Democrat Policy Is DESTROYING Cities, Making COVID Worse, And Collapsing The Economy
Democrat Policy Is DESTROYING Cities, Making COVID Worse, And Collapsing The Economy. The latest report from the New York Times lays it out very simply, Hillary Clinton counties are hit harder than Trump counties.But why is this?The simple answer is policy. Many Democrats are reacting to fear and refusing to follow the science. Even Andrew Cuomo acknowledged on May 6th most infections were coming from people in the home. If that's true why extend the lockdown?Now that I can't tell you but now Democratic states and governors are demanding federal bailout money by threatening to lay off first responders and health care workers. If the Democrats policy is causing more damage both in terms of infections and in terms of economic collapse what will voters think come November?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The New York Times lays out the story in very simple terms.
The coronavirus is deadliest where Democrats live.
They add beyond perception and ideology.
There are starkly different realities for red and blue America right now.
And the reality is this.
The coronavirus is much, much worse in counties won by Hillary Clinton than it is in counties won by Donald Trump. But the
question is, why is that? And that's not as simple. The New York Times doesn't want to go quite there.
But the reality is this has to do with the policy of these jurisdictions. Now, the New York
Times likes to bring up, many people do, population density.
But even in this story, they discount that.
Because while it is true that urban centers tend to be much more dense population-wise, thus you'll see more of a spread, that doesn't explain Republican cities.
It doesn't explain Texas, like Dallas and Houston, which are not dealing with the same problem.
And it doesn't explain Japan, that actually never had a lockdown and has just removed any and all restrictions.
What we're seeing is that the policies of these Democrat-controlled areas are actually making the problem worse.
And I really do have data to back this up.
Earlier this month, Andrew Cuomo of New York even recognized publicly that 66% of all new infections were coming from people staying home.
Yet he insisted on keeping the lockdown going.
Don't ask me why, I don't know.
We have seen many jurisdictions actually share policies.
Look, a lot of Republican states locked down too, but many didn't.
In fact, Texas was one of the last to lock down and one of the first to reopen.
So even among the states that did lock down, we can see they quickly reversed course.
How about this?
In New York, they let out 1,500 or so inmates and then had to go re-arrest them all.
The leadership there is lacking to say the least.
And because of this, people are losing their lives.
And I can't tell you why they blame Trump at the same time arguing he doesn't have the authority over these states anyway.
The sad reality is, once again, the left was wrong.
And I wonder, At what point do they get tired of being wrong?
Because they've been wrong about so many major stories over the past several years.
And I think perception has something to do with it.
It's really interesting.
The New York Times brings this up, that in these Democrat districts, they are more likely to be concerned about the coronavirus.
I think what we're seeing is this whirlpool problem I've described in the past.
Because the problem arose, Democrats got scared, enacted emotionally reactive policies, which actually made things worse.
And now that things are getting worse, they're actually calling for more restrictive policies, which will only serve to make things worse.
And because many of these media outlets are in big urban centers, they experience the same perception.
Yet in a country like Japan, and yet in red districts, red counties, I should say, they're resisting this, and it's working.
This is only going to make things worse until people realize these... It's like the Chinese finger trap problem I described.
The harder Democrats pull, the tighter the trap becomes.
And like many other districts, notably Texas, they eased up and said, okay, okay, we got to back off on this.
And now it's not nearly as bad as it is in other places.
You can look at Florida and South Dakota.
The fact remains clear.
I think the media is actually making things worse.
But let's read this story, and I'll write this down, because I do have a lot of policies I want to go through.
It's not just about the coronavirus.
The response from these Democrats is destroying their states.
New Jersey is announcing public job layoffs.
California said they're going to lay off their first responders.
I mean, these cities are experiencing a major economic crisis, and their response is to pull tighter on the trap.
If they can't see it, well, I don't know what to tell you.
But seriously, think about the past several years with Russiagate, Ukraingate, Covington, Jussie Smollett.
The list goes on.
They have just been wrong on so many major stories.
I can't expect them to get this right.
It's going to be a long-term problem.
And it's probably why so many of my videos are pointing the finger at them, because this keeps happening, and now we have data to back it up from the New York Times, among other sources.
Let's read the story they've published.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
We've got a P.O.
box if you want to send some physical stuff.
But the best thing you can do is just share this video.
I am competing with many mainstream cable networks that YouTube just gives preferential access to.
Seriously, put them on the front page.
They give them their own special COVID section, of which I don't appear.
This holds back my channel, and there's also algorithmic weights placed on channels like mine, so if you want to help overcome this, just share the video.
But if you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell, and then sit back and wonder why it is that YouTube makes it so hard to actually watch my content.
But let's read the story from the New York Times.
First and foremost, they start with these maps.
Kind of makes it obvious, right?
But you could look at these, and the immediate reaction I had and many other people have is, population density explains everything, right?
Wrong!
It actually doesn't.
Take a look at Japan.
Japan ends coronavirus emergency with 850 deaths and no lockdown.
But Japan's, it's an entire country.
And what about Tokyo?
They got like, what, 30 million people?
Population density doesn't explain it.
And to be honest, that was one of my first reactions.
When I was hearing the story that New York was so hard hit, I'm like, well, you know, New York's got a lot of people.
No.
Andrew Cuomo knew.
He absolutely knew.
On May 6th, this story was published by CNBC.
He knew that the home is where 66% of the source of admission for new hospitalizations was the home.
Yet he still insisted on extending the lockdown.
I think, as I've stated before, these Democratic politicians are scared of being blamed for everything.
And because the public is reactive and emotional, they look at the, particularly the left, they look at the news stories, and they see all these bad things happening, and then they come out and say, they demand their politicians do something.
Well, the politicians do something.
They make it worse.
But at least they can go to bed knowing their constituency will view them favorably.
And guess what?
It's true.
Andrew Cuomo's got an amazing approval rating right now.
Why?
By all metrics, he's done a terrible job.
One story from the DC Examiner, I believe it said, or maybe this was the National Review, they said, where does Ron DeSantis go to get his apology?
Because Florida didn't lock down, and they were dragged in the press for it, but Florida's doing way better.
Well, let's read the story at the New York Times.
They say, the staggering American death toll from the coronavirus now approaching 100,000 has touched every part of the country, but the losses have been especially acute along its coasts, in its major cities, across the industrial Midwest, and in New York City.
The devastation, in other words, has been disproportionately felt in blue America, which helps explain why people on opposing sides of a partisan divide that has intensified in the past two decades are thinking about the virus differently.
It is not just that Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to reopen businesses, schools, and the country as a whole.
Beyond perception, beyond ideology, there are starkly different realities for red and blue America right now.
Democrats are far more likely to live in counties where the virus has ravaged the community, while Republicans are more likely to live in counties that have been relatively unscathed by the illness.
Though they are paying an economic price, counties won by Trump in 2016 have reported just 27% of the virus infections and 21% of the deaths.
Even though 45% of Americans live in these communities, a New York Times analysis has found.
You got to stop and ask that question.
Now, of course, they mentioned population density.
Why has the virus slammed some parts of the country so much harder than others?
Part of the answer is population density.
Nearly a third of Americans live in one of the 100 most densely populated counties in the United States, urban communities, and adjacent suburbs.
And it is there the virus has taken its greatest toll, with an infection rate three times as high as the rest of the nation and a death rate four times as high.
In a country deeply segregated along racial, religious, and economic lines, density also aligns with political divisions.
Urban America tilts heavily blue.
In the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Trump's vote share increased as population density fell in almost every state.
But the divide in infections has been exacerbated by the path the virus has taken through the nation, which is not always connected to density.
In some parts of Red America, cities have been virtually unscathed, and the sparsely populated outlying areas have been hardest hit.
Researchers have also found links between the virus's effects and age, race, and weather, and have noted that some of the densest cities globally have not been hit as hard.
Now, I understand the New York Times doesn't want to go so far as blaming outright policy, but how else do you answer for this?
Sure, sure.
You can point to the way trucks travel.
You can point to, you know, Chicago, for instance, being a major travel hub.
O'Hare.
But it doesn't explain, I don't know, I guess Atlanta?
It doesn't really explain it.
The one thing we can look to when it comes to these stories is Democrat policy.
Now, of course, I know it's kind of obvious at this point.
You knew where I was gonna take things because you look at my channel, this channel at least, and it's basically just me ragging on the Democrats.
But maybe this is why.
Maybe this is why, okay?
Take a look at this.
Andrew Cuomo ran this slide saying they knew staying home was where the infections were coming from.
But hold on a second.
Jail in prison was less than 1%, and nursing homes were 18%.
Well, as most of you know, Andrew Cuomo enforced a policy, the state did, sending COVID patients to nursing homes.
We then see that nursing homes contributed to a large portion of the infection rate.
But jail in prison being at less than 1% is interesting when you consider this.
More than 1,500 NYC inmates have been released during the coronavirus crisis.
Why?
Listen, you might argue that it's because they released these inmates, they didn't see the infection rate.
And maybe that's true.
But then sending them home just made sure they got infected when they went home!
So how did that make sense?
Not only that, dozens of Rikers inmates arrested again after coronavirus release.
So...
So what, they released people and then just brought them right back?
That didn't make sense at all.
None of it made sense.
And I can only imagine that the reality of their policies is substantially more complicated than just these surface layer issues.
But of course, it would seem the policies did not work.
I know.
Hold on.
I know.
Texas also released inmates.
They still didn't see an expansion of the virus, but Texas was the last to lock down, the first to reopen.
So, of course, sending the prison inmates out maybe was a good idea, but staying locked down, it seemed to make no sense.
I mean, just think about the logic here.
They're like, if we keep people locked in these jails and prisons, they'll get sick.
I know.
Let's keep them locked in their homes.
That just didn't do anything.
In Texas, you had one policy but not the other.
The lockdown was relatively light.
Let's read this.
Here's what the New York Times says.
Texas, solidly Republican territory, and the second most populous state in the nation, had one of the country's hottest economies before the outbreak.
The state's biggest cities have so far escaped the worst of the damage.
More than 200 metro areas in the United States have higher infection rates than both Dallas and Houston, which may explain why Texas residents are particularly frustrated by the shutdown.
The cure is worse than the disease, no doubt.
I may be making the mistake of correlation and causation.
It could be that because the coronavirus was so bad in New York, they took these actions.
And it could be because it wasn't that bad in Texas, they didn't want to have the lockdown.
But I think when you look at the policies as a whole, and when you look at what I've shown now three times with Andrew Cuomo knowing where they're coming from, I think While it may be a bit presumptuous of me to say, as a whole, it's their policies, let me just ask you, and then we'll move on, I promise.
If they knew the infections are coming from the home, why would Andrew Cuomo say, let's keep people in their home?
It stands to reason, then, that it's not necessarily a causation versus correlation.
It may, or I should say, I may not be inverting them.
It may be true.
The Democrat policies are putting people in the place where they're most likely to get infected, thus creating a higher infection rate.
So much so that Dr. Birx of the Coronavirus Task Force has asked the CDC to investigate coronavirus hotspots L.A., Chicago, and Washington, D.C.
as new daily cases fail to fall.
There it is.
We know what they're doing is wrong, and we've seen these policies just make very little sense.
Add that on top of this.
Dr. Fauci says staying closed for too long could cause irreparable damage.
He also went on to say that he's absolutely in favor of reopening.
Why then extend the lockdown policies?
If Dr. Birx is asking the CDC to investigate why lockdown isn't working, if Dr. Fauci is saying maybe it's time to reopen, and Andrew Cuomo knows that the infections are coming from the home, why tell people to stay in their homes?
It's insane, isn't it?
Absolutely, in my opinion.
It's not just New York where they have to re-arrest the people they've been releasing.
Policing during a pandemic, deputies busy protecting community from re-offenders during zero bail order.
This is from Sacramento.
