Democrats HAVE NOT IMPEACHED Trump, Democrats OWN Witness Undermines Pelosi's Strategy
Democrats HAVE NOT IMPEACHED Trump, Democrats OWN Witness Undermines Pelosi's Strategy. Thought Democrats in the house did vote to impeach Trump, according to Harvard professor and Democratic Witness Noah Feldman impeachment is not official until the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate and Democrats appoint managers to prosecute the impeachment.This is significant because Democrats plan to withhold the articles for an undetermined amount of time and for dubious reasons.If Democrats refuse to file the impeachment than according to Feldman Trump can legally say and with a strong argument he has not actually been impeached.One analogy would be a Prosecutor announcing they will charge you with a crime but then never filing with the court so nothing ends up happening. Until the papers are filed impeachment HAS NOT Happened.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A couple days ago, House Democrats officially voted to impeach Donald Trump.
And immediately, the media ran the headlines, Trump is impeached.
Wikipedia publishes, Trump is impeached.
But that may just be media shorthand.
Because Trump is actually arguing he is not impeached.
Trump lawyers ask if Pelosi delay means he isn't impeached yet.
You see, the idea that Nancy Pelosi had was that she would not transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
But the Constitution makes it clear.
The House has the sole ability to impeach, and the Senate has the sole ability to hold the impeachment trial.
Trump's lawyers are arguing If the Senate hasn't received them, the impeachment isn't formalized.
Now, many people will say, it is a dirty trick.
It is Trump.
He's desperate.
He doesn't want to be impeached.
He's so angry.
But in reality, I'm sorry.
It's actually the Democrats' star witness, one of their star witnesses, Harvard professor and legal scholar who said Trump should be impeached, published this opinion piece saying Trump is not impeached.
Until the House tells the Senate.
I won't bury the lead for you guys.
It's actually quite simple.
He said a vote is not impeachment.
Impeachment is the process by which the House confirms it and then tells the Senate by going to the Senate and confirming impeachment is here and now you must try the President.
So long as Nancy Pelosi holds up the articles, impeachment never happened.
So I gotta say.
I find this whole thing quite confusing.
But upon looking at the latest news, reactions from the left, and the evidence, it seems like the real goal may not have been to even dig up bad press on the president.
I think what Nancy Pelosi may have actually been trying to do was just satiate the bloodlust of the leftists who demanded the impeachment of the president, many of whom don't realize that impeachment does not mean removal.
So we've got a lot to go through here.
Let's break down.
I'm going to tell you this right now.
What Noah Feldman is saying is actually fascinating and makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
I think, for all intents and purposes, we understand they impeached the president.
But I think for historical and legal context, we have to conclude today.
Donald Trump has not been impeached, unless or until the House confirms to the Senate by sending their managers, transmitting the documents, and saying it is official.
Think about it this way.
If the House votes on a bill, but then the bill gets thrown in the trash, did they really pass the bill?
I know it's probably a bad analogy, but the idea is there's more to the process of passing something than just saying we agreed to do it.
There's actually got to be a bill and some confirmation the bill exists and is moving forward.
So let's read the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
And this one, this one's gonna be contentious.
Because I tell you this right now, people who don't like Trump, these resistance activists, are not going to like this video.
They're probably not going to watch it.
Okay, so if you are watching it, if you did, I really respect that you decided to give this video a chance.
I'm not telling you you should like or not like the president.
I'm just letting you know Noah Feldman is a Democrat witness.
He testified for them.
He is telling you right now, they did not impeach the President.
Donald Trump is still the President.
He has not been removed, nor has he been impeached.
Simply because the Democrats in the House said they did it, doesn't mean it is formalized.
I think Nancy Pelosi is just trying to calm down the far-left base.
First, I want to show you the arguments from Trump's lawyers.
What's interesting here is that shortly after Bloomberg ran this story, Trump lawyers ask if Pelosi delay means he isn't impeached yet.
Noah Feldman published his op-ed in Bloomberg as well.
Bloomberg reports, Lawyers close to President Donald Trump are exploring whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision to temporarily withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate could mean that the president hasn't actually been impeached.
The case is a rhetorical one, following Wednesday night's votes to impeach the president on two articles.
The U.S.
Constitution grants the House of Representatives full authority over impeachment.
But the argument is part of an effort by the White House and Senate Republicans to maximize their leverage as lawmakers debate when and how to conduct a trial on charges the President abused his power to solicit an investigation into political rival Joe Biden and obstructed the Congressional investigation into the matter.
Now, I want to stop here and comment on this thing they said, that it's an argument by the White House to maximize their leverage.
I don't think that's fair considering Noah Feldman called for the impeachment of the president and is actually upholding that same argument, saying, no, Trump hasn't been impeached.
So here's what I want to do.
Let's break down what Noah Feldman said.
But I think there's one extremely important point you need to hear before we read why Trump was not impeached yet.
This is a list of impeachments, not just the United States, but around the world.
We can see here.
I believe this is in chronological order.
Or maybe it is.
It is.
They say Donald Trump, country, United States, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress, impeached by the House of Representatives, awaiting trial in the U.S.
Senate.
Unfortunately for Wikipedia, this is incorrect.
Donald Trump legally was not impeached.
I'm going to do a sidestep right now and just say this is the problem of Wikipedia and why I'm not as big a fan as I used to be.
They just repeat whatever the media said, but the media is wrong.
According to a legal scholar who, by any metric, would be the one we would defer to, yes, when he says Trump should be impeached, and yes, when he says he wasn't impeached.
The same is true for Turley and the other, you know, professors.
If you're an academic and you're an expert on the Constitution and you say Trump was not impeached, I defer to you over the journalist.
If you think Trump should be impeached on these issues, I will still defer to you over the journalists.
But they say Trump was impeached.
The important point here.
When we go down, we can see Bill Clinton, December 19, 1998, for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Two statutory crimes.
We go down, we can see Andrew Johnson, 11 high crimes and misdemeanors.
The fact of the matter is, Richard Nixon, who resigned before impeachment.
All of the other presidents who actually faced impeachment were being charged with statutory crimes.
Trump is the first president to face no statutory crime.
Abuse of power is a political opinion, and obstruction of Congress is also a political opinion.
Jared Golden A Democrat from Maine argued against the obstruction charge, saying it was rushed politically and the House did not use their legal remedies to go after Trump for refusing to abide by the subpoenas.
Basically, the House needed—or I'm sorry, the Democrats needed to go—or the House, yes—needed to go to the Supreme Court to get this cleared up, and they did not do that.
Therefore, you cannot argue obstruction of Congress.
But the fact remains.
This is wrong.
First, Trump isn't impeached legally.
If we want to say, you know, Noah Feldman is correct.
But there's also no crimes here.
No statutory crimes.
He is the first president in U.S.
history to face no statutory criminal charge in an impeachment.
But let's see what Noah Feldman has to say.
And I think it's fair to say that even if you're on the left, if you're being honest and fair, you will recognize Noah Feldman is correct.
He writes, Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment?
Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?
The Constitution doesn't say how fast the articles must go to the Senate.
Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.
But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem.
Impeachment, as contemplated by the Constitution, does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial.
Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution.
The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment.
And the Senate must actually hold a trial.
Think about that.
You could theoretically argue, based on Feldman's statement, that if the House refuses to hold a trial, Trump still wasn't impeached.
Now, that's a step too far.
But I think he makes a very fair point.
As the expert, I would defer to him.
I'm not saying he's the only expert.
I'm not saying he's the only person we should listen to.
But he's saying that they must send managers and the Articles to the Senate, confirming they have formalized the impeachment process.
Simply voting on it doesn't mean anything.
I think it's a fair point.
He says if the House does communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the President.
If the Articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all.
Now this is...
I mean, this is huge for Trump.
I think Pelosi is going to transmit the articles.
I think it'll happen.
And there are some far-left, I don't want to say far-left, but more progressive conspiracy theories as to what's really going on.
And I'm going to break them down for you.
But suffice to say, many people on the left think this is a plan to oust Bernie Sanders and not Trump.
It's an interesting idea that I want to go after.
But first, let's wrap up what's going on here.
I think it's a fair point these leftists are making about Bernie Sanders.
But let's read the argument about why Trump wasn't really impeached.
He says, Impeachment under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the President is impeached.
For whatever reason, Nancy Pelosi is saying she's not going to transmit this yet.
Some people think it's because she just wants the symbolic victory, but they know they will lose in the Senate and it could give Trump leverage.
But the more leftists, the idea they have is that they want her to withhold the articles until it can damage Bernie Sanders and other Democratic candidates who must be jurors because they're senators.
I've got an article, we'll pull it up, but let's read on.
As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying Trump impeached, those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement.
So far, the House has voted to impeach Trump.
He isn't impeached until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.
Think about it this way.
Before there was television and radio and whatever, they could vote on it and nobody would know.
Simply because we watched it on television doesn't mean it actually happened yet.
That's the most important part of the process.
It was created before transmission.
So I think it's fair to say.
You could argue now that technology has developed, we use electronic voting in the House, we all know they voted to impeach Trump.
Colloquially, he was impeached.
Based on the legal standard of the Constitution and what existed back then, just because the House votes, nobody knew they voted, nobody would know he was impeached until they go and confirm it with the Senate.
Trump hasn't been impeached yet!
Now, I do think it's funny because I got another article I want to show you about all these, you know, liberals cheering and dancing thinking it literally means Trump is out of office.
Literally nothing has happened yet.
Let's read on.
He says, Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented.
Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution's clear expectations.
For the House to vote to impeach without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol.
It would mean that the President had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution, and it would also deny the President the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.
So the process is incomplete.
It didn't happen until Trump has a right to defend himself, because the impeachment process defines the President's right to defend himself.
The relevant constitutional provisions are brief.
Article 1 gives the House the sole power of impeachment, and it gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments.
Article 2 says the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Noting again, Trump has not been accused of any statutory crime like the other presidents.
Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him.
The provision says nothing about timing.
Taken literally, they don't directly say the articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate.
But the framers' definition of impeachment assumed the impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.
The framers drafted the Constitution provisions against the backdrop of impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments.
The whole point of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords.
Strictly speaking, impeachment occurred and occurs when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial.
