Democrats PANIC Over Midterm Polls, GOP Registering Voters At GAS STATIONS As Even CNN Says Red Wave
Democrats PANIC Over Midterm Polls, GOP Registering Voters At GAS STATIONS As Even CNN Says Red Wave. Democrats are desperate to find a way to win over voters before the November midterm election.
Biden is too blame says voters as inflation and gas soar to record highs. Democrats know that republicans have huge advantages going into the 2022 Midterms and dozens have already announced retirement.
Trump is also gearing up to take advantage of Joe Biden's failures as he says "people will be very happy" when questioned about whether he will run for president in 2024.
#Biden
#Democrats
#Midterms
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats are freaking out over midterm generic polling, as Republicans have a massive advantage.
They've begun holding Republican voter registration events at gas stations, and Democrats are now contemplating giving out gas cards monthly, or even having Joe Biden just bypass Congress altogether in a desperate effort to get some kind of win.
Stands to reason a red wave is coming.
In our next story, the Babylon Bee has been suspended from Twitter for naming trans woman Rachel Levine as their Man of the Year.
In our last story, the controversy around transgender swimmer Leah Thomas continues with a losing NCAA Women's competitor speaking out saying she lost her position in the finals because of a biological male.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Since the end of last year, the generic midterm polling has been pretty good for Republicans
as they've made a ton of gains across the board.
And it seems now that the average American would prefer a Republican Congress over a Democrat Congress.
However, I think it's fair to say, based on the actions of the Republican Party, you won't be getting much from them either.
However, if people go out and vote in the primaries and say no to the establishment and neocon Republicans and say, bring me somebody who wants to fight for the working class, maybe help fight for better gas prices, American energy independence, border security, no foreign wars, you might see a large coalition forming.
While Republicans, either way, are taking advantage of the failures of the Democratic Party, they are now holding voter registration events at gas stations.
That's quite brilliant, to be completely honest.
A poll from Rasmussen shows that the average American voter blames Joe Biden for inflation, of course, which includes gas prices.
So as more and more people slap stickers on gas pumps that say, I did that, depicting Joe Biden pointing to high gas prices, an opportunity for Republicans emerges where they can actually go out and get new voters.
And boy, are they.
Democrats, of course, are very worried.
There's two big moves happening.
One, Democrats are trying to get Joe Biden to bypass Congress.
Just roll out executive actions, do anything that is going to show the American people you're doing anything to try and help them amid these crises, amid the escalating prices.
But of course, I don't think that's going to be a net gain for the Democrats, even if Joe Biden does do it.
Just telling him to bypass Congress defeats the purpose of a functioning Congress, I guess.
But the other action is that Democrats actually contemplated giving out gas cards and other big stimulus packages, saying, how about we just give people money from the tax coffer?
You know, it's a dangerous prospect.
There's that famous quote, I can't remember exactly what it was or who said it, but they basically were like, you know, this kind of government can only exist, democracy, or democratic institutions, until the people realize they can vote to take money from the tax coffer and give to themselves.
And that's where we're kind of at.
If Democrats succeed in getting Joe Biden to just bypass Congress and issue executive orders to give out money, or the Democrats just vote to start giving out money, They're basically bribing the American voters, but let's be real.
This is how things have been going for quite some time.
So while the poll is particularly good news, the polling is good news for Republicans, the Democrats could come out and be like, eh, all right, we screwed this one up.
How about this?
We give you all a bunch of free money.
There's gotta be some kind of law against this, right?
Issuing gas cards?
Here's the worst part of it.
Democrats, well, I should say the best part is Democrats are saying, okay, we're not gonna do the gas card thing.
But we know that if they do any kind of stimulus, it will only make things worse.
And it's a real threat to the American system, and we already are facing serious turmoil with the culture war, the conflict, potentially World War III.
If Democrats extract from the system Printing large sums of money or issuing large stimulus packages because prices are high.
It may help people in the short term.
One day they wake up and they're like, I got 300 bucks this month on my card to buy gas with.
That's fantastic!
They go out and they buy gas and they're like, I wouldn't have had that tank of gas.
I can go to work now.
They go and vote and say, you know what?
