Democrats Impeachment Is A Kamikaze Against Trump, It PROVES He Already Won And Democrats Know It
Democrats Impeachment Is A Kamikaze Against Trump, It PROVES He Already Won And Democrats Know It. With nearly every moderate Democrat coming out in support of impeachment we are left wondering why they would take an action that is unpopular in their district if impeachment is guaranteed to fail anyway.The reality is that Democrats know they are going to lose and they have decided to stage a final kamikaze against Trump and the Republicans. Under Trump auto manufacturing has returned to Detroit, we are living in the longest economic expansion in US history, unemployment is down, wages are up, and the Democrats are out of arguments.Facing a guaranteed defeat in 2020 Democrats have decided to do whatever they can in a last ditch effort to hurt Republicans and Trump.It won't work, it will backfireBut they don't careIf they stop now they will have nothing to say except "Trump won"
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats and Republicans are currently debating House rules for impeachment.
Later today, they will likely vote to impeach the president.
We knew it was likely, but now we know pretty much for sure, because almost every moderate Democrat, that is, congressional Democrats that won in Trump districts, have come out in support of impeachment.
Now, for me, I was a bit confused initially.
We all know about Jeff Van Drew.
He's a Democrat from South Jersey who is about to flip to the Republican Party.
A story from the Philly Enquirer shines a light on the internal workings of his campaign, and they knew if he didn't vote for impeachment, he would lose.
He'd be primaried, meaning he would never make it to a general election.
Now, here's the problem.
If he does support impeachment, he's going to lose in the general, because he's in a Trump district.
New Jersey's second is R plus one, I believe.
I can pull it up in a second.
So I looked at all these other moderate Democrats, and they said, you know what, we're going to vote for impeachment.
And I thought, why would they do this?
But I get it.
The Democratic Party said, we will primary you and you will lose.
But more importantly, why would they then not pull what Jeff Van Drew did and flip?
It's simple.
They've lost already.
The Democrats in these moderate districts know they have lost no matter what.
Jeff Van Drew, he's playing the gambit.
But he's likely going to lose in the Republican primary because he's a Democrat.
He really is.
Look at his voting record.
So all these moderate Democrats said, well, rockin' a hard place.
Whatever.
Impeachment.
This is the Democrats' final salvo.
It's their kamikaze.
They've lost.
They know it.
And it's all they have left.
And I can show you why.
I can show you the data.
But I'll put it this way.
Based on what I've been reading, the polls, I'm looking at all this stuff, right?
I tweeted earlier.
How is it that with the impeachment polls flipping nationwide, with Trump now winning in swing states, raising tens of millions of dollars, they're still going for it?
And then it became obvious.
That's it.
They know they lost.
What are they going to do?
Well, they don't want to lie down and take it.
They're going to give it everything they got, even though they know they've lost.
Even though they know it will likely make Trump stronger, at least they'll take that one final swing.
I got so much for you today.
This is going to be a lot of fun.
Trump approval up six points since launch of impeachment inquiry.
Gallup.
Gallup!
It's very credible.
So you ask yourself, why continue on this path?
They have nothing.
You know, I want to show you something real quick before we dive right in.
I gotta do this.
This is a story from July.
This is now the longest U.S.
economic expansion in history.
July.
It's December, okay?
Several months later, the economic expansion continues.
The longest economic expansion in history.
I tell you what, man.
The signs are clear as day.
The polls show it.
They're done.
The Democrats have nothing left.
They can't campaign on any issues.
Trump has won the argument on the economy.
He's won the argument on immigration.
He's not won every argument.
That's fair to say.
Obviously, I don't think the guy's perfect, but he's getting what he wants done.
And the Democrats know that most Americans don't like impeachment.
What are they gonna do?
They got nothing else.
Are they gonna just say, uh, I don't know, we're gonna USMCA, I guess?
That's what happened.
They sat on it for a year.
They have nothing.
Let's read these stories.
And I want to show you what I really want to get to is this.
We've got serious issues inside Jeff Andrews impeachment fueled defection to the GOP because I want to break down for you why the Democrats are doing what they're doing.
And I want to show you a full list of the moderates who have decided to support impeachment, who will likely be voted out.
But I will start briefly.
By talking about Trump's approval rating.
But before we do that, head over to TimCast.com slash DougIt if you would like to support my work.
PayPal.
Bitcoin.
Physical address.
There's many different ways you can support me if you'd like to, but the best thing you can do is share this video, because that's essentially the best way for my channel to grow.
I know YouTube as an algorithm has been kind of on the downturn for me and a lot of other creators, but we can all overcome that.
If you guys, if all of you watching say, I like what Tim says, I like what he does, By sharing this, that's more powerful than any recommendation algorithm, and so we win.
But if you think I'm terrible and you like watching anyway, then just do whatever you want.
Let's briefly read about Trump's approval rating bump.
But this is kind of obvious, so I don't want to, you know, beat a dead horse.
They say this.
Trump's growing approval is buoyed by Republicans who give him high marks.
Almost 9 in 10 GOP respondents, 89%, support Trump to just 8% of Democrats who approve of the job the president is doing.
But hey, 8% of Democrats approve of Trump's, you know, job?
I'll tell you what, man, there's a decent amount of Democrats.
8%, small percentage, a decent amount of people, though, who realized, hey, the economy's good.
You know, you want to complain about his attitude?
You want to complain about his behavior?
I respect that.
But we're talking about making people's lives better.
And you're going to have to ask someone to sacrifice the college fund for their kids, their job, because they want someone who's not going to be a potty mouth.
You'll find a lot of people are just going to say, I'll take it.
They say Trump has reached 45% approval or higher in Gallup's poll five times since taking office.
The survey giant noted he reached 46% only once in his presidency, in May, on the back of strong economic reports and the culmination of former special counsel Mueller's report on Russia.
Gallup's new poll found that 51% of respondents say they oppose impeachment and removing Trump from office, an increase of five points.
So we get it, all right?
We get it.
I've shown you this a lot.
Check this out.
Trump campaigns internal polling shows Democrats in pro-Trump districts struggling due to impeachment.
And that's the main point.
Trump's data is Trump's data.
You might argue it's bad polling data because it's biased.
And that's a good point because the Democrats have an inverse view of their polling.
But you know what?
Individual polls, be it Gallup like I just showed you, take it all with a grain of salt.
Go look at the aggregate.
In the aggregate we are seeing this.
We are seeing the opposition to impeachment.
We are seeing multiple polls showing Trump is dominating in swing states.
It's happening.
Not every poll.
Not every single poll.
But several polls now show Trump polling ahead and the Democrats losing their advantage.
The Democrats are probably seeing the same thing.
I think so.
I think they know they will lose no matter what.
Man, how miserable must it be to be one of these moderate Democrats?
The Democratic Party says, fall in line and vote for impeachment or we will vote you out.
Even though you know it's a losing vote.
Even though you know impeachment will fail.
They say, do it or we're going to primary you.
You turn around the other side and the Republicans say, you do vote for him and we're going to vote you out in the general.
So they say, I'm done.
I'm out.
Check it out.
The full list of Democrats and where they stand, and boy do I have a shocker for you, Tulsi Gabbard, undecided.
We'll see what happens.
You know, I record these videos a little bit early.
I'm going to be traveling today, so this one's a little bit earlier than I'd like to.
But my understanding, based on several sources, is the actual vote will be tonight anyway, like 7 or 8 p.m., which is outside of my production schedule anyway.
So right now they're saying, Tulsi Gabbard, quote, I am undecided on how I'm going to vote.
Impressive.
She's the only one.
We've got these two.
You'll notice that the districts are highlighted in red.
They say red districts were won by Trump in 2016.
We have no response yet from many Democrats who are in blue districts.
But Ron Kind from Wisconsin's third, a Trump district, has not responded either.
Either way, it looks like the impeachment vote will pass.
What's interesting is, well, it's a few things.
One, Colin Peterson in Minnesota, a Trump district, is voting no.
Jeff Van Drew is going to flip.
But these are conservative, you know, Colin Peterson is a conservative Democrat.
He is.
They used to exist.
There used to be a big overlap between the parties.
We were unified.
We're not anymore.
So he's a dying breed, man.
Now let's scroll down.
We can see this.
Lucy Macbeth from Georgia's 6th.
I believe the president abused the power of office.
We go down, we can see Iowa's 3rd.
These are all in support.
All of these moderates came out and said, you know what?
I'm going to do it.
One of the most interesting, however, is Jared Golden, I believe his name is.
Do I have that?
Do I have to pull it up?
I don't think I do.
Here's a guy who posted on Facebook.
That he felt the impeachment, the second article of impeachment was not, he's voting against it because he thinks the process was political.
What he said was, they rushed this through without going through the courts like they were supposed to because they wanted a political symbolic impeachment.
So he is voting against.
Which is really interesting.
I wonder if they have Jared Golden on here.
Let me do a quick search.
Because he says he will vote to impeach Trump for abuse of power, but not for obstruction of Congress.
And he is in Maine's second, which went to Trump, which is very, very interesting.
So these moderates know they're out.
Jared Golden has an interesting gambit.
He says, maybe if I only do half, the Democrats won't primary me.
And if I vote no on one, the Republicans in the state might still vote for me.
But you know what?
I'll tell you what.
I won't speak for them.
I'll show you the story from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
We've got serious issues.
An inside look into why Jeff Van Drew defected to the GOP.
I'll tell you what, man.
Him jumping to the GOP is a huge victory for Republicans and Trump.
It seriously is.
And I think they would be wise to make sure he wins that primary.
First of all, it's a sad tale.
A moderate Democrat essentially being forced out of the party.
Let's be real.
The moderates are being told, fall in line and get out of Congress, or we're kicking you out anyway.
So Van Drew says, fine.
We need moderate voices in the Democratic Party.
But I'll tell you what, the Republicans can always use another moderate as well.
So, so be it.
If the Republican Party becomes the party of moderate voices, former moderate Democrats, well, you re-put you so, Democrats, and you can have your coalition of progressives, which make up a tiny minority of this country, and Trump and the Republicans will sweep, and maybe they'll course-correct, maybe they won't.
But it is sad.
Now, I do want to mention something important.
Tulsi Gabbard's last-ditch effort to save the Democratic Party, she's trying to force a censure vote to essentially impede or something.
I don't know.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to that.
But she's the only Democrat saying, undecided.
So let's take a look at what happened.
What's fascinating is how the polls showed he was done for.
Let's read.
We've got serious issues to talk about.
One of Van Drew's strategists told him.
48 hours later, Van Drew was in the White House with his chief of staff.
He agreed to defect to the GOP.
By Saturday, news of his plan had gone public.
By Sunday, almost his entire Washington staff had quit in protest.
Yeah, I don't blame you, buddy.
I don't blame you.
finally spoke Tuesday still without addressing what he plans to do.
I'm not discussing any of that now.
There will be a time.
He said as he rode an elevator to an afternoon House vote, I'm re-evaluating my life and
my thoughts.
I don't blame you, buddy.
I don't blame you.
You know, it's a lot easier for a voter to decide it's time to leave the Democratic Party.
There are so many people who voted for Obama.
We have a poll from Axios the other day saying that Obama voters are now just Trump voters.
There are a lot of people who voted for Obama who had absolutely no problem saying they'd go vote for Trump.
For someone who is a dedicated politician in the party, speaking on behalf of that party, it's much more challenging because you're going to be called a traitor and a rat just like they did to him.
But this is an inside view of why they're making their choices.
Check this out.
Let me jump to the polling numbers.
When the poll came back, the results were grim.
58% of likely Democratic voters wanted someone other than Van Drew to be the nominee.