And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.
What would make that trial fair?
It's a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion.
But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial.
That's what the sole power to try all impeachments means.
If the House votes to impeach, but doesn't send the articles to the Senate, or send impeachment managers to carry its message, it hasn't directly violated the text of the Constitution.
But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution's description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate.
That's built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there can be no trial there.
That's what the sole power to impeach means.
But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he has never actually been impeached, and that's probably not the message congressional Democrats are hoping to send.
Now, I typically don't like to read through everything, but the context here is extremely important if I'm going to explain to you.
And he broke this down.
Let me reiterate.
Noah Feldman was the Democrats' witness.
And he is now saying, you didn't impeach the president.
You gotta transmit those articles.
It's no surprise, then, we see this.
Mitch McConnell to Pelosi.
You can keep the articles of impeachment.
He didn't care.
He's saying, fine, don't send them forward.
Trump's team is arguing he hasn't been impeached at all.
So Mitch McConnell's gonna sit back and say, by all means, don't send them our way.
MSN.com reports, who's the actual, NBC, is this NBC?
I think it's, oh, it's the Examiner, I'm sorry, it's the Washington Examiner, okay.
They say Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday he wouldn't negotiate the terms of a Senate trial with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who's threatening to withhold the articles of impeachment.
He said, it's beyond me how the Speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage.
Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial.
Well, there you go.
The next thing, So, this is from Pelosi.
The next thing for us will be when we see the process that is set forth in the Senate, then we'll know the number of monitors that we may have to go forward.
Pelosi must appoint Democratic lawmakers to serve as managers to prosecute the case in the Senate.
So, up until that point, he has not been impeached.
The argument then arises, why is Nancy Pelosi withholding the articles in the first place?
Well, she's saying she wants a fair trial in the Senate.
Mitch McConnell has already said he's going to walk in lockstep with the President.
Personally, I don't like that idea.
Mitch McConnell should be fair and impartial and you don't need to act like you're going to be working with White House's legal team to be fair and impartial and to recognize Trump should not be impeached for these things.
If you are of the opinion Trump has done nothing wrong, you don't need to say you're working with the president to do it.
So that was a mistake.
However, they didn't impeach the president and that's what matters.
So I wondered why Nancy Pelosi then voted on this and why she's really withholding these articles.
I said before, it's a kamikaze.
It's their last-ditch effort.
They know they're going to lose the majority in 2020.
It may be a symbolic victory.
The reason she's not transmitting the articles is because she doesn't want to lose the power once the Senate takes the reins.
So now they've won.
They've gotten their impeachment.
Everyone cheers.
Take a look at this story from the Pluralist.
From Pluralist, not the, from Pluralist.
Liberals on Twitter think impeachment means Trump is getting kicked out of office.
Idiots!
Well, Pluralist's opinion is very clear there, but yes, they do show many people on Twitter, and you can just go look it up, who are cheering and posting dancing videos and say, the president has been removed!
They're saying, Trump has been impeached and kicked out of the White House!
They're posting things saying, buh-bye!
When, first of all, Sadly for these people, Trump hasn't actually been impeached yet.
That's what's so funny about it.
I think Trump will be impeached, right?
I think they voted for it.
I think they'll get on with it.
But let me do this.
While all of these people are cheering and dancing, thinking Trump isn't the president anymore, when he is, this... Well, let me go back and just make sure I make this point clear.
The Democrats and Pelosi were worried that the base was salivating and demanding impeachment.
These moderate Democrats knew that if they didn't vote to impeach Trump, they would be primaried and they would not get reelected.
Jeff Van Drew switched the Republican Party.
Here we can see what I think I think we can see what actually happened.
You see, Pelosi knows She knows that people don't know what impeachment means.
And she knows that they can actually not impeach the president so long as they claim they did.
So they voted for it, the left all cheers, and they never actually formalized the impeachment, but now their base is riled up and happy thinking they've won.
And Pelosi actually says, both sides have a spring in their step.
Perhaps that was the real point.
But there are many people, Bernie Sanders fans particularly, who have another conspiracy theory.
See, everybody knows Donald Trump isn't going to lose this fight, and that it's dramatically helped the president.
This is why I think this is an entertaining idea.
I don't like playing the conspiracy game, but let me entertain what people are saying on the left.
And I don't mean like the establishment left, I mean the Bernie supporters.
You see, When you think about impeachment and you see my complaints, I'm like, everything the Democrats have done with impeachment has helped Donald Trump.
His approval rating is up.
He's winning in the polls.
I got a new poll to show you from CNN showing Trump now basically beats everybody.
He's fundraising tens of millions of dollars.
Why would they do this knowing Trump is going to win?
Well, here's the theory.
It's to take down Bernie Sanders.
To make sure he cannot campaign.
To make sure other Senate Democrats they don't like also can't campaign.
But guess which two candidates can?
Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg.
That's right.
They have no Senate obligations for the impeachment trial.
Nancy Pelosi withholds the articles.
Waits till after Christmas, once we start getting into, like, full swing election season with Super Tuesday coming up, then she transmits them, then the Senate trial begins, and guess who gets removed from the campaign trail?
Bernie Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren.
Guess who doesn't?
Buttigieg and Biden.
Also Yang, right?
Check this out.
This is a story from time.
They say, if the House votes to impeach Trump, thereby catalyzing a trial in the Senate, it'll mark a profound political and historical moment.
But it'll also usher in an extraordinary logistical challenge for the six sitting Democratic Senators duking it out for their party's presidential nomination in 2020.
They may be required in Washington during the peak of the early primary campaign.
I'm sorry.
That's going to knock out a lot of very, you know, top-tier candidates.
And it's going to pave the path for Joe Biden and for Pete Buttigieg, the establishment favorites.
Pete Buttigieg hasn't always been the establishment favorite, but he's certainly rising in the ranks.
He's courting billionaire donors, and Bernie Sanders called him out for that.
Now, I've been very critical of Bernie Sanders for his pandering.
But I've also given him respect for saying it like it is.
Like, at one of the previous debates, Elizabeth Warren refused to say they would raise your taxes.
And then Bernie stopped and said, we're gonna raise your taxes.
And I'm like, thank you for being honest.
If people disagree with you, now they'll vote against you.
I respect that.
I think Bernie's played the game a bit too much.
But I think it's fair to point out, as of now, Well, the left is being smeared by the press, and the DNC has been cheating for a long time.
But I'm hoping that these progressives, anti-establishment, and populist left start realizing, you gotta admit it, Trump was right about the cronies in the DNC, and Trump is right about the media.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is running for Congress, and they're pulling out all the stops to smear him in completely unfair ways.
Now look, I've criticized, you know, Cenk, and he yelled at me.
But I think it's fair to call him out for what he's actually done wrong, not to lie about what the guy actually believes.
And they do the same thing to Bernie.
And they do the same thing to Yang.
But what happens with Joe Biden?
Joe Biden can do no wrong.
Joe Biden and Ukraine do no wrong.
And sure enough now, if Pelosi withholds these articles until we get into Super Tuesday season, she is going to negatively impact These other Democrats.
And they don't like Bernie, and they want to stop him.
So I'll tell you this right now.
I'm not saying the conspiracy is really there, okay?
That's what people on the left are saying.
In my personal opinion, I think what makes more sense is that the Democrats are just aimless, out of control, and have no idea what they're doing.
But we got a new poll here.
This is from CNN.
Trump is tied with Biden.
He beats Warren by two points, Sanders by four, Buttigieg by five.
There you go, man.
Impeachment has been just everything Trump needs.
I've got one more thing to end with, though.
It's official.
Trump announces former Democrat Jeff Van Drew is joining the party with a handshake.
And I believe in the Oval Office, they say this.
Donald Trump announced Rep.
Van Drew would be joining the Democratic Party.
No, you mean Republican Party, as the former Democratic congressman stood alongside the president in the Oval Office.
You guys got a big ol' error right there.
But I watched the video.
You can see it.
Van Drew sits around.
But more importantly, Jeff Van Drew received the endorsement of Donald Trump and I believe Kevin McCarthy.
I think also maybe Pence.
They're endorsing him.
They're standing behind him.
And I think they're going to put their full weight into making sure Jeff Van Drew gets re-elected to prove a point.
That those loyal to the President will receive their support and will be victorious.
But we'll see what happens in the end.
What really matters is... Okay, listen.
By the time you watch this video, maybe Nancy Pelosi transmitted the articles.
I don't know.
So far, though, if anyone asks, send them this video.
Trump has not been impeached yet.
You can't just say we all agree to impeach the president and then do nothing.
You actually have to confirm the process by sending the managers who are prepared to prosecute the impeachment.
And I'll leave you with one more point.
As I stated now twice, you need to recognize that Trump is the first president to be, well, almost impeached to go through the process, but be accused of no statutory crime.
That's important.
I could be wrong, but based on my understanding of what we've seen so far, just Trump.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
J.K.
Rowling came out in support of a woman who was fired for her tweets about transgender women.
The Harry Potter author is facing intense criticism for backing Maya Forstater, who opposes the UK government's proposal to allow people to change their legal gender.
The case has driven hashtag IStandWithMaya.
You may have seen this story, because I covered it yesterday, but we have some interesting developments, and it's kind of made me particularly frustrated.
I have some bad news for people.
Science is a thing.
And you can't just say something is anti-science without actually having academia to back it up.
Now you have a bunch of activists, you have a bunch of organizations condemning J.K.
Rowling because she said something that is currently backed by science.
Now, I gotta warn y'all.
Science changes, okay?
We can be wrong about things, and we may learn and reassess and change how we view the world.
But the fact remains, until that happens, you are being anti-science when you accuse J.K.
Rowling of being anti-science.
Okay, okay, I gotta slow down.
A lot of you are probably like, wait, wait, wait, what's happening?
All right, first.
J.K.
Rowling.
She writes Harry Potter.
We all know that.
For some reason, she can't seem to just stop.
Like, I'll tell you this.
The past few movies, the Grindelwald things, I said this the other day.
It's from this guy, Nathan Grayson, who is a reporter at Kotaku.
Now, I can imagine that him being someone at Kotaku we probably have political disagreements, but I think, I have to say, I completely agree with him right here when he says, JK Rowling will forever be remembered as a person who could have shut the F up after 2007, but for some reason did not.
