Google Banned HUNDREDS Of Trump Campaign Ads And Won't Explain Why
Google Banned HUNDREDS Of Trump Campaign Ads And Won't Explain Why. In an investigation CBS News found over 300 ads from Donald trump had been removed from Google and Youtube without explanation other than it "violated company policy"While some will argue a private company can do what it wants we are talking about the largest search engine and video platform restricting a candidates ability to reach news voters without explanation.Upon further investigation it seems that many establishment Democrats have had little trouble with their ads but Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard have also had some ads removed and we don't know why.I have't done a full readout but it seems trump was the most heavily impacted followed by Bernie than Tulsi, but again this was just a cursory search not an in depth review.While typically the left and far left cheer for censorship of conservatives or claim it isn't happening we can see just what to expect if something is not done about this now.First Trump and conservatives will be banned. After the left hceers they will come for the anti establishment players like Bernie, Tulsi, and Andrew Yang.If the left does not defend free speech for conservatives then it is only a matter of time before they too face the banhammer.Big tech needs to be held accountable otherwise we can resign ourselves to living in a dystopia ruled by multi national billionaires with no regard to social justice.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I often start these videos by citing Gizmodo when they uncovered widespread bias against conservatives on Facebook.
But there have been many stories proving the bias is real, notably Project Veritas leaking those emails that showed they said certain conservative figures were a certain kind of far-right bad people, if you know what I mean.
People within these companies are absolutely biased, and this is having a negative impact on politics.
We're now learning that it actually runs deeper than that.
You see, CBS News 60 Minutes did a sit-down with YouTube.
I believe the interview was woefully inadequate, but what they found?
plus Trump ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating
company policy.
After everything we've heard from Veritas and from Gizmodo even, and even Recode, who
said from Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey, many of their conservative employees are scared
to speak up.
We heard something similar from conservative employees at Facebook.
We know that there is an internal bias.
Does it mean the whole company hates people?
No, but it means their rules are likely misapplied or more heavily applied to people on the right.
Sure enough, we find that Trump ads are being taken down, but what's more worrying is we
don't know why.
You see, even CBS acknowledges there's not much transparency in their transparency report, and while they're trying to claim there's no bias against conservatives, sure enough, we see this happening to Trump.
So I decided to look into it.
I looked up a few other political campaigns, and sure enough, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, I didn't find any policy violations.
There's probably some in there somewhere, but I very easily found the policy violations for Donald Trump's campaign, and unsurprisingly, also Bernie Sanders.
You might not be a fan of either Trump or Bernie, but I think we can all realize the populist individuals are facing a bias.
I certainly think, based on what I found, the bias against Trump is more substantial.
But we even heard recently that Barack Obama was secretly talking about speaking up against Bernie Sanders.
I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, the bias from big tech is extremely dangerous.
We don't know why these companies are restricting political ads.
Now again, I'll stress, most of the ads appear to be fine, but we don't know what their criteria is for taking this information down.
To make matters worse, Google has been swayed before by fake news.
So here's what I'll do.
Let's take a look at this story from CBS.
But I want to show you exactly why it's so dangerous these private companies are reacting to fake news and blocking politics.
I think most of us can get it.
We shouldn't have unaccountable corporations dictating what we can see and hear, but that's where we're going.
I mean, I get it.
We were there kind of in the past when we didn't have social media.
We broke through certain barriers.
Let's not regress.
But there's another story here that's also alarming.
Facebook removes 7 UK Tory party ads after BBC complaint.
The BBC was upset that Brexit ads had content from the BBC.
They called it inaccurate or misleading.
So Facebook actually took it down.
That, to me, is particularly worrisome.
You know, there's a lot to go through here.
It's not just about the ads being taken down, but we know that media is biased.
We know that in this new world of Twitter saying no political ads and Facebook saying yes any ads and Google taking down Trump, the left plans to slip vote-swaying news into Facebook feeds.
Now it's just one political operative, but it exists.
The fake news is going to sway these media companies using the guise of credibility, and then you are going to see your favorite politician removed.
And let me remind you, To those who are conservative, you're probably saying, yeah, what else is new?
We know this is happening.
But there are many people on the left saying, oh, please, it's not true.
Well, it's happening to Bernie Sanders.
So maybe if you took the time to wake up and realize these establishment players, this fake news is not pro-Bernie.
This is a former... I believe this person worked for Obama.
This is establishment players.
These are people... This is Obama who said he would speak up to stop Bernie Sanders.
If you are someone who finds yourself on the left or the right, you better recognize this problem is coming for you regardless.
Many people on the left want to point the finger at Trump supporters and say, too bad, it's a private company.
Well, it's hitting Bernie all the same.
It's hitting Tulsi and it's hitting Andrew Yang.
We can see how the bias works.
So let's talk about what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, the best thing you can do, share this video!
Listen, man, these big media companies, they are not playing fair.
MSNBC is keeping Yang out of the game.
We can see how they smear Trump all day and night.
It doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum.
We know that when YouTube sees the fake news and they come for us, particularly in response to stories like this from 60 Minutes, they knock us down and they prop up MSNBC and Fox News.
And if you're on the left and you don't like Fox News, fine, but recognize that MSNBC was keeping Yang out as well and he demanded an apology.
We need to support independent content.
If you like what I do, then please consider sharing this video to help combat this fake news.
Let's read what CBS said.
They go on to talk about political ads on social media.
Yeah, we get all that stuff.
Compared to TV ads, they say online ads can spread lies at an alarming rate.
Yet, welcome to the internet.
That's always been true.
It's called new technology.
But here's what they find.
In October, responding to a groundswell of concern, Twitter announced it would ban political advertising on its platform.
Google and its subsidiary YouTube do not ban these ads, but the company last month came out with adjustments and clarifications to its policy, including limited micro-targeting of users.
I can understand why that might make sense, some people are concerned, that if you get a specific ad that caters to you specifically, and someone else gets a different ad, sounds like politicians are double dipping.
And don't have a cohesive plan.
They're just manipulating you.
But here's what they say.
In response to concerns raised of the 2016 election cycle, Google and YouTube, like Facebook, keep a searchable archive of political ads that have run on the site.
60 Minutes reviewed the archive to learn more about President Trump's problematic political ads.
Problematic?
You know, that's a bit opinionated.
We found that over 300 video ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating company policy.
But the archive doesn't detail what policy was violated.
Was it copyright violation, a lie, or extreme inaccuracy?
Faulty grammar?
Bad punctuation?
It's unclear.
The ads determined to be offending are not available to be screened.
We found very little transparency in the transparency report.
Now you might think Trump's ads are problematic and you don't like the guy, but I gotta say, isn't it...
A bit disconcerting that YouTube isn't telling us why these ads are taken down.
And again, I will stress, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard also have the same problem.
Trump seems to be getting it much, much worse.
I very easily found several policy violations under Trump's campaigns.
Multiple ones, because there's a pack, I believe.
For Bernie, I found a couple.
For Tulsi, I found one.
But for the establishment players, for Biden, for Buttigieg, for Harris, I found none.
and for Warren. But you know, sure, maybe their ads are just, I don't know, innocuous.
Maybe Trump really did something wrong. We just don't know.
And I'm not going to sit back and say, ah, it's fine that a bunch of establishment
Democrats have no removals, but Bernie Sanders and Trump do. Something doesn't feel
right. And regardless of whether or not the removals were fair, they should tell us why.
When CNN took down Donald Trump Donald Trump's refused to air two Trump campaign ads, just
Trump was accusing Biden of corruption and the New York Times and CNN said there's no
evidence to suggest, okay, fine, full stop.
There is evidence to suggest there's potential wrongdoing here.
We know Hunter Biden had no reason to be on that board.
We know from sworn affidavits in Ukraine that there was an investigation.
You can distrust them.
That's okay.
But to act like Trump isn't entitled to his opinion is absurd.
But, CNN is different.
First, they're one network.
If someone came to my channel and said, Tim, we want you to run these ads, and I said, no, that's my business, CNN can do what they want.
More importantly, CNN told us why, and now we know.
They disagreed with the framing.
They view it as inaccurate.
I think you can argue it's inaccurate, but that's still just an opinion.
At the end of the day, thank you, CNN, for at least telling us.
We can then discuss the merit of the issue.
But at least CNN did that and it was only two.
When it comes to Google, we don't know what's going on.
And so this is what was asked.
As you know, conservatives think that you discriminate against them.
Stahl tells YouTube's Wojcicki, I believe that's how you pronounce it, who replies, well, first of all, there are lots of very successful conservative creators on YouTube.
Our systems, our algorithms, they don't have any concept of understanding what's a Democrat, what's a Republican.
They don't have any concept of political bias built in them in any way.
And we do get this criticism from all sides.
We also have people who come from more liberal backgrounds who complain about discrimination.
And so I think that no matter who you are, we are trying to enforce our policies in a consistent way for everybody.
The archive does detail how many days the ad ran on the platform before it was taken down, approximately how much Google was paid, and how many impressions it received.
Now, I will say, to CNN's credit, It is true that creators on the left do receive problems as well.
When YouTube bent over backwards to fake news about the rabbit hole, and I'll say too she's wrong about, you know, YouTube not being biased, they are biased, but they still negatively impact the left in similar ways.
A fake story from the New York Times claimed there's a rabbit hole.
That if you watch the intellectual dark web, all of a sudden you'll be at the alt-right.
It's just not true.
It is not true.
Because YouTube doesn't understand the difference between pro or anti-immigration.
It doesn't.
If you put immigration in the tag, YouTube sees it as the same thing.
If people are choosing to watch anti, that's something they're putting in their search and gravitating towards certain content.
YouTube doesn't know the difference.
They don't score things as left to right.
So it stands to reason that if you watch videos just about immigration, you will get more left than right because there are more left-wing channels.
More importantly, in response to that fake news, channels like mine and David Pakman took major hits.
YouTube knocked us down in support for mainstream news.
So then here's the problem.
First, CNN can reject Trump all they want, fine, but they're wrong about saying it's inaccurate.
But what happens when that news actually results in political ads being removed because Facebook bends their will, bends the knee?
Facebook removed seven UK Tory party ads after BBC complaint.