43% disapproved of his performance, and only 22% had a favorable view of him.
Van Drew was facing a rock and a hard place.
He would likely have to spend almost $1 million just for a primary campaign and aggressively court support from New Jersey Democratic insiders, whose endorsement he would need at county political conventions to get favorable ballot positions.
At the time, he had more than $900,000 in campaign cash.
But such an expensive primary would have depleted that war chest.
And that would have forced him to raise a good deal more money to potentially take on David Richter, a millionaire Republican who was seen as a likely GOP frontrunner and can self-fund his campaign.
Jeff really hates fundraising, said one strategist.
I don't blame him.
I actually respect him for saying that.
Here's the sad tale.
It would seem.
Jeff Van Drew was acting on principle.
It's sad.
I really do mean it.
He resisted impeachment, but he also resisted a poll.
Check this out.
It took three Democrats who billed themselves as the Van Drew team, losing elections in his old state legislative district last month, to persuade him to finally run the poll.
Van Drew's vote against the impeachment inquiry consumed the final days of the off-year campaign in the district he had long represented as a state lawmaker.
He didn't want the poll.
His aides had been urging him to do it, and he didn't want to do it.
He resisted it.
You know what that means?
He said he was going to resist impeachment on its merit, not because of the polls.
But when he saw that these other people, the Van Drew team, were losing, he ran the poll, and it was bad.
He knew the Democrats were coming for him.
They would remove him from office because he wouldn't fall in line with their last-ditch kamikaze plan, even though it's guaranteed to fail.
He also knows that he's facing a self-funding, you know, millionaire GOP frontrunner.
So you know what?
I'm glad the Republicans are getting a moderate.
If that's what happens, the smartest play Trump could make is to make sure Van Drew wins the primary.
It would send a cold and stark message to the Democrats that for one, they'll get your back.
It's a powerful move if Van Drew stays in Congress as a Republican.
If he's primaried out, it'll just prove all the other moderates supporting impeachment, they made the right choice.
All of these moderates who ran in these districts Trump won could have switched.
Could have said, no, and if you primary me, I will run as a Republican.
They could have done that.
They didn't want to.
They did not do it.
Well, Van Drew presumably is.
And if the Republicans get his back, You'll be telling all these moderates, you backed the wrong horse.
If Andrew still stands for what he believes in and will campaign on these issues, good.
And the Republicans should support him because he is a sane individual.
The Republicans can benefit from being the party that welcomes dissenting voices in their own ranks.
Democrats are not that.
Think about it.
If the Republicans say to Van Drew, We're going to run you.
We're not going to challenge you in the primary.
We want you to stay here because you made a principled decision.
The Democrats will be the ones saying, fall in line with what we want or else.
And the Republicans will be the ones saying, we disagree with you on many issues, but you did the right thing and so we're going to respect that.
That would send a powerful message to the American people.
Now, I would prefer if Van Drew stated Democrat, because the Democrats need moderate voices.
But you know what?
It's beginning to look like the Republicans might be taking over.
I mean, they're winning.
I think they're going to sweep 2020.
I could be wrong because I was wrong about 2018.
I have no problem saying that.
I think I've shown you exactly why.
Now let's do this.
Tulsi Gabbard tried to force a censure vote.
Tulsi Gabbard will try to force a censure of Donald Trump instead of impeachment before House vote on putting the president on trial.
They go on to say that she didn't qualify for the debates.
She's the only undecided Democrat.
There are some people who haven't said anything.
You can technically call them undecided.
Much respect to Tulsi.
I feel so bad.
You know, Tulsi's so great.
Even Trump supporters recognize she's a good person.
And that's, in my opinion, proof that she is.
Now, I think she's a good person for a lot of other reasons.
I think she is a stoic.
She's a soldier.
She's a medic.
I believe she's a medic, right?
She's a major in the National Guard.
She stands for American values.
But the most important thing I've seen so far, you know, what made me like Tulsi was her anti-intervention, anti-war stance, because that's always been a big deal for me.
But you know what really matters?
The fact that she is trying as hard as possible.
You've got the left and the right drifting further and further apart.
And she's like holding ropes attached to both carts, pulling as hard as she can.
She speaks to conservatives.
She speaks to Republicans.
She speaks to the politically homeless.
She's not a Republican, though.
But she does try.
She does, you know, try and have at least a principled stance and figure out how she could be an effective leader.
I respect it.
She should not have supported impeachment.
She's not running for re-election.
I don't see why she had to.
Initially, she didn't.
She shouldn't have.
You know why?
Let's break for a second and talk politics.
If Tulsi Gabbard came out and said no to impeachment, she'd be on every show asking her why.
Why, why, why?
Of course, they already smear her.
But then you'd have her on the debate stage, they'd be saying, why would you oppose this?
And she could explain.
It would give her that time to explain what's wrong with the whole process.
Look, man, Alan Dershowitz, I mentioned this three times now, but come on, when you've got a Democrat leaving the Democratic Party over this, When you've got Democratic voters leaving the party with a walk-away campaign, you've got serious problems.
But I think I made my position clear.
This is the Democrats' kamikaze.
Is this the last great effort by Democrats?
Will this... I'm curious, man.
With the fracturing between the progressives and the moderate corporatist cronies, is there going to be any Democratic Party left after this?
I think it's hilarious that in 2015-16 they said the GOP had fallen apart, and then Trump swept everything up.
Now the Democrats are fractured.
You know, so good on Tulsi for trying her best.
But I feel bad.
Because I know it's, you know, I got, the more she acts the way she does, the more respect I give to her.
So I'll put it this way.
I gotta be a realist, and I might be mean to say this, but Tulsi, she's gonna lose.
She didn't qualify for the debates.
She is not the strongest frontrunner Democrat.
The Democrats don't like her.
They smear her, they mock her, and they insult her, and she's probably the most principled person up there.
But when she stood up and said, censure, you know what it said to me?
My position has always been this.
If everyone stood up and stood for something they believed in, that change would occur.
But too many people are cowardly.
These moderate Democrats, in my opinion, they're cowards.
It's not up to you.
You represent your district, okay?
The polls show the Democrats don't like it.
Van Drew made the right move, and I'll tell you why.
Van Drew saw the Democrats don't care.
Impeach him no matter what.
But the district itself is different.
Van Drew doesn't represent the Democrats.
He represents the district.
And if the district is leaning towards Trump, he would be acting against the will of his district by voting against Trump.
You know, these people live in a strange, strange world.
I don't know if you saw that Saturday Night Live skit.
It was incredible.
It was the family dinner table called Open, where you had anti-Trump, pro-Trump, and a black family from Georgia.
And it was one of the most incredible lines.
I gotta tell you what.
Of any of those families, I understood the Atlanta black family way better.
In the first family, they're like, finally, Trump is being impeached.
Good.
He's a criminal.
The second family was Charleston, and they're like, why are they impeaching Trump?
He's not a criminal.
And then the Atlanta family, it was hilarious.
One guy, you know, the actor who played the son said, can we please talk about something else like politics?
I don't want to talk about movies.
And then, I can't remember the actor's name, sorry.
He says, what you mean how Trump is definitely going to be impeached and then definitely going to be reelected?
No, thank you.
And that was it.
That was my applause.
I think that's how most Americans feel.
The partisans on both sides are saying their thing.
And then you got people in the middle being like, we get it.
Trump's gonna be impeached!
He's gonna get re-elected!
My favorite line is when he was like, the son goes, he's like, come on man, no one's gonna vote for Trump in 2020.
And the dad says, what do you mean?
Nobody.
Nobody was gonna vote for him in 2016, then who did?
Everybody!
So it's like, we know what's gonna happen.
And I think these people on the Democrat side live in a paranoid reality.
I think the people on the Republican side, for the most part, are living in reality.
And it's asymmetric polarization, right?
The reason why you'll likely find my content is more, is unappealing to a lot of these leftists is because they're gone.
They're completely gone.
It's, you know, I can talk about policy positions and, you know, government programs and civil rights and social justice from a more lefty perspective, but I'm not so far left and insane.
Republicans haven't been polarized.
Republicans are where they've always been.
So they're seeing things the way they've always been.
The left is in this weird, paranoid world.
You do have these Trump supporters who are very much so like, you know, die hard Trump no matter what.
Trump can do no wrong.
And that's true.
But the difference is drastic.
The left is dominated by people foaming at the mouth, screaming Donald Trump.
And the right is dominated by a lot of people who are like, well, the economy's good, I guess.
You know, he could be better if he wasn't a potty mouth.
And I know you've heard me say it.
I'll try and keep this one a little bit shorter.
I got one more thing to show you.
But when I talk to people, they all say the same thing.
Yeah, Trump's got bad behavior, but you know what?
My family's doing great.
Most people I meet who vote for him are not like, oh my God, Trump is the end of the world.
But I tell you this, the people I meet who are anti-Trump are seriously all, oh my God, it's the end of the world.
And that's crazy to me.
Why do you overlook the successes of the economy and what Trump has done?
I'm gonna leave you with this, okay?
I can say it a million times.
Bad behavior.
We get it, we get it, we get it.
But the left will tell you that Trump's America is Charlottesville.
Trump's America is, you know, just evil and bigotry and all that.
I'm sorry.
I'd like to show you what Trump's America really is.
Trump's America is this.
Ford, to add 3,000 jobs in Detroit, invest 1.45 billion on new trucks, SUVs, electric, and autonomous vehicles.
I'll tell you what.
In France, there's been riots for a year because they hiked the price of fuel because of climate change.
Trump's America may be bad for the environmentalists because they're gonna start mass-producing vehicles and we already have too many.
That I can respect.
But Trump's America means Detroit is bringing back jobs.
Detroit, Michigan, they collapsed.
You know, I'm sorry, we're gonna go a little bit longer.
I gotta tell you something.
In a city like Detroit, let me break it down for you.
I'm going to use a hypothetical because I don't want to talk Detroit's full numbers.
Let's say you have a town of a million people and the water system costs a million dollars per year to operate.
Each citizen spends one dollar to pay for that per year.
One dollar a year, no big deal!
Pay a dollar a year, get my fresh water, that's fine.
These numbers are hypothetical.
In reality, it would be like the rich people pay five, the poor people pay fifty cents, and then people in the middle pay a dollar.
What happens when that city starts shrinking because people are moving out due to no jobs?
The infrastructure of the plumbing system stays the same.
The pipes don't shrink, they stay where they are.
But now you have half a million people.
Everyone's got to pay $2 a year.
The prices just doubled.
Let's say it shrinks again.
The prices double again.
All of a sudden now you have Flint, Detroit, and these areas in Michigan that have the most expensive water in the country because the system wasn't designed for such few people.
With these jobs coming back to Detroit, this could help the water problem in places like Flint and Michigan.
Billions, a billion and a half dollars being brought back.
I'm sorry, man.
If you want to argue about, you know, cars being bad for the environment, I agree with you.
I like Tesla, okay?
It's not perfect.
The electric cars still have their carbon footprint and all that.
I'm not convinced it's right for the world to mass produce these cars.
But if you want to talk to a mom and a dad, if you want to talk to a working class voter,
and you want to say, we're going to bring 3,000 jobs to your city, they're going to
start crying, man.
And I don't mean crying like whiny babies.
I mean like crying tears of joy.
The relief has come.
In Trump's America, he's revitalizing Detroit.
The left will say, Trump didn't do this!
Trump didn't do this!
I'm sorry, man.
Trump did.
It's tariffs.
It's the trade agreement.
It has become easier for these companies.
It makes more monetary sense to run their business in America.
You even got Apple talking about, you know, mass producing products in America, bringing jobs back, putting people to work.
And they don't understand these people in the big cities.
