Democrats EXPOSED Plotting To STEAL Election, Republicans Laugh At Chaos Inside Democratic Party
Democrats EXPOSED Plotting To STEAL Election, Republicans Laugh At Chaos Inside Democratic Party. The latest forecast model fro the Democratic primary has no one winning the nomination at the DNC.While Bernie will likely win the popular vote the super delegate system is going to allow the overthrow of Sanders and give the nomination to one of the establishment elites.But now the cheating has been exposed. Politico reports that Bloomberg has been quietly meeting with moderate Democrats and crony establishment types at the DNC to gain support for a contested convention strategy. The goal is to stop Bernie Sanders at any cost.Meanwhile Republicans are not only laughing at the chaos in the democratic party but rallying against the fear of socialism rising in the US.The entirety of the left is split from the political establishment all the way to the media establishment the chaos on the modern left is only getting worse everyday paving the way for a Trump 2020 landslide in november.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
To say that the Democratic Party is in a complete state of chaos would be an understatement.
In 2016, as we all know, the DNC cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination to nominate a wildly unpopular candidate, Hillary Clinton, who went on to lose the general election.
And today, we are still seeing absolute chaos, and the DNC is now being exposed, plotting a way to steal the election from Bernie Sanders.
But wait!
Of course the media is still going after Trump.
We're not done.
But the latest story from Politico shows that Michael Bloomberg, who bought his way into the Democratic debate, has been privately lobbying the moderate Democrats to support him in the event of a brokered convention.
Right now, the latest 538 prediction model shows that no one will win the Democratic nomination.
That is the most likely outcome.
So Bloomberg is rallying the Democratic establishment to steal it away from Bernie Sanders, even if he gets the popular vote in the primary.
Because as far as anyone can tell, as far as I can tell, the Democratic nominating process is rigged to allow high-profile elites to decide who the nominee will be.
Now, for all the things I disagree with Bernie Sanders on, the one thing we agree on is that if he wins the vote, he should be their nominee.
But of course the DNC has the delegate process and the super delegate second round.
Michael Bloomberg is hoping to exploit this so that at the DNC, at the Democratic National Convention, the moderates will all side with him and push out Bernie Sanders.
Boy, can you imagine the absolute chaos in the streets of Milwaukee at the DNC when Bernie Sanders gets robbed again.
Now, there are some good reasons why the Democrats are rejecting Bernie Sanders.
His policies are not very popular outside of urban centers, and the guy just had a heart attack.
But now we're seeing another thing that's very interesting, because the cheating, in my opinion, extends beyond just Bernie Sanders.
They're actually just going after the populists in general.
They hate Donald Trump much the same.
But they also hate Michael Bloomberg for some reason.
There is no unity in the Democratic Party.
It is absolute chaos.
And the media can't decide who to smear, Trump or Bloomberg.
So let's break this down.
The first thing I want to do is show you the story and explain to you how the establishment is going to steal the nomination from Bernie.
And then I want to show you how they're going to try and smear and discredit Donald Trump.
We'll see how things play out.
The first story from Politico, Bloomberg quietly plotting brokered convention strategy.
The effort is designed as a political backstop to block Bernie Sanders by poaching supporters from Joe Biden and other moderates.
Now, before we read on, make sure you head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
This is going to be important news for Bernie Sanders supporters, I'd imagine.
So, if you find yourself on the left, you should pay attention to this.
This is how they're going to steal it from Bernie Sanders.
Now, again, I think there's good reasons why they're scared of a Bernie Sanders nomination.
All that really matters.
And here's the bad news for you on the left and the Democrats.
You're going to lose to Donald Trump.
Now, the media is trying to smear the president, but the fact that the Democratic Party is fractured this heavily and the fact that no matter who gets nominated, they're going to have a bunch of weaknesses and pitfalls shows that Trump is walking into a winning fight.
But again, sharing this video could help break some echo chambers.
And for the rest of you, I notice many people haven't subscribed.
If you like this video and want to see more, please subscribe to this channel.
Hit that notification bell so that YouTube will finally start telling you when I have videos, because they don't.
Let's read the story from Politico.
They report Michael Bloomberg is privately lobbying Democratic Party officials and donors
allied with his moderate opponents to flip their allegiance to him and block Bernie Sanders in the
event of a brokered national convention. The effort, largely executed by Bloomberg's senior
state level advisers in recent weeks, attempts to prime Bloomberg for a second ballot contest
at the Democratic National Convention in July by poaching supporters of Joe Biden
and other moderate Democrats, according to two Democratic strategists familiar with the talks
and unaffiliated with Bloomberg.
Now, it would be I believe it's fair to say what Bloomberg is plotting here isn't overt cheating like the brokered convention.
Hey, that's common.
So Bloomberg wants to get ready because he wants to win.
However, Bloomberg has bought his way into this race.
If the Democratic establishment, which has already catered to this billionaire's demands, now decide they're going to give him the nomination, he will have bought and paid for the nomination, stealing it from the actual popular populist, Bernie Sanders.
Thus, the whole big picture, when you step back, is nothing but crony establishment cheating.
But hey, are we surprised?
It's no surprise to me that Donald Trump and other Republicans defend Bernie and mention the DNC's cheating.
Everyone's got issues with the Democratic establishment.
Steve Bannon, speaking to Bill Maher, said he likes Bernie.
Bernie's identified the problem, but he's got the wrong solutions.
I think it's fair to say There is a populist position shared by many Americans.
The rejection of the elites.
Donald Trump's the populist for the right.
Bernie Sanders for the left.
And they disagree on a lot of issues.
But at the end of the day, everyone's pointing the finger at the establishment, which is selling the position to Michael Bloomberg.
Let's read more.
The outreach.
has involved meetings and telephone calls with supporters of Biden and Buttigieg, as well as uncommitted DNC members in Virginia, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, according to one of the strategists who participated in meetings and calls.
With Sanders' emergence as the frontrunner in the presidential primary, Democrats in those states have recently raised the prospect that the Democratic Socialist could be a top-of-the-ticket liability.
There's a whole operation going on, which is genius, said one of the strategists who is unaffiliated with any campaign.
And it's going to help them win on the second ballot.
They're telling them that's their strategy.
This is why I have basically said, I'm out to the Democrats.
I was planning on voting in this primary.
I was really excited for Andrew Yang or Tulsi.
And I may have voted for somebody else to get the nomination, but I am so done with this.
They are bragging about how they are going to take away the nomination from the popular candidate to give based on the elites.
Now, let me point something out.
Bernie Sanders is very much pro popular vote at the national level.
Here he is maintaining that same principle in the Democratic primary.
If I get the popular vote, I should have the nomination.
I respect that.
The delegation process is not the same as the Electoral College.
In the United States, the Electoral College creates a balance between more rural areas and more urban areas because we're a republic, not a direct democracy.
I respect the Electoral College in that regard.
Superdelegates are crony establishment elites who can subvert the popular vote with their own choice, and there's no reason they should be given this weighted power at all.
When it came to the delegate assignment process, Pete Buttigieg won more rural districts in Iowa than Bernie did.
Thus, he got more delegates.
To me, that makes sense.
He appeals to a wider base than Bernie does.
But the superdelegate process they're bragging about, as far as I'm concerned, is overt cheating.
Superdelegates are party elites.
They've been given the position and they're going to say, I want Bloomberg.
And Bloomberg paid for it all.
Let's read some more.
It's a presumptuous play for a candidate who hasn't yet won a delegate or even appeared on a ballot.
And it could also bring havoc to the convention, raising the prospect of party insiders delivering the nomination to a billionaire over a progressive populist.
We know how the Democrats are.
If you're a Sanders supporter, if you're a populist on the left, don't... I know a lot of people will consider themselves Democrats, but I think we can see it for what it is.
The progressives are not Democrats.
Bernie isn't independent.
They're an insurgent campaign, same as Trump was.
And the establishment is outraged.
Other candidates have been quietly in contact for months with superdelegates, the DNC members, members of Congress, and other party officials who cannot vote on the first ballot at a contested national convention.
But none have showcased it as a feature of their campaign, as Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
asked about Bloomberg's efforts. Spokeswoman Julie Wood said Thursday,
we have an enormous apparatus that is constantly reaching out to all types of people for support
and to explain why we think Mike is the best candidate to take on Donald Trump.
I don't know if you saw the story, but the Washington Post wrote an article. I guess it
was an op ed, I believe, that said we should give more power to the elites to choose our leaders.
I can only imagine what the founding fathers would think if that's the kind of rhetoric being pushed forward in today's politics.
The elites should decide.
Maybe they would agree, I don't know.
But in this country, it's founded upon the idea that from the poorest to the richest, we get a vote, we get a say in who our representatives are.
Today, the establishment wants to make sure the cronies get to pick.
How is that actually a democratic institution?
I get it.
We're not a democracy.
But we expect our vote to matter.
But if before you even get to the general election, the Democratic National Committee decides who you can even choose to vote for, we don't even have a democratic process for electing a representative.
Therein lies the big problem.
They're refusing to give up their crony power.
And they might lose it.
Because even if they stop Bernie Sanders today, come the next election, it's going to be bedlam tenfold.
I can only imagine what Antifa and Bernie bros will do in the streets of Milwaukee when it's stolen from him again.
Now you may think, let's say you're a Bernie supporter, there's probably some of you, you might think that this won't happen and Bernie will win.
Maybe the polls have been wrong but check out this prediction model from FiveThirtyEight.
It recently just flipped in the past day that no one will win the nomination.
Now for a while Bernie Sanders was projected and for some reason after Bernie it's Joe Biden.
But Michael Bloomberg is quickly rising because he's got the cold hard cash to buy the process and unfortunately it works.
But now that we can see no one will win, we're going to a contested convention.
And that means Bloomberg's efforts will likely pay off.
And now I'll give a warning to all of the people who don't like Trump, who find themselves on the left and want an alternative.
I'm sorry.
Michael Bloomberg is 10 to 20 times worse what Donald Trump is.
He speaks ill, worse than Trump ever could.
He's actually enacted racist and bigoted policies in New York and bragged about them.
He is everything the Democrats have claimed Trump is, and worse, and he is buying and now stealing the entire process.
I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders' policies and a lot of the things he has said in the past, and I've been very critical of him.
But I will absolutely maintain, if the Democrats choose Bernie Sanders to be the nominee, so be it.
That is their right to choose.
And I will disagree with Mr. Sanders, or Senator Sanders, and I will disagree with President Trump, and we'll see how things play out.
But that's not what we're given.
We're being handed a crony elitist billionaire on the ticket.
I hope it does not come to Bloomberg.
