Colbert Calls For Abolishing The Senate, Democrats Push INSANE Authoritarianism As U.S. Falls Apart
Colbert Calls For Abolishing The Senate, Democrats Push INSANE Authoritarianism As U.S. Falls Apart. Democrats continually claim democracy is dying yet keep calling for plans that would end the US constitutional republic.
Mass voter overhaul, abolishing the senate, or even the filibuster would cause serious escalation in our cultural crisis.
But its consistently Democrats that want dramatic and revolutionary change while supporting BLM riots and antifa
#Democrats
#Colbert
#Republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Stephen Colbert, one of the most popular late-night hosts, has called for abolishing the Senate outright.
The Democrat base really wants to push authoritarianism, while they keep claiming that this is the death of democracy because Republicans are winning.
In our next story, Donald Trump is roasting Joe Biden because Joe Biden basically said the 2020 election was illegitimate.
Jen Psaki tries countering this, but it doesn't really work.
In our last story, Controversy at UPenn, as one swimmer accuses two transgender swimmers of conspiring to throw the race to make it seem like the biological male actually would lose.
Now, if you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Everybody then laughs at him and he says, I am 100% serious.
And he repeatedly says that the Senate is anti-democratic.
The Democrats represent 41 million more people than the other side and they're blocking everything.
What do you call that?
Me?
I guess I call it, yo, this country is fractured and falling apart, and I'm tired of people trying to deny it.
I don't like the idea that the US is fracturing.
I want this country to succeed.
I don't think it necessarily means we're going to suffer and that your life will get worse, but certainly, this country is fracturing and breaking apart.
This episode happened a few days ago.
After Kyrsten Sinema and Manchin blocked the filibuster reform, and rightly so, Colbert said that it was wrong.
The filibuster is anti-democratic.
He called Sinema a tool because the man is just not smart enough to understand the importance of our Republican institutions.
And I don't mean Republican Party.
I mean Democratic-Republican form of government and a constitutional government.
You see, Colbert was showing a clip of Carson Cinema saying that the goal of the filibuster is to make sure there is broad support for changes in this country and you don't just steamroll through legislation.
And Colbert goes, no, no, the Democrats represent 41 million more people.
Because the guy doesn't know how math works.
He seems to think that because, like, Illinois has 51% Democrats, the other 49 would simply agree with every Democratic senator.
No, the system isn't just that because Republicans represent less dense states that every single Republican in a blue state agrees with Democrats.
Joe, uh, Stephen Colbert doesn't quite understand the purpose of what's going on, why we have a filibuster, why we have a Senate.
And the reality is it's because senators represent states because we are not a democracy.
And that's interesting, too.
The Democrat Party.
The Democratic Party.
I actually think it is more appropriate to call it the Democratic Party than the Democrat Party, like the right likes to do.
When you ask someone, when you look it up, why do Republicans call Democrats the Democrat Party?
Because they don't want to give them the word Democratic, which implies that we're all in this together.
But my friends, quite literally, it is, down those lines, literal.
Democratic.
The Democrats want rule by simple majority.
Republican.
The Republicans tend to want republicanist form of government, meaning we have a bunch of states of varying populations that have equal representation to the federal government.
Republicanism.
So I actually tend to believe that democratic republicanism is a good thing.
That's what our country is.
The Democrats, like Colbert, he outright says on TV, to getting mocked, that we should get rid of the Senate.
And you know what the thing is?
I think this shows how far gone everything is.
And I'm tired of pretending it's not.
No one is playing by the rules anymore.
I guess save some Republicans who are trying to argue with people who don't live in the same reality as them.
And Democrats certainly aren't playing by the rules.
When you call for changing them, which the Democrats just did with their vote reform, when you call for abolishing long-standing institutions like Colbert just did, they're outright saying, we don't like the rules, we don't want to play by the rules, we do not follow them, we're done.
And I say this, if we are playing a game of baseball, And one team says, I think I should be allowed to have six strikes instead of three.
I'd be like, well, that's a different game.
If you want to play a different game, we can discuss it.
But for the time being, we've agreed to play baseball.
Except this is where we are.
This is what we're getting from the Democrats.
And in the meantime, on TV across the board, they're saying, this is the death of democracy.
We've never been a democracy.
Sorry, that's stupid.
We've been a democratic republic.
We have a republican form of government with democratic electoral processes.
And in some instances, we've elected to have, you know, Proposition-based or referendum-based votes on certain bills and laws where you do get the population involved.
I think that's good.
I think a good mix.
But the states need representation because we are not an end-all be-all.
We are not just one country that's run by the federal government.
States have rights.
The Democratic Party wants popular vote for everything, and that would mean the cities rule over the rural areas, which would destroy this country, and it would result in civil war faster than you can say, Tim Pool mentioned civil war again.
Let me read this news for you.
We'll break down what's going on, and I'll tell you what I mean.
And I hate to be a Debbie Downer on this stuff, but I don't think this is a bad thing.
I mean, I think it's bad in many respects.
I think it's good in other respects.
I think it's just what it is.
And if you don't like that it's happening, well, I'm sorry.
It is happening.
Colbert did call for abolishing the Senate, and he said he was 100% serious.
He wasn't joking.
He reiterates his point.
He drives it home.
Let me show you the top-rated late-night host telling the American people and our institutions, and then sit back and tell me everything's fine.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member if you would like to support my work, if you think these videos are important, if you think our journalists and the work they do is important, and if you want to get exclusive episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast, go to TimCast.com, sign up.
We need your support to keep this machine turning.
We are not, for the most part, ad-supported.
We're not.
We do have some sponsors, we do get revenue from ads, but we are, for the most part, expanding all thanks to U.S.
members making this possible.
So don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share the video everywhere you can, post the link wherever you can, post it on Facebook, post it on Twitter, Gab, Getter, whatever, because we need that support.
We don't have big marketing teams, we just have you guys.
Now, let's read the story first from Real Clear Politics.
CBS's Colbert to Senator Warren.
What if we just get rid of the anti-democratic Senate?
Curtis Hoke says, CBS's Colbert proposes the Senate be eliminated if the filibuster can't be axed because it is the most anti-democratic institution next to the judiciary because it's the way it is because the Senate is the way it is.
I cannot understand what positive purpose it provides.
Perhaps if Colbert read a book Or went to, I don't know, grade school, he might have a basic understanding of why we have this in our country.
Of course, it could just be that Colbert is lying and just wants power for his Uniparty.
MRC editor Curtis Hawk highlighted an interesting moment where CBS Late Show host Stephen Colbert wondered, during an interview last night with Senator Elizabeth Warren, quote, if we can't get rid of the filibuster, why don't we simply get rid of the Senate?
I don't understand what possible positive purpose the US Senate provides right now, Colbert said, and I'm 100% serious here.
It's the most anti-democratic institution, I'd like to point out.
It's because we're not a democracy.
It would be like if Colbert came out and said outright, the Senate isn't fascist!
We should get rid of it so that we can do it!
We're not a fascist country either.
We're not a democracy.
We're a constitutional republic with democratic institutions, with democratic electoral representation.
That means we vote for people we think represent us best.
The states have representatives.
Certain districts have representatives.
So that our areas have a voice when it comes to how things are run.
The famous quote.
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for lunch.
A republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Or sheep, or whatever word you want to use.
I will tell you exactly why we need the Senate.
Without the Senate, without the Electoral College, without republicanism in this country, you would have major cities stealing the resources from rural areas.
It would effectively be the Hunger Games.
And I'm not joking.
I have been to these smaller jurisdictions and witnessed this firsthand.
When I went and covered the drought in California, I think this was back in 2015, We went to a small town called East Porterville.
All of their water was gone.
Their wells only went down about 30 feet, and these were poor migrant folk.
Yes, underprivileged minorities.
You see, in the area, surface water could not be utilized by the farmers.
The farmers producing the food for the cities and a lot of many other parts of this country needed water, so they were drilling wells down thousands of feet.
They were draining the water table, which resulted in the smaller wells from the poor families going dry.
These people had no say.
The way it was explained to me, the big cities had a vote.
Should we take the surface water from the small rural communities?
And it was simple.
Utilitarianism.
They said, look, we've got 10 million people in these cities and people need to drink water.
So we should take the water from the poor people.