They really don't get it.
These ivory tower elites who make money speculating.
I mean, I'll tell you this too.
People like me, all right?
I'm far from an ivory tower elite in the traditional sense.
I'm a high school dropout.
However, I am a media thought leader kind of individual where my job is to tell you all about how things are happening.
I'm not there on the ground.
I'm not building cars.
I'm not mining coal.
I'm not trying to raise a family on crappy wages.
So this is the point.
The thought police, the media class, the ivory tower elites, with their fancy degrees, will sit atop that ivory tower and look down and say, no, no, no, you're all wrong.
These cars are bad.
We need to increase the taxes on fuel.
And then the riots break out in France.
Because these people, these real people with real families, are asking for help.
And this was the fastest path.
Maybe not the fastest, but one of the fastest.
I mean, the fastest path would be if Trump just gave them money.
No, Trump said, I'm not gonna give you the fish.
I'm going to incentivize the fish companies to come down and hire people to fish.
And that's what's happening.
So you can mock these people, you can tell them they're wrong, and maybe it would be bad for the environment.
You know, I have concerns about this, I really do.
But I reflect on myself.
I'm not someone who has to deal with the fact that I'm facing homelessness because my job disappeared.
I'm not someone who has to contend with the fact that my water pipes are full of lead.
No, I live a pretty comfortable life.
So when someone tells me they're bringing cars, you know, lots of them, a billion and a half dollars to Detroit, I sit there and say, man, it's a bummer, but I get it.
That money's going to circulate through the tax system, it's going to reinvigorate roads, it's going to build infrastructure, it's going to help these people who are losing wages, who have been out of work, and those people are going to cry tears of joy hearing that their jobs are coming back.
I'll leave you with this.
Go watch the movie, what is it, Tommy Boy.
Remember that old movie with David Spade and Chris Farley?
What's that movie about?
It's about a small town that's fueled by a factory where they make brake pads.
Callahan Auto.
And this big company in Chicago, I think it is, wants to buy the name and shut the plant down.
And if that plant gets shut down, those lives are destroyed.
They know it.
They knew it.
And we saw the devastation that happened when the rust belt started collapsing, when the auto industry started collapsing.
Ford's bringing it back.
So if you want to go to these people in Michigan, I'll tell you this, man.
I dare you to go to Michigan and tell them Trump's America is an America of bigotry.
And they're going to look at you and say, Trump's America just brought my job back and saved my family.
So you want to ask me where Michigan's voting?
If Michigan is going to swing for Trump in 2020, you better damn well believe it.
But I could be wrong.
I always say that, because I was wrong in 2018.
I'm not a rocket scientist, man.
I'm a dude reading stuff on the internet, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
A video that went viral among, you know, let's be honest, mostly conservatives, showed a black transgender stripper stripping at some public event, I believe in Seattle.
Many people were shocked, wondering why the city would pay for a stripper to perform.
Don't ask me, I don't know either.
And now the woman in charge, apparently the homeless agency director, quits.
She's been forced out.
The story from the Daily Mail.
Seattle homeless agency director quits after coming under fire for inviting a drag queen to perform at annual conference where she stripped, twerked, and kissed attendees.
Kira Zylstra, the acting director of King County's Coordinating Agency for Homelessness in Washington, resigned over the weekend.
This story to me is deeply offensive.
You know why?
Well, I did a segment the other day about the homeless crisis.
I have repeatedly talked about the homeless crisis and I used to actually work on charity issues for the homeless.
I think some of these problems are very difficult and you might not be able to solve a lot of this.
I see Bernie Sanders say, oh, we text the billionaires, we can end homelessness.
You can't.
And I know this firsthand.
There are some people who just want to be homeless, especially in Seattle.
And the best thing we can do is make sure they're safe, healthy, and comfortable.
Make sure that their medical care, in some ways, is being treated for.
And I know a lot of people might say, like, why are we spending taxpayer dollars on that?
Because I'll tell you this.
What do you do when someone has a constitutional right to freely move about the country?
You can't arrest somebody simply because they're standing on a public sidewalk too long.
Even if they're sleeping, there's an arbitrary distinction between laying down, closing your eyes, or sitting up.
It is a difficult problem to solve.
My understanding is the Supreme Court has ruled you can't arrest somebody because they're laying in public.
Now, these are people who likely aren't paying taxes and it's costing us money.
But it is a serious, serious challenge.
How do you deal with protecting civil rights while also trying to keep something, you know, safe and orderly?
I don't know.
But I will tell you this.
California's got Human waste problems.
And if homeless people are in camps and diseases start emerging like typhus and bubonic plague, like, you know, the fears of what's happening in California, yeah, we gotta do something.
And that means if we're paying taxes, gotta go to clean it up, I'd expect it to.
Now, the real problem is they don't do that.
See, I can sit here and say all day and night, I mean, they somewhat do, but they really, really don't.
I can say all day and night, you know, it'd be great if we spent our taxpayer dollars making sure the homeless weren't getting diseases, We're healthy so that the best we could do is limit the spread of diseases.
You know what we get instead?
We get this!
Look, man.
I got no beef with Beyonce Black Saint James, the transgender performer.
I got no beef.
Do your thing, man.
If she's putting on a show at private events, right on!
This is America, man.
You're free to do what you want to do.
The way I always explain it is I don't care what you do so long as you're not hurting others.
So in this case, I got respect for the hustle.
The problem is the government wasting money and not getting the job done.
I lived in Seattle.
Let me tell you something.
They got a homeless youth problem.
That's a fact.
They got people who ride the rails, they jump out in Seattle, and they sleep on the streets.
The problem is a lot of these kids want to do it.
This is a fact.
I've worked in this field and I will tell you.
There's a lot of young homeless people who don't want to be helped.
They want to be left alone.
They want to hang out with their friends.
And yes, they sleep in the gutter and you can't change their minds.
You really, really can't.
I know this firsthand.
So there are things you can do.
There's money that could be spent in positive ways.
You can, you know, make sure that they get proper health care, like I said, to a certain degree, right?
I'm not, you know, I think the challenge is sometimes the correct solution is you have to begrudgingly make it.
Now, I've made this point before.
Look, and you guys know that I lean a little bit left on these issues.
I think if we took the approach of kind of like leave them to their own devices, it's their own fault.
Yeah, things could get worse.
It's not so easy as to say, you know, teach a man to fish.
Some people tell you to screw off no matter how much you try.
So the best thing you can do is try and protect civil rights of the population and minimize the harm caused by, like, homeless camps and excessive, you know, population expansion and things like that.
You know, I can't tell you what the solution is because as somebody who's liberty-minded, I think about, there's a public sidewalk.
The public owns it.
We all pay for it, right?
We all pitch in.
If you're standing there, you're fine.
If you're sitting down, you're fine.
If you're blocking the road in any capacity, the cops can ask you to move.
But like I said, I believe the Supreme Court has ruled, there's no distinction.
If you're on public property, they can't just kick you out just because you're there.
So people can sleep there.
It's a really, it's a challenging issue.
I'll tell you what the wrong thing is.
The wrong thing is when the government uses taxpayer dollars to hire a performer to dance around in strip when, listen man, we're strained for resources as it is.
You can't be spending money on this stuff.
If Beyoncé, Black Saint James wants to put on a burlesque show, a strip show, a drag show at a private event, Yeah, rad, awesome.
By all means, you know, go do it.
I got a lot of friends, probably be down to go see that.
But when the public is supposed to be using our taxpayer dollars to make sure they are protecting people, they are solving these problems, and this is what they spend money on, you know what, man?
This is why I don't have a lot of faith in government.
This is the biggest problem with government.
I tell you this right now.
The problem with government is that it can't fail.
And most of you know this.
I get it.
Preaching to the choir.
We're not socialists here.
So even those of us who are like, yeah, I think a government program in this direction could make sense.
I think you've got to be a sane, rational... I'll put it this way.
There's no sane, rational lefties.
There's like 10 of us, okay?
Here's my thing.
I'm like, hey, it's actually a really good idea if we allocate some of the community funds, taxpayer funding, towards solving the problem of homelessness because it's a serious problem affecting our community.
That's a fact.
However, I also recognize that because these systems can't naturally fail like a business would, they tend to become bloated and corrupt.
So how do you deal with this?
Well, you know how we used to deal with it?
Journalism.
That's right.
Somebody would highlight what was done and force something to change.
That's a very, very difficult thing to do.
Now, journalists can force major corporations to change if they expose malfeasance and all that stuff.
And they still do.
But boy, I tell you what.
First, independent journalist Christopher Ruffo, outspoken on the homelessness crisis in Seattle, shared the video.
He was criticizing the agency.
I read that part, but listen.
That's what it's all about.
We wouldn't know that this woman, Kira Zellstrar, whoever, hired a drag performer to strip and was using taxpayer money for that without that journalist.
That's why journalism is so important.
And you know what's funny?
It's not so much the Trump supporters who are very much anti-fake news.
I mean, they're the most outspoken, for sure, because Trump leads that charge.
The reality is, man, we on the left have been screeching about this forever.
I mean, look at Occupy Wall Street.
I started live streaming.
You had the Occupy Wall Street Journal.
Dude, everybody knew the press was fake news.
And it's only the establishment Democrats who are playing that game.
And you know what's so messed up?
I'll tell you this, man.
I made a full segment defending Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks because the New York Times smeared him and other people have smeared him.
You want to criticize Cenk for talking about that animal love comment?
I think that's fair to criticize him over.
I don't like the pulling out of context clips from the past and using that against someone because I don't know what he was actually talking about.
Maybe he was quoting somebody else.
Maybe he was saying, would it be stupid if someone said something like this?
That's what they do.
Like, what if I said something like, I had a friend who once came to me and said, I like chocolate ice cream.
They take that one snippet where I said, I like chocolate ice cream, ascribe it to me.
No, no, no.
I'm not a fan of that.
But I'll tell you what.
You should have had these progressives from the get-go agreeing with Trump.
And this is the craziest thing to me.
Trump derangement syndrome is so thick and palp, you know, it's so viscous.
It is basically a tangible object.
That's how crazy it is.
That when Bernie Sanders is lied about repeatedly, That when Andrew Yang is omitted from MSNBC in basically every single poll, when Tulsi Gabbard is lied about, and now Cenk Uygur is lied about, you'd think all of us could get together and say, the media is trash.
You'd think so.
Unfortunately, too many people hated Trump so much, they ignored the problem until it got worse, and now it's affecting them.
So you know what I say?
Listen, I'm ahead of the market on this one.
That's why I talk about what I talk about.
This is good journalism.
It's kind of weird journalism.
I'll admit, like, a dude noticing that they're spending taxpayer dollars on a transgender drag performer stripping in a public office or whatever, or a public gala, I don't know what they were doing.
I'm glad that they exist, though.
I'm glad that there are people calling this out.
So there's something interesting happening now, too.
And we've got a big challenge here.
One of the big benefits of social media is that these videos can go viral and we can hold these government institutions accountable.
It still is difficult to purge them, shut them down, and start over.
That's the big challenge with government.
I think you can do a government program right.
And I think it is right to have programs.
I mean, listen, we have corruption in the police departments and the fire departments.
It's a fact, man.
They exist.
We need to deal with those problems.
It is a serious challenge to figure out how to make sure that they are above board, functioning properly.
But I'll tell you this, man, the fire department, it works.
So the question I have, you know, and I think a lot of my views may be due to the fact I grew up with a firefighter dad, and while there are certainly problems in the fire department, these are good dudes, you know what I mean?
Like, they go out there, they risk their lives, they save lives.
The fire departments work pretty well.
They're not without their issues.