I'll tell you what the ads basically were, as I understand them.
Like most political ads, they take a snippet of a news bit where someone says something like, corruption, and they put it in.
In this instance you had BBC journalists saying, another delay to Brexit, another delay to Brexit.
And apparently the Tory party was making a point about Brexit being pushed back.
Not that the BBC was saying anything other than these things were happening, they were showing the news clips.
The BBC complains, Facebook takes them down.
Why?
They claim it was misleading, but I thought Facebook doubled down, saying that they were going to allow these ads.
Apparently not.
So this is the problem.
The BBC intervened to get a political ad removed.
Come on, man.
Look, I get it.
There's going to be a lot of people who hate Brexit, who are Remainers, who are going to be cheering for this.
But let me remind you, let me show you some stuff.
This is, I believe, what do we have here?
This is Donald Trump, I think we have here?
Yes.
Here's Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders has two ads that were removed only last week, published on the 20th.
Now here's what you can see.
The ads all tend to be the same.
We can see in this section, there's four ads.
Two of them are the same ad, and one in the middle was removed for a violation.
Why?
Is it possible that ad is the same as the other two?
It's in between two identical ads.
I want to know why that Bernie Sanders ad was taken down.
It was taken down after two days while the others remained up.
Even if it's YouTube arbitrarily just pulling something down and the video is identical, it stands to reason that YouTube taking these things down is a negative impact on their campaigns because it restricts the views they can reach.
We don't know why.
And when we look, it just says policy violation.
They say that he spent between $1,000 and $50,000.
We don't know why it was removed.
And it's possible that YouTube took it down because they're biased.
And you gotta recognize it.
Look, so let me do this.
Here's a list of the political ad spends through Google.
We can see that California spends a ton of money.
Florida gets the biggest spends, $13 million.
$131 million spent since May 31st.
The biggest spender is the Trump Make America Great Again committee.
And, boy, it's $8 million.
Sure enough, when you look at their biggest spends, we can see that immediately, in their top eight, there's a policy violation.
We don't know why it was taken down.
We can scroll down, and we can see there's many more.
I'm not going to dig through all these.
I did look at Warren and Buttigieg and others, and sure enough, I didn't find any.
But Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, I did.
If they are taking down ads arbitrarily to just restrict how much reach they can get or to restrict the more effective ads, we don't know why.
Okay?
It's gonna be bad for either of them.
And I gotta say, man, we know the bias is real.
It's not... Look, I think the bias is much heavier towards the Republicans.
I can very easily find the violations that Trump has received and the 300-plus ads.
It's all very easily there.
Plus, we see what BBC did with Brexit.
But it's going to hit you on the left.
MSNBC is biased against Andrew Yang.
And it's frustrating for me to see so many establishment left-wing journalists praising this stuff.
You know who else got their ads suspended, and this should be more worrying?
It's Project Veritas.
Their ads were banned from Twitter for inappropriate content.
But what does that mean?
Newsbusters reports.
Project Veritas reported that its accounts on Twitter ads was suspended permanently for inappropriate content.
In a video posted to Twitter, the organization's founder, James O'Keefe, explained how the censorship occurred.
Twitter recently banned all political ads except for cause-based ads from non-profit and for-profit organizations.
The SPLC, for example, can still run ads on Twitter, but some conservative sites have not fared as well as the SPLC.
Here's what I don't want.
I don't want to live in a future where massive multinational corporations decide what we're allowed to see and hear.
We had that in the past.
With the consolidation of these media companies, CNN, NBC, ABC, whatever, they would keep people out.
And you would then only see establishment players.
What are we seeing now with the DNC primary?
They're still trying to do the same thing.
The DNC says these are the only acceptable media outlets and pollsters.
So when people like Tulsi do well in the polls, they say no.
But now I want to drive it home for you.
I'm sure there's a lot of people on the left who are just cheering about Trump getting his ads taken down, saying he probably deserved it.
Remember when Elizabeth Warren Had her Facebook ads removed because she was challenging Mark Zuckerberg?
I'm not a big fan of Warren, but I will give her credit for saying we've got to do something about these big tech companies.
Now, she's calling for breaking them up.
I don't know if it's the right thing to do.
At least it's an idea.
Andrew Yang is talking about different ideas saying that might not work.
But sure enough, Elizabeth Warren published ads criticizing Facebook, and Facebook took the ads down.
Isn't that alarming?
Let me ask you this.
Do you want to live in a world where you can't criticize a major corporation?
You can't do anything about it?
Facebook is where people are sharing information.
Twitter is where people are sharing information.
And if you can't speak there, your voice is dramatically reduced.
Now I get it.
In the past, we had to go to the local media, we had to go to the water cooler, and if we wanted to spread ideas, we had to go and talk to each other about it.
But this kind of communication is being taken over by these tech platforms, by Twitter, by Google, by Facebook.
And if they start banning speech they don't like, Elizabeth Warren will not be elected.
Mark Zuckerberg has already come out, you know, there's already been a leak, I believe it was a leak, audio, where Zuckerberg's criticizing Elizabeth Warren.
She's a threat to him.
Do you think Zuckerberg is going to allow her to win and then break up Facebook?
Absolutely not.
And I'll tell you this.
Mark Zuckerberg came out, and he recently had a dinner, I believe with Trump.
The left is all freaking out about it.
I think the reason Mark Zuckerberg has come out more so in favor of, I'll do air quotes, free speech, and I say more so, not completely, is because he knows where his bread is going to be buttered.
Right now, you've got Donald Trump in office, and conservatives are complaining about the political censorship on these platforms.
If Elizabeth Warren wins, Facebook's in big trouble.
If Donald Trump wins, the conservatives will likely respect the private entity insofar as they allow free speech.
So Mark Zuckerberg probably realized.
He's on the losing end of both arguments.
The left wants to ban hate speech.
What can he do?
That's a step too far.
I mean, he does, for the most part, ban hate speech, but they want more, more, more, more.
Remove this person.
Remove that person.
They'll never stop.
So when he comes out and says, we have limits, they say, fine, we will break up Facebook.
In a panic, Mark Zuckerberg goes and meets up with some conservatives and Trump, and now he's saying, you know what?
You know what?
Maybe we should respect some of that good old free expression.
Even though Facebook has taken moves to censor conservatives, as we saw from the Gizmodo story, which I want to cite, we can now see Mark Zuckerberg knows who is going to butter his bread.
And there's a lot of people who are pushing these ideas, you know, about... It's about stopping people from manipulating.
You know what, man?
Political ads have always been manipulations.
And we've always respected the right of people to have hyperbolic speech.
Thinking back, you know, I saw a Twitter thread recently about the 90s, where when a controversial issue would arise, they'd bring it on TV on purpose.
Larry King would have tons of extremely offensive people on his show to talk about these ideas, to challenge them, to work them out.
And sure enough, today, you can't do that.
And as the media becomes more and more corrupt, these tech companies bend over backwards for fake news, and we are in serious trouble.
Right now, the best line of defense we have against the establishment players keeping out anyone who the American people might want is an alternative and independent media.
It's independent commentary.
Channels like mine, and even channels from more progressive creators.
It's better That we have a large array of different kinds of political commentary from libertarian, to socialist, to laissez-faire capitalist, anarcho-capitalist, to conservative, to moderate, etc.
We have all of these voices and we can share these ideas and we can, you know, it's the marketplace of ideas.
They can succeed or fail based on their merits.
But we now have a media that is trying to exploit the platforms themselves into censoring information.
When they realized they couldn't shut down our ideas, they went straight to the platform.
And what happens?
Well, on the surface, you'll find a lot of people on the left cheering that Donald Trump's ads are being removed.
But let me remind you, Yang is excluded from the media, Tulsi is, and Bernie Sanders as well.
So there may be big disagreements politically between all of these different, you know, bases, But I'll at least tell you, the only people cheering for this are the establishment Democrats.
The people who want Biden to win, who for some reason, you know.
So let me show you something.
The media is toxic, okay?
A woman wrote a story about Donald Trump's Thanksgiving Day.
A day before Thanksgiving.
How could that possibly be reality if the day didn't even happen yet?
Well, she got fired.
But guess what?
The only reason she got fired was because regular people on social media kept pointing out she wrote... It was a pre-write.
She wrote it early.
It was fake news.
And because of that, she was held accountable.
Do you think these companies like the fact that regular people know before they can publish, that we can share information faster and better, and we were right and they were wrong?
They want to claim that the internet is spreading fake news like wildfire.
It's also spreading the truth like wildfire, and these media companies have put out fake news in the past, and now we're correcting them.
What happens when these ads are getting removed?
When these companies are biased and say, I don't care if you're Trump or Bernie, we're not letting you through.
Then these fake stories will persist and your ideas will not.
You know, so I'll tell you this, man.
The problem with the conservatives is that too many of them say, you know, we shouldn't interfere with a private company, they can do what they want.
I kid you not, many of the arguments I've heard, they say, we shouldn't impose new laws on these companies, we use a slippery slope.
Well, the left typically is in favor of regulation, but they're winning, they're benefiting from this.
Unless you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, or, you know, Yang or Tulsi, if you support an outsider, you're in trouble.
So, you know what, you get the point.
I'll leave it there.
I think if you're on the left, the problem is they're too happy celebrating that Trump is the one getting the brunt of this.
The right too often says we shouldn't interfere in a private business, but I tell you what, both the left and the right will regret it if they don't stand up right now and demand better transparency as to why these ads were removed.
And I will end with two final thoughts.
The first, it is entirely possible.
The ads were removed simply for punctuation.
I kid you not.
Some of the rules are like, you can't be all caps.
Maybe.
But I'm curious as to why, when it comes to Bernie Sanders ads, you can see that he ran three ads, two, the first and the last are the same, and the one in the middle was banned.
Why is that?
Why is that?
So, it could be something innocuous, it could be something, you know, you know, who cares?
But I'd like to know why.
Because I want to know if Google is biased.
I honestly believe they are.
And, you know, the reason I'm citing Bernie specifically is to drive the point home to those on the left.
This is hitting your candidate.
You've ignored the bias for too long and it's coming for you next.
It's the point that everyone has been trying to make.
