Greta is being propped up as a political tool, and she is now calling for the same tired trash we hear over and over again.
Ah!
Not about the environment.
It's patriarchy.
That's the problem.
Patriarchy.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
Look, take a look at all of these socialist economies and how they've failed.
And invariably you see the left say, that's because of capitalist interference.
One person cannot account for every problem faced because it is beyond our capacity.
A decentralized system in which the individual chooses what's best for them is prone to solve these problems because it will adapt quickly.
Not as quick, though.
So herein lies the big problem, right?
If we see, definitively, a problem on the horizon, like there's a meteor or comet, whatever, headed straight for the Earth, and it's going to destroy everything, all life as we know it, this is the end.
One person would probably be better than a Decentral event committee, right?
So I'll put it this way.
They say rule by committee fails and to an extent that makes sense.
When you have a horde of barbarians storming your front gates and you have a room full of people arguing over what to do, you're going to move too slowly and get wiped out.
This is why our country has three branches.
It's why we have an executive branch to take executive action.
At the behest of a president who was elected through the Electoral College, but then we have a Council of Elders, which is essentially the Supreme Court, and then we have the democracy, which is, well, the democratic institutions of Congress, right?
We elect representatives, and that is more representative of the individuals.
We have these things on purpose.
When the horde comes storming through the gates, the executive in control of the military can snap their fingers, go for it.
Tell them what to do.
That one plan for quick action where it's needed.
So if we're dealing with, say, like, you know, a meteor's gonna blow up the Earth, we can see it, it's there, and we're like, what do we do?
It's best to stick to one plan and move as quickly as we can.
What happens, though, when you have a more, I don't know, intangible threat?
We know, based on the science, that there's, you know, global warming, there's a lot of argument between the left and the right over what the best thing to do is, and unfortunately, we don't live in a dictatorship, so you can't just snap your fingers and go after these weird ideas of, like, colonial patriarchy or whatever.
In this regard, a decentralized system probably makes the most sense.
So as we start to see certain things happen, like carbon went up, what happened then?
You see companies like Tesla.
You see Elon Musk dumping tons of money into making lower emission vehicles and renewable energy.
And you know how renewable energies come to exist, and nuclear energy as well, which is one of the renewables?
You end up with all of these different people all over the world seeing the same problem at the same time and racing to beat it, to find that solution.
You know why?
The person who finds the solution to excessive carbon emissions is going to be very, very rich.
It's not just about being rich, though.
Most people aren't really driven by money.
This is another misconception the socialists will tell you.
People are driven by purpose.
And for Greta, her purpose is... Well, I thought it was the environment, but apparently it's colonialism and patriarchy.
So I'll tell you what, Greta.
I'll tell you what.
Let me ask you something.
You're a young, white, wealthy individual with access to all these resources and world leaders.
What would you call it if you come to my home and start dictating what I can or can't do and yelling at me and trying to get my government to impose rules on me?
It sounds kind of colonialist if you ask me.
You see, these people are lying about the environment.
They don't care.
If they did care, we would see more movements towards bolstering economies through green technologies.
You want to know about it?
You want to see who cares?
I think Elon Musk cares.
I do.
You know why?
He was like, I know, I'm going to redirect a bunch of my funds towards projects that I think will help.
Like, I don't know, electric cars, lower emissions.
They still do produce a lot of emissions from all the materials needed and the production of the electricity, but it's substantially less, or it's a decent amount less, I believe.
I could be wrong.
But overall, if we can improve battery technology, solar capacity, batteries and stuff like that, we can truly start getting away from these fossil fuels.
You know what doesn't help?
Self-righteous young people who are manipulating us and then claiming the real problem is patriarchy.
And there it is.
Is it really a surprise to anybody that Greta is now coming out saying it's patriarchy?
This is what they're doing.
It's a Trojan horse.
The left has been doing this when it comes to healthcare.
The answer is socialism.
When it comes to climate change, socialism, why should I hand over my right to the fruits of my labor in response to a crisis like the environment?
And you see what's happening is...
I will tell you the reason why I believe this is all BS and there's no real planned solution for the climate crisis.
If you take a look at how their answer for healthcare, you can see that the math very simply does not add up.
It doesn't make sense.
They look at healthcare as though everyone should have it, and that's great.
Everyone should have everything, right?
Too bad things aren't infinite.
There's no difference.
There is a difference, but for the most part, when it comes to the development of medical treatments and, say, an iPhone, the reality is technology and can we produce it.
See, here's what people don't realize.
You could show someone the schematics and teach them literally everything about how a smartphone is created, okay?
And you can go back in time, and you can find the smartest person in the world, and he'll say, I understand all of the science and all the functions.
Let's say you could really teach them about everything.
They wouldn't be able to build that phone.
They would not.
A guy did a TED Talk where he tried to build a toaster from scratch, and guess what?
He couldn't do it.
When someone develops a new technology, Say, like a cure or something.
They can't just snap their fingers and produce it.
There needs to be mass production facilities that have to be designed and built as well.
So when it comes to things like plastics, yeah, it's not an easy thing to create.
