S5192 - Articles Of Impeachment Filed Against Biden, GOP Reps Cite Democrat Violating Separation of Powers
S5192 - Articles Of Impeachment Filed Against Biden, GOP Reps Cite Democrat Violating Separation of Powers. Republicans are furious over the border crisis, afghanistan, the economy, and Biden's blatant violation of the separation of powers.
Democrats seem to be floundering as Republicans mostly do nothing.
But due to the Democrat majority this move will almost certainly fizzle with a whimper
#Biden
#Impeachment
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is September 23rd, 2021, and our first story.
Republicans have filed articles of impeachment against Joe Biden over the border crisis and violating the separation of powers.
It's unlikely this will go anywhere, but the story is really interesting as to why they're making this move.
It's not some tribal warfare culture war stuff.
It's legit.
In our next story, the left is pushing a lie that Steve Bannon admitted to plotting an insurrection when he just admitted to being involved in organizing a rally.
This is a good example of how the media manipulates people.
And in our last story, a woman explains how she tried using a dating app as her brother to help him and was shocked to discover how mean women were to him, and she didn't understand what men went through.
This shows us interesting insight into current politics, as most culture war issues actually break down along gender lines, with women supporting the Democratic Party and men opposing, women supporting Black Lives Matter and men opposing, women supporting gun control and men opposing.
It's really interesting stuff.
And before we get started, leave us a good review, and if you really like this show, share it with your friends.
Republicans. Now let's get into that first story.
And this is the kind of leadership we need to stand up strong and say, when you fail and you let down this country, we will not sit idly by.
Okay, I wish.
A handful of Republicans, knowing the impeachment will go literally nowhere, filed an impeachment against Joe Biden.
And I'm pretty sure it's like, I think maybe the third or fourth time there has been some attempt at impeaching Joe Biden.
Just last month, Marjorie Taylor Greene tried doing it.
And it's the same thing we saw with Democrats when Trump got elected.
There were a handful of Democrats that kept filing articles of impeachment against Trump that didn't go anywhere, that didn't mean anything.
And what was the point?
Now, I will say there's a big difference.
When it came, well, first, both are futile, wasted efforts.
I wish I could be as zealous in real life as I was with that opening bit.
But the difference is, well, there's a real complaint about Joe Biden's handling of Afghanistan, the border crisis, the economy, COVID, et cetera, et cetera.
And people are trying to impeach Donald Trump because, like, he was racist or something.
And just the impeachment filed against Donald Trump was every single time, which I think was four times, maybe five, Man, maybe even six?
It was all bunk.
UkraineGate was bunk, and they actually impeached him for that.
And then they had the insurrection impeachment, and it's just like, all of this is nonsense.
UkraineGate is debunked.
Matt Taibbi, look at his reporting.
Don't even take it from me.
And January 6th was debunked.
The FBI said no evidence.
So at the very least, I can say, OK, some Republicans are standing up, but impeachment at this point means nothing.
And we can thank the Democrats for that.
It basically is them censuring Joe Biden to the extent the Republicans have any ability to wag their finger at Joe Biden.
That's it.
The southern border is an absolute crisis.
That's true.
There are things to be said about the Biden administration's failures.
Notably, the story about the horseback riding Border Patrol agents who are whipping migrants, and then they weren't, because it turns out they didn't have whips.
And then everyone was like, well, they were lassoing them, and it's like they're just holding the reins of the horse.
Well, they're hitting people with the reins.
They're not even doing that.
Their hands aren't even in the right positions.
And then the White House comes out and bans the use of horses.
Okay.
Well, I can certainly point out that the impeachment is well-meaning, but going nowhere.
I can point out the fact that Democrats live in a fake world.
They live in a world made up of their own delusion.
And I don't say that to be mean.
You wonder why it is I have my bias.
It's because Border Patrol agents did not whip migrants.
The White House, hearing they did, then bans the use of horses.
That is the perfect example of what's going on with the Democratic Party.
They believe clickbait fake news.
They're like, uh, this, these alternative websites must be fake and CNN must be real.
It's like, they could both be fake!
You know, I've been saying this for some time, too.
Just because we know the mainstream media is clickbait, ragebait, trash, doesn't mean that the other side is right, either.
It just means I don't trust you.
And for you?
Well, we'll see.
Now, in my opinion...
There is a lot of good reporting coming out of a lot of mainstream sources, so I understand why people would trust it, but you still gotta fact-check the stuff.
One of the things we saw from the mainstream media was that lie, where they falsely frame it.
White House condemns Border Patrol agents whipping migrants.
Sure, I condemn firefighters juggling jars of mayonnaise.
As if to imply it actually happened?
No.
So then when the White House condemns it and the media reports it, instead of putting up the headlines saying, no, they weren't whipping migrants, the White House condemns it, they could put something like that, it creates the impression something really happened.
Now I'll tell you what did really happen.
They did file impeachment against the President.
And I want to come out right away in the intro and say, I put it for you very bluntly in the thumbnail and the title.
It's going nowhere, okay?
It's not going to amount to anything.
But there is polling data coming out, which is bad news for Joe Biden.
You see, if people are—these certain individuals in swing states like Ohio are willing to say, we'll go as far as to impeach Joe Biden.
That says a lot for a swing state.
Maybe not that specific district, but I certainly think it's very bad news.
And we have polling data to show, I think, in Iowa, the Democratic Party is in serious trouble.
So that's really what you'll get out of this.
Not that anybody should be leaving.
Joe Biden will actually be impeached now.
But maybe when the swing hits in 2022, Joe Biden will be impeached and, in my opinion, should be impeached over the Ukraine scandal.
Now I know.
That stuff all went down before he was president.
But I think there should be an investigation into his ties with China, his son's business deals, and we're still in the midst of the laptop scandal.
But let's read the news and see what's going on with this investigation.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member!
And you'll get access to our wonderful members-only section.
For now, members will get access to TeamCast IRL-specific episodes just for members, and we have a few more shows set to launch very soon.
We're finishing up the music, and then we're gonna have a really awesome mystery show with conversations around tales of intrigue, mystery, true crime, aliens, the paranormal, maybe even Bigfoot once in a while.
But you will also be supporting this journalism I'm about to read for you.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, smash that like button, and share this video.
Take the URL, post it everywhere on every platform.
Mines, Facebook, Twitter, whatever you can.
That is how we do marketing.
I don't have a big marketing budget.
We don't have billboards like CNN.
Maybe we'll get them.
I think what's better is organic.
If you like this video and think it's important, and you think the work I do is important, sharing the video makes it happen.
Let's read.
Representative Bob Gibbs introduces articles of impeachment against President Biden, citing the border crisis.
Timcast.com reports Ohio Congressman Bob Gibbs introduced the articles of impeachment, citing Biden's handling of the growing problems on the US-Mexico border, his attempt to expand the eviction moratorium, and his withdrawal of the military from Afghanistan.
Now, in my opinion, the eviction moratorium is the overt abuse of power we should focus on, but let's read.
Quote, he's not capable of being commander-in-chief, and that's obvious by the actions since day one, when he took the presidency back in January, Gibbs told the Washington Examiner.
Maybe something like this makes the White House think twice before they do some of this nonsense.
He added, I take this seriously.
I don't think it's haphazard.
I'm not trying to get media attention for myself.
He's done so much damage to this country in less than nine months, which is really scary.
The impeachment resolution was co-sponsored by Rep Andy Biggs of Arizona and Brian Babin and Randy Weber of Texas.
This is the second time articles of impeachment have been brought against the current president.
Georgia Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene filed the first resolution on Biden's inauguration day, which is just silly.
Look, I guess, I mean, I do think Biden should be impeached because there's a very serious conflict of interest with the things he was doing with his son.
And we've only just now gotten mainstream corroboration on the Hunter Biden emails.
This is during the Biden presidency.
There should be an investigation into that.
We're calling on the relevant committees, just like you had a prosecutor's office, and you suspect there's crimes, we want to start building a case, and there may be a case.
Representative Warren Davidson, a Republican from Ohio, told the New York Post.
A month before this move, Gibbs sent a letter to his fellow House Republicans asking them to consider impeachment.
President Biden continues to disregard his constitutional duties and boundaries, he wrote in August.
I believe conducting a sober, evidence-based discussion regarding impeachment is warranted.
I urge you all to remember our duty to the Constitution and American people to hold this administration accountable.
Gibbs opposed both efforts from Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump.
And you know what?
I agree with that.
And I agree with this guy now.
The impeachments against Donald Trump were debunked.
Ukrainegate was nonsense.
Donald Trump was on the phone with the Ukrainian president and said, you see this video about Joe Biden and getting the prosecutor fired?
You should look into that.
That's it.
It turns out Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the president fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, a company where his son was on the board of directors.