And that brings me now to the outright damage that these cities are facing.
The cure is worse than the disease at this point.
Don't take my word for it.
Let's take a look at CNN.
Just today, New Jersey governor warns of major cuts to teachers, firefighters, police officers, and healthcare workers without more federal funding.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
You shut down your businesses.
We can now see that that may be a mistake.
Japan didn't have to do it.
You shut everything down.
And with everything we know, now you're just asking for a handout from the federal government?
Okay, handout was bold of me.
You're asking for a bailout for federal funding.
Perhaps if you stopped this when other states did, and followed the lead of, say, Florida or South Dakota, not only would you have a lower infection rate, you wouldn't be facing a massive deficit.
When there's no businesses running and there's no commerce, there's no taxes.
But now you expect the federal government to pay for this, which is funny.
They blame Trump.
They say it's Trump's fault.
He should have locked down sooner, but the governors are the ones in control of this.
And we have more and more data coming out suggesting the lockdowns just don't work.
Which brings me to California.
What?!
There's so many other people you could lay off before you lay off the first responders!
You got so many bureaucrats you could lay off.
I don't know, wouldn't the DMV come before your first responders?
Okay.
It's easy for me to say I don't work in the California government, right?
So maybe there's a lot.
I just don't know.
But here's what Gavin Newsom says.
A stark message for Republican lawmakers.
If the federal government doesn't give financial aid to California, they'll only be punishing first responders.
Excuse me?
That sounds like a threat.
Here's what he says.
I hope they'll consider this.
The next time they want to salute and celebrate our heroes and first responders, our police officers and firefighters, Consider the fact that they are the first ones that will be laid off by cities and counties.
Newsom told CNN's Jake Tapper during a Sunday morning interview when asked what will happen if California doesn't get federal aid.
The folks that are out there, the true heroes of this pandemic, are healthcare workers and nurses.
Those county health systems have been ravaged.
Their budgets have been devastated and depleted.
They're the first ones to be laid off.
Say what?
You destroy your economy, your hospitals don't get used, field hospitals are being shut down, you're laying off healthcare workers, and you want to blame the Republicans in the federal government for this?
Maybe the lockdown didn't make sense if we've already had to lay off over a million healthcare workers.
At what point do you accept you were wrong?
Apparently never!
You'd think after every single scandal they've brought up, they would just stop.
It's the media, first and foremost.
Well, actually, a large portion of it, in my opinion, is the media.
The media comes out with these stories.
They hate Trump.
Everything Trump does is wrong.
But if Trump is right more often than not, that means that you are wrong more often than not.
And at a certain point, see, the Republicans in Texas get pressure.
They say, OK, OK, we'll lock down.
We're scared, right?
The media starts smearing them.
Last to close, first to open.
And they've dodged a lot of these problems.
South Dakota's governor, they threw a parade for Kristi Noem.
Ron DeSantis trashed the media saying they kept writing stories.
They said in two weeks it's going to be the worst in the country and now we're eight weeks out and it didn't happen.
But New York, they know where the infections are coming from and they insist you stay right where the infection is.
It doesn't make sense.
Other than this policy, this is the policy the Democrats want.
They're going to wipe out their cities.
And now the worst.
New York City will turn into a shell of its former self after coronavirus crisis.
It's not just the wealthy.
That have fled.
In New York City, it's 420,000 individuals, the wealthier, have fled.
And of course people can say, so what?
Good riddance.
But they pay the taxes.
And now New York is in trouble.
Because New York was in trouble from the beginning.
The MTA is in shambles.
They need more taxes.
AOC helped chase away 25,000 to 40,000 jobs.
But now young people are leaving too.
And it's their policies.
And you know what?
Well, you reap what you have sown.
Let's be honest.
I live in New Jersey.
New Jersey says they're going to start cutting jobs.
They're going to say teachers, firefighters, police officers, and health care workers.
I mean, let me ask, did Governor Murphy cut his salary?
Maybe he did.
I don't know.
It's just a question.
One of the things brought up very often is how many politicians have given up their salaries before talking about laying off health care workers and teachers?
Relatively few nationwide.
I live in this state.
Governor Murphy directly threatened a local business near me, only a few miles away, Attalus Gym.
It's a national story.
It's crazy.
And there were... I won't get into the bulk details of the story, but he comes after them, and I'm questioning myself, why is it that with all of this data we now have, with even Fauci saying this, they insist on locking things down, asking for federal bailouts, Refusing to solve the problem.
Why are they ignoring the science?
Why are they ignoring the data?
Don't know, don't care.
What am I gonna say?
I don't know what's going through this guy's mind, but I can tell you this.
I can leave, and I can take my business with me, and I am absolutely going to.
I was looking for a place to go, it could have been here, now it won't be.
But you know what?
My business is not the most important business to the state of New Jersey.
That's fine, okay?
I'm not gonna pretend like I'm this, you know, all-important figure and, oh, I'm leaving, you better, you'll be sorry.
Nah, you know what?
Hey man, look, if you don't want me, I won't be here.
But New Jersey has a problem attracting young people.
I mean, why be in Jersey when the taxes are high and you can just go to Philly or New York?
Why do it?
A lot of people don't want to.
I mean, if you live in New York City, New Jersey makes sense because it's actually cheaper taxes and cheaper rent.
But if you're going to go anywhere, especially with working at home because of the pandemic, especially with the opportunity to work online like I do, I'm not going to be here.
So I'll tell you what.
You can keep your aging populations.
And I mean no disrespect to older populations.
I mean to say you need young people to renew your state, to expand, to grow, to create new businesses, to inspire young people to come and work.
You're losing all of that.
Not only is your economy collapsing because of your insistence on these failed policies, you are chasing out young people.
New York is losing young people.
I mean, why spend all this money on rent if you can't even go out to the bar to hang out with your friends, right?
So they're gonna leave.
It's an expensive city to begin with.
And now that they can all work from home because of this, they're gonna go work from home somewhere else.
New York City, a shell of its former self, is an understatement.
How will this city support its collapsing buildings?
I don't know, man.
With the wealthy gone and our young people gone, who's gonna work?
What businesses will exist?
New York City is gonna be a horrifying hellscape.
Check this out.
They write.
This is from Kristen Tate for The Hill.
Imagine New York City five years from now with the streets full of abandoned storefronts, closed eateries and empty buildings.
The cumulative effects of the coronavirus may be more overwhelming than the other challenges New York City has had to face during the past two generations.
New York City was already losing population before the outbreak due to economic factors and quality of life issues.
Around 40,000 residents left between 2017 and 18 alone.
The coronavirus has fueled the population outflow.
About 420,000 residents have fled New York City in the last few months.
Even worse for its economy, the majority of those who left amid the pandemic are wealthy workers.
Many of them went to low-tax havens in the South, such as Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Eventually, it will not only be the 1% who leave.
The unemployment rate in New York City has risen above 14%.
Residents without a job or reduced hours will no longer have the income to keep paying sky-high rents for tiny living quarters.
Meanwhile, workers who have not been laid off or furloughed have been working remotely, a trend that may continue for years to come.
Nearly 70% of those in finance and technology will consider relocating if working remotely becomes permanent.
And not only that, we have seen that some of the biggest landlords in New York City have stated, 80, 40 to 80 percent did not pay their rent for the past two months.
It will ripple up and will shock the city.
The destruction of these cities is not just about the coronavirus itself, though you can plainly see their policies are hurting in that regard.
In the end, the cure is worse than the disease.
And Trump said as much, and he warned all of you, but you insisted because the orange man is bad.
Because no matter what Trump says, he must be wrong.
Trump tends to be right on a lot of things.
Trump's got a bad attitude, man.
I tell you what.
But think about the economy.
Think about how well things were going.
I think Trump, all I can really do is say he was right.
He was right about the economic policies that he wanted to put into place.
The economy did really, really well for several years.
I would assume he will be right moving forward.
That means that the destruction and devastation we are seeing in these blue districts is coming from Democratic policies, not the Republicans, where they seem to be doing okay.
Now, of course, the New York Times does bring up in their story.
That red or blue, if you lock down, you lost a lot of jobs and people are upset.
But in Florida, South Dakota, notably, they did not face as much economic damage as these blue states did.
California particularly hard hit.
I think South Dakota was the one state that actually saw a gain, a net gain throughout the crisis.
New York wants money, Illinois wants money, California wants money.
Well, of course you do.
You enacted these policies which are hurting you, and you refused to accept the data when we told you that the lockdowns were worse.
I don't want to tell you now, but I can say, coming out of this, we are going to see a dramatic change in the demographics of major cities and rural areas, with more work from home, with more just general internet business.
Everybody and their mother seems to be a podcaster now, podcast equipment flying off the shelves.
And people generally getting sick in these places because of the failed policy.
People are out.
They're out of these big cities.
And that's going to be devastating to the Democrats.
So I wonder if these social justice policies we've seen that have been devastating to the Democrats at a federal level, our majority in these blue areas, and these blue areas lose a lot of young people and wealthy people.
What does that mean for these policies?
The Democrats in these cities are going to lose a lot of power.
And they're going to have to try and pander now to the more rural sensibilities.
People in this country who believe in traditional family values but may be a little economically progressive.
These are the voters that Washington Post predicted would vote for Biden and not Trump.
But following this pandemic, why would they vote for Biden now if The Democrats have lost control of their strongholds.
Many of these people, in my opinion, are going to see... Well, actually, no, that's actually a good reason why the Democrats... why they might actually vote for Democrats, because the Democrats are going to try and change their opinions and swing away from social justice, as they now realize they need to win over rural areas.
Ultimately, it may be great for the country.
We may see the left, the far left, get pulled right back.
We'll see how things turn out in November.
I actually have been thinking over the past, you know, day or so, that Donald Trump might actually lose.
I really do think so.
Now, there's a lot of reasons why that may be, but I think this might be one of them.
It's hard to say.
It really, really is.
So I apologize if that one was a little, I don't know, a little back and forth in my thinking there.
But I'm thinking that Trump might actually lose because Democrats have no choice now but to cater to Trump supporters.
We'll see how things play out.
The one thing I can say is, Americans will not forget that it was the Democrats' policies that caused this devastation.
Long story short, however, and I mean the whole pandemic, I blame China, okay?
But for the time being, the policies we see, or I should say, when it comes to our country, the policies we see in cities like New York versus a city like Dallas makes you think, doesn't it?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m., and I will see you all there.
Chuck Todd lamented the fact that Joe Biden had to answer for racist, you ain't black comment.
And I'm reading the story thinking to myself, when has Trump ever said anything like that, especially directly to a black person?
The reality is, he hasn't.
Yet the media insists over and over again that Donald Trump is racist, xenophobe, bigot.
It didn't work last time.
It won't work this time.
In a story I did, I covered the other day, there was one bit of data from 2016, I was reading, that found minorities don't respond well when you just call Trump a bigot.
When you say he's racist or whatever, they don't care.
It actually does work really well with white progressives, and that's actually hurting Trump in certain areas.
But for the most part, they don't actually care.
So Joe Biden, for those that aren't familiar, I think everybody knows the story right now, was talking to Charlamagne Tha God, and he said, if you haven't figured out if you're for me or for Trump, then you ain't black.
And all of a sudden, we saw a major outrage.
Everybody was slamming Joe Biden.
Well, Chuck Todd mentioned basically, let's actually read the story, and I'll go through this, but the gist of this, the point I want to make, and I'm going to read another story for you guys from the New York Times.
Is that Trump could say something like, you know, they're not sending their best, right?
The comment about the illegal immigrants coming up and he's called racist for it, even though he didn't make a direct statement about a particular race.
Joe Biden can literally say something to a black person and the media is like, well, this doesn't seem to be fair now, does it?
No, it doesn't seem to make sense.
I also want to drag Trump for some of his tweets.
We'll get to that in a second.
But let's get started with the double standard and the complete hypocrisy from the press, from newsbusters.