You can't just make it, even if you know what it is and know what it's made of.
So this guy did this TED talk.
He went and mined the plastic because there was literally nothing else he could do.
And he said, yeah, it was kind of a cop-out, but you can't make it.
You cannot do it.
Even if you know what it is, it can't be done.
So these people say, oh, the problem with health care, it's capitalism.
Capitalism's the problem.
Okay.
If we said everybody gets health care, is that going to create an infinite amount of cures?
No.
Is there an infinite amount of insulin?
No.
Should corporations be price jacking?
No, of course not.
But you can't act like the solution is socialism because then, like, you can't guarantee everyone get access to everything.
It's just not possible.
You look at it like that.
And then when it comes to the environment, they say, also, socialism.
And I say the same thing, like, what you're talking about doesn't add up.
They're finding things that freak people out, screeching about how they must be solved and how they have the solutions, and lo and behold, they have these freaky, leftist, identitarian, socialist views of the world.
And that's exactly what you could expect.
I'm not surprised.
You know, I'm not going to rant on this.
You get the point.
I'll wrap it up here.
But next time someone comes and tells you there's a boogeyman around the corner, take it with a grain of salt.
And you know what?
I think that goes for anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, whatever the problem may be.
What are they trying to sell you when they tell you the end is nigh and there's some boogeyman?
Well, flat-earthers, not so much.
But what's the goal, right?
That's what I often think about.
And for me, I say, you know, I care about the environment.
I want to develop new technologies.
And it's crazy to me that I've often proposed a very, very reasonable and rational solution.
And it's tax incentives and federal grants towards specific low-emission technology, which we do.
We do that.
And I'm like, so do more.
Like, let's really emphasize that.
Instead of saying we want to give people money who are unwilling to work, which they did and then had to go, oh no, it was an accident.
And instead of saying that you want reparations, which is what AOC proposed, which makes no sense, instead of saying you want to dismantle colonial, racist, patriarchal systems of oppression, which has literally nothing to do with the environment, unless someone's lying to you, it's like putting a round peg in a square hole, or a square peg in a round hole.
This, to me, is Greta taking a jigsaw puzzle piece that doesn't go there and she's bashing the table trying to get it to smash in.
These people are nuts.
They're not proposing real solutions.
Here's a solution.
The left and the right don't agree on climate change.
I get that.
The left wants to see carbon emissions go down, the right is concerned about jobs, the economy, and these climate deals are often bad for the economy.
I tell you what!
We tax a lot of people.
Why don't we stop the wars in the Middle East, and that six trillion or whatever it was, or however many trillions we've spent, we could literally be like, we got massive programs for people for the energy race.
And you know what else?
We need two big things in this country.
We need an AI race, and we need to focus as much as we can on that, and we need an energy race.
Better batteries, because then, once we have mass storage facilities, we can store solar.
There's actually a really, really great development.
This company, I watched this video recently, they were able to convert, absorb solar energy
into a closed system, and then release that energy as thermal energy, and that is amazing.
You gotta look into it, it's complicated.
But basically, there's some amazing practical functions you could do.
You could absorb solar energy in the summer when it's hot and then store that in the winter and release it as heat.
That would save a ton.
That would reduce tons of CO2.
So let's do something like that where, like, dude, wouldn't it be cool if we had cool technology, hover cars?
Yes, yes, we all want these things.
Personal levitation vehicles and so we need better batteries.
That's a huge step.
We need new technologies.
We should be investing in that.
Instead of telling people we're going to punish you because you use carbon, we should be saying we've found a better way.
So we need to fund battery development.
There's some new solid-state battery stuff popping up in the news.
It's really amazing.
But anyway, I'll tell you what.
These people, they freak me out.
Because I'm concerned that my vision of a Star Trek future will be impeded by this.
By this insanity.
Because, what do you think happens if someone comes around and says, oh, I've developed a battery with ten times the capacity, and it's half the size?
They're gonna be like, uh-oh, that's really bad for us, who are trying to end patriarchy.
Which has nothing to do with the environment.
Someone could come around with real technology and they're going to oppose it.
Hey!
Kind of like nuclear energy!
Germany's decommissioning nuclear power plants.
Yes, I understand the problem of radioactive waste, but it seems like there's a solution.
And that's, you know what, I'm going to end by saying this.
I'm always self-critical because I'm not a crazy person.
Tulsi Gabbard is against nuclear energy.
I think there needs to be a better conversation around that.
You know, and I think she'd be willing to listen.
So as someone who I've, you know, said that I support, I recognize, you know, even, you know, Nobody's perfect.
But look, I'm not even convinced necessarily that nuclear energy is the grand solution.
I just think, based on what I've read, a rational approach, we do have solutions to this.
But guess what?
They want to shut them down.
It's like they want to make the problem worse.
Oh, and there it is.
There's your problem.
Look, the world is ending.
I have a solution.
No, get rid of that solution.
Because the real solution is ending the patriarchy.
This is why I don't like this, okay?
And where is the reasonable, rational individual who's proposing real environment?
Look, my motivations shouldn't matter, okay?
I want to reduce carbon emissions.