I like that Democrats did that and they hit the D button on their ballot.
A few months goes by and that stimulus has a ripple effect driving prices up even further.
That's inflation.
One of the reasons we have inflation surging to this insane degree is because of the mass printing of money and Policies from mostly Democrats, but from some Republicans as well, dumping massive amounts of currency into the money supply.
Here's what I can say.
Whether you like Democrats or Republicans, it doesn't matter.
The fact is, Democrats are at the wheel right now.
They've got basically every branch of government except for the Supreme Court, which, okay, so they got two out of three.
But they got the House, they got the Senate, and the Presidency, and... well, they failed.
They've failed miserably.
Joe Biden's enacted policies that have impacted gas prices and the media is desperate to try and cover it up.
I think the fact that Republicans are registering voters at the gas pumps proves regular Americans know full well who's in charge and who's to blame.
So let's start with this first story about Republican voter registration events.
I'll show you some of the polls, but even CNN is coming out in the past couple of weeks saying it is going to be bad for Democrats come November.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member if you would like to help support our work as we make videos, produce new shows, and report on the news.
As a member, you'll be helping keep all of our journalists employed because that's how the website works.
You guys signed up to be members, we have people who write news for you.
But you'll also get access to exclusive segments on the TimCast IRL podcast.
We'll have, obviously those episodes are up Monday through Thursday.
Or I should say, every episode is Monday through Friday at 8pm.
The members-only stuff is Monday through Thursday at 11pm.
And as a member, you are just making sure we can keep working.
So don't forget to also smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
Let's read this story from TimCast.com.
Republicans hold voter registration events at gas stations.
The surge in gas prices has become a point of contention for lawmakers preparing for midterm elections.
According to The Hill, the first RNC event took place on Saturday in Arizona, where volunteers and staff registered Americans to vote.
According to local media, the RNC plans to hold more events at local gas stations around Phoenix.
Arizonans are frustrated with paying the record high gas prices we've seen recently.
This is an issue that affects almost every Arizonan, said Arizona's RNC Communications Director Ben Peterson.
There's no doubt that everyone is feeling the pain at the pump, so a gas station right now may be the very best possible place for one of our volunteers to have a conversation with someone and get someone signed up to vote, he added.
On Saturday, RNC volunteers in North Carolina also utilized local gas stations to register voters for the upcoming midterms.
In this tweet from Isaac Wetherill, he says, These NC boots went out to the gas station this morning to register voters and recruit new team members.
Excited to see this grow out to more surrounding gas stations.
Michael Watley, the chairman of the state's Republican Party, shared his praise for the efforts on Twitter.
Great to see the boots team in the field.
NC knows that Democrats' energy policies have driven gasoline prices to record highs.
And we need GOP majorities in the House and Senate to unleash, he said.
Many lawmakers have blamed Biden for the surging fuel prices.
The rising fuel costs have become a marker for the 40-year spike in inflationary impacts.
According to AAA, gas prices nationwide hit a record high, with the national average price on March 11th reaching $4.33 a gallon.
Biden has warned that energy prices will increase as the U.S.
continues to ban Russian oil imports.
On Thursday, a poll by Monmouth University indicated that Republican voters are more likely than Democrats to say that increasing fuel prices have caused a great financial hardship.
Biden has blamed the price increase on Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling the surge Putin's price hike.
And citing that his war is hurting American families at the gas pump, except the only problem is gas prices were going up well before Putin's war.
And Joe Biden was the one enacting policies, suspending gas leases, and... Well, it's on him.
Not all of it.
I say this all the time because it's silly to be like, Biden's to blame for everything, but no.
Biden's at the wheel, first and foremost.
He bears responsibility.
And second of all, he shut down Keystone, which has a huge impact on supply and demand.
Even though Keystone wasn't delivering oil yet, it impacts speculative markets, causing people to rapidly buy, fearing supply will not meet demand.
That's just obvious.
Joe Biden's also banned fracking and other oil and gas leases.
I mean, that is very, very simple.
Simple logic, right?
Well, in response to this, we're seeing memes from the left, where they say, the price of crude was at, you know, $130, and now it's down to $103, but the price per gallon has remained the same!