As if the poor people didn't matter?
Yeah, see, I'm more inclined to talk about that well-armed lamb contesting that vote.
If I live somewhere, and I have groundwater, and you think just because there's more of you, you're gonna come and take it?
Sorry, that's not how it works.
Might does not make right.
I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
10 million in favor of taking the water from the poor people?
300,000 in favor of not doing it.
And what happens?
The poor people suffer.
But utilitarianism, I am no fan of.
They believe that they have a right to destroy your life because of the greater good or the public health.
You know, in much of our fiction, the utilitarians tend to be the bad guys.
That's Colbert.
He thinks, he believes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
It's not completely wrong.
We do want to minimize suffering, and I can respect that, but you cannot destroy someone's life because you think you deserve to take what they have.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
And so here's where we are.
In this country, If we got rid of the Senate, then New York, Illinois, and Los Angeles would be voting for you.
You would live in the mountains of West Virginia, the Blue Ridge Mountains, and a bear would come out and you'd be like, can't have a gun because people in New York don't want me to have one.
How does that make sense?
So we have Republicanism.
That is to say, West Virginia says, we live a very different life than you.
These are our resources.
These are what we agree to live by.
If you want to make changes to our laws, we get a say as well, regardless of how many people live here.
Just because there's X many people in California doesn't give you a right to take our water from us, because there's less of us.
Unless you want war, because that's how you get war.
But that's Colbert.
There's more, though.
It doesn't end there.
So this is the Twitter video, but we have this here from The Guardian.
The filibuster, like cursed in cinema, is an anti-democratic tool.
Because this guy is an authoritarian.
He doesn't understand the importance of things like the filibuster that keep this country functioning.
You know, there are a lot of people who talk about the fear of globalism, and this is exactly why.
The idea that you as an American, sitting on your farm with welled water, your own chicken coop, and you're self-sustainable, and then one day a bunch of people just voted to come and take your stuff!
How do you survive?
Yeah, ultimate utilitarianism is communism.
That's where it leads you, if you keep going down this path.
The U.S.
Senate marked King's birthday late show host continued by doing what they do best, nothing.
Hopes for a voting rights protection bill were dashed Monday.
I love how they say that.
I love how he says that.
He's a liar.
It's not a voting rights bill.
It was a voter reform.
It would change the voting system.
If you want to be honest, that's what it did.
I'm critical of much of what they proposed.
I think some of it's okay.
But if you're being honest, you would say Democrats are trying to reform the voting process.
That bill, those bills, two of them, failed.
If someone comes out and says, voting rights protection, they're lying to you.
Anyone who comes out and says voter suppression, and they mean it seriously, is lying to you.
I facetiously called it voter suppression to make that point in a previous video, but the reality is it was voter overhaul.
So here's what happens.
He shows the clip from cinema.
What is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators representing a broader cross-section of Americans?
No, no, not representing a broader cross-section of Americans.
The 50 senators who are currently filibustering the voting rights bill represent 41 million fewer Americans than the senators who support it.
Stop acting like the filibuster is anything other than an anti-democratic tool, which is also a pretty good description of Kyrsten Sinema.
Colbert is either really, really dumb or he's lying to you because he wants to steal power.
The reality is, what do we have, 75 million votes for Trump and 83 or 4 for Biden?
Now, a lot of people on the right don't like those numbers, don't believe it.
Jesse Watters recently was criticized for saying allegedly on Fox News, look, If you want to show me evidence that those numbers aren't real, I will look at them.
I looked at the Arizona audit.
I had people saying, like, why didn't Tim address the Arizona audit?
Because it was inconclusive.
There are a lot of questions raised by a lot of these things.
But even when I talk to a lot of people who bring it up, they don't give me definitive answers.
And now, the firm that was supposed to come out with the findings, gone.
They closed down.
What do you want me to say about that?
I'm not the person doing the audit.
Okay?
Other than, unless and until.
The way I see it is, The reality is people just don't like Donald Trump.
Democrats have a major advantage in urban cities.
They have major advantages changing the rules and getting established Republicans to help them.
But let's just be clear about something.
Right now, Moderates lean Republican.
The Republican base is growing.
The 50 Democrats in office do not represent the majority of this country to a certain degree.
I don't want to get into the nitty gritty, but I would say it's fairly evenly split.
Just because there are 40 million people or 35 in California doesn't mean every single one of them wants this.
Cinema in Arizona is a Democrat, and it's a fairly split state.
And thus, she's playing it moderate.
Is that in any way surprising?
No.
Colbert is trying to claim that if you're a Republican in Illinois, you must absolutely believe in everything Democrats propose, even though you're a Republican.
That's insane.
So the reality is, it does represent a broad cross-section of this country.
Now, if it were true that, you know, Republicans literally only made up 20% of this country, I'd point that out.
It is true that the states voted for these Democrats, and those states should represent those state values.
But that's exactly what Manchin and Sinema are doing.
Joe Manchin may be a Democrat, but West Virginia is the second biggest Trump-supporting state.
It is right-leaning.
And Manchin knows this, so he is addressing the issue as his constituents want him to.
Colbert seems to think that simply because Manchin is a Democrat, he must support California?
Ridiculous.
I don't think the system's perfect.
You know, I think it's a fair point that The states are evenly split.
But in this capacity, you had an Arizona senator and a West Virginia senator saying, nah, we're not just gonna blindly side with these people.
But that's where we are.
And Colbert has, this is from June, 2.95 million viewers on his nightly show.
That is substantially larger than Tim Kast's IRL.
It's unfortunate, I guess.
I mean, we average across the board about, like, 1 point... what would it be?
So, this show, plus my... plus TimCast IRL, you know, all my videos together, it's about an hour and 40 minutes.
I don't know, I think his show's about an hour.
And so, we get a third of the total viewership.
That Colbert does.
And that's, if we go by Unique, it's actually a little bit lower.
It's not that much lower.
So it's maybe about, maybe about a third.
Joe Rogan gets 11 million, so wow!
I can't compete with that.
But we're fairly big.
No, it's true.
We are.
But the reality is they're really, really big.
And that's why I always say, like I mean it when I say share this video.
How am I supposed to compete with Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert with institutional funding?
It's not easy.
If you guys share this, and especially with younger people, maybe we'll make big changes as the people who watch this stuff age out of the workforce.
I think that's the reality.
The people who watch Colbert, they're a lot older.
And so we may have one-third the viewers, you know, in terms of our overall audience in every clip.
I would say that when it comes to just TimCast IRL Late Night Show, it's substantially less.
Over two hours, we get about one-sixth of the viewership.
You know, if you combine the clips and everything, okay, probably fair to say we get more, but then you gotta understand that Colbert and his ilk also have YouTube videos, which are getting, you know, millions of views as well.
It's not easy.
I don't think I deserve every viewer in the world or anything like that.
I just think that if you think what I'm saying makes more sense and is better than Colbert, like, I need your support in sharing this content, because that's the only way we push through this.
The reason this is happening.
Melissa Chen highlights a clip from Tom Elliott.
The Democrats crying the death of democracy.
It's really annoying.
It's brainwashing.
Hearing the Democrats, the media establishment, MSNBC saying the death of democracy, the death of democracy.
We were never a democracy.
We were never a democracy.
Melissa Chen says the left's hysteria about the death of democracy can be explained by the fact that it expects to lose power over the next two years.
That's right.
When the Democrats are losing power, democracy is ending!
Great.
When Republicans are losing power, they just go, slow down there, Democrats.
And Mitch McConnell does nothing.
And the Republicans do nothing.
They're effectively just speed bumps for the Democrats.
Wonderful.
Melissa Chen says, they know they're in trouble, so blame the system, democracy, instead of asking, why are our policies unpopular?
Well, over at Newsbusters, Curtis Houck mentions more than just the abolishing of the Senate.
They say CBS commiserates with, puffs up Elizabeth Warren on voting.
And they go into detail about the conversation with Elizabeth Warren and the discussion about ending the Senate.
And we can see that this is a prominent network channel pushing this stuff.
So I looked it up.
The Baltimore Sun.
Are we witnessing the death of democracy?
I am a 73-year-old white male who served in the U.S.
Air Force, have voted in every election since my 21st birthday.
It is sad that I have lived this long in a free and democratic nation to watch democracy being demolished from within.