I think climate change is a big problem.
So I'll go to someone on the right and say, ignore that.
Ignore that.
Will my plan benefit you?
Am I going to create more jobs?
Is it going to boost the economy and make us more internationally competitive?
Are those things that you like?
That's what I offer you in exchange for this plan.
And what do I get?
Reduced carbon emissions.
It makes sense, right?
Yeah, well, too bad they don't actually want those plans.
They want to give money to people who are unwilling to work, and they want to shut down nuclear power plants.
You know what, man?
Not surprised.
Okay.
I will seriously end now.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
You guys are probably familiar with the Spider-Man meme, where there's, like, two Spider-Mans pointing at each other.
And it's a meme used to signify many different things.
But I think it could be used here.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed by Andrew Yang supporters after regressive comment.
Why, yes, Ocasio-Cortez apparently She implied that Yang's universal basic income proposal is regressive and she was criticizing it.
And you know, wait, hold on a second.
AOC is the person who proposed paying people who are unwilling to work.
Now, I think Andrew Yang's proposal is worthy of some criticism.
I do not believe it is fully fleshed out, but I do think Yang's got some good ideas worth listening to and I have supported him and donated to his campaign.
His idea for a freedom dividend makes a lot more sense than your typical UBI, of which I've been very critical of for a long time.
So I'm still, to an extent, critical of Yang's proposal.
But we can walk through this and try and talk about some of these criticisms.
But I just got to say, right off the bat, how delightfully absurd of all the people to criticize universal basic income, at least Yang's, is Ocasio-Cortez.
What is going on?
Remember when she was like, it is the biggest scandal in the world that they will not impeach Donald Trump.
And then they moved forward and she goes, eh, it's boring.
I'm totally over it.
Wait, what are you doing?
What is happening?
Let's read the story.
Inquisitor reports, Ocasio-Cortez recently suggested that the popular universal basic income proposal, which appears to be referencing Democratic presidential Andrew Yang's plan, is regressive and acts as a Trojan horse to gut the social safety net.
Ah, I think I figured it out.
In response to her comments, Yang's supporters took to social media to voice their disagreement.
Let me stop real quick.
For those that aren't familiar, a regressive tax means that it typically affects the lower class, and a progressive tax typically is targeting the upper class.
And she's essentially, and I could be wrong, maybe Inquisitor is getting her all wrong on this one, but essentially saying that UBI is regressive.
You know the difference between, say, UBI and standard social programs are?
Whether or not the individual has the ability to choose for themselves.
Now, Andrew Yang will go through his proposal.
It's not perfect, but I think there's some things worth talking about.
Basically, he says, instead of receiving cash benefits or cash-like benefits from the government, you can opt in to receive straight cash to use at your own discretion.
Yang is very trusting of people to make the right choices.
And I'm pretty... It's one of the criticisms here.
Listen, man.
When we give someone a food card, you know, like a EBTA, call it, or like Snap or whatever, you get a card.
You can buy groceries.
I don't believe... I think you can't buy hot food.
You get a certain amount of money specifically for food, and the reason is we don't want you going and buying, I don't know, drugs or like Twinkies.
Well, you can still buy Twinkies.
Okay, so maybe you can be somewhat responsible.
Irresponsible.
But we don't want you to waste that on things, you know, you wouldn't need.
Notably, like, you know, drugs or other things.
Yang's basically saying, I'll give you cash.
You choose.
I can respect that.
And it's alternative, right?
So if you opt into Yang's program, you opt out of other government welfare programs.
I guess that's why she's saying it's a Trojan horse to gut the social safety net.
What she's really saying is... Now listen, let me stop.
By all means, hate both of their plans, okay?
I think Yang's plan's got a lot of holes in it.
But I like where he's going, to an extent.
But you could, by all means, think both AOC and Yang have crazy ideas.
The fact remains that what they're arguing about right now is freedom.
It's Andrew Yang saying, we're gonna give you cash, you choose what to do with it.
You, as an individual, have the right to choose.
Now, I understand he's going to be taxing big companies and there's a debate around that.
We can talk about that.
AOC is saying, no, no, no, no, no.
Don't give people the right to choose.
We decide for them.
We tell them what programs they can be in and how they receive benefits.
It sounds an awful lot like Michael Bloomberg.
You may have seen that video where he said, it's good that we tax the poor because they'd be spending that money on who knows what.
We take that money away.
We can spend it for them.
Ah, yes.
The authoritarian argument that we should choose what you get to do.
I like Yang's idea insofar as it goes to that degree, where it's basically like, hey, we got a welfare program, you decide.
Now some people might actually take issue with that specifically, like, wait, wait, wait, if you're going to receive benefits for us, it's because we should be helping you with a specific problem, not just handing you cash to do whatever you want.
But Yang's got a really big, you know, I don't know what you'd call it, but he's thought about this.
And there are some really interesting points he's brought up, like housewives, for instance.
Women could be homemakers and not have to worry about getting a job or getting a divorce or anything like that.
And that could essentially allow a lot more women to choose to be moms, because they don't have to worry about whether or not they're going to miss work, because they're getting that UBI.
