Democrats Quitting Party Clearly Has Pelosi Worried, Defends Ripping SOTU Speech And Blames Media
Pelosi DESPERATELY Defends Tearing Trump Speech As Backfire Keeps Getting WORSE, Blames Media For It. The backfire Nancy Pelosi faced after tearing up Trump's SOTU speech was so bad that even freshman congressman from her own party confronted her and called her out for it.She had no good reason to do it and many Democratic voters even quit the party over her tantrum. Now in an interview with CNN she is trying to defend her decision claiming that it was because the media doesn't give them real coverage on their successes.This is a complete farce. Pelosi has chosen to pursue nothing but scandals of Trump and its obvious to anyone. It took over a year for her to sign of on the USMCA because of the Democrats obsessions with investigating everything Trump has ever done.Americans are tired of it but the Democrats just don't seem to learn.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I didn't think that Nancy Pelosi tearing up Donald Trump's speech at the State of the Union would make it this far into the month.
I assumed the news cycle was going to die rather quickly.
But the backfire was swift and it was bad.
Many Democratic voters were calling in to C-SPAN saying they were quitting the party and they were extremely embarrassed.
It was so bad, in fact, freshman members of the Democratic Party in the House confronted Pelosi, which is extremely rare.
And now Nancy Pelosi, in an interview, talked about why she did what she did, and I just gotta say, man, I really do believe she was lying.
It's obvious she can't walk back what she did, but it seems like she really wants to, saying, no no no, I didn't pre-rip the pages, I was just making marks so I knew what was where, and Then you even have fact-checking organizations coming out in the defense of Democrats claiming a meme video made by Turning Point USA was in fact fake news because it was a highlight reel or something.
Surprisingly, even though these journalists are defending the Democrats, they're still blaming the media for all of the bad press.
But I think it's fair to say the Democratic Party is in complete Chaos.
We saw what happened in Iowa with the caucus.
Well, we got another report coming out from Politico saying that Democrats are freaking out right now because they're gonna be using another digital tool to run this caucus, and nobody's been trained for it.
They got a bunch of old ladies being handed iPads, so I kid you not, they're saying they have no idea what they're doing.
You would think At some point, the Democrats would realize you cannot survive by making your entire identity Orange Man Bad, and you need to offer up real solutions.
Well, this is where I have good news for Democrats, because the Democratic Party, it's now being said, will focus on kitchen table issues.
Thank you.
And the response from Pelosi?
They're actually weighing whether or not to do more investigations into Trump.
I kid you not!
We got so close to the Democrats realizing Orange Man Bad is a failing strategy, and now the news comes out today, more investigations are on the way.
Alright, let's get started by reading just how Nancy Pelosi is trying to spin her shredding of Trump's speech, which backfired horribly.
And then we'll talk about the potential investigations and, for whatever reason, why the Democrats just can't learn.
Come on, man.
Take Yang's advice.
He said, stop pretending Donald Trump is the cause of all of your problems.
I guess they really don't have any substance.
Well, here's the story from town hall.
But 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, share this video and also I noticed many of you haven't subscribed.
If you do like this video and want to see more, hit the subscribe button, click the notification bell, and that way you can make sure YouTube actually gives you, lets you know when my videos go up.
Because YouTube, believe it or not, has implemented some changes to negatively impact my channel and many other political commentators.
So, these are just some ways you can help.
And again, subscribe.
Do it.
Town Hall says Pelosi spins her impromptu SOTU shredding and places blame on the media.
What I love about this is it's actually, you know, various journalists ran to her defense calling it a smart move to change the narrative and she's adopting that talking point when it backfired miserably on them.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made waves when she shredded President Donald Trump's State of the Union address earlier this month.
The next day we learned that she planned to make a scene as evidenced by video footage.
She confirmed her desire for attention during an exclusive interview with CNN on Saturday.
Here's a quote from Christiane Amanpour.
Are you giving a signal that the Democrats will fight back hard?
That you will not be constrained by what you believe to be insurgent behavior on the other side?
And that this is, you know, a time to go mano-a-mano?
That means hand-to-hand, I guess, right?
Let me say this.
I had no intention of doing that when we went to the State of the Union.
In fact, I was well into past the first third of it.
I'm a speed reader, so I was reading ahead so I knew what was there.
I got past about a third of it and thought, this is terrible, Pelosi explained.
I'mma call shenanigans right there.
As far as I could tell, I didn't see her reading anything.
I saw her looking through the papers, like, briefly looking at it.
And then she pre-tears them.
Why?
Probably to see if she could tear it in the first place.
That's not what she's claiming, though.
They say, according to the speaker, she decided to put little tears in the areas of pages she wanted to remember.
You mean in the middle of all of them?
That's what she wanted to remember?
Oh, please spare us!
She's so embarrassed by what she did, she's desperately trying to reclaim the narrative.
Except each page had something she thought was rememberable.
I made a niche on a couple of pages thinking, you ought to remember what was on this page.
Then I realized most every page had something in it that was objectionable.
So it wasn't a planned thing, but it was.
She rolled her tongue in her mouth, clearly looking for words before she changed the subject.
She then changed the narrative, saying it's the press's fault that she had to resort to such actions.
One of my disappointments is the fact that all we have done legislatively, whether it's equal pay for equal work— I'm sorry, Nancy, let me stop you right there.
That's been law for decades, but let's read on.
Raising the minimum wage, gun violence protection, issues that relate to our children, the list goes on.
Climate action now?
We have very little press on it, Pelosi stated.
And it seems if you want to get press, you have to get attention.
So I thought, well, let's get attention on the fact that what he said here today was not true.
She is so bad at this.
Trump is so good at this.
Look, Trump knows how the press works.
He's a personality and an entertainer who has manipulated the press for his entire life.
He knows how to generate attention, and boy, does he do it well.
He got $5 billion in free press in the 2016 campaign.
You are not going to beat Trump at that game.
If you want people to focus on your work, do not engage on nonsense.
But Nancy, when you tear up the speech, you completely shut down any conversation about anything policy-wise.
This is a desperate cop-out, as if it's the media's fault for not covering what she's been doing when she does things like this.
We all knew this was premeditated.
It was obvious Nancy was doing this for attention.
If she wasn't, she wouldn't have ripped the speech up in sections.
She would have continually turned as she ripped the papers so that every camera saw her.
If her actions are because of a lack of press, what newspapers is she reading?
What news station is she watching because leftist media continually covers climate change and minimum wage proposals and gun violence prevention?
It's something that's covered widely across the board.
The left covers it as a national health crisis.
Those of us on the right point to the policies and continually talk about the Second Amendment infringements.
Nice attempt at spinning, Nancy, but we see through your BS.
While I don't completely agree with everything Town Hall is saying on this, I do for the most part.
Nancy Pelosi had a tantrum.
And she regrets it.
And that's what she's doing now.
But of course, There's been a terrible, terrible backfire.
And I would be remiss not to at least mention this a little bit.
Ronna McDaniel of the GOP is taking advantage of the C-SPAN callers.
I talked about this, you know, last week.
Many of you probably saw it.
Democrats are blasting Pelosi and her colleagues for their pettiness at State of the Union.
They look like they hated our country.
I will never vote Democrat again.
Our party has been stolen by a bunch of communists, and this is from almost two weeks ago.
But of course, Democrats need to place the blame somewhere, so they are now joining the ranks of the media bashers.
As Pelosi already stated, it's the media's fault for not covering all of their accomplishments.
I mean, no, the media takes what it takes.
And when you give them a temper tantrum, they'll run the temper tantrum.
You actually shifted the narrative away from what Trump was talking about onto your pettiness, and it backfired on your face.
So of course now they're going to blame the media.
But the Democratic establishment is actually in a bit of trouble because youth media and digital media that covers national issues, they're actually going far left.
And that's what this is basically talking about.
So in this regard, I'll actually throw the Democrats a bone.
Listen, you've got the establishment press on your side.
Don't play any games.
We all get it.
But the new digital media is totally on board for the far left, be it Bernie Sanders or otherwise.
Now that presents a huge problem because, I don't know if you saw the video from the other day or the video I did this morning, Activists stormed Bernie Sanders' stage and stole the mic from him.
And I kid you not, it was a young woman who probably weighed half of what Bernie Sanders weighed, and he couldn't stop her from taking his mic.
So while the far left does champion Bernie, he does surround himself by these crazies.
And the Democrats in the old guard, the older Democratic establishment, are losing a grip when it comes to larger national stories and Twitter, and they're getting jammed up by it.
I mean, look, AOC has 6 million-plus followers on Twitter, way more than all of these establishment Democrats, and there's nothing they can do about it.
But let's not, you know, let's be real here.
As much as the Democrats want to pass the buck onto the media because they're mad about what they did, or Pelosi's mad about what she did, check out this fact check.
Trump's misleading posts on Pelosi ripping up SOTU address.
This is from about a week ago.
Factcheck.org actually claimed that a video that was meant to be like a package showing the various points of Trump's speech and then creating a meme, essentially, around Pelosi ripping it, they say it was false.
I'll tell you what happened.
Most of you probably know, but let's, let's, I want to bring this back up.
The video shows various things Trump was saying.
Good things.
And then every time he does, it shows Pelosi ripped the speech.
They weren't trying to convince people that Pelosi ripped the speech identically the same way every time and had multiple copies of the speech.
But the media plays games like this.
I pointed it out earlier.
They'll do something like, you know, did Nancy Pelosi actually rip up Trump's speech?
And then they'll claim all of the statements by everyone pointing out she did.
They'll say it's false, not true, never happened.
At the bottom of the story it'll say, while she did actually rip up the speech, she only did it once, because most people don't know what's happening.
So you know what?
