S5245 - Biden's Agenda Has Officially FAILED, Democrats Move To REPLACE Joe Biden In 2024 As BBB Bill Punted
Biden's Agenda Has Officially FAILED, Democrats Move To REPLACE Joe Biden In 2024 As BBB Bill Punted. After all of the negotiating Joe Biden could not convince Joe Manchin to support his build back better bill and thus Chuck Schumer has punted it to next year.
Democrats are increasingly aware that Biden is failing and the vultures have begun circling overhead. Several media outlets are entertaining new Democrat contenders for 2024 as many expect Biden to step down and hang his head in Shame.
Trump 2024 seems to be a real possibility but with Biden's first year being such a failure some are even floating Hillary Clinton
#Democrats
#Biden
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is December 15th, 2021, and our first story.
The Biden agenda has failed.
Democrats are punting the Build Back Better bill because they can't get support for it, even after all of the negotiations they went through.
Biden's approval rating is in the gutter, and now Democrats have begun murmuring about replacing him in 2024.
They're actually seemingly making preparations, raising their profiles, the media is having a discussion, and the New York Times outright says, Biden, do not run and say you are not running.
The Biden administration spiraling out of control.
In our next story, Merck's new COVID pill, Molnupiravir, may be mutating sperm cells in fetuses and it might not get approved because of it.
And in our last story, a third swimmer has come out speaking out against the transgender athlete who crushed the female records.
But I gotta say, they need to go on the record instead of hiding behind anonymity.
Because if you don't speak out for what you believe in, then you'll lose.
Now, if you like this show, leave us a good review.
Share this show with your friends.
Give us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Today it was announced that Chuck Schumer is punting the Build Back Better agenda.
Joe Manchin has said no.
There is no longer enough support to pass the Joe Biden agenda for this year.
And among many other things, it is fair to say, in my opinion, that Joe Biden has completely failed.
In his first year as president.
And now, my friends, the vultures are circling above.
Chatter is emerging among Democrat circles that they're going to replace him in 2024.
But let me just say, I do not believe as of right now there is a strong enough Democrat to win in 2024 against a Trump or DeSantis.
Let's be real.
We're still a couple years out.
We're about a year away from the presidential primary season, which is going to be nuts, and then about two years from the actual presidential campaign season, and that is an eternity.
I believe we will start to see presidential contenders emerging well now.
Campaigning is becoming an indefinite process.
We're seeing many people for Congress, governorships, they're just saying, you know what, we're going to run.
We don't care about how long out the election is.
We're just going to start running, and it's getting earlier and earlier.
I can't say I'm surprised the vultures are getting ready to replace Joe Biden.
He was the corporeal form they asked for just to defeat Donald Trump, and it worked.
There's a lot of people who don't think so, but I think everything kind of makes a whole lot of sense.
They changed a lot of rules election-wise, with the best example being universal mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, and that was Republicans, by the way.
And Joe Biden brought back memories to a lot of people of the Obama years.
And so people were kind of feeling like, hey, maybe things will be like they were back then.
I think COVID played a huge role in this.
In that last year for Donald Trump, all of all of the good things that happened in the first three years were erased.
The economy was a booming in 2019, but then 2020 comes around, COVID, bam!
All of a sudden, people are trapped in their homes, they're angry, they don't like the way things are going, and they think we need change.
Their whole lives were consumed by this.
No sports, no movies, no video games.
Well, actually, a lot of video games.
And so then a lot of people came out and said, I'll take whatever I can get.
And that was Joe Biden.
But now we're in a new era.
In this past year, many people are starting to wake up to realize it is worse now.
All of the young people duped into voting for Joe Biden.
Now, this one really gets at me because I am in favor of student loan forgiveness to a certain degree.
I don't think we just erase the debt outright.
I think maybe we can suspend interest rates and allow people to actually start working towards paying down their debt.
Joe Biden promised forgiveness.
He then said, what was it?
He said 50k at first, something like that.
Then he was like lowering it and lowering it.
Then he said, we're gonna suspend when you gotta pay it back.
Now he's like, all right, kick it back into high gear, pay us back.
And many progressives are like, yo, we were betrayed.
Well, duh, man.
This is what I saw.
And so I get the smears and you get the smears.
But we all saw Joe Biden for who he was, the establishment crony shill.
And now what's happening?
The Democrats aren't cutting him any slack.
His approval ratings are in the gutter.
The economy is in shambles.
There are more COVID deaths this year than last year.
And his agenda has failed.
So what does this man have to offer?
Some have speculated Joe Biden could turn this all around.
I really do not think so.
With the blunders in Afghanistan and now the crisis in Ukraine, I expect Americans are at their wits end.
And most importantly, independent voters, the approval rating for Joe Biden among this group is 27% among according to civics polling.
It's abysmal.
I do not see this man being able to pull out enough votes to win again.
And the Democrats know they're going to have to try and find somebody.
But will they find anybody good enough?
I don't think so.
And the bigger question then is, will Donald Trump run?
And many, many are saying he will, but he's going to be old and he will ignite people to come out and vote against him.
That's true.
But could it be Ron DeSantis?
I think Ron DeSantis is a surefire win.
I don't know about Donald Trump.
It's tough.
I think Trump will still win, but I don't know, because we don't know who the Democrats might actually, you know, get to run.
Let's go through this news.
And I think the most important story is from Politico, where they mentioned that Democrats have been discussing replacing Joe Biden.
And we can see Joe Biden's agenda failing.
Now, before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive members-only segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, a massive library.
So again, TimCast.com.
And you'll also be supporting our journalists, for which we have, I think, maybe around 10?
I don't know.
We're hiring more people.
The more you sign up to become members, the more we're going to do to report the news, to fact-check the news, and to actually build the technology to prevent censorship.
This is everything that we're planning on doing when you become a member.
And full disclosure, We have two separate entities, they're non-profits, that we will be assisting in fundraising.
That's where that goes in.
But as a member of TimCast.com, you're supporting our venture to produce news, to produce videos like this.
So with your support, we can continue.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, and I genuinely mean it, share this video, take the URL, post it wherever you can if you really want to support the show.
Let's read the first story from Politico.
Biden's successor chatter grows and Harris isn't scaring off anyone.
There's been an unusual amount of 2024 talk for a president who says he's running again.
It hasn't been uniformly positive for his vice president.
They go to mention.
Joe Biden says he intends to run for reelection in 2024.
But not all Democrats believe him.
This is really interesting.
They say, as Vice President Kamala Harris grapples with a portfolio of seemingly intractable issues and responsibilities that have drawn her away from the national spotlight.
She zoomed into the infrastructure cabinet meeting from Paris on Friday.
Other Democrats have raised their own profiles.
They're going to mention Terry McAuliffe.
They mentioned Amy Klobuchar.
They mentioned Pete Buttigieg.
They're going to say the spokespeople for that quartet either declined to comment or stressed that the moves were unrelated to future electoral ambitions.
But the context in which these moves took place has given them a dose of intrigue unusual for when an incumbent president is still in his first year in office.
Biden has said publicly and privately that he wants to run and allies expect that will that will be only more likely.
Former President Donald Trump decides to challenge him in 2024 since Biden is skeptical of other Democrats' prospects.
A person familiar with Biden's conversation about his 2024 plan says he has told people he is running and that we will be prepared.
But there has been persistent chatter in Democratic circles That he could decide not to.
And talk of successorship has spilled into open view in recent days, with even a close Biden ally, a former Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, speculating about Harris's positioning in a potential 2024 primary.
All of it adds a new level of electoral uncertainty that the Democratic Party and Harris in particular
face as they remain dependent on Biden's success and unclear about his future. Quote,
folks are definitely playing chess right now.
They're playing the long game and seeing how things develop and shift, said Nina Smith, who has worked for Buttigieg and Stacey Abrams.
So let me just stress it this way.
There are several Democratic Personalities who seem to be making moves consistent with raising their profiles to maybe run for president.
Speculation in the media.
Oh, we got it, baby, CNN.
The New York Times outright saying Biden should not run.
And behind the scenes, Democrats saying Joe Biden might not.
I was thinking, like, is it Democrats preparing to to step up if Joe Biden steps down?
And I'm like, I don't think that's a fair assessment here.
Considering the failures that Joe Biden has seen, the fact that he says he's running, but people are still preparing to be in a position to run.
They're expecting they will be replacing Joe Biden, that whether he chooses to step down, is forced to step down, or has a conversation and ultimately comes an impasse where people just say, look, we're running and there's nothing you can do.
It seems like Democrats are gearing up to replace Joe Biden.
And I want to make sure again, framing is important.