And my response is just simple, it's, yes, gasoline prices do track alongside oil to a certain degree, but it's not an instant one-to-one effect.
So, they're trying to claim it's the greed of these oil companies causing gas prices to be so high.
Well, you know what?
I'll give them, to a certain degree, some of that.
Sure, gas prices go up, and you say, well, you don't gotta lower them, people are paying it, right?
But the reality is, there's other factors involved.
Gas and crude oil are not identical and don't track identically, but they do track somewhat.
And this is actually coming from Facebook fact-checkers who say this, who I typically disagree with.
But we also have other memes where it's like, back in 2008 when crude hit, you know, 120 a barrel, gas was at 480 and now it's here, what's with the price difference?
And I'm just like, dude, labor costs much?
Inflation affects transport and refinement of crude to make gasoline.
I just, you know, people seem to think the world is very, very simple, and I wish it was.
I wish this was all so simple as, if we just stopped that one greedy man, everybody would have cheap gas.
It doesn't work that way.
The system is massive.
Well, of course, what's happening at the gas station is directly impacting the voters, and of course, Democrats know it.
We have this story from the Daily Wire.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America 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.
In Maryland, I'm just getting this news now, apparently they suspended the gas tax, and gas immediately dropped like almost a dollar a gallon, some ridiculous number.
And people are pointing out now that West Virginia, which is usually cheaper, is actually more expensive than Maryland now.
Yeah, the politicians are starting to realize, we've got a problem with gas prices.
Of course, Daily Wire uses a picture of the pump where there's a little Joe Biden pointing to the $4.49 per gallon gas saying, I did that!
Alright.
Well, they want to do a bunch of things.
They want to do stimulus checks and payments, but take a look at this from Rasmussen.
Inflation.
Most voters blame Biden's policies.
They say the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds 64% of likely U.S.
voters believe the policies of the Biden administration have increased inflation, while only 8% think Biden's policies have reduced inflation.
Another 25% say the Biden administration's policies have not made much difference in inflation.
And I'd say it's somewhere in between not much and a direct impact. I don't want you to go walk
away from this thinking Joe Biden like banged a gavel and prices skyrocketed. He plays a role
in a multifaceted circumstance driving prices up.
Vladimir Putin does play a role.
Of course, the Democrats know they don't want to take responsibility for this.
We'll try and pass all of the blame on to Putin, which makes no sense because prices were going up well before this started.
They were going up throughout the past year.
Under Donald Trump, gas was floating around like $2.30 or $2.40 before the pandemic, and then during the pandemic, it collapsed to like $1.80.
That's not necessarily on Trump.
That's the pandemic.
You can actually blame Democrat governors for the rapid price collapse.
However, under Trump, we did begin exporting oil.
Now, we're importing again, which is bad.
You see, Democrats know this is happening, and they're worried.
Take a look at the RealClearPolitics generic congressional vote average.
This is the aggregate polling across the board from Rasmussen, Politico, Monmouth, Insider Advantage, Economist, YouGov, Wall Street Journal, Harvard, Harris, ABC News, and Fox News.
It is not a single poll.
I show you the Rasmussen poll.
That is a single poll.
Take it or leave it, okay?
Single polls may be good.
I like aggregates for certain circumstances.
Now, I'm not saying the Rasmussen Poll on inflation is incorrect.
I'm just saying, when we then look at the general congressional vote, and we can see that Republicans have a 3.7% advantage over Democrats, that is huge!
That's massive.
Oh, is it big.
We, right now, are looking at a red wave To bring about all red waves!
But my friends, we don't know what's going to happen in the next several months.
It's March 21st, the time I'm recording this, and we're months and months away.
There are so many variables that exist between now and then, it would be absurd to try and say we know for a fact something big will happen.
I mean, take a look at this.
You go back to just October, Democrats had the advantage 3.4 points.
3.4 percentage points.
And now it's switched.
For all we know, In the next two months, Joe Biden himself jumps out of the White House and then strikes oil on the White House lawn and says, we found the biggest oil deposit in the world and now we all have nickel gas!
It's not likely, but you get the point.
Something could happen in the U.S.
that dramatically changes things.
Changes prices.
Changes the perspective of the Republican Party.