But while the Democrats seem to think Bloomberg is their saving grace because people are scared of Bernie Sanders, you're wrong.
I will never vote for Michael Bloomberg.
That will never happen.
And I'm that moderate that you want to win over.
Now, I don't think I'm representative of everybody.
I don't know.
But I certainly feel there's a lot of people like me who find ourselves politically homeless, who used to be, I don't know, fans of Obama.
There are many people who voted for Obama, flipped for Trump.
You're not going to win them back.
Many of those people were interested in Andrew Yang.
Well, you lost them.
Now I also think Bernie Sanders does present serious problems.
And I hate to say it because a lot of people, you know, look, I get it man.
The DNC is cheating your candidate to the Bernie fans.
But a lot of people, the moderates, just do not think he'll win.
I don't understand how this is the choice I'm being given.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
I'm not going to vote for him.
But it's beyond just being a socialist.
It's the flip-flopping on immigration, on workers' rights, on social justice rhetoric.
I just, I can't support that.
But you're gonna give me Michael Bloomberg?
No.
You know, I might consider Pete Buttigieg, but I just do not think he has the charisma.
And ultimately, he comes off like another establishment figure, only this time they're pretending he's not.
So, sorry, I'm just not interested in what you're offering.
But Bloomberg is.
Seriously.
If you put Bloomberg up against Trump, Trump becomes the lesser of two evils.
But take a look at this story from the Post and Courier.
South Carolina is a seriously important state.
We can see this.
Joe Cunningham slams Bernie Sanders' socialism ahead of 2020 Democratic primary.
This is a guy who is a Democratic congressman.
They say U.S.
Rep Joe Cunningham is one of only two Democratic congressmen from South Carolina forcefully rebuked U.S.
Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday.
These are the states Bernie would have to win.
I think what we're seeing is that regardless of the Democrats cheating, they've split down the middle.
I just do not see a victory for them.
I could be wrong.
Now, Bernie Sanders has recently split from some of the far left candidates.
There's a rift between him and AOC.
I don't think this is a big deal, but I highlight this just to accent the point I made about the split.
Even Bernie Sanders recognizes this, and he has said either AOC has gone too far or not far enough because there's confusion in the ranks about what message they need to actually win.
And now here's where y'all Bernie Sanders supporters are gonna get mad at me.
Slate.com is anything but a right-wing site.
They are a left-wing site.
And they wrote this article.
What are the chances Sanders has another heart attack before November?
I hate to break it to you, but at his age, there's a 50% chance that he will actually be hospitalized again, and there's a 30 to 35% chance that he will actually face another heart attack.
Slate says, By virtue of four incident-free months on the trail, that number is now lower for Sanders, but his chance of another hospitalization between now and November alone likely remains between 30 to 35 percent.
Bernie Sanders had a heart attack.
That's gonna be bad for him in the general election.
He's got supporters who say vile things and take vile action.
And this means while you may think he's the real progressive populist who deserves to win, and he's getting that popular vote, it's gonna be bad news.
And the mainstream democratic establishment has a reason to fear him.
But you know what?
I stand on principle.
I don't care if you're afraid.
I don't care if Bernie is gonna lose.
A lot of people who support Bernie think he will win.
More power to ya.
I think he'll lose.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if the Democrats are scared.
He's the choice of the people.
Assuming he is.
Then he should get the nomination.
What I find particularly interesting is that right now Bernie Sanders has taken the lead, Biden has collapsed.
I show this aggregate for the Democratic voters mostly because I don't understand why someone would claim to want to vote for Biden up until Biden lost, now they claim they want to vote for Bernie.
Seems like many of the voters are voting on a whim.
The biggest issue for Democrats is probably whether or not the candidate will just win and beat Trump.
But that flip from Biden to Bernie and now the rise of Bloomberg shows, I'm sorry you don't have the party you need to actually stop Trump.
And now we can see how Republicans have responded.
Republican revenge.
Record GOP field forms on 2020 mission to take down socialists.
This to me was surprising because my understanding was that Republicans were laughing at the rise of the far left, thinking that they would win and will be unstoppable if Bernie gets the nomination.
But a lot of people are freaked out.
Fox News reports, In 2019 alone, 781 Republicans filed federal paperwork to run for the House, the most ever recorded in an odd year at the Federal Election Commission.
That's up from 593 GOP candidates in 2017 when Democrats had an astounding 937 candidates
at the same point.
Republican candidates across the country interviewed by Fox News said they feel momentum is on
their side this time.
Energized by President Trump and his impeachment acquittal, congressional hopefuls are making the case that Trump needs a fighter like them in the House or else the country will succumb to a socialist Democrat's plans.
I'm tired of seeing my president attacked every day, said Marjorie Greene, a GOP businesswoman and first-time congressional candidate running for an open seat in Georgia's 14th district.
I'm tired of seeing our future threatened.
I'm tired of seeing my children's future extremely threatened.
And it's time to get off the bench and really step up to the plate.
This is the story I was actually basing my previous point off of.
Down-ballot Republicans watch with glee as Sanders gains steam.
Trump and Republicans are suffering in the suburbs, but their confident voters there will view Bernie as worse.
We'll see how that plays out.
Populist versus populist.
Frank Luntz, the famous pollster, says it's going to be a gruesome battle.
But let's talk about the odd phenomena that is the media.
You see, the media likes to smear Donald Trump.
But I actually think one of the biggest reasons Democrats are in freefall and falling apart is because the media does not care.
They seek to exploit.
Republicans don't trust the media.
They ignore it.
So they are unified under Trump's message.
But the left does pay attention to the media and the media isn't giving them a cohesive message.
I absolutely have to point out this hilarious article from The Atlantic titled, Trump is going to cheat.
Oh, oh, Trump is going to cheat.
Oh, because I thought we already witnessed the Democrats cheating in 2016 and are actually witnessing it right now.
Oh, but it's Trump who's gonna do it.
Okay, sure.
No, Trump is gonna win because Trump's got an economy on his side.
He's got unity on his side.
And you know what?
That's the problem with the Democrats.
But I love how the media is just trying to goad people into clicking their stories.
This creates a serious problem for the Democrats.
Take a look at this story from Vox.
The most mind-numbing thing I've ever seen.
I can't believe I'm about to do this, but I now have to defend Michael Bloomberg.
Yes, I must do it!
I have no problem defending Donald Trump when the media lies, defending Bernie Sanders when the media lies, and now I have to defend Michael Bloomberg because the media is lying in the most insane way possible.
Vox reports Mike Bloomberg tweeted a doctored debate video.
Is it political spin or disinformation?
Here's a good one from the newcivilrightsmovement.com.
Propaganda!
Bloomberg destroyed for posting deepfake hoax clip of his debate performance to make him look better.
And over on Google we can see just about all of these sites on the left writing a story claiming that Michael Bloomberg doctored a video.
Let me show you what really happened.
Brendan Carr, this is a commissioner for the FEC, I believe, I don't know if he's currently, he says, Equating this type of political speech with doctored deepfakes or illegal content is a serious mistake.
forms of free speech.
It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion.
Equating this type of political speech with doctored deepfakes or illegal content is a
serious mistake.
You see, Michael Bloomberg is trying to win.
But he's not going to even if the Democratic establishment steals the nomination from Bernie
because the media is not on their side.
The media is on the side of exploitation and getting clicks.
Now, I think it is fair to say there's a lot of progressive activists in media who lie to benefit their ideology.
Perhaps this is what we're seeing with Vox and this left-wing site.
A lot of these more progressive websites want Bernie Sanders to win and are rejecting the Democratic establishment.
So as far as I can see, the Democratic establishment has lost serious allies in media.
Michael Bloomberg made a video.
It was a long, drawn-out silence with crickets in the background, meant to accent the fact that no other Democrat had started a business.
It was obviously fake, because nobody thinks there were actually crickets inside the debate studio.
Yet for some reason all of these outlets wrote that it was a doctored video or misinformation.
And now we can see this response from people on Twitter.
PolitiFact says this.
The video is mostly false.
It was selectively edited to make it look like Bloomberg left the other Democratic candidates speechless for 20 seconds.
Selectively edited?
It was intentionally made to be funny.
It's called a joke.
One guy says.
Glen Kessler, one has to seriously question the credibility of any campaign that would push out such a manipulated video.
These reaction shots are unrelated to the two second moment in the debate.
This is a dangerously slippery slope that will lead to a nuclear war of fake videos.
It is a joke!
You people have lost your minds!
Ben Rhodes says, this is pure disinformation.
Then we have Pedro da Costa, doctoring videos in this manner would be career ending in journalism.
Sure.
Joe Rosbar says, this is straight up disinformation.
In addition to being creepy and deluded, and they should take it down.
This is absolutely insane.
But of course, the media establishment is split.
I can't tell you why they're so shocked that Bloomberg would make a joke.
Maybe there are many people who don't like he's buying the process, but he's probably going to steal the nomination.
You may have seen this story.
I love this.
I tell you, I do so many stories like this.
Bombshell report.
Lawmakers are warned that Russia is meddling to reelect Trump.
Oh my stars and garters.
I was nearly in tears when I heard that 2016 was happening all over again, that Russia was coming to steal the election for Trump.
Whatever should I do?
But how about wait 24 hours so that journalists can come out and say, oops, that's not actually what happened.
That's right.
Jake Tapper publishes a thread saying, actually, they're not trying to help Trump.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Here's what he calls it, pushback from a national security official saying the story being reported isn't what actually happened.
Why is it that whenever a big story breaks about Trump doing something with Russia, we wait 24 hours and then, oop, nothing?
What they're doing to Bloomberg right now, and I hate to defend the guy, is so similar to what they do to Trump when Trump posts a meme video.
They call it doctored and manipulated.
The media is a mindless slog of just manipulation attempts to get you to click stuff, and then they falsely frame things.
It's a trick.
I'd like to think that in many ways the media establishment, the democratic establishment, are intertwined.
And they kind of are.
Because the websites that are attacking Bloomberg for this ad are the more progressive digital sites.
But therein lies the main point, the main takeaway.
Well, the Democrats are planning to cheat to steal the election.
The media is creating a false narrative to smear Trump and progressives are smearing Bloomberg.
What's really going on is the Civil War is on the left.
People like me are pushed out.
I'm gone.
But then you can see the progressive media smearing the establishment, the establishment smearing the progressives and Trump.
And then when it comes to the actual nomination, you've got the DNC establishment doing everything in their power to steal the nomination away from Bernie for the second time.
You can't stop the wave.
You've lost.
The crony establishment has lost.
It's over.
I'm not a fan of these far-left lying progressive websites.