I don't know if they're going to step up, walk up to him and say, Biden, you're out.
Or if they're going to say, Biden just clearly can't do it.
And so I'm going to run against him.
Or if Joe Biden bows out, they would be his replacement.
This is where it seems like things are going.
And we only got to take a look at the latest news to see.
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, take a look at the media outlets, CNN and The New York Times both being like here.
You know, first of all, The New York Times says outright he shouldn't run.
CNN says here's who could replace him.
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 Daily Mail reports, Manchin kills Biden's hope of passing Build Back Better this year.
Schumer punts President's flagship $1.75 trillion to next year after failing to get enough support in the Senate.
Man, this was it for Joe Biden.
This was his agenda, Build Back Better.
He campaigned on this.
And he couldn't get it done.
And I wonder how many people really care.
You know, I have people tweeting at me being like, do you oppose Joe Biden's infrastructure bill?
And I'm like, I don't know how relevant his infrastructure bill is, considering he doesn't have the political support to do anything.
He couldn't even get his negotiated bill all the way down passed.
Didn't happen.
Daily Mail reports, President Joe Biden's hopes for the Senate to pass his Build Back Better bill by Christmas appeared to be dead on Wednesday, as Chuck Schumer prepared to punt the matter into the new year after failing to reach an agreement with the rebel Senator Joe Manchin.
Rebel?
He's just a conservative Democrat.
Schumer will instead shift the chamber's focus to trying to pass voting rights legislation, NBC News reported.
The West Virginia senator wants to cut the child tax credit, which most Democrats want to keep in Biden's signature legislation, arguing it contributes to inflation.
Manchin told Biden he wants to eliminate the measure's extension of a more generous child tax credit, a source told the AP.
Manchin has talked with Biden, and they are still miles apart.
Schumer had said he'd like to pass Biden's Build Back Better legislation by Christmas, but that won't happen without Manchin's vote.
In the evenly divided Senate, Biden needs every Democrat on board.
Manchin, a moderate Democrat, has repeatedly expressed concern about the bill's cost.
Talks are continuing, but the Senate on Wednesday wrapped up its list of legislation it must pass by the year's end when it approved the National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the Pentagon.
Biden himself admitted on Wednesday that his Build Back Better bill was not a done deal.
It's going to be close, Biden said, when asked if his legislation will pass by the end of the year.
He said some progress had been made, but didn't offer any additional details.
The president and Manchin spoke on Monday and Tuesday as negotiations continue now.
Whether you like the infrastructure bill or whatever, that's, I, by all means, you're allowed to like it.
I'm not going to pass judgment on it for the sake of this segment.
I'm just simply going to point out he wasn't able to get it done.
For the younger people who are more concerned with student debt, we have this story.
Biden admin declines to extend student loan pause.
Snubbing progressives.
Student loan payments resume on February 1st, 2022.
Ooh, this economy is going to go up in flames.
It's already spiraling.
Mass printing of money.
Trillions being pumped into the system.
A massive amount.
What is it like?
Between 30 and 50% of all of the money put into the system, into the money supply, was printed in the past year and a half.
Just cranking it out.
Print, print, print.
Inflation is through the roof.
Producer price index, consumer price index, through the roof.
And what do you think's gonna happen?
When come February 1st, people who are already struggling with a labor shortage, with food shortages, are gonna be told, now you gotta pay back your student loans.
How much you wanna bet, people won't do it.
And they'll say, what are you gonna do?
You know, like, take what, take, you can't squeeze, what, what is he saying?
You can't squeeze, uh, uh, blood out of a turnip.
I think that's the phrase, right?
If it ain't there, it ain't coming.
So Joe Biden's forgiveness was much needed, but that would have added a ton of debt.
Well, to the U.S.
books, and that would have just been more inflation.
You can't kick the can down the road forever, but I can say progressives will probably revolt against Joe Biden.
And without the support of progressives and without the support of independents, how could the Democrats possibly win in 2022 or 2024?
They might.
I don't know.
But let's take a look at some of these stories that I think are absolutely laughable from the Daily Mail.
We're going to win in 2020.
We're going to win 2022.
Biden and Harris tell DNC holiday party they will take next year's midterms despite rampant inflation, the ongoing pandemic, because the GOP are against everything.
Well, you know, the Republicans are fairly trash.
Mitch McConnell should be primaried.
I don't know how you get him and Rand Paul in the same place, but whatever.
He should be primaried.
Lindsey Graham, Kevin McCarthy, the neocon establishment need to go.
They don't represent the people.
They represent the establishment.
So what do they do?
They obstruct.
They do nothing.
So technically, Joe Biden's not wrong here when he says they're against everything.
I don't know what they're doing right now.
Basically, they're running on Democrat bad.
Stop.
How about you come out and say, here's what we're for.
I think Republicans should come out and say we want to repeal gun laws.
I think they should say, you know, we should be repealing these specific laws and enhancing gun rights.
Doing things like that instead of just saying, no, wait, don't, to Democrats.
So why would anybody vote for a Republican?
I mean, this is a good question.
Typically, the way I see it is that Democrats do a bunch of awful stuff that people don't like, and then people vote against them for Republicans.
And then Republicans basically obstruct, and it pisses off Democrats and progressives because they want certain things to be done.
And then eventually, regular people will go and vote Democrat.
The Republicans don't do anything, so independents say, fine, I guess I'll vote Democrat.
The Democrats burn it to the ground, and the independents say, ah, I gotta vote Republican.
And thus, the cycle continues until people realize, vote local.
Vote.
Go right now.
Figure out who your state rep is, who your state senator is, who's your governor, and figure all the stuff, who's your mayor, who's on your school board, and vote in these elections.
This will have a much bigger impact.
You got to do it.
But they think they're going to win.
They really do think they're going to win.
I find that fascinating considering this.
The New York Times, Biden should not run again, and he should say he won't.
Bret Stephens for the New York Times writes, is it a good idea for Joe Biden to run for reelection in 2024?
And if he runs again and wins, would it be good for the United States to have a president who is 86?
The age of Biden would be at the end of his second term.
I put these questions bluntly.
Wait, what?
He would be 80?
Oh, he would be 86 at the end of his second term.
Man.
Wow.
He says in the 1980s it was fair game for reputable reporters to ask whether Ronald Reagan was too old for the presidency, at a time when he was several years younger than Biden is today.
He says yet it's now considered horrible manners to raise concerns about Biden's age and health, as if doing so can only play into Trump's hands, as if the president's well-being is nobody's business but his own.
It won't do.
From some of his public appearances, Biden seems uneven, often cogent, but sometimes alarmingly incoherent.
What's the reason?
I have no idea.
Do his appearances inspire strong confidence the president can go the distance in his current term to say nothing of the next?
No.
And many people seem to know it.
On Sunday, my colleagues Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns reported on the Democratic Party's not so quiet murmurs about what to do if Biden decides not to run.
Aspirants for the nomination appear in the story like sharks circling a raft, swimming slow.
And that's the point.
Dems are moving to replace Joe Biden.
It's Joe Biden's choice, I suppose.
But even the New York Times says they are circling.
And come on, the Democrat wing of the media party, 11 Democrats who could replace Joe Biden in 2024.
So let me go back to that 2022 story.
You really think Democrats can win the midterms when the media and Democrats are actively viewing Biden as not being capable or viable in 2024?
What Joe Biden is doing now is making people who are in the media and Democrats believe he cannot or will not be running for president in 2024.
Who knows what Biden will end up doing in the next few years as he gets older.
CNN says Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Roy Cooper, Mitch Landrieu, is that it, Landrieu?
Gina Raimondo, Gretchen Whitmer, Phil Murphy, J.B.
Pritzker, Stacey Abrams, they could replace him!
And let me just stress, none of these people have X Factor.
None of them have staying power to compete against Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.
They just don't.
They just don't.
I mean, I don't even know what some of these people's names are.
They're so low profile.
I don't see it.
Stacey Abrams, I think, maybe is the best out of the bunch.
Maybe Kamala Harris.
Pete Buttigieg doesn't have it.
Stacey Abrams does inspire a lot of people on the left.
But could she win?
I don't know.
Especially after everything Joe Biden's done.
I think people are too salty on the Democrats right now.
From the Daily Mail.
Nearly one-third of Democrats don't think Joe Biden should run for re-election in 2024, and 31% want him replaced on the ticket by Kamala Harris.
Only 60% of Democratic respondents want Biden to run for a second term.
How do you think?
Okay, let me just stress this for everybody.
From Civics Polling.
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling his job as president among independent party, party independent?
27% approve.
Joe Biden has 60% of the Democratic Party saying he should run again.
So if you take What do you got here?