Now you can say it's not corruption, but you can say at the very least a major conflict of interest for which Donald Trump was right.
Let's take a look.
It's probable cause, maybe just a conflict of interest, maybe something more corrupt, maybe not.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
The people entered the building but there was no plan and they had no idea what they were doing.
That's from the FBI.
And they impeached him for that.
Joe Biden has broken the separation of powers Three times.
The first eviction moratorium, the second, and then the Supreme Court said no, and then he went and just violated the Supreme Court, and I said, wow, that's four times actually.
Wait a minute, not to mention the OSHA standards.
First he says, I'm going to implement an eviction moratorium without legislature.
Does it?
So he bypasses them.
The Supreme Court says, you can't do this.
And then he says, okay, I'll do it again anyway.
Once again, bypassing the legislature and the Supreme Court again.
And then the eviction, I'm sorry, the vaccine mandate bypasses the legislative branch once again.
That is overt abuse of power.
And the Supreme Court says, you're done, you can't do it.
Then he says, I'll do it anyway.
And he's like, yeah, it may be.
Might be.
We think it's legal.
We'll see.
Overt abuse of power.
Now, as for everything else impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, I don't know about that.
I think we're talking about our Amendment 25 on Joe Biden's incompetence.
They say, in a statement on Facebook about the resolution, Gibbs wrote Biden's willful negligence of the border crisis is a failure to maintain and defend American sovereignty.
Biden's attempts to extend a federal eviction moratorium despite the Supreme Court's warning, and his own admission he has no power to do so, is a blatant and intentional action that violates the separation of powers.
Gibbs, sir, you are correct.
And I agree.
I agree, sir.
Our political dynamics in Congress, I recognize, will prevent this from ever being debated.
But I could not stand by while President Biden commits what I believe to be flagrant and
deliberate violations of his oath of office, Gibbs concluded in a statement.
Gibbs represents the 7th Congressional District in north central Ohio.
I agree, sir, I really do.
Now, the central part of this, there's two big parts to this.
One, the separation of powers.
I think that is the principal reason for impeachment.
However, a big focus is the failure at the border.
And I do think we should point out how far Joe Biden is willing to go.
First, I'd like to highlight a good friend, Kyle Kalinske.
I'm not saying it to be overly disparaging.
I actually like Kyle.
Kyle's a good dude.
Kyle tweeted out a series of question marks, confused, because Tulsi Gabbard said, Joe Biden Kamala Harris, the humanitarian national security crisis on the southern border is the direct result of your open border policy.
As I said in my 2020 presidential campaign, we can't have a secure nation if we don't secure our borders.
Kyle then shows another image, Al Jazeera Plus.
President Biden is using Title 42 to expel asylum seekers without their right to hearings.
Trump invoked Title 42 citing COVID-19, but health experts say it has no medical basis.
440,000 people expelled under Title 42 under Trump.
690,000 people expelled under Biden.
It would appear that Kyle Kulinski is trying to make the point that how could our borders be open if Joe Biden is deporting so many people?
Certainly, he's trying to get rid of the migrants.
I can explain it very, very simply.
First, Kyle, Biden having an insecure border directly correlates with having to deport more people.
To put it simply, if you're on a boat, and the boat is not leaking, how many pails of water must you bail?
Well, the answer is zero.
So you would say, Captain John, he bailed no buckets of water, none whatsoever.
And then you'd be like, yeah, because his ship wasn't sinking.
But Captain Biden has been bailing thousands of buckets of water every day.
And you can frame that to be like, why wasn't the previous captain dealing with bailing out the water?
And then you're like, look at the underlying condition.
The ship wasn't sinking under Captain Trump.
Under Captain Biden, the ship is sinking, so he's desperately trying to bail water.
To put it simply, Donald Trump deported less people because the border was under control.
Donald Trump was building a wall and securing the border, and migrant confrontations were dropping.
Now, they did spike to their highest level under Trump.
That's true.
But Trump quickly got things under control.
You can argue about how, why or what happened, but it did happen under Joe Biden.
It's been a disaster.
It has been a humanitarian crisis going on the entire year.
Joe Biden has been removing the border protections, the policies.
Now they're banning horses because of fake news.
So, yes, if water is flooding into your ship, you will need to be bailing out those buckets endlessly.
And you can make it look like Joe Biden's working harder than Trump, but the reality is Joe Biden caused the ship to start sinking to the point where we get this.
Department of Homeland Security seeks contractor to run migrant detention facility at Gitmo.
Guards who speak Haitian Creole.
This story, what?
We were trying to close Gitmo.
Now under Biden, the disaster and crisis is so bad.
That they want to expand Gitmo to be a migrant detention center.
Please, Left, tell me you don't support this.
Joe Biden is a disaster.
The border is so insecure, he's like, let's take these people and send them to Guantanamo Bay.
This is nightmarish, isn't it?
NBC News says the Biden administration is advertising for a new contract to operate a migrant detention facility at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay.
Wow.
You ever hear that joke?
They say—some guy tweeted this—waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay sounds really, really fun until you learn what it actually means.
It's like waterboarding.
You imagine you're on the beach and you're surfing or something, but it actually means a detention facility offshore where people are tortured, and that's what the Biden administration is going to be doing to these migrants.
Now, we do have more information coming out that many of these migrants have Chilean and Brazilian IDs, meaning They came from Brazil and Chile, where they live there long enough to get IDs.
So why are they coming to the U.S.
border now?
Because Joe Biden is sinking America, whether intentionally or due to his incompetence.
When he removed the protections that Donald Trump put in place to guard our border, notably the remain in Mexico policy, I believe the courts reinstated this.
When Joe Biden said, we're gonna do catch-and-release, we're gonna let people come in, they said, hey, now's our chance.
I'd rather be in America than Brazil or Chile.
That's what they said.
And I'll be honest, I'd almost rather be in Brazil.
But, you know, vacation-wise, I think America's, like, pretty rad.
Appalachia is beautiful.
I prefer the climate.
But jokingly, Brazil is awesome, and I'd love to vacation there.
I've been to Copacabana, you know, in Rio.
I've been to Sao Paulo.
It's amazing.
Never been to Chile, but Chile looks rad too.
It is confusing to me that someone would leave the beauty and comfort of Brazil as a refugee to the United States on this long and dangerous journey.
Now, I get it.
America's great.
Wealthier.
Maybe that's what they're hoping for.
But, like, Brazil ain't bad.
You know, if you fled Haiti to Brazil, you're doing really, really well.
But they come up all the way to the U.S.
and Joe Biden has done such a terrible job that this is where we are.
So I can respect Gibbs on the impeachment and those who are backing it.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, of course, apparently tried to impeach Joe Biden again, and so they said, you know, she filed immediately when he was inaugurated.
Then you have in August, and now you have this other impeachment.
This is from Forbes, August 20th, 2021.
They say, Wow!
Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene on Friday introduced three impeachment resolutions against Joe Biden that have little chance of advancing.
That's true.
The resolutions focus on key areas of criticism levied against Biden by GOP lawmakers, the chaotic U.S.
withdrawal from Afghanistan, illegal immigration through the U.S.-Mexico border, and the unclear constitutionality of Biden's new eviction moratorium.
The resolutions are unlikely to go to a floor vote, much less pass in the Democratic-controlled House.
Greene in a statement announcing the resolution denounced Biden in extreme terms.
As with many of Greene's maneuvers, the resolution seemed primarily aimed at boosting or fundraising numbers.
That's an opinion!
Did you put opinion on this?
Is there opinion?
Andrew Salender is the writer from Forbes.
Andrew, that's an opinion.
Saying it seems primarily aimed at boosting fundraising numbers is not a news fact to include in a story.
It's an opinion.
If a politician or an activist came out and said, we think she's just doing that, then you can report the quotes from other people, but that's what really bothers me about modern news, okay?
They just inject their opinions.
I don't see this going anywhere.
I can give a shout out to Tulsi Gabbard slamming the Biden administration.
Haitian migrant crisis a direct result of your open border policies, we saw in that tweet.
But take a look at this.
Going back to August, Lindsey Graham repeats impeachment call for former friend Joe Biden.
I gotta tell you, I think Lindsey Graham is one of the fakest, most duplicitous individuals in the country.
He's an awful politician.
I don't know how someone like him keeps getting elected.
I have no faith in this guy.
Not a big fan of him or Mitch McConnell, they say.
The Republican senator from South Carolina was close to Biden.
We get it.
He's repeated his call for Joe Biden to be impeached over the U.S.
withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying the president ignored sound advice that has been this way for 40 years.
Biden rebuffed him, calling him short and not especially sweet.
Well, that's just, you know what?
I don't like Biden either.