The first, they'll start banning Trump, and you will cheer, and then once you do, they will snip out your candidate.
The last thing I will add, and this is not a paid sponsorship or anything.
Minds.com has launched a new monetization pro platform.
You can monetize your content on Minds.
I know that Minds is not nearly as lucrative with as big an audience as YouTube, but listen.
There's a YouTube union challenging what YouTube is doing.
I don't think they'll win.
What's going to win is competition.
If more and more people sign up for Mines, and upload videos to Mines, and make money through their monetization program, and yes, Mines monetization is actually on par with YouTube average.
There's just not as many viewers, so you gotta work really hard, but listen.
If we start diversifying and supporting other platforms that have a monetization program, and I don't think there's anything else, like Minds.com literally is paying like YouTube does.
They're competing directly with their partner program.
Then YouTube will be forced to accept these changes and stop the bias.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
In order for there to be an actual impeachment inquiry, we need reason to believe that Donald Trump was attempting to pressure, quid pro quo, bribe, extort, whatever, Ukraine.
And what they're saying, the Democrats, is that this was intended to help Trump in 2020.
Now, the first problem I have with this is Joe Biden is just not—nobody thinks he's all there.
And as if Donald Trump actually needed help to beat Biden is absurd.
And that's the premise so far.
While Democrats have asked no questions in any of these hearings about whether or not Trump was concerned about losing to Joe Biden.
But ignore all of that.
The inquiry shouldn't happen in the first place because the president of Ukraine said, I don't know what you're talking about.
There was no quid pro quo.
You'd think if the president of Ukraine said nothing happened, they'd be like, well, we don't have, we don't even have probable cause to think there is something here.
Now we have an update here.
Ukraine's President Zelensky renews his denial of a quid pro quo with Donald Trump over military aid and insists he does not understand at all the accusations made in impeachment proceedings.
I suppose You know, the Democrats can argue Zelensky's lying to earn favor with Trump, and there's another kind of quid pro quo, but that's a bit too conspiratorial for my tastes.
Listen, man, if the phone call was released and Trump said, hey, do us a favor, there was no investigation, no announcement, nothing like that happened.
The president of Ukraine has now said on several occasions, there was no pressure, I don't know what you're talking about.
What are they pursuing?
Who was pressured by this?
You know, one of the weirdest things to me, I had a conversation with Sam Seder.
He's a podcaster, YouTuber on the left.
And he said, it was extortion what Trump did to Ukraine.
And the state of mind of the victim is irrelevant in the crime.
Because I said, listen, If Ukraine didn't know that the aid was being held up in exchange for these investigations, how could you extort somebody who has no idea anything's happening?
In order to extort someone, you have to say, if you don't do this, I will do this.
Or, if you want X, you must do Y. If you don't tell them that, they can't do anything to benefit you.
How can that be extortion or bribery or anything?
It doesn't work.
And I'll tell you this too, we all know it.
Or maybe you don't, but the reason the Democrats started calling it bribery and extortion is because it polled better in focus groups.
I kid you not.
So here we are.
You know, the Democrats try to claim that Donald Trump is harming our relationship with Ukraine and all that stuff.
Listen, man, I say it almost every time.
I don't care if you like the guy or not.
Seriously, you want to talk about who's harming our relationship with Ukraine?
It's the Democrats.
They're making Ukraine look really, really bad.
Or as Zelensky said, He added he did not want to give an impression that we are beggars in Ukraine.
Everything the Democrats are doing in defiance to what the President of Ukraine says is undermining their government.
Now don't take it from me.
I don't know about the internal politics of Ukraine.
I'll tell you this.
I was there on the ground for the Euromaidan stuff.
Got to interview a lot of people.
So I probably know a little bit more than the average person.
I'm not an expert on Ukrainian affairs.
But I'll tell you this.
How do you think it must look?
To the rest of the world that Ukraine is being played up like a lapdog to U.S.
interests.
The Democrats want to frame it like this poor and disheveled little Ukraine couldn't do anything in the face of Donald Trump.
The power disparity was just too great, Vindman says, and that's proof.
I kid you not, in the testimony, Vindman said that even though the president didn't explicitly say you must do X for Y, the power disparity was so vast, it was implied.
So here you have a guy on TV in the United States telling the world, Ukraine, I'm not going to swear, I was going to swear, Ukraine are beggars.
I was going to use a different B word, saying America's little B word, if you know what I mean.
That's what he's saying, that Ukraine will bend over backwards, say whatever you say America, we'll do anything you want.
And now you've got the president saying, I really don't understand what's happening.
We never talked this way.
So what?
Is the president of Ukraine a liar?
You got to pick one, man.
Do you want to make Ukraine look pathetic and weak to the rest of the world?
That their president is beholden to American interests?
I get there's a power disparity.
I get that the U.S.
has a lot of money and Ukraine wants that aid and all that stuff.
I understand that.
But I also recognize them as a sovereign nation that probably, if they had to, would say no.
And guess what?
They never did anything that the Democrats alleged Trump wanted.
It just didn't happen.
So, if I had to take someone's word for it, we have another story.
Let me read instead of ranting, so I can give you the context.
Daily Mail reports, Ukraine's president today renewed his denial of a quid pro quo with Donald Trump over military aid despite a growing case against the U.S.
president in impeachment proceedings in Washington.
Growing case?
Oh please!
Opposition among independents is spiking in basically every poll because middle-of-the-road people who aren't tribally biased are sitting here going like, wait a second, how can you have a quid pro quo when the president of Ukraine is saying it didn't happen?
Okay, I get it, I get it.
The Democrats are alleging, I guess, Zelensky is a hostage.
And as long as Trump is president, Zelensky can't do anything.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
If Zelensky was really concerned about Trump holding this over him, Zelensky could come out right now and say, yes, Trump pressured me, impeach him.
Zelensky is the key player if he really didn't like Trump.
Let's say there was no quid pro quo, but Zelensky still doesn't like Trump.
He could just be like, yep.
Dude told me I had to do it.
That's how I felt.
And the Democrats would go nuts and get rid of him.
And then Zelensky would have somebody else to come in and have an easier go of it because people would be scared of impeachment.
The next person is going to be scared of impeachment and the interagency foreign policy on Ukraine will be reapplied.
The reality is this guy is saying it didn't happen and he has every reason to say it did if it did.
Okay, let's read.
In remarks published in a German magazine, Volodymyr Zelensky said he did not understand at all the accusations heard at the hearing and did not want to give an impression that we are beggars in Ukraine.
The scandal centers around a phone call, we know all that.
The key issue is whether Trump set up a quid pro quo, Latin for one action in exchange.
It literally means something for something.
With Zelensky, by holding back promised US military aid for Ukraine until the Bidens were investigated.
Now I'll tell you something interesting.
I heard over and over again in the testimony during the impeachment inquiry that the reason Trump was doing this was because he was concerned Ukraine wasn't on the level.
Ukraine's been notoriously corrupt for a long time.
It's a post-Soviet nation, and they've got an oligarchy problem.
They've got a problem with high-ranking elites in the country stealing the aid money that goes there and keeping it for themselves.
So the argument from the Republicans was, well, Trump wanted to make sure they were on the level.
Apparently the official reason, like the real reason outside of the politics, was that other countries were not contributing either.
And so Trump didn't want the U.S.
to be the only country giving all this money to these other countries and not doing anything about it.
Trump's been very critical of NATO and military aid spending.
That's not unique.
So why Trump wanted an investigation into Biden and Burisma maybe didn't have anything to do at all with actually being concerned about Ukraine corruption.
Or I should say the aid wasn't necessarily related to that in any way.
It should be, Trump was concerned about what was going on.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think Trump is upset because of the Russiagate nonsense, three years of fake news, attacking his character, accusing him of being a foreign agent.
Think about how crazy that is.
To be elected President of the United States and then be accused of being an asset of the Russians since the 80s.
So Trump's probably mad and says, I want to figure out what happened here.
And in reality, the aid was tied up because Trump is pressuring all of these other countries, particularly in NATO, to spend more on their own defense.
That seems to make sense to me.
And the issue of corruption in Ukraine, in my opinion, was due to Trump saying, these guys are corrupt and I'm mad they did this.
Look into it.
I don't see these as being related at all at this point.
And I think the only reason Trump might be claiming there is a connection is because he wants to save face because, well, it's about him being upset that he was smeared in the public.
You know, I think it's fair to say there's probably some connection, right?
There probably is a concern.
We're going to give these guys money and they're going to go spend it who knows where.
Their oligarchs are going to take it and do who knows what with it.
In fact, some of them are pro-Russia and might even turn around and give it to Russia.
So in the end, you know what?
None of that matters.
My speculation, my assumption, my opinions.
Let's throw all that out the window.
Who cares?
The question is now, should there be an impeachment hearing?
Later today, at some point, there's going to be the House Judiciary Committee.
Trump is saying they're not going to participate.
And I got to say, I kind of understand why.
The way they've set it up with witnesses and everything, why would Trump want to be there if it's going to be a setup?
They're going to ask loaded questions.
They're going to aim for a spectacle.
And it's not a fair trial.
It's a public hearing where they can... It's not the rules of court.
In which case, It's a setup, right?
So, you know, I would prefer it if Trump had his council there, but the other issue is that he's in Europe right now, you know, working on, it's this NATO meeting, it's like 70th anniversary or something.
So a bunch of Trump admin people are angry, saying that they're holding these hearings when none of them could actually be there because they have to be overseas doing their jobs.
So I'll tell you this first.
Zelensky says, I did not speak with US President Trump in those terms.
You give me this, I give you that.
He says, I don't know what they're talking about.
I don't understand the accusations at all.
How can there be accusations against Trump if the president of Ukraine has denied it several times?
Okay, fine.
The Democrats think the president of Ukraine is a liar.
Because it's the only alternative that he's lying.
He's lying about everything.
Okay, well then you're creating a huge problem for Ukraine.
The other big issue, and the big issue for me with all of this, for one, we can see that independents have flipped on it.
Yep, that was predictable.
But why is it that the executive branch is going overseas and doing their job?
Why is it that when I turn on Fox News, okay, what do I hear about?
I sometimes hear about impeachment, for sure, of course.
Everybody talks about it.
