Democrats Are Selling Their Souls In Desperation To Defeat Trump, Bloomberg Is Buying The Election
Democrats Are Selling Their Souls In Desperation To Defeat Trump, Bloomberg Is Buying The Election. Michael Bloomberg has dumped over 400 million dollars into this campaign and so far that is chump change to him. Bloomberg is worth around 62 Billion dollars and represents everything Democrats should oppose. But money talks and now Bloomberg is sitting in the polling aggregate at 14% or 3rd place nationally.Progressives have mounted a fierce defense calling him out as he seeks to unseat Bernie Sanders as the Democratic frontrunner.The DNC And Democratic Establishment know it, Trump is unstoppable. They have tried everything under the sun and it has failed. Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment, nothing has worked.The DC elite are reeling and becoming unhinged fearing a Trump 2020 landslide.But Republican and Democrat alike, the populist wings crossed the line first. You squeezed the Democratic establishment, made them desperate, and in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.Already reports are flying about various progressive activists being offered exorbitant cash to promote his campaign, he's buying meme posts, and flooding media with ads.All the while the Democratic establishment is changing the rules to let him on the debate stage.Bloomberg represents true fear, a last resort, the abandonment of principle for the sake of winning. He is everything they claim Trump to be and worse.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
For the past several years, Democrats have thrown everything they can at Donald Trump in an attempt to obstruct or stop him.
But every single attempt has failed.
They couldn't accept the results of the 2016 election.
They couldn't accept Hillary Clinton losing.
From Russiagate, Ukrainegate, the impeachment, and every scandal in between, they have failed every step of the way.
Following the latest failure, the impeachment process, a new narrative emerged.
Donald Trump has become unstoppable.
Numerous opinion pieces appeared in media across the board, saying there is nothing they can do to stop Donald Trump.
They've become desperate.
And in their desperation, they've turned to a man they don't fully understand.
A man seemingly of no conscience.
Michael Bloomberg.
This man is willing to spare no expense to buy an election and subvert our democracy.
He's of no particular political party.
Republican, Independent, Democrat.
None of it matters.
He is everything Democrats should hate, everything they claim Donald Trump to be, a billionaire with no conscience, a sexist bigot who will use all of his power and all of his resources to subvert our democracy, to target the press.
Yet though they should hate him, they are rallying behind him.
Now the progressives absolutely stand in opposition to this man.
But as of right now, in the average polling, Michael Bloomberg has risen to third place.
This should be one of the most terrifying prospects for everyone in America.
Yet Democratic voters are standing behind him.
With his polling average of around 14%, he actually might win some states.
He is doing everything they say Donald Trump is doing.
Yet, in their desperation, this is what they have chosen.
Today, let's take a look at the latest stories and I want to walk you through just how bad it is and why the Democrats have become so desperate that they would actually rally behind Michael Bloomberg.
So much so, even CNN says, are they so desperate they would let someone buy the election?
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is just share this video.
But also, most of you I've noticed haven't subscribed, and if you like this video and want to see more like it, hit that subscribe button, hit the notification bell, and I got new videos coming up every day at 4pm on this channel.
But let's get started with this opinion piece.
I'm not going to read through all of them, but I want to show you just how bad it got.
USA Today, an opinion piece from the 7th, reads, after acquittal, there are no guardrails.
Brace for an unfettered, unstoppable Trump.
They say Trump violated his oath, the Constitution and maybe the law, the day after Mueller punted.
Now the Senate has done the same and we know what's coming.
There's more.
Congress confronts an emboldened and unstoppable Donald Trump.
This from the 11th.
They say it hasn't even been one week since President Donald Trump was acquitted in the Senate's impeachment trial, and it's clear that whatever guardrails or lessons learned that Republicans had envisioned for Trump are virtually non-existent.
In fact, the president appears even more emboldened in the wake of the trial, from firing key
impeachment witnesses against the advice of GOP senators, to launching attacks on his
rivals during a traditionally nonpartisan prayer breakfast.
Yet Republicans are doing little, if anything, to stop Trump, and are essentially responding
to his recent actions with a shrug.
George Conway for the Washington Post.
There is no one to stop Trump now.
And from Slate, a bipartisan Washington consensus emerges.
Trump is bad, but there's nothing that can be done about it.
Oh well.
They've resigned themselves to this narrative.
Though they do feel something must be done, they have lost all hope.
This story from the Washington Post from just today.
Something has to be done.
Trump's quest to rewrite history of the Russia probe.
There's one thing that's for sure.
All of these opinion pieces show us the establishment is in chaos.
They're facing attacks on both fronts from conservatives, from Trump, but also from progressives.
Progressives absolutely oppose the establishment and they want Bernie Sanders to win.
But in their complete and total desperation, seeing no other alternatives, they are now going to allow Michael Bloomberg to buy an election, going so far as to change the debate stage rules to make it easier for Bloomberg, in fact possible even, to get on the debate stage.
Before these changes, you needed a donor threshold.
You had to prove people had your back.
Michael Bloomberg is self-funding because he's worth around $62 billion.
So the Democratic establishment said you don't need a donor threshold anymore, paving the way for Bloomberg to potentially enter the next few Democratic debates.
He's already polling in third place.
Which brings me to the story that CNN writes even they understand.
It's an op-ed.
Are Democrats so worried by Trump, they're willing to let Bloomberg buy the election?
The answer is, sadly and terrifyingly, yes.
And it's at this point I can say I'm actually glad the progressives are running and trying to take the establishment away from the establishment elites.
I would much prefer Bernie Sanders, who I disagree with, and I question some of his positions, he's flip-flopped, but I can do that.
I can argue with the man, and if he wants to change his position, so be it.
But Michael Bloomberg is doing something far more nefarious, paying social media accounts to put up memes, bribing progressive activists essentially with exorbitant salaries and flooding the media market with his advertisements.
And I'll be the first to tell you.
I believe, though I can't necessarily prove, that ad rates for my content and YouTube across the board are skyrocketing due to Michael Bloomberg.
It's not just about the money he's pumping into the system.
It's about the increase in market competition.
He is flooding the market, and rates are skyrocketing.
He will stop at nothing to win this.
Now, can he?
I don't know.
But I am sickened by the idea that Democrats would actually stand behind everything they claim to oppose in order to beat Donald Trump.
In this instance, I would absolutely put my weight against somebody else, be it Bernie or Trump, to stop someone like Bloomberg, an oligarch, with no loyalties to anyone, from buying this election.
And I'll point out, rumors circulating that he wants to make Hillary Clinton his vice president.
When asked about it, his campaign didn't deny it.
Perhaps it's a PR stunt.
They know the media can't resist talking about Hillary Clinton getting back in the race.
Or maybe he's serious that he wants Hillary Clinton in and he will buy his way to the presidency in order to get her a seat as well.
Michael Bloomberg has wanted to be President of the United States for a long time.
He toyed with the idea both in 2008 and 2016.
But as a shrewd, data-driven political leader, Bloomberg must have had a difficult time seeing a path to winning the Democratic nomination that is until now.
With the lackluster performance of the original frontrunner, former Vice President Joe Biden, and the Democratic establishment's unease with Senator Bernie Sanders, Bloomberg jumped into the lane opening up into the 2020 race, focusing on the Super Tuesday primaries in March.
But I suspect the most compelling reason Bloomberg made his decision to jump in was not the rest of the Democratic field, but one person who defines American politics today, President Donald Trump.
And more to the point, Democrats' obsession with defeating him in the fall.
Bloomberg is an unlikely Democratic nominee, a one-time Republican.
The billionaire former mayor of New York hardly appeals to the classic Democratic coalition.
His support of the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy disproportionately impacted minority communities and earned him the antipathy of Black leaders both in New York and around the country.
His public and private comments on race and policing have made him unelectable among many Democratic voters.
His wealth and his Wall Street background also alienates many of the core supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
His comments on income inequality, which were attacked this week by Warren, run counter to several key Democratic messages.
And his massive wealth and willingness to spend unlimited amounts run against the party's instinct to limit the amount of money in politics.
But now we're seeing not just the money he's spending, the result of that money.
And this really does scare me.
So far, he's spent $401 million, more than anyone else ever, that's my understanding.
Donald Trump in 2016 spent $70 million of his own money.
But that was 20% of his total campaign spending.
Trump, for all of his faults, actually had a lot of grassroots support, and he still does today, raising record amounts throughout the impeachment process, and his approval rating is climbing.
Michael Bloomberg doesn't care.
He's not playing politics as usual.
He's not even trying to raise money because he doesn't need to.
He's not asking for polls.
He's just flooding the markets.
And what I would say, in my opinion, bribing people.
Now, I mean that in a more metaphorical sense, not literal sense.
But he's going to people and offering them insane salaries and hard cash to promote him.
And that is terrifying because people do it.
But here are the results from his massive spend.
In the past month or so, Bloomberg has been skyrocketing in the polls and is now sitting in third place With 14.2% of the aggregate.
I'm not talking about a single poll.
I'm talking about multiple, multiple polls showing that yes, Democratic voters will absolutely get behind Michael Bloomberg, which is strange because you'd think with their concerns about Trump and all the horrible things they've said about him, Michael Bloomberg is no different.
But it's not about policy.
It's not about moral character.
It's about my tribe winning.
In their desperation, they will take whatever they can get.
So let me show you just how contradictory this candidate is, and how astounded I am that any Democratic voter would actually support this man.
This story from the Miami New Times.
Black Florida progressive says Bloomberg campaign tried to buy his support.
Michael Bloomberg's general pitch for president is that he is richer, more ruthless, and more willing to buy his way to an election win than Donald Trump.
He's been sued a ton for alleged sexual harassment and discrimination, seems to have a frightening and psychotic relationship with dogs, and appeared in Jeffrey Epstein's Black Book.