I want to make sure we're not just talking about the RealClearPolitics average, because I am going to double it up for all of you.
When we jump over to the 538 aggregate, Republicans have a 2.3% lead, and 538 typically favors Democrats.
Even 538 is showing.
Around the same time, November of last year, it switched, and more American voters wanted Republicans than Democrats.
Keep in mind those numbers.
2.3% in the aggregate polling from FiveThirtyEight.
And RealClearPolitics has 3.7% advantage.
Republican advantage.
Alright, you ready for this one?
CNN lays it all out for us.
A signal Democrats could be facing a massive wave.
But what does that mean, a massive wave?
Okay, well, we have this from Chris Saliza, who writes, If the election were held today, Democrats would not only lose control of the House, but suffer massive losses in their ranks.
That's a conclusion that should be drawn from the new ABC News Washington Post polling that shows a generic Republican candidate leading a generic Democratic one by 49% to 42% margin among registered voters nationally.
That gap expands to 13 points when you limit the sample to registered voters who say they are certain to vote.
13 points!
Between enthusiastic voters!
That's what's known as the generic ballot test.
For decades, it's been a reliable weathervane as to which way and how hard the partisan winds are blowing.
What the ABC Post poll makes clear is that the wind is blowing against the Democrats and hard.
How bad is it for Democrats?
Consider where the generic ballot stood in ABC Post polling taken just before other recent midterm elections.
In 2018, Democrats had a plus 7 advantage on the generic ballot, and they won a net 40 House seats.
In 2014, Democrats had plus 3, they lost 13 seats.
In 2010, D plus 5, Democrats lost 64 seats.
In 2006, with a plus 13, they won 31 seats.
seats. In 2010, D plus five Democrats lost 64 seats in 2006 with a plus 13. They won
31 seats. What's clear is that when democratic edge is five points or less on the generic
ballot, the party has experienced major seat losses in the midterm elections.
Now consider.
Consider what the House playing field might look like with a Republican edge of seven points on the generic ballot.
Among independent voters, largely considered the swing votes in the election, Republicans have a 14 point edge on the generic ballot in the latest ABC Post poll.
Like I said, catastrophic!
Now, the counter-argument goes like this.
It's February 2022, not November 2022, granted this article's from March 1st.
Redistricting across the country has severely constricted the number of competitive seats between the two parties.
After Republicans gained a net of 12 House seats in 2020, there is now less low-hanging fruit out there.
All true.
And it still might not matter the point.
Political waves tend to wash away members of Congress who looked safe and sound just a few months earlier.
And if the generic ballot stays anywhere close to where it is today, Democrats could be facing a historically large wave.
That's right, man.
With inflation sweeping across the board, there's panic for Democrats.
Fox News reporting inflation hitting non-white voters hardest, imperiling Democrats in the 2022 midterms.
New poll finds the data is all becoming clear.
Look at this picture!
Gas prices.
Long Beach, California.
Regular gas.
Creditor debit $5.97.
Six bucks a gallon!
unidentified
In some parts of California, it's jumped up to like eight.
Because the rules have been changed dramatically since those polls mattered.
And Republicans are to blame for it.
In many states, Republicans cut deals with Democrats to make it easier, perceivably, for Democrats to get votes.
I'll put it this way.
In Pennsylvania, most of you may know this, Republicans set up a deal with Democrats where they would say, no straight ticket voting, and we'll give you universal mail voting.
The thought from Republicans was that, here's what happens.
In Pennsylvania, someone goes in and says, vote Democrat, and they press one button and it votes all Democrat across the board.
Republicans were thinking, if we get rid of that straight ticket voting, some people might vote for Biden and not down ticket, and so it advantages us.
And who cares about universal mail-in voting anyway?
The problem?
Republicans did not have the constitutional authority in the state to make such a deal, and a court recently ruled universal mail-in voting is unconstitutional in the state.
We'll see where that ends up going.
But what ends up happening is, universal mail-in voting Just absolutely benefits Democrats across the board.
And I'll tell you why.
Getting someone to go out and vote is tough.
You go to someone and say, are you going to vote?
And they go, I don't know, maybe.
Well, come on, come on, come on, go to your polling place.