We got 63% disapproval among independents, you've got universal disapproval among Republicans, and you've got around 31% saying Joe Biden should not run among Democrats.
Yo, a third of the Democrats don't even support him!
How is Joe Biden gonna win if he can't unify Democrats, if independents don't want him and Republicans hate him?
You know, look, initially, 2020 was a referendum on Donald Trump and COVID, and it didn't matter who was running against him.
They chose Joe Biden simply for the nostalgia factor, in my opinion, because it would bring people back to remembering the good old days of Obama before the pandemic and the economic crisis and all of that stuff.
I think that was the play.
Now they've gotten there, Joe Biden.
He is awful.
So now they're going to be saying, I'll take whatever I can get.
But why would they take another Democrat?
They're likely going to swing towards the Republicans.
They're going to be salty on a lot of these issues.
And most importantly, the meme going around, the conspiracy theorists sure were right about the lockdowns.
You give them two weeks, they take two months.
You give them two months, they take two years.
When they say mandate, then eventually you're going to have more and more and more.
There's a viral tweet where someone said, What was the next thing the conspiracy theorists predicted after mandatory vaccination?
They've been right enough at this point that I want to get prepared for what's coming next.
And I said, social credit scores.
This stuff's going to keep escalating.
This is what we're going to see.
Now, this is where it gets funny.
If not Joe Biden, then whom?
Well, CNN has their list.
How about this?
Hillary 2024.
Given the competition, she may be the Dems' best hope by Joe Concha.
Oh, man.
Really?
Hillary?
Well, she has maintained her profile.
She has been speaking out.
She did that video where she cried, where she, like, read her presidential acceptance speech that she never got to read because she lost.
And the Democrats screamed and screeched about Russia for four years, and they couldn't shut up about losing.
Don't get me wrong, you've got people screaming, Trump didn't lose, too.
And I'm just like, guys, I don't care about what you think happened in the election.
Let me just say, step outside the formality.
Who is sitting in the Oval Office?
That's who won.
No matter how you cut it, no matter for what reason, the president is Joe Biden.
Now, by all means, you can discuss how he won the presidency, what they did.
You can discuss whether you think it was unethical, amoral, or even illegal.
But the fact remains, Biden is president.
How do we move forward from here, and what's the strategy to get someone else in?
I think Joe Biden's doing enough on his own, to be completely honest.
People are just outright saying, get rid of the guy, vote, have someone else run.
The Week says, Harris an early 2024 favorite if Biden decides against re-election survey finds.
I love how they keep phrasing it as if he decides, if he decides.
Okay, sure, I get it.
But let's be real.
If Joe Biden's sitting in a wheelchair with a little, you know, blanket on his lap, sitting in the sun going, someone's going to walk in and they're going to cart his wheelchair into the room and say, you're not running, Joe.
And then they're going to get someone else to do it.
The DNC, the donors, they'll take the reins and they will decide for Biden.
Biden doesn't have, I don't think Joe Biden has sole discretion on whether or not he runs again.
He's certainly saying it because I think if he comes out and says he won't, Democrat, the Democratic Party might be left in shambles because like, What does this party have to offer?
We knew this from the beginning, though, that Joe Biden likely wouldn't make it to a second term.
Like, he wouldn't run a second term.
He may complete his first term.
He's very old, but, you know, we'll see.
But this idea that there's going to be an 86-year-old Joe Biden signing off is just ludicrous.
Absolutely ludicrous.
Newsweek reports more independent voters are opposed to Biden running than Trump.
This is the important metric.
Republicans are being are registering to vote in massive numbers, thanks to the likes of individuals like Scott Pressler.
And the Democratic Party is somewhat bigger than the Republican Party.
But both of these parties They are overwhelmingly for or against Joe Biden or the opposing side.
Democrats disapprove nearly universally of Trump and approve not even universally of Joe Biden.
See, there's the problem.
Republicans love Trump for the most part, and they despise Joe Biden.
And independents are leaning Republican.
If this metric among independent voters holds true, Then Republicans are going to take it in 2022 and 2024.
Now, I love this.
There's always gonna be someone to blame.
New York Mag says blame the Democratic leadership for Biden's stalled agenda.
Oh, spare me.
Joe Biden isn't strong enough, smart enough, or spry enough to get any of this stuff done.
And while it's true, neither is Schumer or Nancy Pelosi, the reality is the Democratic Party is crumbling.
The Republicans already had this phenomenon several years ago when the populace stormed in and started taking over, and good riddance.
What the Democrats need now is a leftist populist takeover.
They've seen some of it with the Squad, but the Squad is just so duplicitous.
And I'm not going to sit here and talk about, who am I here to talk about with the Republicans, right?
Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, certainly fighters better than the rest of the Republican establishment, but I'll just say far from perfect is an understatement.
There's a lot to criticize them over.
Same is true for the squad.
But I'll take any of them over the establishment Uniparty shills any day.
NPR reports, Democrats are struggling to sell Biden's agenda.
It isn't the first time either.
Yeah, they're struggling to sell it because it's done.
It ain't there.
And this is it.
Where do we go from here?
Well, the people who told you Biden wouldn't function properly as president can say, I told you so.
The people who told you everything about what's going to happen with the COVID lockdowns, the vaccine mandates can certainly say, I told you so.
And how long until the next phase of the news cycle where they say, I told you so again?
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.
You know, weeks ago, they say they couldn't sell his agenda.
We were hearing rumors that Nancy Pelosi would not be seeking re-election, but here we go.
This is how pathetic the Democratic Party has become from TimCast.com.
Nancy Pelosi expected to seek re-election again at age 82.
If re-elected, the California politician would serve her 18th term.
82 years old.
The woman will not retire.
And this is the problem with California.
They will re-elect her.
Someone tried running against her, to primary her.
I supported this individual, Agatha Basilar.
I disagree with her on a lot of things, Agatha.
I looked at her policy proposals and all that stuff, but you know what really mattered to me, was really big, is that the populist leftists oppose war.
And I'm like, okay, look, if we can argue with each other internally and despise one another or whatever, I mean, it's unfortunate, but if like, we all, if the populist left and right, Can argue and scream at each other?
And then, like, Nancy Pelosi walks over, and then the populists left and right look at each other and go, well, well of course we all don't like her!
You know, the pro-war shill party, the uniparty, neocons and democrat alike.
I'll take it.
I'll absolutely take it.
I think Nancy Pelosi is one of the worst possible things to happen to politics in the history of this country.
Adam Schiff takes the cake, though.
That guy is evil.
And I mean it.
I mean, this guy lies and manipulates.
He publishes private information.
He effectively doxxes people.
He leaked private text information, phone records, from an American journalist.
These people are awful.
And what's the worst thing we get with Rand Paul and like, you know, the left really doesn't like him, that's why I bring it up.
They don't like his policy opinions?
Look, if you don't like that Rand Paul says we shouldn't provide aid to certain states but then asks for it, that was the meme going around on the left not saying it's true, then by all means criticize him for that.
But Adam Schiff lies!
Like he makes stuff up.
You want to complain about Donald Trump doing the same?
I think Donald Trump is the most deceptive but most honest president we've ever had.
That's how The Intercept described it.
Trump comes out and just blabbers on, like, things he shouldn't say, but does anyway, and it's left bare for all of America to see.
I can respect that.
I also think Trump lies about a bunch of really dumb, petty things.
Someone made a comment about getting Trump to, and it was a funny, it was actually a funny tweet.
They were like, I bet you could get Trump to incriminate himself or something like this on January 6th by saying that his supporters were too weak and weren't able to actually make change in the United States.
And then, or that Trump was too weak or scared to publicly support, you know, the rioters in the Capitol.
And then Trump would be like, no, that's not true.
I said, you know, cause he would try and counter it.
Obviously, it's not really true.
It's just a funny joke.
But I view Trump as just like... What is it?
There was something... I can't remember off the top of my head.
It's been too long.
But I remember there's just so much petty stuff that he lied about.
Like, just come on, man.
Own up to the stupid things.
Fine, whatever.
But I'm not here to rag on Trump.
Trump's not the president.
Joe Biden is.
We're here to talk about Joe Biden's failures, Joe Biden's lies, Joe Biden's foreign policy failures.
We're here to talk about Joe Biden saying, you know, you're going to give up your freedoms for these mandates.
What's the big deal?
Be a patriot!
Patriots in this country supported independence, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When the Redcoats showed up, which were effectively the police for the British Empire, And they were like, turn over your guns.
The American patriots didn't go, be a patriot!
Give up your guns for the greater good!
They went, um, no.
And then a war happened.
That's the amazing thing about the Founding Fathers.
They knew they'd lose.