I'll blame the media all day and night.
It's the game they play.
Pelosi is now playing games with CNN, who probably don't give her any real pushback and don't challenge her at all, and let her just pretend like she did it on purpose.
What Nancy Pelosi is saying about ripping the speech, trying to get attention, was an activist talking point.
And she was probably panicking after the blowback.
But of course, she's super petty, and this is the level we're at.
Still, on February 16th, it never ends.
Somehow we're still in the same news cycle.
I don't know, don't get me.
Trump wasn't acquitted because there was no proper trial, says Pelosi.
He's impeached forever and not vindicated.
That's how petty the Democrats have become.
It's over.
Get with the program.
We just saw numerous outlets the other day saying Trump has become unstoppable, but Pelosi is just so petty she can't give it up.
So much so that she's still bringing up ripping up the speech as if it was a good thing to do, but it wasn't.
Now I gotta be honest, I saw this story here from the New York Times and I actually had a bit of hope in my heart that she finally learned her lesson.
Stop playing the media game with Trump, you will never win.
Start talking about real issues like healthcare.
And jobs.
And if Trump tries to bait you, just don't say anything.
But I gotta be honest.
At the State of the Union, Trump didn't bait her with anything.
He just gave a speech and talked about his accomplishments and what he liked, and she had a temper tantrum.
That was the mistake.
She's not focusing on this.
It's not the media's fault.
They're helping you.
And it's not Trump's fault he gave his speech.
Now, you might be thinking, Democrats plan to highlight healthcare and jobs over investigating Trump.
They say, with impeachment behind them and an eye on November, Democrats appear to have decided that focusing on President Trump's norm-shattering words and deeds only elevates him.
Oh, thank you!
They finally learned!
Oh, wonderful, wonderful.
Wait a minute, what's this?
Democrats weigh whether to pursue new investigations as election looms.
Some call for probe into Roger Stone's sentencing, while others are wary of another drawn-out fight with the White House.
You were so close!
You were so close!
Just stop.
You're still so close.
You don't need to do this.
But of course, I'll tell you what.
I actually predict it's going to move forward, because there is no real Democratic Party right now.
You remember before impeachment happened, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted the real scandals, the Democrats won't impeach Trump.
And then as soon as Nancy Pelosi moved forward, AOC at an event said, oh, I'm totally over it.
Who cares?
And it's like, oh, stop listening to these people.
There's no leadership.
That's the real issue.
Nancy Pelosi is not a leader for her party.
She can't direct them to do anything.
No one wants to agree with her anyway.
Adam Schiff is going to do whatever he wants.
He's still investigating Trump.
And it doesn't matter if Nancy Pelosi comes out and says yes or no.
She resisted impeachment in the first place, but she is too spineless to actually do anything about it.
Did you know that there was a poll done in 2018?
Half of Democrats said she needs to go.
She really, really does.
Not just for policy reasons.
She just doesn't know what she's doing.
Well, I want to show you this New York Times story a little bit, because the story itself is actually still kind of sad, because they still kind of admit Democrats haven't learned anything.
They report, House Democrats, recovering from their failed push to remove President Trump from office, are making a sharp pivot to talking about health care and economic issues, turning away from their investigations of the president as they focus on preserving their majority.
They're not going to.
It's too late.
Impeachment was a mistake.
Top Democrats say that oversight of the president will continue, and they plan in particular to press Attorney General William P. Barr Over what they say are Trump's efforts to compromise the independence of the Justice Department.
But for now at least, they have shelved the idea of subpoenaing Mr. Trump's former National Security Advisor, who was a central figure in the President's impeachment trial.
I gotta say, this is actually good news.
It's good news if you're tired of the complete BS.
It's good news if you're a Trump supporter, they're backing down, stopping the scandal nonsense.
Actually, no.
I think it's bad news for Trump supporters.
Impeachment helped Trump.
The Kavanaugh effect.
Helped Trump.
Helped Kavanaugh.
Helped Republicans.
I mean, Trump is raising record money.
You kinda want that to continue, right?
So, finally the Democrats are doing the right thing, though Pelosi can be petulant and petty.
At least now they're saying this.
In a series of private meetings over the past week, and in written instructions she distributed to lawmakers Thursday before a recess this week, Nancy Pelosi made clear the emphasis must shift.
Healthcare, healthcare, healthcare, the speaker said, describing the party's message during a recent closed-door meeting, according to a person in the room who insisted on anonymity to reveal private conversations.
She said they had to be laser-focused on getting re-elected.
When you make a decision to win, then you have to make every decision in favor of winning.
You know, I'm going to give her some credit.
I don't think Pelosi is necessarily the problem.
She seems to have defended the right thing in the past, but kind of spiraled out of control as things fell apart.
Maybe the reason she tore up the speech wasn't really about Trump, but her general frustrations with being a failure.
And I don't mean in general.
I mean, she's won her seat over and over.
But I mean, these past few years, everything she's done against Trump has been a failure.
And she should have told them no to impeachment.
She initially did.
She relented.
Perhaps she's met it herself.
Well, of course, we're still sitting in the same world of impending investigations.
Because literally on the same day, she's talking about healthcare.
The story comes out from the Wall Street Journal that they're going to do the same thing over and over again.
Which brings me to this story from the New York Post.
From Miranda Devine, who says that the myth, she says, the moment was when the myth of the master political strategist was busted.
And we saw Pelosi, 79 for what she was, pretending to be classy and prayerful when she is full of petty hatreds and is incapable of holding her party together.
A woman who parades her Catholicism while advocating no-holds-barred abortions, feigning to pray for the president while deriding him as sedated.
As the leader of the Democrats, until they select a presidential candidate, Pelosi is everything that is wrong with the party.
She told reporters that ripping up the speech was a very dignified act, the courteous thing to do, considering some of the other exuberances within me.
But her petulant vandalism was the opposite of courteous, quite obvious.
And now?
Well, now there's just bad news for Democrats moving forward.
They may decide to back off the investigations, which in my opinion would be very, very smart to do.
But because of everything you've done, the backfire is yet to get as bad as it can be.
Now it backfired.
Like we saw those Democrats quitting.
But what do you think comes next?
Well, first, this is the wrong article, but I'll bring it up anyway.
Pelosi still thinks Joe Biden is in.
I don't know what.
She's not.
She is anything but a master strategist.
But what I wanted to get to was the fact that Trump and his allies are now going to be going after their own investigations.
You opened the door for this.
It didn't have to be this way.
Trump wasn't publicly speaking about the Bidens until they decided to do the impeachment and started dragging Joe Biden out into this.
What ends up happening?
Well, I can't tell you why Joe Biden flopped miserably.
Maybe he really was the frontrunner.
Maybe I was wrong about that.
And maybe the reason he dropped so dramatically is because Democrats couldn't help but parade around the Biden allegations to go after Trump.
One of the stupidest things they could have done.
They don't realize the press attention flows both ways.
Yes, you accuse Trump of wrongdoing, but not everyone is going to be a diehard Democrat to believe you.
Some of them ended up hearing the allegations against Joe Biden.
And now, yes, it's time to count Joe Biden out.
Of course, Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to do that.
She wants to keep thinking Joe Biden can win.
But regardless of what she thinks, she's wrong.
And this to me shows she's not a strategist.
She's floundering.
She should have never inherited the party.
She should not be speaker.
She should not be the leader.
It's time for her to step down.
Someone else needs to come in because she's been nothing but a disaster for the Democrats.
And it's not just her.
I was thinking of doing this as a lead segment, but in reality, it just shows the state of the Democratic Party.
Shambles.
Pure chaos.
Iowa was a nightmare.
New Hampshire was pretty much okay.
But now we have this story from Politico.
Quote, a complete disaster.
Fears grow over potential Nevada caucus malfunction.
Volunteers complain of poor training for a vote reporting system that was adopted on the fly.
The Iowa app Democrats use failed.
Some people think it was a conspiracy.
Man, I don't care about that.
It just failed.
The Democrats are inept.
As evidenced by Nancy Pelosi's actions and everything she's done and said.
But now they're apparently being handed iPads.
You've got, apparently there's these old women being handed iPads and they have no idea how to use them.
They say the iPads weren't discussed until more than halfway through the presentation, the volunteer said.
When someone asked how early vote totals would be added to the totals compiled live at each precinct, the person leading the training said not to worry because their iPads would do the math for them.
Ah, I can trust that.
The Democratic establishment handing out iPads that will do all of the math for you, so don't worry about when they say that Pete Buttigieg wins, right?
Do you guys remember what happened in 2016 in Nevada?
With like, apparently the police had to come in, then the DNC kicked out Bernie delegates to give Hillary the majority?
Yeah.
Here's a quote.
There were old ladies looking at me like, oh, we're going to have iPads, the volunteer told Politico.
After sitting through the two-hour training session, the person predicted the caucus would be a complete disaster.
And why am I not surprised?
You know, Trump united the Republicans, and it's working out for them really well.
They're getting everything they want.
The wall is being built.
Trump is appropriating more money for it.
He's curbed illegal immigration.
I mean, immigration in general.
The economy is doing great.
I don't see how he loses unless Republicans just don't come out at all and sit around thinking they can't lose.
Maybe this... Let's play a conspiracy game.
What if everything Pelosi is doing is, in fact, a masterstroke?
You see, by pretending to be completely inept and failing every step of the way, allowing Trump's approval rating to skyrocket and fundraising to come in record amounts, she's lulling Republicans into a false sense of security so that come November, the Democrats can pounce!
And they will come out in record numbers with a top secret blue wave strategy that will leave Republicans floundering.
Yeah, no way.
The simple solution suggests they are just completely inept and flopping around with no unity whatsoever.
So who's going to win?