But I look to that and I'm like, how do we get that one right?
You know what I mean?
That's government doing something right.
That's like all of us being like, hey, we need a fire department.
So, you know, how can we take that and somehow make sure that these institutions are doing the right thing?
I don't know.
I'll tell you what, dude, I'm sure fire departments waste money too.
I'm sure it's similar to a lot of government programs.
I'm not a fan of certain institutions being left to the private sector, like police for
instance, because accountability is a serious issue.
And I've had a lot of conversations with ANCAPs and libertarians about private police forces
and I'm kind of like, nah, I don't like the idea of like, you know what it is?
It really is tough because if you have a private police force, you know, the concerns are about
whoever pays the most and you could have warring factions.
But I know people say no because of the economic incentives.
Nah, man.
You know, the reason the police work in the United States is because it's by mandate interagency cooperation.
They don't always do it, but this means it's all one system.
It is complicated, though.
You know, I got a lot of respect for a lot of cops, man.
That is a job I would never want to do.
And a lot of people on the left don't seem to get this.
When they all freak out, I'm somehow devolving into this thing about cops.
But no, no, no.
I want to say this.
Man, I've had some bad, bad encounters with bad cops.
I've had drugs planted in my car.
The only reason I got off was because my dad is a firefighter and they found his emblem and they cut me loose.
They tried getting me on a marijuana charge.
I've smoked one time in my life when I was like 14 when they were like, try it, man.
And then I was like, I don't enjoy this.
And I don't smoke.
I never have since then.
It was like one time I was like 14.
And it's probably a similar story to many people, I guess, and I used to drink when I was a teenager, you know, for about a year or two, and then I just completely stopped, and I'm totally, you know, I just try to eat healthy and be healthy, but I had these cops try to pull this BS.
I'll tell you what, man, I still get it.
I still, I don't single out the bad times, because I've had good times.
There was one instance, I'll try to keep the details vague for the sake of this individual's privacy, but this young dude I know, he did something wrong.
And he panicked and he ran away.
And the cops showed up and they were like, we don't want you to ruin your life over this man.
We're going to talk with the victim.
It was basically an accident.
I don't want to say it was a hit and run, but it was basically this dude had an accident.
And the cops were like, just come back.
We're going to talk this one out.
But you know, the thing was, that was a smaller town.
It was a small town, so the cops lied.
I went to the person and said, we don't want to ruin this kid's life because he's stupid.
We want to make sure he can make amends and do the right thing.
And those cops were awesome.
I've also been saved by some cops.
But the fact remains, you've got people working in the police department who are dealing with, well, for one, crappy hours.
But man, I could not imagine having to deal with Some of these people I've encountered on the streets when I worked trying to solve homelessness and then you get someone belligerent and they're spitting and they're dumping and you got to go out there and you're the one who's got to deal with that?
No, I can understand that.
But anyway, anyway, I digress.
I guess the big takeaway from this video is, you know, this woman's being forced to resign because journalists called her out.
But shouldn't there be a complete overhaul and an audit of what they're spending money on?
Because I'll tell you this right now, if a private business Had a video like this emerge, like in the same vein, where they were doing ridiculous things or like wasting money.
For one, a lot of people would be like, well, it's a private business.
I don't care what they waste their money on.
But if someone caught a business doing something that damaged their PR, people would stop spending money there.
They would choose to say, we will not give you money and that business would fail.
And then, in its wake, a new business would emerge something different.
If a restaurant produces, you know, like, let's say a video comes out of, like, a restaurant where they're, like, juggling rats in the kitchen, and then letting them run around all over the food, nobody would shop there anymore.
What happens when the government gets caught with rats in the kitchen?
They say, we fired the person in the kitchen, everything's back to normal, carry on, and we're gonna keep taking your money.
You can't just stop paying that.
So here's my... I guess when you're an adult... I'll say it again.
We need some more adults on the left who can sit down and think about these problems, hear out the complaints of the right and say, that's a good point.
So I think what ends up happening is...
Conservatives will look at something like this and be like, you know, this proves why we shouldn't be relying on the government to do these things.
And it's a fair point, it really is.
Because when you cannot hold these people accountable, when the shop can't be closed or audited and then relaunched or even just let to go away, well then it's going to become bloated and corrupt.
So then I hear that.
I hear those conservatives say, look at all the corruption in the welfare system.
And I go, hmm, you're right.
There's a lot of corruption.
There's a lot of people exploiting the system.
I think we need to overhaul this.
I think you're right.
I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, but you're right.
We need to audit, we need to shut it down, and then we need to figure out if and how we can reopen it.
I believe these programs are important.
I believe that the community coming together and saying we're going to have a government-run program to help the homeless is extremely important.
I also believe charity plays a huge role in this as well, but I've worked for these non-profits, and I also know they're driven by a revenue incentive.
And I'm not exaggerating, man.
I've worked for some of the biggest, some of the smallest non-profits.
And I'll tell you this, at the end of the day, the only thing they care about is that their numbers are up.
It's a business.
It's all the same.
Now, there are some good small charities.
I'm not trying to, you know, drag everybody, but I worked in the non-profit sector, man.
One of the reasons I got out was because I saw that all they cared about at the end of the day are their donors pumping in enough money.
That was it.
It was like, what are we doing to make sure the donors are coming in?
And I'm like, man, look, I get it.
You're doing good stuff.
But the revenue incentive twisted the mission.
And so in my experience, the bigger the non-profit, the less they cared about the cause, and the more they cared about convincing someone to donate.
So I think there's good things charities can do, and I think it's got to be balanced between the two.
And this goes for churches as well.
I think it's funny when people say, tax the churches, and I'm like, dude, they're basically non-profits.
They function very similarly to 501c4s.
I don't think the argument of taxing churches makes sense.
Now, if they're politicking, then yes, 501c4s can't do that either.
But as far as I'm concerned, a church functions very similarly to a charity, then yeah, you don't tax them.
It's whatever.
So here we have a story about a woman who's forced to resign, but I tell you what, it should go further than this.
Look, man.
The first thing I want to say, too, because I know one of the biggest things the left is going to screech about is, this trans performer probably got paid a couple hundred bucks.
It probably was not a big deal.
And people are going to be like, it was a small event.
It was entertainment.
They hire entertainment all the time.
That's a good point.
Listen.
If this agency was going to be having a gala, you know, for their employees, I think that's a fine and fair thing to do on the public's dollar.
I absolutely do.
Like, you know, morale is an important point.
Just because they work for the government doesn't mean they can't bring all their employees out for a nice dinner and talk about, you know, just what they've done, what they plan on doing.
And what if they hired a local musician?
Nobody would care.
So, people are upset because this is, I guess, shocking to their sensibilities, but I still believe, well, no beef to Beyonce, Black Saint James, you know, do your thing, you know, seems like you're pretty good at it, seems like people are familiar with your work, I can respect that.
I don't think this is what we should be spending our tax dollars on.
And that would include hiring a local musician as well.
So I can respect the idea that an agency is going to say, hey, we've got some money in the budget.
We're going to go host a nice fancy dinner and hire some entertainment.
And I still feel like I don't care what the entertainment is, man.
You know, I lean more towards if you're working in the public sector and if you're working for charities, these kind of expenses should be kept to a minimum.
I really do.
I really do think that.
And I've and I've seen a lot of nonprofits You know, they function like businesses, and I think government shouldn't necessarily be doing that.
Now again, again, you guys know I'm a motos fence-sitter.
I'm not shocked and outraged by this, as most people are.
You know, I see people saying like, oh my god, what are they doing, debauchery.
Well first, I think it's fair to point out, hiring a stripper is extremely different from hiring a local band to play music.
That's a fair point.
You know, I know some people might argue entertainment's entertainment.
That's, that's, you know what I mean?
I'm not, I'm not shocked and outraged.
I'm not, uh, I'm not screeching and fanning myself and saying, you know, oh my stars and god or anything like that.
I'm just kind of like, do better, man.
You know, the big problem I see from this is that They hired a stripper.
And it's kind of like, is this really the culture we're trying to develop in helping the homeless and solving the problems facing our community?
And I don't see this as being part of the solution.
I see unaccountable runaway programs, and there's no way to hold them accountable.
But I'll tell you what, man.
If the video was of a guy just playing guitar and singing, nobody would have cared, right?
So I would ask you this.
Think about what, at the root, is different between the two.
And I'm not saying there's no difference, I'm saying there is.
And then let me know what you think in the comments about, based on the cultural presentation they describe, what really separates these forms of entertainment.
In my opinion, I think it's fair to say there is a clear difference.
But I'm not a staunch conservative.
I am a liberal, and if you're familiar with the moral foundations, which you should definitely check out Jonathan Haidt's research, liberals tend to focus on the care and fairness moral foundations.
Conservatives operate on all five, potentially six, which includes sanctity or purity.
So this is a violation of sanctity.
It's a debauchery.
It's a stripper in a public setting being paid to do something.
Outside of what is considered socially acceptable, that's why conservatives would be more likely to be shocked by this.
Liberals won't care.
Liberals only think, well, if they're entertaining and anyone else can entertain, that's fair, right?
But my rating when I took the Moral Foundations test is not completely devoid of sanctity, and I understand the argument from conservatives.
So I think that's where it's going to fall.
But comment.
You let me know what you think.
I still personally fall on the side of, if we're going to be fair, we're going to be fair to the liberals and the conservatives.
And if conservatives are being forced to pay for this through taxpayer dollars and they're upset, we've got to reassess.
Because that wouldn't be fair to conservatives to tell them, this is how we spend your money.
It is a challenge to solve all of these problems.
But the biggest challenge of all is how we maintain government programs, which, yes, I believe are important, when they become bloated, corrupt, or act against the will of the people who are funding it.
But I'll leave it there.
It's a long video, I guess, but stick around.
Next video's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
The United States ranks lower than Zimbabwe on gender equality.
I find these surveys hilarious.
You know there was another survey done a while ago, I could be wrong about this, you gotta fact check me, it was a while ago, claiming that there was more gender equality in Syria.
than in the United States. There is so much wrong with that assessment.
And this one right here is based on the World Economic Forum.
They're looking at data from 153 countries, and they have this criteria. I'll go through it.
And they're like, based on these factors, we think gender equality is better in Zimbabwe.
Now, listen, I got no beef with Zimbabwe.
I don't know a whole lot about Zimbabwe, but I do know they got a lot of problems, and you might not want to be a young virginal child in a country like Zimbabwe or South Africa.
Not like, you know, I know that these stories come out, they make it seem like the world is ending, and they're like, it's happening all the time, non-stop.
You know, look, I know people from South Africa, and a lot of people talk about how bad it is, and they tell me they don't see it.
They're like, you know, I go to work every day, I live and work, and we don't see these problems.
But, that doesn't mean the problems aren't more likely to occur there than other places.
So, I interviewed a couple from South Africa, and they said something to me like, we've only been carjacked like five times, you know?
And I was like, wait, what?
That's crazy!
I've never been carjacked!
So I think you see these things and they use these American-centric ideas of what gender equality should be and ignore what life is really like in some of these countries.
ABC News has the story.
And let me just make the point, right?
Dude, come on!
America is awesome!
Life is so comfortable here.
But you get all these outraged social justice types Acting like the sky is falling and then they run these reports and they're like, it's actually better in Zimbabwe.
I'll tell you what.
I'll tell you what.
Anybody who wants to move to Zimbabwe, you give me a call, okay?
I'm kidding.
You don't have my number.
No, you hit me up.
And by all means, if you really want to live there, because it's better, just let me know.
I'll see what I can do to help you.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I know there's going to be a ton of lefties being like, Tim's going to fund a trip to Zimbabwe.