For the past 13 years, the partisanship in government has become so entrenched that little has been done to benefit the country.
In 2015, Donald J. Trump started the big lie by saying the only way he could lose to Hillary Clinton was if the election was rigged, and even though he won, he still insisted the popular vote was wrong.
Whatever, man.
The reason I bring this up is that the country is being ripped apart.
Maybe calling it the death of democracy is stupid because we were never a democracy, but this is the death of I don't know what it is.
Unity?
Did we ever really have unity?
I think the reality is you can trace everything back to the American Revolution.
Thomas Jefferson was not a staunch proponent of slavery.
As much as the left and the woke may try to claim he was because he did have slaves, I would say he certainly upheld the system, absolutely.
I would say that he was not a fan of it, and it's nuanced.
There are a lot of people who are, you know, weak milquetoast centrists when it comes to a lot of issues.
I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve.
I still use U.S.
dollars.
But I don't like what Thomas Jefferson engaged in.
I don't like any of it.
I don't think it requires any defending.
I think people back then engaged in very disgusting practices.
Slavery.
Evil.
Pure evil.
But I can recognize the good that emerged from a lot of the stuff.
I can certainly look back at, you know, the Bronze Age and be like, what a bunch of crazy people, but there was always some good.
The good is what we preserve, the bad is what we do away with.
I think it's important to criticize the Founding Fathers for hypocrisy and talking about freedom and all men being created equal, but then having slaves.
But it all goes back to Thomas Jefferson.
In the original Declaration of Independence, there was actually a specific call-out of the king for enslaving people and then using the idea of freedom to levy war against the colonists who were opposed to the crown.
They ultimately got rid of it.
Why?
The Founding Fathers, who were writing the Declaration of Independence, knew the only way they'd win, if they could win, because they weren't so sure they would, is if they had slave states, slave proponent states, states that heavily relied on slavery, on board with them.
Most people don't realize this, but the original 13 colonies of the United States.
Yeah, actually there was 14.
Quebec.
Yes, a colony of Britain.
They said no.
They wouldn't join.
And so we say the original 13 colonies, but in reality Quebec was also a colony of the crown that decided not to side with independence.
So we end up going to war.
In order to win, the Founding Fathers decided to capitulate and allow slave states in the South to, you know, have a bit of their way.
Within 80 years, we were at war with each other because we did not agree on this stuff.
We never did.
The North was increasingly saying no slaves, the South was saying yes slaves, and it led to chaos and conflict.
World views that just did not mesh, for whatever reason.
Civil War never ended.
I mean, it did end, we stopped fighting, the North won, and there was reconstruction.
But this led to a contested election, I believe it was 1876, where competing slates of electors came from different states, and the North was concerned, they were like, bringing the South back into the fold was always going to result in this, and so there was a committee.
And they decided the president by committee!
Yeah, the system was fractured, and there was fear another war would break out.
It didn't stop there.
The Klan emerged.
The Democrat-Dixiecrat South were racists and unhappy with the way things had gone.
And this led up to the Civil Rights Movement.
Still, hard divide between these groups.
The country, for the most part, was getting by, but boy, did they not get along in certain respects.
It never changed.
It never went away.
The conflict between political parties may have evolved, flipped, and changed, but there's always been hard tribalism.
And you can chase it all back to the dawning of this country.
And probably before that, you can say, no, it wasn't the Declaration of Independence, it goes back to the colonists who arrived in the southern states and why they chose to go down there and blah blah blah, and then you can say it was the crown, you can say it was the Dutch trade, whatever.
This divide exists.
And it persists.
And it's still here to this day.
And a strong root of it still has a lot to do with the Civil Rights Movement, with Jim Crow, with the Klan, with slavery, with Reconstruction.
I mean, it's obvious.
It's kind of a dumb thing to say, to be completely honest.
Because we know that history begets history.
That there's always consequences to whatever we do.
It was a really interesting map.
It said something like how, you know, global floods and tidal shifts resulted in, you know, a democratic voter base.
And it shows that in the South, there's lush fertile farm- there's an area of Democrat votes.
And it just so happens that this area is predominantly black.
And so they predominantly vote Democrat for whatever reason, but there's that correlation.
Then they go back and say this is because these areas were predominantly, you know, slave owner areas.
Because they were predominantly fertile- it was predominantly fertile farmland in the South.
It was fertile farmland because it used to be a shoreline where sediments would build up and certain minerals would build up, and it made it good farmland in the long run.
So thousands of years ago, sediment and other things occur, you know, and build up, making good farmland, and ultimately now they vote Democrat because of it.
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 Everything's all tied together, and that we understand.
But I think, you know, we can go back to a certain degree and just realize that these conflicts we're facing, well, they're never really gonna stop, and they'll never go away.
episodes wherever you get your podcasts. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Everything's all tied together and that we understand. But I think, you know, we can go
back to a certain degree and just realize that these conflicts we're facing, well, they're never
really going to stop and they'll never go away. I don't think there's anything that can be done
to make things go away, unless there is one way to do it.
And I think that's what we need to do.
And I suppose that's probably what these communist dictators have tried to do.
The, you know, what is it, Pol Pot Year Zero.
They try to purge everything and start over a cultural revolution.
Yeah.
You see, if they get rid of the ideas, you can't be angry about it.
I think about these stories of, what's a good one?
Game of Thrones.
You've seen Game of Thrones?
Jon Snow.
He was a Targaryen, it turns out.
Oh, spoiler alerts, I don't know, nobody cares about that show anyway.
And so he was supposed to be, you know, of a different family, a family that was, you know, exiled from the country.
But he's raised by another family he grows to love and accept.
And then he finds out his true family lineage.
Or how about Loki in Marvel?
You know, pop culture references make it easy to make analogies, right?
Loki was the son of the king of Jotunheim, a frost giant.
But he was raised by the Asgards.
And so he grew up in that family until he found out the truth and became angry and, you know, among other things.
The point is, the idea among many of these dictators is, if we can erase their memory of the past, of what they've had, of what they've lost, they can't be mad about it.
Because they won't know.
If they're all of the same place and we erase their history, then they'll all just agree.
Eliminate their culture, eliminate their history, eliminate their belief structures and their worldviews, and then you can control them.
It seems to be the way they go about things.
That's why the media gaslights everyone.
It's why they want to get rid of the Senate.
They want authoritarian and absolute control.
It's why they lie about our history.
It's why they try to erase our history.
It's why they're tearing down statues.
They don't want you to remember the past, so they can control your future.
That's why I look at people like Colbert.
I think he's evil.
I think it may be the banality of evil.
I think it may be intentional.
He may know exactly what he's doing and what he's saying.
He may completely understand the systems that we've created and why we've created them.
And I think it's evil because the end result they want will not make things better.
It'll make things worse.
Centralized control will just make everyone crazy.
And you can't erase the minds of every person everywhere.
Eventually one day some child finds an old book and reads it and says, I can't believe what they've done.
and then people get mad. But I will at least say this, the history you think you know and we think
we know is probably all lies. And that's the reality. Maybe not all lies, just a lot of lies.
Think about how they lie every day in the media and think about how they got away with that
before the internet. Then you start to realize. So, the news that came out in the 40s and the
50s and the 60s was probably lies?
Not all of it, obviously.
I think there's a lot of stuff that's undeniable.
Photo and video evidence still existed.
We know what happened in World War II.
I think it's fair to say some things were definitive, some things were just easily mappable and proven.
I'm not saying that, you know, like the big grand moments of our history are lies.
I'm saying it's the subtle things.
You know?
How much you want to bet?
And I'll tell you this.
The U.S.
probably engaged and really just screwed up stuff when it came to World War II.
I mean, we know about the internment camps in the U.S.
I just mean, like, I bet a bunch of civilians were killed.
I bet when they were sweeped- How many- How much you want to bet?
When the U.S.
stormed the beaches of Normandy, and they're making their way through France, and they're, you know, taking back- I bet civilians got killed.
And I bet they just don't talk about it.
I bet really awful things happened.
I bet there are soldiers who commit crimes because people are not- are not perfect.
They're not angels.
You take a look at how history is written, and it will probably try its best to get rid of things that are nasty.
There's a lot of black operations that the governments have done that we don't know about.