The resistance views these traits in Donald Trump as signs the president is a rapacious pigman, which is true.
But these same traits apparently make Bloomberg a principled leader, at least according to some hosts on MSNBC.
It's hypocrisy at its finest.
This man isn't even actually campaigning.
Bloomberg isn't even trying to actually convince people.
He's just dumping money into the system and winning support that way.
It is antithetical to everything the Democrats claim to support.
But other Democrats aren't buying Bloomberg's shtick, or more accurate, letting themselves be bought.
Earlier this week, South Florida progressive activist Elijah Manley said he received a call from a Bloomberg staffer who offered him $6,500 per month plus medical benefits if Manley would join the campaign as an advisor for racial justice and social justice issues.
Manley said he declined because he's a Bernie Sanders supporter and because he thought Bloomberg was frankly trying to buy black support in Florida.
He said, At first, I was kinda interested and debated providing any resources I could, said Manley, a 21-year-old who rose to local fame as a progressive activist in Broward County when he was in high school.
But once they put a price tag on it, it seemed desperate and not authentic.
It seemed like they wanted to basically use me as a token.
I saw this tweet, and I actually agree with it and found it interesting.
Robert Lavertis Bell tweeted, Bloomberg isn't buying these people because he needs them specifically.
Nobody cares who most of them are voting for, and it isn't supposed to look authentic.
We're supposed to be demoralized and humiliated by the power of capital and the appearance that everybody has a price.
Right now, Michael Bloomberg is paying more than double what other campaigns can afford to pay.
The New York Times reports, entry-level field organizing work for Bloomberg, for example, pays $72,000 annually, nearly twice what other campaigns have offered.
In under 12 weeks, Mr. Bloomberg's operation has grown to a staff of thousands, with more than 125 offices around the country and a roster of slick events featuring swag, drinks, and canapes.
Such spending has helped make Bloomberg an increasingly strong contender in the Democratic presidential primary.
While Senator Bernie Sanders, the leading progressive, has emerged as a frontrunner in an exceedingly tight race, former Vice President Joe Biden has faltered, and several other candidates have splintered the moderate vote that Mr. Bloomberg hopes to capture in the Super Tuesday contest on March 3rd.
In the first quarter of his campaign alone, Mr. Bloomberg, who is not accepting political donations, spent $188 million, more than what numerous candidates in the race had spent combined.
Seventy percent of that went towards advertising.
Millions went towards rent, including for the campaign's Times Square headquarters, as well as furnished apartments on Manhattan's East Side, where some staff members are living.
Millions more have paid a robust network of consultants, lawyers, and campaign staff members, some of whom are new to the speculative work of electioneering and are finding it oddly lucrative.
It shouldn't be lucrative.
I do not believe we should have this kind of money in politics.
I've always been opposed to this kind of ridiculous spending.
I can respect the idea that a self-made individual can spend money to bolster their campaign.
But at a certain point, even campaign limits mean nothing.
You look at Tom Steyer.
Oh, there's a limit on how much you can give an individual candidate, $2,800, but billionaires can give literally every Democrat money.
In fact, Bloomberg has been doing just that, donating millions to various Democratic causes and candidates around the country.
As John Levine of the New York Post put it, why buy the presidency?
Why bother buying the presidency if you're not going to buy the Congress first?
He's not just buying politics, though.
He's actually targeting the meme market.
And I gotta say, these social media accounts are disgusting.
I know they're all about business, and the point of the account is to sell ads.
And I'm sure Bloomberg paid a ridiculous sum of money.
But this is shilling, as BuzzFeed News reports.
Huge Instagram meme accounts are shilling for Michael Bloomberg.
The billionaire former mayor of New York City is running a campaign heavy with online ads as he faces criticism for overseeing a legacy of racist police practices.
These accounts don't care.
They're apolitical.
Now, I think it's fair to point out Bloomberg's getting torn to shreds by people in the comments.
But he's doing it.
These people have no problem running these ads, and it's gross.
Bloomberg is, however, facing a backlash from many on the left, many Democrats, and basically every single progressive.
And dare I say, if you find yourself on this side, I implore you to go out and make sure you vote against this man.
I might actually get back in the primary race to make sure he doesn't win.
After what happened in Iowa, I was pretty grossed out and very, very upset.
We'll see what happens.
I didn't want to partake in the Democratic primary process because I feel like it's rigged.
I almost feel like it'd be pointless for me to even bother voting because Bloomberg's buying it and Democratic voters are actually getting behind this man, so perhaps I shouldn't.
But I'm considering it now, going back and voting in the Democratic primary to make sure Bloomberg can't buy this election.
Look, you can say all the bad things you want about Donald Trump, about his potty mouth, his attitude, his policies, but he was the president and he can do those things.
Bloomberg is something different.
Not only is he worse than Trump in every single way, from his comments to his policies to the fact he actually was a politician and he enacted horrifying policies and defended them, but he's not even trying to campaign.
He's just buying it.
Trevor Noah made a very important point about stop and frisk and Bloomberg's horrifying racist comments.
Bloomberg doesn't care that he was targeting minorities on purpose.
He didn't care that a side effect of targeting them was a disproportionate amount of young black and brown people being charged for things like marijuana possession.
And people in wealthier areas were unaffected by this.
What ended up happening was that you could have a wealthy neighborhood have a very low rate of possession crime, people being arrested for it, And black neighborhoods having a very high rate simply because he was instructing them to go to these neighborhoods.
Now, his reasoning on the surface made sense to a lot of people.
That's where the crime is, right?
Unfortunately, as Trevor Noah points out, he actually made things worse.
He created massive animosity.
He inspired a movement against his police force.
And the last thing I'll say on this, and we'll move on because I don't need to get into every detail about Trevor Noah and Stop and Frisk.
Suffice to say, it was a terrible policy and Trump actually endorsed it.
Conservatives should not be defending the policy of this mayor in New York City, a democratic city, when they're running racist policies.
I do not understand why there would be any conservative to defend what they were doing.
You want to complain about democratically run cities?
This is one of the worst things they've ever done, and it contradicts what they claim to be fighting for.
A lot of activists on the left, progressives, fought against this, and rightly so.
Bloomberg admitted straight up it was profiling.
And it's wrong to do that.
He doesn't understand the correlation between poverty and crime.
And yes, going to a poor neighborhood but making it about race is a bad and horrifying, horrifying thing.
Do not let the Democratic establishment get away with this and prop up someone like Bloomberg who defended these policies.
Conservatives have no reason to defend Democrats and the cities they've failed.
That's always been a shocking thing to me.
But, of course there are worse things, I suppose, that Bloomberg has done.
And we can see that even people like Bill Maher would get behind Bloomberg.
This is one of the most detestable things I've ever seen Bill Maher say.
He mentioned Bloomberg must be a frontrunner now because liberals are calling him racist.
There was some light booing.
Not really.
I mean, the articles make it seem like his audience really booed him.
And he said, keep booing.
That's why you lost the last time.
Is Bill Maher actually suggesting he would get behind Michael Bloomberg, who embodies all of the worst things about Trump and then some simply because he doesn't like Trump?
Trump's got a bad attitude with with women.
Mike Bloomberg was worse.
Trump's got, he's accused of being a racist.
Bloomberg literally is on record saying he believes in these policies.
He is 10 times worse than Trump could ever be.
They don't care about what Trump's attitude is.
They don't care about what he believes.
They just want to win.
They're mad they lost in 2016 and they would sell their souls to take it back.
And that's what they're doing with Bloomberg.
Bloomberg is a man with no conscience.
He has been accused of making sexist remarks.
He's been accused of enforcing racist policies, of making racist remarks, and spying on the customers of his own product.
In a story from the New York Times from 2013, Bloomberg admits terminal snooping.
Reporters at Bloomberg News were trained to use a function on the company's financial data terminals that allowed them to view subscribers' contact information and, in some cases, monitor login activity in order to advance news coverage, more than a half-dozen former employees said.
More than 315,000 Bloomberg subscribers worldwide use the terminals for instant market news, trading information, and communication.
Reporters at Bloomberg News, a separate division from the terminal business, were nonetheless told to use the terminals to get an edge in the competitive world of financial journalism where every second counts, according to these people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the company's strict non-disclosure agreements.
You talk about Donald Trump being bad on press, on journalism.
Bloomberg actually had his journalists spying on customers of his other company.
That's what the New York Times is reporting.
But more importantly, Bloomberg News says it won't cover Oner's presidential campaign or his rivals.
I don't know how else I could frame this.
He owns one of the largest news organizations, and they will not cover him at all, thus giving him free reign to smear his opponents and walk away scot-free.
He's going to buy meme accounts.
He's going to buy out progressive activists.
He's going to flood the market with advertisements.
And the Democratic voters just want to win.
It's not so much just your average one-of-the-mill Democrat.
I don't know who is getting behind this man.
Perhaps they just don't know.
But Bill Maher, he should show you how the elite, the Democratic establishment really, really feels about this.
Saying, boo, because that's why you won the last time.
Oh no, I'll boo Bloomberg.
He is everything Democrats should oppose.
A wealthy oligarch, a racist, sexist bigot who has no regard for legitimate journalism, who spies on customers, yet for some reason is winning.
Because the Democrats have sold their souls.
They don't want to lose.
They don't like the fact they lost in 2016.
And now we are seeing possibly the most egregious thing to come from the Democratic establishment.
Look, man, my beef with Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez is over ideas.
I'd gladly sit down over a cup of coffee and talk about ideas, but Bloomberg is corruption.
It is unethical, amoral, and it is horrifying what he is doing.
The amount of money being spent here no one can compete with.
And when he buys ads, he's drowning out people like Bernie Sanders.
What we're seeing is the financial interest striking back.
Hillary Clinton was not supposed to lose.
And they will do whatever it takes to win.