In a tacit admission of how the Democratic Party thinks of the black community on Friday, presumptive nominee Joe Biden exclaimed that if a black person had to think about voting for him or President Trump, then their blackness was in question.
By Sunday, NBC was tired of hearing the outrage at Biden's blatantly racist remark with Sunday Today host Willie Geist, huffing that Biden had to apologize for two days.
And political director Chuck Todd lamented that the former vice president was being held to account at all.
First of all, Donald Trump's support among the black community is very, very, very low, okay?
Now he's done better.
It's significant to point out that there have been several polls over the past few months showing that Trump is improving his standard among black voters.
But it is still like 75-80% negative.
But that is significant for a Republican, so it doesn't matter that he's gaining in this area.
Joe Biden is apologizing first and foremost because he made a direct statement to a person like Trump didn't do that!
Alright?
Well, let's keep reading.
After huffing about two days of walking back the comments, Geist admitted, obviously, that was offensive to a lot of people.
But he immediately wrote it off and boasted about how well Biden was doing in the polls, despite himself.
It gets to the kind of campaign he's trying to conduct from his home, doing it virtually through these interviews.
And yet he's doing well in the polls, a Quinnipiac poll and a Fox News poll showing him opening up leads among many important groups.
What is the state of his campaign for Joe Biden right now?
Of this campaign?
Prefacing it as just a quick side observation, Todd responded by whining that Biden had to answer for his racist comment.
Quote, I'm struck about if Donald Trump makes the same type of gaffe, he blows through it, plows through it, pretends it never happened.
Joe Biden, the expectation is he has to deal with it and he tried to deal with it, he said.
When Biden's comments were fresh, Todd had noted that Biden had a history of making racially charged comments.
But on Sunday, he was trying to smooth that over.
It's a reminder this is not the first time that he's sometimes gotten loose with his words.
Loose with his words, huh?
Particularly when it comes to feeding into old stereotypes at times.
Further contradicting his previous admission of Biden's past bolstering of stereotypes, Todd brushed off Biden's quote, you ain't black exclamation, claiming, so look, at the end of the day, it's a bad one day story, but it wasn't and shouldn't be.
He went on to suggest the incident was a reminder of the risk-reward of this Biden in the basement strategy.
And according to him, the strategy was paying off despite Biden's racist comments.
Now, before I read this, I do want to be fair and point out Chuck Todd is partly right.
Now the issue I take with this is that Trump never made, or at least as far as I can remember or tell, maybe I'm wrong about this, a direct statement to someone in this way.
Trump has said things that can be deemed, I don't know, racially insensitive, but he's routinely just called a bigot, racist, whatever, a xenophobe, because, you know, he's made certain statements.
Now, I do think it's fair to point out, Trump did say that, you know, he read a statement or something.
So I want to be careful here.
I should have pulled it up.
That Donald Trump was calling for a complete and total ban on Muslims entering the country, yada yada.
It is important to point out the literal fact of the matter, that that's calling out a religion, not a race of people.
But Trump has made offensive statements directly at people.
He has had to answer for them.
He just refuses to, and people like it.
So it's not an issue of Joe Biden being forced to do anything or lamenting this fact.
It's about what you want from your candidate.
Trump says something offensive and then says, ah, you know, political correctness.
Do you remember what happened when Trump was on the debate stage and he was asked about tweeting nasty things about women?
And I think it was Megyn Kelly.
She brought up Rosie O'Donnell and, uh, oh, no, no, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
She didn't.
She mentioned to Trump that he said something negative about women.
And then Trump said only Rosie O'Donnell and everybody laughed.
Trump's funny.
He brushed it aside by saying, yeah, well, you know what?
What are you going to do about it?
It's not.
It's it's it's.
Look, man, this is the point, OK?
If you can't win because you are stuck in a circular firing squad where everyone's going to get mad at you and never forgive you for doing these things, well, then what do you expect?
It's not Trump's fault you guys have a stick.
I'll be careful about where I go with this.
We'll keep it family friendly.
It's not the Republicans' fault.
It's not America's fault that you guys are stodgy and politically correct.
That's what you cater to, and that's what you pander to, and that's what you must answer to.
Trump could.
I'd prefer it if he did.
He doesn't have to, though.
Let's read a little bit more.
He said, I think there's some on his team that think it's better to keep him, to stay in the basement.
Make this Trump versus Trump, you know?
Trump desperately wants to make this Trump versus Biden.
The less you're out in public, the harder that will be.
At the same time, he was able to sit here and make a gaffe while in his basement.
That isn't a good sign for Biden.
So look, at the end of the day, it's a bad one-day story, but the polls are the poll, and we're seeing that, we're seeing this, we're seeing the more this is Trump versus Trump, the better it is for Biden.
That is true.
The polls could be off.
And I'm curious if this kind of rhetoric that targets Trump and blames Trump, even when the story's about Biden, when it laments that Biden must answer for things that they expect him to answer for.
I'll put it this way.
If your entire audience is like, Donald Trump is a bad person for saying these things, why would you say this?
Wouldn't you say something like, it's great that Joe Biden is willing to answer for his mistakes and Trump isn't?
No, it's not fair.
Why do we have to apologize?
You think that's going to resonate with the audience?
You've tried, you know, courting?
No, I certainly don't think so.
And Trump certainly doesn't care.
Here's another.
They go on.
Yeah, the Biden campaign is happy to let Donald Trump have the stage for the most part when they look at their poll numbers.
Geist agreed.
This rhetoric from the press, where they play this game, they attack Trump supporters, they lament they have to play by the rules, it does something.
It creates secret Trump voters.
It skews the polling.
It makes people hide their true support.
I've told this story a couple times.
I was in an airport, this was last year, I think I was flying to Dallas, and the TV's on, I'm talking to the bartender, a young woman, and I asked to put on CNN, laughing, because I was like, at least no one will complain and we can watch it.
Because if I said MSNBC or Fox, who knows?
Even though CNN is really, really bad, right?
And so I slowly start building up a conversation with the bartender.
She's for Bernie.
The guy to my left, turns out he's a Trump voter who hated Donald Trump.
Hated is a strong word.
He basically said that he thought Trump was a lowlife.
He wouldn't invite Trump to his house for dinner, but he was gonna vote for him.
He did last time and he would again.
You know why?
The money was good.
The economy was good.
And that was his view and he didn't care.
How many people are worried about the cultural ramifications of admitting They don't care about what Trump says.
You know, Trump does a lot of offensive things, and, well, some people know he does, and they don't care.
Some people like that he does, and I think a lot of people like that he does.
It's like I mentioned the Rosie O'Donnell thing.
They all laughed about it.
A lot of people like that he refuses to back down.
That's a good sign to a lot of people.
It says that if Trump is put in a position with a bully, world leader, or somebody, you know he's gonna push back and tell you to F off.
And he does!
He does.
He absolutely does.
Now, to his own detriment, I think people have not been calling Trump out for the mistakes he's made, especially with his Twitter account.
He gets himself into trouble, and I'll tell you what.
But I do want to do this, right?
I want to talk about Donald Trump's Twitter account and some of the pitfalls of it.
But I want to point this out.
The New York Times says Trump promotes posts from racist and sexist Twitter feed.
And I'm highlighting this to delineate, to show you the distinction between what Joe Biden has to answer for and what Trump has to answer for.
Trump could say anything, and they'd find a way to call it racist.
That's the problem.
If Trump really does say something that's racist or racially insensitive, at this point, you've cried wolf too much, and that's it.
We're done.
Every single thing he has ever done has been bigoted or out of context, and that's another problem.
The very fine people hoax.
Joe Biden launched his campaign off of it.
So yes, Joe Biden has to answer when in an interview with someone who said, we've got questions for you is then dragged based on his race.
Yes, Joe Biden has to apologize for it.
Trump hasn't done that.
Trump invited his Latinos for Trump, and he has blacks for Trump.
And he had a I don't know if he's done events for both groups, but he has done huge events with very, you know, large.
Well, he's had, like, the prominent individuals come out.
They speak on his behalf.
Trump has actually catered to these groups.
Joe Biden seemingly was trying to.
You know what I think Joe Biden was trying to do?
I think he thought it was a funny way to, like, you know, endear himself.
To try and, like, speak their language.
That's what they do.
It's a manipulation tactic.
I don't think Trump does that.
That's the difference.
Hillary Clinton put on a southern drawl once.
You know, she was in, I can't remember where she was, it was like Alabama or something.
And a lot of people laughed because they're like, does she not know the internet exists?
Maybe she does and didn't care.
But then we all saw the video go viral of her pretending to have a southern accent.
It used to work.
It really did.
Before the age of the internet, yeah, maybe in the 70s or whatever when Hillary Clinton was younger, you could go on the campaign trail and speak in a really different way and say whatever you wanted privately because nobody was recording and the news wouldn't come out.
You can't do that today.
So now we can see that, first of all, Why is Chuck Todd even lamenting this?
I mean, I get it, right?
In their skewed, biased view, Trump is really bad.
He should have to answer for these things.
Well, Trump's catering to a different audience.
Nothing you can do about that.
But more importantly, when in recent history has Trump said something directly like Joe Biden did?
Again, I'm not going to go through Trump's entire history.
I could be wrong about that.
Maybe Trump did say something.
Okay, so that's fair.
But why would the press need to bring that up?
Shouldn't he just be saying, yeah, Biden should answer for it, so should Trump.
How about that?
But now that brings me to the pitfalls of Donald Trump's Twitter account.
This is a story from the Daily Mail.
They say GOP lawmaker demands Trump stop promoting Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory and
warns it will destroy us as the dead AIDS families say they fear retaliation from trolls
if they speak up.
Donald Trump, man, he really needs to drop this one.
I'll tell you what.
This is Joe Scarborough derangement syndrome.
Look, I get it.
A lot of people have questions.
There's weird videos that have popped up.
I've seen a bunch of Trump supporters saying, like, look at this recording from the early 2000s of Joe Scarborough joking about it.
Yeah, you can bring it up, fine.
But I'll tell you what, to the average person, Trump seems obsessed with this.
It's not an argument.
No one cares about Joe Scarborough to begin with.
It is Joe Scarborough derangement syndrome.
Now, maybe that's a little bold to say, but Trump has tweeted, you know, what, four or so times now about this?
And for me, I don't care.
I really don't, man.
I don't watch Joe Scarborough.
I don't care about Joe Scarborough.
I only passively comment on some things he does or says for the most part.
So why is Trump incessantly tweeting about this guy and this conspiracy that means literally nothing to me?
It will be bad, because let me tell you something, especially to the Trump supporters who need to hear this.
Regular people don't know or care about any of that stuff.
Regular people want to hear about issues.
It's what got the blue wave through in 2018.
There's a bunch of reasons, for sure.
Mostly anti-Trump sentiment, but a lot of these Democrats that were running were campaigning on kitchen table issues.
Trump would be wise to avoid this kind of bickering.
Now, if Trump wants to call out the fake news and say Joe Scarborough is a low-rating fake news, you know, peddler, conspiracy peddler, whatever, Russiagate.
That works.
It works because it's true.
It works because we know it and we see it.
When Trump calls out the press, when Kayleigh McEnany calls out the press, we laugh.
Finally, someone's calling out these elitists who think they're untouchable.
But when Donald Trump comes out with this stuff about a woman hitting her head on the desk, you know, 20 plus, around 19 or so years ago, It doesn't say anything to me.
It doesn't say anything to me other than, do you have an actual argument against Joe Scarborough?
That's something you want to avoid, being one of these Twitter reply people who has no real argument.
There are a bunch of Twitter users, progressives, and it's really, really mind-numbing to me.
And it's true for conservatives, for sure.
But all they do is they reply, not with a factual point, but with an insult.
Or with something that can't be proven, or something nonsensical.