There were a bunch of Nazis that fled to Argentina, apparently.
And how much of that do we know about?
History is not absolute.
A lot of it's fairly obvious and fairly overt.
But you look back, and I'm willing to bet that when it came to the American Revolution, man, I love the movie The Patriot with Mel Gibson.
They talk about the wilderness campaign.
It was particularly brutal and the horrible things that Mel Gibson's character did to the Native Americans and stuff like that, to women and children.
And I'm like, that's probably reality.
You know, when it comes to war, war is brutal.
And we want to create these stories of nobility, of honor, of us being better people always.
And in many ways, I think we are.
In the sense of, you know, truth, justice, civil rights.
I think we're better for that.
We're not perfect.
Look at what the U.S.
does when it comes to war.
There's a lot of things that people will tell you aren't real, or they don't want to talk about, but the reality is, we do awful stuff.
Drone strikes, selling weapons, blowing up women and children.
And the thing is, I think journalists cover this stuff.
We see it.
We hear about it.
We know what Trump did with commando raids in Yemen, selling weapons.
We know what Saudi Arabia is doing.
We do know that Trump was trying to end the wars, because he's a very America First kind of guy, but he did continue them to a certain degree.
To a great degree, to be honest.
He wasn't nearly as bad as Biden.
He wasn't nearly as bad as Obama and Hillary.
They were just awful.
And George W. Bush, and going back as far as I can remember.
The U.S.
has been doing really awful things.
Barack Obama killed a child.
16-year-old American citizen.
So we do awful things too.
The reality is the world is far from perfect and everyone wants to be the good guy.
I think some things are better than others.
I think some countries are better than others.
But the reality is we write our history to suit our needs.
That's why they want to control the narrative.
They want more power.
They want you to shut up, sit down, and accept what they do with impunity.
I don't think so!
I don't think so.
No, I believe that decentralization is our saving grace.
I believe the American Revolution, for all of the possible secrets that were nasty, it was a good thing.
And we should be eternally grateful because look at all these other countries in the Commonwealth and how awful they are.
It's a good thing.
We want decentralization of authority.
It's always good to have some executive position.
And it's always good to have a strong, decentralized power base.
We don't want evil people to get too much power, like Colbert wants them to have.
We don't want it.
We want decentralization.
The one good thing I can say about Trump's presidency is that for the first time in my life, the executive branch lost power.
Good.
Not the best thing in the world.
Not always.
There will always be ramifications.
At least there's that.
Decentralization is important.
It helps make sure that powers, you know, the evil doesn't run amok and destroy things.
It makes sure we don't drive off a cliff and lose everything.
But we do need some executive authority.
That's why I like a republicanist form of government.
I like the states, the Senate, I like Congress.
I don't like Congress, like, right now.
I like the idea of it.
So we need to get rid of all of these incumbents.
We need serious reforms.
It's the best I can do.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Joe Biden has given Donald Trump a gift he could only have dreamed of in questioning the legitimacy of our elections because they lack certain reforms.
You see, Joe Biden was giving a press conference, Joe Biden ain't all with it, and he was asked about voter reform bills and what would happen in the November election and Joe Biden said it very well may be illegitimate.
A stupid thing to say because These voter reforms were not in place in 2020.
And if Joe Biden thinks that you need to have these reforms to have a legitimate election, he's questioning his own election!
What a moron.
And Donald Trump has pounced, as the media would like to claim, of the right, saying Biden admitted yesterday that the 2020 election may very well have been a fraud.
It's amazing.
I certainly think there are issues pertaining to our elections that require reforms, but there's a big difference between mystery ballots and fake ballots, and the rules were changed.
The laws were changed well in advance, and the system is advantaging Democrats.
Basically how I see it.
The way I've described it, and I think this is really important for people, especially on the right, to understand.
The Democrats go door-to-door.
They do the groundwork.
I think even Stephen Bannon was talking about this, because we've had a lot of great conversations.
I'm telling you, man, Republicans need, they need to have ten times the ground game as Democrats, because Republicans tend to be rural or suburban, and Democrats tend to be urban.
Which means, One activist can go into one building and talk to a thousand people in New York City, get them all to vote the way they want.
But as for Republicans, what are you going to do?
Go to a rural area and drive a hundred miles in a single day talking to, what, a hundred people?
It's much more difficult.
That's why I look at everything Democrats are trying to do with these voter reform bills, and I say this will not create an actual balanced system.
It will just advantage population density.
Early voting, mail-in voting, not to mention it's quite unconstitutional.
But Joe Biden can't help but shove his own foot in his mouth.
And I got to be honest, I kind of think Joe Biden's just giving up at this point.
You know, there's news stories saying that Joe Biden is going to try to take the Build Back Better bill, break it apart into smaller bills, and get them passed one at a time.
Gee, you think maybe you should have done that in the first place, instead of trying to create these 5,000 page bills that you just rammed down people's throats.
You know, Ian made an interesting point on the Tim Castile podcast, if you're familiar with him.
He said that it should be a federal crime to vote on legislation that you did not read.
And I kind of agree with that.
I mean, maybe there's some nuance we should look into, but yeah, I'm pretty sure that if you're a politician and you vote on something, you should have to read it.
But they don't.
I remember it was the Omnibus Spending Bill.
It's like 5,000 pages, and they pull it in a wheelbarrow or something, or in a wagon.
Not a single person read that thing.
There were weird things jammed in it.
And when you see stuff like that, you have to wonder, why don't Republicans just jam in crazy stuff?
Like, why don't you just get a Republican to be like, you know, Joe Biden, just insult him, or repeal the NFA?
How about that?
How about Rand Paul?
What are you doing?
Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Whoever!
Just take a little thing, you know, a piece of paper, put NFA, repealed, slide it in those big bills nobody reads, and just get it passed and be like, oh, well, they voted for it.
Here's what we'll write right now.
From TimCast.com, former President Donald Trump has issued a statement responding to President Joe Biden's remarks about illegitimate elections during his press conference.
Trump's statements declared that President Biden admitted yesterday in his own very different way that the 2020 election may very well have been a fraud, which I know it was, so saith Donald Trump.
During the press conference, Biden was asked by a reporter, speaking of voting rights legislation, If this isn't passed, do you believe the upcoming election will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate?
Biden gave a jumbled non-answer to the question, prompting another reporter follow-up.
A moment ago, you were asked whether or not you believed that we would have free and fair elections in 2020.
If some of these state legislatures reformed their voting protocols, you said that it depends.
Do you, do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?
Biden replied, oh yeah, I think it could easily be illegitimate.
Imagine if in fact Trump has succeeded in convincing Pence to not count the votes.
I'm sorry.
Jen Psaki came out.
And she said that Biden was trying to say that Trump did it.
No, Biden ain't all with it.
And it doesn't make sense what Biden said, other than he thinks the upcoming election could be illegitimate.
And then he said, imagine if Trump succeeded in convincing Pence not to count votes.
So what?
He's simultaneously questioning our elections and the previous one?
Oh man, the comments sparked controversy, including from the mainstream media, outlets that normally champion him.
In his response, Trump said, President Biden admitted yesterday in his own very different way that the 2020 election may very well have been a fraud, which I know it was.
I'm sure his representatives who work so hard to make it look legit are not happy.
And of course, there's a funny meme going around.
It's like Jen Psaki's job is to come out and say Joe Biden meant the opposite of what he said.
Have a nice day.
This is the deranged, deranged world we live in.
Now, for those of you, for me, we read the news and we try to understand it to the best of our abilities.
Or I should say, I do.
Those of you who watch me, I encourage you to try and follow up and get your news from other sources as well.
And don't just take my word for it.
I am but a single internet person talking to a camera.
But I think we pay a bit more attention than the average person.
It's fair to say.
I don't want to be arrogant and think I know everything.
But when I look at this stuff, Knowing what I know, I feel like the only way you could support Joe Biden is if you don't pay attention at all.
You're like sitting in your basement eating Cheez-Its and, you know, playing World of Warcraft, or I have to imagine most gamers probably aren't on the left, so that's probably not true.
They're on the internet.
You'd have to be, I don't know, sitting on the beach reading a book, tanning, and then someone walks by and be like, you hear Biden?
He's a great president.
And you're like, yeah, okay, sure.
And that's where you get your news from.