And they're like, I don't know, maybe.
But Democrats have an advantage.
They can go door to door in their cities and tell everybody very easily, go vote.
So it costs substantially less money for a Democrat to reach 100 people in person than it does for a Republican.
In rural areas, which tend to be where Republicans are, and suburban, you have to go house to house.
It's a lot harder that way.
Republicans definitely should increase their game in certain areas, but they tend not to, just based on how the voting system works.
In certain cities, you might net yourself another 50,000 Republican voters, like in New York, but will it be enough to beat the 80% Democrat bloc?
No, so you're not really going to gain anything across the border than some popular vote number.
So the issue is, for many of these Republicans, it's too expensive to go door-to-door, and they tend not to.
They do, but not nearly as much as Democrats.
But still, if a Democrat goes to someone's house, knocks on the door, and says, go vote, they still might not do it!
Now, universal mail-in voting comes in.
Now you have many of these apathetic Democrat voters who don't go out and vote, or at the very least, don't bother learning where their polling place is.
You knock on the door and say, did you vote?
And they say, no.
And you say, will you vote?
They say, I don't know, maybe.
And you say, your ballot's right there.
Fill it out, drop it in your own mailbox, mailman will take it, we got your vote.
That makes it substantially easier.
So you'll end up with many people voting who normally wouldn't.
Now, the Democrats would tell you that's a good thing.
They say, everybody should be voting, right?
No.
No, they shouldn't be.
I think it was George Carlin who said, a vote is dangerous.
And maybe it wasn't.
It might have been.
And that you have to treat it responsibly.
It might have actually been Mike Rowe.
Maybe I'm mixing it up.
So forgive me, Mike, if I'm misquoting this, misattributing this to Carlin.
But I think it was, actually, I think it might have been Mike Rowe.
I don't know.
Somebody said, you know, you got a right to keep and bear arms.
That doesn't mean you do.
You have a right to vote.
It doesn't mean you do.
You have to vote responsibly.
So what ends up happening is, Democrats' mentality is, we'll just get people to vote.
Well, take a look at what happened with 2020.
Joe Biden wins.
And now we have huge inflation numbers.
We have terrible gas prices are through the roof.
There's food shortages, potential war.
The Afghanistan pullout was a disaster.
The argument from them is, well, thank heavens Trump isn't president.
We don't know what it would have been like under Trump.
All we know is what it was like under Trump, and under Trump it wasn't that bad.
The pandemic was bad, but for the most part, unemployment was fantastic, wages were going up, some businesses were enacting four-day work weeks, people were getting more vacation time.
It's all under Trump.
Now we're losing all of that.
I don't think Donald Trump controls everything.
I don't think Joe Biden does.
But I think, while we're in this big ship being tossed about by the wind, you cannot control the direction of the wind.
That would be unfair to blame Biden or Trump for like COVID.
but you can adjust your sales. And that does fall on the shoulders of our president and our leaders
in Congress and the Supreme Court. And unfortunately for us, Joe Biden does not seem to be capable in
handling any of these situations. So it stands to reason these Democrats went out, they were able
to pull in tons of votes by doing these big drives. You know, look, I think it heavily advantaged
Democrats.
We may see the same thing come November.
Democrats go door-to-door and there's your mail-in ballot, just fill it out, send it back in, easy, done.
I'm just saying it makes it easier for Democrats to muster up votes because Republicans have a hard time going door-to-door.
But I will add another counterpoint.
Perhaps what drove many people to vote for Joe Biden, to film themselves dropping in mail-in ballots, was that there was nothing else to do.
Seriously.
So maybe we'll see COVID surge back and then all of a sudden media is shut down again.
That'll help.
One thing that I think really helped Joe Biden was that with all the lockdowns, with industry shuttered, people had nothing to do or talk about.
I tell you this man, skateboarders are some of the most ignorant people in the world.
And I say that as someone who has been skateboarding for decades.
And I'm not saying that disrespectfully, I'm saying skateboarders don't pay attention to this stuff.
Don't know a whole lot about it.
And I saw videos of people I knew who skateboarded who couldn't tell you who was Supreme Court, they couldn't name a single Supreme Court Justice, and they would, they filmed themselves dropping mail-in ballots.