When Bernie Sanders started dominating the polls, when he started winning, when he started climbing ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire, it became clear.
The machine must resist.
And so they are flooding everything with as much money as they can.
Now truth be told, Tom Steyer was doing something similar.
And I find him detestable as well.
He was trying to prop up Bernie Sanders, or at least give Bernie support.
And he should not be doing that either.
The fact that it's working for Bloomberg, though, is rather horrifying.
Because now Bloomberg is actually sitting in third place.
He might actually be the nominee.
And then what are we left with?
Donald Trump, who's not that bad, or Bloomberg, who is a nightmare?
They think Bloomberg will help them beat Trump.
I disagree.
Bloomberg is everything they claim Trump is.
Trump is sporadic.
He's mean.
He's offensive.
Bloomberg is all of those things and more.
I'll leave it there.
Because you get the point.
Bloomberg is probably the biggest threat to our democracy.
Not Donald Trump.
Mark my words, this is a dangerous time for our country to see what's going on.
I have always been in favor of campaign finance reform.
I have praised it ever since AOC won.
I have said it's a good thing.
But these people on the left, they have way too many positions I just absolutely do not agree with.
So I don't know where I fall in this.
Politically homeless, I suppose.
But we should not allow Bloomberg to do this.
Donald Trump did not spend nearly as much money on his campaign.
It was actually a very bare-bones campaign, and he got press attention to win.
Bloomberg, in my opinion, is straight-up cheating.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all next time.
Thanks for watching.
If only any of us knew the basic layout of Wuhan, I think many people would have pushed this theory a lot more.
And a lot of people did, and they were smeared for pushing fake news.
Now, let me back up and give you context.
There was a story several years ago about a biolab in Wuhan.
My understanding is the biolab isn't the same facility that's near the fish market or the seafood market, but there is the Wuhan Centers for Disease Prevention literally across the street.
I kid you not, I'm not even joking.
And I see this image and I'm like, are you kidding me?
Look at this.
So here's Two Ring Road, here's the Huanan Seafood Market, and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, literally 277 meters, 911 feet away.
177 meters, 911 feet away.
So now we have this report.
I'll read this, but I want to show you this tweet, because this is what I saw last night.
This is from Ezra Chung.
It says, Breaking!
South China University of Technology biologist Zhao Beto exposed that COVID-19 might have originated from an animal research lab 280 meters away from the epicenter of the outbreak.
The scientists were reportedly bitten by bats used for a test on louse.
I'm just gonna read you, I'm gonna read, well let's read the story, let's read the story, okay?
I don't wanna get ahead of myself.
But I gotta point out, so many people were claiming, it's not from the bio lab, it's a conspiracy theory, it's from the seafood market, stop spreading misinformation, you had the bat soup thing going viral, and you have all of these people in media touting how they're so much smarter than everyone else, and I wanna point something out.
There have been a few instances where the internet has actually been correct in their hive-mind assumption of what has happened.
This is a good example.
Now, I'll stop.
We don't know for sure.
We don't have the evidence.
But of course, when the story first broke, you had a ton of people saying, if there's a bio lab in Wuhan, isn't it at least possible, and shouldn't we at least ask this question, if there's a highly contagious, never-before-seen disease, There's a biolab, a level 4, you know, biolab?
And everyone said, no, stop, you know, don't believe it.
Now, I'll be fair.
Criticize myself a little bit.
Because of course, I said, I take a, I don't know, a different approach than a lot of the mainstream media, where they'll just call you a conspiracy theorist and a liar.
My position is, we should definitely keep an eye on it.
We should definitely focus on it and talk about it.
But for now, it just seems likely that a bat bit somebody or something.
Well, as it turns out, a bat did bite somebody, at least they think.
A bat bit somebody at this lab.
Now, here's where it gets even crazier.
They're not just talking about accidentally releasing this virus.
The tweet, the scientific report actually says somebody was, I'm quoting here, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019 NCOV coronavirus.
In addition to origins of natural recombination with intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.
Safety level may need to be reinforced in high-risk biohazardous laboratories.
Regulations may be taken to relocate these laboratories far away from city center and other densely populated areas.
Let me read the story for you.
So this is from the Daily Mail, but I want to point this out too.
Ezra Chung works for the New York Times and CNN and formerly for the AFP.
This is a legitimate blue checkmark CNN New York Times contributing reporter.
Alright, let's read from the Daily Mail.
Did coronavirus originate in Chinese government laboratory?
Scientists believe killer disease may have begun in research facility 300 yards from Wuhan wet fish market.
How absolutely ridiculous!
I'm sorry, man.
If you're gonna tell me that it originated in the seafood market and literally across the street is the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, I'm gonna go ahead and suggest maybe it started there instead.
But there is an important point to be said.
According to other studies and other reports, someone had the coronavirus before they'd ever gone to the fish market, and that may have been somewhere else.
So one of the things about the origination of the virus, They said that China's lying because they claimed it came from the seafood market, but when they actually tracked the infection rate, it seems like one of the people may have contracted it further away or somewhere else.
Maybe they were working at the lab, got bit by a bat, went somewhere else, I have no idea.
Let's just read the story from Daily Mail.
Chinese scientists believe the deadly coronavirus may have started life in a research facility just 300 yards from the Wuhan fish market.
A new bombshell paper from the Beijing-sponsored South China University of Technology says that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control could have spawned the contagion in Hubei province.
The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus, penned by scholars Batao Zhao and Lei Zhao, claims the W.H.C.D.C.
kept disease-ridden animals in laboratories, including 605 bats.
It also mentions that bats, which are linked to coronavirus, once attacked a researcher and blood of bat was on his skin.
The report says, Genome sequences from patients were 96 or 89% identical to the BAT-CoV-ZC45 coronavirus originally found in Rhinolithus affinis, intermediate horseshoe bat.
It describes how the only native bats are found 600 miles away from the Wuhan seafood market, and that the probability of bats flying from Yunnan and Zhejiang provinces was minimal.
In addition, there is little to suggest the local populace eats the bats as evidenced by testimonies of 31 residents and 28 visitors.
Instead, the authors point to research being carried out within a few hundred yards at the WHCDC.
One of the researchers at the WHCDC described quarantining himself for two weeks after a bat's blood got on his skin, according to the report.
The same man also quarantined himself after a bat urinated on him.
I'm gonna stop and just say, this paper doesn't just say it may have come from the bats, but it straight up says somebody was entangled with the evolution of the virus, whatever that's supposed to mean.
And he also mentions discovering a live tick from a bat, parasites known for their ability to pass infections through a host animal's blood.
Quote, The W.H.C.D.C.
was also adjacent to the Union Hospital, where the first group of doctors were infected during this epidemic, the report says.
It is plausible that the virus leaked around and some of them contaminated the initial patients in this epidemic, though solid proofs are needed in future study.
And as well as WHCDC, the report suggests that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could have also leaked the virus, as has been previously reported by MailOnline.
This laboratory reported that the Chinese horseshoe bats were natural reservoirs for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS, which caused the 2002-03 pandemic, the report says.
We have a bunch of photos here.
The principal investigator participated in a project which generated a chimeric virus using the SARS-CoV reverse genetic system and reported the potential for human emergence 10.
A direct speculation was that SARS-CoV or its derivative might leak from the laboratory.
The report concludes that the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.
It comes as the outbreak has infected more than 69,000 people globally, with 1,665 deaths in China, most of these in the central province of Hubei.
So, in the actual paper we have posted by the reporter, they mention of... Let me read a little bit of this.
It's a joint international research... They say this.
One, Joint International Research Laboratory of Synthetic Biology and Medicine, School of Biology and Biological Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan.
Tianyu Hospital, Wuhan University of Science and Technology.
These are .edu.cn emails.
This is a legitimate paper being reported by a contributing reporter for the New York Times and CNN, carried by the Daily Mail.
This is a legitimate paper being released.
Don't let anyone tell you it's a crazy conspiracy theory, but it is not 100% confirmed.
That's the caveat right here.
They're saying it seems likely based on the evidence.
Now, again, if it were me, I would just consider looking at the map, seeing that the CDC for Wuhan is literally across the street from the food market.
And then I would look at the massive quarantine, the largest quarantine in the history of this planet, as far as I know.
And now it's expanded.
So this story I have says 500 million people affected.
This story is from yesterday.
My understanding is that right now it's up to around 768 million people quarantined on lockdown in China.
One of the biggest questions that we asked when this first started was, if this is a simple SARS coronavirus, you know, that had a... It was bad, right?
And we may have underreacted.
Why would China be walking around with crazy disinfectant crews, randomly spraying buildings, flying massive drone armies?
Like, they've got these massive drones.
People walk around, it's just spraying disinfectant everywhere.
They're locking people down.
They mass-produced four hospitals, like, in ten days.
There's videos of people being, like, taken from their homes by police, by the government.
They're barricading people in their homes.
There are a lot of conspiracy theories, and there are a lot of, I guess... I don't want to call them conspiracy theories, it doesn't really make sense.
But there were initially conspiracy theories, and I'm going to say it right now.
The term conspiracy theory tries to take away the veracity of the claims.
It tries to discredit them, right?
Well, right now, there is no conspiracy theory that could be worse than what we're already hearing.
Many people thought this was going to be a man-made virus or something that leaked from a lab.
Universities, three different universities, I'm sorry, two universities and a hospital are saying that right now, and establishment mainstream journalists are putting this out.
I'm going to predict what's going to happen.
We're going to see the typical fare of mainstream media saying, oh, don't believe the hype.
Everything's fake news.
All right, listen, man.
It's not confirmed.
Take it with a grain of salt, of course.
Take your grains of salt daily and remain skeptical.
But I don't know what else you want us to do when they're putting out papers from China.
You know, China's been lying about this the whole time.
If this university is now saying this, China's completely lost control.