When Trump engaged in this game, I'll say right now, Adam Kinzinger is completely right.
Completely unfounded conspiracy, just stop.
Stop spreading it.
Stop creating paranoia.
It will destroy us.
Trump tweeted, Yeah, sure.
I get it.
Why bring it up?
this story about psycho Joe Scarborough.
So young marathon runner just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk
and die?
I would think there's a lot more to the story than that.
An affair?
What about the so-called investigator?
Read the story.
Yeah, sure.
I get it.
Why bring it up?
Look, maybe you really want an interview into Joe Scarborough.
Maybe you really think there's something fishy about the story.
That's fine.
Regular people won't get it.
It's too in the weeds.
It goes right over their heads.
And regular people are just going to be like, huh?
What?
Why do I care about MSNBC?
MSNBC viewers will keep thinking the negative things they think about Trump.
And of course, you know, diehard Trump supporters are going to laugh about it.
And that's, I get it, you know.
Regular middle-of-the-road people are just going to be confused and say, I don't understand this.
But I will tell you what, man, in my opinion, Trump has made the best argument possible for why we can't allow social media censorship.
So apparently, you know, I don't know, Trump wants to have a panel put together or something.
This article is irrelevant.
Trump wants to put together a panel reviewing social media censorship.
And I'm reading through this and I'm seeing even criticisms from the right over Trump's tweets.
Yeah, man.
I brought this up many times, okay?
When I've traveled, when I've been in cars with people, you know, Ubers and stuff, I'll be like, so, you know, we'll be talking, politics come up, I'll say who you're voting for.
Many of them said they voted for Trump.
I've heard this story many times.
They voted for Trump, but they just wish you would tweet less.
And I laugh.
And I'm like, yeah, I hear you, man.
I hear you.
Trump really is able to effectively rally a national base with his tweets, for sure.
But this is the best example for why we shouldn't have social media censorship.
If even the GOP, or at least one Republican, is going to call out Trump for the Joe Scarborough thing, and people are going to highlight it's making him look bad, I mean, I think it is making him look bad.
If you ban Trump, then he doesn't say these things, think about what would happen.
I'd be willing to bet if Trump's Twitter was taken away.
Well, actually, I take that back.
I could argue that in some instance, in some regards, his approval rating would be going up.
But the one thing the press really hates about Twitter is that it allows Trump to bypass the press as a whole.
So there are major advantages to it.
So I guess it's a double-edged sword.
You know, Trump can tweet what he wants to tweet, he can say what he wants to say, and the people don't have to go through the press to get those answers.
We don't need a White House press corps when Trump can just tweet something.
We do need them to clarify answers, but then they just play in some stupid game about reality TV or whatever.
But this shows us exactly why it's important.
Imagine, as I've stated many times, when social media companies ban conservatives, when they ban people who are the worst of the worst, it actually cleans up the Republican Party, cleans up the influencers, and then it's a ripple effect through the entire party.
It makes everything straighten up.
And when they don't ban Antifa and these weirdo leftists, it makes everything out of sync and wacky.
You end up with Democrats pandering to the woke far-left on issues that nobody cares about.
Get rid of all of these far-leftist weirdos who incite violence, who break the rules and get away with it, and you will see the Democratic Party clean up in two seconds.
So I have to wonder, Are they actually rooting for Donald Trump?
That's the weirdest thing to me.
No, I think the reality is people are just, you know, there's a lot of stupid people.
I don't want to say all people are stupid, obviously it's not true.
But, you know, like George Carlin said, think about how stupid the average person is, now realize half of them are stupider than that.
Take that stupid half, and some of them get jobs through nepotism, and now you got a bunch of dumb people.
When you have social media rallying people across the country, not most people, but just enough in key cities, the most active people, these are the people who organize.
The Republicans have now been pushed into a small box in the center-right.
The left is ultimately just super far left, and the Republican faction, the center-right faction, is actually gaining allies in the center-left faction and liberals, many of them jumping the line and now switching and changing their affiliation or their opinions.
The left just becomes You know, catering to a fringe sect of weirdos.
Now think about what would happen if Twitter actually got rid of those people.
Here's an argument, I guess, for Twitter getting, you know, actually censoring more people.
I disagree with this, but the general idea is if they cleaned up the left, then you'd end up with a Democratic Party catering to activists nationwide who have more sound opinions and more rational takes on things.
They haven't.
So center-left individuals who never found themselves as conservatives are boxed into a corner where they have to choose between the people who are just to their right, who kind of disagree with but for the most part sound reasonable, and the wackos of the far left who are being propped up and who are authoritarian across the board.
So long as you allow these people to say their thing, you make them look bad.
I think this will ultimately help Trump.
But back to the main point about the press.
I want to wrap this up by saying this.
What we're seeing with the press, the attacks on Trump, the assumptions about Biden, will create secret Trump voters.
The polling will be skewed.
Everything will be off.
And I think this lends to a Donald Trump victory in November.
But I have been thinking, notably about mail-in voting.
There was a post by, I think Mindy Robinson is her name, I don't know a whole lot about her, but there's a Twitter thread going viral I saw, where people are responding saying that they've been purged from voter rolls, or that their mail-in ballots went missing, things like that.
We heard the same thing in Patterson, New Jersey.
The left and the media claim there's no confirmed voter fraud or anything, and it's like, well, how do you confirm it?
That's really difficult.
If someone comes up and says, I never received my mail-in ballot, but I'm still registered as having voted, that's not confirmed voter fraud.
That's just, must be an error.
Therein lies the problem.
So the issue isn't voter fraud.
And my advice to conservatives would be to drop voter fraud and talk about mail-in error or tally error or lost ballots.
Don't talk about malfeasance and alleged conspiracies.
Alleged ineptitude, right?
They find missing ballots.
There's a story where it was like, what was it?
South Carolina ballots were found in Maryland or something?
Or no, I'm sorry, Missouri ballots, I think it was, found in Baltimore.
Like, how does that make sense?
Yeah, we'll talk about it.
Sometimes ballots go missing.
So we want secure facilities.
They don't.
Or at least, many don't.
So I'll tell you what.
I've been very bullish on a Trump victory.
But seeing all of these things, seeing the social media censorship, I'm not convinced anymore.
You know, I think there's a lot of reasons to think Trump will win, but I'll tell you this.
Convening a panel to discuss social media censorship?
Look, man, your most ardent supporters and your loudest supporters are gone.
And the Republicans have done nothing.
But maybe that's on purpose.
Maybe they like the fact that Alex Jones, that Millionopolis are gone because they were bombastic and they made Trump look bad.
And now you're left with suit-wearing professionals like Will Chamberlain of Human Events.
If you're not familiar, check him out.
He's a very calm, rational, professional, straightforward guy who makes good arguments for Trump.
And you get rid of the bombastic, sensationalist personalities.
Maybe that's the point.
Maybe it will help them.
I can't tell you, man.
I just look at the news, comment on a moderately surface-layer aspect of it.
It's the best I can do.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Apparently now, the NeverTrumpers are upset that Trump isn't manly enough.
I have no idea what this argument is supposed to be, and I have no idea why The Atlantic is publishing it, because it's not a good argument and the whole thing just makes no sense.
Of course, when it comes to Never Trumpers or the Resistance, it's all about Orange Man being bad.
And they will take whatever they can to claim the Orange Man is bad, and they will write about it.
Which brings us to this article from The Atlantic.
Quote, The most reliable component of Donald Trump's base.
Support someone who is, by their own standards, the least masculine man ever to hold the modern presidency, writes Radio Free Tom.
If you're not familiar with Tom Nichols, he's a never-Trumper.
First of all, you want to give working... Okay, let's hop into the assumption that working-class white men only really care about masculinity, not like, I don't know, say, the economy or something.
So if you're telling me that working-class white men had to choose between Hillary Clinton, literally a woman, and Trump, who's not masculine enough, well, Trump is still more masculine than Hillary, right?
I mean, I would assume.
So they're right off the bat.
If you're talking about someone wanting to vote for masculinity, they only had one real choice, right?
I mean, they're not gonna vote for Bernie Sanders.
Well, actually, a lot of them wanted to.
But if you're giving them this choice, yes, don't be surprised.
But let's just stop right there.
The idea, at least from my experience, that Trump supporters are super concerned with macho masculinity is just like, it's made up, okay?
And I think it's stupid that I'm even talking about it, but it is made up.
However, there's actually a really great discussion that ensues in the Twitter thread, which includes several, I believe, evolutionary psychologists, including one of the experts on the issue, Mr. Jack Murphy.
If you're not familiar with Jack Murphy, I had him on the TimCast IRL podcast several months ago before, you know, the world was ending.
And he wrote a book called Democrats Deplorable, breaking down why it is that he, a working class white man, wanted to vote for Trump.
But more importantly, he interviewed, I think like 1,500 people, did a survey and found, you know, asked real reasons as to why they wanted to vote for Donald Trump.
It's actually a really interesting thread, because you have academics like Jeffrey Miller and Nicholas A. Christakis, who are both pretty much like anti-SJW, but actually asking these questions.
And I'm pretty sure Nicholas A. Christakis, he's a professor who was attacked by social justice warriors over like a costume thing that happened at some university.
He's actually anti-Trump.
So let's do this.
Let's read this.
And I think it's actually fairly interesting.
I saw this story from the Atlantic this morning, and I'm like, this is dumb, I'm never gonna read this.
But when I saw that, well, actually smart people were having a real conversation, from professors to working class white individuals who support Trump, I thought it actually got down to some of these core issues, and Jack knows best.
But in order to give you the proper context, let's see what Tom Nichols actually says.
Sitting atop his ivory tower, he writes, Donald Trump, the most unmanly president.
Why don't the president's supporters hold him to their own standard of masculinity?
I'm going to stop right there.
We're going to read this, but I want to point out Trump is boorish, He's a large man.
He pushes people around.
He eats whatever he wants.
He sleeps with supermodels.
He flies in a private jet.
I don't know what the point you're trying to make is.
Do you want him to be like a muscle beach bodybuilder?
Donald Trump is masculine in other ways.
I certainly think Trump has some issues and character defects.
In fact, I'd say he has a lot of them.
But it's a weird thing to even write.
I mean, who's voting for the president based on the way they look?
They're voting, at least many of these people, for policy issues.
Let's read.
So many mysteries surround Donald Trump.
The contents of his tax returns?
Honestly, I don't care.
The apparent miracle of his graduation from college?
Also don't care.
Some of them are merely curiosities.
Others are of national importance, such as whether he understood the nuclear weapons briefing given to every president.
I prefer not to dwell on this question.
Yeah, sure, but, I mean, come on, man.
Obama killed kids, dude.
I can't stand this argument.
But since his first day as a presidential candidate, I have been baffled by one mystery in particular.
Why do working-class white men, the most reliable component of Donald Trump's base, support someone who is, by their own standards, the least masculine man ever to hold the modern presidency?
The question is not whether Trump fails to meet some archaic or idealized version of masculinity.
The president's inability to measure up to Marcus Aurelius or Omar Bradley is not the issue.
Rather, the question is why so many of Trump's working class white male voters refuse to hold Trump to their own standards of masculinity?
Why they support a man who behaves more like a little boy.
Could it be that Trump said, I'm going to fix the economy?
It's going to be great.
And then it was?
It's that simple.
I mean, there's a lot of issues and I will defer to Jack Murphy because he knows he's literally a Trump supporter, wrote a book about it, interviewed these people.
Come on, man.
Hillary Clinton was talking about war.
She was talking about international trade, things that people didn't like.
Donald Trump was up on stage pushing her around.
Yeah, so people voted for it.
Listen, you remove all of the policies, and what do you get?
People who voted for a guy who was telling Hillary, wrong, wrong.
Did you ever see that?
I gotta be honest, it's hilarious.