Well, it's not really UBI.
That's the other thing.
What Yang is proposing is not universal basic income.
And that's why I really take issue with the way he's framing it, and I think it's to his own detriment.
What Yang is proposing is that you essentially have these big corporations that are, to an extent, unaccountable.
Amazon, for instance.
You know, Google, Facebook.
He's saying we put a tax on these big companies.
It's a value-added tax, so it's like a sales tax.
And then that is used to pay for a large portion of his plan.
I don't think his plan is fully fleshed out.
But I'll say this, you know?
Yeah, whatever.
It's not going to implement it.
I mean, even if he got elected and he said, we want to do this, yeah, it's not going to happen.
But something can happen.
And I think when you look to Alaska, there's a really interesting argument about how these oil companies are extracting oil from Alaska and then they pay out a bit of those profits to the residents of Alaska.
Essentially as like a we use your land, you get a cut.
So if we're looking at big companies like Facebook making billions of dollars overseas, should we as Americans get a piece of the money that comes from other countries receiving that service?
That makes sense.
The idea that Americans would pay taxes to then fund other Americans who don't work doesn't make sense.
I don't like UBI.
And I think Andrew Yang's plan might actually drive inflation and cause other problems.
But think about it this way.
Imagine if our companies that operate internationally, selling products say in Russia, had to pay all these taxes for the sales they did in foreign countries
and that came back to Americans in a form of a dividend.
That kind of makes sense. Then it's basically like as an American you profit off of the companies that use
your country and your infrastructure while selling to other countries.
But I understand Yang's proposal would also impact Americans because
Americans would pay those same taxes.
So it is complicated.
But I think as we enter this world of digital trade, we need to keep an eye on how these companies operate overseas, how they're paying taxes or not paying taxes.
And there is a way that you can make sure the American people get a piece of companies like Google doing deals with China.
Like if Google does a multi-billion dollar deal with China, we get nothing for that.
Why should we allow that?
That's a risk to us.
Imagine if they had to pay when they were operating in these other countries.
Now, some people might say that would drive those companies out of the United States.
No, it wouldn't.
It wouldn't, because they literally know where they can go.
They can go to China and operate, but if you literally want to have your site function in America and have access to the economy, then you pay, you know.
So there's a discussion to be had there.
I'm not saying I've thought about this, written up any plans, but anyway, more to the point.
Sorry I went on a tangent about UBI.
I think it's hilarious that, of all people, AOC is targeting Yang when Yang's plan, at least, he's worked out, you know, going after bigger corporations and tax evasion and things like that and sales tax, whereas she literally is the person who published an FAQ for the Green New Deal saying we would pay people unwilling to work.
You want to talk about regressive?
Who do you think's going to pay for all that?
Not Bitcoin.
Like, come on, man.
So they referred to this guy, Scott Stanton, who's a Yang supporter, and he did this big long thread about why UBI makes sense and, you know, I get it.
The thing about Andrew Yang's plan is that you would become ineligible.
Yang's UBI stacks for Social Security retirement benefits and Social Security disability insurance per his policy page, but supplemental Social Security income Which is a means-tested program does not stack with his UBI, meaning anyone collecting SSI would not receive it should they opt in for Yang's proposed UBI.
So, actually, one of the reasons I do like Yang's idea so far, and I think there could be some form of it, is that if you can get a ton of people to opt out of a bunch of programs, you might actually be able to get rid of that bureaucracy, right?
So here's the thing a lot of people don't talk about.
For one, As I've stated time and time again, not a big fan of UBI.
I think it causes a lot of problems.
And the way I explain it is, like, imagine everybody you know who's really bad at art or music, who would immediately be like, I'm just gonna make crappy art and music.
Yeah, you know.
There's gotta be some risk in life for what you're working towards in producing.
But think about it this way.
When it comes to paying out benefits, we're not just paying the benefits, we're paying for the infrastructure of those benefits.
When it comes to food benefits, when it comes to unemployment, when it comes to literally, you name it, you name a benefit.
We're not only paying the cash for those benefits, but we're hiring people to run those specific programs.
What if we got rid of all those programs, streamlined everything down to one program where it's like, we're gonna cut you a check, you figure it out, that's all you get.
And if people then choose to use that as they see fit, and they do bad with it, well then, so be it.
You know, a lot of people will fizzle out, it'll cause them problems, we'll try to solve that.
I think there's an issue with, you know, just like you've got people who are in dire straits, some people might be unwell and you just give them cash, it might make the problem worse.
But then again, it comes down to a freedom issue.
Let's see what happens.
I'd like to have a conversation about that.
So that's one of the reasons I want to talk about this.
What do you think?
If we got rid of the bloat of all of these different programs, because think about it.
You've got city level, state level, and federal level.
Get rid of all of it.
Get rid of literally all of it.
Now Yang's saying he's not going to touch these other programs.
But maybe eventually we can cut out all of the infrastructure costs of all of these different programs.
Have one.
You get cash.
You figure it out.
Now, I think, first and foremost, we pay taxes.