Okay, this is an update to a story, so I don't want to waste too much time telling you everything, but basically there's a woman named Maya Forstater.
Her contract expired, and they wouldn't renew her contract.
She apparently had a hearing because the reason they wouldn't renew it is because she's made controversial statements.
Actually, I don't think they're controversial at all, but I guess everything is controversial because everything is anti-science and everyone's insane.
But anyway, they wouldn't renew her position.
And she said, here's an example of something that made it so that she couldn't work there anymore.
She said, I am perfectly happy to use preferred pronouns and accept
everyone's humanity and right to free expression.
Trans women are trans women.
That's great.
But enforcing the dogma that trans men are women is totalitarian.
Okay.
Here's another person who tweeted at her.
This is a strange case.
When women wear flats, trousers, and no makeup, they don't become men.
And she said, no, indeed.
And when men wear makeup, heels, dresses, they don't become women.
But the norm seems to be that we should pretend they do to avoid hurt feelings.
These are the tweets that got her in trouble and resulted in her not getting... So, she wasn't fired.
Her contract isn't being renewed.
That's what's happening.
She also tweeted that she doesn't see the difference between a man claiming to be a woman and Rachel Dolezal pretending to be black.
J.K.
Rowling tweeted in defense of her, saying something like… Actually, do they have the tweet from J.K.
Rowling?
I have another article that I want to show you.
She said, Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who will have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
I stand with Maya.
Hashtag this is not a drill.
Here's the update.
We are now seeing tweets from some celebrities that prove to me social media has created
These people are absolutely insane.
And you know what, Mark Hamill, you are not being spared.
You know what, Mark Hamill, your voice acting is impeccable.
You are the best joker of all jokers.
In my opinion, I know, and it's the animated series, but in the video games too, it's Joker voice.
It's the Joker.
I mean, I grew up with that.
Much respect.
And you're Luke Skywalker.
I can separate that from the artist and absolutely commend you on being a tremendously great and talented artist when it comes to politics.
I'm sorry.
I try to avoid doing things like this, but I have to say it.
Mark, you are being a spineless coward.
Okay?
And I'm not saying that because I'm trying to hurt your feelings or just make an emotional dig.
I'm saying that in the truest sense of what those facts mean.
Alright?
Let me explain.
He liked the tweet from JK Rowling.
I can respect that.
Fine.
What I can't respect is this.
A woman on Twitter.
Why did you like this transphobic tweet?
Mark Hamill's response.
Ignorance is no excuse.
But I liked the tweet without understanding what the last line or hashtags meant.
It was the first four lines I liked and didn't realize it had any transphobic connotation.
Mark, you just told us that when you like tweets, when you interact with these things, you don't understand them.
Now, okay, I'll be fair.
Maybe it's the one time Mark didn't really understand what he was liking.
Or maybe Mark doesn't really understand what he's liking at all and what he's apologizing for.
He just said he didn't realize it had any transphobic connotation.
And you know what that means to me?
He still doesn't understand why it does.
He's just saying, oh, some random person on the internet got mad.
Better change my political opinions.
Bravo.
I'm sorry.
You have no spine.
And it's not just Mark Hamill.
Patricia Arquette apparently said, I do not stand with Maya for many reasons.
OK, you know what?
Listen.
There's a difference between protecting someone's feelings, respecting their humanity, making sure that in our society they will remain safe and have access to programs and healthcare, and all of that is important and must be accomplished.
There's a difference between that and saying that females also are warranting the same protections.
That there is a distinction between a trans woman and a biological female.
For whatever reason, they don't want to do that.
So I'll tell you what.
Let me show you a few things and, you know, we're going to play this game.
This is why I think, first, social media is creating a cult.
And the evidence is that Mark Hamill has no idea what he's apologizing for because he doesn't even understand what's wrong with the tweet in the first place.
Basically, he's bending the knee to a random account.
Could you imagine if, like, there was a president of a country, and he said, we need to pass this law to reform this, you know, criminal justice thing, and then a random cartoon character on the internet said, you're a bigot.
Whoa, whoa, I am.
I better change.
I better backtrack on all of this.
What are you doing?
You don't even know what happened.
You don't even know why it was transphobic, and you're like, I better apologize.
What if someone else tweeted, like, you know what?
Basically, no matter what Mark Hamill likes now, just call it transphobic.
He'll be like, oh, I didn't realize.
I didn't know.
Because he still doesn't know.
This is what makes it a cult.
They have no idea what they're doing wrong.
They're just scared of the outrage mob.
So they say, you tell me what to believe, and I'll believe it.
Sorry, that's not, listen.
I like GLAAD.
They tweeted, but I have to say, there's a lot of organizations that I feel like are betraying civil rights for the sake of some kind of political brownie point based on weird cartoon avatars on Twitter complaining all the time.
Glad tweeted, JK Rowling has aligned herself with an anti-science ideology that denies the basic humanity of people who are transgender.
Trans and non-binary people are not a threat to women.
And she didn't say that, did she?
And to imply otherwise puts trans people at risk.
Now is the time for feminists who know and support trans people to speak up and support trans people's rights to be treated equally and fairly.
Okay, let me stop.
First, in no way Did J.K.
Rowling say that trans people were a threat to women?
In no way.
In fact, the original woman, Maya Forstater, said she absolutely respects the humanity and protects trans women.
Maya Forstater has a tweet where she said, the issue is that being female is immutable.
It is a characteristic.
It is a protected class.
And if you remove that distinction, you are getting rid of that protected class.
And that's what I've said.
How can you expand the protection of civil rights by literally passing a law to take away civil rights
protections from biological females?
And this is the crazy world we live in.
We need... as I stated the other day, when I did... I think it was on this video.
So this is the update.
But as I said the other day, if we really want to protect the civil rights of everybody, we need to understand the distinction between the groups.
Saying trans women are women actually serves to undermine both groups in different ways.
No, we should actually say trans people are protected for a variety of reasons, women are protected for a variety of reasons, and make that distinction.
But because people want to just, I guess in their minds, literally be something that at least based on today's technology they can't be, We are undermining actual civil rights.
That, to me, is nuts.
Now, first of all, Maya Forstater, they didn't reinstate, they didn't re-up her contract?
Well, that's too bad, right?
So, you know, to correct the last video, the update, now I understand it, it's just them saying, your contract expired, have a nice day.
Okay, you're done.
If somebody doesn't want to rehire you, well, too bad.
They didn't fire her because of it, they just don't want to re-sign her contract, fine.
I don't think that's kind of dumb, but let's get into the nitty-gritty and the science.
The HRC, the Human Rights Campaign.
Believe it or not, I've actually used, as a fundraiser, I used to canvas for the Human Rights Campaign, and I've raised a lot of money for them.
It was a few weekends for like Pride events and stuff, and I have a lot of respect for what they, I guess, used to do.
Did you know that the HRC, and this is just my understanding because this is like 13 years ago, They supported a bill that didn't provide protections for trans people because they thought it was more expedient.
This was at least what I heard from internal people working for these organizations.
And so there was a big backlash between a lot of other LGBT rights organizations saying the HRC was leaving trans people behind.
So they don't have a perfect record on this.
But you know what?
If they're now coming out and doing right by the trans community, and everyone's happy with it, I can respect them now getting on board with what they feel is principled.
Except, let's look at the tweet.
Trans women are women.
Trans men are men.
Non-binary people are non-binary.
C. C. J. K. Rowling.
Okay, okay.
First of all, non-binary people are non-binary.
Yes.
That's literal.
I agree with that.
That's like saying a tree is a tree.
Well, right.
You called it a tree in the first place.
That's fine.
Trans men are men in a certain kind of social context that exists only for a small group of activists.
Trans women are women, also the exact same thing.
And now I know immediately, you know, whenever I say stuff like this, it's like the left is going to freak out, but I have to tell you something.
It's not my opinion.
I am not saying these things to be hurtful.
I am saying that currently, based on human knowledge and the structure of the English language, what they said is just fundamentally false.
If you Google the word woman, They tell you a woman is an adult human female.
And now we are getting to the point where definitions literally don't make sense.
Okay?
An adult human female.
Do you know the definition of man is?
An adult human male.
However, I would like to point something out.
Interestingly, trans men are, in fact, men.
This is a fact.
You cannot argue this fact.
You know why?
Because a man and men are also defined as humanity.
In which case, that actually makes sense.
Now, I think the issue is how they're kind of framing it.
I understand that's not what they're saying.
But that actually does make sense semantically.
Man can be used to reference any human being of any gender.
Perhaps there's some kind of sexist, patriarchal thing to complain about there?
Don't ask me.
That's not the point I'm bringing up.
I'm just noting that if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of whether or not this stuff makes sense, yeah.
The problem is, trans women are women becomes—I mean, both, at what the HRC is trying to explain—becomes complicated, right?
Here's the Wikipedia page for women.
I have shown this many a time.
It says, A woman is a female human being.
The word woman is usually reserved for an adult.
Girl is usually the term for a female child or adolescent.
The plural women is also sometimes used for female humans, regardless of age, in phrases such as women's rights.
Typically, a woman has two X chromosomes and is capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause.
Female anatomy, as distinguished from male anatomy, includes the fallopian tubes, ovaries, uterus, vulva, etc, etc, etc.
You get the point.
Here's what happens.
A lot of trans activists, or weird lefty, I don't know, people who just want to be mad on the internet, say things like, so actually, let me do this.
In the Reddit threads for this story, people are saying, wait a minute, gender is a social construct, but sex is an immutable characteristic.
And then you see the same argument from many of these activists saying, Did you ever ask someone if they have a uterus before referring to them as a she?
And that's their argument, but that doesn't change the fact that there's not one thing that makes someone male or female, alright?
This is the argument they try and use to argue why trans women are women.
But they're using social constructs.
So to go to Maya Forstater's point, When she said, if a woman wears trousers, she doesn't become a man, and if a man wears a dress, he doesn't become a woman.
Exactly.
This creates a conundrum in what they're trying to explain with changing definitions.
But let me wrap up on this and come back to the social construct argument for the trans thing.
It says, a woman is a female human being.
Okay, let's see what female means.
However, it also says, some women are trans.
That literally makes no sense.
If you want it to be true, that's fine.