Or you go on Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg is jamming stuff into your brain.
I love how they're trying to act like Joe Biden is the president.
I just, I just, I just love it.
Right?
And what I mean by that is not any of Trump's claims or anything like that.
What I mean is, he's just not a good one.
Yes, I understand Joe Biden is in the office.
He's signing the papers.
He's supposed to be doing the job.
But like, if I hired a plumber, and he was literally my plumber, but he like sat around muttering to himself, at a certain point I'd be like, he ain't plumbing, so Joe Biden ain't presidenting, whatever it is he is doing.
Take a look at this.
Daily Mail.
World press reacts to Biden's car crash press conference, where he seemingly gave Putin the green light to invade Ukraine.
Look, I understand that there are a lot of people on the right that will take key portions of what Biden or Kamala or other people say to try and make him look worse than he is.
That's true.
They do it.
The most annoying thing, one of the more annoying ones to me was the Daily Wire did this.
They claimed that Kamala Harris told people to do Google.
They never did.
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
It was the RNC research.
Of course, partisans are going to do this.
And then the Daily Wire picked it up with a meme.
It showed Kamala Harris, quote, do Google.
And they were making it seem like Kamala Harris went, people should do Google if they want to try and find a voting location, which she never did.
Kamala Harris said, when people are looking for a place across town they usually do Google it.
I'm like, okay, that's proper English.
What are you complaining about?
Why open up the door to such stupid criticisms by misquoting someone?
I don't know.
But I will tell you this, what Joe Biden said about Ukraine, what Joe Biden said about the election, yes, it's all bad.
You know, I try to point out when people on the right push it too far because I want regular people who are going to listen to that quote from Kamala Harris.
They're going to be like, Republicans lied.
She did not tell people to do Google.
So don't do it.
You don't need to lie or exaggerate when Joe Biden's this stupid and whacked out of his mind.
When he was like, you know, if it's a minor incursion, then we'll have a discussion of what we'll do.
But if Russia does what they're capable of doing, there'll be a swift response.
What do you mean there'll be a discussion if it's a minor incursion?
See, that's insane.
It's tough.
I don't want Joe Biden to come out and be like, I'm in a new Russia!
If they invade Ukraine, bam!
Like, okay, well, that's going to make things worse.
I don't want Joe Biden to come out and be like, the United States will do nothing.
We have nothing to do with this.
And we don't care if there's a war.
Because we don't want war.
It's tough.
I can't pretend to know all the answers.
There's a fine line.
But you don't say, if there's a minor incursion, we'll talk about it.
You say, the red line is, Russia cannot invade Ukraine.
We will not tolerate war.
It's tough.
Because you've got to stand strong, but you don't want to provoke.
So I can give respect to the federal administration in that capacity, but come on.
Joe Biden is just not the person to be in this position.
All right, here we go.
The Daily Mail says, Joe Biden made international headlines for his car crash press conference, where he seemingly gave Russian strongman Putin the green light to invade Ukraine.
I can't believe this, man.
I mean, I can believe it.
I can completely believe it.
Biden was blasted on all fronts after telling reporters that a minor incursion into Ukraine by Moscow might elicit a lesser response.
Heavens.
Look, I hate war.
I think war is bad.
And I'm also not stupid enough to come out and be like, we should bring all troops back immediately and just shut everything down immediately.
We saw what happened when Joe Biden pulled out of Bagram Air Force Base.
You know, we had the CEO of Getter on.
We had the CEO of Gab on, on TimCast IRL.
And someone asked me, you may have ended Getter, how do you feel?
And I'm like, not good?
I don't want to end Getter.
Look, Twitter sucks, right?
They're censorious, and they're leftist.
We want balanced, nuanced conversation, and we recognize there are some things that are beyond reproach that we don't like, but we have to recognize people have a right to their opinions and a free speech, and these debates need to be won.
You can't just put a boot on someone's neck.
Getter may have very similar policies to Twitter, but Getter allows Donald Trump to be on the platform.
Well, he's not using it, but they would.
They allow Robert Malone to be on the platform.
They allow political discussions that Twitter bans.
If Getter is only one degree better than Twitter, take the win!
And then, pressure getter to push further.
You can't just expect the whole world to jump from point A to point Z. You've got to move in between.
So when it comes to war and conflict, I don't want there to be war.
I'm also not stupid enough to ignore the real possibility that China would just start a war if the U.S.
backs away from everything.
It sucks.
It's difficult.
Now, when Donald Trump says, we want to withdraw from Afghanistan, I say, all right, let's set the timeline.
Donald Trump sets the timeline.
I say, okay, this is fantastic.
And then Joe Biden comes and does the stupidest things in the world and just botches the whole thing.
Leaving Afghanistan, in my opinion, was the right move.
But I'm not so blindly zealous that I would be like, at all costs, no matter what, just get our troops out of Afghanistan.
No, we should leave.
There's an argument that we could treat it like South Korea, and within 20 or 30 years, it could be a bastion of free speech and democracy or whatever, and I'm just like, yo, during the Cold War, things were different.
We had the Soviet Union invading, and it was really, really bad.
They were expanding, they were invading, they were engaging in revolutions, and the Cold War was exactly what it was.
I mean, the U.S.
was fighting a proxy war, wars of influence, and communists are really bad.
Today, we're starting to develop that with China.
And so there are very real risks to what's going on.
But today's modern warfare is fourth and fifth generational.
China is using espionage, corporate espionage, manipulation.
They're manipulating currencies.
They're playing 4D chess while the U.S.
is like, we're gonna put some soldiers in Afghanistan!
I think Joe Biden exemplifies that by saying some of the stupidest things imaginable and just like, okay Russia, do whatever you want.
But I'm not gonna cry that our foreign military bases will end up being scaled back.
I'm not gonna cry that the United States might start relying on itself and not be the global power.
There's hard questions about morality and a lot of people Especially on the left, man.
They really just don't get it.
And I think it's maybe youthful naivete.
You know, as you get older, they say when you get older you become more conservative.
It may actually just be that younger people are naive, and so the left is usually whatever the younger generation is, and that's why they claim people like me are conservative, even though I'm actually fairly left economically.
It makes no sense.
The reality is, the world is dangerous.
And we don't want war.
We want strong borders for our country, for our community.
We don't want to be the world police.
I think it's fair to say most Americans agree that there should be some international cooperation, maybe some kind of world court procedure that prevents warfare.
But, the United States can defend its borders from incursion regardless of what these courts or any other country would say.
Namely, that we can have some kind of, uh, at least attempt at a legislative or diplomatic response to international conflict before it goes full-scale war.
Because we don't want war.
But you would be naive to think that this world is just evil America doing evil stuff.
You would be, it would be naive to believe that we are the worst country on the planet.
And that's what I see, typically from the left narrative.
It's always just that, like, the power is wrong, that power is always evil.
It was Christiane Amanpour.
I was at an event called News Exchange in Marrakesh, and it was a bunch of journalists for some reason in Marrakesh, and she said that she does not believe that all power is evil.
This idea that journalists are supposed to challenge all power, it's like, well, challenging unaccountable authority, yes, but just because someone has power doesn't mean they're evil.
There's certainly people you would probably think have power and are not evil.
James O'Keefe is powerful.
He commands a multi-million dollar non-profit organization and can take down powerful interests.
Hold them to account.
That's power.
I don't think James O'Keefe is evil at all.
In fact, I think he's quite good.
Some would say James said I was powerful.
I certainly think I'm mostly good.
I don't think I'm perfect and everyone thinks they hear of their own stories.
I'm going off on a tangent here.
I don't think that Joe Biden views himself as evil.
I don't think Fauci views himself as evil.
I just think they are evil.
Because your self-perception is irrelevant to what you do.
My point is, no one, you know, yin-yang, right?
You know what I'm talking about.
There is the white teardrop shape, and the black one, and then in each is a drop of, you know, in the white sphere is a black dot, and the black sphere is a white dot.
Because within evil there is good, and within good there is evil.
So it's not so easy to just say the world is black and white.
There's a little bit of nuance to swirl.
It's a brilliant concept.
Joe Biden.
Man, it's tough.
I certainly think Joe Biden doesn't want the world to blow up, you know?
This idea in comic books about villains who are just like, I'm going to destroy the entire planet!