I'll tell you this.
OK, in this in this instance, Graham is correct.
Joe Biden should be impeached.
Joe Biden is absolutely awful, and I can respect that.
But Mitch McConnell comes out September 1st.
There isn't going to be an impeachment of Biden.
Why did you vote for Mitch McConnell?
I know you're coming out and you're saying, dude, what was that other lady?
Was it McGrath who ran against them?
It's been a minute.
You're like, am I going to vote for her?
No, we're going to vote for the Republican, I guess.
Primary this guy.
I'll tell you what.
If there is no— I voted Republican in 2020, okay?
And a straight ticket, by the way.
So let me tell the Republican Party this.
I do not like you as a party.
I do not like most of your members.
I like Rand Paul.
I like Thomas Massey.
Hawley's pretty good because he's addressing social media censorship.
And, you know, Ted Cruz is doing all right, but I'm not a big fan of most of these people.
Rand Paul, he's, I think, one of our best politicians in office right now.
Far from perfect, mind you.
If you want to convince me, an independent who is actually leaning towards the Mises Caucus and someone like Dave Smith, if you want to convince me to vote Republican, then you better have a powerful primary of people like McConnell.
Now, I don't think McConnell is up for—he's not up for reelection for some time now.
I'm just saying, if I look to my district, And I see some neocon or establishment shill, somebody who sits back and does nothing, I ain't gonna be voting for you.
And you know what?
I'm sure a lot of independents feel the same way, but I tell you this, if there are primaries where you have staunch populist politicians, they're getting my vote.
I can see myself voting Republican only under that condition.
Because if I'm going to empower the Republican Party, which I do not like, it better be because they're going to do something to protect our rights.
And they should impeach Joe Biden.
I have personally called for Joe Biden to be impeached over his shady dealings and the revelations coming out because of his son and the laptop and all of that stuff.
I think if the Republicans get into the House, they should impeach him.
And especially now, over violating the separation of powers.
Multiple times.
I believe we're at four.
But they won't.
At least Mitch McConnell won't.
And he'll block it.
And that says enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden has violated the separation of powers on numerous occasions.
At the time this statement was made by McConnell that there isn't going to be impeachment of Biden, it shows you how pathetic he is as a man and as a politician.
The Democratic Party ripped apart, tore apart the earth, ripped earth from the ground to do everything in their power to destroy Donald Trump.
And as much as I think there are plenty of things to criticize Trump over, it was insane to watch the evil and the lies and the manipulations.
The Republican Party is so pathetic that they won't do anything to stand up for their positions.
You want to see me vote for somebody?
Tell me you're going to repeal the NFA.
Come out and say we're going to repeal gun laws.
They all violate the Constitution and we won't stand for it.
Hey, hey, I'm on board with that.
You know, if you want to pass a law infringing on someone's rights, you've got to change the Constitution first.
This is the perfect example of what the Republicans don't do.
While Democrats are demanding hard action and change, the Republicans just say, we won't do anything at all.
The Republicans defend it by saying, we don't want to use the power of government to force others.
Wrong.
The Republicans should be then repealing laws.
If your position is that the government should not use its power, the Republican position should be, we are introducing a bill to repeal another bill.
This bill repeals three bills.
Meanwhile.
Mitch McConnell says he will do nothing.
And what do we get?
The left says that they'll do whatever it takes by any means necessary.
Any means.
And Mitch McConnell.
Here we go.
Quote, I think the way these behaviors get adjusted in this country is at the ballot box, said McConnell.
The President is not going to be removed from office with a Democratic House and a narrowly Democratic Senate.
That's not going to happen.
So, with respect, he's not saying he'd block it, to correct my earlier assessment.
He's saying it won't happen.
It's pointless.
To be fair, that's true.
But my criticism stands.
McConnell is a do-nothing.
If the Republicans win in the House, that is in line with exactly the logic of Mitch McConnell himself.
He says, the bottom line is there is no evacuation from the end of a war that you can run without the kind of complexities—oh, I'm sorry, they're talking about Joe Biden, but let me explain something.
When Mitch McConnell said, we will not confirm Garland—that was Obama's last Supreme Court nominee—he said, it's an election year, it's the last year, we're not going to have a confirmation hearing for Barack Obama's His logic was, if the party in Congress deems it so at odds with the president, they reject him.
His logic was if the party in Congress deems it so at odds with the president, they reject
him.
Okay.
So then when Donald Trump won, he said, now the Republican party controls Congress and
the presidency, which is unification.
So Donald Trump makes the nomination, and the Republicans confirm.
If they did hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, the Republicans would have just said no, and he would have been denied.
So it was a waste of time.
Okay.
If the Republicans win back the House and the Senate, then Congress, at odds with the President, and seeing real concerns, will file impeachment.
So to be fair, McConnell is saying, so long as the Democrats are running things, there's not going to be an impeachment of Joe Biden, and he's correct.
But my criticism, overwhelmingly, is that Mitch McConnell is a do-nothing.
He seems to think that getting judges appointed will do anything.
And think, just realize, my friends, how short-sighted that is.
A judge will only rule in the direction that culture allows.
Not always.
But look at Chauvin.
Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
I don't care if you like the guy or don't like the guy.
The judge admitted it.
When they said we want to change a venue because the people here are biased, the judge said there is no jurisdiction in Minnesota where there could be a trial that wouldn't be biased.
So we'll do it here.
Now I'm paraphrasing, but effectively they admitted there would be no fair trial for Chauvin.
If that's the case, the whole trial, all of the charges have been dropped immediately, or handed over to the feds, which they're doing anyway.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Therein lies the big problem we face in this country.
Judges are not going to solve your problem.
Mitch McConnell seems to think that's the case.
The Republican establishment sits on their hands and is unwilling to fight because they're more concerned about what the New York Times thinks of them than their own constituents.
And you know what?
I don't completely blame them.
Most of their constituents learn about them from the New York Times.
So what they need is the New York Times to write some article that says, Mitch McConnell is the leader we need.
I was mentioning on Timcast IRL that watching The Nutty Professor with Eddie Murphy, I think it's from 1996 or something, he's watching TV and next to his TV is a Rush Limbaugh book.
I thought it was really fascinating because, you know, Eddie Murphy's not some right-wing dude and this is a mainstream Hollywood movie, but they thought it made sense to have a Rush Limbaugh book at this college professor's house in a fictional universe.
Nowadays, if someone saw that in a mainstream show, they'd be like, you're dog-whistling and trying to promote Rush Limbaugh.
You see how times have changed.
We need a handle on culture.
It needs to be considered unacceptable for a judge to give an unfair trial knowingly.
There needs to be widespread uproar.
Not violence, I'm saying non-violent civil disobedience against judges who do these things.
Imagine if what happened in Minnesota was 10,000 Republicans sitting in the streets around the courthouse making it impossible to move forward.
The courts would be like, we can't do this.
And the judge, seeing the reaction from the people, would have had no choice but to back down.
Instead, the left went out and violently rioted.
Armed police officers and security guards, some police officers with machine guns, had to escort the jury in.
That's how insane things are.
So you think judges are going to do anything for you?
It ain't going to happen.
Now, something interesting is happening.
Culture is shifting.
People are upset with the way things are going.
From townhall.com, CNN admits new poll in key battleground states should terrify Joe Biden.
They say President Joe Biden has been facing some dismal poll numbers as of late.
With some of the latest coming out of Iowa, a key battleground state.
According to a Des Moines Register Mediacom Iowa poll released Tuesday, 31% of Iowa adults approve of Biden's job performance, while 62% disapprove.
In an analysis of the poll, CNN's Chris Silliza warned this poll should terrify Democrats ahead of 2022.
Also, particularly noteworthy is that former President Donald Trump bested Biden in the poll, as Steven Gruber Miller mentioned in his poll write-up.
Biden's job approval rating is lower than former President Donald Trump's worst showing in the Iowa poll.
The former Republican president's worst job approval was 35 in December 2017.
Other recent president's worst Iowa poll was Obama at 36, George W. Bush 25 in September 2008.
The polls showed a lack of support for the president back in June as well, when 43% approved and 52% disapproved.
Clearly, September's results show a much more stark difference.
Again, 31% lower than Donald Trump.
Iowa is a very important state.
It's basically like THE state.
Now 2022 ain't 2024.
We got several years before we get to that election in 2024.
And things can change.
It is an eternity until then.
It is a year until we get to the midterm elections.
And that's still an eternity.
So things can change.
But it's still really good news in that people are starting to reject the failures of Joe Biden, realizing he offers nothing.
You know, Donald Trump may have had problems, but do you miss him yet?
At least he was entertaining, right?
We have a new survey also from Town Hall.
A new survey of key demographics shows stark warning for Democrats ahead of midterms.