And I think if we are now learning about this from the actual South China University of Technology, The Chinese government, it's that bad.
Look, they lie and they downplay everything as long as they can.
If it's now come to the point where the universities in China sponsored by Beijing are straight up saying, here it is, I think it's fair to say it's worse than we realize.
And let me stress this point where he says, in summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019 NCOV coronavirus.
There's some more posts.
He says, In one of their studies, 155 bats, including Rhinolophus affinis, were captured in Hubei province and other 450 bats were captured in Zhejiang province.
The expert in collection was noted in the author contributions.
Moreover, he was broadcasted for collecting viruses on nationwide newspapers and websites in 2017 and 2019.
He described that he was once attacked by bats and the blood of a bat got on his skin.
He knew the extreme danger of the infection, so he quarantined himself for 14 days.
In another incident, he quarantined himself because bats peed on him.
He was once thrilled for capturing a bat carrying a live tick.
And we can see there's the photo.
The first thing I thought when China locked everything down was, there's no way this is some novel coronavirus like SARS like last time.
Because those were bad, but they certainly didn't do this.
I mean, have you seen these photos?
Check this out.
The New York Times reporting, to tame coronavirus, Mao-style social control blankets China.
Despite their high-tech tools, the authorities are mainly relying on a flood of workers to keep hundreds of millions of people from coming in contact with outsiders.
Check out this photo.
For those that are listening, I'll explain it.
These people are wearing full, like, masks and suits and gloves, like, ridiculously... They're in hazmat suits, okay?
But they're like...
The best.
Maybe not the best of the best, but they're top tier, right?
They've got these big things that look like leaf blowers or something, and they're spraying some kind of white misty cloud all over the place.
There are videos, I don't know if the New York Times has it, where people are like sitting in a school or something on computers, and a dude walks in just blasting everybody with this disinfectant spray.
I think they know what this is.
I think they knew what this was.
They lied the whole time.
And you have these people who have an optimism bias, who don't want to imagine it's going to go from bad to worse.
So China reacts with an iron fist, taking the most extreme action possible as fast as they can.
They locked down like nine cities as soon as this started getting out of control.
Perhaps it's too late.
Now we have everyone saying, remain calm.
And that is the right thing to do.
But I'm going to be honest with you.
I think the reason they're saying, remain calm, we're going to be fine.
You know, we have the CDC people come on the TV and say, there's not a big threat.
I think there is a big threat.
I think there is.
We've heard that the, from Military Times, the US is preparing a full-on, you know, they're preparing for a full-on pandemic.
We've now got the US and the UK telling their respective governments, It will reach 60% of the population, if not the world.
And I think the reason we're hearing from government officials saying, stay calm, the risk is low, is because panic would be a disaster.
We are working on a vaccine for this virus.
If everyone goes into chaos and the markets slow down and the economy slows down, it will hinder our ability to actually produce the vaccine.
So the best thing you can do is take your precautions.
In fact, go out and buy some supplies.
Don't hoard your money or buy gold or any of this nonsense.
Buy supplies.
And I'll tell you something important, too.
I always love how, you know, watching, like, InfoWars, you hear Jones and others say, buy gold, right?
Because when the economy collapses and all that, you're gonna need gold, because there's not gonna be a currency.
No, no, no, don't listen to that stuff.
Let me ask you a question.
The apocalypse hits.
The economy's in shambles.
And you are standing on the side of the road and someone's wiggling a gold coin at you and saying, hey, you've got a battery I need to charge my phone with.
Here's a gold coin.
The other guy across the street says, here's a bottle of water.
Which one are you going to pick?
We know which one you're going to pick.
You're going to take the water.
So the best thing you can do is actually just be prepared.
And I'll tell you this, man.
I've said it in every video and I have no shame in saying it a million times, don't let anyone shame you into not taking care of yourself.
Because I will say this, if the US military is preparing for a full-on pandemic, why aren't you?
If the UK government is saying they're expecting a 60% infection rate, why aren't you getting ready for this?
The Chinese government has lied.
If the Chinese government is using Mao-style social controls and quarantining almost 800 million people, why aren't you getting ready for this?
You can sit in your house and have an optimism bias, where you assume it can never get bad and everything will always be okay, and then you'll be the one left out in the cold, while other people will have already had their emergency water supplies and food supplies, because we might get locked down for a couple weeks or longer.
Now it may be that this gets so bad we have no idea.
The mortality rate might be higher when you do traditional calculations for mortality rates.
It's based on the current population, the current infection rate.
I looked all this up because someone said to me, if 60,000 people are infected and 1,600 died, how do you know the mortality rate is 2% if the people who are infected haven't recovered or died?
You see the point that's being made?
They're saying, look at the amount of people who've recovered versus the amount of people who've died.
You can calculate the recovery rate and the mortality rate, but neither are perfect because the variables are unknowns.
In which case, of the 60 or so thousand people who have been infected, we have a really high mortality rate based on those who've recovered.
None of that matters.
I can't speculate.
I'm not an expert.
What I can tell you is, if China is lying to us, and they're panicking like the world is ending, I've been taking this seriously the whole time.
Now, admittedly, in the beginning, I actually thought this was gonna be, you know, flu is bad, right?
I said the exact same things.
I got no problem admitting this.
I think it's smart to stay calm.
Have you ever played Plague Inc.?
And I know it's a video game, but this really does matter.
Check it out.
In Plague Inc., one of the ways you win, your goal being to infect the world and wipe out humanity, it's a mobile game, I'm talking about a video game, you want people to be paranoid and in panic because it slows down research on the cure, which means our responsibility is to actually make sure everything keeps churning and actually improves.
But as travel fears and virus spreading fears happens, markets are taking a hit.
So it really does matter.
And I know it might seem silly, but going out and buying a candy bar, it's actually a good thing.
No, it's not the best thing you could do.
You want to support the research, figure out how we can make sure that we're moving in the right direction.
With this latest report that it may have come from a lab, that someone may have been entangled with the evolution.
These are maybes, but now we're getting official reports like, hey, this might be the case.
I'm going to go ahead and say this.
China's been lying the whole time.
If the reports are coming out now, that means China is probably letting them come out or they're losing control.
I think this disease is going to be much, much worse than anyone has realized.
And although in the beginning you had everyone saying the flu will kill more people, that's true.
But we don't know what this is gonna do.
We don't know how fast and far it's gonna spread.
It's possible it doesn't go anywhere near the level of the flu, that's fine.
But I will point something out.
China seems to know what this is.
The researchers seem to think that it came from one of their own laboratories.
China doesn't react this way for the flu.
The US military, as far as I know, doesn't prepare for full-scale influenza pandemics.
No one really pays attention.
It could be because we're used to the flu, we know what it is.
Or it could be that a lot of people actually know the devastation that awaits us with this coronavirus, and they're worried that if they came out right now and said the mortality rate is higher, and you will be hit by this, it would cause panic.
And panic is bad for our cure, our vaccine research.
Take care of yourself.
Get ready.
The military is, China's already been, they're freaking out like the world's ending.
But multiple governments have said, pandemic time.
Hopefully nothing happens.
Hopefully we all do overreact, but I'll tell you something, better safe than sorry, right?
If the worst case scenario is that you go to Walmart, you pick up a couple five-gallon jugs of water and put it in your basement, keep it safe, you buy some dried food that lasts a couple years.
If that's the worst case scenario, here's the best part.
When this all blows over, you can drink the water and eat the food.
How about that?
But if the worst comes to fruition, you're going to be grateful that you went out now and picked up supplies.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
As the developments come in, I will have updates on the coronavirus stuff, and I will see you all in the next segment.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has probably one of the most important congressional election races in the country, which is funny because she probably shouldn't.
She's not like Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff.
She's just the New York's 14th district congressperson.
But because she's so famous, because she's high profile, it's quickly becoming one of the biggest and most important Democratic races.
And it might actually symbolize Who will win in this great battle between the far left and the moderate Democrats?
Ocasio-Cortez is facing around a dozen challengers, and she is going in full on—well, I don't want to say she's panicking.
She's going on the offensive and calling for extreme measures, quadrupling voter turnout.
She needs to get 60,000 votes, she says, in the primary, where last time she only got about 17,000.
Now there's a couple arguments as to why the multitude of competitors might help her, but I think considering this is a special primary election, considering how few votes she got last time, I think AOC is facing a potential defeat.
It's hard to know for sure, but she's definitely going on the offensive, and it's also important to point out, she's got 5.3 million dollars to dump in her district for re-election, she's got 6 million plus followers on Twitter, not like that necessarily matters, Because only 2% of the population is actually on Twitter.
And the Name Recognition is really going to help her.
I want to show you some stuff, and I also want to show you how the polls were treating her.
Recently, she was, well, I should say last year, a poll came out from Swing States showing her approval rating was like 22%.
Like, ugh, really bad.
Now in her district, I don't have those numbers, but I want to be fair.
I think she has a real shot at winning this, but there is a strong potential she loses because of the huge fight she's facing.
Let's read the story from Fox News.
AOC Calls for Turnout Machine as 12 Democratic Rivals Eye Her House Seat Despite her massive national media presence, it appears U.S.
Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, isn't taking re-election for granted.
At a Saturday kickoff event in her bid for a second term, the far-left freshman congresswoman told supporters she wanted to see voter turnout in New York's 14th district increase by four times over her previous run in 2018.
No fewer than 12 Democrats have filed in the district to run against Ocasio-Cortez in the primary election on June 23rd, according to radio station WINS of New York City.
In addition, at least three Republicans will vie for a chance to ultimately win the seat.
She said, last election cycle in the primary as we know the turnout was quite low.
This year we want to multiply turnout by four times. That's our goal. We want to secure 60,000
votes in the primary election. We need to start creating a turnout machine right now.
I got bad news for the mainstream Democrats.
I think she could actually pull it off.
