Ocasio Cortez Launches Ad Blitz As Democrats Wage War To REMOVE Her From Congress
Ocasio Cortez Launches Ad Blitz As Democrats Wage War To REMOVE Her From Congress. Just about 780 ads launched since the start of this year by Ocasio Cortez. Many of the ads point out that she is facing Democratic challengers for her seat in 2020 and she needs to raise money to fight back.Progressives and the far left democrats have been trying to unseat and upset the mainstream establishment Democrats. Right now many far left groups are trying to cut down Joe Biden and it seems to be working.But AOC's war on Democrats is a huge problem as it means incumbent Democrats are facing a fight on two fronts, leftists and conservatives.If the far left Democrats primary the moderate democrats than the Republicans are going to clean up easily come November.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has refused to pay her House dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
And what we're really talking about is weird inside politics that most people probably don't care about.
So let me just break it down for you.
Basically, AOC has raised nearly $5 million.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants to help use some of that money to fund other Democrats to win the House majority or to defend it in 2020.
AOC is refusing to pitch in and many people are upset, some even calling her a deadbeat.
But she's actually calling on Democrats to stop funding the DCCC, basically declaring war
on the Democratic establishment. After this controversy exploded, she's defended her position
saying that why should we fund them if they're not going to allow progressive groups to run
primaries against Democrats?
Basically, she's saying, I want to upset the Democratic incumbents and bring in far-left insurgents, and if you won't allow it, I'm gonna tell my base to stop donating to you.
This is just generally bad news for Democrats, and I'll show you why.
Look, the far-left is not going to win, okay?
We've seen in the Gallup poll, if you saw the video I did yesterday morning or the day before, that the country actually ticked towards conservative and less people now identify as liberal.
So it's all bad news for the Democrats that they've got a far-left activist contingent targeting them, AOC, refusing to back down, and escalating the war now.
Something interesting happens.
You see, earlier today, I was admittedly kind of bored.
Like, there's not a whole lot of news.
It's a Saturday, right?
It's Saturday, right?
Admittedly, it's a slow day.
The year always starts slow.
And I didn't know if there was going to be really anything to talk about until I saw this.
An advertisement targeting me from Ocasio-Cortez.
And I thought to myself, I don't live in her district.
Why is she trying to get money from me?
I live in New York's first district.
It's blue.
Not New York.
I'm sorry, New Jersey.
I don't live in New York.
So I decided to look into her ads and as it turns out, AOC since the start of the year
has spent around $34,382 in the past seven days from January 3rd till the 9th.
And she's actually run from December 31st till today, I believe around 780 advertisements.
It may actually be like 770, but I think the total number might be 782 ads.
Ocasio-Cortez is running a massive ad blitz, okay?
Spending around $35,000, not the biggest amount, but it is just a week.
But interestingly, one of the talking points of her ads is that she is facing 11 challengers.
Do you know what that means?
Eight of them, I believe, are Republicans, and the other three are actually Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez is actually campaigning on the fact that Democrats are trying to unseat her.
Now there's been other issues here involving removal of AOC.
We saw an op-ed from CNN saying Ocasio-Cortez should leave the Democratic Party.
Of course they don't want her here because she was complaining that Joe Biden and her shouldn't be in the same party.
So we've got a far-left war going on.
We have this story now from a couple days ago.
It says far left uniting for all out attack to block Joe Biden.
So here's what I want to do.
I want to talk about the latest battle between Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats.
They are actively trying to unseat her moderate Democrats running in her district.
She's actually raising money based off that fact.
Okay.
She is telling people around the country.
That these people want to remove me and I need your money.
So there's a couple things I want to address.
The war between AOC and the Democrats, the ad spend and some of the ads and who she's targeting, and a big factor here, that Ocasio-Cortez and actually a larger portion of Democrats get their funding from outside their district.
Why?
It would seem that a good portion of the Democrats who won their congressional house seats, I believe around, you know, 65 to 70 percent compared to Republicans, I'm sorry, let me put it this way.
Of the people whose donations primarily come from outside of their districts, it tends to be two-thirds or more, almost double, Democrat versus Republican.
So Democrats are primarily winning by uniting with other big, wealthy urban districts to fund non-urban areas.
I find that particularly interesting, and I'm going to show you the data.
But before we get started, Make sure you head over to my new channel, YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
A new show is starting soon.
I've got some people coming out.
It will be moderately co-hosted.
It's going to be a lot of fun.
It's going to be relatively apolitical.
So if you find it mind-numbing, all of the crazy political talk, inside baseball kind of stuff, make sure you go to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Subscribe.
I've done a couple streams.
I might do a stream later, but admittedly, I'm waiting for... I've got to have a building inspector come in, stuff like that.
But within about a week, We should be ramping up.
You're gonna see a major upgrade on this stuff.
But let's get to the news.
You may have seen the story.
AOC riles Dems by refusing to pay party dues bankrolling colleagues' opponents.
Now, this isn't necessarily new information.
You see, if we go back in time, do I have the tweet?
Yes.
I think it's back in March of 2019.
AOC actually tweeted, The DCCC's new rule to blacklist and boycott anyone who does business with primary challengers is extremely divisive and harmful to the party.
My recommendation, if you're a small-dollar donor, pause your donations to DCCC and give directly to swing candidates instead.
She then calls out Mike Levin of California, Lorne Underwood, a bunch of other Democrats.
This is not the first time AOC has straight-up said, don't give your money to the Democratic wing The organization that seeks to get congressional candidates re-elected, give it to the insurgent candidates who are going to primary them and remove them.
And that has been the far left in AOC's primary strategy the whole time.
I can respect it to a certain extent, but it's also, listen, AOC has been telling Democrats what they should or shouldn't be doing.
She's been pressuring Democrats to vote certain ways.
She slammed Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for not supporting impeachment, then later went, oh, I'm totally over it.
And she's going to unseat them anyway.
This is a common tactic of the far left, that no matter what you do, No matter if you apologize, no matter if you agree, they will not play ball.
You can take a look at Chick-fil-A, right?
Did you see that story?
The CEO regrets their decision that they essentially said, we're not going to donate to these organizations, we're going to donate to different organizations, essentially bending the knee to far-left activists who are still campaigning to get them removed.
The apology did nothing.
So Nancy Pelosi bends over backwards and says, fine, we'll do impeachment.
Where are we at now?
Well, impeachment's been a disaster.
It's helped Trump immensely.
And what is Ocasio-Cortez's response?
Did she come around and say, thank you for playing the way I want you to play?
No.
She said, even if you do what I say, We are still coming for you.
We will still fundraise against you.
And I will actively reject contributing to your campaigns.
And that's where we're at now.
Ocasio-Cortez defends decision not to pay House Democrats campaign dues.
And it's kind of simple.
She basically just tweeted.
I don't know if I need a whole story for it.
She said, In response to a story that said Scoop, she was withholding a quarter million dollars in dues, she said, I give quite a bit to fellow Democrats.
We've fundraised over $300,000 for others with over 50% going to swing seats.
DCCC made clear they will blacklist any organization that helps progressive candidates like me.
I can choose not to fund that kind of exclusion.
So, it is fair to point out that the establishment Democrats are actively doing that and she's pushing back.
But at the same time, don't be surprised if they reject voting with you if you are actively pushing against them.
As I've stated many times, we don't have two political parties, we have three.
We have the progressives, the Democrats, and the Republicans.
And the progressives and the other Democrats do not agree and are actively fighting each other.
But let's do this.
Let's take a dive right now into the ad campaigns being run by AOC.
This appeared on my Facebook page, which I find kind of funny because I guess it means that they think I'm a progressive, but hey, surprise, surprise.
AOC's ad reads, 11 candidates are running to unseat me in the House.
They've already raised more than $1 million to spend against us.
In response, we set a very specific goal of raising $849,119 this month,
the exact amount two of our Republican opponents raised to spend against us.
Our average donation right now is $16.81, so we need about 50,512 contributions to meet our goal.
And we've just started, so we're only 7% of the way.
Can I count on you to donate today?
Well, me, no, because I don't live in your district, and I do find it very strange that this is how politics is basically run in this country.
Not a fan.
I also find it kind of funny that the donate button isn't real on the ads, but I'll show you that in a second.
I decided to pull up Facebook's ad library.
They show you all of the ads she's bought.
And I started scrolling down.
And I kept scrolling down.
And I scrolled down more and eventually I got tired and I just jumped way, way down.
And it appears, I could be wrong on the number, but around approximately 782 ads since the start of this year.
From January 3rd to the 9th, we can see she spent just about close to $35,000, $34,000.
And let's take a look at some of the ads.
I find this very interesting.
In one ad that was less than $100, she got 2,000 to 3,000 impressions, mostly in California.
You can see it mostly targeted women.
I'm not sure if that was the intent.
It doesn't appear to show me who she's actually targeting with these ads, or I couldn't find it.
In another ad, she seriously targeted women.
And again, New York, Texas, California.
Another ad I pulled up, mostly men.
Again, New York, Texas, California.
And that seems to be the case.
Now, I think it's fair to say it could just be because there's massive urban centers.
Facebook's going to deliver ads.
If they're not saying where they want the ads to go, it might end up more so in some of these more populated states.
I think that's fair to point out.
However, it does mean that AOC is going to be collecting a substantial amount of money from outside of her district.
And this story from August 28th, 2018 says exactly that.
Most campaign contributions come from outside candidates' districts.
Now, this is actually not true for everybody, but we can see, as of August 28th, this is before I believe AOC actually officially won, she did win the primary, Look where her donations come from.
Only 5% at the point of this story actually came from her district.
Around 43, 43.5% did come from her state.
So that's a bit fair.
But it came from major urban centers.
The Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, Austin, Hawaii, Chicago.
I think it's pretty obvious, right?
Well, let's do this.
Here's some data from OpenSecrets.
In-district versus out-of-district.
Now, most candidates who are fundraising and aren't particularly famous, they are mostly in-district donations and very small amounts.
AOC is not the worst.
So this is 2018 data.
We can see that T.J.
Cox, a Democrat from California, raised 0% Then we have a Republican who is 99% out of district but only raised $82,000.
I think it's important to point out, many of these candidates raised only a couple hundred grand or less.
But many of the Democrats are raising millions.
Gina Jones of Texas, $4.9 million with 99% coming from outside of her district.
I'm not going to do a deep dive, but what I can tell you.
Is that I did a general analysis and found that around 70 or so of these out-of-district candidates are Republican and around 130, 132 or so are Democrats.
So Democrats are almost 2 to 1 more likely than Republicans to be funded from outside their districts.
Now listen.
It's legal.
There's free speech.
You don't have to live in someone's district to fund their campaign.
But I do, I do really, really not, I don't like that idea, right?
I kind of feel like you should be funded by and represent the people in your district.
Because imagine this.
Let's say you live in a district that's got fresh, natural spring water.
And the people of that district, for the most part, are actively campaigning, saying we don't want Nestle or whoever coming in and taking our spring water.
And then, sure enough, certain districts and PACs and...
People who like what Nestle does or some other company starts dumping ridiculous cash into your campaign or using super packs to run commercials to benefit you.
You end up winning and you turn around and say, thanks for the support.
Water is all yours.
If the will of the people locally who are actively paying attention and campaigning cannot compete with massive funding and commercials from outside the district, then you're going to get a lot of people who are going to be misinformed and vote against their own interests.
Ocasio-Cortez won through a primary.
We can see here that only 94% in 2018 actually came... I'm sorry, 6% came from within her district at $1,000,000.
94% from outside of her district.
And now we know she's raised around $5,000,000 and she's actively soliciting donations from the rest of the country.
Again, nothing illegal here.
I just find it particularly interesting how this politics is run and that it is mostly Democrats doing that.
Here's what the ad says when you click.
Alexandria is fighting for progressive policies that can help create social, racial, and economic justice for all.
That's why she's taking zero dollars from corporations and lobbyists and is relying on the grassroots to power her campaign.
That's actually true.
She really is doing that.
I do think it's really, really silly, though, when they say they don't take money from corporations, because a cursory Google search will reveal corporations can't actually make donations to political campaigns.
I get it, though.
They're talking about political action committees that receive— You know, they're simplifying it, so I think it's fair to point out, AOC absolutely is keeping true to her word.
Almost all of her donations, I believe— Do I have the number pulled up?
Here we go.
81.43% for this current election cycle come from small individual contributions below $200, 18% are from large contributions, and 0.39% come from political action committees.
She's got a minus of other- I don't know what that means!
How do you donate negatively?
Whatever.
The point is, it is fair to say, yes, AOC is not taking money from PACs, she is doing small donations through ad campaigns, Take it for what it is.
Now let's get to the final point.
If you've made it this far and you actually care about this stuff, congratulations.
Ocasio-Cortez is campaigning on the fact that it's not just Republican challenges.
Now, that is the focus of her campaign.
But she seriously is targeting... She's being targeted by Democrats.
You know, like I said in that op-ed the other day from CNN, they said AOC should leave the party.
Democrats have called her a deadbeat and many don't like her.
Now, There's a growing wing of progressives slowly taking over the Democratic Party.
And because of the two-party system?
Well, it's actually really, really bad news.
You see, by splitting up the Democratic coalition, and fracturing them this way, and campaigning against them, she is forcing these Democrats to focus on stopping Democratic primary challengers spending their war chests to fight Democrats and not Republicans.
You know what that means?
Advantage Republicans.
The Democrats right now, the 2020, fighting against Trump.
Here's the disadvantage.