I don't know.
But it's becoming increasingly likely, at least according to FiveThirtyEight.
The Democrats are headed for a contested convention, which means Bernie will probably win most of the delegates.
The convention will be contested.
The superdelegates will step in and hand it all to, I don't know, Mike Bloomberg or something, or Pete Buttigieg.
I don't know who's going to get it.
But I don't think it matters because of how insane everything's been so far.
So look, ultimately, what can I really say other than what I've said 50 million times?
The reason Pelosi is coming out and speaking with Christiane Amanpour, in my opinion, is because she knows people are really mad she did it, and she's trying to justify it, and maybe give some people a reason to stay behind her.
They're probably not going to, though.
The people who are saying they're quitting the party are doing it because she tore it up, for whatever reason.
Now she's trying to say, but the media wouldn't cover our great accomplishments, so I had no choice!
Not buying it.
I think you just made a big mistake.
But, hey, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
I think there's only so many videos I can do about the Democratic Party being in complete shambles, but then I thought, nah, I'm pretty sure something will happen next week and we'll be here all over again.
They're already panicking.
And I'm thinking to myself, well, I've got 58 videos saying Democrats panic, do I really want another one?
Ugh, eye roll.
But they are!
What do you want me to do about it?
This is from Politico.
Politico's not a conservative outlet, and they're calling Nevada an impending complete disaster.
Whatever, man.
I'll see you all in the next segment at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
It's happened again.
Bernie Sanders rally disrupted by protesters.
This time, apparently, they support him and then, like, ripped their shirts off and poured some kind of fluid on them.
It wasn't milk, but I have no idea what they were protesting because, you know, typically you don't.
But it's not the first time this has happened to Bernie Sanders.
You may remember back when the Black Lives Matter protesters got on stage, took the microphone away, and now there's that very sad photo of Bernie with his head down.
Just not very strong on Bernie's part.
Well, I will be fair and say Bernie learned his lesson, because this time, when the protester jumped up saying, I love you Bernie, but, in your glorious Kanye West moment, he said no, and wouldn't give her the microphone, but then she grabbed the other one anyway, and then Bernie just relents and lets them do their things.
Ladies, no means no.
If Mr. Sanders doesn't want to give it up, don't take it from him.
But of course, the protesters don't seem to realize they're hurting the candidate they claim to support.
But you know what, Bernie?
You reap what you sow.
You've had every opportunity to denounce these people, to call them out and say, stop doing this, and you haven't done it.
Why?
Apparently your spine is missing.
Joe Biden at least has a spine.
In fact, Joe Biden snaps at people too much.
He's told multiple people not to vote for him because he didn't like the questions he was asked.
And there was that one moment where a reporter asked him about his son and he started yelling at him.
He's like, why are you nervous, man?
Why are you nervous?
At least Joe Biden gets angry.
I'm supposed to have a president who's on stage and a young woman comes up and just takes the microphone from you.
I'm sure that's going to strike fear into the hearts of all of America's enemies and show that you are the right choice.
I'm pretty sure Americans are going to see that and say, not only is this a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack, he can't stop a small woman from taking the microphone from him and he walks away, now for the second time.
Of course, Biden and Bloomberg are taking the opportunity to go after Bernie supporters because there's too many of them that are unhinged.
Sorry, it's true.
Project Veritas did the expose.
We all heard what Bernie's own staff members had to say.
So you know what, Bernie?
You reap what you sow.
You have every opportunity to come out and condemn and denounce this stuff, and you don't do it.
So what happens?
Young women come and shut your stage down.
They get up on stage, topless, splashing drinks on themselves, muttering.
No one can hear them, because apparently these people don't understand how microphones work.
The one woman who took the microphone apparently did.
But the women who have, like, some writing on their chest, I'm like, I don't know what you're doing.
Like, I have no idea what you're protesting.
You're mad that people drink milk?
The dairy industry?
You realize, like, 99% of Americans like milk and cheese.
Americans love cheese.
We put cheese on everything.
It's not a popular position.
I get it.
You don't like the dairy industry.
Do you think Bernie Sanders is going to win the presidency on the platform of end dairy?
No.
Most people are going to be like, but I like my cheese.
Well, let's read these stories.
I got a couple.
This first one is about the protests.
But now Joe Biden and Bloomberg are coming after Bernie because his supporters are nuts. The Hill reports, Senator Bernie Sanders was
interrupted by anti-dairy industry protesters at a presidential campaign rally in Nevada on
Sunday. Quote, Bernie, I'm your biggest supporter and I'm here to ask you to stop propping
up the dairy industry and stop propping up animal agriculture. One protester, Priya Sahi,
Sani said.
said after taking the microphone from Sanders.
You know, I couldn't help but think, what would Donald Trump do if someone did this at his rally?
And I'm going to be completely honest, I can just imagine Trump just pushing them off the stage
and them, like, falling face first to the floor.
And him being like, don't come on my stage.
Don't take my microphone.
No, no, excuse me, excuse me, shove right to the floor.
Donald Trump would like, one of the funniest things about Trump in his debate with Hillary Clinton is that when she would try and interject during his statements, he'd be like, excuse me, excuse me, don't interrupt, don't interrupt.
But then as soon as she would talk, he'd be like, wrong, wrong, and just like cut her off.
Because, like, apparently he doesn't give what he expects in return, but hey, a lot of people like him for that.
He's a tough guy.
He's a bully.
So you think someone's gonna go up on his stage and take his mic?
No.
He'd probably just, like, push him right off the stage.
They fall down, break their arm or something, and he's like, well, you shouldn't have come on my stage.
Don't come on my stage.
Anyway, let's read.
Sawney was part of a demonstration by the animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere.
Three other topless women also crashed the stage the words let dairy die written on their chests before pouring milk cartons full of fake blood on themselves.
The women who are topless were arrested for indecent exposure and are held on $2,500 bond each according to direct action everywhere.
Okay, okay, no.
Hold on.
I do not believe the women should have been arrested on indecent exposure.
They're just topless.
That's stupid.
They can disorderly conduct, trespassing, whatever.
But come on, man.
Sonny was not arrested, the group said.
said. If Bernie truly cares about justice, he will stop propping up the dairy industry,
which relies on the abuse of female cows, Sonny said in a statement shared by Direct
Action Everywhere.
I love Bernie, but we must hold abusive industries accountable, not shield and subsidize them.
Animal farming is an industry which gives welfare payments to millionaires.
People are fed up.
Like the Sanders campaign itself, animal rights is a burgeoning mass movement.
No, it isn't!
No, it isn't.
Oh, wait, wait, hold on.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Animal rights is a big movement.
A lot of people care about the ethical treatment of animals.
Not that PETA stuff.
I mean, like, actual.
So you end up seeing people preferring organic for health reasons, or free-range, or happy cows, because happy cows make happy milk, they say.
They go on to say a spokesperson for the Sanders campaign was not immediately available for comment.
Let me tell you something.
I went to dairy farms in California, and I will attest that in California, cows are happy.
One of the things that really surprised me about the dairy industry, out there at least, because not everywhere, it can be bad in a lot of places, there were two things that really surprised me because I've heard so much about the dairy industry.
First, the cows were not Caged in.
At all.
Like, the cows could literally leave.
I'm not kidding.
There was nothing stopping them from just leaving.
And I asked the farmer, I was like, I couldn't help but realize, this is open.
The cows are just walking around.
And somewhere across the street.
And the farmer's like, yep.
And I'm like, but what if they leave?
And he's like, why would they?
And I was like, I don't know, freedom?
And he was like, no, they got food and they're happy here.
And I'm like, I didn't realize that.
In fact, every farm we went to was the same.
The cows would just do whatever they wanted.
And so I was actually surprised to find these cows don't have to be there.
They want to be there.
And the other thing, too, is the milking stations were automatic.
At least one of the ones I saw.
And he said, basically, when the cows need to be milked because they want to be, they walk into the machine, it milks them, and they walk out, and they're happy.
And the food comes out, and they eat it, and they're happy.
Now, that's not true for all of the dairy industry.
A lot of the farms in California, at least the ones I went to at least, We're the more, like, organic family farms and stuff.
I've driven through, I think it was Texas, and I've seen some horrifying dairy farms, there's like mud everywhere, and they are caged in because the conditions there are terrible.
But I think it's, I think the important thing I'm trying to point out is, these people don't know what they're talking about.
They see some stupid film, like Food Inc.
or something, and then they're like, this is, everything is bad, everything is awful, and it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, chill, chill, hold on.
We can make these changes.
We want healthy.
We want the animals to be better off.
But they don't know what they're talking about.
They just get on stage and start screeching.
And then Bernie Sanders gets to reap what he has sown because he refuses to condemn this stuff.
I'd disown them.
Biden slams Bernie Sanders for downplaying his supporters.
Quote, vicious, misogynistic online attacks on Las Vegas union leaders who declined to endorse any Democrat ahead of Nevada caucuses.
Now this You know what, man?
There was a point where I would say the Bernie Bros things- Bernie Bros smear was a lie.
At this point, though, I think, nah, it's kind of come to fruition.
Here, listen.
In 2016, they tried claiming that people on Twitter being mean was like misogyny.
And we've heard that all the time.
Sorry dude, getting criticized on the internet is not hate speech or misogyny.
Calm down.
The poor delicate sensibilities of these New York establishment journalists going, oh, well, I never!
Because some, you know, working class socialist type person or whatever said a mean word to them is laughable.
But now we can see, they're going after union members.
And, yeah, they are getting pretty nasty.
Especially with the Veritas expose.
You can see what kind of people, you know, these are.
But the union was doxxed.
Like, private information was being released.
And they were getting harassed.
And other people had to call this out.