Saying, I'm doing my part.
Because people just wanted to be a part of whatever the pop culture was.
Normally, these people are content to watching soap operas, sitcoms, and sports.
But we didn't have any of that.
Everything was shut down.
There were no movies to talk about.
Man, in the year leading up to the pandemic, I talked- what did we do?
One of the first episodes of TimCast IRL, we talked about Sonic the Hedgehog.
New movies out!
Sonic the Hedgehog!
We watched it, it was fun.
We talked about other stuff.
And then politics took everything over and now once again it's all just politics is pop culture.
Nobody wants to let it go.
Republicans don't want to let it go because keeping people into politics means they'll go vote and same thing is true for Democrats.
The one thing I believe that will truly help Republicans win is if movies, video games, and TV shows come back, and then your average city-urban-liberal type is just, well, not paying attention to what's going on.
So while we can see that there is serious concern over what's happening, Democrats are freaking out, potentially issuing gas cards for people.
There's also this from Politico.
House liberals start asking Biden to sidestep Congress months before the midterms.
Democrats are still in full control of Washington, but some progressives are ready to dispense with the centrist-empowering Senate and get the president pumping out executive actions.
Oh, that's confidence-building.
Nearly eight months out of the midterms, somehow Democrats are acting like they've already lost the majority.
Amazing.
Liberal Democrats in the lower chamber are so frustrated by Senate standoffs that they're now imploring President Joe Biden to pursue as much of the party's agenda as he can without them.
They want him to sidestep the upper chamber and the outsize influence its two Democratic centrists wield To take executive action on everything from immigration reform to lowering gas prices.
It's a remarkable pitch for a party that will retain full control of Washington at least through the end of the year.
But many lawmakers on the left, the progressive wing, the Black Caucus, and even some members of leadership say they have little choice after they've passed bills on almost every piece of Biden's agenda only to see them language or outright die in the Senate.
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.
As for many Democrats who are retiring or may lose their seats, this year is their last chance to see their priorities advance.
Let me just point out, I show you the generic ballot numbers, CNN says it's gonna be bad.
And I just gotta point out, there's what, like 30 or so retirements from the Democrats?
So they don't even have these incumbents to try and help them win.
People are realizing that at this point in the cycle, executive order is probably where you're going to start seeing more things get done, said Rep.
Anthony Brown, a Democrat of Maryland, ticking off still unfinished items including voting reforms and a policing overhaul bill named for George Floyd.
Brown's among the Democrats eyeing the congressional exits this year.
He's running for Attorney General of his state.
The legislative window is rapidly closing ahead of the November elections, which threaten to send House Democrats back to the minority before they've achieved some of their loftiest campaign promises.
While they still say the Senate could take up more of Biden's goals, the new widespread focus on executive actions illustrates their intense anxiety that Congress may not deliver, leaving them with nothing new to tout to voters this fall.
Senior Democrats say this shift is not a reflection of the party adopting a minority mindset, but rather an evolution toward what's more achievable with a 50-50 Senate and margins in the House that are nearly as tight.
And not all Democrats are on board, insisting they must focus on passing more party-line policies this year using the Senate filibuster workarounds of the annual budget, as well as notching bipartisan wins that can outlast a Republican taking over the White House.
But three months after Senator Joe Manchin knifed a House-passed social spending package that liberals packed with legislative dreams, such as universal pre-K and paid leave, key factions of the House Democratic Caucus have been plotting exactly what Biden can do while their own hands remain tied.
As Senior Rep.
John Larson quipped, You've seen how easy that's been, right?
Executive action is a last resort.
This is a legislative body.
But there are other important issues that need to be discussed.
And if the Senate isn't going to vote, they're not going to vote.
Kind of remarkable.
What it means when Democrats come out and just say, you know what, Biden rubber stamp it.
This is where we're going.
We had Randy Weber and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massey, on TimCastIRL.
Not at the same time.
Thomas Massey and Marjorie were on at the same time.
And I asked them, you know, these omnibus spending bills.
Just this past couple of weeks, or past week or so, they bring in this big pile of thousands of pages and say, you got an hour, read it, stamp it, yes or no.