They're all fighting against each other.
So they may be raising a ton of money, collectively more than Donald Trump, to an extent.
But they have to spend that money fighting each other and Trump only has to fight them.
Now, Trump has been focusing more on Bernie Sanders because he's taking the lead.
I think it's fair to say the activists are going to elect Bernie Sanders.
That's kind of obvious.
But when it comes to these congressional campaigns in 2020, Not only is the Trump factor, the Trump base, going to come out in droves, not only are we seeing people less likely to identify as liberal, but you also have to consider that these incumbent Democrats are fighting off Ocasio-Cortez, not just Republicans.
So they've got to fight on two fronts.
This is the fighting and fracturing Democrats, and I think it's going to give a massive advantage to the Republicans.
But this brings me to another op-ed.
Chris Silliza of CNN says, is this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Democratic Party now?
He goes on to talk about how the Democratic Party has increasingly become more progressive.
And I think it's a fair point that, yes, for a long time the progressives have been gaining ground.
They want people like Bernie.
Many of them are socialists.
But something happened.
While I think it's fair to point out AOC gained a lot of ground, there's a flippening happening.
According to Gallup, and I showed this the other day, even within the Democratic Party, people are more likely to identify as conservative.
What does that say for AOC?
She can wage this war all she wants.
And she's raising all this money from outside of her district because progressives are banding together to try and upset the established order.
I can respect that to a certain degree, but I kind of think I'm not a fan of the policies she's promoting.
I'm certainly not a fan of crony Democrats who literally do nothing.
But they are trying to get rid of her in other ways.
So is it her party?
Not yet.
I think it's a fair point to make.
She's the future.
I mean, she's got 5 million plus followers.
She raised 5 million dollars as a single-term incumbent.
That's amazing.
That's huge.
The progressives are seriously waging this war, but Here's a story from Town Hall.
The potential loss of AOC's district highlights why Democrats fumed over Trump's proposed 2020 census changes.
Many people within AOC's district are concerned she might actually lose her district.
I believe it's not going to be until 2022.
We'll see.
I don't know when the redistricting will come into play.
It might be 2024.
But right now, Democrats have actually talked about a plan to eliminate her district outright.
You may be saying, so what?
She'll still live in a congressional district.
She can still run.
Yes, but let's say there's her district and two districts around her.
And you've got person A, person B, and AOC.
If her district gets erased, she is going to be challenging another incumbent popular Democrat who is from the surrounding area.
And they're going to point to all of the failures of AOC and say, do not let her take this.
But not only that, In 2020, she's facing, I believe, three Democratic primary challenges, and I'm gonna go ahead and say, I think she can lose this one.
I really, really do.
In 2018, only about $60,000 from her campaign came from her own district.
She was promoted and funded from outside the district, and she happened to be going up against someone who was arrogant and didn't think they could lose.
Joe Crowley didn't even debate her.
So he lost.
She had a couple thousand more votes than him and won the primary, and started immediately saying, I won.
Because we all knew, it didn't matter who won the primary, that district is going Democrat.
So, there's something different happening today.
She lost some 25,000 to 40,000 jobs to the Amazon deal, and the Democrats are going to be funding this.
They thought of her as a fluke, they saw her as a nobody, she'll never win, and she did.
What do you think the Democratic establishment is going to do now?
I'll tell you this man, dark money will come a-flyin'.
But I do want to point out, the reason why they're so desperately trying to shut her down, 5.30 has the story why the Democrats have shifted over the last 30 years.
And I want to point something important.
Check out this graph.
We can see around the start of the 2010s, there was a massive spike in government helping black people, immigration, and paying for health care.
Now, the healthcare thing, I think, is somewhat related, particularly with Bernie Sanders' growth in popularity and a lot of people pushing that out.
But there's another fact I've pointed to a lot, is that it's the rise of Facebook, the algorithm, and how it pushed out intersectionality.
This resulted in people being inundated over and over and over again with racial justice ideas, and then demanding it.
It was an excellent ad blitz for people like AOC, who probably then just jumped on the
bandwagon and instead of pushing things that make sense, like sound environmental policy,
she pushes equity for all and free jobs or free college or whatever.
But it was social media that drove this fracture.
Not every Democrat is on social media.
So you have the young people, primarily leftist, primarily believing this stuff, and the older
generation that isn't on social media remaining more moderate.
In the voter breakdown, we can see 18 to 34 leans for Bernie Sanders just slightly.
There's a big faction voting for Biden, even among 18 to 34 year olds.
But beyond that, it is Biden all the way.
It is the youth, active on social media that were berated and inundated with the social justice content, and now they hold these views and you can see these spikes in LexisNexis data.
But I leave you with this.
AOC is not the only one waging war.
From Fox News, far-left uniting for all-out attack to block Biden.
They say from Politico.
The progressive movement is kicking off 2020 with a full-scale whack-a-joe mobilization against the former vice president, marked by intensified attacks and protests designed to bloody Joe Biden in advance of the Iowa caucuses.
And in one of the latest polls, Bernie Sanders took the lead.
Biden's down.
They say the grassroots assault hit from a variety of angles starting Monday when the progressive Change Campaign Committee demanded Biden retract statements about sexism in politics.
Hours later, the group Indivisible criticized him over his immigration plan.
Then activists aligned with the Sunrise Movement recently picketed him at a New York City fundraiser hosted by a billionaire.
Let me tell you something.
It doesn't matter if Joe Biden is being propped up in the polls.
Because I'll tell you this.
When they poll Democrats, they're polling the passive Democrats.
But I will tell you who's going to go out and vote.
The activists.
It is my firm belief Bernie Sanders will take this one all the way.
And that's going to pave the way for a massive Donald Trump victory.
Because the average Democrat does not want socialism.
The average Democrat is asked, and they say Biden, for sure.
But the average Democrat won't vote in a primary.
They will vote in the general.
Well, I shouldn't say the average, but many Democrats are not going to vote in the primary.
Bernie's base is going to go out in droves.
They're going to appoint Bernie Sanders the nominee.
And then when it comes to general, Trump is going to have a massive landslide.
I could be wrong, but I'll tell you this.
I'll wrap this up.
The Democrats are at war with each other.
And that means they are fighting off attacks from each other.
Now it's primary season.
Of course, this is normal.
But we're going into... There's congressional seats up for grabs.
And that means going into 2020, it's not just about primaries.
It's about moderate Democrats facing off primary challenges, and they're gonna lose.
And it's about... I'll tell you this, man.
When the progressive Democrats primary the moderates in the Trump districts, Yeah, those districts are going Trump for a number of reasons.
Now, I've said before, Trump's base will be out in 2020, so they're going to vote for Trump in bigger numbers, and the Republicans will win back these districts.
Also consider, if the Democrats primary the moderates with a progressive like AOC wants to do, it will swing even harder.
I'll tell you what, man.
You look at Jeff Van Drew, right, the guy who flipped parties, and he's a moderate.
You know, he's gotten a good rating from the NRA and stuff like that.
He's a moderate Democrat.
He won because there were some conservatives willing to support him.
You put Ocasio-Cortez in his district and it will be R plus 30 from all the people freaking out saying we do not want the crazy socialist lady representing our district.
So if they primary like AOC wants to do, expect a Republican supermajority.
I think the Democrats are in trouble.
And I think the far left will likely still gain ground, likely still win because most of the Democrats are passive and don't care.
The far left is going to take over and there will be a reckoning after 2020 if the Democrats don't get back on track and start catering to moderates again, because the Gallup poll shows us.
Out of all the parties, so out of three factions, conservative, moderate, liberal, you've got 30-some-odd percent conservative, 30-some-odd percent moderate, and 24% liberal and going down.
After 2020, there will be a reckoning and the Democrats will never win again if the progressives are allowed to keep taking over in these safe districts.
These safe blue districts will become unsafe swing districts as people flock to the Republican Party in fear of whatever this is that AOC represents.
I'll leave it there!
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is my other channel, and I will see you all then.
Iran has finally admitted it.
They shot down that plane.
We all knew it.
And I gotta say this, when the story first broke, we had missile strikes coming out of Iran, a plane crashes, we all knew in the back of our minds.
And I'm gonna take this time to say something I normally, I probably wouldn't say normally, but think about Epstein, think about a ton of other stories where you just know, okay?
How stupid Do they think we are?
That Iran's firing 15 missiles and a plane crashes, and then they say, it was just, at the same time as we're at war and launching missiles across our border a few hours later on high alert with our anti-aircraft missiles, guarding our airports because we're concerned about US retaliation, a plane crashes after bursting into flames, its radio turns off, it veers to the right in a fireball and crashes into the ground, and then we bulldoze the space.
Come on!
At a certain point, we all knew, Listen, my heart goes out to the people who lost their lives, their memorial services, and I'm glad Iran is finally admitting it, and I'm hoping, now with them finally admitting it, that we will actually see some kind of international coming together of some sort to curb what Iran does and has been doing.
Listen, I'm not a fan of foreign intervention, of what's going on in the Middle East.
The U.S.
thinks it's their business that Iran was, you know, engaging in these actions.
And you know what, man?
A lot of people are... Let me show you something right now.
Iran has admitted it.
Let me show you something from John Pilger.
He deleted this tweet.
He said, Iran has admitted accidentally shooting down the Ukrainian airliner.
So while I was wrong to jump to a conclusion, what is not in doubt is that Trump's murder of a foreign leader set in train the precarious events that led to this tragedy and could lead to all-out war.
Are you kidding me?
You know what's insane to me?
Let me tell you exactly how I explained to my friends.
I'm talking to my family and they're like, Trump started it by targeting that general.
And I say, you mean that general started it by trying to burn down our embassy.
You mean America started it by targeting the militias.
You mean the militias started it by taking out an American contractor and targeting US troops.
You mean over and over and over again.
And we go all the way back to, you mean Iran started it for trying to, you know, for conflict with Israel and setting militias up in the Middle East.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, man.
This is not a conflict that started overnight.
And you know what the problem is?
As I've explained before, it's the same problem we have with Antifa.
Antifa goes around bashing Skulls, and the news doesn't care because they're not, you know...
No one, it's just, that's it, it's just they don't care, right?
It's like, so a guy got in a fight and whacked another guy, that happens all the time, who cares?
But they do it all the time.
CNN's not gonna be like, top of the, you know, hour, breaking news, Antifa clubbed a guy.
So you have 800 plus instances where Antifa does all these things, and the meat doesn't cover it because each thing is kind of small but consistent.
You then have these big spikes of the far right, where like, you know, one guy will do one crazy thing, And it's tragic and it's a mass tragic event with like dozens of people who lose their lives.
And that makes the news.
And that makes sense.
I understand why it does.
So here's what ends up happening.
How many people?
Go ask your friends and family.
Go ask your parents.
Say, mom, go ask your liberal mom or dad or whatever.
Mom, how do you feel about Iran trying to burn down or Iranian militias or supporters trying to burn down the embassy?
Well, it's Trump's fault for targeting this general.
And I was like, yeah, it's the general's fault for targeting the embassy.
And they said, what do you mean?
They tried to burn down the embassy!
They torched the lobby and the guard post.
And I think they got like two rooms.
And the Marines had to come in and surround the building.
Really?
Yes!
You know what, man?
We shouldn't be there in the first place.
But how insane do you have to be to be like, it's Trump's fault that Iran blew up a commercial airliner.
What?
Listen, Trump targeted a guy in Iraq, where our troops are, after his supporters tried to burn down our embassy.
I am no fan, because I think at a certain point you need to leave, okay?
I am never, never going to praise Trump for doing this.
And I see on Fox News they're saying, only Democrats praise... No, Soleimani was a monster!
Okay?
He was doing guerrilla, you know, insurgent tactics, supplying really bad people to do really bad things.
And I'm no fan of the guy.
And it was, my understanding is Obama was the guy who labeled him a terrorist.
So I get it.
I don't like the escalation.
I don't like the guy either.
I don't know what the right thing to do is.
I understand why Trump did it.
But I just think we're going to keep staying in this fight forever because it's always going to be one thing leading to another.
Now here's what John Pilger says.
Trump did it.
Are you kidding me?
Bush brought us there.
How are you going to blame Trump?
I'm not going to blame Trump or Obama.
Now I'm going to criticize Trump and Obama for the tactics they used for the drone strikes, commando raids.
But I think it was the New York Times that said Trump has used military force less than all of his predecessors.
Or than, not all of, but the past several predecessors while we've been in the Middle East.
Now, Trump has ramped up drone strikes.
That's my general understanding.
It is contested.
But, you know, the left, you know, says it's true.
And then I've seen the right saying it's not.
But I've seen news reports saying it is.
So you fact check me on that one.
You look it up.
Point is.
I don't like what's going on there.
Iran admitted it.
But it's mind-numbing to me that you get like Pete Buttigieg, you know, not really blaming Trump, but kind of.
The left is so insane, deranged, when it comes to everything Trump is doing is bad, that they literally blame Trump for the fact that Iran fired missiles at Iraq.
And then blew up a commercial airliner.
Nah, that's Iran's fault.
I'm sorry.
And now they're admitting it, but they're doing the same thing.
I think it's hilarious that John Pilger's line, and many others, this is what I highlighted, is the same talking point of Iran.
Listen, Iran retaliated.
Iran, okay, here's where the whole chain of events actually started in the news cycle that I can track.
American soldiers were targeted by Iranian militias.
An American contractor was killed.
Trump retaliated with a drone strike on the militia.
The supporters got angry and stormed the U.S.
embassy, torching it, trying to burn it down.