I'm not a fan of the media establishment lying about Trump or Bloomberg either.
I don't know what to tell you, though.
You want to get some real news.
I hate to say it, but if you're talking about cable news, Fox News has been more accurate than CNN and MSNBC.
Take a look at Russiagate.
Yep, Fox News was right.
The rest weren't.
And now you can see how the New York Times said, look what really happened.
And of course, it's Jake Tapper of CNN.
I'll give him credit for this, coming out and saying, an official I spoke to was pushing back.
All right.
Your stories are fake.
They've always been fake.
And this means, because Trump supporters do not trust the media, they're unified.
And Bernie and Bloomberg will duke it out, and we'll see if the DNC successfully cheats and steals the nomination from Bernie.
Regardless of who gets it, neither is going to win.
I'm sorry.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
In what may be one of the most annoying mornings I've ever had to deal with, Russia is back on the menu.
That's right, the New York Times.
Lawmakers are warned that Russia is meddling to re-elect Trump.
Oh, don't make me do it.
I don't want to do it.
I looked.
I tried.
I'm so sorry.
This is the story the media is running with because these people are absolutely psychopaths.
They are insane people who do things for insane reasons.
They have no stated goals.
It's like watching a giraffe play checkers.
Just like mashing the ball with its face.
There's no sane moves happening.
I have no idea why they keep doing this.
In 2016, they screeched as loud as possible, Russia.
And for years, we had to deal with all of this Russia nonsense.
And you know what?
I tolerated it.
I said, hey, all right, let's see what happens.
Here we are once again, the New York Times.
Lawmakers have warned Russia's meddling.
Oh, just stop already.
You psychopaths.
A classified briefing to House members is said to have angered the president, who complained that Democrats would weaponize the disclosure.
And then sure enough, it was leaked to the New York Times and is now being weaponized.
What a stupid, cringeworthy, disgusting world.
Now look at this.
Former CIA director John Brennan says, quote, We are now in a full-blown national security crisis.
These people are mentally ill.
There is something wrong with them.
This didn't work four years ago.
It's not gonna work today.
Stop saying this, you absolute psychopaths.
Russia, Russia, Russia, here we go.
Now I gotta read this stupid story about stupid fake news.
Whatever.
I'm gonna show you something in a second that's gonna make y'all feel better.
But I gotta admit, sometimes you'll see me get really angry, like when journalists put out fake news, but right now it's a combination of anger, frustration, and I gotta admit, I'm just dumbfounded that this is the smear they're going with.
Stop and think for a moment.
Russiagate, fake news.
Ukrainegate, fake news.
So, Russiagate again?
Are you kidding me?
I can't believe it.
Seriously, round three, season three of the same stupid scandal.
It's like these people who hate Trump have no idea what to do and they're all just vomiting in each other's mouths.
Former CIA director John Brennan is very disturbed by a new report from the New York Times which says last week, Members of the House Intelligence Committee were warned by an aide to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire that Russia is actively meddling in the 2020 campaign in order to get President Trump re-elected.
We are now in a full-blown national security crisis, Brennan said.
By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow's interests, not America's.
Brennan served as CIA director from 2013 to 2017.
I just, they're insane.
They're literally insane.
Do you know Americans don't care about this?
I am not exaggerating when I say Americans don't care about this.
Brennan, get it through your thick, broken skull.
Adam Schiff, what are you doing?
Listen, a part of me wants to believe that everything they've done, there's like a facetious conspiracy theory, I say, where it's like they must want to help Trump, right?
Because every time they push stupid scandals, Trump is helped by it.
His approval rating is up after the impeachment.
And Gallup says that could be due to him being acquitted in the impeachment trial.
Yet, every single time they fail, they're just bashing their face on the table over and over again, hoping something will be different.
It's the definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and over again, over and over again, expecting a different outcome.
So I would jokingly say something like, maybe they're trying to get Trump reelected.
Maybe that's why they keep screaming about Russia.
Listen, even their own narrative about Russia was that not a single vote was changed.
That it was something like a couple dozen accounts that reached like 100,000 or more people.
They spent very little money and they had almost no impact on the election.
So it's like saying, you know, you put a 10 year old kid in a room and say, I would like you to help get Trump elected.
And it turns out the kids from Ukraine and they're like, Ukrainians are trying to get Trump elected.
And you're like, dude.
It's like one person who has literally no impact on what's happening.
But sure enough, they run with the narrative.
So the joke is, they must want to help Trump.
But no, that's obviously a joke.
Because Americans don't care about this, and they're never going to care about this.
So I can only imagine that these people are mentally ill, and they're being voted in by people who are mentally ill.
Well, Brennan wasn't voted in.
But you know, Adam Schiff, Pelosi, whoever else?
You guys, you need to go outside and maybe, like, try talking to a human being.
What are you doing?
Are you, like, sitting on Twitter and just searching for Russia and then, like, oh, there's some people tweeting about Russia.
It must be a thing.
I got here at Galpol.
Now, I know it's just... I don't like using single pollsters.
I like using aggregates, so I'll show you the aggregate in a second.
Most important problem.
You might wonder, where are Americans' minds at?
What is the most important problem to an American?
I gotta say, surprisingly, this shocked me.
Because all of the big problems people used to be concerned about in the past few years are no longer concerns for them.
It's just strange.
Maybe it's because Donald Trump is winning and taking care of what he said he was going to take care of.
Which brings me to believe that Americans, for the most part, like Donald Trump, want him re-elected.
A lot of these polls are wrong, this poll could be wrong, so I don't even know.
But I'll tell you, based on Gallup's poll, And using their internal data compared to their internal data, I'll tell you this.
Russia is fake news.
It's complete garbage and nobody cares.
Trump's approval rating is above water for the first time.
I believe it's the first time for Gallup.
At 49% approval and 48% disapproval, meaning a couple people, you know, not a couple, but a couple percentage points are unsure.
But now Trump is, you know, positive.
The first thing I'm going to show you.
Percentage of Americans mentioning economic issues as the nation's most important problem is down to 10%.
During the financial crisis in 2008, 86% said so.
And we can see when Trump got elected, it was 40%.
In 2016, it was 4, or around the time he got elected.
And it's fallen 10%.
10% of Americans think the economy is the nation's most important problem.
90% of the people in this country are happy with the economy.
What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?
So, economic problems rated around 10%, like I said, and the economy in general gets 2%.
Then there's gap between rich and poor, 2%.
This is for January 2020.
Unemployment, 1% of the country is concerned about unemployment.
Why?
The numbers are better than ever!
The greatest numbers in our lifetime, says Jim Cramer of CNBC.
What do we have here?
The federal budget deficit.
Nobody cares.
Taxes.
Nobody cares.
Lack of money.
Nobody cares.
Wage issues.
Nobody cares.
Non-economic problems.
82% of the country are concerned about non-economic issues.
The government and poor leadership is at 28%.
Now perhaps you're thinking, but Tim, maybe 28% of the population are concerned about Donald Trump.
Now that would be fair.
If Trump's approval rating is 49% according to Gallup, and 48% disapprove, then a certain amount of those people probably disapprove of Trump.
Except the government poor leadership may very well be about Pelosi, and Schumer, and Nadler, and the Democrats.
And I'll tell you why.
Because the economy is working, and Donald Trump's aggregate approval rating on economic issues is 55.7%.
39.4% disapprove, but the spread is plus 16.3.
Now Donald Trump's aggregate approval rating is 46, the highest it's ever been, tied for the highest it's ever been.
Disapproval is 50.9% with a sharp drop recently in his disapproval rating.
If there are people who absolutely hate the president, But they're still going to give him credit on the economy?
I think it's fair to say that when it comes to government and poor leadership, 28% of Americans are concerned about it.
A decent percentage, I don't know how much, it's not about Trump, it's about the Democrats.
And it's probably due to these psychotic stories.
I want to point this out again, and we'll read the Russia stuff, we will, I'll read that Brennan garbage.
Or actually, no, we'll read the New York Times, because we'll see what they're claiming, and I'll go, I'll tear this apart.
But the funny thing about this whole story is how they say the classified briefing, you know, Trump was mad because Democrats would weaponize it, and then right on cue, someone from the administration leaks the report and what Trump said to the New York Times, and absolutely, it's become weaponized by the Democrats.
The fact that the media is putting this out proves it.
There was a story that broke a couple days ago.
An absolute piece of garbage fake news.
Claiming that Donald Trump offered a pardon to Julian Assange in exchange for a cover-up of Russia's involvement in the DNC hack.
This was completely made up.
It's remarkable how made up it was.
I just... I don't even know what's going on anymore.
These people have lost the plot.
So I'll tell you what really happened.
Because a new story came out clarifying.
Oh, how is it that always happens?
Bombshell!
Trump demanded cover-up of Russia involvement in WikiLeaks and offered a pardon to Julian Assange.
Never happened.
Here's what really happened.
A lawyer for Julian Assange said that ex-Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Had a meeting with Assange and said that if he provided evidence that Russia wasn't involved, then Trump would give him a pardon or something to that effect.
They then twisted that quote into Trump-demanded cover-up because that's their, you know, that's the lie, that's the framing device.
And then a day later, here comes the real news.
Rohrabacher, of his own volition, Said to Julian Assange, basically, if you're claiming Russia wasn't involved, then prove it and I'll present this evidence to Trump and see if he'll give you a pardon.
And nothing ever happened.
How did we get from that story three years ago, which was already reported and everyone knew about, to a bombshell today claiming Trump demanded a cover-up?
And you go on Reddit and you read this stuff and it's just like, you know, you know what, man?
I'm gonna be a bit facetious, but I sometimes wonder about why they banned Alex Jones.
Because they're like, this guy's a conspiracy theorist, he's harmful, whatever, and boy did they come after him hard.
They banned him from literally everything.
Meanwhile, you go on Reddit, and it's just, these people are like drool-dripping morons in the corner bashing their head on the wall, who believe insane garbage, and they don't read it, but I gotta blame the press, man, I really do.
So when you look at what Americans care about, poor leadership is one.
I think a large portion of this is Pelosi.
I do.
Because there was a poll done in 2018 where half of Democrats said Pelosi needs to go.
So I think a large portion that they're mad at the Democrats' failures.
I mean, because even if they're mad at Trump, I'm pretty sure a lot of them are angry that Democrats have been ineffective and unable to actually do anything.
And then you have people like Jeff Van Drew quitting the Democratic Party.
And then you have, you know, the fact that all these moderate Democrats ran on kitchen table issues like health care, and then immediately were like, but orange man bad.
So how many people are just fed up with this?
The economy is great.
No one cares about economic issues anymore.