It's not an argument about opinions or ideology.
I'm literally telling you.
You can't simultaneously say at the same time, a woman is a female human being and some women are trans.
The some women are trans would then actually mean that some women are trans men.
Okay, if they're saying woman means female and some females are trans, trans people who are female and transitioning to male are trans men.
See, none of this makes sense, alright?
Therein lies the big problem.
What's interesting about Wikipedia is that because people I know I've shown this before, but it all bears repeating.
Female is the sex of an organism or part of an organism that produces non-mobile ova eggs.
Barring rare medical conditions, most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes.
Female characteristics vary between different species, with some species containing more well-defined female characteristics, such as the presence of pronounced mammary glands.
There is no single genetic mechanism behind sex differences in different species, and the existence of two sexes seems to have evolved multiple times independently in evolutionary lineages.
The term female comes from the Latin femella, the diminutive form of femina, meaning woman.
Etymologically related to the word male.
That's really interesting too.
So let me tell you this.
They try to say that, oh, you know, some people will say female are people who have babies.
And then the leftists will be like, so if a woman has a hysterectomy, she's no longer female?
Oh, gotcha.
No.
Okay?
It is a collection of general understandings and general characteristics to both groups, typically related to the two dominant in a bimodal system, Sexes.
They say, barring rare medical conditions, most female mammals have two X chromosomes.
What's missing from the whole argument is that… well, actually, it's not missing.
It's just… what I think ends up happening.
is you have people on the right try to give a simplified general understanding without being able to attack the nuance.
And the left exploits that by saying, so if a woman can't have kids anymore after menopause, she's no longer a woman?
That's not true.
So let's wrap this up.
And I want to talk to you about the big problems that we're having from the left and why it's not conducive to actually helping civil rights.
First, as I've said a million times, I think we need to make sure that trans people are protected, they can have rights, jobs, that they're not going to be discriminated against.
All of these protections need to exist.
If we want to make sure those protections exist, we need to make sure we can form a legal distinction as to what is being protected.
Herein lies the big problem.
If you claim gender is a social construct, then how do you define what a woman really is?
What makes a dress a woman?
If a person puts on a dress and a wig, they don't become a woman?
Or they do if they say they are?
At what point?
But more importantly, If a woman can wear, like if an actual woman can wear a suit, a three-piece suit, then if a man is wearing a three-piece suit, can he say he's a woman?
Right?
So the issue becomes, if you're claiming there is nothing, like they're simultaneously arguing.
That a female human being could wear male traditional gender role clothes and still be female.
That she should not be in any way ashamed if she wants to wear certain clothes.
And you've seen many males, particularly on the left, who will wear dresses and still identify as male, and they say they're doing it to break gender roles.
Okay, that I get.
At what point does he become a woman?
Is it simply because he says, I am or I'm not?
In which case, the clothes are completely irrelevant.
If you remove all of the social constructs from the picture, you basically have two naked individuals who can simply say they are or they aren't.
How do we protect someone's civil rights if we can't even define what that person is?
Therein lies the problem with trying to do this their way.
If the activists stop trying to assert some kind of moral victory on the definition of a word, we could actually define in legal terms what a transgender person is.
A person assigned at birth, one sex, who then uses hormone therapy or other issues to transition to the other sex or whatever.
It's complicated because hormone therapy really doesn't change your sex in the first place.
So what really needs to happen is a conversation around what sex is versus gender and how that actually merges or how they interact with each other.
As I just stated, the main problem is that if gender is a social construct and there are infinite genders, then literally You know, any of these people, I could call them male or female simply based on my own personal opinion of them, right?
Here's a trans woman and a woman.
I can say they're both men or they're both women or neither are men or neither are women because there's no way to determine whether or not they are or aren't based on what they look like because, as the activists themselves have stated, gender is a social construct.
So I'll leave you with this.
To the HRC, I need to ask you a question.
Can you define the word woman?
And I ask this in complete sincerity.
Can you define that word?
Recently, we saw a video.
Actually, it may have been old, I don't know, but it was Jo Swinson of the UK, of the Liberal Democrats.
She was asked on a call to define the word woman, and she could not.
Her response was, I think we all know what it is.
I'm sorry, I don't.
Okay?
I don't.
I really mean I don't.
Because Wikipedia tells me it's an adult human female.
Webster's Dictionary.
Adult human female.
That's it.
So, if someone is biologically male and takes hormones, they are not an adult human female.
They're still male, but they're taking hormones.
So, they're a trans woman.
It's a different thing, right?
If you're saying they are women, then I need you to give me a legitimate definition so I can understand what your argument is.
I would like to agree with you.
I would like to agree with everybody, okay?
Well, not everybody.
The point I'm making is, We want to come to terms and understand each other and figure out how we can live together in agreement, right?
That means I need you to define what this means so that I can agree with you.
Because right now, basically, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I really, really don't.
Okay?
And I mean that in all sincerity.
I have no idea what that means.
Is it just like...
I literally can't understand what that is, because the definitions do not fit that.
And so far, I have not seen a single definition of what woman or man is from these groups, other than saying trans women are women.
Okay, if woman isn't about a collection of characteristics related to, you know, your biological structure, which is basically what it is, adult human female, and it's a social construct, then someone could wear a potted plant on their head and say it's part of being a woman?
You know what, man?
I'm going to get in trouble.
I'm going to wrap it up there.
The main point I wanted to make with this is that celebrities are insane.
That's really it.
They just say, you know what, gross spine.
I'll wrap it up with this.
Mark Hamill.
Do you really care that much?
Man, that's pathetic.
It really is.
You know, some things are based in science, and science can change.
And if that actually happens, and the definitions change, and new academic research comes out definitively stating we think it's better to do X, Y, and Z, hey, I'm right here.
I love it.
Science works because we recognize that things in the past weren't correct, and we improve upon them.
And I'm totally open to that in any form, be it gender, sex, trans, anything.
So far you have not done that.
It's just a bunch of ideological activists and celebrities virtue signaling.
So calm down, do the research, change the actual science, present your thesis, get your PhD, do the work, and then come to all standard academic literature and change it.
And I'll tell you this, if it turns out, because yes, I've read much of this academic literature, so I've seen the arguments.
I am just saying right now, we are not in that place.
So, for you to say all of these things, sorry, okay?
We're not there.
And you're going to have to define these words for me.
Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel and I will see you all then.
Following the major victory of the Conservatives in the UK and the massive defeat of the Labour Party, Brexit has finally won.
I mean, they voted for it, but come on, man.
Even with the majority, I'm skeptical.
We'll see.
It's been years.
But we do have big breaking news.
UK Parliament backs Brexit deal in decisive step toward leaving the EU on January 31st.
The decision marks a significant breakthrough for Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who swept to electoral victory last week on a pledge to get Brexit done.
This story from NBC News.
But I have another story, which makes me worried that even with this majority, something bad
might happen.
Because I'll tell you what, it keeps happening, and I'm not entirely convinced it won't happen
But let me just say, as somebody who is not British and doesn't know exactly how the people of this country feel, there is an overlap between the Brexit voter, the Trump voter, the white working class individuals who want to have their voice heard, who are tired of being smeared and called racist, and all of those things.
Some of those people may be bad people, but to overwhelmingly generalize all of these people results in an overwhelming defeat for your party.
This is now, as I understand it, the second definitive vote saying get Brexit done.
Maybe we'll see it.
Let's read the news, but then I want to rain on your parade because I think there's rocky waters ahead.
But I must admit, I think we're seeing the home stretch.
This is the final stretch.
They're coming to the finish line.
I think they're going to get it.
NBC News reports British lawmakers on Friday finally voted to back a plan to withdraw from the European Union.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's bill, backed by a huge parliamentary majority, will take the country out of the 28-member bloc on Jan.
31 and lays the groundwork for sweeping foreign and trade policy shifts.
The 358-to-234 vote marks a significant breakthrough for Johnson, who stormed to electoral victory last week on a pledge to get Brexit done.
The former mayor of London won the largest conservative majority since Margaret Thatcher in 1987, confirming his position as Prime Minister after he took over from Theresa May in July.
You know what's really crazy about what happened in the UK?
Look, I know, I should say this, I'll defer to Sargon, alright, if you guys watch Sargon's content, because he's from there, he knows better than me.
But my understanding is that there were districts that were liberal, like leftist, For like a hundred years that voted conservative because of how messed up everything is.
And I'll tell you this, Brexit may have been the lynchpin to get Brexit done, was the big push and people were finally sick of the process saying, just do it.
But I'll tell you this.
You didn't just give Boris Johnson a path towards Brexit.
You gave the Conservative Party a majority for other Conservative policies.
And now they're apparently putting forward, you know, economic plans.
And so far it looks like the markets and, well, the British pound to U.S.
dollar, it's actually doing really well.
Let's keep reading.
NBC News reports, Johnson's majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons meant he was able to pass
the withdrawal agreement bill, legislation that will implement the divorce deal hammered out with
the European Union. Britain joined the EU – the European Economic Community, a precursor to the EU,
in 1973. His predecessor, May, failed on three occasions to win support for a deal
she had agreed with the EU, leading her to resign earlier this year.
In October, Johnson was forced to break his own do-or-die deadline to lead Britain out of the bloc after lawmakers rejected his proposed timetable to get the withdrawal agreement bill through Parliament, meaning he had to request a Brexit extension from European leaders.
Now, here's where things get murky.
Okay, first, you saw what they just said.
Johnson was like, we're going to do or die.
It's going to happen.
And then other lawmakers rejected his timetable and it got pushed back.
He was forced to go and ask for an extension.
And because of that, the idea was he was then going to call for a general election, which they won, now meaning many of these people who blocked that Brexit may be gone, and again, I'll defer to the people in the UK who probably know better, but there's already op-eds popping up, and this could just be the remnants of the resistance trying to stop Brexit, saying that they're not going to be able to get this trade deal done, and it's going to be really, really bad, and then they're going to be beholden to the US.
But I gotta say, as an American, I think the cousins across the pond, us American bros and men and women, will do right by the UK if they want a trade deal with us.
I think that makes sense, right?
Let's write down the bill.
Dubbed WAB by Brexit Watchers, commits Britain to leave the European Union on January 31st and to conclude trade talks with the bloc by the end of 2020.