It's like, why are you suicidal?
Like, you live here too.
Which is why as comic books got older and more mature, you end up with Better stories, more nuanced stories.
You end up with characters like Mr. Freeze in Batman, whose motivation was his dying wife, and him wanting to do whatever it would take to find a cure for her, even if it meant hurting other people.
A brilliant motivation for a character.
You end up with stories where when there's like the, I think I was watching Apocalypse War, Justice League,
when the earth is threatened, the super villains actually team up with the superheroes.
Because the villains may be self-interested, but they don't want the planet to be destroyed.
That would end their lives too.
And then you get some villains, you know, who are just like, I don't care,
I'll live on another planet or whatever.
But that's besides the point.
The point is, I don't think that the Democrats are, you know, pure evil and that they want
They're just authoritarians.
I view them as evil because they want to strip away your freedoms and your rights because they think they're smarter than you.
This is evil.
They would take from you your voice, your integrity, your rights.
They would diminish you to empower themselves because they truly believe in their hearts they're better than you.
So if anything, they're like Dr. Doom.
You know, Dr. Doom's motivation was that he genuinely believes he could save humanity.
And that he's the hero that's going to make sure we survive, but he's an evil dude who's willing to do whatever to get what he wants.
Even hurting people.
I think that's wrong.
I think that's evil.
You know, it's funny.
In these comic books, you get characters like Batman.
Batman never kills.
Superman never kills.
And there are story arcs where they do, I know, I know.
The Injustice storyline is particularly interesting.
But that was always the heroic thing to do, never kill.
I oppose the death penalty.
I oppose war.
I don't like the idea of killing, but I certainly recognize more so than these characters would, or these ideas, sometimes you have no choice.
You know, when it comes to death penalty, my attitude is lock them in a box, throw away the key, because I don't want the system to condemn accidentally an innocent person.
But when it comes to war and conflict and evil people who are fighting, I understand that sometimes people lose their lives in war.
And that's why ultimately I'm like, man, can't we have some kind of diplomatic approach to this?
Joe Biden may think he's doing right.
I think for the most part he thinks he's doing right by himself, and he's less concerned about the greater system.
He's not concerned about you, and that leads us on a dangerous path.
I don't think Joe Biden wants the country to be ripped apart or destroyed.
I don't think Joe Biden's intent was to call into question the 2020 election.
And I think the exact same thing of Trump.
Trump wants the country to succeed.
I think Trump likes the country more than Joe Biden does.
I think Joe Biden is not as concerned about America as Trump is, or Ron DeSantis, or most Republicans, but a lot of Republicans are just, you know, speed bumps for Democrats.
I think Joe Biden's a guy who likes power.
I think Joe Biden has a global perspective.
I think Nancy Pelosi and these Democrats are more focused on the world than they are their own home, their own communities.
And thus, we all suffer.
What you need to understand about people who have a internationalist approach, equality, peace, it doesn't mean these things for you.
It means it for everyone.
And I can certainly respect it within reason.
But what they would say is, if we normalize the global economy, the people of, say, the Philippines will have their wages increase, and the people of America will have their standard of living and wages decrease.
And that's what they want.
I don't think that's fair and that makes sense.
I think if you have people who are better suited to handle certain tasks because they've developed this culture and are working towards it, the best thing we can do is share those ideas and methodologies with other countries so they can improve too.
CAUSING HARM TO THE UNITED STATES THROUGH FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS AND THROUGH OPEN BORDERS POLICIES DOESN'T MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD BETTER.
IT ACTUALLY MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD WORSE.
YOU MUST SECURE YOUR OWN FACEMASK BEFORE SECURING THE MASK OF THOSE SITTING NEXT TO YOU.
It would seem that these international interests, people like Biden, view it as, let's increase the wages of China by decreasing the wages of America.
If we do free trade and send all our jobs to China or, you know, Indonesia, their wages will go up, American wages will go down.
How about we don't do that?
How about we create new factories for these countries for themselves and for their regions, and then we lift everyone up instead of pulling half the people down?
I suppose they're callous, and they don't think about you, and that's the problem of authoritarianism and collectivism.
I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers on all this stuff, but I can tell you, I believe it is fair and objective.
Joe Biden is not suited to be president.
He's just absolutely not.
I think it's fair to say that Donald Trump should be criticized, and certainly has made a lot of mistakes, and is pretty bad in a lot of ways.
But that he's more suited to be president than Joe Biden is because at the very least Trump was spry, perhaps a little sporadic, but he's pretty good on the economy.
I don't know to tell you because I don't know where we're going in 2024.
I think the Republicans are mostly trash, primary them, and hopefully we'll get some better, you know, America first types, people who believe in this country.
And my view of the world is quite simple.
We want some kind of international agreements because we don't want war.
That means we have to have trade.
It means we have to have conversations and diplomacy.
But we have to have our sovereign borders respected.
We have to have the rights of the people in this country respected.
And I'll tell you why.
Not just for the rights that I believe in.
But for stability.
And to me it seems so obvious.
If you crack the borders of the United States and strip away the rights of their people, they'll go nuts and they'll burn everything down.
And then you don't have any system.
If you want to create a functioning system, you have to reform and walk forward, not burn things to the ground to build anew.
But that's what the left is doing.
That's what Biden is doing.
That's what the Democrats are doing.
Sorry, man.
I have a lot of ideas that would probably be considered revolutionary, but I don't believe about implementing them through revolutionary means.
I think we need dramatic change to this country through reform.
Otherwise, you'll end up standing on a pile of burnt rubble.
A pyrrhic victory.
It's not really worth it in the long run.
And people die.
We don't want that.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
In the controversy surrounding Yu-Pen Swimmer, Lea Thomas, a new scandal erupts.
Lea Thomas was born male, transitioned to a woman, and is now a trans woman competing against biological females.
In the latest story, the scandal is that this transgender swimmer colluded with another swimmer, who was born female, and is transitioning to be a man, a trans man.
They colluded so that the biological female would win and thus create the narrative that a biological female could beat a biological male if the person was doing some kind of gender transition.
I don't know exactly what the stated goal would have been of this collusion, but certainly someone is actually saying they believe this is the case because the biological male swimmer typically has a better swim time and only lost by underperforming.
I don't know about any of this stuff.
And I gotta be completely honest with all of you guys.
I don't think most of you care.
I really, really mean it.
Look.
A lot of people on the left accuse me of chasing views and all that stuff, and I repeatedly tell people, I talk about what I think is interesting, and I talk about what I think is important, and I talk about things that I have thoughts on.
Here's the reality.
Doing segments on this controversy does not generate a lot of traffic.
I just don't think people really care enough.
But I also think that's an important part of the story, and it's why I want to talk about it.
Why don't people care about a biological male competing against biological females?
It's been 10 years.
Joe Rogan's talked about it ad nauseum.
We get it.
We get it.
You know, you had the story of Fallon Fox, who was in UFC beating females, biologically male, but these women did not know that Fallon Fox was trans.
One woman said that she had, I believe her skull was fractured.
And now we have the story, and here we go again.
There's another reason why I think Most people don't care.
Or a lot of people don't care.
And I think it has to do with the fact that, uh, we're winning.
And what I mean by we is those who believe in civil rights, those who recognize that people around the world are different.
It's true.
Not too different.
Uh, not different so that we would have, um, we would discriminate.
No, you know, that's all wrong.
But different to where we would recognize that maybe we should have at least some You know, policies in place to recognize the differences.
It's very difficult to navigate this because the reality is sometimes there's discrimination and we recognize why that's a good thing.
And I mean it.
For example, we discriminate against men going into women's bathrooms, or at least most people around the world do, but now we're seeing that shift where you have people who think we should not discriminate in that capacity.
We have discrimination in that when it comes to sports for females, we tend not to allow males to compete against them, even though females are allowed to enter the top-level divisions because they're not segregated by gender.
The point is, We look at the fact that, on average, a biological female has a lower center of gravity, lower bone density, less collagen, wider hips, and we say, okay, for that reason, we've determined that there is a category where we're going to keep the group separated, but we want to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity.
And you see where that becomes problematic.
The idea of separate but equal.
This is where the whole thing becomes particularly challenging.
Back in the day, a lot of the same arguments used about gender segregation were used for racial segregation.