Marines came out, secured the place.
Ospreys came in.
Trump stopped it.
The left was screaming, it's Trump's Benghazi.
Trump then targeted the leader of the Quds Force, the guy who organizes all this.
Iran got angry and then launched missiles from Iran into Iraq.
So I'm going to say it, man.
First, I can say it 50 billion times, we shouldn't be in Iraq.
We should not.
But I think it's fair to point out we have embassies all over the world and they targeted the embassy.
Okay, you want to talk about who started what?
They went after the embassy.
They weren't going after soldiers.
This was a step up.
It was soldier versus soldier.
Militias attacked American troops.
Trump retaliated on soldiers.
They targeted the embassy.
So Trump said, you're in Iraq.
You guys target our embassy.
I'm taking out your leader.
Once again, Trump went after a military target, not a civilian target.
So what did Iran do from Iran's country?
Fired missiles into Iraq.
And then what did they do?
They somehow managed to blow up a commercial airliner.
I'm sorry, man.
What the US is doing in Iraq is wrong and they shouldn't be there.
I do not like the escalation.
I think we should have left a long time ago.
And I'll do what Tucker Carlson did, and I'll say, I'll quote Donald Trump from 2007, you just leave!
Because this is just going to keep happening.
But, as much as I can be critical of the U.S.
and the Middle East, I still think it's fair to point out Trump is acting under the two AUMFs authorized by Congress, which, yes, we should repeal, but there's a big difference between saying, this is a country in which we are operating, this is a country where our troops are stationed, and you targeted our civilian HQ, we're going to take out your military leader.
Big difference.
See the difference?
Iran then decided to fire missiles into a country.
A huge step up.
Once again, Iran, in my opinion, is the principal aggressor escalating the problems.
Now I get it.
We can go way back and see that the U.S.
invading Iraq was based on lies, caused huge problems, but there is a big difference between the U.S.
invading Iraq and Iran firing missiles into Iraq.
That's basically on par.
You want to blame the U.S.
for their invasion?
Well, blame Iran for firing missiles.
After the U.S.
is already there, we have an agreement with the current government, I can complain about everything that happened in Iraq all day and night, the chain of events going back in time, but the main point is...
Iran accidentally shot down this airplane because they were the ones who were escalating the tensions, okay?
Trump acted within the borders of Iraq.
Trump did not target the domestic Iran.
Iran then did fire internationally.
Trump did not do that, okay?
So listen, while I certainly think we should have left a long time ago, and to quote Trump in 2007, just leave.
I think it's absurd that the left is so deranged about how much they hate Trump, they're acting like everything that's going on is his fault.
It has to be.
The economy is too good, things are going great for America, so it's always Trump's fault.
You know what?
I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm hoping she's the kind of person who would follow through with what even Trump said of, just leave.
It's enough.
And now they're asking us to get out, and they're saying, we're not leaving.
Okay, maybe we should.
Maybe we've overstayed our welcome.
Maybe it's time we stop the escalation and just get out.
But I'll tell you this, man.
It's not Trump's fault.
It's not Obama's fault.
It's Bush's fault.
It's Bush.
It's Cheney.
It's the Bush administration.
It's the lies about WMDs.
It was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.
Yeah, what happened in the early 2000s was a psychotic, terrifying moment in American history.
And we should never forget 9-11.
But to take that as a pretext for invading the Middle East, countries that had essentially nothing to do with what was going on.
And I say essentially because, you know, to an extent people argue about who supported who and who was hiding who where and things like that.
But we ended up invading Iraq based on a lie.
That to me is psychotic.
WMDs.
We can't allow them to continue.
And it's nothing.
No.
But the mobile, the mobile labs, no, no, nothing there.
And here we are.
It's been like 20 years.
And now we're just seeing a continued escalation.
It's time to go.
I'll tell you what, man.
Trump should get us out.
He absolutely should.
And you know what?
I'm not confident he will.
This is why I don't like voting at all.
It's why I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary.
And I maybe would have voted for Bernie because he seemed like a different kind of politician.
I won't do that again.
We'll see what happens with Yang or Tulsi.
But I think Trump's gonna win re-election, and that's why I want to see him get our troops.
We have 5,000 in Iraq.
It's a decent amount, okay?
But it's not like we have, you know, 50 to 100,000.
So it's time we leave.
You know, we let the chips fall where they do.
You know, we need to set up treaties and agreements with foreign countries.
I don't know what the issue is at this point.
Maybe there's just too much top secret stuff I don't know about, and I think it's fair to say.
But at a certain point, you're going to keep seeing stories like this.
And I guess my main criticism is, I can sit right here and say, I don't know why we're still there.
There may be legitimate reason.
I'm not stupid.
There may be serious concerns that we don't know about because it's classified.
I'll accept that.
But I think if they want to justify having our troops over there, then the American people deserve to know, beyond, you know, just, it's stabilizing force.
Nah, you gotta give us a good reason, man.
We're spending money, we've got American soldiers over there, we need to bring them back from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and let, the region is a disaster.
I do not, I'm sorry, unless you're gonna justify it to us, I'm never gonna support it.
No.
It was built upon a lie, and it's time to go.
But did Trump start it?
He did not.
Has Trump used less military force?
Well, according to the New York Times, that's the case.
Obama did a bunch of really, really bad things, too.
Obama's extrajudicial assassinations need to be called out.
But now, it's just, the orange man is so bad that even when Iran says, you know what, we bulldozed the site, it was us, the left is saying, well, you know, I recognize that they admitted it, but it's still Trump's fault somehow.
Gotta love it!
I don't know what y'all expect, man.
These people wonder why I make videos about the Democrats the way I do.
They wonder why someone who is liberal would be like, what's wrong with the Democrats?
Let me tell you, Pete Buttigieg, it's like, I don't want to play this hyperbolic game where I'm like, he accused the U.S., but he kind of did, right?
Well, Iran, of course, is saying it's because of U.S.
adventurism.
If it wasn't because of the U.S., nah, dude.
You're the one who pulled the trigger, that's on you.
Okay?
You need to take responsibility for what you did.
So I'm sitting here, complaining about the escalation, literally criticizing the president, saying, as much as I totally understand who Suleimani was, and I think it's a problem, I'm concerned that it will lead to escalation, I understand the reasoning for doing it, as I've laid out.
The embassy is a civilian target, Trump targeted a military leader, okay?
There's a lot of complicated factors here, right?
It's complicated.
To quote the Mandarin from Iron Man 3, it's complicated.
Hey!
The fact is, though, Trump didn't start this war.
I would like to see Trump end it.
But what we're seeing in terms of escalation, I put the blame on George W. Bush, because we should not be there in the first place.
But somehow the Democrats are still able to twist everything into being Trump's fault when Trump didn't start the war, Trump came into office only a few years ago, Trump targeted a military target after they targeted a civilian target.
Trump kept it within the borders of the country in which we do have congressional authorization.
And then Iran admits it and it's still Trump's fault!
So if you ended up watching this, 10am youtube.com slash timcast, I will have a segment up.
I think I'm going to do a segment on how fat people are causing climate change.
I'm not kidding, it's an actual thing.
I'll see you all then.
Rather hypocritically, Nancy Pelosi introduced a war resolution to limit Donald Trump's powers to engage in certain conflicts in the Middle East.
And there's some things about it that I think make sense.
One of the biggest problems is, first of all, Yes, the powers to wage war shall be given to Congress, and apparently Matt Gaetz agrees.
We'll get to this in a second.
But the big problem is that Nancy Pelosi previously said Obama didn't need authority to wage conflict in Libya, so it seems quite hypocritical.
But whether or not Nancy Pelosi is hypocritical has nothing to do with the principle of defending the right of Congress to levy war.
Matt Gaetz and a few other Republicans voted in favor of this resolution, which is non-binding, by the way.
Apparently he doesn't do anything.
And now Matt Gaetz is being dragged really hard by Trump supporters in general.
A lot of people saying they'll never vote for him again, he's betrayed the president, he's stabbed in the back.
And I think that's a big mistake.
I think by not supporting Matt Gaetz, Matt Gaetz Republicans are giving a perfect talking point to the Democrats.
A lot of people are arguing, because Matt Gaetz, again, he's a staunch Trump ally, one of the biggest, and a Republican, because he voted with Democrats, he's given them a talking point.
No!
It's your opposition to his principled choice to defend the right of Congress to wage war, which is giving a talking point.
Let me show you the story and we'll explain a bit about what's going on.
From the Washington Post, Trump angered by House allies' push to limit his authority on Iran.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
Also, make sure to check out the new upcoming show in about a week over at YouTube.com slash TimCast IRL.
Subscribe if you like my content.
This stuff's not going to be overly, like, heavy new.
It's going to be a lot more fun.
So check that out.
But let's get back to the story.
They say, Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican and staunch ally of President Trump, pushed
other Republicans to vote in favor of limiting Trump's authority in the military confrontation
with Iran, drawing ire from the president and other Republicans in Congress, according
to aides and emails.
Quote, Reclaiming congressional power is the constitutional conservative position, Devin
Murphy, Gaetz's legislative director, wrote to all Republican offices around 11 a.m.
Thursday, underlining the text according to the email obtained by the Washington Post.
The message, arguing for Republicans to buck the president, ended, We will be voting in favor of H. Conres 83 and hope you will do the same.
It was a risky move, I disagree, that surprised the president and showed rare fissures in a Republican party that Trump has firmly controlled.
Trump fiercely complained about gates after aides informed Trump that his office had sent the email backing the resolution.
Which was pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Trump's team lobbied heavily against the non-binding resolution.
You are making a huge mistake, Republicans.
This was the greatest gift to be given to you in terms of strategy and talking points, and many, not all, are throwing it in the gutter.
Matt Gaetz has proven, with his willingness to join Democrats, that for one, everything the Democrats have been doing has been a partisan sham, and two, Republicans act on principle.
I believe Matt Gaetz firmly represents those positions, and I think it is wrong to criticize him for it.
But still, people on Twitter and otherwise are dragging him and giving the left the perfect talking point that Trump's base cares not about principle and that they're a cult and if you step out of line, you're problematic and you will be shunned and you'll be removed from office.
Let me explain something.
Matt Gaetz doesn't care if you're a Democrat or Republican.
Matt Gaetz said the president is right on all of these things.
Matt Gaetz has spoken up about so many issues of principle.
And now he is defending something that is legitimately true.
Congress has the power to levy war, not the president.
If Trump wants to target Iran, he needs congressional approval.
I'm going to stop for a second talking about Iran.
I'm not going to get too into it because I just did a bonus segment earlier.
The point is Trump is acting in Iraq where we do have congressional authority and it's really complicated of which I am not a fan and think these two authorizations for use of military force should be repealed.
But the fact is Trump is not engaging in Iran and that's where it becomes complicated.
But I think it's fair to say that Congress, it's a non-binding resolution.
Has the authority to levy war.
And that's what Matt Gaetz's office has said.
And I absolutely respect that principle.
Matt Gaetz was willing to say to the Republicans, I will not stand behind Trump if he's wrong on this one.
I will act principally.
And what happened?
Well, he's getting a lot of praise from some Democrats.
And of course, a lot of Republicans are getting angry.
But I tell you this.
You have an opportunity to defend a man who is willing to cross party lines to prove that when it comes to a rock and a hard place, he will take the principled position, even if it means going against his own party.
And that says so much more than what the Democrats were willing to do.
Jeff Van Drew had to leave the Democratic Party because they threatened him because he wouldn't support impeachment.
And I heavily criticize that.
You need these voices.
You need a diversity of opinion.
And you will not always be unified.
And I will say the same thing about Matt Gaetz now.
Let me show you a few tweets.
First, the reporter from the Washington Post, he says that Matt Gaetz circulated an email to other Republicans urging them to vote to curb Trump's Iran power.
Other Republicans fought back.
Private emails show Gaetz was ratted out to the White House.
POTUS is not happy.
Let me show you this.
Rick Wilson.
Never Trumper.
Apostate GOP media guy, he says.
He says this on Twitter.
I am going to retweet some of the cult's replies to Matt Gaetz after he got ratted out and taken to the woodshed by Trump.
This is a perfect example of my rule of the Saddamification of Trump.
I'm sorry, of the GOP. These mooks loved Gaetz until they didn't.
Well, a certain amount of people have dragged Gaetz for it, and they're wrong to do so.
Look at the talking points you have given to them.
Republicans will complain all day and night about the Democrats, about them forcing people like Van Drew to fall in line.
Van Drew defects because he is sick of... They threatened him.
Democrat went to his office and said, unless you do what we say, we will remove you.
And so he said, fine.
I'll switch parties.
This is an opportunity, or was, to prove that Republicans wouldn't play the same game and they would accept it.
Let me show you something.
Carpe donctum.
Renowned Trump supporter and memesmith saying, you can disagree with how Matt Gates voted yesterday, I do.
It's okay to disagree, it's healthy.
But I'm seeing people try to burn him to the ground over a bill they probably didn't read and a position they likely don't understand.
Matt is 100% behind Trump.
Here is my final thought.
I see a lot of replies that express concern that he fell for Pelosi's trap, and maybe that's correct.
But Matt has been one of Trump's strongest and most effective supporters.
Don't fall into a trap yourself when you burn him at the stake for no reason.
No reason equals voting in the affirmative to a non-binding, constitutionally-grounded bill.
I ran out of space to make that clear.
I completely agree with Carpe Dunctum.