Life is good.
Unemployment is down.
They are loving it.
Their biggest concern now is government poor leadership.
I'm biased here.
But I'm going to go ahead and say, I think, for me, this absolutely does reflect my concerns right now.
Life is great.
Business is booming.
Everyone I talk to is having a grand old time.
Making more money than I've ever made.
The economy?
Good news.
What am I angry about?
What am I pissed off about?
The Democrats.
I mean, duh.
It's been that way for a while, right?
You get it.
But look at what they've been doing.
My biggest complaint has been that instead of dealing with, say, immigration, healthcare, poverty, unifying the country, they just scream as loud as they can that the orange man is bad.
And they're not saying words, it's just reee.
That's all they're doing.
Scowling and shrieking, tearing up papers, and dancing around like chickens with their head cut off.
Meanwhile, Trump's cracking jokes, having a good old time, and the economy is booming.
I'm going to show you something I've been sitting on for a while.
I don't know if I was going to do a video about it.
This is a tweet from Andrew C. Johnston, who goes by AtDatacrat.
Political distribution of journalists based on their Twitter networks.
From a new paper by John Holben.
The modal journalist is somewhere between Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Are you kidding me?
Did you see what Joe Rogan and... Alright, so last year, I was on a podcast with Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey, if I got it.
And one of the things that came up was that in 2016, journalists on the left only follow journalists on the left, but conservative journalists follow both.
It stands to reason that the data shows that is still the case.
This graph you're looking at is the perfect example of how insane everyone is and why they're insane.
The average Twitter user, right here in the middle.
And then you have the median Senate Republican.
Mitt Romney, for some reason, is further right.
But again, this is based on who they follow, not their personal opinions.
This is significant not for Mitt Romney or for the median Republican because we know what their opinions are.
This is not saying Mitt Romney is more conservative than the average Republican.
Not at all.
It's saying that who he follows on Twitter is more conservative.
Journalist ideology.
Lower equals more liberal.
So over here, you can see Ocasio-Cortez follows very far-left people.
Bernie Sanders follows pretty far-left people.
And journalists follow a similar network in between them.
This means, as far as I can tell, I could be wrong about this, it seems that most journalists, or the largest concentration of journalists, are following far-left personalities.
They're not paying attention to what's really going on.
They're not listening to what conservatives have to say.
That's where they are, and that's what they listen to.
You're then going to find them skewing everything and producing stories like this.
Why?
Because that's who they're following on Twitter.
They are trapped in a bubble of the fringe.
But it actually makes sense.
Let me tell you why.
Why is the Russian narrative now re-emerging?
22% of Americans are on Twitter.
20% of Twitter users produce 80% of the tweets.
20% of Twitter users, no no no, what is it, yeah, 20% produce, no no no, is it 20?
I think it's 10% of Twitter users produce 80% of the tweets.
So I will say right away, the average Twitter user is just listening.
Then you have around 2.2% of actual Americans producing tweets.
Of that, we can split it around half because the left does have more presence on Twitter.
About 1.2% is left-leaning.
And about half of that is the resistance.
What does that bring you to?
About 0.5% of people that are tweeting about this stupid insanity.
And lo and behold, When we look down at what Americans really care about, we can see the situation with Russia has an asterisk.
Well, that's not a number.
An asterisk?
What does that mean?
Gallup tells us that at less than 0.5%, percentages total more than 100 due to multiple mentions.
And there you have it.
Less than 0.5% of this country, according to Gallup, cares about what is happening with Russia.
You want to know what's really scary?
And why the New York Times is complete gutter trash?
Because the situation with China is blank.
Nobody cares.
That, to me, is freakish.
China is doing really, really messed up stuff.
I mean, come on.
First of all, we got a trade war.
We got tariffs.
That's a problem.
We got... I can't say the name of the infectious pandemic.
I kid you not, I can't say it.
YouTube banned basically the mention of the word.
And we have what they've done in the Uyghur camps and other horrifying atrocities, you know, in Western China and the South China Sea.
And Americans don't seem to care.
That to me is terrifying.
And it shows me that the media has failed.
Utterly and completely failed.
I think it's fair to say that conservatives are concerned about it.
Tucker Carlson talks about China all the time.
Why is it that China is literally engaging in espionage cyber attacks and targeting our country?
They've been doing it for a while.
They hacked Google a while back.
We're uncovering that China is secretly giving money to universities and to professors, and there's corporate espionage.
These are direct attacks against us.
They're pressing the U.S.
military and other jurisdictions in the South China Sea.
They're doing horrifying things.
Yet the media doesn't seem to care.
They say Trump is wrong to go after China.
They attacked Tom Cotton because he was concerned about the Chinese Communist Party lying about a certain pandemic.
So they said it's a fringe conspiracy theory being pushed by those who view China as a threat.
Why would the New York Times defend China and say they're not a threat when they're literally spying on us and stealing our intellectual property and our technology?
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's a fact.
We've been facing cyber attacks from China for, what, like the past decade?
You can actually just go online and watch, you know, mock, like, simulated intrusions because what they do is they'll take the date of the intrusion and then create, like, a visualization of it.
And nobody cares.
Americans are more concerned, barely, about Russia, a country that did nothing.
Not a single vote was changed.
There were some Russians that were running Facebook pages, apparently, and it was promoting, you know, left and right-wing causes, sowing discord, but it was particularly ineffective.
The intelligence agencies themselves said this.
So you know what, man?
I got a bunch of stories pulled up.
Some of them are funny.
Like, one's about, like, dating in your 30s, and I think it's hilarious.
There's one about ICE.
The New York Times.
John Brennan.
These people are saying we're in a full-blown national security crisis.
Over Russia?
Are you nuts?
Are you paying attention to what's being testified before the Senate, what the UK is testifying to Parliament, or however they do it in the UK, I don't know, about what's happening with the Chinese pandemic?
People are freaking out.
They expect us to get worse.
You want to talk about a national security crisis?
It's not Russia, you crazy lunatics.
I don't know, man.
I kind of feel... I'll give you... I'll give him this.
I sit here and complain about China.
I've made many videos about China.
And sure enough, no one in this country cares either.
But I think it is absolutely fair to say, based on the facts, that if you're more concerned about Russia than you are China, then you've been lied to by an inept or complicit media.
In the end, you know what Americans are mad about right now?
Poor leadership.
And if the economy is roaring and no one cares about the economy anymore, I'm pretty sure Americans aren't super concerned about Donald Trump.
At least for the most part.
Obviously a lot of people hate him.
But when it comes to economic issues, even the people who hate him are giving him credit.
Leave it there.
Russia.
Narrative.
Nonsense.
Here we go again.
I'll see you all at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
Latest story from The Hill.
Undocumented immigrants arrested in California courthouse despite state law.
They say the 2019 bill prevents civil arrests on courthouse grounds while the person has a hearing pending.
The general idea they're claiming in California with their sanctuary law is that if there's a threat of deportation, these people won't participate in the criminal justice system.
But I gotta say, criminals typically don't participate in the criminal justice system if they don't have to.
I mean, a lot do.
They'll show up for their court cases, but typically when they're trying to get a reduced sentence or they're trying to win.
It's also a violation of the criminal justice system to be here illegally to commit crimes and then try to avoid deportation.
So it's a bit paradoxical to claim they will avoid the criminal justice system while you actually help them do it.
It's kind of like laying down and just letting them avoid the criminal justice.
It doesn't make sense.
But there is a bigger debate here.
I want to be fair.
Does the federal government have the right to supersede state laws?
It's a really interesting debate.
I've heard people bring up a bunch of different, I guess, arguments for this.
Notably, having to do with the legalization of recreational pot use in California, or medicinal use.
Because when they were doing these medicinal dispensaries, the DEA was still raiding a lot of these shops.
And a lot of people complained that if California wants something to be legal, the federal government can't intervene.
But there is another counter-argument.
If what California is doing will make ease of access for breaking the law and going into other states committing federal crimes easier than the Feds do, it's tough.
Let's read this.
And I want to come back to this argument because I think there's a really easy argument as to why ICE does have a right to arrest illegal immigrants when they enter the United States as a whole.
It's a country illegally.
It's a federal crime.
So, ICE is going after people who have already broken federal crimes.
You get it?
I understand there's still an argument with dispensaries and some states wanting to make things legal when it's not legal federally, but we'll get to that.
I think there's a good argument there, but let's read.
The Hill reports.
U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reportedly violated a California state law that prohibits immigration officers from arresting undocumented immigrants without a judicial warrant on Tuesday, according to the AP.
Two people were arrested in the Sonoma County Superior Court in Northern California, one of whom was supposedly awaiting a hearing.
This goes directly against Assembly Bill No.
668, the law that Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom signed in October 2019.
The bill reiterates California's power to regulate what occurs on state courthouse grounds and fundamentally declares that, quote, a person shall not be subject to civil arrest in a courthouse while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in a courthouse.
Only the presence of a valid judicial warrant would allow officers, either ICE or other law enforcement, to arrest someone awaiting a hearing in California.
ICE justified the arrests by saying that California's law does not supersede federal law, which still grants immigration enforcement officers authority to arrest removable aliens inside the United States.
So I do think, based on our system, the federal government supersedes California for the reasons I stated before.
When someone comes in illegally to California, that's a crime against the entire country, not just California.
One of the issues that—I'll get to it—is if California won't enforce their borders, then you're going to have all of these people who want to enter the country illegally using California's lax security.
And then just entering the country easily because we don't have borders between states.
I think I have an argument that many people... I think I have a solution to this problem that's going to work for the left and the right.
And we'll get to it.
You guys are going to love this.
Our officers will not have their hands tied by sanctuary rules when enforcing immigration laws to remove criminal aliens from our communities.
David Jennings, ICE's field office director in San Francisco, said in a statement quoted in AP.
The Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch and San Francisco District Attorney Chessa Boudin protested the arrests.
Ravage was quoted in Patch as saying, That's actually a good point.
have no place in the court building, where they have the effect of scaring away witnesses
and victims and undermines the district attorney's office ability to hold the guilty accountable
and protect crime victims.
That's actually a good point.
We'll address this.
Sonoma County General Counsel Bruce Goldstein further called the arrests lawless since no
necessary judicial records were included.
Both arrested men are from Mexico, according to Justin Moore, a public affairs specialist
Department of Homeland Security.
Moore explained the men had been arrested before.
Antonio Hernandez Lopez has pending charges against him, including domestic abuse, a DUI, and witness tampering.
Lopez also has prior convictions for a 2005 DUI and a 2009 local ordinance conviction, according to Moore.