And it's the very important omnibus spending.
What, you have to vote for it?
And what happens?
Republicans all do.
So forgive me if I think Republicans are going to save anybody from anything.
I asked, who writes this?
Pelosi and her staffers.
Seriously?
That's right, they decide what goes to the floor and how it goes to the floor and you don't get to add anything to it and there it is.
So, you know, so long as Democrats retain control of the House and they appoint someone like Pelosi, it's what you get.
But, fear not my friends, if Republicans do see a tremendous red wave this November because of mass retirements of Democrats and because the polling is showing regular people are fed up, rest assured Kevin McCarthy will come in as your speaker and do nothing.
Congratulations.
It is on you now.
You need to vote local.
Vote for your school board.
Vote for your comptroller.
Vote for your local sheriff.
Vote for your state rep.
Vote for your state senator.
Vote for your governor.
And vote in the primaries for Congress.
Because the last thing any of us need would be another Pelosi or Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House.
Personally, I think it'd be hilarious if the Republicans win and then nominate Donald Trump to be Speaker.
Because apparently you can do that.
I don't think Trump would take it because Trump wants to be campaigning, probably starting, truth be told, I think Trump will probably start campaigning this year.
Because next year is going to be primary season for, well, you know, let me slow myself down for a moment.
Do you think Joe Biden will be the nominee in 2024?
Personally, I don't think so.
I think he may finish his first term.
Honestly, I have no idea.
Seems rough, but sure.
But we're already hearing murmuring among Democrats that they're looking at who could potentially run in place of Joe Biden, that he'll be a one-term president.
Well, if that's the case, Democrats will need to start getting ready for the primaries in, like, July of this year.
Or at the very least, February of next year.
And if that's true, Donald Trump will need to be campaigning beginning first thing next year.
So we'll see.
Donald Trump has said in terms of whether or not he'll run, many, many people will be happy.
Many, many people will be happy.
He hasn't talked to Mike Pence, so we'll see.
Maybe he'll choose Ron DeSantis as his running mate.
Hard to know for sure.
Personally, I think DeSantis would be a much better president.
But, um, maybe, maybe you need Donald Trump to go in and just ruffle some feathers for another term.
Just to, you know, make these changes and get rid of some of the bureaucratic state, force some resignations, things like that.
I don't know if Ron DeSantis would do that, and Donald Trump has that first term experience where it's like, look at all the things they did that were bad.
But I don't know exactly how it will play out.
Donald Trump may run, Joe Biden may make it to another term, who knows?
But come November, it's looking like Republicans are going to sweep.
Unfortunately for everybody else, the reality is, it may just be another Republican victory, and then another Republican saying, well, you know, oh, you don't wanna, me, ooh, I'm in awe.
Let's take a look at what's going on in the Supreme Court today.
What did Democrats do to Brett Kavanaugh?
They falsely accused him of very serious crimes, with the most outlandish and insane stories.
They tried storming the Supreme Court building.
They were outside, banging on the door, screaming.
They went inside one of the buildings and took it over and basically screamed, and that insurrection was no big deal.
What's the worst thing happening now with the new Supreme Court nominee from Joe Biden?
Senator Hawley is questioning her policies towards lenient sentencing for child predators.
And he's doing it very politely.
You see, Republicans don't have teeth.
Figuratively.
Well, some of them don't, you know, but I mean figuratively, like, they, they, they, it's all, all bark, no bite, like, we're gonna stand up, and we're gonna make these changes, and, well, I don't, I don't wanna, I don't wanna be, you know, too over the top.
Okay, well, let me tell you guys.
Democrats are more than willing to be over the top.
Republicans are more than willing to do nothing.
The funny thing is, the progressives often, often say, Democrats won't even push back, and the Republicans are steamrolling them!
I can't believe this!
And I'm like, I sure remember when Democrats got up at the podium, and, or, what, Cory Booker, I am Spartacus!
Screaming at Brett Kavanaugh.
Mocking him.
Posting photos.
You know what, dude?
I ain't... I'm not interested.
Republicans need to do their jobs.
But they can only do their jobs if real Republicans get in.
And that means you go vote.
I'm not gonna tell you who to vote for.