This one's really interesting.
Basically, Black voters overwhelmingly reject vaccine mandates, and they're substantially less likely to be vaccinated.
According to a new morning consult survey conducted September 18th to 20th, the president's net approval rating among unvaccinated black voters tanked 17 points.
And that's most black voters.
Most of the black community is unvaccinated.
I think it's around like 60 to 70 percent.
I think like 65.
At least in New York.
That means you've got a large portion of individuals who are saying, uh-uh, you're not going to force me to undergo procedures.
And Joe Biden, he said it's because of the Tuskegee Airmen.
He was like, they got a lot of good reason to worry, you know, Tuskegee Airmen and blah, blah, blah.
Joe Biden accidentally called World War II heroes syphilitic victims of government experimentation.
There's a big difference between the Tuskegee Experiments and the Tuskegee Airmen, Joe Biden.
Yikes.
But the point remains.
There's good reason to distrust the government, and we've got to be careful.
Some people say I'm too trusting of the government.
I look for evidence, and I think you'll need more than just conjecture to convince me that some statement is false or true.
You need evidence.
If a study comes out, I'm going to say, okay, I take it with a grain of salt.
If a study comes out, you know, there's a lot of studies of, you know, different... we'll keep the vaccine stuff out of it.
But there's conflicting studies.
I won't blindly believe any of them.
I'll just do my best to navigate this stuff and talk to experts and people I trust to figure out what's right and what's wrong.
But you've got people who blindly believe government and people who blindly distrust... well, I shouldn't say blindly distrust, who distrust government, but then that leads them into the hands of people that they shouldn't necessarily trust.
Anyway, I digress.
When it comes to government trust, overwhelmingly white progressives trust the government.
But the black voters don't.
So that's going to be really, really bad for Joe Biden as he makes the authoritarian push, violates his oath of office, and abuses his powers.
Eventually you're going to get people saying, we don't stand for this.
And maybe we'll see something happen in 2022.
With the way California looked in the recall election, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you all then.
Steve Bannon admits he helped plot January 6th Trump rally to quote, kill Biden presidency in the crib.
Ladies and gentlemen, we got him.
Steve Bannon confessed it's all over.
The insurrection has been solved.
It was him the whole time.
And now surely the police will move in to end this reign of terror.
The current state of American politics, my friends.
The current state of American politics.
Steve Bannon, here's the story, basically said he helped organize a rally.
That's the end of the story.
Have a nice day.
But what do we get?
We are getting wave after wave of all of these stories on the mainstream media like Steve Bannon admits he was involved, they were trying to, you know, kill the Biden presidency in the crib.
Which is a quote.
They're saying that it was clearly seditious conspiracy, and that the government must move in and make arrests, and this is how they keep people in the cult.
You know, it's really funny when I say something like, Hillary Clinton, 30,000 emails, no criminal charges, nothing's ever done, violation of public trust, you know, Ukraine, Burisma, Joe Biden, all of these things.
There's never any action.
It's funny when Trump supporters are like, the Durham report, Russiagate, where's accountability?
And the left comes out and says, Steve Bannon, where's the accountability?
Some of us live in objective reality and some of us don't.
The objective reality is that there was no insurrection.
There wasn't one.
The FBI says there wasn't one.
They found no evidence of any plot to overthrow anything.
It was a bunch of dumb people rioting.
They had no idea what they were doing.
Seemingly random.
Even with their informants and all of that stuff, nothing.
But the left still insists it was an insurrection, even when there are quite literally no charges against anyone having to do with anything related to sedition or insurrection or conspiracy.
They just believe it.
And because they believe the lie, it's easy to push fake news stories like this.
Absolutely amazing.
Here's what I love.
You can see our ground news bias-o-meter, and 100% of the reporting on this story—only three sources—is from the left.
That's right.
Why?
Because on the right, they know there was no insurrection, so this is a non-story.
Hundreds of thousands of people showed up in Washington, D.C.
on January 6th for a rally to watch Donald Trump speak.
And then they left.
Some people, during Trump's speech, made their way to the Capitol, or were at the Capitol, and a riot broke out.
It was a bad riot.
People, I think, who rioted should be charged.
And first of all, you know, all these people, man, there's so many people who really, really want some, like, advocacy for violence.
It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
unidentified
They're like, Tim says to stand up, but then gets mad when people try to break into the Capitol.
I'm like, what about standing in a building makes you think you're going to do anything with the government?
It's like, nothing was accomplished that day other than breaking into a building, disrupting the Electoral College vote.
I suppose if that's what you wanted to do, sure, fine.
But did it help anyone?
Did it advance your cause?
Man, pay attention.
Now there's challenges with overt tyranny like what's happening in Australia.
I'm not a fan of violence because ultimately it will be used against you.
It's de-persuasive.
It scares people.
I get it though.
You've got to take a look at the bigger picture.
In Australia, the police are engaging in violence as well.
And that could scare people too.
So it depends on what's happening.
But all in all, If you have a video of police, two cops, spraying a 74-year-old woman as she lays on the ground writhing in pain, that is good for your cause.
When you have videos of people, some guy they're calling Australian Rambo, chokeholding cops, that's bad for your cause.
So the simple solution is this.
Do not be the one to engage in violence.
Be the one to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, like blocking streets and blocking buildings.
And yes, you can get charged for those things.
Typically it's a slap on the wrist because they're not really crimes.
They'll just say you're obstructing a roadway or something.
But then what happens is, Occupy Wall Street, let me take you way back in time and explain something.
Occupy Wall Street was struggling to get a footing.
The first weekend, I suppose, there was a decent amount of people there.
I wasn't there immediately for that, but I was there in the first week, I think day three, which was like, it was like a Monday, maybe.
And there was like 17 people in the park.
It was raining, and a cop walked up, and he was wearing a raincoat, and he saw a bunch of us standing under a tarp, and he was like, he's like, man, you guys, you know, you got conviction, passion, and he smiled and he walked away.
No, nobody, nobody was there.
Now, the next weekend, a lot of people showed up.
I believe it was several hundred, maybe a thousand.
Because, you know, people come out on the weekends, right?
Walked up to four women who were not in the protest group, who were standing on the side.
They were activists, but they were standing on the sidewalk, and he pepper sprayed them.
And at the time, my understanding, it was the fastest viral video on the internet.
It was over a million views in less than one day.
At the time, we had not seen anything like this, back in 2011.
Maybe, but I'm pretty sure it was the first time we saw that kind of explosive growth in a single day.
And, uh, I actually know the people who uploaded that video.
1.2 million views or whatever within a day.
And it was just four women standing on the sidewalk saying like, what are you doing?
And then he just sprays them all in the face and starts screaming and they fall to the ground.
That created Occupy Wall Street.
Four young women upset over a police arrest of activists getting needless, like, brutalized for no reason.
You see, and that's why I tell people, yo, violence doesn't work.
Maybe before the internet era when you wanted to take control of a building because controlling the building meant that you had governmental power for some reason.
In today's day and age, we're mostly digitized.
Our lines of communication cannot be broken so easily.
Standing in a building doesn't do anything, and hurting people is just wrong anyway.
True of the police.
So when you have video of cops brutalizing people, those people gain public support and their cause moves farther.
As for what happened with Black Lives Matter, everything spiraled out of control.
That being said, they're claiming Biden had something to do with the violence, which he did not.
Here's the story.
Let me show you what they're saying, because you're going to get a kick out of it.
Raw Story says, Busted!
Steve Bannon admits he helped plot January 6th Trump rally.
Yeah, and?
They say conservative broadcaster Steve Bennett admitted on Wednesday that he had plotted with President Trump to kill the Biden presidency in the crib ahead of the Jan.
6 attack on the U.S.
Capitol.
Isn't it amazing how they lie?
So if you live in the cult— Let me just— Okay.
No seditious conspiracy charges emerge in U.S.
Capitol riots.
FBI finds no evidence that January 6th was an organized plot to overturn the presidential election.
Now that we've established those things, for those of you who might be a leftist who find your way to this video, can I just tell you, please, There was no insurrection.
The FBI says no seditious conspiracy.
No one's been charged with insurrection.
It was a bunch of idiots rioting and trying to break into the Capitol and ultimately accomplish nothing and then left.
And most of the people are seen walking around.
They're walking through the velvet ropes, not messing things up.
Police opening the doors and letting them in.
Sorry, not an insurrection.
FBI finds no evidence of a conspiracy or plot.
How much more do you need?
Then you read this.
Let this please be a wake-up call to the fact that this is a lie.
Here's how they play it.
Steve Bannon did help organize a rally According to this statement, that's basically what he was talking about.
The rally had several hundred thousand people.
Ninety-nine percent of those people left.
That's it.