I'm joking, okay?
But no, I'm serious.
If you want to take this stuff seriously, by all means, go to Zimbabwe.
Oh, is there a reason you don't want to go there?
So here's the thing, I'll make this point too.
Is Zimbabwe better on gender equality by their metrics?
Maybe.
Maybe.
And I can actually back up some of their points.
The issue is...
Would you rather be a woman in the United States or a man in Zimbabwe?
The reality is, while Zimbabwe probably has really beautiful places and really nice culture, it is substantially poorer than the U.S.
We're like, the U.S.
is super wealthy, wealthiest country in the world, I think, for the most part.
And I would rather be a homeless person in the United States than a average, like, working class person in, like, Any other country.
Like, let's be honest.
I mean, there's a lot of European countries I'd be totally fine with.
I just mean, you know, how many countries in the world are comfortable for the lower class?
You know, poor people in the United States, they got refrigerators and air conditioning.
Yeah, poor people in Brazil, they live in shantytowns that fall down when it rains, and they can't flush their toilets.
Let's read a little bit.
Look at this data.
And I'm actually gonna surprise you, because in a lot of ways, Zimbabwe actually is, or at least in one way, one of their metrics, it is kind of better than the U.S., but, but, but, but, you're gonna love this.
A new report published Tuesday by the World Economic Forum ranks 153 countries on gender equality.
The US?
Number 53!
Oh heavens!
Nordic nations led the way with Iceland topping the list.
Norway, Finland and Sweden were close behind.
They say, don't change women, change the world.
Read more in the Global Gender Gap Report.
Iceland is the best place to be a woman.
I actually agree with that.
Iceland is awesome.
Seriously.
It's expensive.
Because of like the nature of what Iceland is.
They got cheap electricity though.
You know, I went and visited there a couple years ago.
Awesome, beautiful place.
And what I was told, could be wrong because it's just what the locals told me, is that before the advent of geothermal energy, it was an extremely poor place to live.
People were just, it was awful.
Because everything was like coal mining and, you know, importing fuels and food was ridiculously expensive.
Then geothermal energy happened.
And all of a sudden they had this massive abundance because of all the vents and the
hot springs and the lava and all that stuff.
All of a sudden now, electricity was like super cheap for everybody.
And this meant they had a lot more time freed up to do other things and create a bustling
tourism industry and start bringing more money into the country.
Iceland is awesome.
And man or woman, it's a beautiful place, a lot of fun.
Not a big fan of the sunrise and the sunset times.
You know, like, being bright out at midnight is kind of rough.
But they say this, Nicaragua came in fifth.
Really?
Nicaragua came in fifth?
How is it so many Nicaraguans are trying to come to the United States when the United States is worse on gender equality?
No, let's be real, okay?
Just because gender equality is bad in the U.S., doesn't mean it's not better here.
And that's the big point.
You see stories like this, and I assure you, you're gonna get these social justice feminist types being like, look, it's worse here than in Rwanda?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
Let's put it this way.
If a woman is at, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being, like, extremely wealthy, 1 being extremely poor, If you have a man in the United States on average at a 6, they're just above average, and a woman at a 4, that's gender inequality.
But what if like in Zimbabwe the men were at a 2 and the women were at a 2?
Everyone's worse off.
So it's an interesting way to frame the debate in that just because men are doing better, it creates the perception that women are doing worse.
No, women in the United States are doing better.
I mean, come on, man.
All of the military industrial complex companies, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, they're run by women.
Man, how awesome is that?
So sure, maybe, maybe in Sweden, a woman is more likely to be a mid-level manager alongside a guy.
But in the United States, in the United States, a woman is more likely to be blowing up kids in the Middle East.
How about that?
Yeah.
How many boy- boy- boyer, warmonger, missile merchants do- Actually, Sweden has a lot.
Sweden exports a ton of weapons.
Anyway, you get the point.
In the United States, equality may be not as great, but at least you get to run the company that builds the bombs to blow up the kids you- all the- all the establishment people like, right?
I'm kidding, by the way, but yeah, what's up with the establishment?
Like, at least- at least you've got people on the progressive left who are anti-war.
But it seems like they often align themselves with the Democrats just because they hate Trump.
Anyway, let's jump from here.
It's funny.
Let's take a look at the report here.
The global top 10.
Look, I love that Sweden is in fourth place, and I'm going to show you why.
Rwanda in ninth.
Their criteria seems so dumb.
Here's the list of countries, and sure enough, over at 53 is the United States.
Overall, the year's positive results have been driven mainly by a progress on the political empowerment sub-index, as well as by marginal improvements on the health and survival and educational attainment sub-indexes.
Okay!
They say health and survival is a huge factor in gender equality.
Let's play a game. Let's play a game, shall we? In the United States, according to Kenoema—
No, Noema. Noema. That's the website. United States of America, the rate of women
intercourse without valid consent— I'll say it that way.
38.6 per 100,000.
That's pretty bad.
And that's based on 2015 stats.
Now, I know some people might want to dispute this.
They might say that's unfair because of the rules.
Why is that number so high?
Is it high?
I don't know.
Let me tell you something.
I don't care.
The data is the data.
Period.
It's intercourse without valid consent.
Period.
United States is ranked 53 in the world, health and survival.
And Sweden!
Sweden is ranked number four!
Great!
Women, you have better opportunities and more gender equality over in Sweden.
Why don't you go there and just about double your chances of being forced into intercourse without valid consent?
Okay, I'm not seriously advocating something like this.
But look at this rate of change.
From 2014, the change went up.
It's gone down in 2015.
It's gone down 12%.
Man, could you imagine it was higher than that?
Sweden has some of the highest rates of non-valid consent.
I apologize, this is YouTube, man.
You know, they're gonna shut me down if I say the R word.
But you get it.
Women are forced to do things they don't want in Sweden more than the U.S.
Let's play a funny game, though.
Let's play a funny game.
Zimbabwe was ranked higher than the United States, and it turns out it actually looks better!
But this data only goes back to 2008, and they were seeing a dramatic decline in the abuse of women.
The rate is 23.6 per 100,000.
So you know what?
I'll tell you what.
You want gender equality, go move to Zimbabwe.
Otherwise, you start to realize, for one, the data is not particularly relevant.
You know, what does it really mean that Zimbabwe, the U.S., and Sweden have varying numbers?
Well, it's because of cultural differences.
Can women report in the U.S.?
They're being encouraged to.
The number goes up.
In Sweden, they say they made it a broader law.
So the number goes up.
In Zimbabwe, it's probably the inverse.
It's probably dangerous to speak out against, to say, I don't know the army that is doing it.
You see the point?
We also, you know what?
I do have some other sources.
I can't show you them.
I really can't.
This is YouTube.
I'm sorry.
I can't do it.
Let me just tell you.
There is this idea that if you have a disease, you can cure it by abusing a child.
And that happens in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
So come on, let's not play games.
This argument, this data they present about gender parity literally means nothing.
It means nothing, but I assure you it will be weaponized by people for political ends in the United States to say we're not doing good enough if Zimbabwe is doing better.
They're not doing better.
Their army is abusing women.
Look, I got the article, man, from The Guardian, from January of this year.
Women in Zimbabwe demand action over alleged army... I'm not gonna say that word.
The GDP in this country is high relative to everywhere else.
And I'll tell you what, man, I have been to these countries.
I have seen real danger.
I have seen real abuse.
And I will tell you this.
Actually, I'll put it this way.
Brazil is down here at 92, all right?
Way below the United States.
There's a story I told you before.
See, I went to Brazil several times.
I love Brazil.
Brazil's awesome.
I went to one of the favelas, one of the biggest favelas in the world.
Complexo do Alamão, I think is how you say it.
Maybe I'm saying it wrong.
It's a complex of all these different favelas and hills.
We were interviewing someone.
It was a mother, maybe in her 50s.
And she asked, why the rich people in the United States are protesting?
And my response was, like, what do you mean?
This was back in, like, 2013 or so.
And she said – yeah, I think it was 2013.
She said, you know, through the translation, the Occupy Wall Street protests.
And I said, oh, no, that's actually – you know, Occupy Wall Street is, like, young people and, you know, the lower middle class complaining about wealth inequality.
And through translator, she laughs and says, all Americans are rich.
From her point of view, We are a country of wealthy individuals complaining.
To the world, we are the ivory tower.
And think about it.
They see the wealth inequality protests.
Their GDP is like eight grand a year.
Ours is like 50-something.
And they're like, these people make, what, like, you know, seven times the amount of money I make in a year, and they're complaining they want more?
That's crazy.
It's the same perspective.
Poor people in the United States are like, these billionaires, these millionaires, these rich people make all this money and they're complaining they want more.
No matter where you are, people look up.
So it's funny when I see that Namibia ranks higher in gender equality.
Let's break down what this really means.
Guess what?
If you're a woman in Zimbabwe, or a man in Zimbabwe, you're gonna make a dollar an hour.
Congratulations!
Gender equality.
You're both getting paid the same rate.
If you're a woman in the US, you're gonna make $35,000 to $40,000 a year, and a guy is gonna make $40,000 to $45,000 a year.
Make your choice.
You know what I mean?
Like, you want your $25, $30 an hour?
It's five percentage points lower than the dudes?
Well, we gotta figure that one out.
I think so.
I think that's fair.
I don't think we need to look to other countries and be like, well, it's better here, so we should ignore problems.
But let's be honest.
These polls come out, and this whole thing is pointless.
It is nothing.
You can't compare country to country.
This is what drives me insane.
If you want to talk about the problems the US has and say something like, men on average for the same work get 3-5% more pay, which is the number, maybe as high as 7 from some accounts.
They believe it's mostly due to assertiveness and women not asking, women not negotiating, if that's the case.
The point is, how about we actually tackle that real number?
Well, you can't.
You know why?
Because political individuals with agendas, they want to claim it's 30% or some fake number.
All right.
You want to talk about, you know, apples to oranges, all jobs to all jobs?
Well, there's less women working as petroleum engineers than, you know, than men.
So men across the board, regardless for hours worked or job type, will make more money.
If we actually want to talk about how we can get men and women paid the same, you got so much to go through.
Let me tell you something.
Millennial women, the data shows they actually make more than millennial men.
Boomer women make less than boomer men.
It's a cultural issue.
And I assure you, on the path we are on, the pendulum is swinging too far.
Wealth inequality is going to be really, really bad.
It's going to invert miserably.
Men aren't going to college.
Women are dominating medical fields, the media fields.
Yeah, men aren't working.
They're going to be making less money.
Now, maybe not.
Because these women, a lot of them are in debt.
College, I believe women now have the most college tuition debt.
That's because they're more likely to go to college.
But I'll tell you what, man, you can make more money as a plumber than you can as someone who's got a degree in feminist dance studies.
I know, I'm being a dick.
But if you go to the humanities, and you get a degree in, like, art history, don't be surprised if you can't get a job.
And the dude who learned how to fix toilets and repair people's homes has a good job.
I'll tell you what, man, If there were no feminist studies, gender studies, or humanities studies professors or degree holders, the world would get along just fine.
I'll tell you what, though.
You run out of plumbers, you're in trouble.
That poop's gonna back up, there's gonna be diseases, people are gonna be angry and uncomfortable, and the demand will skyrocket.
All of a sudden, you're gonna find plumbers making hundreds of dollars an hour.
Could you imagine?
What's going to happen?
There's already a decline in trades.
You know what I mean?
So you've got all these people going to college trying to be this expert thought leader in whatever field.
And I mean that.
How many people actually go to STEM relative to all the other fields?
No, they want to be philosophy professors or some nonsense.