I have an Instagram video.
Follow me on Instagram if you haven't already.
It's instagram.com slash timcast because I posted this video.
I did another one, a follow-up.
I was in my room, and I turn on Fox News, and what is it?
Iranian protests, Hong Kong protests.
I'm like, wow, those are really big things happening in this world.
And then I turn on CNN, impeachment, impeachment.
And I was like, yup.
I did it like 15 times throughout the past week or so, and it's always the same.
The other day, we got a big ol' winter storm slamming the Northeast.
All these flights are delayed.
You know what?
I know weather might be not the biggest story to a lot of people, but let's be real.
In America, it is a holiday season, people are traveling, and they need to know about what's happening to their flights.
Is it the most important information in the world?
Honestly, no.
I think Hong Kong and China and the sanctions and all this stuff, much more important.
But I can understand that if your goal is to provide information to people based on what they need most, maybe on the holidays you do a travel delay story because people need to know if when they go to the airport, if they're going to be delayed.
Well sure enough, and this is a hilarious paradox irony, Fox News was talking about the delays, the cancellations, and the weather.
Because it's a serious storm, people have died in this storm.
And I'm like, well, you know, I'm not, you know, for me, I don't care because I'm not traveling, but I can understand why they would do that.
Flip to CNN.
Orange man bad.
Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
And you know why this is ironic or a bit paradoxical?
Because CNN is on in all of these airports.
You'd think if somebody was sitting in the airport watching the news, they would like to know what's going on with the storm.
You're sitting there, you got a flight back from, you know, Omaha, Nebraska to Boston or whatever, and you're like, man, what's happening?
I don't know.
Is the storm clearing up in the Northeast?
Are we going to get there in time?
And then you turn on the TV, you look to the news, they're playing in the airport, and it's CNN, and they're like, the Orange Man is bad.
But how bad is the Orange Man?
I bring this up because, for one, the media is trash.
But what I'm trying to get to is there's clearly an obsession on one side of the aisle, be it in the press or in politics, where that's the only thing they're focused on.
And meanwhile, everybody else is doing their thing.
Donald Trump and his team, whether you like him or hate him, don't care.
They're working, OK?
You might think Trump is doing a bad job, but he's doing something.
So here's the way I put it.
Imagine hiring someone to do the work, and they come in and start working, and you don't like it.
You've got a bad attitude.
But hey, you know, it's like you hire a plumber, and he's fixing that pipe, and you're like, man, this guy's kind of gross, but at least he's getting the pipe fixed, right?
The other two guys you hired are fighting with each other about how that guy should be removed for something they can't prove, and you're like, dude, what am I paying you for?
Why do we have... You know what?
It's not just a problem in our politics.
Why do we have a government right now where the president can be talking with, you know, Ukraine, negotiating trade deals, USMCA, traveling to do NATO negotiations, and then what do we get from the House?
Sitting around complaining about the orange man, wondering whether or not he should even be president.
It's like, I'll tell you what, man, the elections in less than a year, okay, Trump may or may
not be reelected.
I think everybody's assuming he will be.
And maybe that's it.
They're not doing anything.
Why should they be reelected?
They're literally doing nothing.
No, no, no, I know, I know.
They're not literally, I'm speaking figuratively.
The House has put forward a bunch of bills.
McConnell has blocked many of them.
But the issue is, if they made their big press battle, the blocking of their bills.
Imagine this.
If the Democrats came out and said, here's a list of House bills we've passed.
Mitch McConnell is not allowing them in.
And they made that the big fight, they might actually stand re-election.
Yep.
Because people are going to say, come on, man, if they pass the bills, the Senate can move on them, right?
You can vote them down.
The Republicans control the Senate.
There's no reason to block them.
No, they're not making that the fight.
They're calling the president of Ukraine a liar.
And they're just trying to get rid of Trump.
So you know what, man?
While Trump is out doing his job, whether you think he's doing a good job or not, the Democrats are wasting their time and energy on whether or not Trump should be doing that job, and to me it's infuriating.
Especially when you see the President of Ukraine coming out and being like, dude, no.
Whatever, man, you get the point.
I'm not gonna- I'll wrap it up here.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
If I had to make a bet, I'd bet on Colin Kaepernick not wanting to play football anymore.
And you may say, but Tim, he just did that tryout thing, right?
Yeah, he did a media event.
He did a media event.
He apparently snubbed the NFL because he wanted cameras there.
They said no.
So he said, I'll do my own event.
Well, surprise, surprise.
Kaepernick is passed over again as the injury-plagued Detroit Lions sign their 11th quarterback of this year instead of going with the controversial free agent.
Now some people in this story talk about, I think they say, you know, Tom Brady and some other football well-known athletes have said that Colin Kaepernick is good enough to play but just people don't want to sign him because they don't want to take the heat.
If it were true, in my opinion, that Colin Kaepernick did want to play, then he would have gone to the NFL at their event without the press, and he wouldn't be doing things like this.
Colin Kaepernick speaks at un-Thanksgiving celebration, criticizes the U.S.
Let me tell you something.
You have to know by now that the high-profile political nature of what you're doing is divisive and causing problems.
You have to realize that these companies sell football games and merchandise and what you're doing hurts sales and hurts their business.
Why would you hire someone who yells at your customers?
Could you imagine that?
Could you imagine going to Starbucks and you walk up and someone goes, you're getting decaf?
Don't you understand the problem of the process?
It's like, I don't care, dude.
I'm here to buy coffee, right?
So this football, you know, these sports leagues, these teams, they want to bring on people who are high profile because it generates interest and money.
People want to come see the game.
Colin Kaepernick is not that.
And if he really wanted to play, would he keep doing this?
No, no, no, no.
Dare I say it, in my opinion, I keep saying that, you know, I don't want to get sued.
I think Colin Kaepernick is trying to drum up a... He wants to be a martyr, okay?
He wants to do as much as he can of like, oh, I should be on these teams.
The reason he wanted cameras... There's two reasons I think he wanted cameras, and it's not for the reason he stated.
He was saying something to the effect of, you know, the NFL wants to do these tryouts.
I want cameras there so that no one can claim I wasn't good enough.
Well, the cameras came, and the scouts said, it's kind of average.
Got some accuracy problems, but you know.
And some other star football players have said he's good enough.
I think he wanted two things.
He wanted publicity, and he knew they don't want to be involved with him, so he wants to be a martyr and say, look at me.
They know I can play, but they don't want to hire me.
His real goal, in my opinion, is to make a career of being a personality.
Let me tell you, man.
What's the longevity of a football player?
Not that long.
Some.
Some people play forever.
Now, I'll tell you this.
I know very little about football.
Not a football guy.
I'm a skateboarder.
But I do know a bit about politics, marketing, branding, business.
And from my perspective, as someone who's not in the world of football, I look at what Kaepernick is doing, going to this, like, un-Thanksgiving thing, and I'm like, oh yeah, it's branding.
It's marketing.
It's great PR.
You gotta hand it to the guy.
Like, he's running his business really, really well.
He's not that great of a football player.
He's not going to go down in history as one of the greatest.
He can go down in history based off of his oppression and his martyrdom.
And that's why he's fully embraced this.
I think he stumbled into this.
I think he did the kneeling at the national anthem thing.
Just because he was seeing all this media and then it caused some problems, but I think he realized, hey man, this is a path towards a real future outside of football.
Because how many football players leave the sport and stay wealthy?
I can't say because I don't know a whole lot, but I do know there's a lot of athletes who after their prime, not good enough, fizzle out.
They end up going broke, they lose all their money, and then everything comes crashing down.
A lot of these athletes are irresponsible with the money they make, they waste it, and then when the time comes and they're no longer signed, no one has any interest in them, they're not famous anymore, they're gone.
Some people have become famous actors.
Some people have become television hosts.
Kaepernick saw this, again, in my opinion, and said, I'm gonna be a famous, you know, political personality.
Who cares about football?
This is a path forward.
Now look, in football, you might make a lot of money playing for a certain amount of time.
But think about the long lifespan, right?
Like, you know, I thought about this when I was a kid, because I've been playing music since I was little, or skateboarding.
And the problem with both of those is their longevity is really diminished.
Now, skateboarding has the worst.
You gotta be a spec- like, in the end, skateboarders who make it beyond, like, 25 years old are exceptional.
And there's, like, 20 of them.
But most of the top-tier skateboarders are, like, 19 and 20.
And then what happens, you blow out your knee, you get surgery, you're not as good as you used to be, you turn 30, and then you're like...
Not going to be the best skater in the world and the competition is fierce.
You don't have the same kind of contracts.
There are some people who have made themselves personalities outside of just being skateboarders.
And that's where the money is.
I think Kaepernick didn't see any path forward in the NFL.
He's an average guy, right?
He's good.
He's good at football.
He's one of the best.
For the average person.
But in the NFL, he's average.
So, I guess we should read this story.
Because there are some quotes, but I want to talk about the un-Thanksgiving thing.
I gotta be honest, I'm not a football person.
Daily Mail reports the Detroit Lions have become the latest injury-plagued team to pass on controversial free agent Kaepernick in spite of an urgent need for the position, this seemingly suggesting nobody wants to touch the dude.
Rather than adding Kaepernick, who has not played since the 2016 NFL season, Detroit opted to sign Kyle Sloater off the Arizona Cardinals practice squad on Saturday while adding journeyman Joe Callahan to their own practice squad.
Finding a new quarterback became an imperative for the Lions in recent weeks after injuries to longtime star Matthew Stafford and backup Jeff Driscoll forced the team to sign an 11th signal caller on the season.
You know, I want to add something else, too.
It's not just about his politics and sales.
It's also about, is he a team player?
I gotta say, based off what he's done so far, he's doing these promo deals based off his politics, I don't think so.
I think he's in it for himself.
Now, I get it, man.
Athletes make a lot of money, so to an extent they have their own careers and brands to worry about.
I think this is a guy who's not thinking about the well-being of the team, he's thinking about, what am I going to get?
So here's what I want to show you something, because I go over his stats to talk about whether or not he should actually be playing compared to these other people.
Let me read some other things, though.
Senator Chris Hurdle said, Yeah, we get it.