Trump was still speaking when the rioters went to the Capitol.
Okay?
So when Steve Bannon says he helped organize a rally, yeah, it was getting a bunch of people to wave little American flags and listen to Trump speak.
That's it.
They're going to say, During his War Room broadcast, Bannon played clips of journalists Robert Costa and Bob Woodward explaining how events unfolded prior to the January 6th riot.
You look at January 5th, we discover that Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist, was there at the Willard Hotel, blocks from the White House with Rudy Giuliani, having an almost War Room-type meeting with other Trump allies the eve before the January 6th insurrection.
There was no insurrection.
If you don't trust the FBI, then do you just believe political pundits saying it was an insurrection?
Okay, fine.
The FBI is corrupt.
There you go.
Sure, that's the only answer.
Biden?
Biden's Department of Justice is corrupt and unwilling.
Fine.
Costa recently explained MSNBC, and Bannon had actually been in close touch with President Trump for days before January 6th.
Based on our reporting, he privately told President Trump to have a reckoning on January 6th, and he said to the president, it's time to kill the Biden presidency in the crib.
Bannon seemed proud to confirm the conversation had taken place.
Quote, yeah, because his legitimacy, Bannon said of Biden, 42% of the American people think Biden did not win the presidency legitimately.
Because it doesn't it doesn't matter what you think is true.
And I tell us people all the time.
Obviously, there's objective facts and there is truth, but it doesn't matter what you think is true.
It matters how people feel.
And if you have a large amount of people who feel something and they're incorrect about what's happening, they're gonna get violent and it's gonna break down.
It's a shame because I wish truth was the end-all be-all.
But it's not.
I mean, you look here and they say, Bannon admits to, you know, they're trying to make it seem like he planned the insurrection.
Right?
First of all, as I stated, there wasn't one.
The FBI says there was no plan.
You certainly would think they looked into Steve Bannon.
There was no plan for any of this.
The plan was a big rally.
They wanted a million people to show up and say, no, and have this, like, large American flag-waving thing.
Quote, it killed itself, he continued.
Just look at what this illegitimate regime is doing.
It killed itself, okay?
But we told you from the very beginning.
Just expose it.
Just expose it.
Never back down.
Never give up.
And this thing will implode.
Yes.
Let me give you the truth.
Steve Bannon certainly has his opinions.
I completely disagree with.
I argued with Bannon about voter fraud.
Sorry, I... You know what?
There are so many people, and I think, Bennett, who want to believe in this big voter fraud narrative because they... I think they've been conned in this.
I think they've been tricked into believing this stuff.
Let me explain something to you.
Is fraud possible?
Yes.
Does fraud happen?
It does.
Bill Barr said it.
Is it on a massive scale with this grand conspiracy?
I really do not believe so.
And I say that because, of course, sure, conspiracies can exist, but let me explain.
You had, and many of you know this already, Pennsylvania Republicans made universal mail-in voting.
They passed that a year before the election in violation of their state constitution.
The shadow campaign to save the election.
They come out and tell you what they did.
You don't need to go on a wild goose chase to know what's happening.
And while you are distracted with this narrative, what's not happening is reform that's going to secure our elections.
You see, here's what happens.
Universal mail-in voting.
Early voting.
Combine these things, and what happens?
Democrat activists can go out.
You do not need any kind of fraud for this to work, and it is the simplest solution with the least amount of assumptions.
We know universal mail-in balloting happened.
We know that Pennsylvania did it in violation of the state constitution.
A lower court judge said that the the plaintiffs would likely win on the merits challenging the constitutionality of allowing universal mail-in ballots.
Do Republicans go door-to-door?
No.
Almost all Republicans are voting on the day, or I should say the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Independents vote day of.
Democrats overwhelmingly vote early.
Why?
Because Democrats go door-to-door and say, did you vote yet?
No.
See that thing on the ground right there?
That's your ballot.
Fill it out.
And they say, I don't know, just fill it out.
Put it right back in the mailbox.
Mailman will come and take it.
Republicans aren't doing that.
So when you see that Democratic votes are overwhelmingly mail-in, sure, you can make assumptions about fraud and harvesting and all that stuff, and there's probably some of that there.
We did see a guy arrested on forgery charges having 300 recall ballots, but 300?
It's not enough individually.
Now perhaps you can argue, oh, but there's probably tons of it.
Great, there's no evidence.
Okay, there's evidence of individual instances, there was evidence in North Jersey, and I respect all of that, I think it all should be shot down and should be investigated, but I tell you right now, the only thing you need to worry about is mail-in voting has given Democrats the ability to go out and tell people, vote, do this, do that, get the job done.
Now, if you still believe beyond that, that there's widespread fraud or whatever, okay, I don't think you need to even consider that.
Why?
Because if the issue is that Democrats are using mail-in voting to advantage themselves because in dense population areas you can hit more homes than in conservative rural areas, that to me is the greatest reason why we should not have it.
You should have to go and vote in person.
You see, in Republican areas, if you're going to go door-to-door, the houses are far away, especially in very rural areas.
It's very difficult for someone to go door-to-door.
But if you're in a city and they send 1,000 ballots to one apartment complex because you have families and young people and roommates, two Democrat operatives can go door-to-door asking people if they voted yet and hit 1,000 people in the span of probably an hour.
Knock on the door.
Hey, we're with, you know, getgettovote.org or whatever.
Did you fill out your ballot?
It's right there.
They just delivered them.
You got it?
That's great.
You can fill it out right now.
All you got to do is give it to your mailman.
And that will dramatically increase the amount of ballots they get.
By all means, do your audits.
Investigate the stuff.
But I think the priority should be on reform saying no to universal mail-in voting because it is too insecure and Advantage is Democrats based on structure of urban of cities and population density and that should not be a good reason.
Now, we can counter that and say Democrats can say, well then our local polling stations are too crowded.
Simple, have another polling station or add more polls to, you know, more voting booths.
That being said, Let's read.
Lawrence Tribe says, it'd be hard to justify DOJ inaction in the face of this rapidly mounting evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit sedition against the U.S.
government and to give aid and comfort to an insurrection.
Ah, Lawrence Tribe.
It's amazing that this guy is like a law professor or whatever, and he has no idea what's going on in the world.
There was no conspiracy.
There was no sedition.
Steve Bannon is not talking about storming into the Capitol.
He's talking about a rally.
And this is the narrative they push.
Here you go.
Sarah Kenzier says, Thread from February.
Don't act like the Bannon coup plotting is some revelation.
We knew about it in real time.
Ask why the DOJ and Congress refused to hold him accountable.
We did.
Good investigative journalism, Sarah.
We did.
We did ask why they're not holding him accountable.
And it's really simple.
FBI finds no evidence that January 6th was an organized plot to overturn presidential election.
No seditious conspiracy charges emerge in U.S.
Capitol riot cases.
What more do these people want?
Russia gate was bunk.
The Ukraine gate was bunk.
The insurrection narrative is a lie.
It was dumb people rioting.
And you know what?
They're being arrested and they're being charged, and the charges are very insane, in my opinion.
I mean, what they did was bad.
It's the Capitol.
We shouldn't tolerate it.
But the reaction is just absolutely absurd.
So here we go.
We have a viral trend on Twitter where they're claiming Bannon did it, and these people live in psychotic WALL-E world of distorted reality.
Do Trump supporters live in psychotic, woolly world of distorted reality?
Many of them do, actually.
Yes.
But not a substantive portion, and none with institutional power.
I can have a conversation with some of the most prominent Trump supporters and conservatives, people like Jack Posobiec, and the criticism they have of Jack is that he's, you know, he's far right!
It's like, well, did you say he was wrong?
Jack's opinions are not far right.
The information he talks about is typically verified, sourced, mainstream news and human events and reporting and things like that.
So when you have a prominent mainstream left with viral trends based on crackpot conspiracy lies that have already been debunked, and then you have a conspiracy faction with no institutional authority, who am I supposed to be concerned about?
So throwing it back to that YouTube study that said there is the left, the center, the right, and the exclusively critical of left.
That's what they called me and people like Dave Rubin a few years ago.
Now they just say, centrist, or you must be right-wing.
That's right.
If you are critical of the lies and the psychotic behavior from the left, that means you are right-wing.
It's amazing, isn't it?
That's how they define left and right?
It's nonsensical.
My political opinions, policy positions, idealistic vision of the world is rather left-wing.
And I mean, I don't mean left-wing in the, like, French Revolution sense.
I mean in the economic sense.
But what does it mean to be left and right?
At this point, it seems nothing.
Tribal signifiers.
I suppose what they're saying is that left and right are, are you for the revolution or opposed to the revolution?
And the funny thing is, you know, in the French Revolution, they said those on the right of, you know, of the, you know, in the room were pro, were anti-revolution, and those on the left were for the revolution.