So I don't like the idea of taking someone's resources and giving it to somebody who's not going to be responsible with it.
But the idea for a lot of these benefits are that... You know what, man?
I gotta admit, it really is a challenge, right?
When it comes to poverty, you might find that people with no money cause vandalism, crime, damage, and it's actually more expensive, and it might actually be easier just to give them certain resources.
But there is a real challenge here.
I think there is a way to fix the system.
And you know what?
Regardless of whether or not it's going to be Yang or anybody else, I'll put it this way.
The current system we have in place is a rickety old machine that has been built over the past hundred years, and it probably does make sense at some point to, like, I don't know, change it a lot and revamp the whole thing?
And maybe restructure it now that technology and society has changed?
Maybe just having this old system of all these different programs stacked on programs doesn't make sense and is becoming burdensome.
We might need to knock that system down and build something better.
But don't look at me.
I'm not on benefits, so I don't know.
And the last thing I want to do is harm, you know, retirees and other people who are receiving these benefits.
And I'll throw some shade towards Yang.
You know, what's really disconcerting is when he's asked, he says, if you like your program, you can choose to stay on it.
Whatever program you're on right now, you don't have to opt in for UBI.
And it's like, I heard that before.
Remember Obama said, if you like your doctor and your health care provider, you can keep it?
I don't have all the answers, but I will at least say I find it absurd, delightfully absurd, for AOC to be criticizing Andrew Yang of all people.
Yang's actually trying to think about this rationally, like, can we pay for this?
How will this function?
And I think he's jumped the gun a little bit, but come on, AOC's plan made literally no sense.
He's just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Our World in Data released a report on happiness a couple years ago, and this was just shared with me, so I decided, you know, we'll do a little bit of philosophy here, but I thought it was fascinating.
So this data is actually quite old, but we can see something really interesting in how men and women react to different life moments in different ways.
And it appears that happiness correlates exactly with some modern stereotypes about marriage and life and divorce and laughs and stuff.
So what I wanted to do is take a look at this and just talk about men-women relationships, science and stuff.
I did a segment the other day, there was a study released recently that found that for men and women, they're more likely to report a sexual advance as harassment or assault if the individual is ugly.
And that played right into stereotypes and tropes, and sure enough, data backs it up.
They also found that, there was another study, I cited from May, that in countries that are more gender equal, That men and women still have the same, like, are still attracted to the same things.
Basically, even in gender equal countries, women are attracted to high earners, and men are attracted to beautiful women.
Well, now we have this, the effect of life events on life satisfaction chart.
I saw someone tweet this and I thought it was fascinating, so I wanted to go through it because, lo and behold, men and women report happiness and unhappiness differently.
And it typically seems that most people are kind of unhappy for some reason or another.
But let's read this.
And there's some more data I want to show on how the media affects unhappiness because, yeah, it does.
Thanks, media.
Everybody's always angry.
So this chart says, in each individual plot, the red line marks the estimated effect of the corresponding event at a given point in time.
Whiskers denote the range of confidence around estimates.
Time is labeled so that zero marks the point when the event took place.
Negative and positive values denote years before and after the event.
All estimates control for individual characteristics, so the figures show the effect of the event after controlling for other factors, such as changes in income, etc.
And what did we learn?
We learned some really fascinating things from this.
Let's take a look at unemployment on women.
Women typically, so here's zero in terms of their life satisfaction.
Women, four years before unemployment, are noting a general low life satisfaction, below zero, meaning slightly negative.
We can see that here, where the red line is, is the moment they become unemployed.
From the year before to the year of unemployment, there is a noticeable downturn, the years going into unemployment, meaning something may affect what this woman is going through before becoming unemployed.
And if they're controlling for other factors, it may seem that there is a correlation between women becoming less satisfied with life and then becoming unemployed.
This is not a layoff.
Layoff is separate.
We can then see a year later, they're a little happier, but all around, women reporting low life satisfaction when they're unemployed for years afterwards.
That's kind of crazy.
Now, here's what's really interesting.
We can see that even when they are employed and after they're unemployed, they're unhappy.
But check this out.
Marriage, the two years leading up to marriage are a general increase in positive life satisfaction for women.
The year of marriage, they're noting a nearly four, a range of two to four in terms of life satisfaction.
Now those numbers are a bit arbitrary, but it basically means that women are a lot happier the year they're getting married than any year where they're employed or unemployed.
So when it comes to employment, women note a general dissatisfaction, whereas marriage, the first year, the year they get married they're very happy, the next year they're pretty happy, and then following that they have a pretty neutral life satisfaction.
That to me is absolutely fascinating, because it shows that Marriage relates to a positive life satisfaction, and employment and unemployment both correlate with dissatisfaction.
I could be getting that wrong.
But men are absolutely the same way on unemployment, but even more negatively impacted by unemployment.
I'm not trying to insinuate that women would be happier married.
No, the same is true for men.
Marriage correlates a positive experience and unemployment a negative experience.
But what's interesting here is that it seems that men, while they are generally less satisfied with work before being unemployed, unemployment results in a massive drop in life satisfaction that doesn't seem to recover for the most part.
It doesn't.