You gotta recognize in the U.S., this number is inflated in urban areas relative to the middle of nowhere.
And Sweden has middle of nowhere areas, but it's smaller.
Less people.
That's crazy to me.
But you know what, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, they have different laws, different, you know, they talk about things in different ways, they work in different ways, you know, it's fine.
It's insane that people are trying to compare two countries and act like, with gender equality, Zimbabwe is better.
And you know it'll be a talking point.
So I'll tell you what.
I concede.
I concede.
You're right.
Zimbabwe is better.
The next time someone says the U.S.
is worse than Zimbabwe in gender equality, I will say, I will tell you what!
You let me know when you want to go live there and I will.
We'll work something out.
We will work it out if you want to go live in Zimbabwe.
I don't mean any disrespect to Zimbabwe, by no means.
I'm sure they've got a beautiful culture, and I'm sure they've got great food, and there's really nice places.
People often look to a lot of countries that aren't the United States or Europe, and they assume it's going to be horrifying and dangerous.
Nah, not the case, man.
Morocco was amazing.
Morocco's dangerous, but the places where people hang out are typically nice and safe.
A lot of the dangerous stuff you hear about these tourists going and losing their lives because they're going off in the middle of nowhere into dangerous places.
But that could be true even in the U.S.
The point is, Americans aren't fleeing in droves to go to Zimbabwe.
No, in reality we've got people from the Congo, Angola, flying to Brazil and Colombia and then trekking up to the U.S.
border trying to come here.
How could this be though?
Our gender inequality is so bad compared to these countries.
I'll tell you.
It's because people don't care.
The reality is, a dollar an hour ain't nothing.
If I got 50% less than a woman in the U.S., I still wouldn't want to move out of the country.
You still make more money here than anywhere else.
You get the point.
I'll see y'all at 4 p.m.
youtube.com slash timcast.
It is impeachment day.
I guess.
I'll see you then.
In news that will likely be shocking to no one, mainstream major news publications in the U.S.
took tons of money to publish Chinese propaganda.
Now, what is kind of silly about the whole thing is that China violated a disclosure law in order to publish the propaganda.
So good job, New York Times and Washington Post.
While China is doing horrific things to people and selling their organs, you're taking millions of dollars to run their advertisements.
And many of these advertisements actually look like articles.
Welcome to the world of media.
It's, it's, it's, it's... Look, this has been a problem for a long time.
And what I find funny is that this kind of stuff was being called out by gamers during GamerGate.
Now, whatever your opinion is on GamerGate, I don't care about the whole argument, whatever.
There were certainly people on the GamerGate side who were concerned.
That gaming companies were sponsoring the news sites that were then writing about those companies.
Certainly, that's a conflict of interest.
Well, what do you think happens when China pops along and says, we've got a million bucks for you to run this story?
And the New York Times and the Washington Post say, hey man, we need a million bucks.
They take that money, and then all of a sudden, all of a sudden those stories disappear.
The stories about what China's doing.
Now, of course, the New York Times, Washington Post, and others have reported on China, but you've got to be careful here, right?
I'll tell you what goes on.
I talked about this a couple weeks ago, but I'll tell you this.
Let's say a journalist working for a company like the Washington Post finds out that Star Wars is planning to end the Yoda character.
They're gonna retcon him and wipe him out completely.
And so they say, whoa, this is huge, and it'll cause a huge fan backlash if they report the story.
All of a sudden, all of a sudden, At News Outlet Washington Post, it's a call.
See, the journalists will contact Disney or whatever and say, are you really planning on getting rid of Yoda?
And then they say, yes.
But then all of a sudden, the company calls WaPo and says, we want to do a big ad buy with you guys.
Oh, but that story you're going to run?
That's a conflict of interest.
So then the Washington Post goes to the reporter and says, don't run the negative story on Disney.
Then all of a sudden there's a million-dollar ad buy for Star Wars toys.
That's how the game is played.
I'm not going to act like, you know, the New York Times is going to completely omit some of this news.
You can't.
You can't escape it.
But let me show you what they've done.
This is kind of creepy.
The Free Beacon reports, China routinely broke federal law by not disclosing how much it spent to publish regime propaganda in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers.
An expert review of foreign agent registration filings concluded, China Daily, an official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, has published hundreds of propaganda articles designed to look like ordinary news in some of America's most influential newspapers.
While foreign agents may place ads in the United States, the propaganda outlet has repeatedly violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act by failing to provide full disclosures about its purchases.
China Daily has published propaganda in mainstream outlets for decades, but did not disclose its purchases of space in American newspapers to the Department of Justice until 2012.
Even after it began acknowledging its relationship with the papers, the regime of mouthpiece continued to violate federal disclosure requirements.
China Daily has failed to provide breakdowns of spending activities and withheld copies of online ads, among other omissions that violate federal law, according to experts who reviewed years of its far-off filings.
Now, I'm going to stop you real quick.
Does some of that responsibility fall on, I don't know, the New York Times and the Washington Post?
I get it.
China Daily has to file those things.
But shouldn't the New York Times and the Washington Post not be taking millions of dollars from China?
Can we then trust their reporting on China?
I'm gonna go ahead and say the answer is no.
That's a big challenge, man.
You know, because you need money to do news.
And advertisers will pull out if you write bad things about them.
Now, I'll let you in on a big secret.
You see, people try to claim that there's always some kind of bias or, you know, behind a person.
They claim that I only say the opinions I say because I'm funded by the right or whatever.
No, not really.
These are just my opinions.
And sometimes I say things people don't like, and the reality is, I've been sitting here talking on YouTube for a while, and people started gathering around what I was already saying.
I didn't go find a crowd and then start yelling to them.
Right?
They built a brown wall.
And plus I'm like a weird, I'm in a weird position.
You know what I mean?
I get it.
The left hates the fact that I'm a lefty who rags on them.
But the reality is, you know, the people who donate to me, I don't like, I gotta be honest.
I don't know all of their opinions and there's no way I could plan pandering.
So, I'll tell you this.
Is there an issue with taking money from an individual who may be biased?
There is.
But, what's better?
You got government-funded news.
Well, the government's got a big centralized agenda.
Mmm, take that with a grain of salt.
You got corporate-funded news.
Eh, the advertiser's got a big agenda.
Take it with a grain of salt.
And you've got grassroots-funded news and commentary.
And I'll tell you what, with my funding coming from people who choose to donate, that gives me substantially more freedom to say whatever I want.
Because I'll tell you what, man, you know, with the... I think I have like a few thousand people who donate to me every month.
You guys are awesome.
I love you all so much.
Helping me do this work.
But, one person might think, you know, someone might say, chocolate ice cream is- I'm gonna use hypothetical here.
They'll be like, you know, Tim's pretty reasonable on X. And then another person might think, Tim's pretty reasonable on Y. And then I do a video, and one of those people might say, you've gone too far, you know, X is better.
And then they just cancel.
And I get these messages, people saying to me like, I can't believe you said that about this, that, and this, I'm canceling.
I didn't know you were gonna cancel when I said that!
So yeah, I can't control it.
The same is true for Rubin and Peterson and everyone else at the Patreon.
Dude, I can't con- I don't know.
Like, you know what, man, I have no problem saying I think Trump's got a bad behavior and I think the most sane and reasonable position is to be like, it's the economy, stupid.
People like that.
But I'm not a fan of the guy.
Am I worried that Trump supporters are gonna freak out and stop giving money?
I don't know.
I don't know what would make them angry.
I've made a video called Diversity is a Strength and Tucker Carlson is Wrong and explained what he was getting wrong.
I don't know if I lost money because of that.
I just, I can't track that.
People who can't, like on Patreon they try to make it so you can.
Anyway, the point is...
When you look at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and all that, the Wall Street Journal is pretty good.
I think we can see here that they've taken, well, second highest, so never mind, it's not that great.
I do like the Wall Street Journal's reporting.
But they are funded by readers, and so there is a pitfall here.
The New York Times bends over backwards to please their leftist base.
That to me is shocking.
I would have no problem, absolutely no problem, smack-talking a Republican if a Republican did something on par with what the left is doing with impeachment.
So here's the thing, right?
I've criticized Mitch McConnell over holding up, I think it was Merrick Garland, was that who it was?
Obama's appointee.
Because you can't argue that Trump is president and you gotta let him do his thing.
And, you know, then during Obama's term, the argument is basically the Senate and the executive branch were split, so an election will clear things up.
No, I don't care.
I don't care for that, dude.
I disagree.
I get the argument.
Nah.
Obama was president.
Obama gets to a point.
Trump is president.
Trump gets to a point.
Play the game straight.
I got no problem pointing that out.
The thing is, the Republicans aren't doing a whole lot like that right now.
Trump, his policies are working.
I don't want to turn this into a Trump thing.
I want to turn this into a news thing taking propaganda from China.
The point is...
These news outlets are systems, not individuals.
When the New York Times says to their staff, you're all leftists now because that's who's paying the bills, that's shocking.
When Tim Pool has an opinion, that's just Tim Pool's opinion.
You know what I mean?
Now everyone's going to make fun of me for talking to a third person.
I was making a point.
When I say, like, here's how I feel, it's literally how I feel.
I don't have a planning meeting where I'm like, let's see, here's what I should feel like tomorrow.
No, I read the news and I'm like, oh, harumph, I say.
And then I make a video where I shout harumph over and over again.
And if people like it, they watch.
You look at some of my videos and you can see they don't do that well.
You know, it's really frustrating because, like, I've done several videos on UFOs.
China Daily has placed most of their ads on the Wall Street Journal.
Shame on you.
That breaks my heart.
Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are the only papers that I actually pay for right now.
I canceled NYT and WAPO because I think they're awful.
But we can see this.
Okay, so that's China Daily has placed over 700 online ads, mostly with the Wall Street Journal.
Oh, that's online, I see.
China Daily has placed over 500 ads with over four outlets.
And these are physical, I believe, total pages.
The Washington Post is funded by China.
How about that?
They say a spokesman for the Post told the Free Beacon that the newspaper has run China Daily ads for more than 30 years.
By 2012, the regime mouthpiece's operation was running dozens of ads per year, mimicking real articles.
That's the line.
Check this out.
Look at these.
These advertisements are news articles.
They're being paid to run straight-up propaganda.
You know what's really funny, and the Chinese propaganda is coming to YouTube, people were being paid, I don't know how many people did it, to run a video criticizing the Falun Gong movement.
There was like an art show in New York.
So yeah, you gotta watch out for this stuff, man.
I don't think it's appropriate to do this.
But free money, right?
Free money.
There's a big question, you know, that I've had with many others.
Like, what if an oil tycoon came to you?
Like, how would you guys feel?
Comment below.
How would you feel if an oil tycoon came to me and said, here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to write you a check for $30 million.
$30 million and you can run a news organization exactly as you see fit.
But we're not going to tell you what to report on.
You can report on us.
So if I had free reign and an oil tycoon was offering money, is it appropriate to take?
I think the answer is no.
The answer is no, because just the perception of a conflict of interest is bad.
I want people to know that if I'm going to report on the oil industry, it's going to be fair and legit.
So I prefer grassroots fundraising.
More of a non-profit model, but it's kind of, like, so, you know, Subverse, for instance, is a for-profit.
Pay what you will.
You subscribe, you donate.
Same with my content.
They're different entities.
But the general idea is I would rather be funded by readers and avoid a lot of those pitfalls by taking money.
If we as news producers, you know, so I'll put it this way.
I've taken sponsorship from, say, like Virtual Shield, who I think they're really awesome, they've supported me.
So I would purposefully try to avoid reporting on a lot of these kinds of systems, specifically because it's a conflict of interest.