I shouldn't say, um, knew.
They believed they'd lose.
They genuinely were like, we can't win against the British Empire, but we're gonna try.
Cause screw you.
So Joe Biden coming out and saying, you know, bend the knee, that's that's not, you know, just just blindly following edict that violates the Constitution, that defies the separation of powers.
That's not patriotism.
Patriotism would be like, no, you don't have the constitutional authority to dictate these things, and we will challenge you in court.
That's patriotism.
But where are we today?
Too many people blindly march behind the Democrats and people like Joe Biden, but fortunately that is waning and we're seeing it all right here.
Joe Biden's agenda.
It's done.
Now it's not completely over.
It's just failed thus far.
And Democrats certainly don't think he has the ability, the wherewithal, to run again.
And so, he's circling the drain.
The vultures are overhead, and the sharks are circling as well.
Imagine that!
Joe Biden's floating in the ocean, weak-limbed, and there's sharks, and there's vultures, and he's slowly going down the drain, all at the same time.
We knew something like this was going to happen.
Most, most of us did not think Joe Biden had the wherewithal to be president.
He's too old.
The oldest president in history.
So you have to wonder what's really going on.
Is Kamala Harris actively engaging or is she just sitting back waiting saying, sooner or later I'm gonna be president.
Laughing.
I don't know for sure, man.
I don't know what the Democrats are planning, but I don't think Joe Biden will be running in 2024.
I don't know.
I think Republicans are poised to win a massive victory in 2022 in the midterms, but who knows?
I have no idea.
If you underestimate your opponent, you lose.
I said that in 2018, I said it in 2020, and that's the funny thing.
You know, the leftists like to be like, Tim Pool predicted a 49-state landslide.
I also said repeatedly over and over again, if you underestimate your opponent, you will lose.
And people did.
They genuinely believe that fumbling bumbling Joe Biden didn't stand a chance.
But they underestimated it.
And I point this out all the time, is that while the enthusiasm for Biden was in the gutter, the enthusiasm against Trump was through the roof.
People weren't going out to vote for this man.
They were going out to anti-elect Trump.
They were going out saying, we don't like Trump.
That's it.
Didn't matter if it was Joe Biden or anybody else, for the most part.
But I think the nostalgia factor helped.
And now people are waking up to the reality that Joe Biden cannot, will not, and should not be leading this country.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Trust the science.
We're told to trust the science.
Okay.
Let's trust the science here.
Merck's COVID pill might pose risk for pregnant women.
Some laboratory studies suggest that molnupiravir can insert errors in DNA, which could in theory harm a developing fetus, sperm cells, or children.
A lot of people are looking for alternatives to the vaccine or they're looking for some kind of therapeutic or treatment for COVID after people already get it.
Now, of course, we're seeing the expansion of vaccine mandates across the board.
And as these companies like Pfizer, Merck or whoever After producing these pills to treat COVID, I have to wonder what's the point of the vaccine mandates if there are alternative treatments.
And I'm not talking about any of the ones that YouTube bans you for, although you should be allowed to talk about them.
I'm talking specifically about major pharmaceuticals getting FDA approval to produce pills like Molnupiravir.
If there are treatments for COVID, shouldn't we just start relying on herd immunity, natural immunity, and these potential treatments, and say, what's the point of the vaccine mandate?
Now, up in New York, we have one of the most extreme vaccine mandates.
Of course, you've probably heard the news.
You've got to have two doses of the vaccine.
Even children have to have at least, I believe, one dose of the vaccine.
All private employees now need to have the full dose of the vaccine.
And of course, the definition of a full, fully vaccinated is going to change.
We've heard that from people like Fauci and from others at the CDC.
Soon, booster will not be booster.
Because the Daily Beast has already said, and many experts are saying, three shots is actually just regular vaccination.
So, ranging towards four?
There's a tweet going around that I think explains what I want to get to with this segment and talking to you about Merck's pill may causing mutations in sperm and fetuses.
Let me show you this tweet just to kind of preface this segment so you can understand where we are at.
Megan McArdle, verified Twitter user, she is a columnist at the Washington Post, tweeted, Why do I encounter so many folks who tell me they refuse to get vaccinated because the vaccines are brand new and haven't been adequately tested?
And besides, COVID is just the flu, she says.
Then talk up equally novel monoclonal antibody treatments as a miracle cure for just the flu.
Now, that is a bit of a straw man.
I will tell you this, man.
I think having gotten COVID, it was, in terms of my experience, Twice or more worse than when I experienced the flu.
And some people get mild symptoms from this, you know, from COVID.
Some people here got sniffles.
You've heard me say it.
I know, I know.
But for those that haven't heard me talk about it, the worst illness I have ever had I would not want to get it again.
It was nightmarishly bad.
I was delusional.
I was walking around, like, fever hallucinating.
It was crazy.
I couldn't eat.
I didn't eat for three days.
I couldn't sleep for days.
I was messed up.
Pain all over my body.
Would not recommend in any way.
And that's why I think it's silly when people are like, natural immunity, natural immunity, because I'm like, getting COVID as a prevention method for COVID is paradoxical and it makes no sense.
Now, that being said, I'm not going to tell you what you should do, right?
If you have natural immunity like, you know, I do, then I understand that we shouldn't have vaccine mandates.
But this tweet here really exemplifies the issue that I see.
First of all, people who advocate for monoclonal antibody treatment, I'll tell you this.
I got monoclonal antibodies.
It worked within, I think, 12 hours.
The sickness broke and I was just like, I feel better.
It was incredible.
I honestly do still feel lingering effects.
Not kidding.
And it is... I'll put it this way.
I feel like when I am physically active, I'm at 95%.
I feel great.
I feel mostly normal.
I should say 99%.
There's just like a feeling in my lungs.
It doesn't prevent me from skating.
It's not impacting negatively.
It just kind of feels like I know it happened.
It's weird.
It's like not pain or anything.
It's hard to describe.
But it feels like a lingering something of some sort.
Now, I don't think COVID is just the flu.
I think it's bad.
I think it's really bad.
You don't want to get it.
We've had people, tons of people guest on the show have said, yeah, it's really bad.
Some have gotten it more than once.
So why is it that some people might say monoclonal antibodies are good and they don't want to get vaccinated?
The FDA insert For the BioNTech vaccine, for instance, says that they don't have sufficient information on the risk to women for pregnancy.
They don't have sufficient information on long-term effects because those trials have only just begun.
That's obvious.
This is a new technology just released.
And for that there are a lot of people saying, I'd rather wait.
Especially when you consider you've got companies coming out with alternative treatments like pills or monoclonal antibodies, which have been tested and used for a variety of illnesses going back several decades.
And besides, even if you get, you know, if you ignore that, there's just people's personal preference and advice from their doctors.
Of course, this Megan McArdle sort of set up a straw man.
They're saying it's just the flu.
So no, no, no, no, no.
I don't think Joe Rogan's coming out saying it's just the flu.
I mean, maybe he is.
I don't know.
I'm certainly not saying that, and I'm certainly saying monoclonal antibody treatment seemed to work for me, and I am NOT a proponent of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
In fact, I will stress this point as much as the media wants to lie to you about it.
The first treatment I got was monoclonal antibodies, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, and a vitamin drip.
Now those last two things are basically like vitamins.
Just vitamins.
NAD is like a vitamin drip thing.
Monoclonal antibodies was the initial, immediate treatment that I received.
Twenty-four hours later, I was feeling better.
I was feeling normal.
I was up.
I was spry.
I was normal again.
The pain was gone.
And I didn't actually get the further treatment, the azithromycin and ivermectin.
I didn't actually start that until a day after, about a day after.
So, I actually, as I've stated before, told the doctor, I don't think I need this.
I mean, look, I'm feeling better than that.
No, no, no, no, no.
Take your medicine.
You have to do it.
And I said, okay, I'll follow my doctor's orders as I think you should as well.
Now, let's talk about this thing with Merck.
And I wanted to preface this segment explaining those details to you that people have personal preference and they have doctor's instruction.
If you go to the doctor, the doctor says, this is what I want for you.
You can go get a second opinion.
I think that's absolutely fine.
But at a certain point, when your doctor says, here's your prescription, you say, okay doc.
Now we can take a look at what's going on with Molnupiravir.
And this story's really serious.
We had a good question last night on Timcast IRL when we were talking about this.
Why is this story in the New York Times?
Why would they be running a story saying that this pill could insert mutations or errors, I'm sorry, it could insert errors into sperm or fetuses in children resulting in mutations?
The question, the reason this is asked is like, what's the upside for the New York Times?
Did someone seed this story to harm Merck?