And Bernie himself said something quite pathetic.
Calling on all, supporters of all campaigns not to do this.
And it's like, dude, There's no Buttigieg, you know, Buttibros going out and harassing union members.
That's your people.
Buttigieg isn't courting the far-left extremists, like your campaign is, and refusing to denounce.
Now, I'd like to see more campaigns come out and denounce the extremists.
At least Joe Biden is slamming Bernie supporters, saying, I'd disown them.
How is it that Joe Biden, the guy whose teeth keep falling out, he doesn't know where he is half the time, and he's got a bigger spine than Bernie does?
Look, you know, I don't know what you expect to happen, but the commander-in-chief of the president It's the commander-in-chief.
They're in charge of the armed forces.
You think Bernie Sanders is the right person for this job?
I'm sorry.
What you're really looking for to get your policies passed is not a president.
It's the Senate and Congress.
Now, I understand getting the president means the courts, and so it's a very important position for a progressive leader to hold if you want to get these bills passed.
But if you focused on the Senate and the Congress, you don't have to worry about what the President can or can't do.
And let's be real.
Even Ocasio-Cortez says Bernie Sanders' presidency isn't going to get Medicare for all done.
Ocasio-Cortez just said, like the other day, we'll probably end up with a public option.
Oh, really?
Because it's exactly what Obama said.
He said in the first year, we will have universal health care.
Then he said, we'll go for a public option, and then what do we get?
The involuntary mandate.
It didn't work.
You couldn't get it done.
The president doesn't have that kind of power.
The president does set policy on trade, foreign policy, etc.
All these things, very important.
But they're the commander-in-chief.
And so, I think it's fair to criticize Trump for being, you know, not wanting to take advice from the intelligence agencies or from his generals.
Fine.
But at least he's got a spine.
Like I said, I could imagine someone going up on Trump's stage, grabbing the microphone, and then Trump just socking them in the face, or just shoving them off the stage.
And Trump's a big dude.
Did you ever see that clip of where someone tries to rush the stage, and Trump spins around all fast?
He didn't react all slow about it like Bernie, and then Bernie looks away and then goes, no, no, and then loses.
Trump had a fast reaction like, I'm not going to pretend like Trump was going to fight anybody in that circumstance because he had secret service with him, but his reaction was not the same as Bernie Sanders, not at all.
So now we have the story from the hill, which is now starting to address the Bernie bros.
Will Bernie have to turn on his bros?
You know what?
A lot of Bernie people on Twitter have said it's a myth, it's a lie, it's a smear.
And in 2016, yeah, maybe.
To date, not so much.
It's gotten bad.
It has.
I mean, going after the union, you can't really deny it anymore.
That's crossing the line from, like, I'm not gonna defend you because someone's being mean to you on Twitter, but if someone's digging up your private information and harassing you, Union members?
We're not talking about corporate fat cat big wigs and billionaires.
We're talking about regular working class people who are trying to protect their health care, getting stalked, harassed, and doxxed by people who want Bernie Sanders.
I'll tell you what, man.
You look at what the Veritas videos exposed.
They're talking about camps.
These people... Go read about the French Revolution.
Robespierre didn't care who you were.
He was like off with their heads no matter what.
It was paranoid delusions.
You threaten the revolution, they come for you.
That includes union members.
This is why people don't like socialism.
Because it's an instant monopolization of power to the government.
Now you get all these lefties saying socialism's not bad because, you know, everyone shares... No, stop.
You're talking about rapid centralization of all power into the hands of a tiny percentage.
We don't like monopolies.
It doesn't matter if your organization is a corporation or a government.
They're just organizations that function in a certain way.
And I'll tell you what, the government's worse with centralization because they have a monopoly on violence.
Corporate entities in the United States don't send armed SWAT teams.
For the most part.
I'm sure some do somewhere, whatever.
They have private security.
But there are laws.
So, if the government gets all the power over industry, and then starts centralizing everything and taking things away from you, and they have guns, you've now centralized physical violence along with economic resources into one group of small people instantly.
And we know that that's not a good thing.
And that's what always happens.
Your utopian ideals don't exist.
Here's what I really think.
These far-left extremists that are standing behind Bernie don't care who he is.
It's more about what he represents.
He's demanding socialism.
They want that in.
But these people want power.
That's what I really, really believe.
They are whiny, lazy people who haven't done any work and they want power the easiest way possible.
I can't blame them.
Hey, if you didn't have to do any work and you got free stuff, sounds great, doesn't it?
There's a funny meme going around.
It's a photograph of the sidewalk.
There's snow everywhere.
And the sidewalk is shoveled.
Then there's a sidewalk that isn't shoveled.
And then after, it's shoveled again.
And lo and behold, the person who didn't shovel their sidewalk has a Bernie Sanders sign.
And someone posted it saying, like, it's a great metaphor for Sanders' campaign.
Don't do the work.
Expect someone else to do it for you.
These people don't seem to understand that things have to be made.
And that's partly Bernie's fault.
When he says things like, healthcare is a human right, literally makes no sense.
Healthcare is technologically based, it scales with the development and research from human beings, and somebody has to do the work.
Imagine if someone said, you know, like, having a waiter is a human right.
I know they're very different.
But the point is you're talking about human labor.
You have no right to someone else's labor.
It's impossible.
You can't mandate someone do the job.
And I'll put it this way.
If they really felt healthcare was a human right, what happens when all the doctors and nurses quit?
Now there's no doctors.
Or I'll put it this way.
You're in the middle of the woods.
You can freely move around.
You can pick up a stick and defend yourself.
You can say whatever you want.
But you can't get a doctor, can you?
So you can walk around the woods screaming, spitting and yelling all the racist nonsense.
Hey, that's your freedom of speech.
You're walking around, you've got a freedom of movement.
You can defend yourself, you've got the right to self-defense.
And then when you fall down and get a gash on your leg, scream and cry all you want for the human right of healthcare and nobody is coming.
And even if someone does, what are you going to do to make them give you health care?
Demand it's your human right they help you?
What if they say no?
Point your pointy stick in their direction?
Ah, and now you get it.
It's not a human right.
You can't force someone else to do something.
You have to incentivize the behavior through fair trade and, you know, what they're proposing is incentivization through money by taxing people, taking that money and paying people.
The problem is, you can argue that right now the system is large enough to tax everyone their resources and then pay for healthcare, but that's still not a human right.
You're still paying for it.
You're just forcing people to pay for it.
So anyway, I'll write this up.
Bernie lacks the strength.
I can respect that he at least tried this time and said no, but he couldn't stop a small woman from taking his microphone away.
When she came up on the stage and reached for his mic, Bernie turns away from her, doesn't look at her and says no, and starts walking away.
Why?
Get in her way!
He let her take that microphone.
And then you start saying stupid whatever, and topless women splash fake blood on themselves.
How insane.
Could you imagine a presidency with Bernie Sanders, and he's giving an address to the nation, and a bunch of random kids run up, shove him out of the way, and start ranting about nonsense?
This isn't the first time it's happened.
You can't have it.
I get it.
If he gets Secret Service protection, this won't happen again.
But I think it shows to Bernie's character that he can't stop a small woman from taking his microphone away when he says no.
Look, the first time he gave up the stage, you can argue he was trying to be polite to activists.
This time, he literally said no, and he tried stopping her, and he couldn't do it.
Bernie Sanders could not stop a small woman from taking the mic from him when he tried to stop her.
That is not someone who's strong enough to be president.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Recently, a study out of China was published saying the coronavirus may have emerged from one of the facilities doing research on animals, notably the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, which is literally across the street from the Wuhan seafood market.
It says that someone was probably involved in the evolution of the virus, may have gotten bitten by a bat.
One of the researchers actually had quarantined himself in the past after being exposed to the coronavirus in bats.
That's very similar to the coronavirus we're seeing right now.
This story is starting to emerge and many outlets, many verified, NewsGuard certified outlets are picking this up, saying this is one of our best leads.
We don't know where it came from.
But several researchers put out a report from the South China, I believe it's South Beijing or some Chinese university, saying here's what we think is most likely.
There is now evidence to suggest from the scientific community, in China of all places, that this originated in one of these facilities.
Tom Cotton told us this was a possibility.
He never said he knew for sure.
He said China was lying and we need to entertain these hypotheses and figure out what's really going on Though, a natural cause is still the most likely.
It's a very sensible thing to say.
I agree 100%.
Yet what is the American press saying?
The Washington Post publishes outright fake news.
I detest these people.
And you know, I tried really hard not to swear, but boy, do I want to swear right now at the disgusting ineptitude and laziness of the Washington Post with their snide, snooty, elitist ivory tower.
It may blow over, fine, but the deaths are now near, what, 1,800.
So it's going up.
And there are concerns from experts speaking to the U.S.
Senate and to the British Parliament that this could reach 60% of the population.
It's serious.
And with this new study that was just published, or report, whatever you want to call it, from these scientists, that it may very well have originated from a bat coronavirus contamination, why would the New York Times and the Washington Post play this stupid game?
The American press is complete and utter garbage.
I'm going to read you these stories, but let me first start by saying, metro.co.uk, did coronavirus start in Chinese lab, where bats attacked scientists and peed on them?
A new paper from the Beijing-sponsored South China University of Technology casts doubt on the government's theory that a deadly infection emerged at a seafood market in Wuhan.
We know that's not the case now.
Or I should say, many scientists have said it's not the case, when they realized some people had been infected earlier than the initial infections from the seafood market, and that at the very least it emerged somewhere else before going to the seafood market.
How about this?
Thesun.co.uk.
Both of these are certified by NewsGuard, mind you.
I'm not saying you have to like what NewsGuard is, but this is a group, an organization that checks the credibility of outlets, saying these are credible outlets.