I mean, she's gonna flood ads in New York City with all the money she's got, and she's already got the name recognition.
She's bombastic.
She says nonsensical things.
Dare I say she is a mini-Trump.
She says things that generate press because they're stupid or controversial, and then she builds up more name recognition.
And a lot of people who are also stupid and think nonsensical things or believe her pipe dream, hopes and, you know, hope, hopes and dreams type policies, they're gonna say, yes, she's the person I'm gonna vote for.
It's gonna work out really well for her.
It's kind of a bummer that things play that way, but hey, that's how it really, that's how it goes.
Ocasio-Cortez30 sent shockwaves to the political world when she won.
Yeah, we don't care about that.
She said, I think everyone has a right to run.
I, of course, won my seat with a primary.
I would never begrudge anyone trying to run in a primary.
I'm committed to organizing.
And that brings me to some data.
First, swing state approval is not the same as the approval rating in a district like NY14, which is probably very, very blue.
However, The far left is not the overwhelming majority of this country, which is why I think AOC is facing potential pitfalls with the massive number of people running against her.
In this poll from Axios, they say, taken in May, so this is from a while ago, this is from, let me see the date on this one, July 14th, 2019.
They say the poll was taken in May, before Speaker Pelosi's latest run-in with AOC and the three other liberal House freshman members known as the Squad, included 1,003 likely general election voters, blah blah blah.
So here's what they found.
Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of voters in the poll.
22% had a favorable view.
The last poll I saw from her own district had her just over 50%.
Which is interesting, because I don't know how that will play out, but if her approval rating is that high, the question then becomes, how much do these people really care about her, or just getting a Democrat in office?
In which case, there may be very few activist votes.
Let's jump over to Ballotpedia, and I want to show you this data from the primary race.
AOC won, not because she was actually a good candidate, necessarily.
She won because, as Nancy Pelosi said, you could slap a D on a glass of water in the district and you will win.
But in AOC's district, she ran an insurgency campaign against the Democratic establishment, challenging Joe Crowley in a primary and winning just about 4,000 more votes than he did.
Joe Crowley had the name recognition.
He was the fourth most powerful Democrat in Congress.
He lost the primary.
Now, he wasn't anywhere near as famous as AOC is now, but I do think there's some reason to believe.
Name recognition will not be enough.
Clout will not be enough.
AOC's got activist people on Twitter, and she's making a lot of money from outside of her district.
This is where things start to get bad.
There was a report that came out several months ago, last year, Showing that Ocasio-Cortez actually has raised very little from her own district.
It's probable that number went up.
Now, most of her donors are grassroots.
She does have a decent amount of people who donate over $200, I believe the threshold is.
But it's also a concern that her higher...
higher, you know, larger donation amounts aren't coming from within her district, and
that's disproportionate to basically every other person in Congress, which means she
might not actually have any support from her own district.
And there have been stories about how people say that she neglects them.
She's never there.
And she's more interested in being a celebrity.
After she won the primary with only 16,898 votes.
However, my understanding is that she was in a D plus 30 district.
I could be wrong.
I thought it was D plus 29.
318 votes, 78.2% of the vote.
However, my understanding is that she was in a D plus 30 district.
I could be wrong.
I thought it was D plus 29.
Okay, check it out.
Cook partisan voter index is D plus 29.
She just missed that.
So, it's probably not fair to say she underperformed a lot, but it is a 0.8% underperformance to a certain degree.
I don't think it really matters, though.
Like Nancy Pelosi said, you slap a D on a glass, people are going to vote for him in that district.
The bigger question is, she didn't actually win over the hearts and minds of the people in her district.
What's going to matter is winning over the hearts and minds in a primary.
Which brings me to why I think she has a good chance to win for one reason, but considering how few votes she got, I think there's actually a good reason to suggest she's in trouble.
And that's why she's trying to quadruple her voter turnout.
Right now, at Ballotpedia, we can see that they're listing all of these primary candidates.
The Republican primary looks nuts.
Now, Fox News said there was like 12 Democratic primary challengers.
I think they might be confusing that.
We can see we've got AOC as the incumbent, Fernando Cabrera, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, James Dillon, Badrin Khan, and Jose Velasquez.
These are all people running, so right now she's got, what, five opponents.
One of which, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, was an anchor for CNBC and also has decent local name recognition.
Now, she's only got around 70,000 or so followers on Twitter, but I don't know if Twitter is going to play a big role in this.
I mean, there's reason to believe with that many followers on Twitter, because AOC's got like 6 million, she's very, very famous in the Democratic Party, and she's going to rally a lot of progressives.
But I turn back—this is why I think this is bad news for—bad, bad, bad news for AOC.
First, I'll point out what a lot of people have said is all of these primary candidates are splitting the vote, making it easier for Ocasio-Cortez to win, and that's a fair point.
That's actually where my mind was only a few minutes before I was recording, so I'm like, man, I don't know.
Sounds like that might help her.
Think about it.
If you have a bunch of people who are trying to just unseat AOC and they divide up 40,000 votes among themselves and AOC ends up getting that 60,000 or whatever.
I shouldn't say that.
Let's say 61,000 people vote for the other candidates split up and 60,000 vote for AOC.
AOC wins.
That's the problem with the Democratic primaries at the national level, with people like Bloomberg, Biden and Buttigieg and Klobuchar are splitting up the moderate vote, giving Bernie Sanders, you know, letting him just squeak past with a major victory.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that in the Democratic primary nationally, in New Hampshire I believe it was, 53% of the vote was for a moderate candidate, and Bernie Sanders only got around 25.
We don't know exactly where the numbers will fall when the other moderates start, you know, dropping out because they're losing, but it's fair to say the bigger number will go to the moderate candidate.
The same could be true in- and now I'll move on to why I think this is actually bad news.
Again, fair to say they're going to split the vote, but According to that Hidden Tribes report that I love to show oh so often, only 8% of this country is a progressive activist.
I'm sure when you look at New York's 14, there is a substantially higher percentage of progressives and far left and socialists because it's a blue district.
Most people there are Democrats, so you're really, you know, zooming in on the microcosm, right?
But you have substantially more moderates, and I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people who are moderate Democrats who are angered by AOC, which brings me to why this is bad news.
The fact that all of these Democrats are trying to unseat her shows there is a massive movement against her.
And if progressives make up only 8% of the national, you know, population, if we zoom in and we isolate only the left, according to the Hidden Tribes report, you do have a large percentage.
However, you end up with like 40-some-odd percent of passive, traditional, just regular liberals, potentially even some moderates.
What I think we're gonna end up seeing Is that people like Michelle Caruso Cabrera, for instance.
She's a CNBC anchor, former anchor and reporter and correspondent.
She's gonna go and rally her activist base.
Keeping in mind, the voter turnout was abysmal for AOC when she ran in her primary.
What that means is, AOC was only able to activate a very small faction of people who actually lived in that district.
That leaves around 700,000 people.
I think they actually have the full number right here.
Okay, they don't.
But I believe it's around 711,000... What do we have?
712,053 people.
If AOC was only able to activate a tiny, tiny fraction of that, I can't imagine she can activate much more.
She's famous nationally.
She's raising money nationally.
She is starting to walk back on Medicare for All, though, probably to try and make sure she doesn't lose re-election, because we know how politicians work.
But think about these individuals.
You've got Fernando, Michelle, James, Badrun, and Jose.
If they each go around the entire city and can get 20,000 people, they're beating AOC's numbers.
Now, it is true they might split the vote.
It also might be true that all of them are pulling in a tiny, tiny fraction.
The pool of people to pull from is massive.
And all these people running shows, a lot of people in this district do not like Ocasio-Cortez.
It says to me.
There may be a problem, but if you can activate 61,000 people to vote just for you in a district of 712,000, you're looking at less than 10% of the vote to beat Ocasio-Cortez.
Well, I don't know necessarily, you know, how it will play out, but I think each of these individuals could go to key areas, light up smaller neighborhoods that have more than enough people, and get that voter turnout.
The money talks.
AOC's got five million dollars.
But I'll throw it to the very last and very, very improbable result.
There is a safety net for these Democrats.
Or I shouldn't say for these Democrats.
If you are someone who lives in New York 14 and you do not like Ocasio-Cortez, and there may be many, I'll bring you to the reason why ultimately I think she's actually facing a potential defeat.
Look at what happened in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn.
Districts that had not voted conservative in a hundred years flipped.
People would lose their minds if New York 14 turned red.
But it might.
You see, AOC isn't just facing outrage from Democrats.
She's got, at least let's sit here, you've got Janai Butler, Israel Ortega Cruz, John Cummings, Miguel Hernandez, Shershey Murray, Ruth Papazian, Ray Solano, and Antoine Tucker.
challenging her on the Republican side.
So even if she doesn't lose the primary, it's fair to say this district is a place where
you slap a D in a glass of water and they win.
But what if this district goes the way Jeremy Corbyn did?
What if it's true that regular Democrats do not like Ocasio-Cortez?
What if they're split down the middle and we see some strange phenomenon where after
the Democratic primary attempt fails and AOC wins, all of those voters unite behind the
Republican.
And that's when things get crazy.
Even in the general.
A district of 712,000, AOC got 100,000 votes.
So just around, you know, I don't know, was it 17% or something?
No, wait, is it?
Yeah, something like that.
So we can see You have people really pushing back on Ocasio-Cortez.
What if they end up voting Republican and this district turns red?
It's possible.
AOC once had a gaffe where she was like, we're gonna flip this seat red, thinking she was talking about like socialism or whatever, but red in this country is Republican conservative.
So I don't know what the Republicans plan to do.
I don't know if they have a good shot to win.
Because when we look at the actual data, Anthony Pappas, who ran last time, only got 19,000 votes.
But perhaps there's two things to consider.
Conservatives in New York's 14 may be few and far between, and maybe they just don't care to vote because they think they're gonna lose.