I think the actual trap here was that Pelosi was baiting Republicans into pushing against a constitutionally-backed bill, constitutionally-grounded bill, so that she can say, aha!
It's something so stupidly obvious.
I gotta tell you, man, I read through it, and it's nothing!
It's really nothing.
And Matt Gaetz said, I'm not going to fall for this.
I'm going to do the right thing.
And now he is getting dragged ridiculously on Twitter.
At first, I didn't believe it.
OK, I got to be honest.
I thought, no way.
This is this is them, you know, the never Trumpers and the woke Twitterati people exaggerating what's really happening.
And then I looked at the responses to Carpe D'Antem.
Look at this.
This person who's not even conservative says, get ratioed.
No.
Carpe Dantum did not get ratioed.
There's actually more support, it would seem, to retweet the idea of Carpe Dantum, that you can defend Matt Gaetz.
So let me make it clear.
I'm not criticizing every single Republican here, but I absolutely am criticizing the ones who are dragging Matt Gaetz for doing the right thing.
Stand up, prove you act on principle, and say something better than what the Democrats have said in the past.
The Democrats have continually said, fall in line or else.
They're undergoing a massive civil war.
The moderates, the far left, telling Van Drew, in or out, you're either with us or against us.
Don't do the same thing.
Prove the Republicans are willing to accept people who might disagree.
Because I'll tell you this, as much as Trump is angry at Gaetz for doing this, Trump endorsed Jeff Van Drew, who has voted against him and voted nearly in line with everything Pelosi pushed.
When Van Drew said they're threatening me, I'm going to switch.
Trump shook his hand and is now going to do a campaign in Wildwood.
So Trump should learn a lesson, too.
Trump should be saying things like, I respect Matt Gaetz for his principled position.
I firmly disagree.
This is the opportunity to prove you have principle on your side.
Instead, what do we get?
It's long Twitter thread.
He sided with the Dems.
So he's actually not 100% with real Donald Trump.
Sorry.
Jeff Van Drew didn't side with the Dems or the Republicans.
He refused to engage in partisan nonsense.
And he said, there's no reason to impeach this president.
I refuse to do it.
And what did the left say?
What Democrats say?
He's only doing that because he's scared he won't get reelected.
Maybe.
They went to his office apparently and said, unless you, you have to vote our way or we'll primary you.
So he defected.
Matt Gaetz should not be facing that same thing from Republicans, but the Republicans that come out, the conservatives that come out and drag Matt Gaetz for this, they are doing basically the same thing that the Democrats have been doing.
Buck the tribe, defend your principles, and Matt Gaetz has been one of the biggest supporters of Trump, so if you're a Trump supporter, you should be saying what Carpe Donknum is saying, and it really does look like most people agree.
They're willing to accept Matt Gaetz having a different opinion to defend a constitutionally grounded bill, and I think Pelosi is setting a trap.
I really do.
She says, it is wildly populist and popular to avoid this conflict.
Even Tucker Carlson has run multiple segments saying, do not do this, it's a bad idea.
There are a lot of people who just get behind Trump no matter what.
That's a fact.
But Pelosi, in my opinion, sees what Tucker is saying, sees what the general Americans are saying, and so she, you know, flips her collar up and says, boom!
Non-binding resolution.
Take the bait, please.
And Matt Gaetz said, no.
I'm not taking that bait.
It's a good bill.
I get it.
It's non-binding anyway.
What's it going to do?
Nothing.
And now he's getting dragged for it.
But let me show you this.
I gotta be really careful about the articles that I pull up because, you know, YouTube's gonna come after me.
Look how bright this stupid screen is.
NBC, what are you doing?
Nancy Pelosi's vote on a war powers resolution to rein in Trump on Iran is hypocritical.
Democratic leaders didn't act against Obama's military overreach as he launched attacks across the Middle East and North Africa.
Yes.
You know, it's really funny to me.
I hear on Fox News.
I'm gonna get rid of this bright screen.
I gotta move this over.
What is this one?
Alright.
I hear it on Fox News.
They say, only the Democrats are upset with Trump over, you know, either you're a leftist or a Democrat.
That's the only reason you're mad about what Trump did.
Not true.
Well, I think it's fair to say I am a leftist.
Well, a liberal.
Leftist and liberal mean different things.
My criticism of Trump is founded in reality.
My criticism of the escalation in Iraq isn't putting the blame solely on Trump.
If you listened to my segment at 9am I did about Iran, I gotta be careful.
I'm sorry.
It's just a fact of how YouTube operates.
I get it.
There's two authorizations for use of military force.
Trump is operating under them.
And if we want to change that, Congress needs to repeal it.
They don't want to.
There's a reason why the resolution is non-binding.
Because they don't really want it.
The Democrats love the machine the same as everybody else.
So they need to pretend like they're opposing the president.
That's the game.
It's a trap.
But this is what I hear.
On the right—I'm sorry, on the left, literally everything Trump does is wrong.
Trump goes, okay, fine, I'll leave the soldiers there.
How could Trump be doing this?
That's the problem.
If Matt Gaetz periodically votes out of line with the Republican Party line, he's proving the Republicans act on principle and they're actually better than the Democrats when it comes to standing up for what they believe in.
But check this out.
This is a crazy story to me.
From NBC News, Republicans Thomas Massey of Kentucky, Matt Gaetz, and Francis Rooney, both of Florida, voted for the measure, while eight Democrats voted against it.
Why is anybody dragging Gaetz over this?
This was a mixed vote.
Who cares?
Look at this.
Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, And she's one of the moderates.
Elaine Luria of Virginia, Ben McAdams of Utah, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose, both of New York.
That was a lot of the moderates coming out and opposing the bill from Pelosi.
The Democrats aren't dragging them.
I mean, to an extent, probably.
But it's not the big story.
Don't let them take this advantage of you.
You know what, man?
It sets a really bad example when you allow Rick Wilson to gloat.
The dude, in my opinion, doesn't have principles.
So many on the left simply say Orange Man bad on repeat.
It's like I explained the other day.
You know that video of the guy gobbling at the turkeys, and the turkeys all gobble back?
Seriously, you gotta see it.
It's hilarious.
It's a viral video.
That's what it is.
Trump says something, and like a clockwork, you know they're just gonna go... They're not gonna say anything.
It's like, literally, Trump will say something, and then add the word bad to the end of it.
Trump says, no troops in Syria, and they say, no troops in Syria, bad.
And Trump says, okay, troops in Syria.
Troops in Syria, bad.
So how are you now allowing them to take this point?
Matt Gaetz did the right thing.
Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the U.S.
attack on Soleimani, saying the resolution would send a clear statement that Trump shouldn't take further military action against Iran without approval from Congress.
Last week, in our view, the administration conducted a provocative, disproportionate airstrike against Iran, which endangered Americans, and did so without consulting Congress, Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
Completely hypocritical.
And I do not respect Pelosi's statements.
And I gotta admit, you know, her reasoning behind this, I also don't respect.
That's why I think it was a trap.
I think she's trying to be manipulative.
We've seen the soundbites.
I don't know if you've seen it from C-SPAN.
A reporter says, are you saying Obama doesn't need congressional approval?
And she goes, yes.
Think about that.
Libya, we have no authorization for use of military force.
And she still claimed Obama was justified to do it.
That to me is insane.
See, that was the rapid expansion of executive authority happening back during the Obama administration that I called out.
So let me go back to the other point I was making a few minutes ago.
When they said on Fox News, only the left is critical of what Trump did.
I guess.
Perhaps.
You know, I think there have been some, you know, people who are on the right who are concerned about escalation.
But then I go back to the people saying, where was everybody, you know, during Obama?
Well, I was right here, okay?
I've got videos talking about the NDAA and the AUMF, explaining what's wrong with it.
I was very critical of what Obama was doing, and I have no problem saying it.
I have no problem saying that after Obama, I was a big supporter of Bernie, and then when Bernie started playing these games, I am no longer a supporter of Bernie.
This is what really bothers me.
Why can't people just have, like, just be honest about what you think should or shouldn't be happening?
I guess it's fair to say these people who are mad at Gaetz are simply people who are like, Trump is right no matter what.
But that kind of proves the point of the Democrats, and you know what?
So be it.
It's unfortunate.
But these people do exist, and I've criticized that.
You know, it's really funny.
The longest time there have been people complaining, Tim, all you do is rag on the Democrats.
When's the other boot gonna drop?
When the Republicans do something that's hypocritical or worthy of criticism?
Because the biggest thing I see, right, is that, first of all, Libya and what's going on right now are different things.
There's authorization for one.
Technically, there's two authorizations, and I'm critical of them.
And then you have Libya, which had no authorization.
Well, conservatives were critical of Libya.
I get it.
Congress never authorized it.
And now you have Democrats being critical of what Democrats actually authorized a long time ago.
You see, there's a disconnect here.
If Republicans come out and say, here's what we're for, and they all shake hands and agree and pat each other on the back, what am I supposed to say?
Republicans believe thing?
Oh, shock.
But what happens when Ocasio-Cortez says, Pete Buttigieg takes money from billionaires?
And then someone pulls up her record and they're like, uh, you received money from billionaires too.
And then she goes, zip.
Yeah, that's hypocrisy.
When Bernie Sanders says, the billionaires and the dark money, we got to get money out of politics.
And it turns out he started, he started a 501c4 and it's got dark money circulating behind his campaign too.
I'm like, great.
I will call that out.
Trump's a billionaire who brags about being a billionaire.
Trump supporters brag about Trump and everything is accomplished.
You know what, man?
When Trump said that infamous, you know, line, grab the women by the, you know, I gotta be careful here on YouTube.
Family friendly, right?
Women Trump supporters started buying shirts that said it.
So the left is like, Oh, look how Trump, Trump's so disgusting.
And I'm like, they like that he says this.
Okay.
What am I supposed to say?
Trump is gross.
I have a lot, but what am I going to do?
Rag on Republicans for laughing about it and liking it.
Trump's done a lot of things that I don't like.
He was a lot of rhetoric.
I don't like, and I'm critical of it.
What am I supposed to do?
Make a video where it's like Trump supporters agree with Trump.
What about when Democrats call out a certain thing and then do it and say nothing?
What about when they present no evidence and say the Kavanaugh trial?
These are things that are really easy to call out because they're complete BS.
Right now, the talking point is being handed to the Democrats, because Matt Gaetz said, Congress shall have the power.
And what happened?
People are actually tweeting to Carpe Donctum, I will never vote for him again.
You know, let's see what people say.
The only thing he accomplished was to give Democrats talking points.
No, that's you!
That's you!
They're using what you're saying to accuse Trump's base of being a strict cult that no one can defy for any reason.
And that's been them!
You know what, man?
You know why this is frustrating?
The woke Twitterati and far-left have played this purity test game of such insanity and absurdity they've called Barack Obama a conservative.
Don't give them this talking point.
Let people within your party cross the line sometimes to prove it.
But you know what?
If that's the case, then I accept that I'm wrong.
But I do think it's fair to point out, and make sure I stress this, Carpe Donctum's tweet was not ratioed.
It stands to reason most Republicans and conservatives actually agree and recognize that Matt Gaetz voted out of line, and it's an okay thing to do.
And that Matt Gaetz is one of the biggest defenders of Donald Trump, on principle.
And you know what Matt Gaetz did here?
What Matt Gaetz did actually says a lot, in my opinion.
It says that all of the times he's backed Trump, It's been because of his principles.
And when his principles were challenged, he chose to defy Trump.
That means he is not a Trump sycophant.
It means that the things he's defended Trump on are things he truly believes.
And this is fuel.
This was a perfect gift Matt Gaetz was giving to Trump's base to prove the Democrats wrong.
How many times has the woke left, the far left, and the Democrats done something where you've laughed and been like, no matter what you do, it's wrong.
You must bow and bend the knee.
This was the opportunity to say that's not the case with Republicans, but unfortunately, at least in some circumstances it is.
Now again, I'll stress, I'll still hand it to, you know, to Carpe Dantum, to Matt Gaetz, because it looks like most people actually agree.
And you probably agree with a lot of what I'm saying.
But there are people who are probably going to dislike this video and say, no, he defied the president, whatever.
Well, you know what?
Too bad.
Donald Trump doesn't deserve a bent knee and allegiance.
Donald Trump deserves to be right if he's right.
Period.
And if the executive branch is overstepping its bounds, Congress will check it.
That's the point.
I love it.
You know, one of the best things that Trump has given us is the curtailing of executive authority.
Because under Obama, it expanded rapidly without qualm.
Nancy Pelosi says, Obama doesn't need approval.
He can do whatever he wants.
Under Trump, there's been pullback.
Now, do I believe Nancy Pelosi is actually acting principally?
Absolutely not.
I think she's laying a trap.
But this, to me, proves that Matt Gaetz has more integrity in his pinky finger than many, many of the Democrats.
All of these moderates, right?
These 31 to 40 districts who voted for impeachment with no statutory crime because they were scared.
And Jeff Van Drew's only option was to say, I'm leaving the party then.
Matt Gaetz should not be chased out of the party.
He should not lose his constituency simply for voting one time with a constitutionally grounded bill.
So listen.
The bill basically says Trump has to cease hostilities unless he gets approval from Congress.
Against Iran.
What's the problem?
Literally, what's the problem?
Okay?
Trump doesn't need to... Look, what happened right now, you need to understand, was Trump acting within Iraq.
Okay?
Now they're saying because the target happened to be Iranian, that's the issue.
Sure.
Well, if Trump, you know, if Trump knew that, then he shouldn't do that.