Bat attack.
Coronavirus may have started in Wuhan lab where hundreds of bats attacked and peed on scientists, experts say.
And then we have this.
T-online.de.
I don't even know what this website is.
But it's certified by NewsGuard.
Green across the board.
Look at that.
They say it's the best of the best.
Score 100 out of 100.
Coronavirus.
Researcher suspects laboratory next to Wuhan's fish market.
Man, and what's this?
Inquisitor.
Deadly coronavirus may have originated in Chinese government laboratory.
But this has also got a 100 out of a 100.
So let's talk about why the New York Times and the Washington Post are complete garbage gutter trash rags.
Tom Cotton never said this was a leaked bioweapon.
He said that we should entertain any possibility until the evidence comes in because China is lying to us.
What did they do?
Smeared him.
Why?
Because they're partisan trash trying to make Tom Cotton look bad, I guess.
Meanwhile, we have several other outlets, certified news outlets, saying, hey, this might be the case.
Now, is it true it originated in a lab?
No.
But researchers are saying it's likely that somebody was probably involved in the evolution of this virus.
That's actually what it says.
Yet the New York Times and the Washington Post will tell you it's already been debunked.
Excuse me?
The stories about this coming from a lab just happened the other day.
What do you mean it's been debunked?
Where are you sleeping under a rock?
Oh, I know what's actually happening.
They're not journalists.
They don't do any work.
These are the people that already know the story before they write it.
They already know the story before they visit the scene.
You see journalists doing this all the time.
They say, I'm gonna go down to this rally for Trump, and I already know the story I'm writing.
Let me try and find evidence to support it.
Instead of going down, gathering evidence, and figuring out what happened.
Let's read the story from the Washington Post.
Mind you, it is complete trash, gutter trash.
The Washington Post says, Senator Tom Cotton, R of Arkansas, repeated a fringe theory
suggesting that the ongoing spread of coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged
epicenter of Wuhan, China.
Fringe theory?
Oh, man!
So weird that you're the odd outlets out, and that several other outlets, not just right-wing ones, that are all certified by a third-party agency are all saying, oh, a scientific report is saying that may actually be the case.
Fringe theory?
Out of a university?
You people are insane!
I hate the press in this country, man.
Cotton referenced a laboratory in the city, the Wuhan National Biosafety Lab, in an interview on Fox News' Sunday morning features.
And there you go.
The reason why they're smearing him and calling him a conspiracy theorist is because he's a Republican who appeared on Fox News talking about something that's been reported far and wide.
He said the lab was near a market some scientists initially thought was a starting point for the virus to spread.
We don't know where it originated and we have to get to the bottom of that.
We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China's only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious disease.
How funny that you literally have evidence to suggest this there may be a connection.
And they say it's debunked and there's no evidence.
They could show up to a crime scene and literally see a guy holding the, you know, the weapon and be like, well, it doesn't prove anything.
That's just a fringe theory.
It's like the guy's right there, dude.
And then an expert comes in and says, we actually think that guy holding the weapon did it.
Well, I don't know.
This was already debunked by us without evidence.
They go on to say, Yet Cotton acknowledged there is no evidence that the disease originated at the lab.
Instead, he suggested it's necessary to ask Chinese authorities about the possibility, fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts.
Oh, I cannot stand these awful people.
I just... Ineptitude.
Complete and utter ineptitude.
How...
I want to swear so bad, I just cannot stand these vile, disgusting morons that are so stupid, it may actually get people hurt.
They're so interested in smearing the Republican senator, they didn't bother to Google search what he claimed.
God, they are so dumb.
Cotton is referring to a well-known lab in Wuhan.
Cellular level biosafety level 4.
Is that not evidence?
You, you stupid people?
It's like, how insane is this?
There's literally a bio lab in the city where the outbreak occurred.
It's like, the first thing you would check is, was there a breach at your biolab?
Where could this have come from?
No?
Alright, well we'll keep it in mind.
That's just a normal thing to do.
But look, it's not just about what is common sense.
Like Tom Cotton, what he's saying is common sense.
It's about the fact.
You literally have a scientific paper from a South China University, Beijing-sponsored.
Like, the Chinese government has been lying this whole time.
Either it's losing control, or they're letting the truth seep out, or they're sponsoring misinformation.
Whatever, I don't know.
But this is the information we have right now.
It's the best we can do.
Man, these... Let me read you what Tom Cotton said.
He said, let me debunk the debunkers.
Paulina Milla and her quote, experts, wrongly jump straight to the claim that coronavirus is an engineered bioweapon.
That's not what I've said.
There's at least four hypotheses about the origin of the virus.
One, natural, still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan C market.
Two, good science, bad safety.
They were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accident, accidental breach occurred.
Three, Bad science, bad safety.
This is an engineered bioweapon hypothesis with an accidental breach.
And four, deliberate release.
Very unlikely, but shouldn't rule out till the evidence is in.
Again, none of these are theories and certainly not conspiracy theories.
They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence, if the Chinese Communist Party would provide it.
We ought to be transparent with the American people about all of this.
Maybe some of these so-called experts think they know better.
I don't, and they really don't either.
I think, yeah, so he also posted the New York Times, or I'm sorry, this is the New York Times story that I have pulled up.
Scientists have dismissed suggestions the Chinese government was behind the outbreak, but it's the kind of tale that gains traction among those who see China as a threat.
New York Times, which country are you in?
I don't trust you at all.
No one, no one, Tom Cotton never said the Chinese government deliberately released this or created it.
He said those were actually unlikely, but they were existing hypotheses, which I agree they are.
But how do you now answer, like, Just think about how awful these outlets are.
That you literally have this report, that I can pull up, what is this?
1, 2, 3, 4 different outlets, and I pulled these up in like 10 seconds.
Now is the Inquisitor, the Sun, T-Online, or Metro more credible than the New York Times?
Technically, I'd say no.
The Grey Lady and, you know, the paper, what is it, the Paper of Record and Washington Post are supposed to be great, you know, credible papers.
But what they're presenting in these articles is partisan nonsense, attacking Fox News and a Republican, and failing to even mention the fact that a report came out from China saying, hey, this is possible.
So they say there's no evidence, and even Tom Cotton acknowledges there's no evidence.
There is evidence.
The first evidence, which is circumstantial, is that the CDC in Wuhan and the Biolab are extremely close.
It's not proof.
It's circumstantial evidence.
When investigating this, you'd say, okay, what are the possible sources?
Well, lo and behold, these two facilities are nearby.
The next bit of evidence is the fact that one of the researchers, as documented by this paper, was actually bitten by a bat and had to quarantine himself for 14 days.
Why, that sounds like a tremendous bit of evidence to suggest the quarantine he put himself under was ineffective and it wasn't government mandated.
You can then see the panic from the Chinese government and it starts to seem like this is not some natural occurrence and they know something they're not telling us.
Or, at the very least, it is natural and they know something they're not telling us.
The New York Times reports.
I'll do reports and air quotes.
This is a trick the media does for some reason.
I have no idea what her intention is.
I guess to smear Tom Cotton.
It's all politics.
You'll see Snopes doing it.
There'll be something like this.
around the world has been manufactured by the Chinese government. This is a trick the media
does for some reason. I have no idea what her intention is, I guess, to smear Tom Cotton.
It's all politics. You'll see Snopes doing it. There'll be something like this. Donald Trump
will eat a bowl of chocolate ice cream. Someone will then tweet Trump was eating chocolate ice cream.
Snopes will then create the headline, did Donald Trump actually eat chocolate ice cream?
With a silver spoon?
False.
And then you go, ha!
That proves all these Republicans are liars, herpy derp.
They add the last little bit to make the whole thing fake, and at the very end of the article it'll say something like, while it is true Trump was in fact eating ice cream, and Tom Cotton was absolutely correct when he said so, it is not true, as some believe, that he was using a silver spoon to do it.
But no one ever said that!
Who is saying right now that the Chinese government made this and leaked it?
Yes, a fringe conspiracy is this.
Tom Cotton didn't say that!
He pointed out that there is some circumstantial evidence that should be investigated, and they immediately misrepresent what he's saying to say he's incorrect, to make him look crazy, because instead of caring about what's actually happening, these psychotic sociopaths, who claim to be journalists, are either willfully lying, or they're some of the stupidest people on the planet.
The coronavirus has been worse every step of the way.
Every report that's come out, it's only gotten worse.
At first, you had people saying, oh, the flu is worse.
Now it's like, oh, actually, this is traveling as fast as the flu, with a substantially higher mortality rate.
Oh, I thought the flu was worse.
But, but, but, the flu is infecting more people.
But the flu season started several months ago so that could explain those numbers.
You mean to tell me that the mortality rate is like 10 to 20 times higher and it's traveling as fast and only just started?
So it could potentially get way worse?
You're telling me that the US military is preparing for a full-blown pandemic?
You're telling me that experts have already testified to the British Parliament and the Senate?
That this could reach 60% of their populations?
That this is going global?
And then you mean to tell me that there are two disease facilities in Wuhan, and they have the nerve?
They're so insane, and they want to smear Republicans so bad, this is the garbage pumped out by the trash rags, the New York Times, the paper of trash.
The conspiracy theory lacks evidence and has been dismissed by scientists.
That's a lie.
That's a lie.
Because as we already know, the actual scientists in China are saying it may have actually come from a lab where somebody was entangled in the evolution of the virus.
Their words, not mine.
But the New York Times would lie to you, or they just employ morons who don't know how to use Google.
It has gained a wide audience with the help of well-connected critics of the Chinese government, such as Steve Bannon.
Speaking on Fox News, Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, raised the possibility the virus has originated in a high-security biolab.