The final stages of ratification will take place after Christmas.
However, this should not be confused with the end of Brexit, as we are only nearing the end of stage one.
And this is where I want everyone, listen, I'm not telling you, like, I think there's some pitfalls to Brexit.
I'm not British, I don't know.
I'm just saying, if the people say they want it, you probably should just do it, okay?
For better or for worse, my position has always been, you can rag on Trump all day and night, but I'll tell you this, the guy won, and people wanted him to win, and they get to live with his decisions, good or bad.
Brexit is the same thing.
But I'll tell you this now, it's the end of stage one.
So I'm gonna rain on your parade, I guess.
Parade, I guess.
If you're someone who's really, really into Brexit, you happen to live over there, or you're an American who wants to see it get done, I'm telling you, man, there's a lot of time.
And I think what we see Boris Johnson doing, get out of the EU by the 31st, and then start negotiating trade, was the smart move.
Because if they tried to play it like they would get a trade agreement before leaving, it would never, never happen.
And that's the complaint I'll pull up in a second.
They say much of the angst over Brexit since Britain voted to leave the European Union in June 2016 has centered on the divorce itself.
With that endorsed by Parliament Friday, the UK must now pivot to negotiating what Brexit will actually look like for citizens and businesses alike.
First, the United Kingdom will enter a transition period that lasts until December 2020, in which it will continue to act like a member of the European Union.
In the meantime, top of the agenda is defining the nature of Britain's future relationship with the European Union post-divorce.
And there it is.
Nothing's going to change for a year.
I'll tell you this, man.
How much do you want to bet?
And I'm warning you, you might think I'm crazy, but we just had a general election.
I don't, you know, look, I'm not a legal expert.
I'm not a British citizen.
But I'm worried there will be another flip.
There will be another, you know, something bad will happen.
Someone, like, look, they voted for Brexit over three years ago, and they can't get it done.
It's been a back and forth, up, down, left, right.
If you rest on your laurels now as a Brexit supporter, if you're like, we did it, Johnson's in, we're done, I'm gonna go home.
Nah, you're gonna lose.
They're gonna take it away from you.
I do not believe this is the end.
Even NBC News is saying, don't confuse us for the end of Brexit.
Because as much as they're saying, we'll be out by the 31st, they're going to act like a member until 2020.
What happens if they can't negotiate a trade deal?
What happens then if you see a mounting effort by the Labor Party?
They get rid of Corbyn, who's unpopular and deeply anti-Semitic apparently.
And they find someone who's more moderate and more popular who wants to remain.
And then they start playing games.
I just don't believe it.
I really don't.
I think, you know, you know what man?
I listened to a speech by Nigel Farage and I was really impressed.
Did you know that the UK has a House of Lords?
I didn't understand this.
I thought it was like the House and the Senate.
No, it turns out the House of Lords are like appointees of like landowners from historic times.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my general understanding and I was talking to I think it was like Sargon and Dancula and they were like, yep.
Yep.
So, Nigel Farage had abolished the House of Lords.
And I'm like, how have you not?
Wow, being governed by old money?
Like, literally?
It's like, we're nobles, so we're in charge?
Nah, I don't play that.
I'm an American.
In America, you could be from the gutter.
You could be a bartender from New York and become a congressperson.
Yes, I respect AOC for making that leap.
That's what America's all about.
I can criticize her for being ignorant, naive, and all that, but I love the fact that in America, you can be a bartender, you can be a working class Joe, and say, I'm coming in, I'm taking you guys down, and no, we're not going to be subjected to, you know, historical money and lords.
I must admit, though.
The system falls in that direction no matter what we do anyway, right?
Senators are all super wealthy, you know, we have legacy politicians.
I get it.
But at least, at least, it's not built that way and we have some safeguards, you know?
You can see people come from modest means.
The American dream is a real thing.
So Nigel Farage also talked about a constitution.
And I think that's one of the biggest problems I've seen.
As somebody who doesn't know a whole lot about how the UK works, I'm generally confused when they're like, oh, it's a new government.
Oh, we're switching.
Now we're gonna have a general election.
I'm like, The U.S.
is much more rigid than that.
You know, we know when our elections are going to be, we know what our rights are, and they're essentially immutable.
I mean, I say essentially because it's really, really hard to get rid of a constitutional right.
You know, we have amended and gotten rid of some things, like prohibition was taken away.
I think that was put in the Constitution, right?
Anyway, our government is based on a founding document.
UK doesn't have that.
And there's a lot of countries that don't.
Let's read a little bit more and then I'll bring you to the worrying news.
They say by most accounts, 11 months to strike a trade deal is ambitious.
But Johnson has insisted that he won't agree to any more delays.
The pledge has set off alarm bells among businesses who fear Britain could crash out of the European Union with no future trade arrangement in place at the beginning of 2021.
An odeal Brexit is widely considered a nightmare scenario, raising the possibility of shortages of food and medicine, civil unrest, and conflicts in Northern Ireland.
But I tell you this, I think Trump wants a symbolic victory.
So you may have heard about Jeff Van Drew.
For those that are American who are watching, he's a Democrat who is now flipping to become a Republican.
It's a huge risk.
But I think the Republicans are going to protect him.
You know why?
They want the symbolic victory of proving they've defeated the left.
If Jeff Van Drew is voted out, it would only make Republicans look weak or disloyal.
So I think Trump's going to get behind Van Drew.
I think he's going to say he was a smart man, he's a moderate, and we respect his voice even though we disagree.
And Republicans are going to support that to prove a point.
Not only that, a lot of Republicans are probably moderate too, disagree with Van Drew on certain issues.
But here's the point.
Donald Trump has every reason to strike a trade deal with the UK before the end of 2020, even as soon as possible.
And they've been talking about it.
Apparently there's some fake news about the US, like, interfering with their National Health Service or whatever.
Apparently that's fake news and it's like propaganda or something.
I have no idea.
The point is...
Think about the symbolic victory of Trump talking about, you know, nationalism and fair trade agreements and, you know, you have the USMCA, which even Nancy Pelosi says was fantastic.
Donald Trump then steps up to Boris Johnson and says, don't worry about it.
We got your back.
You voted to leave the EU and we'll make sure that vote stands.
Donald Trump, populist right.
Brexit, a populist right-wing movement.
Boris Johnson is the same thing.
Babylon Bee, a satirical website, ran a joke article saying labor voters cry or scream after seeing Boris Johnson pull off a mask to reveal he's actually Donald Trump.
The point is, if Trump wants to make an example of the defeat of these leftist policies and positions, he needs to make sure the UK doesn't face food shortages, civil unrest, etc.
The UK is going to face civil unrest no matter what, as will the US.
But I think this is a big opportunity for Trump to say, if you want to take care of yourself, we got your back, but it's your country.
You want to leave the EU?
Congratulations, you did it.
Your people voted, so be it.
Now we'll negotiate a trade deal with you guys.
Trump will claim another major victory on a fair trade deal that's good for both countries, make sure the UK doesn't collapse.
And interestingly, creates this strange, you know, historical inversion where the colonies We're once under the jurisdiction of the Crown, and now the Crown is seeking assistance, a trade deal from the United States, so it creates like a really balancing factor.
Now I get it, a lot of people will say, the U.S.
came and saved the U.K.
a hundred years ago, you know, with World War II and stuff.
No, I know it's funny, but it's like, we used to be, you know, under the Crown, and now it's the Crown coming to the U.S., and us being like, we got your back, you know what I mean?
So it's funny stuff.
But let me give you a little bit more, because I want to make sure, with this historic vote for Brexit, You make sure you stay vigilant, diligent.
Another Brexit crisis next year is almost guaranteed from the Irish Times.
Trade experts are unanimous.
There is no time for a major EU trade deal before December.
And that's why I talked about Trump and his symbolic victory and why he would want to have a trade deal with the UK.
To prove a point, to claim he's winning, and that will really rally his base.
People in the UK will be really rallied by that.
Look, a lot of Brexit voters, they like Trump too.
But, If you think the Labor Party and the left are going to back down in the face of Brexit, you're sorely mistaken.
Donald Trump won the presidency and we have dealt with nothing but years of psychosis, okay?
They refused to accept it.
They hate the man so much.
They tried to impeach him.
In fact, they didn't actually even impeach him.
I'll get to that in the next segment at 4 p.m.
But I tell you this, this is the budding crisis that you will start hearing about moving forward to make sure Brexit does not happen.
Trade experts are unanimous.
There will not be a time for a major EU trade deal.
You're going to get all these people, working class people too, concerned.
Is the economy going to tank?
Are we going to have shortages of food, water, medicine?
What's going to happen?
We really need that trade deal.
And then when they start, you know, hammering, oh, the economy's going to crash, and they're going to do the recession line, there's going to be massive outrage.
This is the fuel, this is the seed being planted to make sure that Brexit doesn't move forward.
It's the last-ditch effort of the left, or it's their mounting resistance.
It's not over, it'll never be over.
The ends don't justify the means because you will never meet the ends.
Perhaps Brexit will actually happen January 31st, but as you saw, they're going to act like members of the EU until December 2020, so basically another year.
That's a long time for people to try and do something.
Granted, I understand there will be a formal, you know, they will formally leave the EU on the 31st.
I guess if you like Brexit, you better cross your fingers because there have been so many blocks and delays, who knows what will happen.
But I'll tell you this, I would be, my bet, my prediction for what's going to happen with the UK is Trump is going to swoop in with a very, very U.K.
favoring trade deal.
I think there will be a trade deal that will heavily favor the U.K.
Absolutely.
I don't think it will be bad for the U.S., but I think it will be slightly better for the U.K.
The reason is, like I stated, they want the symbolic victory.
They need to make sure the U.K.
proves that their populist movement works.
So if Trump does a trade deal with them that hurts the U.K.
and they struggle, That proves it doesn't work, and it proves that voting in this direction is bad across the board.
Leaving the EU and not getting a trade deal with the EU, if that's true, will be bad for many people in the UK.
I also think it's fair to point out too, however, you can think of the trade arrangements as kind of an addiction.
You know, you're getting all this food and medicine and stuff from the EU, so you become less self-reliant.
You start, you know, working with trade partners.
The way Trump has worked things has brought jobs back.