Could it be a rival of some sort?
I don't trust these companies.
Here's the story from the New York Times.
A new COVID-19 pill from Merck has raised hopes that it could transform the landscape of treatment options for Americans at high risk of severe disease at a time when the Omicron variant of the coronavirus is driving a surge of cases in highly vaccinated European countries.
But two weeks after the FDA, expert committee narrowly voted to recommend authorizing the drug, known as Molnupiravir.
Okay, so I want to make sure I clarify that they voted to recommend the drug for approval.
The FDA is still weighing Merck's application.
Among the biggest questions facing regulators is whether the drug, in the course of wreaking havoc on the virus's genes, also has the potential to cause mutations in human DNA.
Scientists are especially worried about pregnant women, they said, because the drug could affect a fetus's dividing cells, theoretically causing birth defects.
Members of the FDA expert committee expressed those same concerns during a public meeting on November 30th.
Quote, Do we want to reduce the risk for the mother by 30% while exposing the embryo and fetus to a much higher risk of harm by this drug?
Dr. James Hildreth, The president of Meharry Medical College in Tennessee said in a meeting, My answer is no, and there is no circumstance in which I would advise a pregnant woman to take this drug.
The FDA advisors also noted that the risk could extend to other patients, including men wanting to become fathers, though those risks remain poorly understood, and Merck said in its own studies have turned up no evidence that the drug causes DNA mutations.
Now, why would I trust them?
We need independent review.
Crucially, Molnupiravir is expected to work against Omicron, but it has drawn concern from some scientists and regulators in Europe for being less effective than certain other treatments.
It has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by 30% if given within five days of symptoms emerging.
Here's what scientists know about how the drug works and its potential risks.
When the drug is processed in the body, it creates compounds that closely resemble one of the building blocks of RNA, the genetic material inside the coronavirus.
That causes problems for the coronavirus as it makes copies of itself.
Once the virus enters a cell and starts replicating, the drug compound can slip into the virus's RNA and insert enough errors that the virus cannot survive.
What Molnupiravir does is it disguises itself.
Elizabeth Campbell, an expert in structural biology at the Rockefeller University who studies coronavirus antivirals said in an interview, it can propagate errors that are going to be sprinkled all over the genome.
Making more and more mistakes, the virus eventually grinds to a stop, Dr. Campbell said.
That helps the body fight off the infection and potentially save the patient's life.
The problem is that the same compound that interferes in the replication of the virus' genetic material can also be transformed into one that resembles a building block of DNA.
Some scientists are concerned that could cause errors in a patient's own DNA or in that of a developing fetus.
If cells are replicating, it means they're uptaking a version of one of the DNA building blocks derived from molnupiravir and incorporating it.
How serious of a problem is that?
A team of researchers at the University of North Carolina studied the use of molnupiravir in isolated hamster cells over 32 days and found the drug did induce mutations in DNA.
Those mutations could contribute to the development of cancer or cause birth defects either in a developing fetus or through incorporation into sperm precursor cells.
The drug targets only dividing cells, which are relatively sparse in an adult.
That poses a narrower risk than other so-called mutagens like radiation, which can damage DNA in all types of cells.
Still, Ronald Swanstrom, an HIV researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who helped lead the hamster cell study, said that adults had enough dividing cells in bones, for example, and in the lining of the gut to cause concern.
He also noted that men were constantly making dividing sperm cells that could carry potential mutations.
I don't think anybody knows what this dose means in terms of human outcomes.
I hope it's trivial, but I don't think anybody knows.
Now, I find this framing very interesting.
They could have certainly headlined the article with, Merck's new pill may cause mutations in fetuses.
Or, and, and or, sperm cells, you know, in males.
I think both points are extremely important.
Now, New York Times, they framed this as mostly an issue for pregnant women.
But pregnant women, women aren't always pregnant.
So I think it's important to let pregnant women know this could happen.
But it's also important to note that men are always producing dividing sperm cells.
So, uh, that's a more consistent issue.
I think it's fair to say both men and women could be negatively impacted by this reproductive issue.
But if the issue is that, you know, men's sperm cells always are going to be impacted by this, and pregnant women are going to be impacted when they're, like, you know, women are going to be impacted when they're pregnant, shouldn't they at least point out this is serious for all people?
But it's fine.
I'm not super concerned about the framing of the article.
I'm more concerned with the long-term health effects that we're going to need to study with pills like this.
It could take decades to determine whether or not this stuff is safe.
And it's a bummer.
It really is.
That we can't just make medicine.
Now, there have been some rulings from judges on ivermectin about right-to-try laws.
You know, there are many doctors, and I think the FDA, ivermectin is not approved as a therapeutic or treatment for COVID.
But of course, that hasn't stopped many people from advocating for it or from prescribing it.
Now, in some key issues, circumstances, There have been people who are dying.
One story right now I was just reading is about a man's wife.
She's intubated in an induced coma with a 30% chance of survival, and the husband demanded ivermectin saying, she's gonna die, you know, what's the harm?
And apparently a judge has ruled that it's a, you know, right to try laws, give it a shot.
Now, I think people should be able to choose what they want to do, but we need studies backing up and proving things, you know, beyond just a few years.
Now, interestingly, as I've stated, the FDA has not approved ivermectin.
There are promising studies, however, and even the CDC says this.
There are currently studies showing, you know, prominent effects.
For whatever reason, don't ask me.
It's not approved.
I don't know what their plan is for approval, and I think you should get your advice from your doctor.
But Ivermectin's been around for a really, really long time.
So we know a bit more about the negative health consequences.
The question that I think is really important for people who are proponents of Ivermectin is, does it really work?
You know, Joe Rogan is adamant.
My attitude is there's been a lot of interesting arguments as to why in certain countries we've seen it seemingly be effective, notably in Brazil and India.
And I think a really good argument is that People in these places, and namely India, are known to have parasites.
And ivermectin is a deworming agent, yes, for humans.
And so if your immune system is compromised because of parasites, and you take something that clears out parasites, your immune system can then shift its focus.
It's a very great argument.
I'm not going to pretend to know.
I don't care to have arguments about the science because I'm not a scientist.
I'm not doing research in these labs.
What I can say is, these pills from Merck, how are they going to just crank them out?
The same is true for the mRNA vaccines.
When people say that they're not confident, I say, okay, well, talk to your doctor.
If you're not happy with the results you get from your doctor, get a second opinion.
But I think it's fine if an individual says, I looked into this and I have made a personal choice for myself.
Personally, I always stress that I go to the doctors.
They prescribe me something like Flabagenazole or something, and I'm like, I have no idea what that is!
And, you know.
And then you just take it.
I remember when I was skateboarding when I was a teenager, and I hurt my knee, and the doctor's like, here, take these pills.
And I'm like, what are these pills?
Like, I don't even know what these things are.
And they were some kind of anti-inflammatory, I don't know.
But I didn't know what they were.
And I'm just like, I trust you, doc.
Even right now, there are people who are saying that if a doctor comes out and says Ivermectin, they trust that, but they don't trust the likes of Molnupiravir.
Here's my question to promoters of either side.
Why should I trust any of it?
You know what I mean?
I think there's a real tribal component as to why people are willing to choose to trust a certain medication.
Brett Weinstein might come out and say, look at these studies on ivermectin.
Well, there are studies on these other medications, and there are studies on the vaccines, too.
I don't understand how I'm supposed to be, how people on the left or the right are going to tell me that I should weigh on either of these studies when I'm not the researcher and I have no idea.
I certainly think politics plays a role, I think corporate profit plays a role, and that's why ultimately I air kind of against the establishment and the massive multinational corporations, but I talk to my doctors and I ultimately do what they advise me to do.
And I had two doctors.
One said, do nothing.
And that was it.
And the other said, we want to get you monoclonal antibodies.
And I said, okay.
That is considered, that is an emergency use authorization treatment.
Here's what I want to read a little bit more.
They're going to say, Ronald Swanstrom, the HIV researcher, says, you know, Human Bones, we read this, I don't think anybody knows what this dose means in terms of human outcomes.
I hope it's trivial, but I don't think anybody knows.
In a letter objecting to Dr. Swanstrom's conclusions, Merck scientists said that hamster cells were exposed to the drug for considerably longer than COVID patients would be.
The company said that it tested the drug in rodents and found no signs of DNA mutations.
They're going to mention that there is a potential risk in pregnancy.
Cells and fetuses are dividing all the time, heightening the risk of mutations.
As a result, Merck excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as women likely to become pregnant for its clinical trial.
But what about men and their sperm cells?
You see, this is very difficult to ascertain, to figure out what makes sense.