We don't have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China's duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says, and China right now is not giving evidence on that question at all.
They say he later walked back the idea.
Actually, I'm pretty sure he said he didn't.
Let's see if we have- he says this.
I haven't said the coronavirus is a Chinese bio-weapon run amok, so I haven't walked back anything.
What I have said is that China's official origin story of the Wuhan food market is almost certainly bogus.
And given Chinese dishonesty and lack of transparency, we have to consider all possibilities until the evidence is in.
But sure, Etjadid, you take the Chinese Communist Party line at face value.
You know that recently, there have been a bunch of stories about academics secretly receiving money from China and not reporting it?
I think there was a story somewhere about the New York Times putting up Chinese propaganda.
This is weird.
Smaller outlets, outlets with not nearly as much funding, are telling us right now this paper exists.
But for some reason, the press in the United States is defending the Chinese Communist Party?
That the Chinese Communist Party can say whatever they want and they go, you got it, Chinese Communist Party!
What?! !
These people have concentration camps, not just for the sick, for the Uyghurs.
They are duplicitous, evil people, putting people in camps to harvest their organs.
I'm not making that up!
The New York Times thinks they're honest in telling the truth.
They have to be liars.
Let me wrap this up, because I can only rag on these people's disgusting lack of integrity and talent so much.
They're either morons who don't know what Google is.
Sure, that's fair.
Or they're actually willfully lying to the American people to protect China.
On January 20th, 2020, 22,000 gun rights advocates descended upon Virginia to protest gun control legislation.
The media smeared this group, one journalist actually claiming it was a white nationalist rally.
But no, it was a peaceful protest and a massive gathering and a show of force for the state of Virginia to know that these people care about their rights and do not want certain legislation passed.
And guess what?
They won.
Now, people often say peaceful protests don't work.
That's mostly on the left.
So what do they do?
Civil disobedience, blocking streets.
And you know what?
I gotta be honest.
I'm okay with that.
A little bit of obstruction is not so bad.
You get arrested for it.
You pay the penalty.
But there are many people who think they have to get violent.
They smash windows, they go on rampage.
And how often do they win?
They don't.
Because the reality is, sometimes, and often, actually, I would say, you can get your point across by being peaceful.
You don't need to throw a brick to win a battle.
In fact, it often backfires.
And here we can see the latest story from the Washington Post.
Ban on assault weapon sales dies in Virginia Senate committee.
A lot of people were worried because the bill passed the House.
They knew it was coming.
Virginia is dominated in every level by Democrats, yet for some reason, several Democrats defected.
Maybe it's because 22,000 people had their voices heard, and the bill was stopped dead in its tracks.
Now, this doesn't mean that the fight is over.
It just means, you gotta admit, the rally worked, and there was no violence.
It was just people gathering, shaking hands, and voicing their concerns.
In fact, there were people from the left and the right there.
There was no need for insurgency.
Let's read the story from the Washington Post.
they say. A Virginia Senate committee killed a bill on Monday that would have banned the
sale of assault-style weapons and possession of high-capacity magazines, handing gun rights
activists a rare win in a capital that Democrats won last year on the promise of sweeping gun
control. Governor Ralph Northam backed the legislation, part of a package of eight gun
control measures he advanced after a shooter killed 12 people at a Virginia Beach municipal
building on May 31st. Republicans' refusal to act on those bills last summer in a special session
that they gaveled out in 90 minutes became a rallying cry for Democrats in November elections.
They flipped the State House and Senate blue for the first time in a generation.
The House passed all eight of Northam's bills.
But four Democrats, they say, Senators Cray Deeds, John Edwards, Chap Peterson, and Scott Surivel, sided with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the assault weapons bill for the year.
On a 10-to-5 vote, the committee set the measure to the state's Crime Commission for study.
Bunch of wimps, Senator L. Louise Lucas, a Democrat of Portsmouth, said from the Dace, referring to the four.
Philip Van Cleave, the Virginia Citizens Defense League president, who organized a huge gun rights rally in Richmond last month and encouraged Second Amendment sanctuary declarations across the state, celebrated on Twitter.
And he said, in all caps, VICTORY!
And I'm not going to read every single one, but let me just tell you, a bunch of exclamation points.
Like, a lot of exclamation points.
He tweeted, Everybody's hard work, Lobby Day, and sanctuary movement paid off.
Let me stop and say something.
I've never been a big gun person.
I don't own any.
I've never owned any.
I've only been to a range a couple times.
We'll be back next year," spokeswoman Alina Yarmosky said in an email.
Because I make my decisions on policy based off of actually meeting with and understanding people.
And I learned from some of these people, you know, some things can be done and implemented.
There are certain gun control regulations that actually do make sense, and many, many that do not.
And we have a problem, at least my understanding, with uniformity at the national level.
So, I think for the most part, What I've come to believe is that we probably need less restrictions on what you can have, but more knowledge about who has what.
But it is fairly... It's hard to know what the right move is, especially when conservatives are concerned that background check bills or registration bills will just allow them to come with red flag laws later.
But I'm going to tell you that I'm extremely happy with this result.
I am, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being sad, 10 being as happy as I can be, a 10.
You know why?
Now, I'm not super concerned, necessarily, with the victory of gun rights advocates.
I've actually softened up quite a bit in the past year or so when people have made arguments about constitutional rights, and so I typically err on the side of, if you want to change the law, change the constitution first.
That's actually the fairest way I can put it.
But I'm happy for another reason.
A peaceful gathering.
A peaceful gathering was proven correct.
And this is exactly what I've been talking about forever.
You're not gonna win over the hearts and minds of the masses with a brick through a Starbucks window.
I mean, I maybe was into that when I was 15 years old and quickly realized why it doesn't work.
And it doesn't.
I always tell people, what do you think the average person thinks when you smash that window, when you get violent, when you put on the Antifa garb and go light fires?
They think you're nuts and they call for help to oppose you.
You know the guy working at Starbucks who shows up the next day and sees the glass everywhere has no idea why you did it?
All he knows is his hours are getting cut because the store's closed while they fix the window.
So he's gonna, guess what?
His paycheck's gonna be short this week.
And he's gonna blame you for it.
But what happens when people walk around with smiles on their faces, shaking hands, and saying, here's what we think.
We implore you, please support us.
Turns out, people hear this.
You know why?
The fringe lunatics of Antifa do not represent the regular voting person.
And everyone knows it.
And for better or for worse, a lot of these politicians just want to get re-elected.
Or they want to make sure that what they're doing is what the people actually want.
When you have 22,000 people show up, peaceful, You start to see that these are the actual regular Americans who are concerned about these laws.
They're not the crazy violent fringe.
The regular people have risen up and they're angry about it.
Peaceful protests can have a serious and positive impact.
They don't always work.
So I am a fan of civil disobedience in certain aspects.
I did an interview with one guy named Moxie Marlinspike.
He's a hacker guy.
And he said one of the problems with all of this crazy surveillance is that sometimes we do need to break the law to figure out the law was bad in the first place.
Law doesn't mean moral.
It's, you know, sometimes laws become outdated, we gotta do away with them.
He was talking specifically about certain restrictions on contraband that people actually enjoy, and because we know we like it, we've actually started repealing many laws, and the masses actually agree, hey, this was a bad law.
So in some circumstances, I'm totally on board with, hey, you want to block a street?
The cops will come and arrest you, and they'll clear it up.
You'll pay the price for breaking the law, and that will generate attention.
Peaceful, non-violent resistance and protest, I also am a fan of.
But in this regard, this was, my understanding was like a permitted rally.
And I'm not a big fan of rallies, because I often feel like they don't do anything, but look at this!
Victory Van Cleave tweeted.
House Speaker Eileen Filler Corn, who had challenged the Senate to pass all eight bills in a speech over the weekend, reacted more sharply.
The Democratic platform last fall was very clear, she said in a statement.
Limiting access to weapons of war used in mass murders was a key part of that platform.
The House of Delegates delivered on our promise to take action to keep those weapons off our streets.
To call today's vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee a disappointment would be an understatement.
You have no idea what you're talking about, though.
Clearly, the people who shut up for this rally, who have what you call a weapon of war, it's not, disagree with your view.
You are wrong.
And that's why so many, that's why there are people defecting.
Because even though the Virginia, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, four Democrats defected, saying, you know what?
It's not right.
The people don't want this.
Sponsored by Del Mark H. Levine, the measure would have prohibited the sale or transfer of those firearms beginning July 1st and outlaw possession of the magazine six months later on January 1st.
As originally introduced, the bill would have banned all possession of assault weapons That doesn't even mean anything.
Do you know that?
Yeah, you guys all know it because you're online and you pay attention.
And I know that for the same reason.
Assault weapon is meaningless.
In some jurisdictions, and I think federally, a Glock 17 is an assault weapon.
That's like the handgun cops use.
Nobody would agree with that.
I guess some crazy people would.
Forcing owners to give them up.
But the House Public Safety Committee modified it to prohibit only sales and transfers.
Only sales and transfers.
Anyone who legally owned those guns before the law took effect would be allowed to keep them.
Senators did not debate the merits of the bill before voting.
Deeds simply noted that there were a lot of questions about the definition of assault weapons before moving to wait on the bill for the year.
Democratic supporters tried to counter with a motion to hold out only for the day, but Deeds prevailed.
The bill defined assault firearm as any semi-automatic centerfire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 12 rounds.
I'm pretty sure with a fixed magazine capacity, so I'm pretty sure that would include like Almost every gun!
It would also have applied to any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle, or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine, and also has one of other several features, including a folding or telescoping stock, a second hand grip, or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand, a grenade launcher, flare launcher, silencer, or flash suppressor.