But I don't think that it, you know, look, if you have 720,000 people and let's say only 20%
are Republican, that's still what, 140,000 votes that could have come out against AOC
and they could have won the district. If there is a small faction of Republicans,
because I got it, look, 19,000 for the Republican.
There's gotta be more than 110,000 Republicans in this area, right?
Or at least moderate conservatives.
I can't imagine the Republicans who are running are gonna be your hardcore, you know, Trumpist, far, whatever you want to call them.
There are a lot of people who are absolute, you know, Christian conservative Trump loyalists.
But you look at New Jersey, you had Bob Hugin.
He was a moderate.
He may as well have been a Democrat.
He was pro-choice, for instance.
I think it's fair to say, when AOC loses moderate Democrat voters, and Republican voters come out in droves to vote against her, they might actually flip this district to a Republican, which would be nuts!
But we saw what happened in the UK.
And James Carville, Democratic strategist, has warned it's going to happen.
This could be it.
This could be a reason why.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast, and I'll see you all there.
Everyone's favorite famous gamer feminist, Anita Sarkeesian, made some comments about YouTube, the rabbit hole, Joe Rogan, and accidentally disproved the whole rabbit hole narrative while trying to talk about its existence.
Show me a couple things.
First, for those that aren't familiar with the rabbit hole theory, it's this idea that you go on YouTube and then YouTube keeps feeding you more and more radical nonsense.
The whole theory is bunk.
It makes literally no sense.
And it's exemplified by exactly what these media types and feminists have been saying about the YouTube rabbit hole.
It's not real.
What they're really complaining about is that their ideas are fringe and not accepted by the majority of people.
Well, of course, YouTube panics and then caters to the tiny fringe Case in point, everything they changed after these people talked about the rabbit hole.
It's not real, and I'm going to show you how Anita Sarkeesian actually just, well, disproved it.
The story from Reclaim the Net.
Anita Sarkeesian slams extremely dangerous YouTube and Joe Rogan rabbit hole.
A differing opinion is now a rabbit hole.
The story says, in 2014, Sarkeesian became one of the figures at the center of the massive
Gamergate controversy after challenging the gaming industry through her lens as a feminist
media critic.
A polarizing figure, her activism or media criticism, if you like, has earned her a star
status among some and strong disapproval among others.
Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics is publishing a series of interviews now,
including one with Sarkeesian.
Asked about the primary ethical dilemma in modern media, Sarkeesian first brings up YouTube's algorithms.
At its core, YouTube is a money-making machine for Google that sells ads and readily sways its policies according to pressure to protect that business.
But Sarkeesian also sees it as a modern-day soapbox that's incredibly important for discourse.
Well, that's true.
That's absolutely true.
You see, with the rise of YouTube and other independent social media platforms, regular people now have a chance to actually challenge the mainstream media.
Of course, activists infiltrated the mainstream media because these companies were desperate for money and wanted easily clickable, rage-inducing content.
And now that they have that power, they're trying to shut down regular people's opinions.
Well, lo and behold, The far left is fringe, and moderates on YouTube are just that, like regular people and moderates.
Like Joe Rogan, for instance.
I hope you all realize he's the most popular podcaster in the world.
A lot of people share his opinions and think what he has to say is good.
Let's read.
There are various reasons why observers criticize YouTube's use of algorithms to surface, promote, or downgrade content, but Sarkeesian specifically takes on YouTube recommendations and the algorithm behind it.
The talking point has become a favorite on the progressive spectrum of the US political and media scene, ostensibly because it is not controlled tightly in a way they would like, and instead allows content to become visible that they believe should be hidden.
And I'll stop and tell you this right now.
This channel and my main channel are on a blacklist.
You can't Google them.
I'm not kidding.
You can take the title of this video, Google search it, it won't come up.
When you Google search my main channel, which is YouTube.com slash TimCast, all of the Facebook versions pop up.
That's how screwed up it is.
YouTube knows they're ceding ground to Facebook, and Facebook's loving it!
I'll take this time to say, if you like the content, subscribe to this channel, because, well, YouTube's not surfacing my content for new reviewers.
Not like they used to.
We'll see what happens.
They say, the story goes on.
YouTube's main concern is to secure more engagement from users, but the thinking seems to be that if pressured hard enough, the giant might tweak the algorithm even more to the detriment of its own business.
Sarkeesian gives an example of what she thinks is wrong.
She said, and this is the best part, you watch one of my videos and it says, you like feminism?
Here's a whole bunch of anti-feminist videos.
You're going to love this.
You can very easily go down a rabbit hole.
Whoa, whoa!
Full stop.
Wait a minute.
I thought the story was that if you watched videos about feminism, you would get even more extremist feminist content.
I thought the narrative that we read was that if you read about vegetarianism, they'll send you to vegan content.
What's this?
She's saying that if you watch a feminist video, they'll send you to anti-feminist content.
Well, that debunks the whole narrative of the rabbit hole right off the bat.
If YouTube is gonna feed you contradictory information, well, then there's no real rabbit hole, is there?
Is there?
You have to choose to watch something.
Dare I say it?
Perhaps these fringe, feminist, far-left ideas are just unpopular nonsense that nobody wants to watch, so when YouTube recommends both, people choose not to watch yours.
Uh-oh!
So what really ends up happening, these people don't want differing opinions.
They want to tightly control ideas.
And it reminds me so much of Sweden.
Do you remember the Sweden thing with, you know, Trump said last night in Sweden?
I went down there.
Maybe many of you weren't following me at the time.
I went to Sweden.
You see, the media in Sweden won't tell you the truth out of a fear the truth will make you racist.
There was one story where it was either a migrant or refugee Committed a crime, and so they pixelated the face and the hands, but then changed the color of the pixelation to be white so it looked like the criminal was white.
They don't want you to know the crime stats out of a fear you will become racist.
They believe they have a moral obligation to prevent it.
That sounds horrifying.
I mean, the truth is the truth.
If people can't understand the truth, well, what are you gonna do about it?
Lie?
Apparently, yes.
That's what she's really talking about.
She's not concerned YouTube itself will radicalize people.
She's concerned that ideas that aren't hers are more appealing to the average person.
Aw, too bad.
That's just how it's supposed to work.
In the end, what we can really see Is that YouTube is a marketplace of ideas and the left does not do as well when it comes to hard politics.
Now obviously when it comes to mainstream commentary they do really well and I think that shows you that many of these people aren't really paying attention and don't really know what's going on.
But those that choose, when given a feminist video or an anti-feminist video, guess what they're picking?
Anti-feminist.
Why?
There's a lot of reasons.
But suffice it to say, your content probably is just not that good, your ideology is unappealing, and regular people don't want to be involved.
The story goes on.
The argument seems to be that users should be kept strictly in their echo chambers and that being exposed to a different point of view is a rabbit hole.
It's unclear if the rabbit hole argument works the other way around.
Is it problematic to watch an anti-feminist video and be recommended a bunch of feminist ones?
The theme of keeping information and the message on brand all the time...
Unbrand all the time surfaces again when Sarkeesian names what she sees as another ethical problem in media.
Hosts whose guests are not carbon copies of themselves.
Take Joe Rogan, she said.
You might see, let's say, a video of Joe Rogan and you're like, oh cool, this guy is interesting.
He interviews interesting people.
And then you start to watch all of his programming and you start to see who he brings on.
What, like 99% run-of-the-mill people across the political spectrum?
And then a small handful of high-profile moderates or conservatives?
Like, Rogan's got, what, 1,500 or so episodes?
We'll include the MMA stuff.
It's all on the same channel.
So he's got, like, 1,500 episodes, and what, a couple dozen out of that are people you don't like?
Well, you think what he's saying is totally reasonable.
But his guests might say some things that are a little extreme, a little wacky, or a little conspiracy theorist, and might begin to think, but if this guy who I've been watching for a while thinks he's cool, then maybe he is.
And then you go down that rabbit hole.
What rabbit hole is that?
Seriously?
I can't stand this.
The New York Times did the same story, and they actually proved there is no rabbit hole.
Every single time it comes up, they're just lying.
They make this stuff up.
I guess you guys are lucky you're watching me, but most people who probably aren't think it's real.
Logic dictates that a host and their guests agreeing on everything and speaking in the same voice would get boring pretty quickly, but according to Sarkeesian, Rogan's way is just another rabbit hole.
But I'll tell you what, I actually encourage you to watch her content, see what she has to say.
I think she's entitled to her opinion, I just think she's wrong.
A lot of people, they really, really don't like her for a lot of reasons.
And you know what?
That's fine.
You don't gotta like anybody.
But I will say in this instance, let's be respectful.
Like, I can think she's absolutely wrong and argue about her opinion, but I'm glad she has one.
I'm glad we live in a country where the debate can actually happen.
And I really do mean this.
For all of the bad that comes with it, I recognize something they don't.
Free speech means awful ideas are going to get spread around, and people will push them, and you combat them with better ideas and better logic to prove your point.
So I'm grateful.
We live in a country with free speech, but these people are doing the opposite of what, you know, should happen.
They don't respect that other people have different ideas.
They lie, they cheat, and they steal.
So we are at a fundamental disadvantage when we fight for free expression and we fight for the true marketplace of ideas.
Because I have no problem with her speaking, but I'd be willing to bet she absolutely does have a problem with me speaking.
Or at least with my content being recommended.
Now, of course, Tim Poole's the milquetoast fence-sitter.
I'm sure she doesn't really care all that much.
And I gotta be honest, I think a lot of people really, really hate her, and I think people need to chill out a little bit.
Go after the ideas, not the person.
Avoid the name-calling and all that stuff.
I think it's fair to criticize her for a lot of the really dumb things she's said in the past, but I wish everybody was a bit more civil, especially on the internet.