It's like decorum is out the window, but when Hillary Clinton would try interjecting when Trump was talking during the debates, Trump would go, he'd be talking, Hillary would jump in, excuse me, excuse me, no, excuse me, I'm talking, I'm talking, is he your husband?
Then Hillary's talking, And he goes, wrong, you're wrong, wrong.
He interrupts her, and he doesn't let her interrupt him.
You want to talk about what your idealistic masculinity is?
I don't care.
What people saw there was a guy who refused to be pushed around, who in fact pushed other people around.
You gotta take, look, you don't take that into consideration, and that's, I guess, why they're so confused by this.
He writes, I am a son of the working class, and I know these cultural standards.
The men I grew up with think of themselves as pretty tough guys, and most of them are.
They are not the products of elite universities and cosmopolitan living.
These are men whose fathers and grandfathers came from a culture that looks down upon lying, cheating, and bragging, especially about sex or courage.
They admire the value, the understated swagger, the rock-solid confidence, blah blah blah blah blah.
He's never once, or I'm sorry, he has not yet actually explained to anyone why he's making the assumption with this article as to why someone would vote for masculinity.
That's the issue I take right now, okay?
This is an article that is trying to make up a fake premise and use that to justify why you shouldn't vote for Trump.
This is the kind of trash garbage content from once prestigious magazines you can expect to get in the Orange Man bad era.
And it's sad to see such a, you know, famed prestigious publication go down this route.
Which brings me to the conversation and the real reasons people would vote for Donald Trump.
We actually have one thread, it kind of diverges, breaks off when Radio Free Tom himself steps up and can't actually, you know, stand the argument.
Jeffrey Miller.
Let's see if he has in his bio who he is.
He is a psychology professor.
Wrote The Mating Mind, Maten Virtue Signaling, Agnostic Centrist into Evolution.
Okay, okay.
This is a great, this is a great, uh, it's academics, alright?
He says, That face when the stench of bitter, desperate partisanship drives everyone away from a once great magazine, the Atlantic doubling down on your death spiral.
Sad.
Nicholas A. Christakis.
Let's see if he has... He's a Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science at Yale.
Physician, author of Blueprint, The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society.
He responds, Seriously, Jeffrey, how do you address the argument itself?
It does strike me as curious, too.
Jeffrey says, read from Democrat to Deplorable by Jack Murphy Live if you actually want to understand why working class guys support Trump.
Nicholas says, yes, I understand why many of them do support Trump.
The question is why they do it despite those other clear reasons not to.
And not only in terms of their economic interests and now public health interests, but given Trump's lack of manliness, leaving aside lack of morals.
I'm gonna jump in before I show you Jack Murphy, who has the real political points, and just say, first of all, does masculine even scale?
On the top 10 reasons to vote for someone, is manliness or masculinity even up there?
I honestly don't think it does.
I don't think it ranks.
It honestly makes no difference, I mean, to me.
You need an actual argument policy-wise.
So I think it's fascinating that Nicholas Christakis thinks it's an interesting argument.
Why is it curious?
I think it should be obvious.
But I guess if you are, you know, an ivory tower or progressive, you grew up without, I don't know, hardship.
I don't make assumptions about these individuals.
Perhaps you're less likely to understand what people are hoping for and what they're looking for.
Well, let's go to Jack Murphy.
Jack wrote a book called Democrat to Deplorable.
Many of you are probably familiar with it, where he interviewed a lot of people.
First, he says Title IX reform.
Let's actually take a look at some of this.
First of all, 100%!
In fact, I can't remember.
Tucker Carlson talked about this.
But I think it was Susan Rice.
condemnation of masculinity, see APA, to defeat wokeism, see Conceptual James, among a few others.
Full stop. Let's actually take a look at some of this.
First of all, 100%. In fact, I can't remember, Tucker Carlson talked about this, but I think it was Susan
Rice. I don't want to get too much in the weeds. Michael Flynn was being investigated partly
because he said China was the real adversary, not Russia.
And that shocked them.
Oh, no, but Russia's our real adversary.
No, it isn't.
China is.
That was correct.
So Hillary Clinton comes up and she goes, Russia, the Russians, the Russians.
And Donald Trump goes, China, China, China.
And people heard this and they said, Trump's right about China, man.
My factory went to China.
I didn't go to Russia.
That product I used to make at my factory is now coming from China, not Russia.
The TPP, which Hillary Clinton supported, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, would give Pacific Rim countries tremendous power over our markets and it would exacerbate the trade problems and the loss of our jobs.
That was your choice.
Someone calling out China for a decade.
Or, I'm sorry, for six years at the time.
Probably longer.
Actually, I think way longer.
Or Hillary Clinton, who supported this.
Right away.
Trump had been calling them out, and that was important.
Didn't matter if Trump had three wives and multiple kids with those wives.
If he was a blaggart, offensive guy, he was the only guy offering you a solution.
So maybe people voted for him begrudgingly.
Let's go to the next one.
No more wars of regime change.
Spot on.
Hillary Clinton, around the time of the election, said something to the effect of she wanted a no-fly zone over Syria.
And she was warned that would be a declaration of war with Russia, and her basic response was, so what?
Trump kept saying, if you vote for her, you will get war with Russia.
People didn't want that.
And that's a big reason why many conservatives, and even Trump supporters, actually like Tulsi Gabbard.
Because that is such an important issue for everybody.
It's an important issue for me.
This absurdity of the United States being like, eh, we're going to meddle in a foreign country because we don't like what they're doing.
Like Joe Biden did in Ukraine, and then nobody cared.
Oh, but if someone interferes with us, then they get angry, right?
A lot of people on the progressive left, it's one of the reasons why they actually defend Trump when it comes to issues of the national security investigations into him, notably Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald doesn't like Trump!
Like, you can look at his Twitter thread.
But Glenn Greenwald has no problem calling out the security apparatus targeting Trump and his administration, and I think it partly has to do with Glenn Greenwald, well, he's probably biased because they targeted him too, but he's always been, you know, rather opposed to the overstep of the surveillance state.
And he's no Trump supporter.
To reverse condemnation of masculinity.
And that's an important one.
Donald Trump is boorish, braggart, you know, he's a bully.
Like I mentioned with the Hillary Clinton debate thing.
You're getting in the media, you're getting across the board, a condemnation of masculinity.
It's been going on for a really long time.
They call it toxic masculinity.
They say, I think the APA, said that stoicism is toxic.
This idea that a man will be calm and in control of his emotions is toxic.
The explanation that was given to me was that if a man, his wife, and his kids are in a car, and they get into an accident, the wife and the kids might be upset, might be panicking, and the man is too.
But to maximize survival chances, the man constrains himself, assures everyone everything's okay, not to worry, and he's gonna change the tire.
Or if he got like a flat tire or something.
You know, everyone's freaking out, I don't know what's happening, and he says it's gonna be okay.
Imagine if we got rid of this notion and men were told just to cry and bawl their eyes out.
So what?
The man and the wife are both scared, huddling together while their kids cry and they say, everything's as worse as it's ever been, nothing's gonna get better.
Both parents should have a degree of stoicism.
The mother should be comforting the kids.
The father should be comforting the kids.
And then either parent, in my opinion, should be in control of their emotions and can go out and fix that tire.
Masculinity doesn't mean you're a man.
It goes both ways.
And I think it's important for parents, for leaders, to be in control.
Now, Donald Trump doesn't have that, in my opinion.
He goes on Twitter and he goes nuts.
He says things.
He gets triggered.
He gets dragged.
It's one of his weaknesses.
But it's what he represents, in my opinion, at least.
What he represents is that he pushes back on that to an extreme degree.
So yeah, there is a bit of a double-edged sword there.
And to defeat wokeism, which is in part connected to the masculinity.
Jack goes on to say, and at the end of the day, it was to defeat the Democrats who have
members that believe in a system of justice and a Thema to American values.
The Democrats have among them people who wish to see the end of the of the enlightenment.
And we don't trust the DS to police themselves.
Mr. Christakis, with all due respect, we voted for Trump to protect people like you.
Could there be a more stark dividing line?
Democrats, Clinton, Biden want more, bigger, worse Title IX.
Trump wanted reform.
Title IX operationalized woke.
Betsy DeVos is dismantling it for you.
And in comes Tom Nichols.
Aren't you glad you asked, Christakis?
Working class guys violate their own sense of what it means to be a man because they're upset about Title IX at schools they didn't go to.
It was right there in front of us all the time.
I gotta stop right there.
Schools they didn't go to.
It's about society.
It's about culture.
Yeah, they didn't go to those schools.
They still don't like seeing the mainstream, both in media and culture, be dominated by these institutions and their dogmatic law.
I totally agree with that and respect that.
I don't want to see that either.
Christaka says, Jack, I don't think that balance of pros and cons adds up, given the cons.
But obviously I'm not a fan of Trump.
So that just be why I'm not seeing it.
And often people act against themselves anyway.
This is where perspective comes in.
A very important point that needs to be made.
One of the things I try to highlight is that the reason I have the opinions I do is probably because of the news that I read.
But I try to read balanced news.
I try to make sure the people I follow, I got a bunch of mainstream media lefties and progressives and activists I follow them to, I want to know what they think.
And I want to know what conservatives think, too.
I then take conservative outlets, liberal outlets, look at them, and then try and determine what is most likely to be true.
And I think I have a general understanding, and it would seem that right now, typically, you will see slightly more correct answers coming from right-wing commentary than left-wing commentary.
You're likely to see mainstream media leaning to the left, with a tendency to be correct on certain issues, but then maybe analyze them or use these in ways to benefit the left.
That's where it ultimately falls down to, at least to where I see it.
So then when it comes to someone like Nick Kristakis, he's perhaps not reading the breakdown, which would call out the lies.
For instance, if you read mainstream media, they will tell you over and over again that Obamagate is not real, that it's fake news.
This is absolutely incorrect.
Obamagate is a real phenomenon.
Is there any definitive proof about Obama or people in his administration?
No, but there is evidence to suggest, at the very least, We need an investigation into this.
The whole thing seems fishy.
And where we're at right now, with Obamagate, is you have this puzzle laid out in front of you, and the pieces need to be put together.
In order for that to happen, you need someone to put those pieces together.
But it exists.
Now they try to claim, based on the media sources they read, something is true or something isn't.
I think that I read a balanced set of news.
And because of that, I have a tendency to be right.
For people who only read right-wing sources, their perspective will be skewed very heavily against the left.
For people who read only left-wing sources, their views will be skewed very heavily against the right.
But there is a study that shows moderates tend to read slightly more liberal news than conservative news.
Conservatives read... So it's like moderates will read 60% liberal, 30% conservative.
You know, 66 to 33.
And then conservatives will read 33% liberal to 66% conservative.
Liberals are at 95 plus percent liberal outlets.
If you're reading biased news and you can't see what's happening around you, yes, you will be uninformed and you won't understand.
It's the easiest way to put it.
James Lindsay of the famous Sokal Square hoax, if you're familiar, says, I generally think Jack is right about why, or mostly right without realizing there's a right-wing deconstruction project happening in it too.
I agree with you, Nicholas.
The pros don't outweigh the cons because I see deconstruction projects everywhere I look now.
The overlooked part here is that there is a pseudo-populist insurgency going on from the right that took much of its inspiration from Murray Rothbard, which got to Trump via his institutions and Bannon.
There's also a critical theory movement, Critical Government Studies.
Jack Murphy says, pick your deconstruction battle, I guess.
Left-wing deconstruction involves deconstruction of reality, science, and reason.
Right-wing deconstruction is more of a policy and strategy change, correct?
James Lindsay says, I wouldn't call the right-wing deconstruction project friendly to reality, science, or reason either.
No, they just have different targets as to who is allowed to use those things and for what.
In both cases, the right is administrative state power and state power more generally.
Jack says I must be running in different circles.
I'm sorry, James brings up conspiracy theories.