He's a Democrat, though.
So, they actually go down to, like, his records.
Let me read this for you.
when David Blau is the starting for the Lions on Thanksgiving Day tweeted
Michigan state senator Curtis Hurdle a Democrat from Detroit yeah we get he's a
Democrat though so they actually go down to like his his or his record so let me
read this for you again I don't know a lot about football but they say this
previously both Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and New
England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady said they feel as though Kaepernick is
good enough to be playing in the NFL And Rodgers went so far as to tell ESPN that he believes the former University of Nevada star remains a free agent because of the protests.
But I can get it.
But they say this, however...
Kaepernick won only 11 of 35 starts from 2014 to 2016 and had lost his starting job by the end of the 2016 campaign.
Dare I say it?
Is it possible the dude is just average but was on a downtrend, knew that his career was in trouble, lost his starting job and said, I gotta find something else?
Maybe, you know, I don't want to get all conspiratorial, but maybe it's possible someone said, you need to figure out how to stand out from the crowd because your time is coming up.
You've only won 11 to 35.
You're off your starting job.
So he said, what if I do, you know, what can we do to get attention?
Hey, politics is really big right now.
People, you know, orange man bad, all that stuff.
Actually, I think this was before Orange Man Bad, or was it?
Yeah, so this is during the Orange Man Bad era.
He enters this.
I think it's entirely possible some, you know, strategist said, listen man, you should talk about these popular, you know, leftist, progressive stuff that's really big right now.
Maybe he went for it.
Or maybe it was an accident.
Maybe he saw something on Facebook, and then was like, man, you know, and then someone talked to him.
He had to get the idea for kneeling for the national anthem from somewhere, right?
Well, he sparked this big hubbub, and it's turned him into a household name.
It really has.
He got a Nike deal.
Here's the thing, man.
What's the true goal of any one of these people, you know, playing in these sports?
For the most part, it's to play the game and play it well.
But, you know, like, everybody knows, you know, you're only going to be at your peak for a certain amount of time.
So then, sure enough, I'll just, I'll say this, man.
This is from yesterday.
Colin Kaepernick speaks at un-Thanksgiving celebration criticizing the US.
This and Thursday, Kaepernick spoke at the Indigenous People's Sunrise Ceremony, also known as Un-Thanksgiving, on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco, California.
The event is intended to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Native Americans occupying the famous island, which previously served as the site of a federal prison.
So he tweeted this.
Thank you to my indigenous family.
I'm with you today and always.
sunrise ceremony on the 50 year anniversary of the occupation of Alcatraz.
The US government has stolen over 1.5 billion acres of land from indigenous people.
Thank you to my indigenous family.
I'm with you today and always.
Now listen man, I fully understand the problems of colonization and all that, but I'll tell
you this.
I'm pretty sure the U.S.
was heavily involved in, like, I don't know, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, passing international law, laws that prevent the future colonization and conquering of lands.
Yeah, we got to a point where, as a civilization, most people in the world were like, yeah, you know what, we recognize we shouldn't have done that, or they shouldn't have done that, but we're different today.
We've learned, we've expanded civil liberties and civil rights, and we're doing a good job of it right now.
So here's the other issue.
1.5 billion acres of land.
Are you talking about, like, the sparse populations and the lands that were around them that were then occupied by denser populations?
It's complicated, man.
But I'll tell you this.
We had a history of European colonization.
A bunch of countries were formed.
This is where we are today.
What do you propose?
What's the real solution to this claim of decolonize?
It doesn't necessarily make sense.
The people who run these countries today are not from these other places and we're a nation of immigrants.
A large portion of the people in this country came from all over the world much, much later after the land was already claimed.
So the argument to me is kind of silly.
We protect rights.
There are a lot of messed up things the US government has done and continues to do we can argue about.
But let's get away from that whole argument.
I'll keep this one a little bit shorter.
Colin Kaepernick, if he really wanted to play football, if these other top athletes are saying we know it's because of the protests, why would he keep doing it?
Why would he go and speak at this event?
It's because this is his career choice.
I don't think the dude wants to play football.
I'm pretty sure he enjoys playing football, but come on, let's be real, man.
You're gonna get injured, you're gonna get a head injury.
How many of these guys would love to, after a few years, cash out?
Do a Nike deal?
How many people got deals with Nike?
Stand for something, even if it means sacrificing everything.
He's not sacrificing everything.
He's got to deal with Nike.
He's playing exactly the card he needs to play to make money and move forward.
I think the dude's smart about it.
He's got good people around him, and they're saying, this is your play.
You've got a few years left in football, man, but you can do 50 years of political punditry.
Or not punditry, but being a personality.
He's going to write a book.
How much you want to bet he's going to write a book?
He's going to be a martyr.
He's going to say, when you stand up for what you believe in, they come for you, man.
They take everything away from you.
He's going to say all this stuff.
And in reality, you know what I always tell people?
There's a few things you need to know.
You get what you ask for.
And the other thing is that most people who claim to want something are lying to you.
People take what they want.
People do what they want.
So let me tell you a story.
I knew somebody who told me they wanted to be an international reporter and go cover these stories around the world like I had done.
You know, I'd been to Egypt, Morocco, Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela.
I've been to all these countries.
Thailand.
And they said, I want to do what you do, traveling around the world and covering this news.
And I said, all right, go do it.
And they said they couldn't afford it.
And I was like, well, you know, I understand it can cost some money, but I gotta be honest, if you can save up like, you know, 500 bucks, you can get that round-trip ticket.
I kid you not.
You can find international round-trip tickets for that price.
It doesn't mean it's gonna be easy to go to certain countries, but if you wanna go to Europe, for instance, and cover some of this migration stuff, it's not that difficult.
Just save up a couple grand over a few months, and then go and do it.
And they told me, that's not possible.
And I said, but wait, hold on.
You have an apartment in Brooklyn.
It's like 1,500 bucks a month.
It's like some ridiculous number.
And they were like, well, I like my apartment in Brooklyn.
I'm like, OK.
Then you are buying exactly what you truly want.
Yes, I want to give him my apartment.
I want this and that.
Well, sorry.
The world doesn't work that way.
I was sleeping on couches when I was working for Vice.
Saving my money.
I always have.
Because I take what I want.
Or I should say, I work towards exactly what I want.
And that's what people do.
Colin Kaepernick is not working towards getting in the NFL.
He's not cooperating with them.
He's not negotiating.
He's setting up his own special media event to show his throws.
And he's not that good.
He's clearly one of the best football players in the world, right?
Okay, that's a fair point.
But in turn, relative to the actual NFL, he's about average, with some accuracy issues.
That's what they've reported.
So you take a look at what he's doing, and I will tell you this.
It's not just him, it's everybody.
Someone will tell you, I really wish I had X. Okay, if that were the case, why aren't you working towards getting it?
Some people say, I don't know what to do.
Dude, just go do things.
Do something, man.
I wanted to play music.
You know what I did?
I went and played music, and that's all I did.
I would play on the street.
I'd play in the subway.
I would play shows.
And then, eventually, I was like, yeah, I don't really want to do this.
I want to do something else.
I worked for nonprofits because I wanted to be focused on some kind of, like, I wanted to affect change in a direct way, and then I realized they're just businesses.
So, you know, one day I just said, I'm going to go do a thing.
I went to Occupy Wall Street.
I did what I was passionate about.
I followed what I wanted, and that's where I am today.
But I can tell you this, man.
I know so many people who will lie to your face, and to themselves, and say, man, it would be great to be a rock star.
If that were the case, you would sacrifice, you would give up anything to reach that goal, and they won't do it.
They won't.
If this guy wanted to play football, he would stop the politics because he knows it's bad for business and it's hurting everything.
But the reality is, it's the inverse.
He's pretending to want to play football because it's good for business and it's getting him what he really wants, to speak at these protest events, to sell his brand as a martyr who was kicked out of football for daring to stand for something.
But you get the point.
I won't repeat it.
I'll leave it there.
Look, man, the dude can do what he wants, okay?
I got respect for him.
I think it's a bold strategy.
It's worked out so far.
And, you know, you might hate the guy for his politics and for what he's doing, you know, to football and all that.
And that's fine.
You can disagree with him.
But you gotta admit, he's running his business really well, isn't he?
Let's not kid ourselves, though.
His business is not playing football.
He hasn't played football in years.
The only reason he's relevant is because he's doing this.
Speaking at these protest events and then complaining about not playing football.
See, that proves it!
They're whole... Yeah, okay, whatever, man.
But I'll wrap it up.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Elizabeth Warren proudly states that she will be the last president to ever be elected by the Electoral College.
That's right.
Elizabeth Warren wants the Electoral College abolished in time for my second term, but says she'll get elected the old-fashioned way in 2020.
Now, many people on the left seem to think it's a good idea to get rid of the Electoral College and have a national popular vote.
It is a horrible, horrible idea for a million and one reasons.
The first of which is, the left will lose.
The left will lose in a national popular vote system.
Right now there are major population centers that are diehard blue that have massive amounts of conservatives who don't vote because they know their state is blue.
Now it's also true there are large amounts of Democrats who don't vote in these cities too because they also feel like their state is blue.
But I assure you.
You know what?
I guess it's anecdotal.
It's my opinion.
But with major urban centers more likely to have Republicans who don't speak up, the way I see it is, if you tell every Republican in blue states to go vote because it'll matter, you are creating one possibility.
Let's assume it's not true.
Let's put it this way.
California will always be blue.
California will not be red.
We know that.
It is not changing anytime soon.
So why would the left ever create the possibility that this state could be red?
That does not make sense.
And imagine California votes 60-some-odd percent Democrat, and then the state electors go, We appreciate 60 plus percent of our state wants to vote for the Democratic president.
We're going to go ahead and give it to the other guy.
Wouldn't the state then be furious?
There's a lot of problems with it, but I'll tell you this.
All this does is create a possibility that blue states go red.
In all likelihood, it's not going to create a strong possibility that red states go blue because red states are less likely to be joining up with a popular vote coalition.
Now, it would be different if they abolished electoral college.
But in the end, There's good reason to believe the left will lose because of this play.
I'll read the story for you, but I also have this opinion piece which makes it a very, very important point why the Republicans should embrace this.