Now, when you cover stories like this, you know, I run the risk of YouTube coming down and bashing my channel for simply pointing out these risks exist.
So what do we do?
I'll tell you one thing that's difficult.
I do not know of, in any study, risks from ivermectin.
I also am personally not convinced it actually works.
Could maybe be a placebo effect, there's been promising data, but I'm not going to pretend to be a medical doctor who can tell you what to believe or what I'm supposed to think about these things.
I've heard the arguments, I've talked with Joe, I've seen the doctor's statements and the math protocol, all that stuff, and I'm just like, I think it's a big problem that we get wrapped up in arguing science and medical results instead of just saying we are free individuals to choose as we see fit.
So I think it's a problem when YouTube censors people.
I think it's an issue when they want to have mandates.
Look at this one.
Kathy Hochul admits her controversial mask mandate didn't make a difference in New York City.
I think this is a little falsely framed.
What she was saying is that her controversial mask mandate didn't matter because New York City is under extreme lockdown.
She certainly thinks that masks work.
But I think we have a problem.
We've got cities that are playing politics.
Here's where we should be, okay?
In my opinion, I'm not going to argue medicine.
The left is their establishment.
They love vaccines.
They love mRNA.
They want to get their boosters.
That's great, man.
Do your thing.
If somebody tells me they want to go to the doctor and get a certain medication, I'm like, that's your life, bro.
I can't tell you efficacy.
I can read the studies.
You got studies saying masks works.
You got studies saying that vaccines, that the mRNA vaccines work, but the efficacy has been waning.
Or it could be the new variants, you know, aren't working for the vaccines.
Whatever.
I don't know how to argue that stuff because it's really, really simple.
I can tell you something.
When it comes to the media, when it comes to the internal workings of these massive corporations, I have personally experienced their motives, their desires, their drive, and their lies.
So that makes me a little bit more of an expert.
I can tell you exactly what it was like.
I read a lot of news.
I can tell you a bit about what happened according to multiple reports.
What I can't do is tell you what medications do, what the studies say, because that's not part of my wheelhouse.
But the same is true for the left and the establishment.
When they come out and they say, we know this, we know that, trust the science.
Okay, well we got science saying that this Merck pill is bad.
It can mutate DNA.
Which science am I supposed to trust?
The science that Pfizer hasn't released?
I'm not going to get into arguing medical stuff, because I would be arguing from a point of ignorance.
I can read studies, but there's so many.
What I can do is argue from a point of freedom.
And I think this is what y'all should be doing, too.
Because the left, the establishment, whatever, they'll come out and say the vaccines work.
And you can respond very simply with Yeah, alright.
I'm glad you think that way.
I'm glad you're doing what's right for you.
I'm glad you're advocating for what you think is best.
But people have a right to live their lives, to pursue happiness, and to be free from forced medical procedures.
That's just it.
The government shouldn't be allowed—in my opinion, the government shouldn't be involved in private medical decisions.
Now, I suppose the challenge is, for pro-lifers, the left says, you know, you're being inconsistent, but I'm sure you have those arguments.
Mine is fairly consistent in that regard.
I don't like the idea that someone would go to the doctor, the doctor would make a recommendation, and then you've got to get some kind of government approval, or there'd be a law to a certain degree.
Now, that being said, this goes way, way beyond, and it becomes an impossible conversation.
It really, really does, because everyone's willing to accept certain limitations on what doctors can and can't do, except in certain areas.
Even the left would come out and tell you, you know, the government shouldn't be involved in private medical decisions, and it's like, okay, what if a doctor recommends, like, chopping off your leg above the knee because you have a cold?
Oh, well, that's malpractice!
Okay, well, tell me where the line is.
You see, this for me is ultimately the issue.
We do accept limitations on what doctors can and can't prescribe.
On what they can give you and how they can give it to you.
It's literally why they have prescription pads.
Because we don't want doctors just giving out bunk BS.
It's why pharmacists can intervene.
And it's why you can sue for malpractice.
And it's why some doctors can go to jail.
It's why there was a debate over euthanasia.
It's not so simple to say that you would just say the government can't be involved in private medical decisions.
I've said that when it comes to, you know, life versus choice, abortion versus pro-life.
But I think it's fair to point out, we all need to recognize the limitations of our personal morality.
That if you have a doctor who's like, I've decided that because you have a cold, I'm going to prescribe sterilization!
We'd freak out over that.
We'd be like, the government should stop that.
So where's the line, man?
You know, when it comes to leftist ideology, if medical doctors were prescribing things based on race, you know, the left would be like, ah, this is wrong.
If doctors would deny someone gender-affirming care, the left would freak out.
No, I thought you got to trust your doctors.
You see, therein lies the big challenge.
Our morality has limits.
Or I should say, our principles have limits.
We can talk all day and night about how we try to be consistent, but the reality is, I don't think anybody can be.
Because everybody's got their moral limits.
So I'll stress this point again.
And I'll be self-critical on it.
When it comes to the issue of pro-choice, I'm like, I don't like the idea that a woman goes to the doctor, she may have a very serious issue, and the doctor's like, well, I've got to get approval before I can provide this medical treatment.
And I'm talking specifically about... I'm not talking about abortion as contraception.
I'm talking about a woman going to the doctor and the doctor's like, it's, you know, an ectopic pregnancy or whatever.
It's gonna kill you and the baby.
We need to act fast.
And then it's like, but let's make sure we're following government procedure and we're getting some kind of approval and... I don't like the idea of the government saying, you know, we get your private records.
You have to provide proof of vaccination for this, that, or otherwise.
I don't like any of those ideas.
However, doctors can't just give you insane treatments.
A doctor can't prescribe he's gonna, you know, spray you with liquid nitrogen in the face or something.
I mean, I suppose there's great discretion to which a doctor can do, but doctors can be sued for malpractice and doctors can go to prison if they violate laws, so the government is already in.
That room to a great degree.
It's why there is a prescription pad.
Because the government is saying, if you want to do something, the doctor has to sign off on it and that has to be provided to someone as proof before you can receive that treatment.
So where's the line?
People need to recognize this stuff.
You know, I've talked about this in other issues too, with like, you know, Ian brought it up on TimCast.rl.
He said, you know, you're saying no lockdowns because COVID, you know, is bad, but it's not airborne Ebola.
So he was like, so what if it was Ebola?
Would you then be like, okay, people can have their freedoms taken away?
And I'm like, that's a great point.
It's a great point.
How many people right now who are like, you know, who believe COVID isn't that bad and we shouldn't be locked down would be calling for lockdowns if it was an airborne Ebola liquefying people's insides and they were vomiting black goo?
A lot more people.
So the issue just becomes personal limits and morality, and I think, you know, with each human being somewhat different in where they stand, you end up just with political factions based on the limits they're willing to accept.
I don't have all the answers.
I think we should be arguing from a freedom standpoint, and that's our best option.
I can certainly say, you want to tell me to trust the science?
Merck's pill.
You've got these people saying these things about it?
How long until that gets banned?
How long until they say you can't disparage the Merck pill?
Because you can't speak ill of the vaccines, for the most part.
Yeah.
I'll leave it there.
All right.
These are big philosophical debates, questions, but 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.
The controversy surrounding transgender swimmer Leah Thomas is escalating.
The story started when this swimmer, who was born male, competed against females and won by over 38 seconds.
Leah Thomas was born male and competed against males, trained to compete against males, and after transitioning began competing against females and defeated her rival by 38 seconds.
This is not just winning a race.
This is beyond outclassing your opponents.
This is absolute destruction of the entire group of swimmers who are racing.
Well, following that story, a female swimmer came out and spoke up anonymously.
Following that story, a second female swimmer spoke out anonymously.
And now we have a third female swimmer coming out and speaking anonymously, saying, quote, it's impossible to beat her.
Now look.
I think we've got to navigate this issue because transgender people exist, and we need to figure out a way that we handle sporting events so that they're fair.
We've been trying to do this, okay?
The Olympics, they had some testosterone requirements, now I guess they're getting rid of it.
They're trying to say, okay, maybe what we should have is if someone is born male, then they have to have a certain level of testosterone or below for a certain amount of time, but even that doesn't necessarily make sense.
There's a transgender researcher who put out a report saying that males will still retain biological advantages even after hormone replacement therapy for a certain amount of time.
There's also something to consider, and that's prenatal testosterone, which does have an impact on fast twitch muscle development, which means there is going to be biological differences between biological males and females.
Now, here's what I want to say.
First and foremost, these female swimmers I have almost no sympathy for, almost none, and I say almost none, because I do feel bad for these females, these women, who grow up training and fighting their hardest to become the best of the best in their league, and that's women's swimming.