The other man arrested was Pedro Romero Aguirre, who, according to Moore, also has five criminal convictions spanning more than a decade, such as trespassing, driving without a license, and a DUI.
It's a good argument if you have a witness, someone whose only crime committed was illegal entry.
Let's say they're a dreamer, let's say they're someone who just entered the country illegally or overstayed a visa.
If they're going to be a witness to a crime and help the criminal justice system put away some bad people, I can understand that argument.
If they think ICE will come and deport them when they're trying to help the criminal justice system, that can actually interfere.
However, in this case, bad argument.
These guys are literally convicted criminals.
One guy who's actually got pending charges.
They are being arrested because law enforcement is coming after them for them having committed these crimes.
But let's talk about my solution.
I have a grand solution and there are a couple other, I'm going to bring you into a bunch of other stories because I think the Democrats have lost the plot on the border issue.
But I was thinking about, you know, 10, 15 years ago, or however long it was ago, and I was talking to my friends about medicinal marijuana use in California.
The state said, we think this should be legal.
Our people want to use this product.
And the DEA would still go in and raid these dispensaries, even though they were operating legally under California law.
The argument was that the federal law supersedes California.
As much as Obama said, we're going to stop doing this, they were still doing this.
And there is a good argument.
If someone can go to these dispensaries and get easy access to lots of, you know, federally banned substances, they can easily then cross state lines and, you know, then breaking federal law.
Having bought it in the first place would break federal law.
But then they can easily bring it to other states where it isn't legal, thus creating a problem for the federal government that is trying to regulate the substance.
First and foremost, I don't think they should be regulating these things.
And I'm glad to see that across the country, we're getting a little bit more liberty in what people decide to do in their own private business.
Now, I'm not a libertarian on the issue.
I think there should be some pretty heavy restrictions and regulations on these kinds of things.
But let's talk about immigration, because I'm just using it as an example.
The point I'm trying to bring up is a lot of people were mad about it.
But now we have something similar.
It's different, okay?
But there's similarities.
Here's my solution.
Build a border around California.
Boom!
Problem solved in every capacity.
If California wants to be a sanctuary state, they're gonna have lax border protections, they're not gonna deport people, then literally just put border checks around California.
I'm not seriously saying we should do it.
It'd be ridiculously expensive.
Hey, but if Trump wants to build the wall, And California won't adhere to federal law, and they're making it easier for illegal immigrants to come into the country and exploit, you know, taxpayer-funded resources and infrastructure.
Well, there you go.
Problem solved.
You solved the medicinal marijuana problem, you solved the immigration problem.
If somebody wants to buy something at a dispensary in California, they come to that border checkpoint and there's going to be a federal border guard saying, no, no, we've walled off California.
Now, you don't need A passport to travel through?
Actually, you might.
You gotta prove you're an American citizen, right?
Because that's what they're trying to do?
I'm kidding, by the way.
But you get the point.
If California is opening the door to a lot of these problems, and they won't enforce the law that negatively impacts the rest of the country, then what should the federal government do to deal with this?
It's an interesting question.
I think when I was younger, I would have been much more in line with, you know, defy the federal government and because I'm a milquetoast liberal, I've fallen more on the reform side.
Vote for your, you know, vote for the people you think will represent you properly and help pass the laws you want.
But I gotta tell you something, man.
Just because I think certain substances should be legal, doesn't mean they should be legal.
Because I recognize other people disagree, and I think those people are wrong.
But you know what?
I'm not an emperor.
I'm not God.
My morality does not supersede literally anyone else's.
And I think a conversation, intellectual debate, is the right way to solve these issues.
I would like to see this country become more libertarian-minded in certain respects.
But if someone disagrees with me, I'm not going to show up with dudes in jackboots.
That's what the left wants to do, apparently.
I don't know.
They want to come and enforce their ideology with people wearing ski masks with crowbars clubbing people on the head.
No, I think if there's people I disagree with, the best thing we can do is debate this and come to a cooperative conclusion.
That's why I'm a lefty libertarian.
I'm a political compass.
I'm pretty much a political liberal because I recognize hard realities, but my idea of a good place to live is convincing other people Not necessarily to agree with you that you're right, but to be willing to work with you and give you a chance.
There are certain instances where I talk to a conservative and say, OK, I'm not going to win this one.
Let's do this.
Let's try it your way.
Let's see how it goes.
And if it works, I'll back off.
Let's try this one other thing my way.
And if it works, then you back off.
Let's compromise and figure out how to work together even though we know we disagree.
The challenge is the increasing polarization.
But here's what I want to show you.
The left has absolutely drifted far, far away.
Very far away.
The parties have flipped.
The New Yorker.
The New Yorker.
Okay, this is like a pretty left-wing publication.
The Case for Open Borders.
I kid you not.
From yesterday.
In a new graphic non-fiction book, a libertarian economist conjures an alternative reality in which immigration is unlimited all over the world.
Bernie Sanders in 2015 said open borders was a Koch Brothers proposal.
And now here we are.
We know that there are libertarians, you know, free market people, very, you know, anarcho, right-wing, whatever you want to call them, saying open borders is a good thing and imaginary borders don't make sense, all this stuff, yada yada.
I disagree.
I think borders are designed to protect a community of people who have, you know, share resources and common interests, things like that.
Do we want global access to everything?
I think in the future it'd be great if we were unified under a set of, you know, founding principles that people could agree to.
But here's the problem.
The principles I want and agree with are American.
And we have this great thing called the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, all that good stuff.
A lot of countries don't have that.
In some countries you go to prison for telling a joke.
I do not want these, you know, I do not want dangerous ideologues, smugglers, and criminals exploiting my community.
So is building the wall the answer?
I don't know.
You know, look, I haven't heard a good argument from the left other than it's expensive.
Sure, I guess.
But we can do it, so... I don't know.
But I do think we're Americans.
And we're not yet at the utopian future these people think they will have with open borders.
This story from The New Yorker.
They're talking about a libertarian's view on it.
And that's fine, but the libertarian view is economic.
They're talking about how people would be able to freely move about, work in open businesses and other places.
But what you're not considering are the lunatic ideologues who want to strip away civil rights from people.
Look, in America, we grant civil rights and equal access to people of varying marginalized positions, to put it mildly.
It was 1967 that miscegenation laws were finally struck down by the Supreme Court, allowing my family to have free access to this great country, which is supposed to be free for everybody, all men created equal, yet we had gender segregation in civics, voting rights, things like that.
We didn't have women's suffrage.
We had racial tenets going back hundreds of years.
We're getting rid of these things.
We're improving.
We're doing a really, really, really great job of it, in my opinion.
But there are many places in the world that don't grant these civil rights to people.
Some of these people are dangerous zealots who would come here and do very dangerous things.
So you know what?
We decided because we are not a global unified world, we have borders for more reasons than just economics.
Notably, this first story where ICE arrested undocumented immigrants Who had already committed several crimes, like driving drunk?
Look, man, it's bad enough we have to deal with our own citizens who commit crimes.
But why would we open up the door to other people not a part of our community to commit crimes here?
We'd say, listen, There are people who are born here, who are part of our community, who grew up with our culture.
We don't like that they commit crimes, but you know what?
They're from here, and we have to figure out how to deal with those people.
But if you come here as a guest from somewhere else, commit these crimes, nah, you get in the boot.
Sorry, man.
You've taken advantage of our goodwill.
But here's where it gets even, I guess, stranger.
Illegal immigrants in Cambridge won't be arrested for unlicensed driving.
Are you kidding?
What do you mean?
Regular Americans can get arrested for not driving without a license.
So now they're increasingly pushing the barrier over... Look, we're headed towards lawlessness.
I know it's a bit hyperbolic.
Maybe I'm exaggerating.
But you're literally saying, like, well, these people can break the law and don't arrest them.
That's literally what California is saying.
These people have broken the law, and we don't want law enforcement to arrest them, so we made a law saying federal agents can't actually arrest criminals, people who violated federal law.
What?!
I'll tell you what, man.
You want to have an argument about state law versus federal law, I'm listening.
But can the state actually tell the feds the feds aren't legally allowed to enforce federal law?
I don't think so.
Like, the argument about the dispensaries is that California said dispensaries are good.
I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure this is not the case, that California made a law saying the feds can't enforce federal law against us.
They just said, we want this legal, and the feds came and enforced federal law anyway.
This is different.
This is them saying the feds literally broke state law.
Alright, so what do you want to do, California?
Want us to cede?
I gotta be honest, a lot of people in this country won't care if you did.
And maybe then we'll actually have to build a border barrier around California and the rest of the United States.
Interestingly, Mick Mulvaney recently said that the U.S.
is desperate for more legal immigrants.
And I do want to read a little bit about this, because legal immigrants are very different from illegal immigrants, and that's an important point.
And a lot of people are trying to use this to claim it like discredits Trump, because the narrative game they play on the left is that they combine illegal and legal immigrants into the same category, and they're not.
The people in California who committed several crimes, including I believe felonies, who are being deported are not the same as a hard-working legal immigrant who wants to come to the U.S.
to get a good job.
So I'm just going to read the lead here.
They say, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told a crowd at a private gathering in England on Wednesday night that the Trump administration needs more immigrants for the U.S.
economy to continue growing.
According to an audio recording of his remarks obtained by the Washington Post, he said, Well, that makes a whole lot of sense, to be honest.
more people.
We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we've had in our nation over the
last four years.
We need more immigrants.
The Trump administration wants those immigrants to come in a legal fashion, Mulvaney said,
according to the recording.
Well, that makes a whole lot of sense, to be honest.
Now, there are a lot of people who don't want immigration, period.
Trump's talked about letting everybody come in, but legally.
Legally, he says.
This is good news.
By curbing illegal immigration, as much as Trump has done, they're going to expedite the process of bringing in legal immigrants.
So think about it this way.
If you have a thousand people waiting in line to come into this country and the U.S.
is saying, we can't because the people who jumped the line are clogging up the system.
Now that Trump has stopped that, we can actually move the legal immigrants faster and better track who's coming in, where they can work, what they can do.
And that's a good thing.
That's a great thing.
We can also make sure we're not going to get criminals and people who might be unvaccinated or sick.
This is exactly what we wanted to happen.
So it makes sense.
Of course, the last thing I'll end on as we talk about the weird world of immigration today.
Protesters at the Nevada Democratic Debate were immigrant rights activists.
This is the thing that gets me confused the most.
How we went from the Obama administration in 2016 to now about four years later, a little bit less than four years later, and what Obama did is considered wrong.
They are booing Biden, Biden's apologizing, saying it was a mistake, we shouldn't have done it.
Maybe that's why Barack Obama won't endorse Joe Biden.