I mean, Detroit's bringing in 3,000 new jobs.
Apple is now going to start manufacturing products in the United States.
I think there may be some hardship, but the general idea is that even without a trade deal at all, Britain needs to make sure it's self-reliant and they can handle their own food stores and their own medicine.
Because if they can't produce on their own, I mean, they're in trouble.
But again, Here's my prediction and I'll wrap it up here.
I think Trump is going to come in with a very, very favorable deal for the EU.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, not the EU.
For the UK.
To make that point and be like, wow, look how well they're doing.
You tired of winning yet?
That's going to be the play.
I could be wrong.
We'll see what happens.
But I'm gonna leave with one final note.
If you are someone who likes Brexit and you sit back and kick your feet up, don't be surprised if they pull out from underneath you.
This has been delayed for three years.
Don't think the fight is over.
Even NBC News is saying it's not over yet.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
I got bad news for all you good God-fearing Christians.
Okay, not unlike big social media platforms, but at least in certain contexts, we're about to cross that threshold.
You see, recently a comedian appeared on the Conan O'Brien show.
In what may be one of the most relevant conversations, I've seen him actually have so much respect to Conan for hosting this conversation.
Comedian Whitney Cummings says intern reported her to HR for saying Merry Christmas.
The story is not a joke.
She's actually saying the same thing.
You don't gotta believe her!
But I believe her, you know why?
I got another story.
I know this story is from a few days ago, but I must bring it up.
Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice, appears to validate War on Christmas conspiracy during Fox and Friends.
This is amazing!
They're claiming that Neil Gorsuch is validating the War on Christmas conspiracy simply because he said Merry Christmas.
What's happening?
People are insane.
This story is nuts, okay, mind you.
Comedian Whitney Cummings told late night host Conan O'Brien Wednesday that she was reported to Human Resources last year for saying Merry Christmas to an intern, but it's worse than that.
She was actually just saying bye everybody, Merry Christmas, and an intern heard it and reported her and she got in trouble.
How insane is that?
Has this world become?
I don't care if you don't celebrate Christmas.
I don't care if you celebrate Hanukkah or Kwanzaa or literally anything.
You can make up something.
And if you come to me and say, Happy Hanukkah, I'll say it right back.
I don't care.
You know why?
Well, I'm an adult and I recognize that different people live different lives.
So I'm not going to get mad at you if you say the wrong thing to me about, you know, I understand the sentiment you're expressing.
Think about how insane it is that someone could be trying to be nice to you Assuming, like, I don't know what your religion is or what you celebrate.
Have a Merry Christmas.
They were trying to say a positive thing to you.
It's a good thing.
It's like, I hope you have a great time.
I hope you feel well.
But it wasn't the right thing precisely, so it's time we punish you for it.
What a nightmarish, dystopian world we live in.
Cummings37 told O'Brien and co-host Andy Richter that the most stressful part of the holidays was shopping, admitting earlier in the segment that she was a regifter, as well as the terminology surrounding the season.
Last year, I was working on a TV show, got in trouble with Human Resources for saying Merry Christmas to an intern.
Is that true?
O'Brien asked.
That's true.
I was leaving.
I was like, bye guys.
Merry Christmas.
Like, just a formality.
What you would say.
Cummings explained, I come back like June 6th.
HR calls me and they're like, Hey, we need to talk to you.
One of the interns is pissed off that you said Merry Christmas.
In 2018, Cummings served as the co-showrunner on the ABC network's infamous Roseanne reboot.
The comedian said her greeting was just a formality, adding, I don't even care how your Christmas was.
It's just literally like, it's the holiday.
I'm going to say goodbye.
I'll tell you this, man.
You want to change society.
You don't want people to say Merry Christmas.
You don't do it this way.
This is nuts.
She did nothing wrong.
You're punishing people.
They're trying to beat you down.
You simply say to her next time, be like, I don't want to be a nitpicker, but because we don't all celebrate, would you mind?
And she'd probably say, sure.
Flies and honey, man, right?
O'Brien brought up that Merry Christmas could offend or trigger someone in these times.
Cummings explained that she asked the Human Resources official what she could have said
before they informed her the intern was agnostic.
So basically she's like, I didn't realize she had a different religion so what should
I have said?
She goes, I was like, no, no, no, no, you do not get to do that.
Because had I known this person was agnostic, that would mean we were in a relationship
Like, that would mean we were intimately connected.
I should not know who believes in God and who doesn't.
I also can't guess either, you know?
Yes, that's the point.
And this is where we get into the world of supreme psychosis.
When Salon.com accuses a Supreme Court justice of pushing a conspiracy.
What?
Because he just said Merry Christmas.
Okay, you know what, man?
Let me just say right now.
It is the 20th.
Christmas is approaching.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas.
I am in no way entertaining any conspiracy by doing as such.
And I will also add, because I am respectful to all, if you celebrate something else, I can say Happy Hanukkah.
I really don't know what else, you know, what other holiday season things there are.
And I mean no disrespect if I didn't say happy whatever holiday, you know, you may celebrate.
Let's read the story!
Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, appeared to validate the dubious Fox News claim that there is a war on Christmas during a rare live interview Tuesday with Ainsley Earhart, the co-host of Fox & Friends.
Gorsuch appeared to dive into the narrative about an alleged war on Christmas when he pointedly smiled and wished Earhart a Merry Christmas at the top of the segment of the president's favorite morning show.
They don't seem to understand that people just say Merry Christmas because they're trying to wish well upon you.
He didn't open the show and say, I'm sick and tired of people refusing to say Merry Christmas.
I'm gonna say it right now.
No, he was just like, she was like, Neil Gorsuch, thanks for coming on the show, and he goes, Merry Christmas.
And that was it.
It's literally becoming hate speech.
Like, they will take any instance of you just like waving and saying hi, Merry Christmas, and they're gonna turn it into some kind of offensive gesture.
I love that you say that, Earhart responded after she returned to the greeting.
Earhart appears in an advertisement for Fox Nation, the streaming platform for Fox News, which celebrates an all-American Christmas, yet does not appear to include any people of color.
There's a picture of a bunch of women in Scotland, from Miss Scotland, and someone said, like, look at all the diversity, and then someone responded, like, dude, it's Scotland.
Did you know that in Scotland, people are white?
Like, that's such a weird thing.
They're angry that a commercial for Ainsley Earhart doesn't include people of color?
What, the commercial probably has like, what, three people in it?
These people are insane.
They're being driven mad by algorithmic manipulation.
I'll go through this quick because I love this subject.
I should really draft an article on this, like a really thick thesis of some sort.
But basically, The articles that get shared while on Facebook include the most insane, bombastic, rage-inducing, but more keywords.
So by combining all of these ideas—Christmas, conspiracy, Gorsuch, Supreme Court, people of color—it's all in the story, so it gets more shares.
See, the way YouTube works, they don't actually track the words I'm saying to a certain degree.
They do for, like, swears and then take my money away.
But if I say something like Supreme Court as a verbal phrase, that's not necessarily going to play in recommendations.
It might.
They might be changing things.
But I absolutely do this, okay?
I do try and make sure I use enough specific words in my descriptions.
But you'll also notice for these videos, taint nothing in the descriptions.
I don't write anything for them.
This is how they have to craft a story around the keywords to get shares.
They say Fox News has a long history of claiming there is a war on Christmas, tracing back to a 2004 segment by former talk show host Bill O'Reilly called Christmas Under Siege.
This is insanity.
He literally just said Merry Christmas.
I love you say that.
I don't know what that's supposed to mean other than Merry Christmas.
There's like a hidden... Think about... You know what's really funny?
Okay, I'll read this, but I gotta mention.
If you think that a Fox host and a Supreme Court justice simply saying, Merry Christmas, I love that you say that, is actually them trying to validate a conspiracy theory, you're actually the one pushing the conspiracy theory.
But I will ask, how long do you think until they start actually banning people for saying things like this?
They go on to actually talk about Bill O'Reilly segments from 2004.
Who cares?
The dude just said Merry Christmas on TV.
The woman just said goodbye, Merry Christmas.
You got her in trouble.
As Salon's Chauncey DeVega wrote last year, there's another dimension to the war on Christmas, as the broader right-wing obsession with the culture wars.
Both are examples of white identity politics.
And a deep desire... You know what, man?
This is the epitome of just... You know what?
I've never seen a more insane leftist article.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Okay?
Did you know?
Did you know that Latinos, like, people in Mexico, for instance, overwhelmingly Christian.
Like, it's like 90% or more.
Did you know that many of the migrants who come to the US, very, very Christian.
Did you know?
They say Feliz Navidad, and they say Merry Christmas, and you're acting like it's a right-wing, white identity politics thing.
There's actually a lot of people in this world who aren't white, who celebrate Christmas in, like, other parts of the world.
There are people in the Middle East who are Arabic, who are actually... Yes, who are actually Christian!
So let me read.
They're going to say, Both are examples of white identity politics and a deep desire to maintain the cultural and political power of white right-wing Christians over all other groups in many ways.
The War on Christmas is actually a proxy war for white supremacy.
I gotta give you a standing ovation on that one.
You know, I'm really impressed.
I've seen some articles that stuff keywords with nonsensical conspiracy theories, but this one takes the cake.
This is beyond Alex Jones.
Now, I know many of you might actually like Alex Jones, but I'm sorry.
Jones does talk about crazy stuff.
He does.
He talks cell towers, mutants, 5G, a lot of crazy stuff.
Okay?
And I think a lot of people are entertained by it, but this?
I'm sorry, man.
Alex, they just beat you to it.
What this is, is certifiable, okay?
Oh, oh, oh, I'm sorry!
It's also anti-semitic!
They added that too!
You know what, man?
I'm over it.
It's really funny that there's a bit of a paradox in this segment, in that I'm arguing that they're actually going to get you in trouble for saying Merry Christmas, while simultaneously they're arguing there's a conspiracy of a war on Christmas, and I'm... You know what, man?
Welcome to 2019.
2020 is gonna be a hoot.
I hope you're excited.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Feliz Navidad, Happy Hanukkah, and what's the other one?
Festivus?
I don't even know what that is.
That's from Seinfeld, right?
Whatever.
Whatever it is you celebrate, I hope you enjoy yourself.