However, I think it's fair to point out that racial segregation for most people is patently absurd.
Just because someone has a different skin tone or skin color, that's not a good reason for segregating people.
Now, when it comes to human biology, it is There's still issues with gender segregation to a certain degree.
I completely agree with that.
But it makes a bit more sense, just because there are more pronounced biological differences.
The reality is, these are difficult moral questions.
And those of us that believe in equality and want everyone to have an equal opportunity will recognize it is interesting when you segregate based on gender.
Which brings me to the main point here.
What we're seeing here is not solving for these problems.
The UPenn swimmer competing against females only makes the problems worse and actually discriminates against biological females because those females, for many reasons, aren't able to compete in the top-level divisions.
Now, I think at the universities, it is gender segregated men and women, but for like major
league sports, biological females are allowed to compete in major league sports. I guess what I'm
trying to say is, the situation is nuanced.
I'm not a fan of discrimination.
I'm not a fan of segregation.
So I look at gender segregation and think, well, you know what?
It's not so much about the principle of segregation.
It's about maximizing the opportunity and potential for individuals to make sure they aren't second-class citizens.
And that means sometimes there will be discrimination and sometimes there won't be.
It means we'll disagree on where that discrimination should come into play.
When it comes to affirmative action, for instance, you have the left saying that we should lower the scores for people based on race.
But that's racist!
That's you ascribing an IQ and intelligence to a race!
That's insane!
Now, if you want to talk about why it is there's a correlation between different racial categories and IQ, you need only look at systemic racism, poverty.
In which case, we can throw the whole race thing out the window and be like, it's just a poverty issue.
Anybody of any race can be impoverished, but when it comes to biological sex, there are some things that have a strong tendency towards being true.
Which brings me to the main point here.
From the Daily Mail, let me read.
Okay, so, a lot of people on the right got this wrong.
They thought that this was two different, you know, trans women competing against each other and one was losing.
This is a biological female who is transitioning beating a biological male who is transitioning.
Here's the problem with what the left is doing.
And I'm not going to pretend like there's a simple answer here, because I'm trying to navigate that space and explain, you know, where we draw the line and what we accept.
And even I have to admit, it is complicated, it is confusing, and there are hard moral questions on why we accept some discrimination and not others, when we complain about the woke leftists wanting to push it, have more segregation.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to world perspective and personal morality.
I really, really do.
It's tough.
It is.
It is absolutely difficult to navigate.
Here's my point.
I look at this story and I see the outrage.
But what I don't see is the outrage from the left that a man is competing against women.
I'm not talking about Leah Thomas.
No, no, from the left's perspective.
The right would criticize Leah Thomas, who's biologically male, for competing against biological females.
I think it's also fair to point out that this other individual, I think, is named Isaac.
Let me make sure I get the names correct.
Uh, a Yale transgender, Isaac Hennig.
Isaac Hennig was born female, but identifies as a man.
In which case, from the left's perspective, a man is competing against women.
Why is there no outrage?
That's the problem.
Trying to navigate this space, I can absolutely acknowledge, is difficult.
I was reading about the history of the Civil Rights Movement.
I was reading about the idea of separate but equal.
I was reading about the ideas around women's academia.
There were some cases where they created like a women-in-coding camp and men sued.
And the courts ruled it was not discrimination because they offered an equal opportunity to men who can code.
And that was really fascinating to me because I'm like, what is this?
Plessy v. Ferguson?
Separate but equal?
That you're gonna claim it's okay to create a program for only one gender?
As long as there's one for the other gender, I'm like, well, therein lies a serious problem.
We should not have that segregation if that was the same argument used against race.
That's a really good point.
I'd like to hear some good arguments.
I'm not going to pretend to have the answers.
I think there's probably a lot of people who have thought more about this could probably come up with better answers than I could.
But then, it brings you to the question of locker rooms.
It brings you to the question of bathrooms.
If there is a bathroom, and someone needs to use it really, really bad, and this is a really interesting point, because check this out.
I'm in New York City, alright?
True story.
And I go to Whole Foods at Union Square.
You go upstairs and there's an eatery.
And there's a men's room and a women's room.
The line to the women's room has like 30 women coming out of it, waiting.
Don't ask me why.
Women take longer in the bathroom.
There you go.
Men don't.
But there's no line to the men's room.
So what happened?
Women started going into the men's room.
No one cared.
I thought it was interesting.
There have been instances where, you know, I've been at restaurants, and there will be like a men's room and a women's room, and the men's room will be full, and someone will go, just use the women's room, no one's in there.
Very few people care.
I'm sure some people do, because I'm sure there are a lot of women and men who don't want, you know, the opposite sex in there with them.
But I find it interesting.
If there is a bathroom available, and you have a bathroom emergency, and someone says you are not allowed to use that toilet because it's segregated by gender, they're denying you access to a public accommodation under the pretense that another one is available, but what if it's not available?
In fact, what if one of the bathrooms breaks?
So these are difficult questions!
I mean, I think for the most part, there are a lot of people who just have a traditional view or oppressive view.
That I'm trying to navigate.
The problem I have is when the right comes out and they talk about segregation by gender, they say it's quite simple.
If you line up all men and all women next to each other in a room, you will see a tendency by height.
The women will tend to be the shortest and the men will tend to be the tallest every single time.
That is not true necessarily based on race, but also is somewhat true too, which is why I actually think there's a good question in what are the reasonings for gender segregation.
I suppose the issue is women predominantly being the victims of violent crime perpetrated by men.
Women predominantly being victims of violent crime, sexual crime perpetrated by men.
When it comes to race, that's not actually true.
And I know you're going to get a lot of people who on the surface will try and argue it is, but the reality is crime is driven by poverty.
And therein lies a big distinction for me.
I certainly look at all the data.
I know there are a lot of people who say, you know, look, this one racial group commits more crimes against that racial group.
And I'm like, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
But are we talking about poverty?
And is race superficial?
Maybe it's not, I don't know.
I think based on all the research I've done, it is.
And particularly because the neighborhood I grew up in being mixed, you know, mixed race poverty areas, we saw crime across the board.
And it was basically due to poverty.
In fact, I knew more people doing crack who were white than black, even though there's that, you know, there's a trope and a racist stereotype.
I genuinely, in my opinion, think the racial segregation stuff doesn't make sense because it's a tendency towards skin tone.
And especially when you get into race mixing, you have tremendous nuance.
Someone who is, you know, 75% one race or another, how are you going to come and tell me that this person is a definitive, you know, race or whatever?
Which brings me to gender.
98% it is binary.
Or what we would say is bimodal.
It's bimodal, meaning that it is an overwhelming, overwhelming tendency towards one or the other, with some nuance in the middle, but that some nuance is microscopic.
When it comes to race, there's tremendous nuance.
You could look at someone from, you know, Haiti, and they could have an average height, and then look at someone from, you know, South Africa, and they could have a different height.
You could look at someone from Somalia, they tend to be shorter.
And so it's not even a race thing necessarily, now we're talking about regional differences and how do you identify someone based on race, that's the problem.
I recognize those problems when it comes to gender segregation as well.
I recognize that someone, say like Blaire White for instance, who looks as female as female can be.
If Blaire walked into the men's room, I'm sure people would think immediately that a female is walking in the men's room and then there are questions to be asked.
This is why I think, you know, a fair assessment of everything would be, can we have an honest conversation and break down what we mean, why we mean it, and what we want?
I genuinely believe there are some people who are trying to adequately navigate this and be fair.
And I also think there are many people on the left who are acting in bad faith and just want to break the system.
But we're trying to have a system.
And I think the people on the right for the most part just want to maintain the system.
Sometimes the maintenance of the system is a bad thing.
Sometimes the system does bad things and needs to be called out and people on the right are just willing to support it.
Same is true to a certain degree to the left.
Let me slow down and just put it this way.
There's important nuance and there's difficult questions here.
I think I've made that point.
But where is the left to call out the fact that if they think a trans man is a man, that a man is competing against women?
Should that not be a part of their system?
And I think that's where we can see the emperor has no clothes.
They don't criticize this, they don't call it out, because they don't care about it.
Further, I would be interesting to see people on the right asking the exact same question.
Because that strikes the heart.
You know what the left has been arguing?
Well, let me bring you here.