Because Biden is supposed to be the moderate, but he's actually rejecting the policies of the Obama administration.
What happened in these few years that made everyone on the left lose their minds?
I think I know.
No matter what Trump does, it's bad.
So when Jon Stewart from The Daily Show, now retired, excuse me, called Baltimore an S-hole, They left.
Because Jon Stewart, good.
Funny man, good, right?
When Donald Trump says the same thing, they called Trump racist.
So now that Donald Trump is saying, we gotta curb immigration, but people can come here legally, they had to tell him that was bad.
They have nothing to offer the American people, so the only thing they think they can do is contrast Trump with conflicting policy ideas that Americans don't care for.
I think Donald Trump's, his character makes people uneasy.
But when it comes to policy, he's actually grabbed a lot of what Americans want to see happen.
So the only thing Democrats can do when offering a policy is to say, the orange man bad?
Everything he offers is bad?
Now listen, I'll tell you what.
What the Democrats should have done is complimented Donald Trump's policy and criticized his behavior and the character that he brings to the White House.
And I'd be willing to bet they'd win.
Too bad they couldn't do it, though.
They were too busy spinning around in circles because Donald Trump tweets and plays them like a cheap violin.
He knows exactly what to say to keep them off base, and it's worked the entire time.
So, the Democrats, you reap what you sow.
But I'll wrap this all up, okay?
Let me know what you think, actually, because this one, you know, it's a head-scratcher to me.
And I mean this.
Should the federal government have a right to supersede state law?
Think about the 2A argument in Virginia with certain districts saying, we're not going to enforce these state laws.
Should the smaller jurisdictions have a right to say, no way, these laws are unjust?
And is it wrong for the feds to come and arrest people?
I'll throw it to you.
My opinion on this is that if these people have committed crimes by entering the country illegally and then by actually committing felonies, I don't think California should be able to pass a law telling federal law enforcement agents they're not allowed to enforce laws.
If California wants to make what these men did legal, California can do that.
I think the feds can still enforce it.
If you want to change it, let's have a conversation and see what will change, but I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCast.
There's my other channel, and I will see you all then.
Never forget that in the media world, framing is everything.
They can tell you something really, really good in a bad way to make it seem like it's bad when it's actually really good.
Case in point, black support for Donald Trump.
This NBC News story, it's a poll actually, Talks about the great gains Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden have made with black voters nationally, saying Sanders gains ground on Biden with black voters nationally.
Trump's approval rating with black voters stands at just 14 percent.
Just 14 percent.
It's the word just I find interesting.
You know why?
Do you know what percent of the black vote Donald Trump received in 2016?
Eight percent.
He has nearly doubled his support in the black community.
And not only that, the story shows that he literally or he basically doubled his support among black men, standing at around 24%.
That's huge.
That's absolutely huge.
Look, man, Trump's not perfect.
But what always drives me, what one of the biggest motivations I have for, you know, political commentary is how the media lies about what's going on.
And they do it in sneaky ways.
They take data that's really, really good for the Trump campaign, and they make it sound bad.
Let's read the story, and I've got some other tweets I'll show you.
Actually, yeah, okay, anyway.
They say, as the Democratic primary battle turns to states with more racial diversity than the first two nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, newly released data from NBC News' Wall Street Journal poll finds that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders now enjoys similar levels of support among Black Democratic primary voters as former Vice President Joe Biden does, while all of their other rivals, with the exception of former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, have failed to gain any meaningful traction with the crucial voting bloc.
Absolutely important to point out as well.
It's very, very good news for Bernie Sanders, who struggled to gain support among the black community.
So as we can see, that is good news.
But they're not framing it as bad news.
I mean, maybe later in the story they'll be more fair to Trump.
But of course, framing is the name of the game.
Let's read more.
But the same poll also shows that all black registered voters give President Donald Trump an approval rating of just 14%.
And they would overwhelmingly chose, they would have overwhelmingly chose, any of the Democratic candidates over him in a general election.
Now, there is not a direct correlation between approval rating and Donald Trump.
What does that mean?
They give him an approval rating of 14%.
Does that mean that someone is asked on a scale of 1 to 100 how much they oppose the president or disapprove and they said 14?
Or is it that when they ask 100 people, 14% said they support Donald Trump?
I'm pretty sure approval rating is calculated by asking people if they generally approve.
So they do something where they'll say like, somewhat approve, slightly approve, disapprove, you know, but you know how those things work.
If 14% say they approve of Donald Trump, but last time only 8% voted, it's good news.
They should be writing like, interestingly, Donald Trump's support has increased since the 2016 election, now sitting around 14%.
And while low, it does show that Donald Trump's efforts to gain ground among the black community is paying off at least somewhat.
Maybe not as much as he actually wants.
But he's tried very, very hard to gain ground in this manner.
Now, when you look at the actual data, apparently it's 24% men, which shows probably Kanye West's impact.
And I really mean it.
I'm not trying to downplay anything here.
Kanye West is extremely influential and popular among a lot of people.
Outside of the black community, Kanye West probably had a massive impact on Donald Trump's approval rating, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.
Dude's famous, especially among evangelicals and the evangelical black community.
There was a really, really awesome video I saw where Kanye brought in Sia, and she sang a gospel version of, I think, I can't remember what song it was, but it was really, really cool.
That's influence.
That's going to work.
That's going to help Trump.
Let's read more.
They say according to the newly released data, Biden has the support of 31% of black Democratic primary voters, while Sanders captures the backing of 29%.
The NBC News Wall Street Journal poll used an oversample of black voters to gain greater insight into their views of the 2020 field.
Because the margin of error for black Democratic primary voters alone, a sample size of 139 respondents, stands at a high 8.31%.
It is difficult to differentiate the true levels of support for each of the candidates.
So, theoretically, Trump could have no support or massive support.
Sure, we'll see how things turn out.
Still, the close margin shows that Sanders has made inroads in a community previously dominated by Biden.
Aggregated data from 2019 shows that Biden led Sanders among these voters by as much as 30 percentage points in NBC News, Wall Street Journal, and national polls last year.
Bloomberg, who has saturated the TV and radio airwaves with more than $300 million in personal spending over the last 10 weeks, received about half as much support with black primary voters as either Biden or Sanders, while all other Democratic candidates were mired in single digits.
So, I'm not super interested in where we're at with Klobuchar or Buttigieg.
I really want to get down to the Donald Trump numbers.
They say this, While the poll may show muted enthusiasm for much of the Democratic field among Black voters, one candidate elicits particularly strong disapproval – President Donald Trump.
Trump's approval rating among all Black voters stands at just 14%, with 84% disapproving, including 69% who say they disapprove of him strongly.
The president fares slightly better in their ratings of his economic performance with 23% approving and 62% disapproving of how he handles the economy.
Which brings me to the big question when it comes to elections.
If you hate somebody, will you vote for the economy?
You might disapprove of Donald Trump, but if 23% approve of the economy and that's what they're really after, I think they'll still pull the lever for Donald Trump.
You know, a hard truth for a lot of people on the right is that women don't like Trump.
I think Ben Shapiro said something about it.
People on the right got mad.
in 2020. There is a significant gender gap in views of the president among black men.
24% approve, 72% disapprove, while among black women, just 6% approve and 93% disapprove.
You know, a hard truth for a lot of people on the right is that women don't like Trump.
I think Ben Shapiro said something about it. People on the right got mad. It's true. Nearly
70% of millennial women are Democrats because they do not like Donald Trump.
They think he's gross.
They think he's a bigot.
I just did a sit-down with YouTuber Ariel Scarcella, who announced she was leaving the left, and she said Trump is bad on women.
I think that's one of Trump's weaknesses, and I don't know how he improves that because it's Trump.
But I think you can see it in the data.
Now look, this information is still really good news for Trump because previous data suggested that Trump had 4% approval among black women.
So even that is up about 50%.
But the 24% approval for Donald Trump among black men, that's pretty incredible.
I'm going to show you some tweets here.
Abby D. Philip, she is a CNN political correspondent, tweeted, So they highlight that section I just showed.
NBC Wall Street Journal poll of black voters, the gap between black men and black women
in their approval of Trump is very notable.
Different measurement, but it is a much larger gap that existed in 2016 exit poll.
24% of black men approve of Trump versus 6% of black women.
So they highlight that section I just showed.
But take a look at this graph.
Race and gender exit poll.
We can see that black men, for Trump, 13%, and black women, 4%.
I know they're not the same numbers.
It's very, very important to point out.
These are people who actually voted.
Approval doesn't necessarily mean they're going to vote or not vote.
But I think it's fair to say, if people are more likely to approve of Trump on economics, I think economics can be that driving factor for people when they pull that lever, because money talks and BS walks.
So she links to the poll, but we then have this tweet from Michael McAdams, who is a national press secretary for the NRCC, saying, the takeaway is, real Donald Trump has nearly doubled his approval among black men.
If this holds, he's nearly guaranteed re-election.
This is fascinating.
The saying goes that if a Republican can get 20% support among the black community, a Democrat will never win again.
I know they say the again.
I think it just basically means if Trump can get around 20%, he won.
Here's the thing, he's at 14%.
So the guarantee?
Okay, he's six points off his guaranteed re-election.
But you combine the economy, moderates swinging for Trump, pushing away from the left, with 14% approval among the black community, and I think it stands to reason Trump's guarantee is there.
So I'll say it one more time.
He's not at 20%, but 14 is still really, really close with a long way to go until the November election.
And if the Democrats keep playing silly games, and if Trump keeps pushing on his campaign to speak with black voters, I think he's going to be successful in cracking that 20% number.
Keeping in mind, Three other polls have Trump at 36%.
This is the outlier.
Well, actually, the three may be outliers.
I'm not sure.
It's hard to know because there's a lot of polls.
But when you have three different polls showing around 30% support, you can't discount them as just static, right?
Every so often in all of aggregate polling, you'll find one spikes or dips really hard in a certain direction.
And you've got to be careful.
That's why aggregates are important.
But this is now another poll.
It's not nearly the same.
They're saying it has half as much support as Emerson did.
But it is showing that Trump, I think if we were going to calculate a margin of error, with three polls saying he's above 20%, one saying he's slightly below, I think it's fair to say he's probably at that number.
Democrats will never win if they lose a tiny fraction of the black community.
They say in hypothetical head-to-head matchups, overwhelming majorities of these voters also say they would choose the Democratic candidate.
Joe Biden leads with them over Trump, 89% to 8%.
Sanders leads him 87% to 7%.
And Bloomberg leads him 84% to 11%.
Klobuchar and Buttigieg fare slightly worse, but would still enjoy about three-quarters of black support in these matchups.