That goes for everybody, man, regardless.
But I'll wrap this up again by just saying this.
You as a free speech minded individual, you should know that these people will take away your right to speak in a moment's notice.
But we respect their right to speech and they use that against us, which means defending free speech is substantially harder than trying to take it away.
I don't know, whatever, man.
Look, Joe Rogan is one of the most popular comedians and podcasters in the world.
Well, he is probably the most popular podcaster in the world.
You're insane if you're going to try and turn people against him.
Like, you're talking to a tiny, tiny fraction of the world.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
A couple days ago, a leftist writer for Marvel's She-Hulk started criticizing South Park.
And I found this to be really, really funny because South Park made a movie that was literally about censorship and political correctness, mostly about not swearing, but that was the general plot of South Park's film, Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.
And back in the day, when South Park was getting more and more popular, it was really big, like late 90s, 2000s.
For me, the world I lived in, it was the conservatives that tended to be the moral authoritarians, the ones calling for censorship and wanting shows banned.
And South Park has been able to live through all of this.
It's now the left that wants to ban TV shows and censor things, and it's been getting to that point for a while, and it's really weird.
I don't understand why this happened.
I was thinking about this the other day when I was doing a segment on Samantha Bee.
She was talking about PragerU and called them dangerous.
I realized if you go back in time, So there's a segment from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart where he uncritically plays a clip from Project Veritas.
He then rags on the media and says, if this guy, James O'Keefe, can do this, where were you?
He actually shows the footage from Veritas as legitimate footage, not calling James a liar or any of those things.
He makes jokes about, you know, James O'Keefe and everything, but it's decently positive.
He then goes on to rag on the media and then call Baltimore an asshole.
Jon Stewart!
Now you have Donald Trump saying essentially the same thing, and all of a sudden it's the left that's furious and outraged over Trump's behavior.
And I'm like, dude, 10 years ago, Jon Stewart was speaking the exact same way.
And the left laughed.
The left laughed.
And I think, you know, I combine these ideas with a lot of what Jack Murphy was telling me on my podcast last week.
He's the guy who was a Democrat and then wrote a book about how he became a Trump supporter, and deplorable, as he says.
And he said that cultural issues came off the table for the Republican Party and allowed him to make that switch.
Things like gay marriage and pot legalization.
And then I started to see something.
People like this woman.
We'll read this story about South Park.
They say Marvel Studios She-Hulk writer Dana Schwartz, quote, it seems impossible to overstate the cultural damage done by South Park.
What religion are you adhering to?
But here's what I see.
Look at John Oliver, Samantha Bee, Stephen Colbert.
John Stewart was a thought leader.
He pioneered the program that was The Daily Show.
Political, but funny.
Pointing out the ironies and leading that charge and having a sensible liberal base.
These people who left the Democratic Party and went who knows where, people like me, for instance, they didn't go anywhere, we're just homeless now, but then also people like Jack Murphy, were very likely, in my opinion, the thought leaders that were leading the charge.
They were the core of substance in this left.
And now that they're gone, you get a hollow shell of generic crap.
Like Samantha Bee's show.
People watch it, but it's mindless, generic garbage.
She is nothing compared to what Jon Stewart used to be.
And John Oliver.
Every single joke is the exact same.
Little Timothy over here in current year!
Yeah, that shit, like, it got to the point where people are just sick and tired of the same joke over and over and over again.
And Trevor Noah, same thing.
It's a generic version of what once was, because the people on the left that were thought leaders and funny left, and the people remaining are moral authoritarians and generic, and they don't even know what they stand for.
Which brings me to the story where it's actually a left-wing writer slamming South Park, of all people.
It used to be the left laughing at South Park, and South Park made fun of everybody, and she brings it up like it's a bad thing.
I don't know what- Let's read the story.
Marvel Studios She-Hulk writer Dana Schwartz took to Twitter to criticize Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park, claiming, In retrospect, it seems impossible- Okay, you're gonna say that a million times.
by South Park.
In retrospect, it seems impossible- okay, you're gonna say that a million times.
In subsequent tweets, she added, Smugness is not the same as intelligence.
Provocation isn't the same as bravery.
The lesser of two evils aren't the same.
Now, I will also criticize South Park, because they've gotten really weak.
They lost their bite.
In the past couple of years, South Park has been too terrified to actually criticize mainstream political phenomenon.
They did do one thing with the trans woman athlete, but it's clear that with the left fracturing and falling apart, and Trey Parker and Matt Stone being somewhat lefty-type individuals, at least at the time when the show was created, Where are they now?
I don't think they're being brave enough to actually tackle these ideas, and what ends up happening is you get this generic crap that nobody likes!
And Trey Parker and Matt Stone are OGs!
You know, with Jon Stewart leaving, you're left with this mindless husk of generic crap on these late-night shows, but Matt Parker and Trey Stone have no excuse for not having more bite in their content.
Look at Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan has no problem saying all of these things and making jokes about them.
Why can't South Park?
Now, I know, I know.
South Park did that one episode with... It was the fake... It was the parody version of Macho Man Randy Savage claiming to be a woman.
So I get it.
They did punch back.
But a lot of what they do, it's just... Look, maybe they're trying and they've just become kind of bored with it.
I have no idea.
But that's my criticism.
My criticism is South Park doesn't go far enough.
Let's read on.
She claims South Park is even trying to reckon with her criticisms.
She says, it seems like South Park has been trying to reckon with this.
I admit I haven't been watching the show in recent seasons, but I'm fascinated to see this.
South Park issues rare apology for ManBearPig.
Yeah, kind of.
It's still making fun of everything.
Stop taking jokes so seriously all the time.
She actually thinks that when South Park did an episode where Al Gore was freaking out about ManBearPig, that they were literally trying to claim Al Gore was talking about the boogeyman.
It was just a joke!
They were making fun of his zeal, not necessarily saying climate change wasn't real.
Calm down!
Like, when George Carlin rags on people, he ragged on feminists.
He was actually a feminist, rest his soul.
George Carlin was amazing.
George Carlin had jokes about feminists, PC police, but then in private legitimate interviews would talk about how he actually agreed with some of these things.
How shocking is it to these people?
They don't understand these concepts.
When we had thought leaders like George Carlin, it was understood.
A lot of people like to point to the fact that George Carlin was very anti-PC, and he was, and then highlight this interview where he says, I actually agree with trying to do away with some of these terms.
They're acting like when George Carlin is overtly expressing his political views outside of a comedic routine, they act like they understand the joke.
But then when any other comedian makes the joke, say Count Dankula for instance and his pug, they pretend like they don't understand the joke.
Perhaps it's because they don't care and they just want to win.
After criticizing the show, Schwartz revealed her main complaint was actually with fans of the show, specifically the boys who watched it.
She wrote, quote, Aw, really?
It's the people.
It's the people who make jokes.
You don't like the jokes.
How could you not blame the show and just blame the person who watched the show?
fault. Aw, really? It's the people. It's the people who make jokes. You don't like the
jokes. How could you not blame the show and just blame the person who watched the show?
You know, I was thinking about something too. How come on social media, so many people made
like Jew jokes?
And then I started thinking, I'm like, oh, dude, South Park.
Yeah, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Cartman's character, would do all these things.
Perhaps these people didn't realize that Cartman WAS the joke.
That he was an insufferable, nasty little person.
And still is, because this show is still on the air.
Perhaps they didn't realize you were meant to despise him.
And most people got that joke.
And young men who grew up making those jokes knew the jokes were purposefully offensive.
That was the point.
You were mocking them.
You end up with PewDiePie making some of these jokes, and they act like the sky is falling.
No, PewDiePie was doing what South Park was doing.
Isn't it crazy that PewDiePie lost everything because he made these dumb jokes that South Park literally makes every single day?
And going back a couple years, or how about Family Guy?
Seth MacFarlane.
He's a funny guy.
I think he does a great job.
And Family Guy does Jew jokes, and gay jokes, and deaf jokes, and any kind of joke.
They just do it now.
I think in recent times they said they wouldn't do gay jokes anymore.
But American Dad and Family Guy made all of these jokes, and guess what?
The people who adopted that humor earned it from these Gen Xers.
They learned it and earned that.
So now they make these jokes, but millennials and their delicate sensibilities panic because words are violence, so they cower in the corner, and these big media companies, not realizing this is a fringe, small faction of people, panics and then starts banning jokes on YouTube.
Here's my question to all of you.
If you're so upset about South Park and Family Guy, How come you, like, well, actually, no, no, no.
I'll put it this way.
If you're so upset about PewDiePie and Joe Rogan, why aren't you trying to get Family Guy and South Park banned from YouTube?
I mean, should Comedy Central be allowed to have these clips on YouTube of Cartman saying these jokes?
Or even Futurama?
Futurama wasn't really, you know, as bad as, say, Family Guy or South Park was.
But any one of these shows could have an offensive joke.
Yet it's only when a YouTuber does it.
It's only when I say something.
It's only when PewDiePie says something, or Joe Rogan.
It's never when Seth MacFarlane says something.
Why is that?
Why do they ignore decades of mainstream culture that is still on TV today?
Well, she's starting to bring up South Park now, so fine, I'll give her that.
But they complained all day and night about these YouTubers who were inspired by McFarlane and Trey and Matt.
And Seth McFarlane's like an overt lefty.
Moderate, more, you know, more moderate Democrat type.
But he even makes fun of his own kind of persona with Brian being an insufferable liberal.
In-family guy.
He makes fun of everybody.
I respect that.
I don't care what your political beliefs are.
I think you're making a joke.
I get it.
So, let me wrap it up.
The point I'm making is, it seems completely fake.
None of these people actually care about any of these things.
She's even saying it's not even the show's fault at this point.
It's just tribal moral authoritarianism.