Okay.
Okay.
All right.
The AUMF for Iraq was for Saddam Hussein, and I think it should be repealed.
But the 2001 AUMF is for General Terror.
And this guy was labeled by Obama.
So listen.
This bill, in my opinion, is stupid, okay?
But I think Gaetz is right, and I think the general idea that Congress has this power is right, and Gaetz's office said that.
It's a constitutionally conservative position.
Don't fall for this trap, man, because now you've got the never-Trumpers, and you've got the woke left saying, this is proof that Trump's base is a cult.
But it's not.
Because carbidontum was not ratioed.
As much as this, you know, lefty Twitter is laughing, saying, get ratioed, didn't happen.
Carbidontum's followers, staunch Trump supporters of one of the most epic memesmiths defending the president, tend to agree.
Many, many disagree.
You get a lot of responses saying, no, because people are angry.
But I think what we're actually seeing is that most people agree Matt Gaetz should be allowed to dissent.
Whatever, man.
You do you.
I don't care.
I'm just looking for integrity and consistency, alright?
So I'll leave it there.
I think Matt Gaetz is... There's probably some stuff I disagree with him on, but I gotta be honest.
A lot of the issues where he's talked about censorship, social media stuff, I agree.
And I think I have tremendous respect for him doing this.
He's one of the biggest Trump supporters, and he had no problem coming out and saying, not this time.
Man, I give you an applause for that one.
I really do respect that.
Jeff Van Drew tried that, and they lit him up.
They threw him over the fire, and so he jumped ship.
That's disgusting to me.
I appreciate the Republicans giving it, you know, Trump willing to give a handshake to Van Drew, and this is the issue.
I've repeatedly said in my segments about Van Drew that Trump has proven the Republicans are willing to accept dissent if it means they can broaden their base and that proves they're willing to accept a diversity of opinions.
Don't fall for that trap.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on youtube.com slash timcastnews and I will see you all there.
Now this story takes place in Canada, so I want to make sure it's clear.
I can't necessarily comment on a variety of laws and the culture of Canada, though it is very similar to the US.
But it does look like we have essentially a James Younger 2.0.
For those that aren't familiar, the James Younger case was about a 7-year-old whose mother believed that he was transgender, whose father believed he wasn't.
And the court battle over whether or not they would transition this child.
The mother had won, for the most part, and James was now being called Luna and dressing like a girl.
But then, due to a large public outcry, because this happened in Texas, eventually the father got joint custody.
And my understanding right now is that the parents have to make mutual decisions so James can go to school as James.
I think it's important to point out a couple things as we read into the story first.
Let me tell you what the story is.
Transgender teen has right to transition despite father's opposition.
BC's appeal court rules.
In this story, we're dealing with a 15-year-old.
Very different from a 7-year-old.
I think it's important to point out in the James Younger case, we're looking at, you know, the father put out videos of a 3-year-old being told, I believe 3 or 4, being told by the mother that they were actually a girl, that he was actually a girl.
And so there's some concerns that the child never actually formed a real identity because they were constantly told conflicting things.
You know, if you take a baby and keep saying, you're a girl, the kid's not going to know whether they are or aren't because you're shaping their mind.
So there's a real concern that the kid was being sort of, well, I'll say groomed.
I know a lot of people might get angry about that, but yes, groomed to believe by the mother.
Now that's one of the big concerns.
In this circumstance, you can call it whatever you want, but this is a teenager.
And once again, the story is the mother is agreeing with the child and the doctors.
The child should transition from female to take male hormones to become, you know, transgender
man.
And the father is saying, no, the court has now ruled against the father.
But I will say this.
To all you conservatives who fought so hard in the James Younger case, this is Canada.
I don't think you're going to be able to do anything about this.
But we'll see.
I mean, I'm not a big fan of allowing kids who haven't even gone through puberty to decide.
This is a different story.
This is a 15-year-old.
And while I understand there are concerns about things such as rapid-onset gender dysphoria, You know what, man?
It's a rock and a hard place.
Transgender people exist, and transgender youth does exist.
And there's a big difference between a 7-year-old being told by their mother and a 15-year-old going to the doctor and telling, you know, the mother and the father these things.
But I know this is a major cultural issue, and I try to treat these things delicately.
But let's read the story.
This is from thestar.com.
Let's just jump right in.
In a ruling that's being hailed as a victory for transgender youth, BC's top court has reasserted the right of young people to undergo hormone therapy despite a parent's objection.
But the decision Friday by the province's Court of Appeal struck down a lower court's finding that the father in this specific case had committed, quote, family violence by refusing to acknowledge his teenage child's gender.
Whoa, Canada, y'all need to calm down a little bit.
They actually, a court found it was violence because the father would not allow the daughter to transition.
Now, an appeals court said, nah, nah, nah, hold your horses.
Good, good.
Like, it's not violence, okay?
The father clearly has concerns about irreversible changes to his daughter's life.
I can respect that.
But you got a mother and a father and doctors, they're all fighting over this.
They say, The now 15-year-old teen had been assigned as female at birth but has identified as a boy since age 11.
With the support of his mother and doctors, he wanted to start testosterone hormone therapy in the summer of 2018.
However, his father opposed the treatment and took the issue to court.
In their ruling Friday, the three judges called the father's refusal to accept his son's gender identity troublesome.
The dispute has caused a rupture of what both parties refer to as an otherwise loving parent-child relationship.
The judge's ruling said the ruling does not include names of family members and instead uses the initials CD to represent the father and AB to represent the boy.
Quote, the evidence shows that his rejection of AB's identity has caused AB significant pain.
The decision reads, he clearly wants and needs acceptance and support from his father.
I gotta stop real quick and say a few things.
We need to take the idea of rapid onset gender dysphoria seriously because desistance rates according to current scientifically accepted journals is 65 to 94%.
But this is not for teenagers, okay?
I wanna make sure that's clear.
This means kids before puberty who identify as trans, 65 to 94 percent, because it's based on a couple different studies, will revert back to their biological, you know, their assignment.
They'll basically desist.
They'll stop being trans.
That's extremely important.
In this instance, we've got a teenager, so it is a bit different, but now we get into the idea of rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
For those that aren't familiar, this is where, this is the idea that social pressures are convincing young women typically Homosexual women who happen to be autistic to transition because they'll fit in better.
And I think, you know, one of the big challenges with this, and there have been studies that have pointed out that this is a real phenomenon.
Though they've been challenged.
I think you have to consider the power of social pressure.
How many people... Remember metro-sexual?
When like, you know, old like late teenage young men were dressing up like and acting like they were gay when they weren't and then eventually stopped?
Because social pressures actually, you know, can have this effect.
I also think it's really important to consider Sort of the contradiction when they talk about, you know, NBC put out a story saying that, you know, little boys or children will choose their identity, male or female, at a young age, deciding on how they want to dress and what they want to play with.
But if it's true, then, that social behaviors dictate gender identity, this would make sense.
But then you simultaneously have, you know, the break the gender binary people who are saying that boys can play with dolls, it doesn't mean anything, and girls can wear pants, it doesn't mean anything.
And if that's the case, then you have young people, particularly young women, Who are probably autistic, that's what the studies found, who might want to play soccer or play sports being told they're actually men because they like engaging in traditionally masculine activities.
So I'm not saying which one's right or wrong.
I'm just gonna tell you this.
You gotta pick, okay?
Because it can't be both.
You can't simultaneously say there's no gender binary but then tell young women they should take hormones to change because gender is binary.
Look, I get it.
It's complicated, right?
Because I say that all the time.
Let's read a little bit more.
AB's lawyer, Barbara Findley, said her client was very pleased with the ruling.
Quote, this is a victory for trans youth who are entitled to get the treatment they need, even if their parents disagree.
Now, I gotta say this too, man.
I think it's starting to become... Well, there's a challenge where we draw the line in when children are allowed to decide for themselves and when parents have jurisdiction.
Imagine it this way.
Let's say the kid had cancer.
And the kid said, I do not want chemo.
Would the courts rule in favor of the child to say, I do not want this treatment?
Is it because they are receiving?
So it's like a positive-negative thing?
Like, if the kid had cancer and said, I wanted treatment, and the parent said no, the courts would absolutely allow the kid to get treatment, right?
So is it a positive thing or a negative thing?
Now my question comes to the next issue of, like, body dysmorphia.
A lot of people might argue that they're not the same thing, and I think it's fair to point out, sure, there's differences.
Body dysmorphia is when people, it's a general term that could mean, you know, people who think they're too skinny, who think they're too fat, but there's also people, I forget what it's called, like body dysmorphic disorder or something, where they literally want to remove body parts, and they fake accidents to cause damage to like get their hands removed.
So let me ask you this question.
If a kid had severe dysmorphia and was seriously depressed and like, you know, bashing their hand and demanded they get their hand amputated, do you think a court would agree with this?
I am not saying it's a one-for-one argument.
I'm asking about the nuance.
I know everyone's gonna freak out right now.
Where do you think the line is in determining when a child should or shouldn't be allowed to determine what their treatment should be?
So, in this instance, we're talking about treatment, not negative, not withholding of, so I think that's where the line is drawn.
I think in most instances, if a teenager said, I want this treatment, the courts would probably defend their right, especially, you gotta understand, the mother is agreeing with this, so the father's gonna lose out.
Let's read.
They say, The B.C.
lower court had initially ruled in favor of the teenager in February.
At the time, legal experts told The Star the decision meant parents would need to respect their children's chosen gender, pronouns, and name.
It also set a precedent for transitioning youth across the province, suggesting that seeking medical assistance is a health decision and not a political or moral one that a parent can stop.
Friday's appeal court decision does not change any of that, said Pat Shannon, a lawyer who specializes in family and anti-violence law.
But it does stop short of upholding the lower court's assessment that the father's behavior constituted family violence.
Now that is insane!
The evidence suggests the father does not deliberately intend to harm his son.
The judges explained, the court of appeal did issue new conduct orders stating that the father must acknowledge and refer to AB as male and employ male pronouns and identify AB by the name he has chosen.
I'm gonna stop here.
Okay.
We're talking about treatments.
This is going above and beyond.
If a kid wants to believe something or does believe something, how can a court order I act a certain way?
Now we're getting crazy.
I mean, this is Canada.
So, you know, I don't think Canada has free speech.
I don't know what their rules are.
We have a constitution.
Bless the hearts of the founding fathers for putting that together, huh?
Look, you're not going to be able to tell me what I can or can't say.
And the court is telling the father they must now say words and employ male pronouns and use the male name.
Hold on, man.
I can call you whatever I want to call you.
I mean, this is America.
Canada's different.
I get it.
But listen, you come to me and you tell me, like, let's say your parents gave you the name Janet and you come to me and say your name is John.
I could call you Florbo if I want.
I can call you whatever I want.
I can call you stupid.
But in Canada, court is ordered.
You can't do that.
Man, Canada's a crazy place.
Look, I'm totally for respecting people.
You can call yourself whatever you want, man.
I grew up in the hacker community.
Everybody gives themselves weird names.
Like, everybody's name is a call sign.
I mean, technically, we're in that era now where everyone's got a Twitter handle.
But back in the day, you had a screen name, and there are a bunch of hackers who don't go by their given names.
They go by a call sign, a name they've given themselves.
I don't care.
I really don't.
You can call yourself...
G-Gaflorpaflorp or whatever. What is it? What's the Rick and Morty thing? I don't know, whatever.
Gazorpazorp. I don't care what you call yourself. I'll call you whatever you want.
Tell me what to call you, I'll call you it. I don't- I got no beef.
The issue comes kind of like with what Jordan Peterson was saying,
could a court- can a court order you to do this?
Here you go.
The answer is yes.
And what happens if he doesn't?
Man, I gotta say though, that's kinda crazy.
Look, if I give my kid a name, and they insist their name is like Rage Master, I'm still gonna call him Bill, you know?
I'll name my kid Gene.
Okay, forget the joke.
Gene, I'm gonna call you Gene.
Call yourself Rage Master all you want.
Call yourself Psycho Spinner.
You make up whatever you want.
T-Bone Hawk Master.
Whatever!
You think it's cool?
You want to be a cyborg with a crazy, you know, haircut?
Do your thing.
But I'm gonna call you what I'm gonna call you, you know what I mean?
To me, it's kind of weird that a father is being told, oh, here we go, they actually say, they actually bring this up, like, let's read.
The conduct orders also prohibit the father from expressing his opinion about his son's gender identity to the media or any public forum.
This is nuts!
Dude!
Could you imagine if your kid was like, I don't want a certain treatment for, like, this ailment I have, or I do, and they were like, you can't tell anybody?
Wow.
This is, this is, you know why this is insane?
There's, there was, uh, uh, it was actually Moxie Marlin Spike.
Yeah, kid, you're not.
Talking about hackers and crazy names, right?
This guy's a hacker.
I did an interview with him a while ago about why he supports, to a certain degree, civil disobedience and breaking the law, and why surveillance is bad.
Here's what he said.
Imagine you look at like pot laws right now, right?
He's like, they're all getting repealed.
Recreational is being legalized across the board.
And this was illegal federally for a long time.
It was only through people breaking the law that we figured out this is something that probably shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
And so with mass surveillance, there's literally no opportunity to test the boundaries because as soon as you try, they come and snatch you up.
This is an interesting concept here, because what you need to understand when it comes to expressing the issues over his kid, we're not going to get to the bottom of truly understanding what's going on with transgender youth if no one is allowed to talk about it.