Jack challenges it and says we took all of this seriously.
I gotta point out, man, it's true.
I think it would be absurd to deny.
There are absolutely more individuals on the right pushing conspiracy theories.
This is a problem, but the problem isn't due to the conservative's view or the conservative's opinion.
The problem is due to the media's failures.
When the media has pushed biased news and lies for so long, and social media arose and allowed us to challenge those and prove them wrong, like I mentioned, I think there's a tendency among right-wing commentary to be more likely to be correct, not always.
You'll end up with people constantly saying the left isn't doing their research.
The left isn't being honest.
That tends to be true.
And because of this, you will end up with complete distrust for mainstream media.
And I've explained this before, actually several times in the past few years.
I think I may have even brought it up on the Rogan podcast.
The left blindly follows mainstream media, so they get an incomplete picture.
Because the mainstream media is broken and lying and propping up the left and the Democrats, conservatives turn away and look for alternatives.
They start doing their own research.
You can end up with a center-right faction of individuals who are more likely to be correct because they've done their own research.
And because social media has been banning conservatives, you end up with this group Dominant.
And that's why I believe the right has a tendency to be correct.
However, you do end up with a large faction of people who do their own research too much and end up in conspiracy theory internet rabbit holes about 5G satellites from space and flat earth and other nonsense.
If you distrust the media because you've seen their lies, you can go off a cliff.
And that's why it's very important For conservatives to call this stuff out too.
So ultimately, I don't know.
It's a memorial day.
I hope you guys are all enjoying yourself.
To be honest, not a whole lot going on other than the same old, same old.
But I thought it was interesting that we had some psychologists, professors, and actual Trump supporters talking about this idea.
And ultimately, I want to wrap it up with a nice little bow and put it this way.
This story explains everything you need to know about the entire argument To put it simply, masculinity just doesn't come up as an issue.
It makes no sense.
And more importantly, if you paid attention to what's going on in the media and in our culture, you'd realize masculinity is under fire.
They call it toxic.
So why would someone not understand this?
It shows you that someone like Radio Free Tom, a never-Trumper, doesn't actually understand working-class white people, doesn't understand cultural issues underlying this, and probably reads too much mainstream media, which is biased against Trump, Trump supporters, and the working class.
Yes, the entirety of the working class, they're biased against them.
People are getting banned on social media.
There's an article that Barry Weiss wrote for the New York Times about Joe Rogan and why he's so popular, how he's the new mainstream.
And she makes a really important point.
It was obvious to everyone that the allegations against Joe Biden were treated very differently than the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see that.
Now what happens?
The people who can't fall into this camp, they hate Trump, the media told them so.
A regular person sees this story and says, you're lying to me.
And that's where I find myself, right?
We can see how obvious the lies are.
And this is what I was saying about the tendency.
The right is not always correct, they're in fact often wrong.
But the left has a tendency to be wrong.
Mainstream media outlets have a tendency to be correct, but skew their politics to the left, which creates these problems.
If you don't understand what's going on because you're only reading biased media, well, there you go.
But a regular person who sees this, that's what starts the trend.
They see the lies.
They say, why is it that you did treat Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh differently?
That's where I am.
I don't think, uh, I think Brett Kavanaugh's had some bad ideas on surveillance on the Fourth Amendment.
I've talked about it before.
I don't want to rehash all this stuff.
But there's reasons to find that he's got, you know, bad ideas.
And I think that's a reason to challenge him for the Supreme Court.
However, Donald Trump is the president.
He was elected.
He can choose who he wants to nominate.
And then the Senate confirms that.
And so, look at me.
I'm Milto Spencer, right?
But I can point out that I don't agree with the conservative opinions on these things.
But I do agree that when it comes to issues of reality and culture, they have a tendency to be correct on the facts.
And that creates a very serious problem.
A media that is completely out of touch with all of the people they need in order to win in November.
The people who switched from Democrat to Republican, Democrat to deplorable, they still don't get it.
And they won't.
And so long as that's the case, and it basically says they have no idea what happened in 2016.
Well, there you go.
That'll be it.
And Trump will win.
Or they'll cheat.
I don't know.
We'll see what happens.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at timcast.net at 4 p.m.
It's a different channel.
Go there, subscribe if you haven't already, and I will see you then.
Get woke, go broke.
And apparently the inverse to this is bow hunt elk and serve steak rare and get rich, I guess.
Joe Rogan, not woke at all, kind of a left in economic issues, and he's widely successful.
The New York Times argues that he is the new mainstream with this in their story, which I want to read for you.
Here's a quote.
While GQ puts Pharrell gowned in a yellow sleeping bag on the cover of its new masculinity issue, introduced by the editor explaining that the men's magazine isn't really trying to be exclusively for or about men at all, Joe Rogan swings kettlebells and Bo hunts elk.
Men are hungry.
He's serving steak rare.
Conde Nast, GQ's publisher, has laid off some 100 employees since the pandemic began.
In the meantime, Joe Rogan Experience has had 190 million downloads a month.
And if you include the Joe Rogan Clips channel, his views are in the 350-400 million views.
Certainly, the most successful, one of the most lucrative podcasts in the world as podcasting expands dramatically.
There's a few things I want to point out, though.
I don't necessarily think this is an issue of, you know, get woke, go broke versus... I mean, kind of, yes.
I'll get to that in a second.
I think Joe Rogan's success comes from being first and best dressed and working hard.
That's about it.
Consistency.
I've told people this all the time.
Just work hard, don't stop working, don't give up.
It may seem slow in the beginning, but you've got to build something.
You can't expect that right when you start, someone's gonna dump a bunch of money in your lap.
It doesn't work that way.
You gotta work really, really hard for it.
When I started doing everything I was doing, my money was going down, my savings were being burned up, and then slowly income started to come, and then eventually I started to make money.
But there's something interesting here.
Barry Weiss for the New York Times writes that Joe Rogan is swinging kettlebells and bow hunting elk.
Men are hungry.
He's serving steak rare.
Why does that mean?
What does that have to do with men being hungry?
I think women actually like a man swinging kettlebells and bow-hunting elk and eating rare steak too, right?
I think what we're seeing with Joe Rogan's success, partly due to his dominance of, you know, his long-standing work ethic, but also think about who he is, what he talks about.
He's left in a lot of political issues.
Well, 68% of millennial women are Democrats.
Joe Rogan certainly doesn't speak to all of them.
But he does speak to many when he talks about left-wing progressive issues and how he wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders, for instance.
Now, of course, you have a lot of weird, woke leftists.
Rogan doesn't agree with them.
But I think when you look at what GQ is doing, you might understand why it is they're laying people off.
Putting Pharrell in a gown in a yellow sleeping bag.
Do you think women want to see that?
Men and women like what Joe Rogan is doing, right?
That's the point.
It's not about men being hungry.
Because the picture painted here by Barry Weiss is kind of like men are looking for content.
Well, I think it's fair to point out a large portion of Joe Rogan's audience probably leans male.
I think women like masculinity as much as men do.
And there's this weird thing going on that's kind of smearing and attacking masculinity.
Let's read a little bit of this, but I want to show you some of the criticisms because one thing I do see here that I find interesting is this idea that everything is easy.
Interestingly, it's Joe Rogan himself who actually makes it seem easy.
And then we get another New York Times reporter who's actually closer to the woke side, Taylor Lorenz, who counters this.
I actually agree with her.
I think Joe misses something here.
Let's read a little bit and I'll explain what I mean.
The New York Times writes, Joe Rogan is the new mainstream media.
She says, when I saw the news that King of All Podcasting Joe Rogan had inked a deal with Spotify for his widely popular show, I texted to congratulate him on getting crazy rich.
How rich?
Weirdly rich, he replied.
Like it doesn't register.
Seems fake.
I have to imagine everybody who knows Joe texted him because so did I.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal could amount to more than $100 million, a number that Rogan doesn't want to discuss.
It feels gross, he told me, especially right now when people can't work.
I'm gonna stop right there and just point something out.
It shouldn't feel gross at all.
You work hard, you play hard, and if people can't work, well, I think what we're actually seeing here is with Joe's line of work in podcasting.
Joe, there's so much you can do to help people who can't work.
You can help people get started podcasting, I mean, that's one thing.
Investing in new shows and new comics, new opportunities for digital stand-up.
Joe's been promoting, I think the guy's name is Andrew Schultz, I could be getting the name wrong, on his Instagram, and the dude's hilarious.
So there's definitely ways this money can be put to good use and really, really help people.
Not only that, if it does feel gross, you can always dish out some to charities.
I think you should never be upset if you get a good payday from working hard.
Definitely not.
But I get it.
Check it out.
I mean, Joe's a bit of a lefty on economic issues, so this I can understand.
She goes on to mention that after they inked this deal, Spotify's stock jumped $1.7 billion to its market cap in 23 minutes.
So, hey man, not only did you get rich, a bunch of people holding that stock also got a good payday, right?
So she goes on to mention that, you know, Rogan's a friend of hers and he's an unlikely success story.
She said, if I told you that the Fear Factor guy would be successful, you'd think I was nuts.
But it's true, his fans are everywhere.
She says, I've met them working behind the register and wearing loafers at hedge funds.
Rogan's deal comes while the mainstream press flounders.
The pandemic has cut the legs out from under many publications.
Every day, it seems, another blue checkmark with a degree from the right college hangs up, her pixelated shingle, while the rest of us avert our eyes, hoping we won't be next.
The timing of Rogan's rise and the Old Guard's disintegration is not coincidental.
His success was made possible, at least in part, by legacy media's blind spots.
He then goes on to talk about GQ and their weird new masculinity issue.
Which I'm going to stress again.
Men and women like masculinity, and men and women like femininity.
So, I don't know who these weird woke people are that are convincing you to put a dude on a dress on the cover of your magazine.
I don't care if somebody wants to wear a dress, you can call it whatever you want.
Fine by me.
But don't be surprised if people don't buy your magazine anymore.
Now.
That being said, I think it's fair to point out there are some, I mean, consumption issues to consider here.
How many people are still buying magazines?
And GQ does have a YouTube channel with 5 million subscribers, and they frequently get millions of views.
So let's be real, GQ has its success.
It's not really a get-what-go-broke story.
But I do think it's fair to point out that in digital media, Joe Rogan certainly is doing better than GQ, and I have to wonder if him being a regular dude plays a role in this.
She mentions his success signals a profound shift, or several of them.
A shift in what people want to talk about, how they want to hear it, and who they want to hear it from.
Does the man himself buy any of this?
I called him to find out.
All the answers are, I don't think about it, and P.S.
I'm dumb, he said.
She goes on to mention that Joe uses this defense, like, hey, if you're taking my stuff too seriously, you know you shouldn't, because I'm just an MMA guy.
And that's a good point.
And self-deprecation is humbling, so it's cool that, you know, Joe is not too full of himself.
But Barry does mention Joe's... he's not dumb.
And let's be honest, he's a very, very smart guy.
He reads a lot, too.
He knows a lot, he reads a lot.
He may not be the smartest in terms of specializing in an issue, but as a comedian who's got his thumb on the pulse of culture, well, how else do you think he can be funny making fun of Hillary Trump, or Tiger King, or whatever it is he's joking about?
Because he pays attention, and he knows how to run a business, and it works.
She does go on to ask him, though, and he mentions that... Let's just read a little bit more.
The problem, he told me, is that cell phone also has YouTube videos of the craziest thing ever.
Babies landing on cats and animals attacks on naked people.
Animals attacks and naked people.
Why would you read a 2,000 word story about the collapse of healthcare in Venezuela when you can zone out with some TikToks?
That's actually not necessarily it.
It's that, like Barry Weiss mentions, you can turn on a podcast, you're probably listening to what I'm saying right now while doing something else.
You actually can't watch a video while doing something else.
For the most, you kinda can, you can glance over at it, but if you're cooking, you're listening.