The bill was the most controversial part of Northam's gun control agenda, with gun rights activists warning that the state was planning to confiscate firearms.
They were.
Since the election, more than 110 Virginia counties, cities, and towns have passed some type of Second Amendment sanctuary resolution, many of them asserting that local officials will not enforce laws they consider unconstitutional.
Gun rights activists staged an enormous rally on Capitol Square in January, drawing heavily armed militias from across the country, and also the Black Panthers, and also people who are not armed, and also constitutionalists who just felt like regardless of whether or not the Second Amendment was your issue, the Constitution is what needs to be defended.
So I'll wrap this up.
Major victory for the rally.
I'm really surprised this was the case, so congratulations to those who wanted this outcome.
For me, I'm just happy to see that a peaceful rally actually proved successful.
Because a lot of people seem to think the only route is insurgency.
Let this be an example to all the wackos Who think they should get violent, you are wrong.
Let this be an example to all those who feel like they don't have any hope because they keep losing that you can just keep fighting and doing it the right way.
Nonviolent, peaceful rallies, civil disobedience, all of these great things.
Yeah, I get it.
Revolution often occurs when people go nuts.
But typically, things get bad for a long time afterwards.
These people won.
The fight's not over, but everyone at the end of the day can go for a slice of pizza and a glass of beer and have a smile on their face, and no one leaves in pain.
No one leaves with suffering or destruction or damage.
It's a longer fight, reform.
But hey, when it works, things are better.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
YouTuber Jake Paul launches entrepreneur how-to platform, Financial Freedom Movement, and boy, do I love it.
I am going to be defending, of all people, Jake Paul in this video.
He's basically saying, college was a lie, fire your boss, figure out how to be financially free with today and with the internet.
It's easier than ever to do, and you know what?
He's completely right.
He says college is basically a waste of time and a lie, and your degree is out of date when you get it.
He's right!
Surprisingly, who's calling him out and calling it a scam?
Mainstream journalists who went to college are laid in with massive debt and are saying he's offering up a scam?
No.
I'm not saying Jake Paul has the best advice in the world to give.
But if you were to ask me who I should take advice from, the multi-millionaire dude with over 20 million subscribers, who basically does whatever he wants, or a college professor who wasn't successful in their field, so now they're teaching at a university, I'm gonna go with the rich guy!
I'm gonna say, hey rich dude, how'd you get rich?
Give me that advice.
In fact, I've done this before.
I remember seeing this dude in a sports car, super nice, I don't know, it was a McLaren or something, and I said, how did you get that?
And he started talking about perseverance and business, and this was a long time ago, but it was kind of like things I already knew, but I was like, it confirmed what I already thought.
Just keep working and building and figure it out.
Every step, try and improve yourself.
Acknowledge your failures.
Do better.
At the root of any financial trade is just giving, you know, exchanging some kind of value with something.
But too many people are told, go to college!
Get a job at Starbucks!
Whatever.
And that's not necessarily the right path forward.
They're lying to you about college.
Now, look, if you want to be a scientist and, you know, mess around with viruses or, like, genetically engineer stuff and create giant creature alien monsters, yeah, go to college.
That's where you'll do that stuff.
I mean, you can do it in the private sector, too, but that's a good place to start because you need an environment that's going to give you the space you need.
But if you want to work in music business, if you want to be on social media, if you just want to manage a general business regardless of what it is, school is a huge waste of time.
Let's read about Jake Paul.
Variety reports.
At a rally on Saturday, the content creator, along with influencer friends and around 50 teenage and tween-age fans, some chaperoned by parents, launched the Financial Freedom Movement in partnership with Gen Z Holdings Inc.
A Los Angeles-based brand development group targeted at Millennials and Generation Z audiences.
Hollywood Sports Park, a multi-use outdoor paintball soft pellet and BMX venue in Bellflower, California, in Southeast L.A.
County, hosted the event, which Paul had posted about on his Twitter and Instagram accounts the day before, writing that the education system is worthless and that it was teaching kids zero real-life skills for them to secure their own future.
Yeah, he's right.
Now apparently, Jake Paul has been on the downtrend.
I don't know or care.
I don't follow Jake Paul.
Whatever.
But he launched a website that many people said was a scam.
His site's called the Financial Freedom Movement.
Your terms.
Dream goals.
Financial freedom.
I'll tell you what.
I'm often very skeptical when people offer me this stuff.
You see it online all the time, you know.
Be financially free.
Be independently wealthy.
Just give me $50 and I'll tell you how to do it.
Sure.
But on his website, I'll give him the credit, he actually does have videos you can watch where they give you some free advice right from the start.
And some of it is just okay.
They've got a bunch of people with resumes that are fairly decent, probably exaggerated.
And I'd be willing to bet Jake Paul is not going to tell you all the actual sneaky underhanded things that he actually does.
And I'm not saying like illegal or unethical.
I'm saying there's like industry secrets he probably doesn't want to share.
The reality is, though, you've got a YouTube star who actually has become extremely successful and can give you real advice outside of what YouTube really is, and he's telling you school is a scam, and he's right about that.
Of course, the media wants to get in on the, Jake Paul is just pushing a scam to steal your money, and, you know, sure, look, Jake Paul's running a business, he does just want your money for the most part, but I gotta admit, He probably knows a ton of stuff about running a business no one else is going to teach you.
Variety says, the online platform, which costs $19.99 a month, will feature curated content
from social media influencers and business entrepreneurs, including Paul himself.
Ostensibly, it's a how-to guide on how to monetize an online presence. Although Paul
told Variety it's for anybody who wants insight on how to make money from his, her, their passion,
subscriptions also include weekly group video calls with Paul and guest experts.
In the VIP area where Paul and friends gathered, several made signs with Sharpie pens and neon
colored poster paper with various FFM-isms. I'm I learned the periodic table, but not how to do my taxes.
Not awesome.
Pi equals 3.14, but how do I start a renter's lease?
How come school never taught us how to start a business?
Do you even know what a C-Corp, S-Corp, LLC, or any of these things are?
You probably don't.
Some of you probably do.
I had to teach myself everything.
School was an outright waste of time.
It's one of the reasons why I didn't go to high school either.
And guess what?
Surprise, surprise, the dude who's got a successful career on YouTube is telling you that, yes, this is all true.
You know what they tell you?
You know what they say to me when I tell them college is a scam?
Don't do it.
They say, you're an anomaly, Tim.
Very few people can be successful like you.
Watch TED Talk.
In it, they say there's only one factor in success, and it's perseverance.
As long as you focus and work hard and sacrifice, You can succeed.
But they act like it's a special thing that billionaires who dropped out of college make three times more money than billionaires with PhDs.
They act like it's surprising or it's rare when you see all of these high-profile celebrities who are high school dropouts.
Now look, I grew up skateboarding.
I can't count on my hands and toes how many pros there are who quit school and are extremely wealthy.
Because let me make one thing clear.
There was a saying I heard a long time ago.
Let's say you're in school, you're going to college.
Why?
You need a safety plan.
All right.
If you don't have the time and energy to commit to what you want, then why should I commit that time to you?
If you come to me and say, how do I do it?
The first thing I'm going to tell you is drop the fake nonsense.
School is not getting you where you need to go.
You need to work in the industry.
The things I'm developing and learning in my business and the things that Jake Paul knows about how YouTube and social media and marketing works, they're not teaching in college.
Which means you're gonna spend 20 bucks a month on Jake Paul's program and you are gonna learn a hundred times better than you, you know, you're gonna learn way more cutting-edge at, you know, bits of information pertaining to social media than you'll get at anywhere from any college.
You have these colleges where people did not succeed.
Like, if you're really good at what you do, why are you teaching it at a college?
You see, I'm not teaching at a college.
I know a bunch of journalists who are teaching at colleges, and they make almost no money.
There's a reason why successful people aren't doing that.
It's because their business is working.
So who do you really want to learn from?
Somebody who isn't working in the industry, or somebody who is?
And the other thing too is, look, I don't know what Variety has to say about Jake Paul, because I'm not here to say, like, he's going to give you the best advice in the world, I'll be honest.
I don't know exactly what his plan is, but I'm seeing so many people tweet about how it's a scam.
Yeah.
Maybe.
But I seriously think you're getting better advice from an actual YouTuber than you are from some college or some job.
And so I've seen it over and over again.
They say, uh, Paul dropped out of school after 11th grade, completing his diploma through an online course.
I just got the answer from a cheat site and put it in and didn't have to do any work, recalled Paul, whose career includes a stint on Disney channels or whatever.
Both Paul and his older brother Logan leveraged their followings on the now defunct video platform Vine into content creation powerhouses, most notably YouTube.
Their careers have included a number of controversies.
Yeah, yeah, we get it.
They kind of do whatever they want.
He said, I'm not anti- So here's what they wrote.
Does Paul's anti-establishment rhetoric mean the ethos of the financial freedom movement is staunchly anti-education?
No.
He said, I'm not anti-anything.
I think it's great if somebody wants to be a doctor.
I think it's great if somebody wants to be a veterinarian.
And you have to go to trade school.
He added that the program does not have a set curriculum.
The word itself evokes a sense of rigidness.
The people who sign up will learn how to market themselves, the strategies behind going viral, and practical tips on how to handle business meetings, and even roommates, which might not be a set curriculum, but sounds at the very least like an informal syllabus.
I'll tell you what.
I have seen a ton of these programs where they're like, if you give me a couple bucks, I'll give you advice.
It's just general public consulting.
Now businesses will hire consultants to give them advice.
That's like a normal thing.
Tons of people are consultants.
Yet for some reason when I see stuff like this, they're like, that's clearly a scam.
Is it?
If you don't have the ability, is it the fault of the person who gave you the advice?