If I felt like I had information that was, you know, important enough, I'd still report on it, but I think you've got to avoid that stuff.
I can't trust these papers reporting on China because they're taking all this money.
So, you know, what do you do?
Is it right or wrong?
Like if China came to me right now and said they'll pay me $10 million to run one story, just one.
And then from then on out, I can report whatever I wanted, even if it was negative.
Is it worth it?
That's a big struggle.
It's a big challenge.
Compromising your values for one time.
You know what I think the problem is?
You can't do it.
You know why?
You can't take the money.
Because it's a slippery slope of, I'll just do this one thing right now, and then later I'll do the right thing.
But every day, every day you're striving to do the right thing, if, I'm sorry, if every day you're thinking you'll eventually do the right thing, you never will.
The ends don't justify the means.
I would not take the money from China or any of these, you know, or any special interests.
It depends entirely on my principles.
Like if, I don't know, a solar panel company hit me up and said they wanted to give me a bunch of money, I'd be totally down with that.
I think solar power is great, you know what I mean?
When it comes to the oil companies, I'm actually not as anti-screechy as a lot of the lefties are.
I wouldn't do it though.
And I think the challenge even with the solar panel thing idea is like as much as I like solar panels, would that present a conflict of interest if I had to report on corruption within a solar panel company?
Those are the challenges.
You can't turn away all advertisement just because you're concerned that one day you might have to report on it.
But I personally wouldn't take money from something that I thought I might have a conflict with.
You know, I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there.
You let me know what you think about China and these ads because I think the bigger problem is that they look like articles.
Make them real advertisements and say advertisement big and bold.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
No!
I'm shocked!
How could this be?
The Rotten Tomatoes tomato meter for Rise of Skywalker, 55%!
That is bad.
I got bad news for y'all.
It's actually worse than The Phantom Menace.
The Rise of Skywalker is bombing in the critic ratings.
But let me start by saying this.
Typically, when the critics hate a movie, on Rotten Tomatoes at least, the movie tends to be pretty good.
You know what I mean?
One example is like Death Wish.
Death Wish was a movie about Bruce Willis avenging his wife who got killed, and it was destroyed by the critics.
They called it a gun nut.
I'm going to be family friendly here.
Self-pleasuring fantasy, if you know what I mean.
The movie was good.
It was enjoyable.
It wasn't the best movie in the world.
I don't think it's going to win great awards, but it was a great popcorn flick to go hang out with your friends and enjoy.
It was good.
It's not like The Lord of the Rings or anything, but it was fun to watch.
If you want to go to the movies, I recommend it.
The audience loved it.
Critics hated it.
That tends to be the case.
Apparently now, I got bad news for y'all.
So they don't have the audience score yet.
We'll see what happens.
On some sites, it's actually like a 7 out of 10, so maybe it'll be good.
What I'm hearing from the fans is bad.
So the critics, you know, they're all nuts.
I don't know what their deal is.
They're access journalists.
Their goal is to write a positive review so they get invited to screeners.
But the audience, I don't have that problem.
But I'm hearing even from fans, it's bad.
So I found a leak.
I believe the leak is correct, and I read it.
And I won't spoil things for you, but it's bad.
I thought it was bad.
So, I'm going to give you a warning right now.
For those that really want to go see this, it's coming out tomorrow, the Thursday previews.
Be warned, I've got two articles I'm going to read for you.
Now, I believe they don't have spoilers, but I want to make sure I'm fair in pointing out there may be.
I don't know.
There's a Vox article that's slamming the film.
And a business insider slamming the film.
They're both kind of lefty.
Vox is a bit more lefty.
But be warned.
I'm just warning you now.
I don't think there's spoilers.
Forgive me if there are, but that's your warning.
Check this out.
Rise of Skywalker is the worst-reviewed Star Wars movie since Phantom Menace.
That means it's literally the worst-reviewed Star Wars movie.
Man, I don't want to spoil things for you, but can I give you... I'll save something for the end.
I want to tell you what my preferred route would have been for the whole series.
I did not see this movie yet, and I'm going to tell you this now.
I will not see this movie.
You know why?
I said I wouldn't see it after how bad The Last Jedi was, but I also said, you know, look, if the reviews come out and everyone's raving and cheering for it, I'll give it a shot because I think it's fair.
I'm not a crazy person.
I don't hold grudges.
The reason I don't want to see it is because I was worried it would be bad and it'd be sitting through that nonsense again.
Well, now that the critics are saying it's bad and even some fans are saying it's bad, I'm going to have to go ahead and say, yeah, it's probably bad.
Let's read the story from Business Insider.
They say, The movie, which has been touted as the conclusion to the Skywalker saga, has a rotten 57% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Mine said 55, maybe it's updated or whatever.
Based on 116 reviews.
Oh, whoa, that is an update from what I got.
Yeah, mine was 49 reviews.
You mean it's worse?
After 117 reviews, 56!
117 reviews 56. Oh, that is bad Wow
Star Wars is done, man!
Star Wars is over.
I heard The Mandalorian's pretty good.
I'm not gonna watch it.
I'm not gonna watch it.
I actually heard the first few episodes were really good.
They started getting worse.
So, we'll see what happens.
The only live-action Star Wars movie with a worse score is The Phantom Menace, which has a 53% critic score.
Ah, okay, okay.
The Clone Wars 2008 animated movie has an 18%... Whoa!
Yikes!
Attack of the Clones has 65.
I like Attack of the Clones.
Solo, a Star Wars story, has 70.
Never saw it.
The Last Jedi, which has drawn criticism from fans and even involved in the film, has a 91%.
I don't believe you!
I don't believe those are real.
Business Insiders' John Guaracio wrote, The Rise of Skywalker tries so desperately to service the fanbase that it loses sight of the story it's telling.
Below are more negative reactions from critics.
In its anxiety not to offend, it comes off more like fanfiction, all of them have been fanfiction, please, than the creation of actual professional filmmakers.
A bot would be able to pull off a more surprising movie.
The Rise of Skywalker is an epic failure of nerve, LA Times wrote.
The Rise feels more like a retreat, a return to a zone of emotional and thematic safety from a filmmaker with a gift for packaging nostalgia as subversion.
Not all the reviews were critical, though.
Richard Roper wrote that it rarely comes close to touching greatness, but it's a solid, visually dazzling, and warm-hearted victory for the force of quality filmmaking.
So that's where we're at so far.
But what we have here from Vox, The Rise of Skywalker is what happens when a franchise gives up.
The new movie is a colossal failure of imagination.
Let me tell you something.
I'm sure it's a fine popcorn flick.
A lot of people have really high expectations for all of these films because they're legacy films.
Let me tell you the hard, inconvenient truth.
The Last Jedi was not a good popcorn film.
It was not.
It made no sense, continuity errors, the plot was contrived and trashy.
Now here's the bad news I hear about this film.
It's not really a spoiler, but it may bother you, so you're being warned.
I heard it's a MacGuffin chase film.
You know what a MacGuffin is?
It's basically an object that just serves the purpose of pushing the plot along.
And that's what people were tweeting about.
That basically it's a whole movie where they're chasing after a MacGuffin.
But basically, I'm gonna have to tell you this.
And again, they say this.
They say, no spoilers follow, but strong opinions do.
Proceed at your own risk.
Alright?
This movie is apparently, according to no-spoiler-tweets, a shot-for-shot remake of Return of the Jedi.
I kid you not, you know exactly what's gonna happen.
That's why I believe someone said a bot would write a more surprising story than this.
Here's what I would have liked to have seen with the new Star Wars saga.
First of all, in The Force Awakens, I have no idea what's going on.
The First Order is so dumb.
It's the remnants of the Empire, whatever.
What is it?
The Resistance?
What are you resisting?
You're working for the government.
You're not the resistance.
You're the cleanup crew.
You're the local cops.
And they're like, we're the resistance.
No, you're not.
You work for the new government.
The remnants of the empire are not sanctioned anymore.
Therefore, you are just regular law enforcement.
I don't know.
Whatever.
Maybe I'm getting the details wrong.
But here's the thing.
Force Awakens is fine.
It's basically a shot-for-shot remake of A New Hope, and even Vox says that.
I think they do.
They say, let me make sure.
Okay, no, no, no.
I don't think it was Vox who said this.
One of the critics said it was a stealth remake.
And so, yeah, I agree.
I thought it was Vox.
Maybe they didn't.
Here's what I want to see.
Here's what I want to see.
Here's the perfect thing they could have done.
First of all, The main story was over.
It was the first three films.
The prequels told a similar story about Vader, but it was its own, like, unique films.
Force Awakens.
Kylo Ren is the bad guy.
He's taken after his grandpa, Darth Vader.
And then you get Rey, and she's like this mysterious Jedi.
The last Jedi should have been when they switched sides.
Everybody was hoping, like, I don't want to say hoping, but they were expecting that was a possible twist.
That, you know, Ben breaks down, he can't handle it, he regrets everything and he switches.
Because he grew up with this family and he was sacrificing it all.
But Rey didn't have a family.
She had nothing to lose.
She was angry and confused.
And the Dark Side was a path towards knowledge and power.
As someone who grew up so poor, it would have made sense for her to be like, this is my opportunity.
And it would have been great in The Last Jedi if all of a sudden they switched.
And then you know what should have happened in the third one?
Again, it's gonna get controversial.
Everyone's gonna get mad at me. It's my opinion.
Rey should have been the bad guy.
It should have been Rey...
The second one should have ended with Rey's fall to the dark side.
And the third movie should have been Finn, Poe, and these people fighting alongside Rey as she embraces the dark side and uses powers and abuses it.
And it should have been Kylo Ren becoming the good guy.
Now, I didn't see the movie.
That's just what I thought should have happened.
That clearly did not happen in The Last Jedi.
I'm gonna warn you again, I didn't see this movie.
It's not out yet.
But, you know, there may be something similar, like, because that's what the fans wanted.
But my understanding is that they just did a really, really bad job.
And you know what?
I'm sad to see it.
I'm sad to see it, but I will tell you one thing.
With the critics' reviews panning the film that much, I might actually go see it.
Because The Last Jedi's got a 91.
You know what I mean?
Actually, no, take that back.
If this one scored like a 10, I'd be like, wow, it must be really good.
You know, the last Jedi getting a 91, I'm like, ah, you're liars.
You're lying.
This is mixed.
It's a mixed bag.
Says to me that the movie's probably a mixed bag.
I hear the movie is not woke.
Okay?
I don't think that matters.
But basically, the biggest criticism is that it's just, it's like they remade Return of the Jedi.
Shot for shot remake.
nonsense, I kid you not. Like they're bringing back old characters like you
know Lando I guess and and I I don't know man. They're just trying to bank
some cash off nostalgia. It's it's you know what you know what it is? They're
killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That's what it is. They had an
interesting universe. They could have made it into something interesting. They
did not. They made it something dumb and they lit it on fire to squeeze out a
couple more golden eggs just before it crashes and falls into oblivion.
It's a bummer.
I used to be a big fan.
I love Star Wars.
I like the prequels, man.
I know a lot of people pan them.
I know they're campy.
I know the dialogue is kind of like eye-roll-y.
I enjoyed them, man.
I enjoyed the lore and the lightsabers and the Force.
I liked watching.
I liked Revenge of the Sith.
I think they could have done a better job on Anakin's fall from grace, but I enjoyed it.
The Last Jedi ended everything.
It was them being like, you know what it is?
Rian Johnson.
He did it on purpose.
That's my conspiracy theory.
I'm half-joking, by the way.
When Kylo says, let the past die, kill it if you have to.
That's exactly what he was doing.
He ended it.
You know, Rian Johnson was like, I'm going to end this series.