That's why podcasts work.
You can do it in addition to what you're already doing.
Reading a book, watching movies or whatever, those are sit-down activities.
But one of the more interesting things, A few things I want to bring up is that Joe says podcasting is all free-balling, he added.
It's the opposite of polished, and because of that, it resonates.
Taylor Lorenz says this is quite literally untrue, and many of the most popular podcasts have immense production value.
And you know what?
Taylor's completely right.
Now, Joe Rogan does actually have a decent production value, but it is true that he comes in, sits down with people, and he talks about things.
Obviously, Joe is watching other videos, listening to other podcasts, reading newspapers and magazines so he knows what to talk about.
All of that is part of the production process.
But a lot of people seem to have this idea that podcasting is easy.
And this is what I want to get to.
I mean, I maybe should reserve this for a longer segment, but I think we'll do the best we can.
No, it's not easy.
It's very hard.
You can't just start a podcast.
I mean, no, no, no, hold on.
I'll take that back.
You can.
You absolutely can just start a podcast.
But there is a lot that goes into it.
First of all, most of the biggest podcasts in the world are heavily produced.
And many of the podcasts where you have people just talking to each other, they actually do edit those.
Many of these podcasts have music, soundtracks, advertisers, pre-scripted everything.
You'd be surprised.
They have topic lists.
Now, when it comes to the podcast I do Monday through Friday, the Timcast IRL podcast, check it out over at youtube.com slash Timcast IRL, we do minimal production.
But there's a lot that goes into this, right?
You can't just take three random people and say, talk about stuff and make a world's best podcast.
It might be interesting to hear some people talk about some stuff, but it really is about the hosts, their ability to communicate, and the things they know.
So when we do the podcast, We all kind of know stuff.
And not only that, we do spend time sourcing stories and trying to find interesting things to talk about.
So while it is kind of off the cuff, I think what we're dealing with is kind of a half-right assessment.
Podcasting is all free-balling.
It's actually not.
Most podcasts are produced.
Now, if Joe's talking about the difference between what some people have called radio over the internet, which is like the New York Times, versus Joe Rogan doing an audio podcast, He's right, right?
So let's not argue semantics.
In terms of what I do, I don't got a script right here.
I pulled up some stories and I said, I want to talk about this.
So yeah, we do kind of just go off the cuff.
But there's a lot of work that goes in this.
When I was in the Joe Rogan podcast, I mentioned something about doing three hours and 40 minutes of content recording every single day, and like an hour and 40 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.
And Joe said, but think about those hours.
You're still only doing, you know, working three hours or four hours.
And I said, no, but there's 10 hours of research that goes into that.
I don't just wake up, see an article on the screen, sit down and turn the mic on.
I read all of these things.
I read constantly.
Which brings me to a really funny point.
This person's credits.
So here's what I said.
In my interview with Joe, I mentioned I record three and a half hours of content per day.
And his first reaction was that I only did three and a half hours of work.
I explained, it's like 13 hours of work per day, every day, with no day off.
Someone responded, Tim, you literally sit in front of a computer reading news articles that other people wrote.
Firstly, On articles like this, the last three segments I do, they're opinion commentary on things other people wrote.
So it's not just that I'm reading the article and we're done with it.
Those actually aren't allowed on YouTube.
It's that I'm using these as a frame of reference to talk about something impacting culture.
But this person clearly doesn't watch the other Two hours and forty minutes of content I do every day.
Actually, no, that's not even fair.
I do one segment per... Actually, no, I do thirty minutes per day.
So that means three hours and ten minutes I do are based upon my research, understanding, and it's not as simple as to say, you can just do it and it works.
If that were the case, this critic, who claims I just read things, would have a world's best podcast and get millions of views.
So let me... I have to keep this one short, which I'm kind of bummed about.
Maybe I should have reserved it for a longer segment.
But the reality is, there's a lot of hard work that goes into this.
Joe might say he's dumb, and this is what you need to... you can take away from this.
He might say he's dumb.
He's definitely not, okay?
He might say that, oh, it's all free-balling, you know, we're just talking.
And that's true, but a lot of work does go into this.
And you might want to say it's an issue of the inversion of getting woke and going broke, but to be honest, I really don't think that's fair.
I think it's fair to a certain degree.
It's no surprise that someone who's, like, honest and principled like Joe will have a top podcast.
He's also kind of calm and rational.
Some people criticize him.
They say that he adopts the opinion of whoever's sitting in front of him.
I think that's just him entertaining the ideas of the podcast guests like a host is supposed to do.
They say the same thing about Dave Rubin.
What do you want him to do?
You want him to argue nonstop?
That's not the point of a good interview.
Joe's found something good, right?
It's a perfect storm.
He was first in and best dressed, right?
And what that means is he started early, he's really good at what he does, and he stayed on top by being consistent and working really hard.
In the end, if you start working hard, you can succeed, and that's the most important takeaway from this.
So, you know, not the most culture... I don't know, whatever.
I wanted to talk about it, so I hope you enjoyed this segment.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all then.
Now, front and center, mail-in voting, and the GOP is suing California over Newsom's vote-by-mail order.
Let's read the story and take a look at what's going on and why the GOP is suing.
But for those of you who are pro vote-by-mail, I want to just give you two quick points and ask you to listen to the rest of the segments, and you don't have to agree with me at all, but I at least want to share with you my perspective on mail-in voting.
I do not believe that voter fraud on a wide scale is anything we need to be worried about.
I think it happens sometimes, it's rare.
And typically when you hear people complain about voter fraud, what we see from the left is an argument that, oh, but it almost never happens.
You're right.
The issue that we're concerned about, I should say we as in like, well I should say I, because I don't know what conservative, I think they're concerned about people stealing ballots and stuff.
I'm concerned about corruption.
That's it.
I'm concerned about one guy.
One guy at the post office.
Who hates Joe Biden.
Just hates the guy.
Just, oh, the Tara Reade story, and he laughs all day at those Trump memes.
Ha ha ha, Donald Trump's so funny.
Yeah, I'm worried about this guy.
And when a box of ballots comes in, he looks around and he sees it, and he...
Breaks it open or something and then he sees it's from or or or he sees on the outside It's from a blue a D plus 20 County.
It's from New York's 14th These ballots are probably all for Joe Biden.
I can't stand that guy.
He's not my guy So he does he just slightly kicks it over under a desk and that's it that simple And somebody comes in and says, where are those ballot boxes going?
He's like, oh, they're right here.
And they pick them all up and they carry them away.
And he just took 10,000 votes away from Joe Biden by kicking a box.
That's disconcerting.
Now, these things can happen with in-person voting, too, for sure.
But the point I'm bringing up, excuse me, is that with mail-in voting, you have all of these different areas.
You have an expanded opportunity for the fraud.
I get it, there's still a possibility for one person to do something, and it's tough.
But the other point I want to bring up is, I think we'd have to wait until after this election at the very least.
If you don't like the way things are set up, if you want to change the rules, I personally find it unfair to try and change the rules literally just before an election is about to happen.
I don't like that.
It sounds like corruption to me, okay?
The election is in six months.
It's Joe Biden versus Trump.
Everybody knew what the rules were.
Let's not change them.
So maybe we need a law stating that election rules cannot be changed during an election year.
Maybe that's the way we should do it.
Because think about the inverse.
Right now, you'll be saying like, oh, we want mail-in voting because of this coronavirus.
And what happens if, you know, and now the conservatives are concerned there's a potential to help Biden with this rule change.
What would happen if something happened in election year 2024 and the Democrats are on track to win, so the Republicans are like, we're now going to change all the rules.
You wouldn't like that either.
I think the rules should be set.
We all know what the rules are playing by are, and that should be the way it works.
Well, let's read the news and see why the GOP is suing California.
The Republican Party is suing Gavin Newsom over his order to send every registered voter in the state a ballot by mail for the November elections.
California's election system is already burdened with serious issues.
The disastrous Motor Voter Program arbitrarily changed voter registration for thousands, casting doubt on the integrity and accuracy of our voter rolls.
California Republican Party Chairwoman Jessica Millen-Patterson said in a statement on Sunday.
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleges the directive deprives Californians of their constitutional right to vote by making fraudulent voting inevitable.
Interesting.
The lawsuit from the Republican Party and the California Republican Party follows a similar suit from former Rep.
Daryl Issa and the conservative group Judicial Watch.
In their complaint filed Friday, Judicial Watch which filed the complaint on behalf of ISA, argued the
government's move was an unlawful attempt to supersede and replace California election law.
Newsom signed an order earlier this month directing county officials to send mail-in
ballots to every voter in the state, pointing to public health risks associated with large
public gatherings stemming from the coronavirus pandemic. One of the problems
here, you need to consider, if you go to a polling location, even if you don't need an
ID to do it, You tell them that your name, they find you and say, here
you are, go vote.
But with mail-in ballots being sent out to people, that means people who don't live there anymore are going to get ballots.
That means people who have long since passed are going to get ballots.
And that means there is a potential for voter fraud.
At the very least, it creates a hole in our security.
So if you want to have mail-in voting because of the coronavirus, then perhaps there needs to be a compromise for security reasons, and that seemingly will get you over the Republican concerns.
Now another good point that needs to be brought up here is that this is Governor Gavin Newsom signing an executive order.
I think you would agree with me that someone in office changing the rules at the last minute Or sending out mail-in ballots by executive order should not be tolerated.
And yes, I can mention Georgia with Kemp and Stacey Abrams and the conflicts of interest that were there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Now you see why you shouldn't allow it, right?
I should say the same thing to Republicans.
You reap what you sow.
Elections and the right to vote are foundational to our democracy, he said in a statement.
No Californian should be forced to risk their health in order to exercise their right to vote.
Mail-in ballots aren't a perfect solution for every person.
And I look forward to our public health experts and the Secretary of State and the legislators.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Okay, let me stop you right there.
Alright?
We now know the lockdowns are ineffective.
We now know, based on Andrew Cuomo's statement a month ago, May 6th, okay, so 19 days ago.
We now know that the majority of the infections are people who are in their homes, at least in New York.
In which case, why is Newsom doing this?
It's time to reopen.
I mean, Fauci even said, reopen.
Why would you just sign something and do this?
This is the problem I have.
You're changing the rules at the last minute.
We get it.
You want to bolster voter turnout.
That's what they think.
Republicans are concerned about voter fraud.
We have seen some voter fraud, or at least evidence of, in Paterson, New Jersey.
And we have seen voter fraud in Philadelphia.
A judge of elections pled guilty to election fraud, accepting bribes.
Why change the rules at the last minute if this is the case, okay?
But back to my corruption point, I do want to highlight this.
When I mentioned a postal worker, I was trying to show you that at the bare minimum, it can be a random individual at the lowest level of the government, of a job, who just doesn't like somebody.
And they change the rules.
It could potentially benefit Trump.
It could potentially hurt Trump.
Hurt or help Biden.
But what about when a judge is given this power?
What about when ballot boxes are being sent to a certain area?
It's corruption we're concerned about.
So I think securing our elections should be something high up on our priority list, right?
Well, mail-in voting creates an extra opportunity for exploitation.
If you want to have mail-in voting, I'm totally cool with it.
I think it's actually a great idea.
What you gotta do first, though, sit down, discuss it, bipartisan effort, figure out where the security holes are, otherwise you will reap the same damage from it.
The assumption from Democrats, all too often, that they can impose new rules and make changes, and that it won't come back to haunt them, it's staggering how often this happens.
Oh, we're gonna ban this speech.
Oh no, our speech is being banned.
What are you doing?
Don't, don't, don't, don't do this.
They go on to say, GOP officials have said it will leave the system open to widespread voter fraud.
And President Trump has also frequently spoken out against the expansion of mail-in voting in recent days.
If the argument is that mail-in voting, I'm sorry, if the argument is that there is not widespread voter fraud, then that's not what conservatives are arguing.