Now, I believe And there's a lot to go through.
But I believe, for the most part, Republicans would benefit greatly by a national popular vote system shocking the left.
California would flip red.
They'd be like, how did this happen?
Yeah, because Republicans can win the majority.
They just, for now, think they can't because there's too many, I guess, you know, sleeping Republicans.
But in this opinion piece for the Savannah Now, viewpoint. GOP should embrace national popular vote concept.
And Patrick Rosensteil says, look at Texas. What if Texas does flip because it's
changing and they have a winner-take-all system?
system.
There are many places where the votes would go to the Republicans and the Democrats would lose the ability to flip a state.
That's the most important point.
So you could look at it like Republicans will win for a lot of reasons.
It's also a defensive measure.
In my opinion, I think the Democrats are opening the door to losing by getting rid of the electoral system.
Now, there's a whole lot of other reasons why the electoral system makes sense.
We don't want rural areas to not have their needs addressed.
And people try to argue, no, no, in a national popular vote system where everyone's vote
is equal, of course, politicians will go to rural areas.
No, they won't.
Look, they're gonna go to suburban Republican areas, and they're gonna try and get as many
people as possible to rally.
But why are they gonna go to rural Nebraska, where they're gonna get 100 people, when they
can spend what little time they have in suburban Chicago, where they can get 30,000 people?
They're not going to care about rural issues.
They're gonna say, too bad, it's the best you get.
And you are going to see both parties start competing for urban votes.
Now, the left will say, hey, that's a great thing.
Force the Republicans to move to the left.
Oh, you think it's a great thing?
Up until the smaller states feel dejected, and it pushes us towards a civil conflict
or just general, look, you'll get a president who will be pandering to the nation, and you'll
have Congress, which will be furious.
And this will cause serious problems.
Because you think Congress is bad today.
Imagine a situation where the executive branch never represents the smaller districts.
You are not going to have a happy Congress then.
You are going to have complete shutdown.
Plus, you're going to have fights nonstop in the Supreme Court.
Look, I'll put it this way.
More importantly, In my opinion, the biggest risk for the left, and I can't believe they're doing this because it's a simple, it seems so obvious, right?
Oh, we had the popular vote, therefore we shall win.
You don't know what the outcome would have been with a different system.
Trump and Hillary both knew the rules.
Hillary played poorly.
Hillary went to areas she already had and Trump campaigned in the Rust Belt and surprisingly won it.
So now they're saying, if we just change this right now, we'd win.
No, you don't know that.
You're creating the possibility that blue states could vote red for no reason.
Why would you create that vulnerability?
Because they're saying, Oh, but, you know, we want the will of the people to... No, no, no, no, no, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.
You're not talking about the will of the people.
We're a republic, not a democracy, and they keep saying democracy.
We're a republic, and that means something different.
Let's read the story.
Elizabeth Warren says she wants to be the last president elected by the Electoral College and first by popular vote.
The Democratic presidential candidate wants the Electoral College abolished.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Democrats were outraged.
Yeah, we get it, too.
You know what the other issue is?
Do you know how hard it would be to actually change the system?
The funny thing about the Interstate Compact, where they're saying once they get enough states to surpass 270 electoral votes, they will all agree to vote for whoever wins the popular vote.
I think that's funny, because if you could get that many states on board, couldn't you just, I don't know, change the rules?
This is why it'll never happen.
I don't think the national Interstate Compact thing will happen, because wouldn't those states' representatives just say, we're agreeing to an amendment?
No, I guess not.
But I guess it's not enough either.
270 electoral votes is just over half, but... They say only five times in American history has a candidate won the popular vote but lost the presidency, including the 2000 election where Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush took the Electoral College.
I want to get rid of it, Warren said, of the Electoral College in a video posted on her Twitter feed.
So here's my goal.
My goal is to get elected and then be the last American president elected by the Electoral College.
Yes, probably, because Republicans will take over.
I want the second term to be that I got elected by direct vote, she said.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the person who gets the most votes should win.
That's actually not old-fashioned at all.
You're trying to do a new thing.
Old-fashioned in this country would be only landowners get to vote.
So no, not old-fashioned to try and change the system into a new system that benefits you, or at least you think it does.
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
Yes.
They say the EC consists of 530 electors.
A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president.
So they're essentially trying to bypass the two-thirds requirement for an amendment.
I don't think it's going to happen because that means there are going to be red states who agree to open the possibility to flip blue.
Why would anyone do that?
Every state determines how it will pick its electors, which is equal to its representation in Congress plus two.
Well, yeah, Congress plus, you know, that includes Senators.
As for which candidate wins the electors, all but two states are winner-take-all, meaning whoever won the most votes in the state wins all of that state's electors.
But changing the way Americans elect their president would take a constitutional amendment which would require the votes of two-thirds of the U.S.
House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states.
Yeah, that'll never happen.
That is a long process.
So to correct my earlier point, yes, they're trying to bypass the requirements by just saying, let's all just agree to do it.
That is a long process and could take years.
Trump had previously supported abolishing the Electoral College, but changed his mind after the 2016 election, where Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, but Trump received 304 electoral votes.
An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll taken in May found 53% of Americans want the Electoral College abolished.
And you know why they do?
Because I don't understand how political interests work in this country.
I believe it will be... You know what?
Hey, by all means, I'll say this.
Get rid of the Electoral College.
I warned you.
I tried making my points.
And you know what?
If you don't care, fine.
So be it.
Things change.
But it's going to be a really rude awakening when one day, a blue state flips red, and they get angry about it, saying, no!
How could this be?
How could this have happened?
You know why?
California was right at one point, back in the 80s.
California used to be like Wyoming with almost no one living in it.
What happens when all these people start moving to Colorado, Texas, Arizona, and other states, and all of a sudden now those states don't go in their favor?
Let me tell you something.
As people leave cities, and they are.
Some major cities have seen a decline in population as opposed to an increase in population.
If one person who is a Democrat moves to an area that is surrounded by Republicans, then actually, you know, I should leave that point out of this.
The point is, You basically have all of these people from blue states moving into red states, and that's not going to change things for the better.
It's going to make it more likely that blue states could vote red.
That's going to be a rude awakening.
But what I really want to get to, because I want to keep this short, it's going to be a rude awakening for these small districts that agree to this, when all of a sudden their oil, their water, their corn, their whatever, gets voted away from them, because they no longer have voting power.
You know, people argue it's not fair.
Rural areas should not have more, you know, value to their vote than urban areas.
And urban interests shouldn't outpace rural interests, right?
So what happens when you have 13 million people in one metro?
They are going to collectively vote for more than any individual district.
Because here's the thing.
In, say, like, um...
I'll do Illinois.
You've got Chicago, with the most dense population, and they're going to outvote, I don't know, Cook County will outvote DuPage County, probably.
There's more people there.
And then you have all of these smaller counties with different interests from each other, and Cook County having the biggest population, and they're going to outvote all of the other individual interests, basically.
The problem is that you will see a revolt from all these other districts and it will fracture our politics worse than you can realize.
The Electoral College makes sense.
Anyway, whatever.
Elizabeth Warren wants to do it.
I'll just put it this way.
Here you got a guy saying the GOP should absolutely embrace this because it will protect you from red states flipping blue.
Okay.
There you go.
I think it'll be really interesting, though, because there's a lot of reasons to believe that there are more Republicans who don't vote in blue states than Democrats who don't vote in red states.
Red states have smaller populations than blue states, which means there are a lot of hidden Republicans which will likely wake up if they think their vote will now count, whereas Democrats go out and vote anyway in their blue state.
But, you know, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Famous multi-millionaire celebrity and actor portraying a superhero, Mark Ruffalo, thinks capitalism today is failing us and is killing us and he's calling for socialism.
And you know what?
More power to you, buddy.
Go ahead and call for socialism.
I do find it funny that it tends to be the uber-wealthy and white people who complain about racism and poverty, not the poor people.
Some poor people, of course, and a lot of them, yeah.
But the point is, why is it that these leaders are always like super-wealthy people who have, what, what is a net worth?
Like 30 million dollars?
Not the richest guy in the world, still in the 0.01% or whatever.
So here's what I say to this.
I don't care if Mark Ruffalo wants to be a multi-millionaire celebrity calling for socialism.
I'm just wondering why it's always them saying, you first.
No, how about you first, dude?
Let's read the story and then I'll complain about the hypocrisy.
Daily Mail reports.
I'm sorry, Daily Wire.
On Sunday, actor Mark Ruffalo, who is worth an estimated $30 million by some reports, decided to trumpet his antipathy for the capitalist system, pontificating on Twitter, it's time for an economic revolution.
Capitalism today is failing us, killing us, and robbing from our children's future.
In September, Ruffalo asserted his support for Senator Bernie Sanders and socialism,
tweeting, Democratic socialism per Bernie Sanders is basically the
political system that works for all of us, not just 1%.
Health care for workers, education for workers, sick leave for workers, and a fair tax system.
You know what the biggest problem with socialists is, man?
They don't understand that, like, things are finite.
Capitalism is a distributed system that applies resources in a meritocratic way.
Not completely.
Capitalism is not perfect.
There are a lot of problems.
So we enact regulations on that capitalism to make sure things don't get out of hand.
The problem with socialism is that it's a command economy that thinks everybody can have everything and they can't.
Okay?
There is not an infinite amount of insulin.
That's one of the big things they always talk about.
Why are insulin prices going up?
It's a good question!
Okay?
There is price checking.
It's bad.
We should pass laws about these things and say certain things we should regulate.
But I tell you what, in your magical system of everyone getting healthcare, there's not literally infinite insulin.
Which means, some people would have literally no access.
And today, it's the exact same.
If you're too poor to afford insulin, you're in trouble.
In a socialist system, it will be quite arbitrary.
So what ends up happening is, in socialist systems where you have a political command economy, those who have more favor towards the political party get access, which means cronyism and corruption.
Why would we want that?
We have a good system now.
The solution isn't to burn it all down.
It's to slightly change things through laws to make sure We can prioritize things better.
But the sad reality is, there will never be infinite medical treatments.
Quite literally, everybody who is diabetic cannot get access to that medicine.