Women tend to be shorter.
Not always.
There's different, you know, different groups of people of different height averages.
But on average, if you line up men to women, you know, take ten men, ten women, and tell everyone to stand from tallest to shortest, it will mostly be the men followed by the women.
But there are some tall women.
Now, when it comes to these women, I do feel bad in that they've tried so hard to make it to this level.
They want to compete in the NCAA.
They want to make it to the Olympics.
But now they're being obliterated by over 38 seconds.
They don't stand a chance.
And as we move further into the future, there's going to be more and more transgender individuals competing against women, competing against females.
And thus, You're out.
It's not the first time we've seen a story like this.
There was the Connecticut track races where two transgender individuals, born male, just both won and broke records.
The females did not stand a chance.
Now, it's not absolute.
There will be circumstances, and there have been, where transgender athletes who are born male lose to biological females.
If you are one of these females on this swim team or racing in these races, just don't do it.
Don't come to me.
Okay, they're not really coming to me, but don't go to the press and be like, oh, I'm so upset this is happening, but I'll keep participating.
If you get a problem with it, just leave.
And this is what really annoys me, because there's a lot of people who are like, I want my kid to have that chance, and this is not fair.
Yeah, you're right.
So what are you doing about it?
Speaking anonymously?
Stand up and put your words on your chest.
I want to know your name.
Say who you are, say what you think, speak out.
Because there have been many individuals who are willing to do this, and if you're not willing to stand up for yourself, don't expect me or anyone else to do it.
Now I can respect that there are female swimmers that are coming out and saying, this is bad for us and we're upset with it, but they are too cowardly to just publicly speak out.
They speak out hiding their name.
If you want to engage in a conflict, if someone is storming, if they're storming the beaches of your country and you say, I'm going to stand up to this by hiding behind this wall and just yelling.
Wow.
Don't be surprised when you lose.
Now look, I think rules in sporting events are, for the most part, arbitrary.
We make up the rules.
We, as human beings, make up these rules.
So when it comes to the NBA or the WNBA or whatever, it's like, we can make up whatever rules we want.
Why don't we just have mixed-team basketball?
10 players gotta be male, 10 players gotta be female, and, you know, however many players on whatever sport have to be in play at a certain amount of time, and we just, you know, we just do that.
Or how about we create a transgender sporting bracket?
You know, it's interesting that everything kind of flows in one direction.
So there was that guy, Oscar Pistorius, I think his name was.
Did he murder his wife or something like that?
I don't know.
I don't want to speak on it.
I don't know too much about it.
But this was the guy, I think his name was Oscar Pistorius, was it?
I don't know.
There was that guy who had the prosthetic legs for running.
And they said that he could race in the Olympics.
He qualified.
The problem was some said it gave him an unfair advantage.
That's actually not true.
I really disagree with that.
The issue with, he had these like metal, they're like metal spring running prosthetics.
He has less muscle control, he has less stamina, he's using all of his upper legs, his hamstrings, his thighs, to make that run to do it.
So he's definitely at his advantage compared to other runners.
But you can go up, right?
So, we have the Special Olympics, and we have the Paralympics.
If someone is good enough, they can compete in the Olympics.
But typically, for certain reasons, and I mean no disrespect to this, you know, in the Paralympics, you know, somebody who doesn't have arms is not going to be throwing a shot put.
Someone who's missing legs very likely won't be running at world-class levels.
But you can see that sometimes people do, and thus, they're able to compete at those levels.
Perhaps what we need is a transgender division, and I think this makes a lot of sense for two reasons.
Women, females who transition to male, will have testosterone boosting their muscle mass, and it will benefit them and make them stronger.
However, they won't have the benefits of prenatal testosterone.
Trans women, people born male who transition, will come down quite a bit, and a transgender division might actually be a bit more equal between trans men and trans women.
But I can certainly say just taking biological males and having them compete against females is not fair.
But my issue with most things related to this is that people are unwilling to speak up.
They're unwilling to stand up for what they believe in because they're too scared.
They're too scared to actually say what they feel is right and so be it.
Let me read the story.
Exclusive.
It's impossible to beat her.
Despondent female rival says swimming against trans Leah Thomas is intimidating and discouraging after teammates spoke out and said everyone knows it's wrong.
You know what?
That's not true, and you don't think it's true.
If you genuinely believe that everyone thought it was wrong, you would walk up with your name tag, your badge on your chest, and you'd say, my name is Jane Doe, and this is wrong, and everyone knows it, and I fear nothing saying that.
No, what you know is that most of the people want it to happen, and you're unwilling to put your name behind your words.
The Daily Mail says, Thomas broke two national records when she competed in the female races at the Zippy Invitational earlier this month.
She previously competed on the UPenn's men's swim team for three years before transitioning.
A female swimmer from Niagara University who wishes to remain anonymous and competed against Thomas at the Zippy Invitational told Daily Mail of the intimidation and discouragement she felt raising the transgender athlete.
You could have said no.
Where are the spines?
Where's the spine of anybody?
Now, I'm not saying... I'm not putting my opinion on Leah Thomas.
I'm saying this individual to come out and be like, I'm upset by this and everyone knows, but being unwilling to stand by those words is cowardly.
Quote, swimming against Leah Thomas was intimidating, the senior said.
It was hard going into a race knowing there was no way I was going to get first.
I knew I could drop my time but I also knew there was no way I could physically be able to beat her in the race or even catch up to her.
Look at this.
This is amazing.
When I watched the video of the race, I couldn't figure out what was happening.
Now, truth be told, I am not a expert swim connoisseur or whatever.
I don't even know.
I don't know much about it.
I understand that there's a breaststroke and a backstroke or something, and you can do the dolphin or the doggy paddle, but I've watched Olympic swimming.
A couple of times.
And when I watch that, what you usually see is like Michael Phelps and some of these other great swimmers is that they're ahead and they're doing great, but you can see everyone's kind of going in the same direction and they turn and they turn.
You can kind of track what's going on.
When I was watching this, I was confused because I was like, someone's going the wrong way.
Oh.
It's because, um, Lea Thomas was 38 seconds up, outlapping the rest of the swimmers.
So I was like, wait, what?
Whoa!
I, wow.
That's crazy.
They're going to say, quote, it's hard working your whole life at a sport and going to big competitions and seeing someone who is more physically talented than you.
However, it is even more discouraging to have them right next to you and knowing you won't ever be on the same physical level as them.
More physically talented than you.
Let's just be real.
Males are more likely to be tall and have longer limbs and bigger hands, and that provides a massive advantage in swimming.
Now, humans aren't the best swimmers.
Just, just, that's the truth.
I mean, you look at how fast dolphins can go and, like, dart around.
It's kind of crazy.
It's amazing.
But dolphins aren't the best runners.
So, humans are pretty good at long-distance running.
We can swim, and people who have broader shoulders, longer arms, wider hands, all that stuff, these are advantages.
I don't know about the wider hands.
I'm assuming.
I could be wrong.
But I did watch a mini science doc that explained why Michael Phelps was the best.
They said his arm span was actually longer than average for his height, and his large muscle mass, fast twitch, and height and everything provided a massive advantage for him.
And that's the reality.
Now, if you are walking into this and you choose to legitimize these things while complaining about it, sorry.
Thomas was able to switch to the women's team after completing a year of hormone treatments.
Transgender athletes shared that the treatments have caused muscle and strength loss, making nowhere close to her best pre-transition speeds as a male swimmer.
That is not true.
It's not true.
Here we go.
How will Leah Thomas' times stack up against her best as a male?
Will Thomas, before transitioning, 1 minute 39 seconds.
Leah, 1 minute 41 seconds, with the NCAA record being 1 minute 39.10.
So the NCAA record is a little bit higher than Will.
But as Leah, it's only about 2 seconds behind.
Now I understand 2 seconds is pretty bad.
You know what I mean?
Like, two seconds is a lot in a race like this.
But to say nowhere near?
Now, in the extended races, I think you can see that Leah actually has reduced stamina.
Especially as it pertains to the 1650 meter free, going down almost a full minute.
So that's legit, right?
They say, the transgender athlete said, you know, when you're close to the best times.
Swimming against Leah, I knew deep down it was going to be impossible for me to swim as fast as her.
At the end of the day, I respect her decision to compete and I feel, and I do feel that people are going to have a bad reaction to her life choices, which isn't fair on her.
But from an athletic standpoint, I do see why a lot of athletes are going to be upset, she said.
You know what I want to see?
I want to see more transgender athletes in women's sports.
I want to see more people born male, staying true to themselves, saying that this is the true person they want to be, and competing against females in the women's division.
It is a fact.