I'm going to be the knife in the back of Star Wars to finish it off for good.
And you know why I think that's the case?
Because I went and saw the film Knives Out.
I went and saw it because the ratings were like a hundred percent.
And guess what?
Knives Out was great.
It was really good.
I thought Looper was okay.
The Last Jedi was trash.
And then Knives Out was actually really good.
Now there's some political framing in it.
I've seen conservatives rag on Knives Out, but I'll tell you this.
In Knives Out, there's politics.
There's an SJW, there's an alt-right, but they rag on them both.
They show the SJW to be a bad person, and they make fun of the alt-right kid.
It's not a major plot point, and I thought it was funny.
I think it's funny to see both sides get taken out a peg or two.
And I was shocked, because Rian Johnson's kind of a, you know, lefty loon on Twitter.
And The Last Jedi was nuts.
But that movie was actually good.
It was actually pretty good.
Now the narrative is still, there's still like a lefty framing to it, so, you know.
Don't get me wrong, but I enjoyed it.
And it makes me believe he bombed The Last Jedi on purpose.
It really does.
I mean, it's possible he just doesn't understand how to do a good sci-fi flick, but people like Looper too, so...
You know what?
I'm done.
This is the end of Star Wars.
The critics hate it.
There you go.
What are you going to do about it?
You know, let me tell you something.
This is my understanding of the original films.
There's probably a lot of older people who get it.
But Star Wars was unique.
In the 70s, having a space film with these special effects was unique.
Lucas, you know, LucasArts created a lot of the special effects.
It was mind-blowing to see the stuff you never saw before.
It was the first time people got to experience being in outer space, like watching a film.
We grew up with Transformers and crazy robots, and like, we've got CGI.
So, they can't really capture the awe anymore.
Instead, they're just whacking nostalgia over our head to try and milk out some dollars off merchandise, but I'll tell you what, you could've done that with Baby Yoda!
They screwed that one up.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Let's end today on a silly note.
People say Santa should now be female or gender neutral, sparking debate.
One quarter of respondents in a poll reckon Santa should be rebranded as female or gender neutral.
But not everyone agrees with the concept.
First of all, I know it may be apocryphal urban legend that the origins of the modern Santa Claus being a fat, red-coated, bearded man comes from Coca-Cola.
I don't think that's true, actually.
I don't remember where it came from.
But Saint Nick is very much a... I don't want to say real person, because I know all the secular atheist types are going to screech at me.
But Saint Nick is not a fantasy holiday creature.
Saint Nick is... I believe he was a real person, Saint Nicholas.
And, um, at least, it's, look, I'm not gonna go research the history of Saint Nick, but, yeah, apparently there's, like, stories in, when I grew up, I grew up Catholic, they said that Saint Nick was a real person, and he would give out gifts, but it was not the North Pole with reindeer and elves, it was a regular guy walking around in robes, helping people doing normal things.
Nicholas becomes a jolly hefty man who gives out presents.
And with today's wokeness, some people are saying he should be female or gender neutral.
However, this story is absurd and silly because, dude, no one cares.
The amount of people who are actually saying this are probably no one.
And it comes from a poll of like 400 people on the internet where a hundred of them said he should be.
I don't think anyone actually cares.
However, It's a fun and funny thing to talk about.
And I'm gonna end today's show with a laugh.
Or today's segment's my, you know, podcast or whatever.
So let's read The Mirror, tabloid trash.
Many will always think of Father Christmas as a jolly, white-bearded fellow with a penchant for wearing red and eating treats left beside the chimney.
But now people are wondering whether Santa needs an update for modern times, as one company has offered the possibility of Father Christmas becoming a gender-neutral person.
You know what my biggest problem with Santa was?
When I would put out cookies in milk, I would come back in the morning, and there would be one bite in the cookie, and there would be a milk stain from someone's lips, and only, like, a sip of the milk was drink- was- was- was sipped upon.
Now, I get it.
When you're traveling to billions of houses, or, you know, hundreds of millions, you can't drink every glass of milk, but to take one bite- take the cookie home with you!
You're wasting cookies!
You know what we should do now?
We should put out cookies and milk, and also a to-go bag, so he doesn't waste the food.
I'm joking, by the way.
They say this.
Graphic Springs, a logo creation company, polled 400 people from the U.S.
and U.K.
about potential ways to modernize Santa, using the top suggestions to poll a further 4,000 people on how they envision him.
Okay, so it was more than 400, alright.
In total, over one quarter, 27% of respondents reckon he should be rebranded as female or gender neutral.
Now, I agree with this.
I absolutely agree.
And I'm going to explain to you why.
And you, men, will agree with me too.
I'm warning you all, I am joking.
I have to say that because I know there's going to be some wacko lefties who are like, he's serious.
Calm down.
But I'm going to show you something funny.
But I'm going to jokingly say, I agree.
Santa should be female.
I'll show you why.
Over on social media, the results of the survey have had mixed reactions, with some claiming the idea is ridiculous, while others don't understand the point in arguing over a made-up character.
This one's funny.
This person changed their name to Rogan is a gullible... I'm not gonna... It's a censored word.
Santix, the gender-neutral Santa.
Yes, change the A to an X. Wait, Santa is female?
Like an A at the end of the name?
This person said, Santa isn't real.
Thinking Santa should be female or gender neutral is no more moronic than thinking he should be male.
Oh no, no, no, no.
Look, characters exist, okay?
I'm all for equality, but the idea that we should make Santa gender neutral or female is ridiculous.
Nicholas, the guy who started the whole stocking hanging thing, was a man.
I think he was real.
I could be wrong.
I'm not a historian.
But, um, no.
No, Santa should be a woman.
Santa should be.
And I'm gonna prove it.
Give me a second.
I'm building suspense.
They say, but given Santa Claus is a fictional character designed simply to make Christmas fun for kids, does it really matter what's underneath his signature red outfit?
The issue of what gender Santa should be has taken on new significance in recent times, yes, because people are insane, as people on social media and even politicians are taking a stance on the issue.
Aaron Chandran, an independent counselor for Newton Aycliffe in County Durham, this is UK I believe, moved to ban female Santa Claus impersonators from taking part in an annual winter parade last month after two women volunteered for the job.
Okay, now that's nuts!
Who cares?
He said that the concept of a female Santa Claus was a form of political correctness, adding that it was a male role.
No, I don't care, okay?
Santa is Santa.
The reason you don't change Santa is because Santa is Santa.
What bothers me about the whole gender-swapping thing is it's like, dude, If you wanna race or gender swap.
To a certain degree, I don't care.
Like, whatever.
But just make new characters, dude!
And besides, Mrs. Claus is a thing.
I get it.
She's not flying around, dropping presents through chimneys.
But she exists.
There is a female counterpart to Santa Claus, with Mrs. Claus.
And she does her part.
I don't know what she does.
Maybe she manages the toy factory the elves are working at, you know?
Maybe she's a good union leader, and she provides great benefits for those elves.
I think that's the story.
Oh, there's more to the story!
They say Piers Morgan also chimed in on the subject, saying, on Good Morning Britain in response to the story last month, he's called Father Christmas.
The world's gone nuts.
Yeah, it's a good point.
Look, Santa is Santa.
What are we gonna do?
You know what it is, though?
I'll tell you this.
The left.
Not all of them, but many of these socialists and these, like, Marxist types believe that we have to purge tradition and history, otherwise we'll never break and, you know, create a new system.
They're technically, they're not wrong, right?
If you want to completely overhaul the system, you have to wipe out traditions.
We've seen this, we've seen it done in China, you know?
Or was it the culture revolution and the Great Leap Forward?
They wanted to get rid of old symbols so that people stop being attached to these ideas.
Negative opinions on the matter hasn't stopped some people moving forward with a different take on the traditionally male character.
They say, Pondsby Central, a shopping complex in Auckland, New Zealand, unveiled a Santa Claus modeled on Mary Poppins.
Complete wearing knickers and fishnet stockings last month.
Is that a guy though?
Is that a woman?
According to Stuff.co.nz, the staff at Pondsby Ponsonby, central and blunt, said the representation of Santa can be Mary Poppins or whatever race, gender, persuasion they prefer.
Do they have the story?
Because I want to see a photo of this.
Let's see if they got it.
Gender-busting Santa revealed.
It's just a dude with his gut hanging out.
That's not gender neutral.
That's a man who's not wearing pants.
What?
People are nuts.
Okay.
We'll come back to this story.
And now, for those that patiently waited, I'm going to explain to you very simply why Santa should be a female.
Yeah.
That's why Santa should be a female.
Mm, that's what I'm ta- I'm kidding.
Uh, no, I- A lot of people were making this joke, and I thought it was funny, because there are sexy Santa costumes.
I know people listening on the podcast are probably like, wait, what is it, Tim?
What is- It's a woman scantily clad, and she is quite attractive, and she is wearing kind of Christmas Santa clothes, It doesn't... would not work in a polar environment.
But, uh, she is a beautiful woman.
No, that's the joke.
Hold on, hold on.
I know a lot of you might be upset, saying that this is patriarchal, it's sexist.
What are you, Tim, becoming The Man Show?
Trying to take after Jimmy Kimmel?
Well, not like today, but like he used to be?
Okay, okay.
Alright.
There's the ladies and the LGBT people, the people who are attracted to guys.
You get your sexy Santa, man.
You know, when I searched for this photo, I just typed in sexy Santa to make a joke about, you know, a female Santa.
But sure enough, there's a bunch of dudes who are like ripped chiseled dude with huge muscles wearing a Santa vest.
I'll tell you what.
This woman is beautiful.
That's my preference.
I understand some women and some men may be attracted to these chiseled men wearing Santa-like clothes.
I will take any one of these over whatever this is supposed to be.
The gut-hanging-out, pantsless Santa.
A scantily-clad Santa, complete with fishnet stockings, has appeared atop a popular Auckland eatery.
Towering over Ponsonby Central, the larger-than-life Saint Nick sported an umbrella and bag with long red coat flapping in the wind.
But why is he not wearing pants?
And why is his gut hanging out?
On Monday, Bridges told—oh, who's Bridges?
The Mary Poppins-themed display took a coincidental tongue-in-cheek swipe at National Party leader Simon Bridges' comments about Santa Claus's gender.
On Monday, Bridges told the AM Show, just as Mary Poppins is a woman, Santa Claus is a man.
Okay.
He said the show's hosts were debating comments made by Neville Baker, which recently saw him sacked from his longtime gig as Santa in Auckland Farmers' Santa Parade.
In an interview with NC Herald about Santa in the Me Too era, Baker said, you can't have a Santa with boobs.
I reject that, and I present to you this very attractive model who has boobs, and apparently is Santa.
I'm kidding though, but no, yeah, Santa is a guy.
I don't understand, I'm sorry.
For those that are listening, you can't see this photo, but it is a fat Santa.
Santa's fat.
But his gut is hanging out over his underwear, and the cloak he's wearing only buttons up to just under his, like, upper chest, so his belly is hanging out, and he's in his underwear.
He's not wearing pants.
It's... I get the joke.
They could have made a Santa that was dressed like Mary Poppins, though, instead of, like, a dude who looks... I'm not trying to be mean, but, you know, it kind of looks like a homeless guy who doesn't really look like Santa.
Anyway, you know what?
I'm done.
I got... I'm traveling.
This has been a silly final segment.
I hope you enjoyed the nonsense and the irreverence to end your day, whenever you end up watching this, because sometimes the news gets us down.
It's always negative.
Everybody's always yelling.
At least now we can make fun of whatever this nonsense is.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10am.
Thank you for hanging out.
Podcast every day at 6.30 on all podcast platforms.