It's difficult.
It's the only real way to put it.
Me thinking about this stuff and trying to map out the logic and the systems at play, it's damn near impossible.
It really, really is.
And it's just that it's so nuanced.
You know, I know a lot of people would say, no, it's not.
It's cut and dry.
You're a man or a woman.
All right.
I think it really comes down to just worldview.
People in any political tribe are willing to ignore or support certain ideas.
But I also think out of sight, out of mind.
Some people who don't know certain things probably won't consider that when it comes to these systems.
So what we end up seeing is that there is one system, there's another system.
They don't agree with each other, they're fighting with each other, and they're not going to work together.
And therein lies the underlying consideration that we may be heading towards some major conflict.
The left is openly okay with anyone competing against anyone.
It seems like they're lying when they talk about certain ideas because they don't call out the broken system on their own end.
On the right, it seems to be fairly obvious.
If someone is male, they're male competing against men.
If someone is female, they're female competing against female.
That we understand.
When it starts getting into the hard nuance, the right tends to say, we have to recognize that there's going to be holes in the system and we're going to ignore some of that.
But for the most part, try to maintain, you know, the highest, the total amount of synchronicity, the total amount of structure.
Here's where we are, though.
I think most regular people don't agree with the left's worldview.
The Daily Mail says, they're crying on the pool deck.
Parent of U Penn swimmer says his daughter has lost spots in races because of trans athlete Leah Thomas, and teammates are really unhappy as he demands USA Swimming tightens rules after NCAA cop-out.
Look, there are people of expectations.
They build their lives based on those expectations.
When those expectations are changed or denied, people get mad about it.
I'm sure that was true for people who wanted racial segregation, including these critical race theorists like, you know, Derrick Bell and Kimberly Crenshaw.
They grew up expecting a certain level of segregation and then it was taken away and the whole system changed and what they prepared for was different.
I think people don't like radical change because it upends their plans and people are trying to plan to survive.
I think that's true for most humans.
This is an impasse.
And I'll stress that point again.
On the right, there tends to be a system, but it has pitfalls.
There are questions that sometimes are difficult to answer.
The left exploits these to try to manipulate.
I'll give you an example.
Matt Walsh went on Dr. Phil.
He asked some non-binary individuals to define the word woman, and they would not.
Instead of doing that, they just threw a question at Matt Walsh, who refused to play their game, and it was really well done.
He said, I have answered your question, now you answer mine, what is a woman?
And they said, I can't define that, I'm not a woman.
And he said, well you used the word, what did you mean by it?
Yeah.
So I have a tendency as, you know, to understand and lean towards the right due to logic.
The left seems to be illogical.
And if it's illogical, it can't survive, it can't be maintained.
Man, it's a difficult subject, you know?
I'm sure a lot of people are probably confused, and I gotta be honest, I am too, but... I feel like I'm having trouble, like, mapping this path out, because it's so broken.
But I'll try and put it this way.
I'm looking outside at the moment, I can see a deck that we built.
And we can see where certain pieces of wood go, and why they were put there, and why nails were put in certain places.
Certainly, there are issues.
Sometimes, a wood beam may be weaker than we expect, and it could break, and the whole thing could collapse.
There's nothing we can do about that, right?
We recognize there's holes in the system that we try to navigate against.
That's true for, you know, Matt Walsh, as well as most conservatives when it comes to gender segregation.
We recognize that it's not a perfect system and that there are some holes we'll try to navigate to do our best.
But typically, when we build a system based on logic, it tends to work 99% of the time it works.
The left would look at the deck and say, hey, what if the wood is rotted?
We shouldn't build a deck this way.
And I'd be like, almost every single deck is built this way.
Sometimes they fail, but why would we stop Applying our mathematical structure simply because sometimes there are margins of error.
That's what the left does.
They say to Matt Walsh, some women can't have babies.
Would you say they're not women?
And Matt said before this, it goes down to your bones and your DNA.
You can dig up a skeleton a hundred years later and know if it was male or female.
And he's right.
The reality is though, You can dig up a skeleton 100 years later and know if it was Black, Asian, Latino, Caucasian as well.
And that's a really good point.
The gender stuff, I think, is absurd and more easily answered.
The race stuff, not so much.
There are biological differences between races.
You know, I was watching Young Justice.
It's a DC show on HBO Max.
And they did this whole story arc about Martians and racism.
I was surprised that, first, they tried making Lex Luthor Trump.
And I said it was stupid because it detracts from Lex's cunning.
And I had people responding to me being like, Tim, you're wrong.
President Lex has been an ongoing storyline.
And I say, how dare you!
I know about the President Lex storyline.
What I'm saying is that what they did was they made Lex Luthor dumb.
They were trying to make him out to be inept, to make him look like Trump.
Lex Luthor, what makes him a great villain is his cunning and his precision.
Anyway, I digress.
I mentioned that was surprising and disappointing, but what was really surprising was the Black Lives Matter terror angle they took.
In the last season, the Martians are divided by three different races.
There's red ones, green ones, and white ones.
The white Martians are the minority, and they are oppressed by the green majority.
And so, one of them wants to kill all of the green majority, and I'm like, wow, I didn't expect them to pull a Black Lives Matter terror angle.
But a point that was made in the movie, I'm sorry, in the TV show, is that one of the villains laughs and says, And I'm like, okay, sure, if that's an allusion just to a fictional race like Martians, but the reality is, I went to Thailand and I was taller than everybody.
I went to Norway and I was shorter than everybody.
You go to some countries, you know, like, I don't know what the average height is in France, but you can be white and be short, you can be white and you can be tall.
You can be Asian and tall, and you can be Asian and short, but there are tendencies.
There's a meme where they talk about how we can look at skeletal formations and fairly accurately determine what the race of the person was.
Sam Harris talks about this, that there are genetic differences in race, but just not enough, and there's too much.
I think he was saying this, like, there's more nuance there, but we need to take these things into consideration.
I don't know a whole lot about it.
I'm not a big fan of race science because it becomes more difficult when you try to base a person's inner being just based on, you know, the shape of their jaw or their, you know, skin color.
That's where I draw the line and I say, that's dumb, man.
It's values to me.
I think politically it's the same for me, men and women.
But then when it comes to, you know, sporting events, there's interesting questions about Do we see a lot of, you know, Thai runners?
Do we see a lot of Thai baseball players or basketball players?
Not as much, because there are differences in height on average based on, you know, where someone is from.
I don't like the idea of race, which is typically skin deep for most people.
They see it and they make assumptions about it to be that underlying factor.
And the reason for that is we should respect the fact that people are all different, even if there are some, you know, differences in height or fast twitch or slow twitch muscles.
I think it's just that when it comes to gender, It's more pronounced and a substantially higher tendency.
So I guess I can put it this way.
I don't have the answers.
At all.
None whatsoever.
I want to respect everybody and give them equal opportunities.
And for that, I think it's fair to say that we allow women to try and enter any top-level league they want, and if they place, they place.
Because it's about equal opportunity.
And then I have questions about having someone who is clearly larger and stronger competing against biological females.
Maybe the issue isn't about testosterone.
Maybe that's the wrong way we're looking at it.
Maybe we would just do height and weight divisions or muscle divisions.
But what one person said is, It's not about gender segregation or any of this.
What we're having is low T versus high T. And then to me, I'm just kind of like, none of this makes sense.
If you reduce a system to its finest points, the whole thing collapses.
And maybe that's the issue.
Maybe there is no pedestal for which we reach and stand upon and say, this is the happy medium.
Maybe the reality is there will always be something someone is concerned about and challenges, and there's no way to deal with it.
Unless everyone was the same height, the same race, the same gender, or whatever, there's not going to be real equality.
To put it simply.
I don't think I've solved any problems, nor made a whole lot of sense in this segment, to be completely honest.
I've thought about this, I've read about this, and I do think there are interesting points brought up by the left that need to be entertained.
And I do think there's important points brought up by the right about the degree to which we're willing to tolerate margins of error.
And then I think about it and I'm like, man.
It's not an easy thing to navigate, to be completely honest.
But whatever.
I guess I'll just say this.
The one thing that really got me thinking about all this is that this Isaac Hennig person is identifying as a man, but competing against women.
Based on the left's own ideology, that shouldn't make sense.