They're not arguing that it exists or doesn't exist now.
They're arguing you create the opportunity for it, right?
In which case, after this, it might exist.
I guess this is Donald Trump.
The United States cannot have all mail-in ballots.
It will be the greatest rigged election in history.
Here's what they say.
Trump tweeted without citing any evidence for his claims.
What?
Oh, I can't stand the media.
The Hill, you're supposed to be better than this.
It's an opinion!
Please, fact-check an opinion for me.
Trump was giving his opinion on what will happen.
Fact-check it.
People grab them from mailboxes, print thousands of forgeries, and force people to sign.
Also forge names trying to use COVID for this scam.
In Paterson, New Jersey, I covered this, all right?
Several people said they were, according to the official vote count, it said they voted.
They said they never got their mail-in ballots.
They said one of their family members has been in Florida for weeks.
How did they vote?
They didn't vote for who they wanted to vote for.
So yes, it does happen.
You need evidence for it.
I guess that's a little bit, right?
But come on, stop fact-checking opinion.
Facilitating the opportunity for all registered voters to vote by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic is not a partisan issue.
It's a moral imperative that will protect voting rights and public health.
Vote by mail has been used safely and effectively in red, blue, and purple states for years.
This lawsuit is just yet another part of Trump's political smear campaign against vote by mail.
We will not let our democracy be a casualty of this pandemic, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement Sunday.
Listen, man, if that's what you think, then you should have put together an emergency voting plan.
Our democratic institutions, in my opinion, supersede everything else.
We can't function as a government.
We can't protect our citizens.
We can't save lives unless we know what we have to do and how we can do it and what's legal.
That means the elections are paramount.
That means our government is where the buck stops.
If you wanted to have mail-in voting, you should have put together a plan before an election year.
That's just me.
So what does this mean?
Okay, I'll tell you what.
If you want to change the rules, we do it after the election.
That way, Trump isn't compromised.
I'm sorry, the election isn't compromised.
Well, I shouldn't have said it that way.
I don't care, whatever.
The point is, pandemics happen.
We know they happen, right?
Pandemics happen, and we know they happen, and you could have prepared for this.
If you were late to work, it's not the fault of the train.
It's your fault for not considering the train might be coming.
The election could be compromised for or against Trump, right?
In which case, this might actually, the pandemic could benefit Trump or Biden.
I don't know.
You could argue that older people are less likely to come out.
This could help Donald Trump, right?
If there's no mail-in ballots, the most vulnerable people, older people who vote Republican, might not show up.
So this could be a big benefit for Donald Trump.
That's what I'm saying.
Just wait until after the election.
Play by the rules everyone agreed to.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I'll see you all shortly.
You're gonna love this one.
It's amazing.
Coronavirus is killing more men, but the lockdown is disastrous for women and their rights.
Okay, okay.
All right.
It's fair to point out.
Simply because men are dying doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about women losing their rights.
But I was reading this story, and I thought of something funny.
We'll read through this, but they have this section right here.
Women's rights as an afterthought.
And I thought to myself, what do you mean as an afterthought?
They should be an afterthought.
You know why?
Because people are dying, right?
That's the argument.
Now, of course, I'm being facetious.
I am a freedom over security person any day of the week.
I lean towards liberty.
I recognize the importance of security, responsibility, but I'm always going to be about freedom and liberty.
Here's what I find fascinating.
They tell us to stay in our homes, to give up our rights, not to protest.
Our rights are an afterthought, male or female.
Why?
To save lives.
Why should it be any different for women if you single them out?
If a woman had to give up some money and it meant it would save lives, wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
If we're all going to give up our rights for security anyway, don't lives come first?
Men are 50% more likely to die from coronavirus than women.
If women had to take extra precautions to make sure those men don't die, is that not unreasonable based on your own standards?
Now, as for me, I'm more of an individualist, which means, no, man or woman doesn't matter.
You live your life, and if you're scared, protect yourself.
That means men have a responsibility to protect their own lives.
But you get the point I'm trying to make, right?
Let's read the story from CNN.
The novel coronavirus seems to be more deadly for men.
But in many ways, in many other ways, women are bearing the brunt of this pandemic.
From a spike in domestic violence and restricted access to family planning services to disproportionate economic impact, the lockdown measures put in place to stop the outbreak are hurting women and their basic rights a lot more than men.
Previous epidemics of Ebola and Zika have resulted in major setbacks for women and girls in the regions most affected by the outbreaks.
And experts and activists are warning the same thing is happening globally right now.
That's true.
And I've talked about it too.
That women's rights and feminism exists in a protective sphere.
It's a fact, man.
You look at stories of women in, you know, hiking in Morocco, and what do you think happens?
You look at stories of female journalists in Egypt, and what do you think happens?
A lot of the things that we have here that the leftists in this country take for granted only exists because we are a dominant superpower.
That's just reality.
When faced with a real crisis, You will see people lose their rights.
Isn't that typically the case in war and conflict?
In a world war, guess what?
People lose their rights.
I don't like it.
At all.
And men are more likely to die.
Substantially more likely to die.
Like 98% more likely to die.
Let's read a little bit more.
A CNN analysis earlier this year found that in the countries for which data was available, men were 50% more likely than women to die after being diagnosed with COVID.
Quote, we think about this crisis in very narrow terms, only focusing on the health impacts, but we're missing the bigger picture, said Julia Smith, a researcher at the Simon Fraser University in Canada.
Smith is working on a multi-year project looking at the wider impact of the pandemic.
Men are having worse health care outcomes if they become infected.
But when we think about the secondary impacts, here we see that women are being disproportionately affected.
What does that mean, disproportionately affected?
I'm going to stop right there and just say, listen, if men are more likely to die based on your own rules of identity politics, shouldn't women then have special rules assigned to them to protect them?
Hold on.
Women should check their privilege.
How about them apples, right?
Women have the privilege of being less likely to die from coronavirus, so of course they can go around making demands while the rest of us men die.
They're the privileged majority in this case.
Shouldn't they have to give up something to protect us because we're in the oppressed minority?
I'm kidding by the way, but you get the point.
The pandemic is worsening problems women were facing even before it started.
Crises like this exacerbate already existing structural inequalities in society.
When it comes to women's rights, women's health, and women's economic status, this is exactly what we're seeing now.
Women's health?
Men are dying.
Okay?
Dying.
Women's rights is an afterthought.
Smith said that when marginalized groups are underrepresented at the decision-making table, their rights and needs are often forgotten.
And unfortunately, women's rights are almost always an afterthought in any crisis situation.
What does marginalized mean?
Or underrepresented?
Let's step outside of politics for a second.
I understand, you know, it's mostly men who are in politics, right?
But let's talk about general cultural and social behavior.
Women make up the majority of society on general, at least in the United States, like 51%.
Therefore, they are the majority, not the oppressed or marginalized minority.
Men are more likely to die from COVID.
Therefore, they are being oppressed.
And therefore, they're in the minority.
Okay, the marginalized and oppressed minority by a thin margin is men.
Therefore, shouldn't women give up a little bit just to make sure that we can keep equality, right?
We want an equality of outcome.
Here's what they say, as the virus started spreading around the world, many governments abruptly announced strict lockdowns, confining most citizens to their homes.
While this helped slow down the outbreak, authorities in a number of countries recorded a worrying consequence, spikes in domestic violence.
Now that is a very, very serious problem, for sure.
I think we can all agree on that one.
Many activists say it was painfully obvious that such abuse would increase in a lockdown situation.
Numerous studies have shown that stressful events, such as economic downturns or natural disasters, often lead to higher instances of gender-based violence.
Now, hold on.
They say spikes in domestic violence.
They don't mention the breakdown.
Is it more men than women?
They make an assumption that it's just men beating women.
Imagine all the women that have been locked down with a man that is causing them harm.
Uh, imagine all the men that have been locked down with a woman causing them harm.
You wanna give me the hard numbers on who's abusing who?
I think most of us often assume it's the dude abusing the woman, but it is true that women abuse men.
And it's a large percentage, too.
So, so what?
What's your point?
Here's what they say.
What are you supposed to do?
You lock people in their houses.
What, are you going to have the police go door to door?
Well, let's jump down to the pay gap because I don't have enough time for this one.
Women on the front lines.
The majority of health workers are women.
Men in healthcare earn more than women.
Now here's what's fascinating.
The global health and social sector has 234 million workers.
It's 67% women, 33% men.
But then they say this.
Women's earnings versus men's earnings.
Men in health earn on average 28% more than women.
Now here, CNN actually does a fairly decent job.
They point out, 10% can be explained by men and women doing different jobs.
Thank you!
Finally!
7% because women are working fewer hours.
Thank you, CNN.
But a gap of 11% remains, even when equal jobs and equal hours are compared.
All that means is you don't know what's causing it yet.
That's it?
The assumption that it's caused by sexism is wrong.
I could equally assume the 11% gap remains because women like doing cartwheels.
I could make something up.
Now I get it.
Sexism is a more likely than women just happen to break out in spontaneous cartwheeling all over the place.
It makes no sense.
Thus they get paid less.
But there are really easy explanations for this.
Men and women negotiate differently.
But if you're gonna make up something, you can make up anything you want.
Women are more likely to spend time putting on makeup and taking longer breaks, I guess?
I guess you could attribute that to working fewer hours.
But what they do is they often jump to say it's bigotry.
Sorry.
You don't have the evidence for that.
In the U.S., several states officials opted to include elective abortions in the medical procedure limited during the coronavirus outbreak.
This has potentially dangerous effects.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay.
Financial hardship.
Here we go.
Women are hit harder by job losses.
This may be due to the fact that women are more likely to work in the service sector.
They actually say this.
A lot of industries that are being most affected by the outbreak, tourism and other service industries, care worker sector, those industries tend to be dominated by women, Smith said.
We're not asking women specifically because of their gender to stop doing things that could get men sick.
We're just saying service jobs are done.
You're gone.
Okay?
We're locking down.
Now it's a bad idea based on the science we've seen so far.
But because women are more likely to work in the care industry and the service sector, they're more likely to be disproportionately affected by this.
They're also more likely to survive the virus.
So if women are taking 10% more job losses, but it means less men will die, isn't that the right thing to do?
Let me ask you this way.
If you're a woman, and you were asked, you need to quit your job right now.
Otherwise, that man will die.
Would you do it?
You'd probably be like, I have no choice.
Or better yet, if somebody was holding a weapon to someone's face, saying like, I'm gonna end their life unless you leave this job right now, you would do it.
You'd be like, okay, we all would.
It's called the hostage situation.
If the virus is putting pressure on men and you're asked, you know, we ask your business shut down, doesn't it make sense to save lives?
Now, here's the point I'm trying to make.
Not that I'm actually arguing for that.
I'm arguing that if you want a world in which we must give up our rights for security, don't be surprised if it disproportionately affects women.
You can't expect to have these identity politics-based rules and then not expect to feel the brunt of it when it turns out you are the privileged oppressor.
Plain and simple.
You ask for these rules because in the circumstances you bring up, it might be favorable towards men.
There are more male CEOs.
Well, that's a fact.
Okay, we gotta get more women CEOs.
You're right.
There's also more male sewage workers.
Gotta get more female sewage workers.
What's that?
Women aren't applying to be sewage workers?
You see the problem here.
Women are now facing the brunt of policies in many ways that negatively impact men.
If women are more likely to work in the service industry, and they're being hurt by this, I don't see the problem at all.
The greater problem is that everyone is being hurt by this, period.
But anyway, you get the point.
They want to make it about gender when literally men are dying.
I'm sorry.
If I had to choose between holding up a sign demanding suffrage for women and pulling a guy, you know, from, like, grabbing a guy's arm about to fall to his death, I'm gonna save the person's life.
And when it comes to a real crisis, you can see exactly what happens to social justice.