Now, I know, maybe diabetes is a bad example.
The point I'm trying to make is, if we invent a cure for a disease today, and there is only one of it, how can you guarantee that healthcare to everybody?
I'm sorry, there's just not a solution to every single problem.
We cannot create a utopia.
But people like Mark Ruffalo, See, I think it's possible to have infinite... Look, how do you get education for workers?
It's a good question, right?
How do we guarantee that literally everyone gets an education?
That would require more teachers and bigger schools.
Okay.
So how do we get more teachers?
It's a never-ending cycle.
It's an economy that doesn't make sense.
Sick leave for workers.
Also, I agree with that, right?
But how do you create a system where everyone can stop working at the same time?
Now, I will admit, I think we should have sick leave for workers.
That one's not too difficult.
If everyone can agree to take time off when they're sick, there's actually going to be less sick people.
That one makes sense.
If somebody's got the flu and they say, I'm coming to work anyway, stop!
Oh, that's so funny that I would ask a rich person to donate his wealth to help the needy.
The worst take?
What are you, a capitalist?
An arco-capitalist?
Come on, man.
Mark Ruffalo is sitting here complaining about capitalism.
Okay, man, by all means, complain about it.
But why won't you take the first step and take all that money you don't need and figure out where you can put it to help people?
It's hilarious.
They're defending the guy worth $30 million.
Look at this one.
Your point, Tim?
Don't make me show you the Matt Bores comic.
My response?
Isn't it funny how they always say, yeah, but you first?
If Mark Ruffalo thinks the system is failing, nothing is stopping him from donating.
Why won't he donate?
Jeff Bezos donated $100 million.
And people say, that's only a point, you know, .01 of his net worth.
Okay, fine.
Mark Ruffalo.
You're worth $30 million.
You don't need $30 million.
You can set aside... Okay, I'll tell you what.
Make yourself the 0.5%.
You know, keep a million bucks.
Keep $5 million.
Seriously, keep $5 million.
Put it in wealth management.
Get a nice hefty return.
Be rich for the rest of your life.
And give the rest to charities and organizations that advocate for what you want.
And I'll tell you this!
Give the money to Bernie Sanders!
So that he can campaign for your so- Oh!
He won't even do that!
You see, this is the problem with all of these people.
The worst take!
Don't make me show the Matt Boers comic, duh!
Listen, man.
If you really believe in this, and you have 30 million dollars, you can put 5 in wealth management, be rich for the rest of your life, and give 25 million dollars towards politicians who will advocate for what you're saying.
Why won't he do it?
Heavens!
Why are people arguing against this?
Because they're hypocrites and liars, or they're just plain dumb.
This is the most offensive thing.
Mark Ruffalo, you're going to come to me and tell me I shouldn't have a right to control the fruits of my labor, meanwhile you're the one sitting on thirty million dollars.
You see, that's the problem.
I'll tell you what, man.
I disagree with you, Mark.
I disagree with your opinions on all of these things and how they would work, and that's okay.
I respect your right to say them.
I respect that you stand up for what you believe in, but I don't respect your unwillingness to give away your excess wealth.
I'm absolutely fine with Bernie Sanders advocating for democratic socialism and having those things.
Because Bernie is still not a billionaire.
He is still not the cream of the crop, top of the top.
But he's rich.
Bernie has done well for himself.
And within a democratic socialist system, that's still kind of possible.
What we're talking about is, how much is too much?
I would prefer it if Bernie didn't have extra houses.
I don't think he needs that.
But Bernie has a million bucks.
And he probably spent some of that.
He's probably campaigning with some of it.
So he's rich.
Sure.
Mark Ruffalo is substantially wealthier.
30 times wealthier.
Okay?
Mark Ruffalo can get rid of $25 million and give it to Bernie and other socialist organizations, but he won't do it.
He just wants everyone else to do it.
It's so weird, isn't it?
I don't believe, look Mark, I don't think you're serious.
I think you're a liar, and I think you're saying this because it makes you feel good.
But the truth is, no one needs 30 million dollars.
They don't.
No one, well I guess technically if you have like a rare genetic disease that can't be cured, and you want to invest 25 million dollars into curing that, sure, I guess that kind of makes sense.
And then that cure can be used for other people, hey, that works, right?
For the most part, though.
I do believe there's a certain point where enough is enough.
You know, for me.
I don't think anybody should be restricted from earning.
I certainly respect that you've made, you know, what, 30 million net worth or whatever, Mark.
And if that's not true, look, man, you can get rid of all of your money and bring yourself all the way down to a couple hundred thousand dollars and still be substantially wealthier.
But the more important issue here is, Mark, you could give away every penny, every extra property, every vacation property, investment property, give it all away.
Because you're a famous movie star, man.
You can easily go on a book tour and you will never know what it's like to scrape grime off the back of a deep fryer at a McDonald's.
You will never have to do that.
There is nothing that will happen to Mark Ruffalo Okay, there are some things I guess, like, you know, he gets kidnapped by pirates and they put him in the back of a deep fire, fine.
But I'm saying, in all likelihood, Mark Ruffalo will always be rich because he's famous.
That's how it is.
Even if he gave away every red cent, he will still be able to make six figures, at minimum, doing very little.
Now, I don't think acting is the easiest job in the world, but it's certainly relative to the amount of money they make.
So, Mark Ruffalo could reduce his salary or could demand at these big movies, because I don't think Mark Ruffalo is getting paid, you know, what Robert Downey Jr.
is getting paid, but he's certainly a very, very, very wealthy individual.
You could give away 90% of your income and still be in the 1%.
So why won't you do it?
And why are people telling me I'm wrong for asking rich people who want socialism to put their money where their mouth is?
How is this a worse take?
He has no pizza experience, never been in the pizza... I don't even know what you're trying to say there.
Why can't Mark Ruffalo just be the 1%?
I don't get it.
And if you think just insulting me for asking to do it, seriously saying, just be the 1%, well then you've failed because you've convinced no one to get on board with what Mark Ruffalo is saying.
I will be damned if I'm gonna have Mark Ruffalo come to me and tell me to give up my money when he's the rich guy sitting in the ivory tower.
No, no, no, no, no.
You first, Mark Ruffalo.
All of these rich, wealthy progressives should be the first to put up their money towards advocating socialism before I would ever consider doing it because you're liars and you're hypocrites and all you want is, like Michael Bloomberg said, we should tax the poor because they spend money on stupid things.
Okay, I get it.
I'm done.
I got another segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
I've got some really bad news for feminists and for women in general.
This is an article from 2017 called The Ambition Collision.
And it talks about how millennial women are burned out, dejected, bored, want to move to the countryside, start a garden, raise a family.
And it talks about how they were told their whole lives to strive for their careers, only to find that by the time they reached 30, there was nothing there.
They then go on to make the grand presumption about why that is.
And they say it's because men still control everything.
No, I think that's a cop-out.
I mean, the reality right now is the military-industrial complex is run by women.
That's true.
Look it up.
The big Raytheon, Boeing, et cetera, Northrop Grumman, they're the CEOs, I guess.
The people at the top are women.
So certainly women have reached positions of great power.
Why is it that this article would write, it's written by women mind you, why would they write that so many women are finding nothing?
Perhaps men and women want different things.
Maybe it's fair to say that women shouldn't be chasing after a career working 80-hour weeks like men do.
Or maybe that's not true either.
Maybe it's just, maybe it's true that women will never reach the pinnacle of career because men will always be there.
And that's where things get kind of bad for women.
See, here's a study.
And these are older articles, mind you.
This is from The Conversation.
A study of 1.6 million grades shows little gender difference in math and science.
And this is from last year.
However, they do find the grades line up with the male variability, greater male variability, variability hypothesis.
Which states, I'll give it to you in layman terms.
Men are more likely to be stupid But more likely to be smarter than women.
And as we can see here, for those that are listening, I'll just describe it.
It's two bell curves overlapping.
We have female grades versus male grades.
And lo and behold, this is very similar to IQ that we've seen.
That there tends to be substantially more women of average intelligence.
But there are more male morons and more male geniuses.
This creates a particular problem for women.
Yes, you can become successful in your career, but don't be surprised if the best of the best are the ones who end up running Fortune 500 companies.
Don't be surprised when they will tend to be men and women won't ever reach those positions, or tend not to.
Let's read the story, and I'll come back to this, but I'll give you the general, you know, idea here.
I've explained this before as it pertains to sports, but let's do it as it pertains to intelligence.
Here we can see that in STEM, the variability hypothesis kind of overlaps exactly with the grades, with the results of tests.
Let's say, when you look to the right, you have the geniuses.
And there we can see that there are more male geniuses than female.
But it looks like by only around maybe 20 or so percent.
Okay.
As we get higher and higher towards the end of the curve, it looks like it basically evens out.
But I'll tell you this.
If you have a hundred people, 50 men and 50 women, and 20% of the geniuses are going... I'm sorry.
You are more likely to have 20% more male geniuses than female.
Let's say there's only 10 jobs available.
You've got 12 guys who are geniuses and 10 women who are geniuses, but only 10 jobs.
It's likely that you will see more males at the top of the bracket because there are just more males.
Period.
That doesn't mean those genius women can't go and start their own companies, but don't be surprised if most companies that succeed are run by men, and even if it's only by 20%.
Let's go back to this story, and I want to read to you about how The Cut talks about women in their midlife crises.
They say, What is this midlife crisis among the 30-year-olds I know?
Millennial women, at least those who reside in professional bubbles, seem to have it all.
They're better educated, more prosperous, less encumbered by cultural expectations than any previous generation of women.
They delay marriage if they marry at all, and children if they choose to conceive.
They can own or rent.
They can save or spend.
These women have been on familiar terms with their ambitions all their lives, raised by careful parents to aim high.
Millennial women are likelier than their male peers to have professional jobs, to be managers, and to work in finance.
But the people who run those companies... And this makes sense!
This makes absolute sense!
Look at the data!
Women are more likely to be managers.
Right.
Because there are more women of average grade and intelligence than men.
Which means, in the middle, in the mid-tier of talent, you will find more women.
And in the bottom tier, you will find more men.
But at the top, the bosses are likely to be dudes.
The data shows this.