That's where it comes from, right?
And the left were socialists.
My political positions and idealistic positions are center-left in terms of revolution.
What does that mean?
I don't think the U.S.
government should be destroyed or dismantled or anything like that, like the left does.
You know, they want to tear it down.
They want a revolution.
No, I think the American way of government is brilliant and it protects liberty.
However, I am a staunch reformist in favor of some leftist economic policies.
It must be done through peaceful, persuasive resourcefulness and conversation and agreement.
And you have a conversation with people and you learn where your compromise is.
And that's why it's so difficult for there to be a left libertarian system.
I do think there can be a moderate libertarian system.
And so, what do I mean by revolution?
The Federal Reserve is really, really awful.
The federal government is corrupt.
Our politicians are crooked.
We have all these problems.
We need to weed out the corruption in our system.
I don't think through revolution.
I think through reform.
I think through peaceful, persuasive discussions.
I think through strong grassroots organizing.
Tea Party, for instance.
Things like that.
And to a certain respect, absolutely Occupy Wall Street.
They, for the most part, were very opposed to the violence.
And I think they lost that.
And that's what's hurting them.
Now you have Antifa going around smashing stuff and they tolerate it.
They support it.
They cheer for it.
We need to reform this country, no doubt.
Protect the working class.
Get rid of these corrupt institutions.
End the forever wars.
Get our troops out of these foreign countries.
Bolster our nation's borders.
I'm all for immigration 100%.
Just the proper way so we can protect the migrants from smugglers, from cartels, from the dangers of traversing the desert.
And I think we want to bring our manufacturing back.
That's not revolution.
It's just reform.
So that puts me kind of in the middle.
Not right-wing saying we must stop and defend all the institutions and keep them the same.
No, I think we got a lot of problems in this country that need to be changed.
So I'm absolutely for dramatic change in this country.
Through conversations and through discussions.
So we can truly progress and make things better by solving our problems.
The modern version on the left is just hysterical crackpots who believe in insane conspiracies about Russia, which is debunked, and Ukraine, which is debunked, and the FBI insurrection.
I'm sorry, the insurrection claims all debunked.
FBI says nothing.
And now, even after it's already been debunked, they're like, Bannon admitted it.
You know what?
If you can't get to these people and explain to them, then what do you really do?
How do you solve for this?
It's a challenge, isn't it?
No, I just think we're on the verge of collapse, and I hate to say it, but I think we're on the verge of collapse.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
In a thread on Reddit, a woman who is 33 years old describes how she tried to help her 31-year-old brother with dating apps.
Ultimately, it seems that the post she made was removed.
I'm not sure if she chose to delete it.
And to be completely honest, I'm not sure it's entirely real.
Someone could have made up this story.
Some guy could have been angry and said, oh, men have it so hard.
But the story is interesting.
Assuming it's true on its face, it does line up with a lot of the experiences of men, and you end up seeing a story about a woman who did not realize just how brutal it is in the dating scene for men.
Long story short, you know, the post got removed, but we do have it.
I want to read it for you.
Because there may be a lot of men who get a chuckle out of this.
There may be a lot of men who are interested to see how a woman responds to a guy who is seemingly attractive who just can't get dates because the dating system is broken.
But there's a bigger picture at play.
Why is it that millennial women favor Democrats 70 to 23?
Overwhelmingly, millennial women are Democrats.
Why is it that when I go through every single poll, Related to like economics and pop and culture war issues, men and women are mirror images of each other.
I mean, take a look at this.
Gun control.
Women support it, men oppose it.
Black Lives Matter.
Women support it, men oppose it.
And I think this dating post gives us tremendous insight Into politics in this country.
Something interesting we see.
To put it simply, women have it substantially easier than men in many respects.
Not all respects, but many.
Much less likely to end their own lives.
Much less likely to end up homeless.
Much easier to get stable entry-level positions.
Much easier to find a partner.
Now what this means, we're seeing a dramatic change in the way our society functions, particularly with online dating, and it's just one component of the evolution of American and global culture.
But I think what we're seeing is, you know, call it some kind of behavioral sync.
I think this may be Well, I'll put it this way.
If we do not rectify this problem described by this woman somehow, I think we're on the verge of collapse.
Men and women are functioning as rival political classes at this point.
And I think the only reason you see a shift leftward is because men are divided among those who are like, I am a strong, independent man and will not change my opinions for anybody, and the guys who are like, just tell me what you want to say, dear.
I would like to do anything to get laid.
And that's a lot of guys.
Women can just apparently show up.
And there's a lot of interesting things here to go through.
Notably that modern women, this is a story we covered a long time ago, but I want to show you this in the context of modern politics.
Women are struggling to find men who make as much money as they do.
This will get worse.
And as it does, we can see that women are upset about it.
Y'all ain't gonna be happy.
Men and women, neither are going to be happy.
Now let me read you this post.
I, 33F, helped my brother, 31M, with dating apps.
Now I'm depressed.
Throwaway account.
I have too many friends on my original account.
The Woman Writes.
I decided to help my brother with old apps, online dating apps.
He had been struggling with dating for three years and parents are concerned about his mental health.
So I invited him to stay with me for a couple of weeks and told him that I would help fix his dating app profiles as I was certain he was doing something wrong.
He F-hardly agreed and brought a second phone that I could use.
He is 6 feet, 165 pounds, and has moderately good looks.
He has a stable job, which makes him good money.
I set up his account on Tinder and Bumble and completed his profile, description, etc.
on his second phone.
I also swiped and initially chatted with women who matched with the profile.
My aim was to show him how to talk to women to keep them interested in him.
Because his main complaint was that they never respond.
I thought of sending the first few messages and then letting him continue the conversation.
It has been two weeks now.
My experience has been utter garbage.
Nobody wants to have a conversation.
I don't quite understand why.
Maybe I am doing something wrong.
Maybe reflect upon how you as a woman use dating apps.
Perhaps she doesn't do it the same way.
Here's what she says, I feel depressed. Probably because all these years I kept telling him that
he was doing something wrong. I always thought that only rude, broke, obese, unhygienic,
and bad looking men sucked at dating apps and others had a fair chance.
Well, I was in for a rude awakening.
This is what I experienced.
Won very few matches, when compared to what we women get.
He got a few matches on his first couple of days, post that it's just a match or two a day.
I used to get scores of good matches every day when I used online dating for myself, and I was very picky.
Hardly any responses from his matches.
Women just don't want to have anything to do with him.
This was perhaps what affected me the most.
I watched in despair as matches just kept expiring.
Sometimes they would stop after a few messages, and other times they wouldn't even send a message or a reply.
I have used Bumble and Tinder myself.
Men don't do this.
90% of men respond to the first message.
This is worse than getting a dick pic, which has happened to me a few times.
At least the person on the other side wants you, even if it's just for sex.
Imagine being ignored like a piece of trash.
That's what it felt like.
90% of the matches never initiated the conversation or responded to the first message.
How is he supposed to get a date when there are no responses from the other side? 3.
Very poor quality matches.
Most women who matched this profile were nowhere close to his educational qualifications or salary range.
In fact, there wasn't even a single match who initiated a conversation that I would say matched his salary and education level.
I never had this problem on online dating apps.
There were loads of men who were either equal or better than me in salary and education.
I met my current BF on Bumble, and he makes as much as I do.
Did you notice anything there?
The man was able to attract women of lower educational and salary standards.
That is not surprising to me in the least bit.
And she found a man who makes as much as she does and in fact met many more who made more.
This is probably not surprising to anyone.
But let's read and then talk about the politics here.
She said, I don't know why men even go through this.
He seems to be okay with his experience and is holding his own.
I don't understand how.
I know we can't change the dating scene much.
The least we can do is empathize with the person instead of telling them they are doing something wrong.
Honestly, I don't even know if I am doing anything wrong myself.
I am just doing what worked for me.
I am going to ask him to stop using online dating and go out there.
I am sure we will find it easier to find a good woman to date in real life.
This is not a secret, and I think most women don't understand this and don't experience it.
You know, when you're a dude and you're on, when you use online dating, what they show you online is they're like, match everyone, just swipe everyone and cross your fingers.
The data out of OKCupid's hilarious.
Men will respond to women on a natural bell curve scale of attractiveness.
Meaning, When you ask men about a random selection of women, when they say someone is attractive or unattractive, there is an average.
The majority of men will say this woman is average, and then there is a very high end of women who are somewhat attractive.
For women, it's inverted.
Women don't respond to like 85% of men deeming them unattractive.
That's right.
The dating app data shows us that women view the overwhelming majority of men as unattractive and only respond to the top tier.
You look at the animal kingdom, and what do we get?