Buttigieg leads over Trump, 75% to 16%.
Klobuchar leads 77% to 15%.
to 16, Klobuchar leads 77 to 15.
I guess we can only wait because we're still just about 8 and a half, 9 months away from
truly figuring out what happens.
And I'm just gonna tell y'all right now, time flies.
Time absolutely flies.
Feels like just yesterday the guy got elected.
Actually, I don't know.
It's kind of crazy.
We're getting really, really close to see that the actual You know, I guess decision of the American people.
The media can tell us everything in the world.
But November will be the true deciding factor.
Are the American people happy with Donald Trump?
Or are they upset with him?
The vote will speak.
The vote will tell us.
It's just that.
The media can say whatever they want.
None of it means anything.
Everything I say, meaningless.
We're gonna see truly how people feel come re-election time.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Of course, because of the way I titled this video, I had to.
It's the story.
A lot of people are going to be really, really angry, and probably all of the feminists, because in this story from, or I shouldn't say story, but report, from Glenn Gehr, Ph.D., Psychology Today, women The gender are causing the shift in political discourse, in social justice attitudes.
Cancel culture, people getting banned from colleges.
These things are directly correlated to gender.
And because today women dominate higher education, we are seeing more of these things occur.
When you have slightly more than 50% of a particular body being female, they vote for certain things.
These things end up happening.
It's actually interesting.
But, I could be framing it poorly.
Let me just read for you this Gendered Values in High Education.
Universities have gone through enormous shifts in basic values.
Now, this individual, Glenn, includes a trigger warning saying that I'm going to begin this article presenting a potentially uncomfortable argument.
The rest of this article will try to convince you there might be something to it.
The argument, without understanding the role of gender demographic changes in higher education, it will be impossible to fully understand many of the modern social movements, like trigger warnings, disinvitations, safe spaces on college campuses.
He writes, for me this all started with a noteworthy event in a college class.
At some point the conversation in the class turned to one particular prominent psychologist, who had made some comments that could be interpreted as ethically questionable.
One student in the class indicated that this scholar should not be invited to college campuses to speak in light of the ethically questionable ideas that he had reportedly expressed in one of his writings.
My peers' expression of outrage led to a quiet sea of nodding heads and supportive gestures.
At that point in my academic career, I did not know what to think.
By the end of the class period, based on not having actually read materials related to this reported incident, and having no counter-argument postulated, we had essentially come to the conclusion that the outraged student was right.
This particular scholar should have been banned campus writ large.
We were metaphorically asking for his head.
The background.
They say some of you may find this story surprising.
Some may agree with the viewpoint of the students.
Some may adamantly disagree.
I absolutely disagree.
Bring on the bad ideas.
Let's beat the bad ideas to a pulp.
And some of you may think I am beating a dead horse.
But regardless of one's belief, I have come to realize this anecdote embodies a deep, ongoing politicized debate regarding political correctness and free speech on American college campuses.
The rise of speaker disinvitations, the use of safe spaces and trigger warnings, the increasing liberal homogeneity on campuses, the complex relationship between emotion and reason, and fears of shifting educational values, and of a coddled new generation of college students.
I'ma stop you right here, Mr. Glenn.
A lot of people who are listening to me speak right now are probably rolling their eyes saying, Tim, we all already knew this.
You know why?
Because 70% of millennial women are Democrats.
Okay, it's actually 68% by last tracking, that was Pew Research.
And it's those people that are typically opposed to free speech, who want hate speech laws, who want trigger warnings.
It's not conservatives.
And the millennial left is dominated by women.
So the point this guy is going to make, which he actually has data to support, is that certain characteristics that tend to appear more in women are the same traits that people who are social justice warriors share.
Therefore, it's not 100% that if you're a woman you'll feel these ways, or if you're a man you'll feel certain ways.
But that women tend to be agreeable and less emotionally stable than men, and people who are agreeable and less emotionally stable tend to be social justice activists.
Well, let me read for you.
He goes on to say, there have been many different causal explanations for these movements on campuses, but one landmark diagnosis of this New Age college culture was delivered in Greg Lukanoff's And Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind.
That's the recent book.
Strong recommendation.
I haven't read it myself, but I hear great things.
Rooted in technological overload, over-parenting, lack of free play, high-stakes testing, political polarization, Conformist university policy and left-leaning ideological agendas, the authors argue that the current generation of undergraduate college students have been raised in a way that has uniquely positioned them to embrace a culture of victimization.
In other words, a generation of students who determine truth through subjective feelings are highly sensitive to emotional slights and feel the need to protect the marginalized above and beyond all else.
Let me also add that capitalism plays a role here, as does social policy, welfare policy.
But the capitalism slant is that When these whiny babies screech that someone said a naughty word or has a bad idea, the people who run the college say, the customer is always right and cater to the students.
Instead of being authority figures who say, our product is discipline and intelligence, knowledge and training, they say, look man, we're a business that wants to make money, you're the customer, we'll do whatever you want.
That's what's happening.
Whiny student comes in and says, burn the book, and they say, oh, you're paying the bills, we'll do whatever you say.
They shouldn't do that.
It's a bad product.
Now, these kids' parents need to step in when this starts happening, but they don't, because a lot of what Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, probably pronouncing his name wrong, Lukianoff's research, The Coddling of the American Mind, Snowplow Parents, it's all true.
It's a combination of all these factors.
But what's, let me read.
He says that they posited that the emotional and social needs of students have taken precedence over other academic goals, such as the freedom of intellectual exchange.
Haidt additionally argued that emotional and social values are also taking precedence over the value of pursuing truth.
On the other hand, critics have argued that Lukhanov and Haidt are off the mark.
These writers posited that 1.
The relationship between helicopter parenting, lack of free play, and emotional fragility would mostly apply to economically privileged students.
That other macro-level causal factors of students' emotional turmoil were not addressed, like student debt.
And three, the historical disenfranchisement of distinct student populations in universities must be taken into account when trying to understand the current social movements on campuses.
The point he's bringing up is basically that we looked at all of these different factors and argued, but what we didn't actually look at was gender changes.
Because it's actually a fairly recent phenomenon that the majority of the student body has become female.
I don't think gender plays necessarily a predominant role in whether or not these things will emerge.
I think it's a combination of all the factors.
Because even if you had 48% female, well of course they would still bring these things up if they were concerns.
The reality is, in combination with a majority female student body, and snowplow parenting, entitlement, and a capitalistic enterprise that seeks to gouge students with massive student loans, and then give them whatever they want instead of actually teaching them, you have a corrupt, disgusting system that is failing.
But I really think it's fair to point out, as much as he found a causational link between social justice and gender, or biological sex, I really don't see it as playing a huge role.
Because if the universities maintained authority and said, here's what we do and why we do it, Then it doesn't matter what the makeup of the student body is.
It's not like you see... Like, I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, where you had all-girls high schools.
They weren't overly social justice-oriented.
It was because there was an authority figure telling them, here's what you should and shouldn't do.
But high schools aren't for-profit businesses and colleges typically are.
I mean, to a certain degree.
There's public colleges.
But a lot of colleges require you to choose to send your kid there or choose to go there and pay money.
That system means that the customer will always be right.
Maybe it's because you have a majority student body now that is female.
But in the end, it really comes down to the people who run the system.
And they could say yes or no.
They could easily say, we're not changing these rules and disinviting people.
Stop crying.
And if people don't want to come, you can leave.
Bye bye.
But no, they say, whatever you say, dear, we'll give you whatever you want.
So here's what he did.
He did a study.
He asked about five different moral positions.
You know, should someone come because it doesn't matter how people feel?
Should someone come in the pursuit of academic truth, etc.?
And he says, what we found is that... He says, as always, it's important to address what we can and can't connect from these results.
First, our findings were correlational rather than causational.
Okay, I want to make sure that... I think I may have said it wrong.
He found a correlation, not a causation.
It's unclear if the results from our study directly correspond to behavior in the real world, and three, our measures of academic values are novel and need replication.
So, he says, nevertheless, with these limitations in mind, we generally found that modern college students put a lot of emphasis on their own emotional well-being as a value of their education.
In this study, while most students were Generation Z, he does mention he has a lot of Boomer data, and thus I was able to compare the academic values of younger adult students versus older students.
So, putting the pieces together, I'm trying to go quick.
The results support many of Lukanoff and Haidt's claims regarding the political and social attitudes of university students.
Specifically, conservatism played a central role in predicting all academic values and was the most salient predictor of social justice and emotional well-being values.
Further, generational differences in the value of social justice and emotional well-being were present.
Importantly, we demonstrated and now argue that Lukanoff, Haidt, and other commenters have missed a critical factor, gender.
He says, over the past 50 years, the gender demographics of college campuses have changed enormously.
The ratio between men and women were 58 to 42 percent in the 1970s, while a recent poll in 2017 showed that women now comprise approximately 56 percent of the college population.
In other words, the gender majority of college students in the United States has reversed over the past 50 years.
This demographic change matters because extensive research has shown substantial differences in personality traits, conservatism, and value orientation between men and women.
Women tend to be more liberal than men, score higher on measures of agreeableness and openness, and have lower scores on emotional stability.
And the ratio of women to men in social sciences is far greater than the ratio in the hard sciences.
So that's like psychology versus, say, STEM.
Importantly, the current research demonstrated that 1.
Higher agreeableness predicted higher ratings towards social justice and emotional well-being.
He says 2.
That lower emotional stability predicted higher scores on emotional well-being and social justice and 3.
Lower scores on conservatism predicted higher scores on emotional well-being and social justice and lower on advancing knowledge and academic rigor.
Four, that hard science majors scored higher in advancing knowledge and academic rigor and lower in social justice and emotional well-being.
In other words, the constellation of factors that predicts holding such strong values on emotional well-being and social justice all are conflated with gender.
Generally, compared with men, women tend to hold these values.
Without accounting for gender differences, we miss a central link that appears to connect these disparate trends.
But what he is saying is that we have at least one preliminary study showing gender plays a role in the politics of these universities.
But what I find truly fascinating is the economic policy that results from this desire for emotional well-being.
If men are working in STEM and women are working in psych, it's no surprise that the social justice activists don't want to go to Mars.
And the men do.
It seems like you have an extreme hippy-dippy left, a female perspective of being a happy family living on a farm and smiling, and then you have a more aggressive, capitalistic male perspective of conquering the world and traveling to the stars.
And then there's a sane, rational in-between.
But, I think this is a really important point to be made.
We can talk about snowplow parenting all the time, It seems like there is some correlation between traits typically found in women, which may be social, I'm not saying they're totally biological, maybe a little bit both.