It will only flow in one direction.
Let me tell you a scary story.
I read one of the scariest things as a desistance website, where trans people talk about how they feel manipulated and tricked.
I'm not saying it's literally every trans person, but the forums exist.
And someone said, because the only stories that ever make it to the public are positive, they had no idea the nightmare they were about to encounter.
I'm not saying that's true for everybody.
This was their specific experience.
They had a bad time.
And they said they only heard positive stories.
And there needs to be a weighing of the pros and the cons so that people can tell the truth.
These stories of people were saying, like, they were unsure of themselves, and their family and friends were saying, do it, do it, do it, and they were pressured by everybody.
And though they were, to an extent, dysphoric, they weren't convinced, you know, they needed to take this medical intervention.
But everyone around them kept talking about how great it would be.
You have TV shows saying it's awesome, and they did it, and they regretted it.
We need to be able to express how we feel about what's going on so we can make sure that bad things don't happen.
When the government says you are not allowed to talk about how you feel about this, that can only lead to bad, dangerous things.
This, to me, is terrifying and psychotic.
I'm sorry.
Look, man, I'm totally in support of this 15-year-old.
I think they're beyond puberty.
They're starting to have a real understanding of how they want to feel.
The mother's on board, the doctor's on board.
I can respect all of that.
I can.
and the dad's gonna have to reconcile.
You know, I know a lot of people are gonna get mad that I'm saying this, but I think this is,
we're not talking about a seven-year-old, we're talking about a 15-year-old, okay?
It is a bit different.
And there are issues with a lot of these doctors, I totally understand that,
but I lean a bit towards, you know what, man?
You got the mother, you got the 15-year-old, post-puberty, right?
You got the doctors.
The dad should be allowed to talk about this, the dad should be allowed to express this,
the dad should be allowed to use whatever name he wants and be very critical of this,
and I think it's fair that a court would provide a ruling on it,
but here's what I don't trust.
I'm concerned this ruling is unjust because they're not going to hear reality.
So maybe it's true this 15-year-old is, you know, legit.
I'm not going to intervene in a medical situation.
That's the point, right?
The doctor, they make the decision.
The mother and the child.
I get that.
My concern is that this culture and these actions are being built around a system of suppressing information.
We've seen it from cultural pressure and we're seeing it now in Canada, literally saying, you can't talk about it.
They tried doing it in Texas, gagging the father.
I think he's gagged right now, actually.
That's insane.
I do not believe that should be allowed.
I believe that should be overturned.
We need to hear.
We need to hear what they have to say.
Could you imagine?
A future where there's going to be unnecessary medical treatments and people all regret it, but they're prohibited from talking about it?
Right now we have the problem of cultural pressure.
You talk about it in a negative way, they come for you.
I made a video about the James Younger case.
And you know me, Milk Toast Fence Sitter.
And I sent it to my friend, right?
And I was like, how do you feel about this?
And I was told, it sounds like you're a closeted bigot and you're trying to sow doubts.
And I'm like, whoa, what the?
Calm down!
I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter, man.
I'm the one who's being like, well, you know, I don't know.
Nope.
Not good enough.
They said, how dare you even say I don't know?
And so what's gonna happen is you're gonna end up with kids who don't know better, who are gonna be pressured into something, and they're gonna regret it for the rest of their lives.
They say this.
The restrictions on the father's freedom of expression were imposed with the aim of preventing harm to the son, the decision read.
While, of course, C.D.
is fully entitled to his opinions and beliefs, he cannot forget that A.B., now a mature 15-year-old with the support of his mother and medical advisors, has chosen a course of action that includes not only hormone treatment, but a legal change of his name and gender identity.
C.D.' 's lawyer, Herb Dutton, said his client has not yet decided whether he would appeal the decision.
The judge's comments around deliberate harm and family violence raised concerns from legal experts.
They're actually arguing to make it worse?!
I'm curious to see how this judgment is going to impact future cases where there is family violence.
It's not family violence for a concerned father to think that his daughter is incorrect.
I'm curious to see how this judgment is going to impact future cases.
Shannon, who goes by the pronouns they-them, said it's proof the court was not taking violence against trans youth seriously enough.
Dude, I hope you're ready for a psychotic and terrifying future.
I'm not kidding.
Look, man, I got no issue if a doctor, a court, and the mother and the child are all saying this is what we want to do.
Okay?
I think the father's freedom of expression should be protected, and I respect the father trying to protect and do the right thing by his child.
But if you're gonna come out now and be like, it was violence.
It's violence for a father to be concerned about his daughter and not want medical intervention and permanent changes?
For his minor daughter?
You're nuts!
This is crazy, man.
Sometimes you need to make a strong declaration of unacceptable behavior.
That's right, if your child comes to you and says, I would like X done to me, you better say, whatever you want, otherwise it's violence.
And not making a declaration, in many cases, for marginalized people, affirms a status quo, and it's okay to behave this way.
I'm concerned that's the statement the Court of Appeal is taking here.
Well, you know what, man?
I'll probably get banned from YouTube.
I'm waiting for it.
Because this is the way the game is played.
You're not allowed to be critical.
You're not allowed to call these things out.
You know, these activists go on massive flagging campaigns.
Shut this down.
I'm sorry.
Violence is when you directly cause harm, physically, to an object or person.
It's a definition, okay?
Got a problem with the definition?
Well, take it up with Merriam-Webster or the Oxford Dictionary.
Like I did on my main channel the other day, the Gallup poll shows that people are less likely to identify as liberal now, and it's because of this!
So if the progressives want to embrace the limiting of expression and the expansion of the word violence to literally be a dad saying, I'm concerned about my daughter.
All right, great.
You own that.
You own that.
You know what, man?
And if you want to stick around and be a part of that, you go do your thing.
But I'll tell you what, regular sane people are going to wake up to this.
And they are.
And that's why the poll shows over 2019, they're shifting back into the direction.
You reap what you sow.
Now, I will end by saying, this is not about the daughter, okay?
The transgender male.
I'm trying to be respectful.
Cut me some slack.
If this individual has made a choice for their life and they're 15, I think that they're 15.
This is not pre-pubescent, okay?
And if the mother is involved and the doctors are involved, then, while I can recognize desistance, would make me probably fall in a similar position to the dad, saying, I don't think it's a good idea.
I think you should wait.
It's a problem we're going to have to sort out.
We're going to have to figure out where the line is.
And I'll tell you right now, kids don't know.
They don't know, man.
You know, it's really funny.
I remember when I was 18 and I had all these older people saying, you think you know everything, but you don't.
And it was really funny because I was like, man, these old people think they know me.
And it's like, I got older.
Really did.
And young people don't want to hear it.
They really don't.
Because I didn't.
And I laugh now and I'm like, yup.
But I don't think there's anything you can do.
I really don't.
Because I remember being young and having them tell me I didn't know everything and I was full of myself.
And I was like, yeah, whatever old man.
You think you know better.
There was nothing anyone could have said to convince me that I wasn't just being a smartass.
And now that I'm older I'm like, wow!
I didn't know anything!
So maybe it just takes age and wisdom.
And I think that's the challenge we're facing here because we're talking about permanent and semi-permanent actions that will alter your life in serious ways that people might come to regret and desistance is massive among transgender youth.
The reason I'm leaning towards, like, I trust the doctors on this one, or I'm more likely to, is that the resistance rates, as far as I've tracked, are for pre-pubescent.
So this is a 15-year-old, okay?
It's very different.
It's somebody who's already going through puberty and experiences, you know.
So while I'm not saying it's perfect, and it's certainly, you know, possible, here's the challenge.
Do you do nothing or do you do something?
At a certain age there's permanent changes and this is one of the big arguments that I'm not qualified to actually talk about.
What I am qualified to say is we cannot allow courts to restrict the freedom of expression.
We need to be able to talk about this.
If I get banned for doing so, so be it.
I got a new show coming, by the way.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, where I'm going to talk about the multiverse of madness.
Doctor Strange, the new Star Wars movie, and wild and crazy mysteries.
Like, did you know the Navy is talking about UFOs?
And recently in Oregon, bulls were found completely exsanguinated.
That means stripped of all of their blood and dropped from a great height, it would seem.
Interesting, apolitical stories that I'm going to bring my buddy out.
We're going to just talk and have fun, crack some beers, because sometimes, Two things.
This stuff gets heavy, man.
And sometimes I really just want to talk about aliens or something silly, because this is melting my brain.
But also, I fully expect to get banned for talking about naughty things and saying ideas that, well, the thought police don't want me to say.
So it's been a real struggle, I will admit, trying to figure out how to keep business going, talking about important things, when I've said time and time again, I am getting censored across the board.
So channel number three, technically four, but I don't run Subverse.
Subverse is editorially independent.
But TimCastIRL, make sure you subscribe.
I've got some people coming out.
There's going to be two new people.
It's going to be me and my buddy, probably.
So it'll be very similar to what I already do.
But my buddy Adam is likely coming out.
And he's more of a layman gamer type.
Layman as in he's like not politically active.
So we're not really going to talk about stuff.
We're going to talk about, you know, movies and music and freaky, you know, just interesting stuff.
We'll talk about just, like, interdimensional aliens and, like, you know, weird things that are just fun.
Fun to talk about.
And it's gonna be more of, like, a chill, a relax, like a oof, you know, like venting it all.
So I do all of these crazy stories and I feel like, man, it is brain-breaking, right?
Like, this probably made you angry.
You're probably mad at me!
You're probably like, how dare you, Tim!
Not defend the father more!
I don't have to tell you, dude!
I'll tell you this.
We can all get riled up.
We can all get really, really angry.
And I'm going to do this new show where instead, you can sit back.
If you're a pot smoker, you can smoke pot.
Well, no.
Drugs are bad.
Don't do drugs.
If you drink alcohol, and you're old enough, you can enjoy a beer, turn it on, chill out, do your thing.
There you go.
I'm done.
I'll see you all at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, my main channel.
We got some political news.
Admittedly, it is a really, really slow period right now, so we'll see what happens.
I'll see you all in a few minutes.
Or, no, I'll see you all in like an hour, or whatever, I don't know.
The largest labor violation fine in history award goes to...
CNN.
They're being ordered to pay $76 million in back pay, I guess, for violating labor laws, is the easy way to put it.
Basically, here's what I understand it to be.
There were some contracted technicians that were unionized, and CNN fires them.
Actually, let me just read this, because I do have a bunch of other news about cable networks I want to get into, because I kind of want to salt the wound a little bit on CNN.
So this is from the National Labor Relations Board own website saying, CNN to pay $76 million in back pay.
The settlement is the largest monetary remedy in the history of the NLRB.
Full disclosure, I have gone through two different remedies to the NLRB.
Thank you, NLRB.
As part of the settlement signed today, CNN has agreed to pay $76 million in back pay, the largest monetary remedy in the history of the National Labor Relations Board.
The back pay amount, larger than what the agency collects on average in a typical year, is expected to benefit over 300 individuals.
The dispute originated in 2003 when CNN terminated a contract with Team Video Services, a company that had been providing CNN video services in Washington, D.C.
and New York City.
After terminating the contract, CNN hired new employees to perform the same work without recognizing or bargaining with the two unions that had represented the TVS employees.
CNN sought to operate as a non-union workplace and conveyed to the workers that their prior employment with TVS and union affiliation disqualified them from employment.
And there is the great mistake.
I would like... Let me finish this and I'll tell you a union story because I've been through this twice.
After a lengthy hearing, in 2008, an administrative law judge found that CNN's actions violated the National Labor Relations Act and that CNN was a successor to, and joint employer with, TVS.
In 2014, the NLRB agreed and ordered CNN to bargain with the unions and provide back pay.
Later in 2017, a panel of the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals included Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
Woo, Merrick Garland!
And then Judge Brett Kavanaugh!
What?! !
This is like an all-star cast of CNN, Kavanaugh, and Garland.
Adopted the majority.
of the board's findings and enforced the board's order that CNN cease and desist from refusing
to recognize and bargain with the unions. However, the court remanded the board's joint
employer finding for further clarification along with the issue of back pay for further
consideration by the board. After the case was remanded, the parties agreed to resolve
their dispute through the board's alternative dispute resolution program. Since then,
numerous board staff have worked diligently with all concerned parties to reach today's settlement.
General counsel Peter B. Robb noted, the settlement demonstrates the board's continued
commitment to enforcing the law and ensuring employees who are treated unfairly obtain
the monetary relief ordered by the board.
The parties are the National Labor Board of Relations, CNN, Local 11, Local 31, of the National Association of Broadcast Employees, and Technicians, Communications Workers of America.
Let me tell you some stories.
I might dive into some other issues.
Cable TV News News.
But I think it's about time we talk about unions.
See, I had worked for two different companies that had done some shady dealings.
And it was the National Labor Relations Board that actually protected me in both of these circumstances.
And they both involved campaign fundraising.
Now let me talk about what's going on here, because a lot of you might be saying, why can't CNN fire somebody?
And believe it or not, you can't if it's because of union efforts.
So in order to avoid, I think, a gag order that might still exist, I have to avoid saying certain proper nouns.
But I was once working for a company.
That was shorting my paychecks.
And see, many of you may not know this, but I am in fact mixed race.
And a part of that mix is Korean.
Somehow, I am good at math.
I'm joking, by the way, but I am.
And so when I received my paychecks, and they were shorted, I easily noticed.
I looked at it, and I'm like, that makes no sense.
So I went in, talked to my boss, and said, yo, there's like 50 bucks missing.