Now, what's really interesting about marriage, and men, I know most of you watching are dudes, check this out.
The years leading up to marriage, which means dudes are dating, they're sleeping around, they're pretty satisfied.
Look at this.
Even four years before marriage, they are generally satisfied around one.
Then they go up to two.
The numbers, again, are a bit arbitrary.
It's just showing you scale.
We can see that the year before marriage, men are pretty satisfied.
But here's what's interesting.
It actually goes down the year they get married, and then goes down after that.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
What?
How does this make sense?
How is it that guys are happier before marriage, and then after marriage... What this said to me, and the reason why I wanted to do this video, is it says that if you give men the opportunity, they will not get married.
You know why?
They're happier unmarried.
And women seem to be happier married.
Only a little bit.
Only a little bit.
Actually, I take that back.
Men are slightly more satisfied with life than women, but we can see that the years before marriage, men are much more satisfied than women are.
Says to me that right around the time of marriage, women are extremely happy they've gotten married, and men are kind of like, eh, I guess I got married.
So, here's what happens.
Our society tells people not to get married, not to have families, not to have kids, and guess what?
Guys are like, sign me up!
You know, I don't gotta be responsible for anybody.
I can do whatever I want, no strings attached.
Sounds like a lot of guys are gonna do that.
And as our culture starts pushing for that, don't be surprised when life satisfaction, this correlates with men choosing not to get married, not to have kids, and the birth rate goes down.
Now here's what's interesting.
Divorce seems to be a great thing for everybody.
Women are slightly less satisfied with life just before divorce.
After divorce, they're still meh, but a couple years later, their, you know, life's pretty good, right?
For men, whoa!
Dudes, don't get married!
Wow, this is crazy, look at this.
The years leading up to divorce, men are super unhappy and it's going down and down every year.
The year the divorce happens is a major spike up in their life satisfaction.
How does this make sense?
Well, I think when you compare divorce and marriage from men.
Men are happier before being married, slowly become less... I should say they're satisfied with life before marriage, but the year they get married, it goes down, and then it goes down from there, and the years before divorce seem miserable, but sure enough, once dudes are single again, they're now satisfied with life.
That, to me, is amazing.
Sounds to me like dudes should not get married.
And I'll give you another reason why you shouldn't get married.
I mean, you should get married and have a family.
It's a responsible thing to do.
And you want to pass down your values on your kids.
But it looks like if you want to be happy and selfish and more, you know, egotistical, which I'm not saying you shouldn't do.
You're free to do so.
You don't get married, right?
And that's what I've learned from TV.
But check this out.
Widowhood.
The two years before widowhood.
This is really weird.
The life satisfaction for a woman goes down the year before widowhood.
So what happens in the average widow's life that everything gets really bad?
Are you like killing your spouse or something?
Check this out.
One of the lowest drops in satisfaction is the year someone loses their spouse.
For both men and women, it's the same.
And I can imagine that people are generally satisfied with life, men a little bit more than women, and when your significant other dies, that's like, your life satisfaction is gone.
Now it takes women a year to recover about 70 or 80 percent back up, and then two years later they're fully recovered and life gets a little bit better.
It's just about the same as true for men when they lose their spouse.
It's really crazy that men could be so satisfied before marriage and unsatisfied afterwards, so satisfied before divorce and so satisfied afterwards, but losing their spouse just cripples them in terms of satisfaction.
So I think it shows that men might not be overwhelmingly satisfied, but I think it shows that both men and women truly love the people they're with.
And when people get married, it's more than just love as the emotion, it's also the importance of the other person.
And you can be ambivalent in the sense that you can have conflicting emotions about the person you love.
You might hate somebody but still love them.
I think we can see that losing your spouse is truly devastating, and even if someone might be happy you're divorced, they really do find significance in their partner.
It's kind of sad.
Now here's another thing that's interesting.
When it comes to the birth of a child between men and women, they both report basically the same level of satisfaction.
They're more satisfied with life before having kids, and after having kids for years, they are less satisfied.
That to me is worrisome.
It says to me that given the choice to not have kids and not be married, guess what?
Everybody gonna do it.
No one's gonna have kids.
No one's gonna be married.
The thing is, marriage and family are a responsibility.
It's you taking charge of what the future is going to be.
In a truly free society, I believe that people will drift towards narcissism, self, you know, pleasuring.
And what that means is they're not going to get married, dudes especially, and they're not going to have kids.
And that means that a truly free society in that way will eventually cease to exist.
Now, there's one more interesting point, and I'll keep this one short.
I'll jump over to the media one in a second.
Layoffs tend to be like, eh, for guys, like, you know, layoffs aren't too happy.
Like, you go down in satisfaction.
Women tend to be really happy by layoffs.
Like, layoffs improve their life satisfaction.
So I think, you know, for the most part, we see that men and women are actually kind of similar in a lot of ways, except for marriage and layoffs.
Men are happier before marriage.
Women are a little bit happier before marriage, but then both men and women get kind of dissatisfied after marriage.
But men are not super satisfied after being laid off.
Women actually see a decent improvement in their satisfaction.