With chimps, with chickens.
It doesn't matter.
There is one strong male who dominates and then breeds the women.
Makes sense.
The strong must survive.
For a society like ours, where we are socially developed and have morals and ethics, this seems to not make sense to us.
But surprise, surprise, here we go.
When this woman experienced the male dating experience, she was shocked and depressed by it.
So let's take a look at politics.
I'm not saying there's a direct correlation between women being able to date and national-level politics.
I do think that this post is just an anecdote but plays into a lot of what men already know and maybe women don't.
Men have it substantially harder in a lot of ways.
There was a famous story of a woman who decided to live as a man and was cross-dressing.
And she said that it was horrifying and miserable.
Nobody would help her.
People didn't care about how she felt.
She felt discarded.
Yeah.
That's what it's like being a dude.
You're immediately blamed for everything.
You are trash.
Not every guy.
Like I said, 15% are probably considered, you know, attractive and worthy.
And I don't want to exaggerate this.
You know, most guys do have really good things going for them, and many of them are just too whiny and depressed to get up, work out, be passionate, and become that valuable and sought-after and desired individual.
The issue is, it's not, you know, the left, probably because you have guys just trying to hook up with women who will say whatever they, you know, what they want, or some of them would genuinely believe this stuff, and then feminists just say, men are whiny babies, they're incels, you're an incel, you're an incel, you can't date, you can't find someone because you're an incel.
Well, there's at least one story showing she was shocked to discover men don't get replies.
But if you look at the data, you know that's true.
Women get slammed with messages and they need only scroll through and say, that's the guy I want to hook up with.
What ends up happening?
Other data shows that a small amount of men overwhelmingly are banging all of the women.
That means there is a large percentage of men who are without relationships and who are virgins.
There was data we saw from the Washington Post a while ago, I think it was a couple years ago, that found men under 29 are increasingly more likely to be virgins.
I think it was like a third of men under 29 were virgins.
Now, it did go up for women as well, probably because internet is separating people, but not as much.
Let's take a look at some of these stats.
Do you support the Black Lives Matter movement?
Right now, we have 45% support and 42% opposition.
But let's break this down by gender.
Let's see how females think.
Women overwhelmingly support Black Lives Matter.
52% support to 35% opposition.
How about males?
Males overwhelmingly oppose Black Lives Matter.
Now that one's fascinating.
It's nearly inverted.
50% oppose and 36% support.
What could be causing this divide?
Now, let me show you a few more examples.
How about do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling his job?
Women approve of Joe Biden's job at 46 percent approval to 45 disapproval and men overwhelmingly disapprove with 59 percent disapproval and 35 percent approval.
Let's take a look at favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party.
52 percent unfavorable.
Let's see women.
Women 47% find the Democratic Party favorable and 46 unfavorable and men overwhelmingly unfavorable.
Is it surprising you?
Do you oppose or favor stricter gun laws?
Females overwhelmingly favor stricter gun laws at 57% and men overwhelmingly oppose gun laws at 55%.
Again, not surprising to anybody, I suppose.
Should the US deport immigrants living here illegally or offer them a path to citizenship?
Men overwhelmingly say deport.
I shouldn't say overwhelmingly, but 46% deport, 43% offer a path.
And women, 59% path to citizenship.
Here's what I think is happening.
Women and men have extremely different views of the world and society because they are raised very differently.
I think many women are going to be in for a rude awakening because the changes we've seen in society with gender rights and, you know, gender equality and equity, Relatively new.
It was Jordan Peterson who said in that Vice interview that men and women have only been working together for a few decades and it's been a disaster so far.
And he gets asked, like, well, what do you mean by disaster?
Well, take a look at all the sexual harassment claims.
Take a look at the workplace changes that have come in that have caused men to no longer want to mentor women.
Men won't have meetings with women behind closed doors.
They'll open the door, ask a third party to come in.
These things are real.
I'll give you an example.
A man can walk up to a man, and I've given you, you may have heard me give this example before, but a man can walk up to a man and say, Jim, you been working out?
Looking good, buddy?
Oh, is that a new suit?
Sharp look, buddy.
Yeah, you're looking good, man.
Should hit the clubs, get some girls, you know?
That would not be, I mean, some guys might be like, yeah, it's a little forward, but a dude walking up to a guy and being like, you're killing it, man.
You're looking cut.
I see you're losing weight.
That's an amazing outfit.
You look fantastic.
Why don't you go hit the clubs, man, see what the girl's got to say?
Now think about a guy going up to a woman and saying that.
Ooh, girl, wow, you've been working out?
You're looking great.
That outfit?
Mmm, you should go hit the clubs.
I bet the guys would be all over you.
They're gonna be like, what?
Not acceptable.
So we say there's gender equity and equality, but there's clearly a big difference.
Now, in those circumstances, maybe they're just hyperbolic exaggerations or caricatures of real-world events, but you get the point.
There are circumstances where a guy can't even touch a woman.
A guy can walk up to a guy and put his hand on his shoulder and say, you nailed that Henderson account, man.
We're excited for this.
You can't do that to a woman.
She could complain about harassment.
So, ultimately, in the end, maybe everyone just starts treating each other the same and everyone stays away from each other.
But as for right now, think about what that means.
Women can say, don't come anywhere near me, don't talk about me, and don't touch me.
And the guy will do it.
A guy just assumes because he's not treated as well, it will happen.
And, I mean, honestly, if a guy commented on my life, I wouldn't care.
I think about it this way.
You know, when men are growing up, They have very little value.
Young men have no value.
They're not strong, they're not large, they're not fully grown, they can't protect many people, they're not particularly wise, perhaps smart, but around men's thirties is when they're strongest, that they're most developed, their highest status, and now they have real value, thinking of it like evolutionary biology and psychology.
Women, however, are most valuable at a younger age.
So what do I see?
Here's a hypothesis.
I have seen this growing up, and I'm sure many other men have seen this, and I'm sure many women have seen this.
Young men will be assumed to be at fault.
They'll be treated as though they're not as valuable.
Young women are overly protected, to a detriment, and many women complain about this.
They're treated, you know, there's the song by No Doubt, I'm just a girl, oh little old me, that's right.
They're overprotected.
I'm not saying women have a perfect or great life.
Everyone's got their challenges.
But I'm saying society says, drop everything and protect the women and the children, and the men can go off and die in war.
These things don't just exist in these very obvious tropes of war and emergencies and sinking ships.
They exist everywhere.
Women are more likely to get entry-level positions.
Go to fast food restaurants.
Go to an ice cream shop.
Go to any small business.
You're more likely to see a woman as a clerk.
You're more likely to see a woman doing the entry-level job.
That doesn't mean women should be relegated to those positions and they shouldn't be CEOs.
You're more likely to see males as CEOs.
But what does that mean?
Well, in my experience when I was 21, I was trying to find a job.
I lived in Wrigleyville in Chicago, which is where Wrigley Field is.
Nobody would hire me.
Oh, they were all hiring.
They said, but we're not hiring men.
This is the service industry.
We don't hire men.
They're like, unless you have your certified bartender, you can maybe get the bartender spot, but we already have two bartenders.
We don't need you.
Plus, we would rather have a female bartender anyway.
I got lucky some guy took pity on me and said, you can clean up the trash and we'll see what we can do for you.
Not that I'm complaining about it, that's just the way things are.
But think about what kind of person that develops you into.
For somebody who, myself, homeless, trying to figure out how to survive when no one was willing to support me, I became fiercely independent.
Well, what about your average woman?
And this is not every woman, it's not every man.
But if your average woman is overly protected, not gonna end up homeless because someone will give them a place to live, or because they can easily go online and find a man who will give them some kind of support, or a sugar daddy, which is also common, women are much less likely to need to fight to survive in the way a man would.
Which means, women are like, what's the problem?
I should just get what I want.
I've always gotten things that I've wanted, relative to a man being like, I expect nothing because nothing was ever given to me.
I am not saying every single man.
I am not saying a large quantity even.
I'm just saying, there is slightly more, it is a tendency in this direction, and I think this is why you see these very obvious politics.
Why is it that women are more likely to want to give a path of citizenship to immigrants?
Because they have not had to scrounge on the ground outside for pennies to try and find an oatmeal cream pie so they would at least have something to eat.
I've been there.
I've had days where I'm like, I have no food.
I won't be eating.
So what do I do?
Look on the ground walking down the street until I found 25 cents so I could buy an oatmeal cream pie.
And so I don't expect anybody to do anything for me because they never did.
Women probably don't feel the same way because people have.
And I'm not saying every single one.
Of course, there's lots of homeless women.
But men are five times more likely to be homeless.
Homeless.
Take that into consideration when you look at the differences in politics.