And my checks were only a couple hundred dollars, you gotta understand.
This is a big deal when you're like, how old was I, like 20, 21?
And so, they went, oh, that was our mistake, we'll fix it, we're so, so sorry, it was an error on our end, we gotta
punch a number in.
And I said, cool, no problem.
So, I come back, you know, come back the next day, we'll get a new check printed, and it was still short, like 15 or
16 bucks or something.
Granted, again, I was living with some buddies, I was like 20 years old.
It's a big deal if you're going to cut out like two hours from my week, right?
And so I asked my friends, I was like, let me see your paychecks.
And I looked and I said, show me your numbers, because it's like a fundraising commission and stuff.
And sure enough, everyone had been shorted.
So I started complaining to the boss.
They immediately apologized.
Oh, it was a mistake again.
They cut our checks out.
And now we were broken even.
But when we were leaving, we saw someone we'd never seen before.
And we asked them, like, I was like, oh, are you going to start working here?
And they said, no, I used to work here.
And we were like, oh, cool.
Yeah, we're taking over.
What's up?
And he goes, they owe me money.
They never paid me.
My checks were short.
And I went, no way, dude.
They've been shorting everybody?
So I went to my buddies and I said, dude, We should talk to, like, the National Labor Relations Board about what we can do to protect ourselves because they keep doing this.
I think we should discuss unionizing.
Well, unfortunately, the way union law works makes literally no sense, as far as I'm concerned.
That's why I'm not a big fan of unions.
We were basically told we can join one of the establishment major unions and cut them the... Like, the money we're missing from our paychecks would go to them anyway.
I'm like, what's the point?
I'm trying to stop losing money, not pay dues to a major, you know, organization, as far as I'm concerned.
But we were discussing it.
And we had, there was like very few employees.
So we basically had talked to the NLRB.
They advised on what to do and how to protect ourselves.
And sure enough, this company was so stupid, one of the bosses gets flown out to deal with it.
This is an amazing story.
I love this.
And he brings us out in the hallway.
And he says something like, you know all this stuff you're talking about with like unions and like paychecks, it's really bringing people down.
And immediately one of my buddies, who is admittedly not too bright if he ends up seeing this, I'm not gonna name him, I gotta avoid certain details, starts screaming.
Because the guy was like, we're gonna let you guys go.
And so, it's me and two other friends.
The one friend is all hot-headed, and he's screaming, like, swearing, and pointing at the guy, and it's like, you know that meme where the lady's yelling at the cat?
That's what it's basically like.
The guy's like, and dude's like, and then my friend was the other one holding her back, and he was like, dude, chill, dude, chill.
And then I yelled, and I said, you know, his name, stop, quiet.
And then I told my one friend, get him out.
And then I looked at the boss, and I said, So let me get this straight.
What you're explaining to me right now is that you're upset that our discussions about our unionization efforts is making you upset and so you're letting us go.
And he goes, no, no, you're putting words in my mouth.
That's not what I said.
And I said, as far as I'm concerned, you told me you didn't like us talking about unions.
No, no, no, no, that's not what I said.
That's not what I said.
And I said, have a nice day.
The first thing we did was we walked over to the NLRB.
Went inside, told them exactly what happened, and they said, we'll file on your behalf.
And I thought we would actually do something to stop them.
And this is why I don't like any of this stuff.
It's why I'm not a fan of how these union systems work.
I do like collective bargaining.
But ultimately, I'll say this.
I technically won.
Okay?
It was four months, I believe around four months, where we didn't work anymore.
We had told them exactly what happened.
They printed it all out.
The affidavits between the three of us were really basically the same thing.
And so they said, three different people, all saying basically the exact same story.
They're corroborating what had happened.
They basically got fired because we were talking about forming a union.
They went to the company and the company basically said, we'll see you in court.
At the very last minute, they said, we will agree to retro pay.
And so here's what ends up happening.
I asked them, will they pay penance?
Like, is this going to stop them from doing it in the future?
And I was essentially told, no.
No.
You see, here's what happens.
There's not going to be any punitive damage.
There's not going to be anything to stop them.
There's no penalty for what they did.
They're going to pay you so you don't ever work there again because if you win this fight, you know what happens?
We can get your job back.
And I said, But this is tiny office.
This guy, like, he's gonna hate our guts, and they're gonna find any reason to fire us.
And they're like, don't worry, it would be illegal if he did that.
And I'm like, oh please!
He's gonna claim that we weren't in uniform.
He's gonna claim that we said something.
What are we gonna do?
Sue him again?
And they were like, well, we can pay you four months back pay, which turned out to be several grand.
And I was like...
We technically win.
We technically won, we lost our jobs, we did nothing wrong, and that's why I don't like this stuff, okay?
So, it's funny, right, that CNN now has to pay $76 million in back pay, but it's back pay.
You know what that means?
These guys are getting paid what they would have been paid, this union.
17 years of what would have been paid out to them anyway, and it's probably a bunch of employees.
I'm willing to bet, yes, it's probably going to be great.
They're going to get 17 years worth of pay.
They've probably lived their lives.
They're older.
They have families.
All of a sudden, they're getting a check for $100,000 or something.
Maybe it's a little bit more per person.
But they're getting what they were owed.
There's not going to be a penalty for CNN.
CNN's paying what they would have paid out over 17 years.
Now, admittedly, paying all that at once, at the last minute, probably is bad for CNN, except for the fact that CNN's a billion-dollar company.
There's no retribution.
There's no penance.
This looks like a big deal.
Many people are gonna laugh and say, ha ha ha, CNN, you had to pay, I'm already seeing people tweet about it, but guess what?
This is a rounding error for CNN, okay?
What do they net in profits, like 20 billion or something?
I don't know what their actual profits are, but that's what people were saying.
CNN is a massive corporation owned by an even larger corporation, they eat this kind of money, and they don't care.
While it's significant that CNN has to pay the largest monetary remedy in the history of the NLRB, they're not being penalized in any way.
So I'm glad these guys won.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who are happy that CNN's probably getting comeuppance.
I also think it's really funny that CNN is this like orange man bad network, but they're really just a big propaganda machine for hating Trump.
They're not really left.
A lot of people want to claim that.
No, what they really are is they're corporate.
Crony corporate, DNC, whatever.
So, they're not really paying a penalty.
They're paying what they would have paid anyway.
They have this thin veneer of actually caring about progressive values, but they do it to sell products.
In the end, they will lie, cheat, and steal, same as any other massive conglomerate whatever.
There was some stuff I wanted to get into.
I wanted to point out that, like, while this is happening, Fox has its highest viewership in network history and, like, ratings are through the roof.
So, you know, we can sit here and gloat about CNN, but there you go.
There's my story about You know, these victories.
Look, the point is, you're gonna look at this story about the fine, and they do paint it like a big victory.
You know, a defeat for CNN, right?
In reality, I don't see it that way.
I appreciate what the NLRB does.
I have some other stories, I have another story about how they helped me.
But in the end, all that really happens is the people who were, like, you were supposed to get paid ten grand?
Congratulations, four months later, they will pay you the ten grand.
So you spend four months of your life, and what do you really win?
Now, I'll put it this way.
Final, final thought.
These guys moved on at a certain point, okay?
They got new jobs, they worked with their family, and now CNN has to pay basically 20 years of back pay.
So, that's great.
I'm sure these guys are happy for it.
So, CNN, they're not the only ones who do this.
There you go.
There's your CNN story.
Stick around, I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Young millennial men are losers with your major update.
There you go.
Thanks for hanging out.
You can follow me.
No, I'm just kidding.
The story actually, though, is women overtake men as the majority of U.S.
workforce.
Data reflect growth in service industries that employ higher numbers of women.
But I do have another story, because it's a bigger cultural issue that I think we should all talk about.
I'm being somewhat facetious when I say men are losers, but I gotta tell you guys, I think y'all gotta start your own business.
I'm sure there are a lot of you who watch who are probably unemployed, I mean this with empathy and respect.
You can figure something out.
Do something, figure it out.
You know, I know I've been criticized because I told people to go whittle sticks into little statues and sell them on the street.
But I really do mean it, man.
Go pick up rocks.
Sell rocks to people.
Did you ever hear the story about the guy who traded a paperclip for a house?
I'm not kidding.
He went door to door.
Maybe it's an urban legend.
I don't know.
The point is, he had a paperclip.
He went to someone's door and said, what will you give me for this paperclip?
He's doing an experiment.
And eventually, he ended up trading up to where he eventually got a house.
All right?
Here's the point.
There is something you can do.
You know, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single footstep.
Now, here's the news we have.
Women are overtaking men as the majority of the workforce.
And I think the reason is men aren't working.
We know it.
You know, you get all the feminists saying patriarchy, patriarchy.
Yeah, but come on, man.
Young men aren't going to school.
They're not getting jobs.
And then we have this story.
Unemployment is prompting men to consider traditionally female jobs.
So this might be a victory for feminists, I guess.
Or you can argue that once again, the patriarchy is displacing women in the workforce because men are taking jobs like nursing now.
Because, I don't know what their argument is, unemployment's really low, but it's partly due to the fact that women are now working more than ever, more than men, and men are taking jobs they traditionally wouldn't take.
Technically, that's good for Donald Trump.
Because before, men wouldn't be willing to work some of these jobs.
Now that they are willing to work it, it's gonna make Trump's numbers look better.
So there's a victory for Trump, thanks to feminists, I guess?
Anyway, this is the story I really want to focus on.
Men are no longer the majority of the U.S.
workforce.
And I think that's significant because, you know, it used to be that men were the overwhelming majority, basically the only ones who did work.
And then you had feminism and women started working.
And now you have more women than men working.
So feminists, we're done, right?
You won?
Is it over?
Can we?
No, this is bad news for men.
And I think it's important that, you know, a lot of these feminists don't recognize this.
They should.
Because feminism is supposed to be about equality and the genders, right?
But it doesn't focus on these kind of things.
That if you have either gender failing, male or female, then you're going to see serious problems in your society.
And right now, men aren't going to school.
I don't think it's a bad thing because school is stupid.
The real problem is they're not working.
Let's read the story from the Wall Street Journal.
They say, Women held more U.S.
jobs than men in December for the first time in nearly a decade, a development that likely reflects the future of the American workforce.
The share of women on payrolls excluding farm workers and the self-employed exceeded the share of men in December for the first time since mid-2010.
Labor Department data released Friday showed women held 50.04% of jobs last month, surpassing men on payrolls by 109,000.
The report strongly suggests that the labor market dynamics are tilting in the direction of women.
John Bruselas, chief economist at RSMUS said in a note to clients, We all often look for tangible evidence of change.
It is now here in the data and can be used as a benchmark to measure equality and inequality in the labor force of the economy.
Feminists!
Women!
You're not doing enough to protect the marginalized community of young men who are not employed.
Men are not in school.
Men are not working.
Therefore, they are the marginalized group.
Not only that, women are what?
51% of the population?
I think it's safe to say that men are now an oppressed group.
All the feminists just started shrieking a collective shriek.
The gap between men and women on payrolls has been narrowing over recent years, reflecting growth in service industries that employ higher numbers of women, such as healthcare.
The sectors that are growing, like education and healthcare, are predominantly women's employment, said Ariane Hegewitsch, a Program Director of Employment and Earnings at the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
Looking at the 21st century, it is really amazing how profound some of the segregation in the labor market It really is amazing how profound some of the segregation is in the labor market.
In December, the education and health services sector added 36,000 jobs compared with the prior month.
Both of those industries are predominantly female, but that's why I brought up the other story that men are taking those jobs.
Meanwhile, the mining and manufacturing industries, dominated by men, lost a combined 21,000 jobs.
The last time women outnumbered men on non-farm payrolls was during a stretch between 2009 and 2010.
But different circumstances drove the trend at the time because the construction and manufacturing sectors were disproportionately shedding jobs, according to Dean Baker, Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
You had two large sectors of the economy That we're very badly hit by the recession.
Whereas right now, we would think of it as being a pretty normal economy.
In fact, it is a really, really good economy.
So this is really, really bad news for men.
Sorry men, it's bad news.
If the economy is doing better than ever, and women are now outpacing men, we really need to make sure we maintain that parity.
If we want true gender equality, men and women should be working in equal numbers.
And we need to make sure, you know, we need to track that.
Admittedly though, I don't really know what you do.
I think we have a cultural problem.
I don't know if a law or anything is actually going to change this.
The issue is, guys...
You need to go get jobs, I guess?
I mean, unemployment's down.
There's jobs.
Go work at Taco Bell.
They're paying six figures, I hear.
A gap in the labor force participation rate of the, or the share of Americans who are working or looking for work persists between men and women.
The labor force participation rate in December was 57.7 for women, age 16 and up, compared with 69.2 for men, age 16 and up.
So, wow.
Okay, so there's a lot of guys who, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
That means there are more men working So, how does this make sense?
Is that the story?
Okay, that's the story, I guess.
I don't understand how that makes sense.
If they're saying labor force participation for men is nearly 70%, but for women it's 57, doesn't it stand to reason the numbers should be inverted?
I don't know.
Whatever.
But, now that we've talked about that, we now have a crisis of masculinity.
I actually don't think so.
I'm kidding.
I don't think it matters if a dude wants to be a nurse or otherwise.
I don't think it's a big deal.
But it is happening.
Forbes reports, Despite considerable changes in the labor market, there remains a clear divide between male jobs in areas such as security and construction and female jobs such as nursing and increasingly teaching.