There's just one last tidbit I'll add in the Our World in Data.
They say that a number of studies have found that there is a link between emotional exposure to negative content in news and changes in mood.
Johnson and Davey in 97, for example, conducted an experiment in which they edited short TV news to display positive, neutral, or negative material, and then showed them to three different groups of people.
The authors found that the people who watched the negative clips were more likely to report a sad mood.
And I'll end by saying, who are the people being inundated with social justice negativity non-stop all day and night?
The left.
Who is being inundated with jokes, humor, silliness, irreverence?
Trump supporters.
It's not perfect.
The left has their happy-go-lucky stories, and the right has their horrifying danger-danger stories.
But for the most part, when you look to American politics, the right is making jokes, they're laughing, they're being silly, and the left is criticizing and scolding.
I think you'll see that people would prefer to drift towards happiness, but in the end, it's more about... I think the media is the reason why we see, you know, the left is typically unhappy.
Axios reported that poll that said Democrats are made angry by everything.
And Republicans, less so.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think about all of this.
I think we find that men and women are actually very similar in many ways.
But the data shows us the trends we're seeing.
This data is from 2008.
Sure enough, 11 years later, we have a drop in birth rates, a drop in marriage, men aren't working, because I'll tell you what, that shows us men are happier not married.
And both men and women are happier without kids.
And there it is.
I guess that's how we go out.
A glorious bang of self-congratulatory pleasuring.
I'll see you on the next segment, which is coming up in just a few minutes.
You know, this is kind of the weirdest thing to me about the media.
Like, when something good happens, instead of saying something good happens, they just mention that conservatives claim something good is happening.
Or let me rephrase that, because it probably came out weird.
When something good happens around Trump, instead of the media saying, hey, the economy is good, and we just saw a record Black Friday, they say, Trump supporters and conservatives claim the economy is good.
But we literally just saw a record Black Friday.
You can't assume it's due to, like, I don't know, not the economy?
What are you talking about?
They're going to add that liberal recession attempts failed.
That's what conservatives are claiming.
Well, I'll tell you what, that's a fair criticism.
But there has been a ton of press.
There's been a ton of stories from the media where they keep saying, oh, the recession's coming, be careful, you better pull out your stocks.
Remember that guy, was it Kurt Eichenwald, who like, after Trump got elected, he says, you better pull all of your, or no, no, yeah, he said something about like pulling all of his stocks in 401k or whatever, because he was worried about the economy after Trump got elected.
And then the economy skyrocketed.
Boy, does that guy probably regret that.
People are seeing like 30% gains on their retirement accounts.
So here's what happens.
Black Friday.
We saw some punchin', we saw some stompin', and we saw some people buying some widescreen TVs.
But apparently, we are seeing a record Black Friday, up 22%.
Is the economy doing well?
Listen, man, when you look at most reporting, yeah, everybody's saying it's not the greatest economy ever, but it's pretty good.
And we now have a record Black Friday.
Sounds to me like people have money to spend.
Do you think they're going to want to rock the boat with Elizabeth Warren saying we're going to give health care to non-citizens?
Well, they all said they're going to give health care to non-citizens.
No, people are going to be like, dude, things are going great, man.
Like, let's not rough stuff up.
I will say, you know, immigration is way, way down under Trump.
And I think that may play into why the unemployment rate is down.
And I mean that.
I'm not saying it's like, you know, a perfect one-for-one correlation or the sole reason.
But why is it that more people have money, unemployment is way down, labor force participation is way up.
And I think it's because we have substantially less.
I believe immigration is down 70%, which means when a business needs to hire someone, you have to choose an American.
Or you're more than twice as likely now to have to hire an American, which means more Americans with jobs.
Let's read.
Conservative pundits and Fox News hosts rejoiced at reports of record Black Friday online shopping sales, praising the Trump economy for allowing shoppers to spend even more money this year.
But couldn't you just write a story saying, Rejoice at the record Black Friday spending.
The economy is good.
Why does it have to be that you're talking about the conservatives talking about it?
Those conservative figures ranging from a GOP congressman to Fox Business Network panelists praised Donald Trump's Saturday after Adobe Analytics data showed Black Friday spending hit a new $5.4 billion record, up more than 22% from last year.
Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk claimed consumers saw through the supposed efforts of mainstream media to scare the U.S.
into a recession and instead turned out in droves to spend exorbitant amounts of money on holiday gifts, primarily through online shopping.
A Barron's Roundtable panel on Fox Business Network Saturday urged consumers to spend even more money on Cyber Monday, which Adobe predicted will hit $9.4 billion in sales, an 18.9% increase from last year.
While we're here, I'm gonna throw a little shade at Mr. Charlie Kirk.
I actually think he's, you know, he's like an alright dude.
I think, you know, he always posts the questioning meme.
But he recently tweeted about Chick-fil-A betraying conservatives and supporting the SPLC.
And while I can certainly understand the outrage of them supporting the SPLC, because the SPLC has smeared me, dude, come on.
Chicken Shop!
I'm going to give you criticism the same I gave to the left when they were screeching about Chicken Shop supporting the Salvation Army.