So yes, there's going to be a lot of women who are managers.
They say, and tutored by their cultural icons to perform, their empowerment and never submit.
You know, bow down, b-word, as they say.
So why are the well-employed, ambitious 30-year-olds of my acquaintance feeling so adrift, as discontented as the balding midlife sad-sacks whose cliche dissatisfactions made updyke rich?
The women complain of the enervating psychic effects of the professional treadmill as white-collar piecework and describe their dread as they contemplate bleak futures, decade after decade.
They imagine unfulfilled.
After a lifetime of saying yes to their professional hunger, these are the opportunity seizures.
The list makers, the ascendant females, weaned on lean-in.
They've lost it, like a child losing grasp of a helium balloon.
Grief-stricken, they are baffled too, for they have always been propelled by their drive.
They were the ones who were supposed to run stuff, who as girls imagined themselves leaving the airport in stylish trenchcoats, hailing a taxi with one hand while holding their cell in the other.
Now there's no vision, one woman said to me, nothing solid.
said another.
Limp, desperate, they fantasize about quitting their good jobs and moving home to Michigan.
They murmur about purpose, about the concrete satisfactions of baking a loaf of bread or watching a garden grow.
One young woman I know dreams of leaving her consulting job, which takes her to Dubai and Prague, to move back home and raise a bunch of kids.
Another, an accountant with corner office aspirations, has decided to phone it in.
for a few years while she figures out what she wants to do.
Mostly, though, these women don't bail out.
They are too responsible and too devoted to their wavering dreams.
They stay put, diligently working, ordering seamless and waiting-for-something-anything to reignite them, to convince them that their wanting hasn't abandoned them for good.
Any goal would do, one woman told me, a child, a dog, even a refrigerator.
People have been motivated by less.
Let me stop right now and say, perhaps it's simple.
You make your purpose.
And sometimes people lose their purpose.
I dare say, there may be a biological drive that men and women do not share.
Women have a finite amount of time to have kids.
Men kind of do, but typically don't.
Which means, in my opinion, there is going to be a difference in the hormonal drives of what causes passions.
Look, I'm 33, no family, no kids, and there's nothing stopping me from working until I'm 50 before I decide to do so.
But it's no surprise that 30-year-old women are having a midlife crisis.
Perhaps, perhaps it's family.
Interestingly though, like I mentioned in yesterday's video, I did about, it was a study about happiness.
Men and women are both unhappier after having kids for the first five years.
And maybe it's just because kids are hard to raise.
But this wasn't really about happiness, it was about life satisfaction.
For how long after having kids are people unsatisfied?
So I'll tell you this.
Kids don't seem to be the answer in finding your drive.
But if you've lost it at 30, I don't know what it is.
But they do say something.
They say it's basically about the fact that men are in control.
They say that the feminine mystique was prompted by a widespread awakening to the B.S.
promises of domestic happiness manufactured by culture to make female containment look good.
Now another B.S.
promise has taken place, and another generation is waking up.
The men in charge are still in charge.
It is impossible for women to continue to have faith in a vision of their own empowerment when that empowerment is in fact a pose.
It is not true that a gleaming kitchen floor is the key to female satisfaction, and bow-down b-word is a lie.
The myth of female empowerment has always been on a collision course with reality, but until relatively recently, working females took this understanding for granted.
We knew that we were tokens.
We laughed as we made female anatomy jokes.
When the bosses weren't listening.
For we could count one or two of us in the top tier compared to ten or twelve of them.
Our music was rough and cynical and filled with longing.
But millennial women made the mistake of dutifully believing that they were taught what they were taught.
They presumed their power.
Everything they read or watched.
Everyone suggested to them that their path ahead was clear.
They got more degrees.
They entered law in greater numbers.
They knew they could support themselves and had no gendered expectations around eventual family.
What does it mean to grow up listening to Roar when female achievement has flatlined?
The wage gap is about the same as it had been for a decade.
Let's stop there and talk about the wage gap.
The wage gap will always be there.
Always.
Now, job-to-job, it's kind of not.
The real wage gap is between 3% and 5% for the same job.
If a guy is hired to be a teacher and a woman is hired to be a teacher, the guy will likely get 3% to 5% more.
And it's typically, as we believe, due to negotiating.
Men are assertive, aggressive, and willing to take risks.
Women, less so.
In which case, that gap will persist.
But then we also have the actual not-job, the apples-to-oranges wage gap.
Every male earner compared to every female earner will likely stay the same.
You know why?
Because of that curve.
Because of the greater male variability hypothesis.
I'm sorry.
The answer to you wanting more money is not to knock down men who are successful.
It's just a fact.
You will find a bunch of male losers, that's why homeless people tend to be men, and you will find substantially more male geniuses.
If you have a million geniuses, like literally a million, and there's more than that.
If we're talking about this curve, maybe there's 30, 40, 50, even 100 million geniuses in the world.
Maybe not.
There's only around half a million notable people on Wikipedia, I think.
Let's say you got half a million geniuses in this world, and they are more likely to be men by 20%.
That means you are going to have 100,000 more, or I'm probably doing the math wrong, but you get the point.
Substantially more genius men.
Now think about how many Fortune 500 jobs there are.
Oh, there's 500 of them!
So if you're competing the smaller amount of women versus the greater amount of men, don't be surprised when patriarchy never ends.
But that's why they want socialism.
The only thing that could really balance this out?
Force.
That's right.
Cutting down the tall grass.
Making sure that men who are geniuses can't succeed.
Otherwise you will never find gender parity.
It won't work.
So perhaps this op-ed is right.
It was a lie.
You know what I look at?
I look at these, like, action shows and anime and manga and comic books where it shows men and women fighting on equal footing.
Um, like superhero stuff, you know what I mean?
And that can make sense in a magical universe where everyone's got magic powers.
But it's crazy to me this idea that men and women will always be considered equal in every capacity.
The fact remains, you will be more likely to find an intelligent woman than an intelligent man.
That's a fact.
If you go out and ask a handful of women versus a handful of men, don't be surprised when the men answer poorly relative to the women.
That's because there are more average women than average men.
However, so I'll put it this way.
Let's say you asked 10 men and 10 women a basic question.
When did Christopher Columbus, you know, embark?
I know it's a trivia question, but the point is.
That genius, those couple of genius guys will tell you the right answer.
But so will most of the women, because it's a simple question.
Or it's a general question.
And then there will be more guys who get it wrong, because there are more stupid guys.
You see, the point I'm making is, when it comes to basic talent, you will find that there are more women and men, I'm sorry, there are more women than men who can solve basic problems.
They will then think, hey, we're doing all these managerial jobs.
However, leadership roles are fewer and far between.
The people who are more likely to break the barrier into the top tier of intellect, genius, ability, talent, physical ability, are going to be dudes.
And so these women who think they're entering a world where they will compete on equal footing, If you are the best, smartest, most talented female in the world, you're competing with ten guys.
Or maybe two.
Whatever the proportion might be.
The fact is, genius males are going to compete with every other genius and fight and claw their way to the top.
And women are facing a bunch of guys.
And there are more of them.
Guys don't have that same competition amongst each other.
So there it is.
Perhaps the problem was, women were told their whole lives that you could be equal to men.
The fact of the matter is, you are more likely to be better than men at the base level.
But don't be surprised when your boss is a dude.
That's just how things are.
You see, even I make mistakes.
Uh, so, you know, they go on to say women have to work places full of division.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it.
I'm not going to read through the whole thing.
Let me read, let me read you their final thoughts, just to be fair.
They say, to be clear, this is not about setting, this is not about settling, about making peace with the humdrum sexism of traditional workplaces.
Rage and revolution are called for, and such upheaval requires more professional investment by more females, not less.
Instead, this is about a shift in perspective, an appreciation for imperfect circumstances and unmet yearnings as facts of life, and a willingness to seek gratifications and inspirations outside the boundaries of a job.
Dogs are helpful in this regard.
So are children, and friends, and sports, and museums, and live music, and adult activities, and activism, and charity.
The other day I saw a six-year-old girl wearing a t-shirt that said, Undefeatable.
She was skipping down the street and holding her father's hand.
And I thought, that's the problem right there.
Surely that girl is as defeatable or as undefeatable as anyone.
But that doesn't mean she shouldn't grow up to fight.
Well, in the end, I think the problem is we keep telling everybody that you are equal.
There is no difference.
It's a social construct.
It's just not true.
Why?
You know, look.
Men are aggressive.
They're more aggressive.
And it's likely due to the hormones in their bodies.
That's basically what science tells us.
Women don't have that.
But we keep telling women to be like men.
We don't tell men to be like women.
We certainly encourage people to be themselves.
But right now, What is the predominant message in society?
We tell women, you can be the CEO and lead that company.
And that's great.
They can.
And they can fight for that.
And if they have the talent and the ability and the drive, they will make it there.
But are we seeing an equal message to tell men, you don't have to be.
You can raise kids and stay at home.
We don't.
There is certainly a message there sometimes.
But the predominant message is telling women to be more masculine in the traditional roles.
You can argue traditional gender roles don't make sense.
That's fine.
The point is, a traditional gender role for a male is running the company while the woman raises the kids.
We are more likely to see women encouraged to take the masculine role than we are to see men to take the feminine role.
And there you go.
Men can't have kids, by the way.
So guys are probably going to do what they can to create something, you know, in their work, in their passions.
But maybe the ambition collision.
Lisa Miller, this article's from a couple years ago, mind you.
Maybe the reality is women would be happier finding meaning in other places, like she says at the end.
Go do sports, go to museums, go to art, have kids, get a dog.
Instead, everyone keeps telling women they have to be the CEOs, but you're competing with substantially more men.
So the reality is It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.
It matters if you're a CEO.
Just because there are more male CEOs doesn't mean there's a problem.
It means those are the people who wanted and could do it.
They want 50-50, CEOs, men and women.
It doesn't make sense.
Perhaps the women who became CEOs are those who wanted to and had the ability to do it.
And if it just so happens, there will more likely be more men who do it.
There's nothing wrong with that.
They want the equality of outcome, but that doesn't mean anything.
Are you happy with your life?
And if you're not, stop listening to other people and find out what makes you happy.