There's a correlation here between the rise of social justice, obviously, feminism, and gender.
I know a lot of people think it's obvious because we saw these trends in politics, but now we have some hard data.
So I'll leave it there, take it for what it will, stick around, I got another video coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The story was truly silly and kind of funny.
The woman who tweeted it was being silly, and it was kind of a joke.
So I saw the silliness of it, I had a chuckle to myself, and I moved on.
But then something interesting happened.
The story became increasingly viral.
Let me tell you what the story is.
Woman's very strange first date sparks Twitter debate.
I never want to feel that way again.
A romance author shared a first date mishap on Twitter last week to very mixed reactions.
Alicia Ray posted that on the day before Valentine's Day, she went on a first date at a coffee shop.
Everything was fine, up until her date went up to the front counter to grab their drink order and returned with two treats.
For himself.
That's the story.
It actually got picked up by Yahoo.
And of course, Alicia was being silly, but of course, on the internet, everything's literal.
So here's what she tweeted.
And this is amazing to me that this went viral.
She's got 20,000 followers, so she's not a random nobody.
She's got a decent following.
She said, Yesterday I met a guy for coffee, and he asked what I'd like to drink, and went and fetched the order.
And he came back with two cake pops and I was like, oh, that's cute.
And then he ate them both in front of me.
So like he's clearly a monster, right?
Obviously, she's joking.
I can't believe people thought this was was serious, but apparently people did.
And I think it's a funny joke.
I do think it's a funny circumstance that shines a light on something interesting.
What's funny about this, when she says he's a monster, is not that he's really a monster.
It's that he bought two cake pops and ate him.
It was rude and inconsiderate.
What's truly fascinating about the story, though, as you may have caught from the title, is that Pronoun Twitter, not every single one of them, but the people who put their pronouns in their Twitter account who are supposed to be intersectional feminists fighting for equality, actually are complaining about this guy.
So hold on a second.
This is what blew my mind.
First, I want to make sure it's very, very clear, Alicia Ray was being silly, and I'm surprised, or I, I'm sorry, I think people are taking her way too seriously.
I think the joke is funny.
He's a monster because he ate a cake pop.
That's the joke.
He's not really a monster.
But there are people, and I'm not going to go through every single one, because I don't want to single out, I don't like singling out small Twitter accounts or whatever, but I checked a few of them.
Sure enough, they're intersectional feminists with pronouns in their accounts, and they're saying things like, let me explain to you why this man was so rude and why this was wrong.
Here's what's funny about it.
I'm confused by this desire for equality but then a demand for a chivalrous man to procure you a treat when you didn't even ask for it.
There was a story that I covered, this was maybe a week ago, about a feminist sociologist Who interviewed a bunch of men and women in Silicon Valley, in San Francisco, and found that although they basically all said they were feminists, when it came to dating, they default to traditional gender roles.
Now that's fascinating, right?
That you have a woman who says, I want to be in an egalitarian relationship, I want to be equal to my partner, but then she straight up says, he's got to pay the bills, he needs to be in control, all of those things.
We also saw another study out of Sweden that said when women get promotions, they're more likely to divorce.
So we certainly have all... and it's not true for men.
The same is not true for men.
When men get promotions, likelihood of divorce does not go up.
It stands to reason that when it comes to relationships, people like traditional gender roles.
Maybe it's a social construct, whatever.
I'm not making an argument.
I'm saying that this is the data they found.
You would think that the people on the furthest left of the spectrum, the pronoun bunch, who have unique pronouns they've made up and talk about all this crazy intersectionality, inequality, and opposing oppression, would push back on this woman's cakepop story and say the man was under no obligation to give you a cakepop because you're a strong woman, right?
No.
They're actually once again defaulting to traditional gender roles.
The man should have gotten you the treat.
He should have unprompted provided you with a cakepop.
Now look, a part of this is actually quite simple.
If anyone, man or woman, date or otherwise, shows up with a bunch of food and eats it in front of you, you might think it's rude.
But I don't think that's the case here.
First of all, she's talking about a date.
And second of all, if my buddy walked in eating candy, I wouldn't be shocked that he didn't give me any.
But if you're on a date with someone, you'd expect them to share.
You're here to share a moment, to spend some time together.
But sure enough, the people who are supposed to be the wokest Default, and claim the man should have done the right thing.
I think this says something.
I'm not gonna pretend like it's scientific data, but I think it shows many of these people are hypocrites, bullies, and they often just want power.
Case in point, the fact that these people are responding saying, you're right, he's a monster.
Now I get it, a lot of people are being silly, but hear me out.
If someone is going to claim that the man was wrong for doing X, let's say they're like, a man called me, you know, he whistled at me and that was wrong.
Okay, sure.
Let's say they go on and defend that women should take charge and be in control.
But then in this circumstance, when it's pointed in a negative direction, they take the stance pointing in a negative direction.
So let me try and clarify this.
What I'm trying to say is, No matter what the circumstances, they're on the righteous side and the other person is bad and wrong.
They can't simply be like, you know, in this instance, I think the guy was actually right.
No, the man is wrong no matter what.
I think the tweet's funny.
I think she's being funny.
I think it is funny.
But I'm surprised that so many people took it seriously.
over this man who was on a date and buys two whole cake pops, which is equal to the number
of people on this date, and doesn't offer a single cake pop to said date.
I think the tweet's funny.
I think she's being funny.
I think it is funny.
But I'm surprised that so many people took it seriously.
And it's, I'm gonna tell you, there's, it's not conservatives.
Well, actually, no, I take that back.
There might be some.
Because it's a more traditional view.
It's a more conservative view that the man should be buying food for his date.
She said, I never want to feel that way again.
I should add, they were Valentine's cake pops with little hearts on them.
If you like my tweet, she then promotes her book, which is what people on Twitter do.
She says, if you're part of the humorless Twitter and have decided to spend days berating me for being clearly the world's least ambitious gold digger, you may not like my books or really anything.
I imagine.
I'm sorry.
Now, here's the crazy thing to me.
There's actually people claiming that she's being, like, entitled for joking about not getting a cake pop.
Look, man, this should just be proof that everyone is insane.
But let me just get to the point here, and I have another story I want to go through in a similar vein.
I will stress that she is telling a joke.
Please, everyone, calm down.
It's so dumb.
But the point I'm seeing here is that this is just another bit of anecdotal evidence alongside the data that I presented before, that Stockholm study, that no matter what someone might claim they really want, What the data tends to find is that people default to traditional gender roles, for better or for worse.
I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be that way.
I'm saying the replies to these, again, I don't want to show because I don't want to, you know, single out specific accounts.
I get so much flack for doing that.
But they're the pronoun Twitter saying, the man should have given you.
And I'm just like, you know what, man?
Because I've been on dates with feminists before, and they do all of this.
They expect me to do the masculine chivalrous, hold the door, pull the chair, and I'm like, get out of here.
I ain't doing none of that.
Okay, no, I actually do some of that sometimes.
But it brings me to a totally different story that I thought would be fun to add in because it's just silly nonsense and we're gonna, you know, we're just gonna go through some of these posts that I find funny.
The Daily Mail's story says, Dating in your 30s is just waiting for the good ones to get divorced.
Frustrated singletons reveal how much harder it is to find love when you leave your 20s behind.
They say the course of true love never did run smooth, but for some singletons it seems dating is trickier than ever.
People from around the world revealed their candid frustrations about dating in their 30s in an anonymous thread shared on Whisper.
Among the admissions is one person who said trying to find a good catch in your 30s is like finding Peter Pan's Neverland.
Another person called dating rough and said they were just waiting for all the good ones to get divorced.
I'm gonna be offensive right now, so I hope you're prepared, all 8% of the women who watch my videos, but I'm pretty sure most of these posts are from women.
Because the guys who are posting are really obviously guys, and it doesn't sound like they're having trouble dating in their 30s.
And it's because guys date down, and they have access to resources, and they have no trouble attracting younger women, for the most part.
Here's the first one.
They say dating in your 30s is just waiting to get divorced.
Dating in your mid-30s is like going to a grocery store at midnight before they've restocked.
All the good stuff is gone and everything else is picked over and damaged.
Maybe you might find something.
I think that could apply to men and women.
But because men typically date down, I do think this is mostly women just posting about how they're not finding dudes.
Here's one that says, 30s, get laid easy, finding love nearly impossible.
Yeah, but I'll be honest with you, that's true no matter what.
It's always been easy to go on a fling and find a date.
Finding true love has always been a challenge.
Except, I guess, if you grew up in a more traditional environment where you literally grow up with a small pool of individuals you've known most of your life.
Early 30s dating pool.
Shallower, dirtier, judgmental, and packed with unwanted baggage.
However, by mid-30s, it goes with the flow.
Thank God.
This person says they deleted their Facebook and they're only going to date in real life.
This one says, I have to admit, meeting men in my 30s is so freaking easy and fun.
Confidence comes with age, ladies.
I'm in the prime of my life.
Now see, that bucks the trend.
You'd imagine, based on the data, it's supposed to be harder.
But hey, not true for everybody, right?
Once you are 30, the tables turn in dating.
Men will be looking for younger and women in their 30s realize they are losing their looks and will settle in many occasions.
That seems like it may be written by a man.
I thought dating in my 30s would be easier, but it's actually harder.
I miss having a genuine connection with someone.
Ever since I hit my 30s, I swear the 18-22 year olds are consistently more attracted to me.
to get to. Sorry for if you know I wanted to get to one.
This one says, ever since I hit my 30s I swear the 18 to 22 year olds are consistently
more attracted to me. Working out, eating healthy and staying single has been good to me.
And the last one says, dating in your 30s, well it's not the last one, but dating in your
30s is like trying to find the least broken appliance in a thrift store.
Here's what I wanted to highlight.
I wanted to highlight this one.
Look man, there are differences in gender and dating and all that stuff, but all that really matters is that you eat healthy, you exercise, and you don't have to stay single.
But eat healthy and exercise and take care of yourself.
Don't freak out if someone doesn't give you a cake pop or if you think that, I don't know, if someone should have given someone else a cake pop.
I don't know.
I just thought it'd be fun to cover this weird dating story because I see a paradox here.
Long story short...
I do try to keep these shorter.
I just have this personal experience where I think the cake pop story is kind of silly.
Because like I mentioned a moment ago, I've dated feminists who wanted me to be masculine, who wanted me to be the man in the relationship, and I find it hilarious.
No problem!
I will.
I actually appreciate that.
But it's weird that you're gonna preach feminism and being a feminist and wanting equality, but then expect me to be traditional in the gender role.