I hope you have a good time, and I hope we all come back in the new year with glee and joy and a positive outlook.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
In the UK, the Conservatives absolutely annihilated the Labour Party, which is basically like their leftists.
And there was a really great article that was written by somebody, I think they were from the Labour Party, it was basically like a Democrat, right?
Imagine if a Democrat said, the party has abandoned the working class, they're preaching cultural politics that people don't understand, they're insulting the working class, and that's why you lose.
Something to that effect.
The Democrats don't seem to understand this.
Hillary Clinton said it.
I'm going to shut down coal jobs.
They keep saying it.
Remember when the Democrats represented labor?
Donald Trump won.
And apparently CNN, I didn't see the segment, but I see people talking about it, where they say Trump is basically a 90s New York Democrat.
And so the Democrats are moving left.
Trump is actually moderate relative to the American people.
He's not far right at all.
Take a look at this story.
Biden says he's willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of blue-collar jobs in oil and gas.
Bravo, good sir.
If there was anything you could say to guarantee your polls would drop dramatically, that was it.
Let's read the story.
And I have more to add to this because you'd think someone like, say, Ocasio-Cortez would be there to defend the working class.
But no, same problem.
They don't actually care.
They're the ivory tower elites.
How quickly Did AOC turn?
She started doing interviews.
Immediately, the left started calling her out, saying she was pulling away from her more left-wing, you know, cultural and socialist roots, though she is still pretty far left.
She's now actually voting.
She voted against a tax deduction for, you know, independent contractors.
And I'll get through it.
It's complicated.
It always is.
And I don't want to oversimplify, but I want to read the Biden thing first.
The Caller reports, Former Vice President Joe Biden said during Thursday's Democratic debate that he is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of blue-collar jobs in oil and gas in an effort to help fight climate change.
Let me stop right there.
You see what's going on in France for the past year?
Riots in the streets.
Yellow vests.
That's for the most part due to them trying to hike the price of gas because of climate change.
What do you think is going to happen?
When you go to Minnesota, look that 40-year-old man in the eyes and say, you know that job you just got back from the Trump economy?
Trump bolstered the economy, we're building jobs?
I'm taking that away from you.
I'm going to pry it from your hands and you will kneel in poverty as your family suffers.
That's what they're telling you.
They want to take away your job.
Look, I personally don't like oil and gas.
I'm also not crazy.
My idealistic future is a green utopia with renewable energies and trees everywhere, and I would love to get there.
The best way we do it, though, is through sane, rational policy.
We don't get there through just burning it all down and saying, I'm going to cut out hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Because what you get instead is not a green utopia.
You get a revolution, fear, anger, and chaos.
We have a system under control.
Let's fix it, let's guide it, and let's make sure people's lives aren't destroyed in your ideological pursuit.
I certainly have one.
I would love to see green technology.
You know, grass on rooftops, solar panels, wind generators, homes being self-sufficient.
But I also don't think my ideology should destroy someone else's life, which presents a very, very serious conundrum.
How do we attain that future where we protect the environment, protect the world, and make sure humans aren't suffering because of our personal ideologies?
It's a challenge.
But the Democrats have consistently said, we don't care about you.
We don't care about you, the individual.
We don't care about hundreds of thousands of jobs if it means we get what we want because we think we are right.
That is not leadership.
That is dystopian.
That is authoritarian.
One of the moderators during Thursday's debate asked Biden if he would be willing to sacrifice some of the growth that three consecutive American presidents have seen in the economy.
This economic growth has occurred partly due to oil and gas production.
The answer is yes, Biden said, even after the moderator noted that the move could displace hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The answer is yes, because the opportunity for those workers to transition to high-paying jobs, as Tom Steyer said, is real.
We're the only country that's taken great crises and turned them into enormous opportunities.
You know what Joe Biden just said?
He just said to every American, to the millions of Americans watching this, learn to code.
We know how that went over.
That played very well among moderate voters, didn't it?
Learn to code.
Your call job is gone.
We will take it away and we're going to, here's a laptop, you figure it out.
You think that's going to work?
It's not going to work.
You're going to lose.
I'll tell you what my problem with this is.
You do not win elections and push your agenda forward by telling people you will take from them their jobs.
I'll put it this way.
Do you think Donald Trump and other Republicans are going to be active in trying to better the economy, reduce carbon emissions, incentivize a market that supports renewable energy?
The answer is no.
And I'll tell you this.
When you go to these people, hundreds of thousands of voters, and say, I'm going to take your job away, you know what they're going to do?
They're going to vote for Trump.
Because they'll keep their job and they'll protect their family.
And then your agenda of trying to change the system and create new technologies will never happen.
Guess what?
Compromise is probably the only way for you to make gains in your cause, unless you really do want to burn the whole world down.
The way I see it is, there are things that I want.
A clean environment, better air quality, renewable energies, and a reduction in carbon emissions.
I think climate change is a serious problem.
And I recognize there are a lot of people that disagree with me.
So I'll tell you what, what can I give you and then I will also in exchange make some small changes that won't destroy your life, won't take your jobs, but can better our chances towards moving in a certain direction.
These are people who you are saying, You're an expert oil engineer?
You're a petroleum engineer?
You're a coal miner?
Well, through no fault of your own, we will restrict your access to the economy.
We will take away your right to food and resources.
And this is something I've complained about a lot.
The problem I have with unrepentant capitalism is that it does just that.
That you could be an expert, and then because of some new development, you now are no longer allowed to have a home or food, and that's BS.
The example I give, let's say you worked for 30 years as an engineer in a certain company or like at the post office.
Then we start seeing a reduction in the use of these facilities because we're now doing Amazon, other companies emerge.
Let's just say, I'll do you one better.
Let's say you're a clerk.
You're not particularly a high-skilled laborer.
You're just a cashier at a restaurant.
And you've done it.
You're great at it.
You don't make that much money.
One day, they replace you with a kiosk through no fault of your own.
You've done a good job.
You've been a loyal, you know, employee of this company.
You are now being told you will no longer receive money.
I don't like that.
I don't like that that person now has to lose their job and suffer because of technology.
That's why Andrew Yang is talking up some sense.
We've got to figure out how we deal with this.
We can't just take away people's access to the economy because their skills are now obsolete because robots are coming in.
Now think about what Joe Biden is saying about this.
We're going to take away your jobs for our ideology.
It's not even about obsolescence.
We haven't even gotten to the point where we've developed the technology to actually displace these jobs and he's already talking about taking your job away.
This is why I like Andrew Yang, man.
Not only that, I'm gonna give a shout-out to the man because he said at the debates, we gotta stop talking about impeaching Trump and stuff and talk about what got Trump elected in the first place.
And it's this.
They can't see it.
The Democrats are aggressive.
Trump saw it.
Trump said, your jobs are being sold.
They're being given away.
We're gonna bring those jobs back.
And he won.
And if you've got a problem with that, you need to figure out what the American people really, really want.
And then figure out what you can say to them in exchange for your path to your agenda.
So I'll tell you what my position has always been.
We will not destroy your jobs.
We will make sure your economy is sustainable, your jobs are sustainable, and you live a good life.
But we will try to create a parallel energy economy that will create opportunities for future growth in other areas.
Just because Elon Musk is creating electric cars doesn't mean that the car industry is collapsing.
There will be a way to transition after, you know, slowly, so that people's lives aren't being destroyed, into a new energy market.
It basically means this.
I think there will always be a net negative, but we will minimize it to our maximum capabilities, and we will do our best to make sure American people do not suffer because we have an ideological worldview.
I believe.
I am 100% correct.
I absolutely believe we must protect the environment.
Carbon emissions, climate change, all that stuff.
I am extremely adamant about it.
The problem is, I look to what AOC is doing, and I see no path forward.
I see chaos, I see failure to negotiate, and I see no victory.
Failure.
Not one person voting on the Green New Deal.
Complete failure.
She's getting nothing!
I'll tell you what, man.
I'll take one solar plant over nothing.
They're saying, give us everything.
No, that's not going to happen because you're asking to take away from somebody else.
You got to recognize compromise is the only way you're going to move forward.
Otherwise, you will get a year of riots like in France.
But check this out.
AOC splits with the working class New Yorkers to vote against repeal of Trump's salt cap.
Basically, I don't want to get into too much of it because, again, I'll say it for the millionth time, these issues are particularly complicated and they're usually reduced by the press into a soundbite that isn't exactly fair.
But the general idea here is that Trump repealed the salt cap.
Let me just read, actually.
They say this.
The self-described socialists voted against removing the SALT cap, which would give working-class citizens in high-tax states like New York and New Jersey a break on state and local dues.
The bill, which will likely be dead on arrival, actually narrowly passed.
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that SALT has to do with personal deductions if you're a SALT proprietor or a 1099 contractor, and those are taken away under Trump, and a lot of people panicked about this.
They were upset.
There was a tax cut across the board, so that's important to point out as well.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I don't like the idea that Democrats would pretend to be all about the working class.
Republicans are unabashed.
They have no problem saying they're going to bring your jobs back and they also have no problem saying they don't believe climate change is real and they want to expand oil production.
They're telling you to your face We're going to protect your job.
We're going to make more oil jobs.
At least they're being honest.
The Democrats are saying, we're going to make a bunch of jobs.
Well, not you.
We're going to take your job away.
It seems duplicitous to act like you're in favor of the working class, but then to say on a debate stage, we'll take your job.
We'll take that from you.
So I'll tell you what, man.
You don't win them all.
You can't win them all.
There's not going to be a clean sweep.
Democrats, you're not going to come in and just take everything you want.
It's not going to happen.
And the more you try, the more Trump wins.
So if you want to make some gains, I'll tell you what you do.
You don't vote for impeachment.
Now you're going to lose all your districts.
I guess they thought they'd lose no matter what.
If you want to better the environment and you want to work towards a green future, you have to compromise with those who are part of your society and pay taxes alongside you.
You can't just take from them.
They won't vote for you and then you'll see exactly what happens in the UK with a massive majority of conservatives dominating because the Democrats, when you abandon the working class and say we'll take away hundreds of thousands of jobs, don't be surprised when those voters go running.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Unsurprisingly, feminists for The Mary Sue have written that they actually pretend to like bad movies with bad characters because they're concerned about how it would look if the movie was bad and it had a female lead, I guess?