And that being said, take a look at this statement I showed from the woman who's like, is this what men are going through?
Imagine if every woman experienced a week as a man, and imagine if every man experienced a week as a woman.
I think women have also unique problems and challenges.
I do think there is differences in the desires of men and women based on biology, and I think that's... Well, I would say indisputable, but we live in crazy times.
To give you a point, men don't have periods, so men clearly have some biological difference that's going to affect their goals, their desires, and what they do.
I guess men do have some kind of three-day, you know, thing or whatever, but it's, like, not relevant to what we're talking about for the most part.
Like, for the most part, you know, women have a very different biology and biological drives and hormones which lead them to want to do different things.
And that could be why, at least to a certain degree, women are more likely to do social jobs and men are more likely to do STEM jobs.
And we can try and, you know, change that and encourage people to do other things.
But, you know, people have their desires, their instincts.
I do think we're overwhelmingly a social species, which means that supersedes a lot of this, but long story short...
You can see from the story that the woman doesn't really understand what it's like to be a man.
But I do believe that men, to a certain extent, understand women more.
What I mean by that is, I think guys know that dudes are skeevy.
I think guys know that dudes are abusive.
And that's why even men are more likely to believe a woman when a woman makes an accusation.
And that's why you get men who agree with these women on a lot of these issues, and why men will say, you know, We'll ultimately support or protect.
Men understand there are challenges.
The problem is the women don't seem to have the same view.
They don't seem to understand how hard it can be for guys.
When you take a look at the average intelligence, you can see that women are more likely to have average intelligence, and men are more likely to be stupid, but also there is a higher percentage of male geniuses.
It's called the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis.
Don't know if it's a fact or an established theory.
It's just data they show.
That means the average woman, who is average, can get by.
But there is a large quantity of men who are below average, more so than women, and they struggle.
And then you have very, very successful men.
So what do you see?
Women will be more likely to get entry-level jobs and mid-level jobs.
CEOs will be more likely to be men, and then you have the below-average men disproportionately living in squalor and harsher conditions, becoming aggravated, and women not understanding what it's like for men.
Now, truth be told, this story about a guy who's six feet tall and just moderately good-looking, having no success, that's right.
Even if he's in the 80th percentile of attractive men, he ain't in the 85, he ain't in the 90, and he's not gonna get that response.
A small amount of women, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, most women are sleeping with a very small amount of men.
And I gotta say, for dudes who are confident in shape, charismatic, and sure of themselves, all of this feminism stuff and everything has been a boon to them.
To a successful, charismatic, well-off individual male, he's got his pick of the litter.
That 5-10% of men at the top can have all of the women at once.
Meanwhile, women can't get a guy to commit for obvious reasons.
If they're not going to lower their standards, then you've got a guy who's like, lady, I got options and I don't need you.
And then you'll see like Leonardo DiCaprio.
No matter what happens, it's like he always dumps his girlfriend at 26 or something like that.
He's always dating someone in their 20s because he can.
And because this is what online dating has created, and yes, feminism.
When women would get married at a young age, you'd have young men and women, and this is what is culturally enforced monogamy, not that women are forced to do it, but that when it was expected of people to get married right away, women who are younger and, you know, in their prime would find men who are just before their prime, marry them, and then have a man who grows into his position, and it wasn't perfect, there's a lot of divorce.
But that seemed to help protect women.
Now, women are struggling to get dudes to commit because men don't have to.
And I'm not saying the majority of women.
I'm not saying it's a widespread thing.
I'm saying there are these circumstances arising out of the fact that a small percentage of men can go online and have whoever they want.
And then there's a whole bunch of guys who can't get anything.
Certainly, if the population is like 51% female and 49% male, you'd think it would mostly be one-for-one.
The women and the men would pair up.
That's not what's happening.
Most women are going for a small percentage of men, so there's no pairing.
At the very least, the men are being cheated on.
How does this manifest?
Women are struggling to find men who make as much money as they do.
Yeah, is that a surprise?
You've got the cream of the crop, the best of the best, the guys, going for young women.
They mention this in the story, that women who are in their 30s, they're making good money, you know, 38-year-old Upper East Sider stresses she's not looking for anything outrageous, safety and security as far as finance goes, but she's still coming up on empty dates.
Just because the men she goes out with don't feel the innate push to succeed that she does.
I think for years, they've always just taken their role in society for granted, and I think they're just getting lazy culturally.
Isn't that really funny?
It's kind of like a weird inversion.
But let me say this.
They mentioned another woman who's 32.
You want to know why a 30-year-old woman who makes $50K can't find a man who makes $50K?
A 30-year-old man who makes $50,000 a year is probably dating a 24-year-old who's making $15 an hour at Starbucks as she just got out of college.
Here's a guy who's older than her, more established, better connections, more experience, and a car, and he can take her, you know, on a fun trip.
A woman who's in her 30s is going to have to go for a guy her age who's going to be like, I want to date down.
Men always want to date down.
I'm not saying it's right.
I'm just saying that's what happens.
So as men make less money, don't go to college, major crisis with men in college, although I don't think college is good anyway, you're going to end up with women making money Not wanting to be with a guy who doesn't make money, and those people, those guys, will not find women who make even less money, and it's just thrown the whole thing into this crazy imbalance where politics is reflecting everything that's happening.
And I think it has a lot to do with all this.
So, the last time, whenever I talk about this, the feminists always get super angry at me, and I think it's hilarious.
I've never had any issues, you know?
I've always, because I've never cared, right?
And I wonder if that's it.
I've always been, let me just say arrogant, I guess.
Maybe arrogant isn't the right way to put it.
But I've never had issues with dating culture.
The left likes to take this clip I have from early 2020 out of context, where I said something like, you know, I've tried dating, but it's impossible and it's not me, it's everyone else.
And the specific context wasn't like getting on Tinder and hooking up with women.
One thing I've always stated is that online dating culture is absurdly easy.
And going out to bars and picking up chicks is absurdly easy, but it's not fulfilling.
Guys don't want that.
I mean, some guys do.
A lot of guys probably just want to feel desired.
But people in general, men and women, want stable relationships.
That's what I was talking about.
Of course, I'm in a relationship and things are great.
And I don't have these issues that these other men are having.
And I find it rather interesting, I suppose.
That everything they've fought for, perhaps due to cultural pressures, is now negatively impacting everyone.
Now, that is not to say that feminism is wrong.
That's not what I'm saying.
I actually think feminism in terms of women in the workplace and opportunities and equal access and equal opportunity is one of the best things we've ever done.
But I will say that if you will not stand up for what you want, Then you'll get pressured into something you don't want, or if you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for anything.
And so what that means is while women should have absolutely equal access and opportunity in every regard, and we haven't even gotten to that point, some women still struggle with sexism, absolutely, the problem is that the double-edged sword, you know, that this is, rises.
You can make all these demands and say you want all these things, but a culture breeds out of this where it goes beyond just saying you should have the opportunity.
Now it's no longer about women having the opportunity to work, it's about women have no choice but to work.
And men who want a wife who's going to be staying at home can't find one because women are all like, I have a career and I'm going to work.
So it creates this weird circumstance.
Now truth be told, I think we're fine.
I think human civilization will figure things out.
I think it's going to leave a lot of people unhappy.
But truth be told, once again, Those who are confident and charismatic and willing to say what they want have absolutely no problems.
All of these people who are complaining?
These are the people who can't admit to themselves what's going on.
They can't accept biology and culture and society and look at the bigger picture.
Instead, they sit back, oblivious to how gender politics is shaping everything in this country.
That's why I think the story about this woman realizing what it's like for men was interesting.
I would like to see a man, you know, I think men do know what it's like for women because men have always made catfish profiles.
Women don't seem to do that as much because men are probably, you know, whatever, weirder for whatever reason, because they're different.
And so men know.
You make a profile that's a woman and you get 50 million messages and then you can just pick whatever guy you want and they'll hang out with you.
Men?
It's the other way around.
You'll send a thousand messages and then hope that you get one response, but unless you're in that cream-of-the-crop top-of-the-top, you ain't getting nothing.
There's no point in being there.
It's an interesting conundrum, and there's a lot of people now who are under 29 who are struggling and won't find a relationship because of it.
This then leads itself into politics.
Women are more likely to be Democrats.
Vox reports the partisan gender gap among millennials is staggeringly large.
Women born after 1980 favor Democrats 70 to 23.
And that's only going to keep getting worse as women continue to create this bubble where they don't realize how privileged they are.
And you know what?
They'll get mad at videos like this and say, we're not privileged, men are privileged, boys will be boys, blah blah blah.
Okay, men are more likely to be in prison, more likely to be homeless, men are less likely to go to college, men are less likely to get entry-level jobs, and some men, 500, are more likely to be billionaires.