Let's not go there.
Don't think you're going to get a free pass from me.
Now, I will admit, it's an aside.
Let's get back to the point.
But listen, I think it's silly to complain about Chick-fil-A.
And every time these stories come up, I go, you know.
But anyway, I do agree to an extent with Charlie Kirk here.
I think the media was really trying to rile up this idea of a recession.
And I think there were certainly people who hoped it would happen, but there were some legitimate economists saying there could be a recession.
And you need to understand, it's not so much about a grand conspiracy to drum up a recession, but that it was juicy.
Look, things are going great, man, right?
What does the media need to get those juicy clicks?
They need to scare you.
So how do you scare someone when everything's going so good?
unidentified
You say, hey, hey, we could take that all away in an instant.
And so while everyone's celebrating, they got disposable cash, we got a record Black Friday, the media runs stories that are shocking and scary, not necessarily to go after Trump, but because they know it will sell.
Because people are sitting there saying, I have so much money right now.
I'm so happy.
And how do you get them to watch?
Threaten their happiness.
That's what it's really about.
Now, for sure, I'm sure there's political actors and media, probably, who know they can drum up a recession by scaring investors into pulling out their investments.
But you know what?
In the end, the market is stronger than a few pundits.
Well, he's right.
It is the Trump economy.
Experts on MSM tried to scare us into a recession, but consumers aren't buying it.
Thanksgiving shoppers spent a record $4.1 billion, up 14% over last year.
Black Friday spending is up 22%, to a record high of $5.4 billion.
This is the Trump economy at work.
Well, he's right.
It is the Trump economy.
Listen, man, you can't simultaneously claim that Trump is hurting farmers with his trade
war and then act like the economy isn't a result of his policies.
So I have no problem giving credit to the president if the economy is doing really, really well.
I think the presidency involves much more than just trade agreements and the economy, but right now we have a tradesman president.
He's got bad attitude, he tweets inappropriately, and he's not perfect when it comes to character, but he is a guy who knows trade.
So don't be surprised when you get someone like Trump in and he proposes things that generate revenue.
If we got in someone like Tulsi Gabbard, don't be surprised if she focuses on ending foreign wars.
There's different specialties for the president.
We have military presidents, we have policy presidents, social justice presidents, and right now we've got a businessman president.
And so for me, I think that the chief role of the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
And that's why I give so much more bonus points to servicemen and women who are, you know, running for office.
But let's get back to the economy.
See what's going on.
Huge consumer confidence in real Donald Trump's economy is at a level that hasn't been seen in 20 years, the Trump war room Twitter account blared earlier this week.
And yeah, I mean, look, you can't really deny it when we're seeing these massive spikes in consumer confidence from 96.8 up to 96.8 from 95.5.
And here's what it matters.
Here's what really matters.
Do you think the average American is sitting in their, you know, lounging in their chair, watching a sports game, as the man throws the football, do you think on their mind they're going, man, I'm so concerned about the plight of institutional, you know, of the problem of institutional and systemic racism and prejudice in our country?
Do you think that when the old lady is sitting there carving up turkey, she stops and pauses and thinks about the problem of colonialism and patriarchy?
The answer is no.
But I'll tell you what, both of those people very likely pause to think about a bill they have to pay.
And what happens when they get to pay that bill?
When they get to buy that new crockpot, that new air fryer that everybody's wanted?
What happens when they get to buy that new video game little Timmy's been begging for?
They feel good.
And they plan ahead, there's less stress.
And they look at what the president is doing and they say the economy is doing well and that's why people win on the economy.
Because the American people aren't sitting there, and you know what?
I know I did a dig at social justice, but let me do another one.
You know, your mechanic isn't underneath the car, you know, with a wrench, stopping and thinking about the plight of, you know, the roads in Afghanistan and the waste of money, or they're not thinking about the civilians being drone-striked.
I think it's a huge waste of money, and I think we've got to do better by our own American people.
But I relate that back to what Americans need to know about.
And that's why I'm frustrated by a lot of the Democrat policies, because while that mechanic is under that car, you know, cranking away at that wrench, he's worried about how he's going to pay his rent.
He's worried about how he's going to feed his kids, put his kids in college, or do right by his family.
Or, I'll tell you what they are thinking about.
There's a mechanic in Flint who's scared because he's got a little kid and he knows the water is bad.
And that's what he's thinking about.
And so, for me, I look at that problem and I say, how do we solve that problem?
Well, for one, a good economy means more tax revenue.
The better the economy is, the more trade, the more little bits get nickel-and-dimed through the taxes into the government to spend for things.
You don't necessarily need to raise taxes to increase tax revenue.
It actually could have an opposite effect.
If it reduces trade volume and hurts the market, there will be less trade, and even though you increase the tax percentage, less money comes in.
It's actually possible to increase revenues by decreasing the tax rate.
So I look at this wasted money overseas and think, we could be using that money, which we should be, on things that Americans care about.
So here's the point.
Right?
The main point is, I find it silly that when something really good happens to the economy, the framing of it from Newsweek is like, Trump supporters are touting a great economy.