I can't really understand it, but I can tell you this.
I have no problem saying a movie is good if it's good and if it's bad if it's bad.
Ghostbusters 2016 is a trash fire.
Star Wars The Last Jedi is also a dumpster fire.
Wonder Woman was great.
Wonder Woman 1984 looks really great.
I'm excited for those films.
Black Widow I'm particularly excited about.
But I will say the Wonder Woman 1984 trailer is like one of the best trailers I've ever seen in my life.
Hands down.
I love that orchestral remix of Blue Monday to the beat.
It was incredible.
I don't care if it's a female antagonist, a female director, or otherwise.
If the movie looks good, I'll say it's good.
Yet we learn something different here.
The Mary Sue writes, Figuring out how to talk about female characters you don't like when you're a feminist.
It's simple.
Just say you don't like it.
It doesn't change the fact you're a feminist.
You can be a feminist and not like a female character.
It's fine.
Politically, I'm a bit of a lefty.
I like Wonder Woman.
I like seeing, you know, I like the idea.
Here's what I've said before, you know, and people on the right like this less.
I said, come on, guys.
You get Iron Man, you get Captain America, and you get Thor.
You get the big franchise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it's all white men.
I have no problem with them being white men.
I have no problem with them making more movies about it.
My position is, just don't be surprised when a movie comes out with an Asian lead, or with a black lead, or a Hispanic lead.
I don't think in reality anyone really cares.
I think it's, for one, it's a false narrative that conservatives are outraged when, you know, it's not a white male lead.
But the reason I say that some people like it less is because coming out and saying something like, it's time we get a person of color instead of more white men, is typically seen more in line with, you know, social justice politics.
But I'm going to warn you now, I'm actually totally in favor.
of diversity and these policies.
Absolutely.
I would love to see more movies with female leads.
I'd love to see more movies with people of color in leading roles.
But there's got to be good movies.
That's really all it is.
My praise, for instance, like the Spider-Man film, Into the Spider-Verse.
Yeah, Miles Morales, he's Afro-Latino.
That's fine, I don't care.
I like the idea that you're getting a movie with, you know, urban culture perspectives and people of color.
But all that really matters at the end is, did they make a good movie?
Because I'll tell you this.
I don't care if the lead is one color or another.
I do like it.
I'm like, oh, it's really cool that, you know, we're expanding the, you know, the diversity of films.
The problem is when you make a bad movie and then pretend like it's good for whatever reason because you just must pretend, otherwise you'll be offended or whatever, then everybody hates what you've done.
Wouldn't it be great if we had more movies that, you know, had female leads?
I personally think it would be great, so long as they're good movies.
But guess what?
If they're bad, I'm gonna say it.
Let's read.
Even though I rambled a bit too much.
Last night I was talking to a friend of mine about Star Wars discourse, when she suddenly stopped in the street and whispered to me, Don't tell anyone, but I just don't really like Rey.
I think she is boring.
I hugged her and whispered back, I think the Wonder Woman 1984 trailer looks really bad.
I also don't like Rey, so what?
You're allowed to not like a character.
It doesn't change anything.
Your politics are still your politics.
One of the deeply frustrating aspects of working in this industry is seeing how quickly and often the leading conversation about a woman-led directed movie, especially if it is an action comic book film, is what men think about it.
And as a feminist pop culture critic, I do not care about elevating that discourse anymore.
I want to have a conversation with other women who have complicated feelings about stories and characters that are for us.
You know what's funny?
We're already doing that.
I'm already doing that.
You know, it's like, what differentiates Captain Marvel from Wonder Woman?
Excuse me.
What makes them different?
They're both superhero films.
They're both starring women.
And I think they both might be directed by women, or maybe just Wonder Woman.
But what's the difference?
Why is it that Captain Marvel must be defended outright no matter what?
And no matter how many times I praise Wonder Woman, they never say anything.
They never say, here goes Tim Pool again making a movie about how much he loves a female lead.
It's always like, I can't believe Tim Pool doesn't like Captain Marvel.
What a loser misogynist.
I'm a misogynist when I don't like Captain Marvel, but I'm not a feminist when I do like Wonder Woman.
So explain to me what the difference is.
Is that difficult?
She says, I do like Rey, and I think that a lot of the allure of her is getting to have a badass female Jedi in media.
That is important.
Yes, there's also Ahsoka, and there were also other female Jedis in the prequels, though they didn't have really strong leading roles.
But yeah, do you guys know Ahsoka?
That's the name, right?
I'm not a big fan of The Clone Wars.
I didn't watch a lot of it.
But they sell toys of a female Jedi, I guess.
She became a knight in the end, right?
Anyway.
Rey is also a Star Wars protagonist.
Which, right, that's substantially, you know.
I guess Ahsoka is too, but this is the film.
Which means there is an element of boring, typical protagonist aspects about her.
When talking about that aspect, we aren't doing it to say that she shouldn't be powerful or that she's a Mary Sue, in the pejorative sense.
What my friend was saying is that Rey feels like a canvas for young women to put themselves into and not a fully realized character, and that is a valid criticism.
I don't understand why it's so hard to just say the movie was bad.
I guess they're so desperate to claim a cultural win for whatever reason, they can't just say, I didn't like the movie.
And it's also weird that they always pretend like all of the movies in the past with women leads and women directors don't exist.
But they do.
The fact that she feels worried about saying it because it might make her look unfeminist is a disappointing reality.
Well, you know whose fault it is?
Not you personally, Mary Sue, but some of you, yes.
Because when I made several videos about what was wrong with Captain Marvel and how it was pandering and it was just like super thick in the politics and unenjoyable, These people started insulting me.
They started making posts about me and deriding me.
So if you want to complain about it, you're the ones who are insulting people over this.
Because like I said, how many videos did I make about Wonder Woman?
I made several.
And not once did you come out and say, here comes Tim Pool again praising feminism.
No, that wasn't the case.
Or like I said in the beginning, when I said, and I said this a while ago, a long time ago, back during Captain Marvel, I would appreciate, you can't expect to see nothing but white male leads in all of these films.
Asian people, like, you know, they exist, and you're gonna start seeing these things, and I actually like that idea.
I like the diversity, I do.
Heavens.
But I'm not going to insult someone for being a white male.
I'm not going to get angry that they made too many white male movies.
I'm not gonna be negative about it.
I'm gonna be like, all those movies were really great, I really love the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
But most people don't care, as long as you're not insulting them for it.
And that's the thing.
I can come out and say something like, I would prefer if the next Marvel film was a female person of color.
And people are gonna be like, who cares?
It doesn't matter if she is or she isn't.
No, no, no.
I think that would be nice.
I'm also not gonna get mad if they don't do it.
I'm just gonna be like, here's my suggestion.
And if it doesn't happen, I'm not gonna complain.
I'm just gonna be like, well, you know, it's not my company, not my movie, but here's what I personally believe.
And I think you'll find, because this is what I find typically, because I don't insult people when they get, you know, when like a movie comes out or something, because I'm just like, I can respect you not liking the film.
Then I typically don't have any problems.
It's like this.
I mentioned this, I was at the airport, and there was a Bernie supporter and a Trump supporter, and we were talking, and we all got along just fine because nobody was mean to each other.
The Trump voter was like, I don't know, the economy's good, and the Bernie voter was like, yeah, but I just don't like him, and he's like, yeah, I get it.
I understand why you would feel that way.
And that was it.
Smiles, laughs, candy cane skittles.
The problem is, It's not the anti-SJW types that, well, some of them.
They're not perfect.
They're not the ones that are attacking people for liking or not liking a movie.
With Gamergate, with Comicsgate, whatever these things happen, it's always the feminists criticizing, targeting, and trying to change the perspective or opinions of somebody because they're upset about a certain change.
And then even when they recognize the content is bad, they refuse to acknowledge it.
So I'll tell you this.
Here's what I respect from the Mary Sue.
They're admitting it and saying it needs to change.
You're doing the right thing.
I agree.
Tremendous respect.
I look forward to reading more articles from you because you're saying this.
I absolutely would love to see a feminist film.
I mean it.
I mean it.
So long as you're not bashing me over the skull and insulting me the whole time.
Right?
The problem with Captain Marvel is it's just not that great a film.
But the marketing was over the top.
Because of that, I've said I really have no interest in going and seeing a film that's marketed as feminist because I have a feeling about what you're going to do.
You're going to make dumb male characters.
You're going to insult me.
But I'll tell you what.
Wonder Woman is absolutely a feminist film with a female director and a female lead, and I look forward to seeing more of these, especially 1984.
So if you're willing to join me in legitimate criticism of bad characters when they happen to be women, we're gonna get better feminist films.
And that's real feminism, right?
I mean in like the true sense of the word.
Instead, well, let me read a little bit more and then we'll wrap this up.
She says, My lack of interest in Wonder Woman is well noted, and for a while.
I felt really bad about it.
I felt like I was yucking other people's yum, and I felt like I was missing something by not having the emotional reaction other women had.
What I realize is that Wonder Woman, while a character I respect, was never an icon for me in that way.
Nor do images of beautiful white women in power poses do it for me in that way.
I'm not gonna accuse you of being an anti-feminist or a bigot because you don't like a feminist film that I happen to like.
I absolutely respect that you don't like Wonder Woman.
And guess what?
There are many other people who are, like, anti-SJW who also didn't like it, and I respect their opinions because we all have them.
I really liked Wonder Woman.
I thought it was a great contrast between realism and idealism, between, you know, Chris Pine's character and Gal Gadot, and I'm super excited for 1984.
Like I said, the trailer is amazing.
But I respect your opinion and I don't think you're a bigot because you didn't like the movie.
That's the conversation we need to be having.
That someone could not like a film and just be a regular person who doesn't like the film.
Instead, I'll leave you with this.
Which most of you who watch my content already know.
If you criticize Ghostbusters, you're a misogynist.
If you don't like a certain actress, you're a misogynist.
And then when you do like a certain actress, mum's the word.
They say nothing.
They say literally nothing.
So that's got to change.
We're allowed to criticize people without being bigots.
It doesn't matter what your race, gender, identity, or anything is, nationality, religion.
If you're a bad person, if you're a bad story, if it's a bad character, we're allowed to say that.