The answer is no.
But here's what I think ends up happening.
There are certainly tons of scammers.
I would never pay for advice from someone I don't know and has no proven history.
I'm certainly not going to take the advice of people who went to college, racked up massive debt, and now are working crappy jobs and they can barely afford to live, because as they say, you know, misery loves company.
But here's what ends up happening.
So here's my prediction.
Jake Paul's going to launch this.
He's going to give a bunch of pretty good advice to a lot of people on how to market, how to market their brands and build a business on social media.
And most of them are going to fail.
And when they do, they will claim it was a big scam.
But the reality is they just didn't know what they were doing or how to do it.
And that's the real problem.
Or I should say, more importantly, they didn't have the perseverance.
So they enter this program thinking they're gonna get a get-rich-quick scheme.
They're gonna hear all these things, fail, and then they're gonna blame it on him.
Anyway, I don't, I don't, you know what?
I'm, I'm a staunch kind of anti-college person, so I really wanted to comment on this.
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.
Because apparently this is going to be an ongoing series.
I saw this article from the end of January about women who get promotions being more likely to get a divorce.
The same is not true for men.
And the only thing I could think was, duh.
Duh.
I did a segment the other day about what people really want in relationships.
It's an article written by a feminist sociology assistant professor, Ellen Lamont.
In it, she says, even in San Francisco, among people who claim to be progressive, they default to traditional gender roles in dating.
She says, many of them say they want egalitarian marriages.
Many of them say they want egalitarian relationships.
But for some reason, set all of these rules that are completely traditional.
One of the most notable points, she says, is that even among feminists, they think men want to be in control, so they let them be in control.
But if that was the case, that men wouldn't be a feminist.
Why would you as a feminist want to date someone who isn't and expect an egalitarian relationship?
And lo and behold, men want to be... Well, they do want to be in control.
They want to be stronger, taller, tougher than their partner is.
I wonder why.
Which brings me to this story from the BBC, Work Life.
Getting a top job dramatically increases women's chance of divorce, even in egalitarian countries.
Why isn't it the same for men?
Let's put two and two together here, shall we?
If a man and a woman are in a relationship and the man gets a promotion, the man is still the breadwinner, feeling strong and tough and in control.
Why would he want to get a divorce?
Ah, but wait a minute.
What happens when we combine both of these stories?
You see, women want men who are strong, and men want to be in control.
That's the perception of both, at least.
So what happens when the woman gets a promotion?
All of a sudden now, there's an imbalance.
A woman is dating a man who is lesser than her.
I'm not surprised this results in them getting a divorce.
If even the feminist sociology assistant professor says people in relationships, even feminists, default to traditional gender roles.
Because a woman breadwinner is not a traditional gender role.
Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it.
By all means, if that's your thing, do it to it.
That's the great thing about liberal democracies.
And I don't mean liberal as in left.
I mean literally as in like a free society with democratic values and libertarian values.
And I don't mean big L libertarian.
I mean freedom!
Congratulations!
You as a woman can get that job and can get that promotion.
You are free to do so.
But the data shows Don't be surprised if the relationship is harder.
Look, have you noticed the trope on Tinder?
I shouldn't say trope, but the common stereotype.
Women like tall guys.
They say, if you're under 5'10", don't bother swiping on me.
They only want 6 feet.
Why is that?
Why do women want men who are bigger than them?
Is it possible this idea extends not just to physical stature, but to societal stature as well?
I think the answer is a resounding, duh.
As the feminist found, even feminist women want to be in a relationship where they say, look, men want to be in control, so they actually cede that ground.
And men want to be in control.
They want to be taller and stronger and tougher, and they feel confident, I guess.
So sure enough, when women get promotions, divorce is more likely.
But let's read and see what they say.
They write, having a successful and enjoyable career Alongside a fulfilling romantic relationship is a life goal for many of us.
But even in the most gender-equal countries, finding a partnership that lasts is trickier for high-flying women than men.
You know why?
I'm gonna make an assumption.
I think it's because women want to be in a relationship with a man who is giving them security, and men want to be providers.
So if you're a very, very high-status woman, you're probably looking up.
You're looking up at who you're going to be dating.
Someone who's stronger and better than you, and can provide you with a safety net.
Not every single woman, maybe not the majority, but enough.
I think the data shows it might actually be the majority, considering divorce women goes up, but not for men.
In Sweden, of all places, which ranks first in the EU's Gender Equality Index, thanks to factors like generous parental leave, subsidized daycare and flexible working arrangements, economists recently studied how promotions to top jobs affected the probability of divorce for each gender.
The result?
Women were much more likely to pay a higher personal price for their career success.
Promotion to a top job in politics increases the divorce rate of women, but not for men.
And women who become CEOs divorce faster than men who become CEOs, summarizes Johanna Rickney, a professor at Stockholm University and co-author of the research, which was published earlier this month in American Economic Journal.
The paper, which looked at the lives of heterosexual men and women working for private companies with a hundred or more employees, found that married women were twice as likely to be divorced three years after their promotion to CEO level compared to their male counterparts.
In the public sector, using three decades worth of records, women mayors and parliamentarians promoted after an election doubled their chances of splitting from their partners.
75% were still married eight years after the vote, compared with 85% of those who didn't get promoted.
Well, there was no evidence of a similar effect for men.
Female medical doctors, police officers, and priests who progressed in their careers also followed the trend.
And no one is surprised.
I guess the feminists are.
You know, I'm sorry the data doesn't support the way you see the world.
But I believe there is another factor here.
Perhaps women who get promoted take on more responsibility, and then aren't around as often for the men who also want to have a lot of responsibility.
I don't think this is really the reason, because there's no necessarily correlation between a promotion and more work.
In fact, a promotion might actually lead to less work.
A lot of managers, you know, at white-collar jobs might end up sitting around a lot and have a lot more free time.
I think it's an issue of status and stature.
And it's probably true a lot of men don't like feeling like lessers, and women don't want to date lessers.
Not for everybody.
Maybe not the majority.
I don't know.
But it seems to be the case, doesn't it?
They go on to say the authors noted that while the majority of participants in the study had children, most had left home by the time their parents divorced.
So the marriage stressors in the run-up to the separations were not connected to more generalized pressures of having small children.
It could also be.
That marriage is primarily about a partnership to have a family.
And when those kids grow up and move on and move out, there is less of a reason for people to actually be married.
Now, that's more of a liberal, you know, progressive view, but not as nearly far left as many of these people are.
But it is something I've noticed quite a bit.
That a lot of divorces tend to happen after the kids reach a certain age.
But it's not universal.
Clearly there are parents who get divorced when the kids are really young.
Rickney argues that although Sweden has provided the legislation and societal structures to create the expectation that you shouldn't need to choose between family and career, the research reveals that what happens to families when women progress up the career ladder is often a different story.
Many couples experience stress and friction when there are changes in the division of the economic and social roles.
For example, due to the impact of the amount of leisure time they can spend together or how they divide up household tasks.
But this, the research team argues, is often amplified when it is the woman who is promoted because it creates more of a mismatch of expectations.
While Rigney's research did not measure which party initiated divorce in each case, one theory is that the husbands of top managers who got promoted found the situation harder to deal with than wives who were married to high-performing men.
She points out that the marriage market has not kept up with the labor market when it comes to gender equality.
Since it is still seen as quite unusual for men to be the main supportive spouse in someone else's career.
I think the norm's changing.
I think this norm changing is pretty far off, she adds.
Her team's research, she argues, might therefore act as a lesson about what lies ahead for other countries that are moving toward more egalitarian economies.
Here's what I think.
I think it's a mix of nature and nurture.
I think there's absolutely societal expectations ingrained in people's minds about the roles they're supposed to take, and thus men are driven to succeed because they're told, this is socially acceptable.
Everybody wants to fit in.
Why are women in the workplace more than ever?
It's socially acceptable, if not socially demanded, that you manage your own life and be successful.
Many people want to be financially independent, so everybody works.
Women have now reached that point where they can be CEOs.
But I do think biology plays a role.
Testosterone.
My understanding is it will make you more competitive and more aggressive, in which case, there's going to be a drive to be better and to win.
And thus, you're not going to want to be a loser in a relationship.
You're going to want to feel like you're succeeding and growing every day, and not like people are passing you up, or that you're inadequate to your spouse or loved one.
I'm not going to pretend like I can tell you for sure.
I can only really tell you this is what's happening.
The rest is going to be for you to decide.
If it is true that this divorce rate only happens when women get promoted, the answer is, why is that?
Now, of course, many people on the left are going to say social pressures and social constructs.
Many more ultra-traditionalists are going to say, no, it's because men are ingrained to be the breadwinner and women are attracted to men who do all these things, yadda yadda.
The reality is, it's both.
It really, really is both.
And it's not even absolute.
There are probably a lot of women who get by just fine, a lot of men who get by just fine, but I think it's absurd to ignore the fact that men tend to do certain things, that women tend to do certain things, and while that is not a guarantee of who you will be and what you want to do, and it shouldn't be an obstruction to what you want to do, you should be absolutely able to have the opportunity to do whatever you want, The fact remains that there are natural tendencies within us.
And even if it's not based on biological driving factors or evolutionary psychology, it could simply be that men are taller.
And because of this, they're more likely to do certain jobs.
Period.
Men are taller.
There you go.
It could be as simple as that.
But I'll leave it to you guys.
I'll keep this one short.
Do you agree with me?
Well, I know I'm gonna get inundated by feminists who disagree with me and are gonna be very angry that I dared read the article in the first place, but hey.
What do you want me to do?
This is coming out of Sweden, of all places.
So if Stockholm is wrong and they're as feminist as they come, I don't know what you expect of me.