Males, biological males are better at women's sports than biological females.
And this is the path the universities have decided to go down.
These female athletes are not willing to stand up to say anything about it.
So their words mean nothing.
Let every mother and father who spent a decade plus or just shy of two decades training and
coaching their children to be the best see it all just evaporate because they're cowards.
But look.
If this is where we are, then I mean this genuinely.
With respect to Leah Thomas, congratulations for winning.
This proves, as per the modern leftist nomenclature, or a colloquial semantic and colloquial understanding, women can swim just as fast as men.
It just goes to show that these biological females aren't trying hard enough, right?
Trans women are women.
Daniel Radcliffe said the same thing, right?
That's the main narrative.
And if that is the case, and none of these people are willing to actually speak up for themselves and stand up against this, then why should I be concerned with how the system is playing out?
Congratulations to Leah for winning, following all the rules, following all the guidelines, and competing to her true self.
Let me stress this.
Leah Thomas followed all the rules and all the regulations.
So why should I be mad at Leah Thomas?
If these other athletes are unwilling to boycott or say no, well, there you go.
If their parents are unwilling to say anything about this, then I see no reason to entertain any of what they're saying.
Where are the people who say, you know, my daughter wants to be an Olympic athlete in this regard?
Why aren't they all coming out and saying no?
Then so be it!
Let me phrase it this way.
I've got no skin in the game here.
I'm not a woman.
I'm not an athlete.
I'm not going to be competing against any of these people.
And if no one is willing to stand up, I'm not going to just rubberneck and stick my face into a conflict I have nothing to do with.
Now I certainly, personally believe a women's division that allows biological females to compete against each other is important for biological females who want to, but if they're not willing to stand up for it, there's no reason for any of us to take their side on this.
You understand what I'm trying to say?
Like, personally, I understand why we have separate divisions, but I don't see why we would stick our necks out for this.
Like, why I would interject myself into something that apparently no one actually is complaining about.
It just seems weird for a 35-year-old dude to be like, I'm upset about a swim meet that has nothing to do with me.
Now, culturally, I can give my opinions, but you get my point?
They say the current NCAA women's records for these events are currently held by Olympic gold medalists.
Missy Franklin holds the record for the 200 free.
We get it.
Since competing in the women's team this season, Thomas has swam the 200 free at 1 minute 41 seconds and 1 minute 41.93, and the free at 4.34.06.
So we showed this, but this just goes to show Leah's getting really, really close to Olympic gold records.
That's amazing.
Is that the world record?
That's just the NCAA women's records.
Thomas' win was a record for the Zippy Invitational and the pool where the event took place.
Only five swimmers broke 16 minutes at last season's NCAA Championships.
The winning result also meets the NCAA standard required to qualify, which means Thomas will be automatically entered to compete in the National Championship meet in Atlanta in March 2022.
This is really, really interesting stuff.
So let me put it this way.
How about these women, who are upset about this, form a league?
Form their own, you know, females division?
Why don't they make a females division?
Now I get it.
I do.
Woman is defined in most encyclopedias as an adult human female.
When you have a biological male identifying as a woman, that's not the same thing as being a biological female.
So thus, you end up with a semantic debate between left and right.
The women's division was intended to be for biological females.
And there is, in many sports, no male division.
This is actually surprising.
A lot of people don't understand this, that biological females can compete in major league sports.
There's no rule barring them.
They just never qualify.
There have been several females who have tried out as kickers for NFL teams.
Some are really good kickers!
But, typically they just don't outrank the male kickers or any other athletes on these teams.
So, if the rules are arbitrary, and we agree to them, and there's no outrage by this, then what's the problem?
And I mean it literally, what's the problem?
No, no, seriously, comment below and tell me what you think the issue is here.
They're going to say on paper, if Leah Thomas gets back down to Will Thomas's best times, those numbers are female world records.
Faster than all the times Olympic swimmer Katie Ledecky went in college.
Faster than any other Olympian you can think of.
His times in three events are female world records.
So, as Will Thomas, the times that Will got were female world records.
So, we'll see.
I mean, look, after abiding by the rules and taking the hormone therapy, Leah Thomas is down over one minute from her previous best times.
You know what I'd like to see?
I'd like to see, as I stated earlier, maybe a transgender division.
But I also think it's important to realize something for conservatives, for the cultural right, or whatever.
If people are unwilling to stand up for something, you've lost already.
It's over.
I don't know what you do after that.
I mean this.
And I'm not saying, you know, you who believes in something like this should give up.
I'm saying, if the athletes themselves and their parents don't care, and you aren't involved, What more can you do?
You know, I'm not gonna go to the horse track, or they got a horse race over here at the casino.
I don't own horses.
I don't race horses.
I watch horse races.
I'm not gonna go there and make demands about the weight of the jockeys or the tools they use.
I'm gonna be like, look, I got nothing to do with this if they agree to these rules.
Like if someone came in, let me actually give you a good example.
If someone came into the horse races, and they were using some kind of substance that made the horse run faster, and people said, that should be banned.
Like, you shouldn't be allowed to do that.
But there was no formal rule on this particular substance.
Maybe they had like a horse speed cream and they'd rub it on the horse's ass and then the horse runs faster.
And the horse keeps winning.
And by like 38 seconds.
And everyone starts complaining, that's wrong, that's not fair.
But none of the other jockeys or people racing or managers complain about it.
You hear anonymous mutterings complaining about it.
Why would I care about it?
I would just keep betting on that horse to win.
So I wonder what would happen.
Here's something interesting people need to consider, too.
And I'll stress the point.
I do think there should be separated divisions.
I just think people, if they're not standing up for themselves, I'm not going to.
But here's what I'm really wondering.
Sports betting.
They're opening, I mentioned this before, they're opening the Barstool Sportsbook, I think it's called, at the local casino here, and it looks incredible!
Oh, I'm so excited for this, man.
Big, like, Megatron, or whatever, Jumbotron, four screen, 25 feet, like you sit, man, you go in there, you get wings and beer, I am so excited for this, it's gonna be so much fun.
And I'm going to go in there and I'm going to watch and I wonder what's going to happen in sports when people are betting on certain sports and you have biological males competing against biological females.
What are the odds going to be?
It's going to be like you can't win money.
So this is something people need to consider.
If we were gonna bet on this swim meet, right?
I don't know if people bet on swim meets at, you know, UPenn or whatever.
But if you were gonna go and bet on this race, would you bet on anyone other than Leah Thomas?
Of course you wouldn't.
And the win is guaranteed.
So what are the odds?
One to one for every dollar you bet, you get a dollar back?
People would be like, it's not a bet.
Because no one's gonna bet against Leah Thomas.
I guess there could be some people who are like, hey man, you can't win every single race.
We go to the horse track sometimes, and it's really fun.
What people need to understand about this, because people don't understand the horse races, you can bet 50 cents.
You can bet $2.
You grab a beer, you sit outside, you watch the horses go, and you cheer for your number, and you have $2 you bet, or whatever.
It's silly fun.
Some people bet crazy amounts.
I mean, I'm not a fan of that.
I have not... I've technically won some of my bets, but they don't pay anything.
I bet 20 bucks on a horse to show, which is like first, second, or third, and then I won $21 because it was the favorite, and I'm like, whatever, you know.
It's like, you risk $20 for a buck, not really worth it, but when the horse is the favorite to win with the best stats, I mean, everyone's gonna put their money on it, and then you don't win that much.
What's going to happen to college sports, to Olympic sports, to whatever?
College sports betting.
What's going to happen when you just have biological males in the WNBA?
People are going to be like, well, I know a team is going to win this one.
It's going to ruin sports betting too.
Casinos will probably be upset by it.
I don't know, man.
Look, I'm sure a lot of you completely disagree and think, you know, my opinions on this are wrong, and that's fine and that's fair.
And I will stress again, I certainly think there should be separated divisions.
Maybe we need a trans division.
But I must absolutely stress the point.
I am sick and tired of being somebody complaining in his now office, I used to say bedroom, but now office, about things I'm not involved in.
Now, I'm tangentially involved in this kind of stuff.
It's cultural issues, and it affects how we believe things should be run.
So I believe we should all have—we're all entitled to our opinions on this.
I'm just saying, when it comes to people saying a thing is wrong, but being unwilling to stand up for it, it's frustrating that I, who am not involved, are standing up against it.
It just doesn't make sense, you know what I mean?
If these swimmers Are not going to boycott if they're going to say we will entertain, participate, and engage?
Well then, congratulations.
These are the rules you agreed to.
And I don't see how you get to come out saying these things about Leah Thomas when Leah Thomas is also abiding by the exact same rules you agreed to.