While this divide has largely persisted, a new study from University of North Carolina at Charlotte suggests that in times of unemployment, a growing number of men are thinking of crossing the divide.
This is important as labor market stats highlight the shrinkage in traditionally male-dominated work sectors.
Resulting in higher instability in the career prospects of men across the country.
Indeed, labor force participation rates have been on the decline for men in a wide range of fields.
What's more, these traditionally female jobs are those predicted to have the highest job and wage growth in coming years.
So this is just... it just makes sense.
Now, I know what's immediately going to be said.
Men are being forced into feminine positions and losing traditional jobs.
Perhaps.
Perhaps it's an issue.
I don't know.
I think it's good.
I think what we're really seeing is that the opportunity for work and unemployment is so low, men are actually taking whatever jobs are available.
And I think we might overemphasize the cultural ramifications.
I think what we're really seeing is not necessarily feminism.
I think what we're really seeing is Trump's record economy.
I mean it.
People are competing for jobs to such a degree that we had that story the other day that Taco Bell is now offering managers six figures.
That some shops are offering four-day work weeks.
That wages are generally going up.
The left doesn't want to admit it.
Because it would disprove all of their narratives.
It would disprove not just economic factors, which they need to counter because they want to win the election, but it also proves we don't need this feminist stuff anymore, right?
Listen.
There's a lot of reasons why feminism, like legit feminism, makes sense right now.
But I'll tell you this.
If, right now, You have more men taking traditionally female jobs.
Unemployment is really low.
Wages are going up.
This disproves or discounts a lot of the activism towards the left.
Now perhaps they can say, oh no, it's because of us.
Congratulations, you've won.
You're done.
You can stop now, right?
If women are more likely to be in the workforce than men, congratulations, you've won, right?
Once they've won, what do they really have?
Well, the problem is they need to maintain a victim status in order to continue to push their politics.
If they stop here, they don't have domination.
They have parity.
They don't want parity.
They want domination.
This news is bad news for the intersectional ideologues.
The fact that men are working feminine jobs proves, hey, you've won.
You're done.
Congratulations.
Men are crossing the traditional gender barrier.
The fact that women are now the majority of the U.S.
Can we say that right now, if we are to track into the future, women are dominating the workforce and now we need to start focusing on men?
Take a look at colleges as well.
Men are less likely to go to college.
That's not good news!
We don't want marginalized classes, right?
You want to prevent the formation of oppression, right?
Now that women are the majority of university graduates, it's probably time to start creating programs for men, right?
No.
You'll find this.
They'll say no, they'll say men are whiny, they're complaining, or they'll say it's our turn now.
And that to me is truly the scariest thing.
But what I've heard so much from feminists and the far left is that the pendulum swings and now it is our turn.
To me?
We can't have that.
If the pendulum swings, it'll swing back.
And if you accept a hard swing now, don't be surprised when it swings back dramatically in the other direction.
How about we stop and we say let's focus on, you know, maintaining parity and accepting when you've won.
But in my opinion, the general drive of a lot of what we see from the far left isn't really about what they're talking about.
They're not actually trying to make sure women are in the workforce or are graduating.
I think what they're really trying to do is push a more far left agenda and they're not done.
They're not there yet.
They don't want to stop at equality.
They want dominance.
So they can't accept these kinds of stats because it proves the oppression narrative is dying.
It's defunct.
And now we need to start... Great, congratulations!
The pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction.
We've got to stop it now.
They don't want to.
So, I'll leave it there.
I'll also point out, women overtaking men is really about the service industry, so they'll naturally push back on that.
I think to a certain degree it's fair, but If you only track the problems faced by women, you'll never actually get, you know, true equality.
If you're not going to fight for women working in sewers and dump trucks, then you're not really fighting for equality.
I think it's fair to say that feminists come a-raging when they want to sit in a cushy, air-conditioned CEO office at the corner office in a skyscraper, but I don't see them running out screeching about how they're not being garbage men or working in construction.
So I think it's fair to criticize, you know, women should be advocating for the draft.
I'm dead serious, right?
If men can be drafted, women should fight for that.
It's equality.
But you only see people fight for privilege.
I'm not gonna make this one too long.
I'm gonna wrap it up here.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you all shortly.
Ricky Gervais gave a famous tongue-lashing to the Hollywood celebrity elites for their faux-activism and said, And I believe what he said could be no better exemplified than Gwyneth Paltrow's goop.
First of all, awful name.
I'm not trying to be mean, okay?
Gwyneth Paltrow, I got no beef other than I'm going to call you a weirdo right now.
Because you have a company called Goop, which is actually being dragged by NewsGuard.
It's actually really funny.
I want to show you this.
But Gwyneth Paltrow is selling a candle that, quote, smells like my V.
It's a family-friendly channel to an extent, so I can't say certain words, but she sells a candle that smells like her genitals.
This may be one of the most absurd and disgusting things I've ever heard, but I'm not surprised because Hollywood celebrity types literally have no idea how the world works and are quite insane.
Let's read the story from people, and then I want to talk to you about how insane Gwyneth Paltrow's company is.
They say, a candle is selling on Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop online store that has a very unconventional scent.
The 47-year-old actress' company is currently selling a 75 votive cheekilee named, This Smells Like My V, according to a listing on Goop's online store.
Per the product description, the item, made by artisanal fragrance brand Heretic, started as a joke between perfumer Douglas Little and Paltrow when they were collaborating on a fragrance together.
Okay, I get it.
testing scents, and then Politician Star blurted out, uh, that smells like a V, the website said.
So it is a joke.
Okay, I get it.
I don't think they like actually sampled bodily fluids.
While the two didn't end up bottling the funny, gorgeous, sexy, and beautiful unexpected scent
into a perfume, they did think it would be perfect The description read, that sounds disgusting.
There are literally jokes about that smell not being pleasant.
Why would you sell this, you weird people?
According to Goop.
The brand did a test run for the candle during the Goop Health Summit and it sold out within hours.
Yes.
I wonder what kind of person would buy that.
There are certain websites you might find where this might sell better than others.
I'm basically like saying people are buying this for specific personal reasons.
The candle scent is described to contain a blend of geranium, citrusy bergamot, and cedar
absolutes juxtaposed with a damask rose and ambrette seed.
Really.
However, this is not the first poucher has been open about her private parts.
In 2016, the Oscar winner revealed she has experimented with V-steaming.
Oh my, I can't believe I'm doing a segment on this.
While skeptical at first, she admitted she was later hooked on the beauty treatment.
Apparently there was like a big outpour that told women not to do this, because it's like bad for you.
But I'm a dude, so far be it from me to tell women what they should or shouldn't be doing.
And I also know most of you watching are not women anyway.
But those that are, I defer to you on whether or not any of this stuff makes sense.
As for the guys, I'm sure there are a lot of men equally cringing at the thought of the candle, and many others looking up the online store to purchase it for certain self-gratification needs.
The first time I tried V-steaming, I was like, this is insane, she told the cut.
My friend Ben brought me, and I was like, you're out of your effing mind, what is this?
But then by the end, I was like, this is so great.
Then I started to do research, and it's been in Korean medicine for thousands of years, and there are real healing properties.
Paltrow added at the time that she's a huge fan of testing new treatments.
Treatment, dude.
They say her lifestyle brand is currently set to launch a six-episode series on Netflix called The Goop Lab, which will feature the star and her team exploring unfamiliar health treatments.
And now, I bring you to the greatest of the great.
Goop.com.
A horrible name.
Now, many of you may be aware that for all of my segments, I rely on a third-party company called NewsGuard.
NewsGuard is pretty good.
It's an extension that you can get for your browser that warns you if you're on a website with a bad history.
Now, I think they're biased.
They give stars across the board to some sites and Xs across the board to some sites that I disagree with.
But I use them for a reason.
They tend towards being right, and I can agree with them on a lot of issues.
I don't like, I do think they have a liberal bias in that they're more likely to drag a conservative commentary site than they are a progressive commentary site.
I have seen the Daily Beast and other sites put out overtly fake news, and they're rated good across the board, but the Daily Wire puts out a few hyperbolic opinion pieces and they say, no dice.
I'll criticize them for that, okay?
However, They give goop.
Proceed with caution.
This website severely violates basic standards of credibility and transparency.
They have given it 9 out of 10 red Xs.
The only thing it gets right is that it avoids deceptive headlines.
And what that means is, while the stories themselves may be false content, the headlines aren't clickbaity.
Bravo, goop!
You got one thing right.
So here's what we can do.
We can pull up the Goop tab for NewsGuard and see their nutrition label where they explain.
Okay, I accept your cookies.
I agree to your terms.
They explain the credibility of the site.
Now, this is important because Netflix is going to be running a fake news segment.
Let me tell you something.
They say the left doesn't fall for fake news.
I'm sorry, this is literally like passive leftist fake news.
Conservatives are not, for the most part, going to goop and ranting and raving about the healing properties of crystals and steaming their junk, okay?
This is primarily like a yoga hippie millennial type thing.
Well here's what, this is important, I'm going to read you this because Gwyneth Paltrow is full of it and They've been sued, and they're running a Netflix special.
The credibility, according to NewsGuard, they say, Goop has been accused by medical professionals, advocacy
groups, and government agencies of promoting and selling products on the site that have
adverse health effects or are falsely advertised.
In September 2018, Goop paid $145,000 to settle a lawsuit for false advertising
filed by the California Food Drug and Medical Device Task Force.
The task force found that Goop products, including Jade & Quartz female private eggs, I'll put it that way, and a mixture of flower essences were advertised with medical claims not supported by competent and reliable sources, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office announcement about the settlement.
A Goop spokesperson said in a statement that the brand did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
As of November 2018, none of the three products cited in the settlement were available on Goop.com, and articles referencing them appeared to have been deleted without explanation.
Huh.
External articles?
In 2017, Goop also took down some of the claims about a product called Body Vibes stickers.
The product were originally described as, made with the same conductive carbon material NASA uses to line spacesuits so they can monitor an astronaut's vitals during wear to rebalance the energy frequency in our bodies.
Wow.
There are some people I want to drag.
I'm going to be nice.
Goop took down the claims after tech news site Gizmodo fact-checked the description with NASA and reported that NASA's spacesuits do not have any conductive carbon material lining.
Mark Shellhammer, a former chief scientist at NASA's Human Research Division, told Gizmodo that the research supporting the stickers' health claims was BS and the logic doesn't even hold up.
In a response to Gizmodo, Goop stated, As we have always explained, advice and recommendations included on Goop are not formal endorsements, and the opinions expressed by the experts and companies we profile do not necessarily represent views of Goop.
So you're basically saying, we got some random person a lie to sell trash to people who had no idea what was going on.
Let me play a game with y'all.
You want to know the easiest way to publish fake news?
Let me go to New York City, walk into a dark alley and find a homeless man.
And then he's sitting there going, I bought a sandwich and it was aliens in the sandwich.
And I say, no one will believe that there were aliens in his sandwich.
And then he goes, but I'll tell you what, Donald, Donald Trump, Donald Trump sold me the sandwich.
Ooh, Donald Trump sold you the sandwich.
Go on.
Oh, I'll tell you... And the guy starts, you know, he pulls his hat up like Beavis, starts going like, Oh, Donald Trump!
Anonymous source claims Donald Trump grabbed his butt.
Breaking news!
And you don't know who the anonymous source is, and it turns out you sat in front of a homeless guy muttering about random nonsense for 20 hours and he finally strung together a few words you could cram in a headline.
Donald Trump assaults young man.
And then you never reveal who the source is.
So here you have Gwyneth Paltrow talking about weird, goopy nonsense, and it's what they do.
These wealthy, woke celebrity types grab random people who are going to give them what they need to look like they care, to sell a brand, and it's gross.
I seriously hope it ends, man.
You know, with the way the internet is going, with like the success I've had, and hopefully maintain doing a new show, I'm hoping we can build a new culture of I mean, we gotta be a bit more critical, and cynical, and hopefully in the future, we don't have celebrities pretending to care, we have celebrities calling out fake crap, and saying straight up, while I don't know everything about everything, I empathize, but this is BS.
Right now we have a news industry that is fueled by people who pull up stupid quotes from stupid people and they act like it's news.
I'll give you an example.
CNN runs a story.
Lawyer for Lev Parnas claims Ukrainian says Devin Nunes met with a Ukrainian.
And they ran that story.
And that's the game they play.
And they fall for this stuff.
You know Gwyneth Paltrow's making a ton of money off this fake crap.
Okay, it's not all fake.
Like, she's selling a $560 skirt.
So hopefully it's rich people selling their own garbage back to them, I guess.
To quote Fight Club, selling the fat asses back- Now you got me swearing.
Sorry, everybody.
I know there might be some kids listening.
But he- he- he- In Fight Club, they would take the fat from liposuction and then turn it into soap and sell it to rich people.
I hope that's who she's selling to, because I don't know anybody who's buying a $240 totemi, or a $200 printed crepe skirt, or $153 rounded metal sunglasses, ooh, a $400 Friday overall, and a $200 solitaire one-piece.
A mall bag, $3.25.
So you know what?
At least she's not ripping off the poor people.
I hope.
I'm sure there's a lot of poor people who really do save up for this stuff, though, and it breaks my heart.
Man, don't buy this crap.
Thanks for hanging out!
We'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
A lot of changes happening, we'll see what goes on, you know, I don't know, whatever.
Um, podcast every day at 6.30.
Make sure to check out my new channel, youtube.com slash timcast IRL for a new podcast coming in the next couple of weeks.