I know you get this, but because of the latest, you know, phenomena, I guess, I decided to record a segment about it.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Boy, am I a glutton for punishment, because every time I make videos about these dating phenomena things, a bunch of feminists get really, really angry.
In the latest story from The Atlantic, if you want a marriage of equals, then date as equals.
Why are many dating practices a throwback to an earlier era?
This researcher, Ellen Lamont, found that even though many of these women and men said they wanted an equal relationship, when it came to dating, they didn't.
Surprise.
Actually, not surprising at all.
Women wanted the men to pay, the men to ask, the men to propose, all of these things.
And the men would then go on to say that they wanted an egalitarian relationship with equals, but sure enough, when they actually wanted to date or get married, they wanted to be stronger, taller breadwinners, and they wanted the wife to do the housework.
This could be a social remnant of traditional gender roles, sure.
Or it could be evidence suggesting that people like certain things based on their gender.
Perhaps that's really what it is.
Now, I don't know for sure.
But I can say, before we read this, a couple important things, throwing back to a few other stories that I've talked about.
One, Regardless of what you think about what men want and gender roles and feminism or whatever, men typically message on dating apps 22-year-old women.
That data comes from OKCupid.
And women tend to message men around their own age.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong.
So don't get mad at me, that's just the data they released.
But we can extrapolate from there.
30-year-old career women are not going to find 30-year-old career men like they want to because the 30-year-old career men are messaging 22-year-old women.
This is another point I want to make sure it's clear as we get into this.
When she talks about meeting men who want an egalitarian relationship, a relationship of equals, how can that be if most men are messaging down?
A 30-year-old man is not going to be societal equals to the 22-year-old for the most part.
She's going to have substantially less world experience, life experience, and a lower income and probably a lower tier job than a 30-year-old guy, but that's what guys are messaging.
So when you look at what she actually finds, the guys want a woman doing housework, to a certain extent, and they want to be the breadwinners, it all makes sense.
Actions speak louder than words.
I think we're facing a weird conundrum in our country with dating, because what is socially acceptable is not what is desirable.
Women want men to make the first move in, you know, when it comes to adult activities, to put it mildly.
But if men do that, they can be accused or me-too'd.
So what is socially acceptable is dramatically different from what both men and women actually want.
So let's read and figure out what she discovered when this feminist sociologist interviewed a hundred couples.
I believe it was couples.
Let's read.
She writes, heterosexual women of a progressive bent often say they want equal partnerships with men, but dating is a different story entirely.
The women I interviewed for a research project and book expected men to ask for, plan, and pay for dates, initiate sex, confirm the exclusivity of a relationship, and propose marriage.
After setting all of those precedents, these women then wanted a marriage in which they shared the financial responsibilities, housework, and childcare relatively equally.
Almost none of my interviewees saw these dating practices as a threat to their feminist credentials or to their desire for egalitarian marriages, but they were wrong.
You see, I think I can understand why this is happening.
A marriage is very different from dating.
Dating is courtship.
When you're dating, you're trying to be attractive and be attracted.
But marriage is a lifelong partnership where you just probably are going to be yourself
but around someone.
A marriage relationship, to me, is actually more practical in the business sense.
You want to have a kid?
Well, let's share responsibilities.
We're gonna live together, let's share responsibilities.
Dating, on the other hand, is more primal and instinctive, and you're trying to find a mate.
So it's no surprise that traditional gender roles go out the window when they're dating, and then after they've already secured the relationship, now they want all that sweet, sweet good stuff that progress has wrought.
She says, As a feminist sociologist, I've long been interested in how gender influences our behavior in romantic relationships.
I was aware of the research that showed greater gains in gender equality at work than at home.
Curious to explore some of the reasons behind these numbers, I spent the past several years talking with people about their dating lives and what they wanted from their marriages and partnerships.
The heterosexual and LGBTQ people I interviewed, more than 100 in total, okay so not 100 couples, Oh, that makes it even worse!
We're not just talking about progressives and feminists.
who lived in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Oh, that makes it even worse.
We're not just talking about progressives and feminists. We're talking about San Francisco
progressives and feminists. She says, she goes on to say, this was not a cross section of America for certain, but I
did expect to hear progressive views. Most wanted equal partnerships where they could
share both financial and family responsibilities. Almost everyone I interviewed was quite
vocal in their support of gender equality and didn't shy away from the feminist label.
However, I noticed a glaring disconnect between the straight women's views on marriage and their thoughts on dating.
Once these women were married, it was difficult to right the ship, so to speak.
The same gender stereotypes that they adopted while dating played out in their long-term partnerships.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
You mean to tell me the stereotype about women changing after marriage is true?
Let me tell you a joke.
It's not a joke.
It's a saying that says, Women, uh, men marry women for who they are, and women marry men for who they want them to be.
And this actually kind of lines up with that.
Could you imagine, alright?
Let's say you're a man or a woman, whatever.
Imagine you have a partner.
You're dating.
And they act a certain way.
And you're like, I like this about them.
I like who they are.
I would like to spend the rest of my life with this.
And then after you get married, all of a sudden they do a 180.
Well, that would suck.
You'd be like, no, I don't like who you've become.
What is this?
So that's what this saying is supposed to be about.
Women are always trying to change men based on their potential to be something more.
And men like women for what they already were, but then women change.
So everybody ends up unhappy, I suppose.
But I find it funny that she's straight up saying these women claim they want an equal relationship, but date someone Based on traditional gender roles.
So if you marry a guy, and then now all of a sudden you want things to change, why would you expect them to?
He married you for who you were and the way you behaved.
Lo and behold, these guys wanted a traditional wife.
She writes ¾ of millennials in America support gender equality at work and home, and agree that ideal marriage is an equitable one.
Consequently, I expected the young women I interviewed to epitomize feminist liberation.
Yet, when they thought of equality among men and women, they focused more on professional opportunities than interpersonal dynamics.
Americans with a college education now get married in their early 30s on average, as young adults put their love life on hold while they invest in their education and establish a career.
Given the significant time, money, and effort they put into building their career, this career, the women I spoke with expected to partner with people who would support their ambitious professional goals.
The men said they desired and respected these independent, high-achieving women and actually saw them as more compatible partners as a result.
And yet, in a throwback to an earlier era, many women I spoke with enacted strict dating rules.
It's a deal-breaker if a man doesn't pay for a date.
One woman, age 29, said, a 31-year-old said, if a man doesn't pay, they probably don't like you very much.
A lot of men, they assumed, were looking for nothing more than a quick hook-up.
Uh-oh, wait a minute.
You mean biology is playing a role in whether or not you will adopt certain social characteristics or behaviors?
Now these people sound like biological determinists!
A lot of, a lot of, uh, she's, uh, they go on to say...
A third woman, also 31, told me, I feel like men need to feel like they are in control.
And if you ask them out, you end up looking desperate and it's a turn off to them.
But I thought you were great feminists.
As a feminist, wouldn't you want to weed those men out?
Wait, wait, wait.
Why would a feminist want to date a guy who needs to be in control?
Wouldn't she have no problem saying, I want to be in an egalitarian relationship?
Perhaps the reality is, traditional gender roles are rooted in evolutionary psychology.
And while biological determinism is not 100% accurate, there is a reality of At least somewhat.
Nature and nurture working together.
And I think we're seeing it.
What they say is not what they do.
What they say about feminism is socially acceptable.
It's the words you need to hear to attract a mate, but the behaviors are very, very different.
In the end, these progressive San Francisco Bay Area people get married and fall into traditional gender roles to a certain degree.
She writes, on dates, the women talked about acting demure and allowing men to do more of the talking.
Women, they said, were more attractive to men when they appeared unattainable, so women preferred for the men to follow up after a date.
None of the women considered proposing marriage.
That was the man's job.
I know it feels counterintuitive.
I'm a feminist, the first woman said, but I like to have a guy be chivalrous.
Whoa!
Chivalry?
That's a remnant of a bygone era.
I'm not surprised by any of this.
I'll tell you what.
What we're seeing from this is that when women tell you they want something, privately to researchers, they say the opposite.
And that's why you end up with the manosphere red pill communities.
Because a phenomenon, a culture has emerged Where women will claim they want all of these things, but actually react still to traditional gender roles.
You end up with then people exploiting this and writing books about it.
The feminists get mad, yell at me for talking about it, but this is a feminist sociology associate professor who found this when she interviewed people.
Now, of course, this is not necessarily Proof definitive.
But I can't say I'm surprised to discover that once again biology plays a huge role in whether or not people are going to act certain ways in their relationships.
The women are saying they think men want these things.
So the one woman says, you know, she feels that men want to be in control.
That means that you're going after a man who isn't a feminist, who doesn't want an egalitarian relationship, right?
So that says to me that this feminist actually doesn't want a feminist relationship.
She might be a feminist.
She might believe in all these things.
But she's still willing to lie about what she really wants to get a man who isn't a feminist because she wants a man who feels like he's in control.
Why?
I've had personal experience with this.
I know a lot of feminists and a lot of far lefties, like most of my friends are, and they absolutely do not adhere to any feminist or equal standards.
I've dated feminists who got mad at me for not calling them back the next day.
And I'm like, what do you mean?
You're the feminist, you're supposed to call me.
Nope, they don't want to.
I think it's fair to say, nature and nurture work hand in hand.
To what degrees?
I don't know.
But anyone telling you that it's one or the other, and not both, is probably just wrong.
Some people might claim it's more of one or more the other, I don't know.
Okay?
But, you know what?
The more we see these stories, the more young people are starting to realize this fringe ideology is stupid.
I don't, I don't, look.
I know some women who love weak, frail men.
I mean, it exists.
If you're a woman who wants that, go find the men who are like that.
And if you're a man who wants that, then go find the women like that.
But I think, for the most part, we can see if even feminists are going after non-feminists and adhering to traditional gender roles without being prompted to, with every incentive not to, there's something else here.