You can vote Democrat, whatever.
You vote for who you think is right.
But I will say, in my opinion, if you're a Democrat, vote in the primaries.
Get rid of these neocons.
I mean, just, there you go.
Neolibs, I guess.
And the same is true for the Republicans.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, vote out the incumbents, bring in some fresh faces, and let's try and bring something new to Washington, D.C.
to just finally Man.
Breakthrough, I guess?
Because too often we have Democrats and Republicans who twiddle their thumbs and play corporate crony capitalist BS.
I'll leave it there.
Corruption is abound, but maybe things will be changing this November.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Satirical news website The Babylon Bee has been suspended from Twitter and locked out of their account over an article they published naming Rachel Levine as its Man of the Year.
For those that aren't familiar, Rachel Levine is a transgender woman and four-star admiral of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
I think I got that one right.
We'll double-check in a second.
USA Today recently named Rachel Levine as one of its Women of the Year.
In response, the Babylon Bee made a satirical claim.
Well, I guess technically you could argue it's not, because it's not really satirizing, it's literally just declaring the Babylon Bee has a Man of the Year.
And it's named Rachel Levine.
Twitter, of course, says this is hate speech, particularly around harassment or threats of an individual.
Seth Dillon, the CEO of the Babylon Bee.
I believe he's CEO.
Could be wrong.
Let's just pull up his tweet and make sure.
I believe.
CEO of the Babylon Bee.
That's right.
He says, I just received this notice that we've been locked out of our account for hateful conduct.
We were told our account will be restored in 12 hours, but the countdown won't begin until we delete the tweet that violates the Twitter rules.
He says, we're not deleting anything.
Truth is not hate speech.
If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.
I've received some messages from people asking how they can help.
I can think of a few ways.
Never censor yourself.
Insist that 2 and 2 make 4, even if Twitter tries to compel you to say otherwise.
Make them ban tens of millions of us.
Get on our email list so we can have direct contact with you.
It's a perfect- It's not a perfect solution.
He goes on to say, at least we own our email list and become a premium subscriber.
So if you definitely want to support the Babylon Bee, it's one way you can do it.
Now, I think there's something interesting here.
The Babylon Bee produces satire, not truth.
But I think I get the point Seth Dillon is trying to make, but there is something interesting in this.
First, the tweet from the post from Twitter that was sent to the Babylon Bee.
Says, if they violated our rules against hateful conduct, you may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Now, we know that's not true.
There's questions about whether or not what Seth Dillon did, or the Babylonians, I should say, was actually in any way a violation of these rules.
It was not promoting violence, it wasn't threatening, and it wasn't harassing anyone.
The article itself was just naming an individual as man of the year.
I find this interesting because Seth Dillon refers to this as the truth and well there's an interesting point to be made here.
I know it often comes up and I always mention that it often comes up whenever it does come up but I went on Joe Rogan with Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Ghate.
The reason why I think it's important to bring up is because in that conversation, I mentioned to Jack Dorsey that the Twitter rules are outright biased, and this is the perfect example from four years ago!
I think it was four years ago, was it?
Was it 2018?
I went on Rogan's show with Dorsey?
Maybe it was 2019, I don't know.
I think it was...
Yeah, it had to be 2018.
That's crazy.
But this exemplifies exactly what I said.
I told Jack, your rules are biased.
And he looked like he'd taken issue with that claim.
He was like, what?
No, they're not.
How are they biased?
Twitter has a misgendering policy.
That is to say, on Twitter, if you misgender someone, you will be suspended or banned.
Right?
Okay.
To a conservative, Misgendering someone would be, if they are biologically male, it would be misgendering to refer to them as a female.
To the progressive left, misgendering someone would be if a person identifies as male and you call them something they don't identify as.
I find something truly fascinating in this whole circumstance about internal universes and external universes.
People who view that there's something greater than themselves or people who view themselves as greater than others.
I think that is a core component of the culture war being exemplified here.
On Twitter, if an individual says, you must live in the world for which I view myself, Twitter says we follow that train of thought.
Now, truth be told, it doesn't really, because there are some issues where Twitter would just ban you regardless of what you think, so it's kind of like they've settled upon this issue.
But here we have the Babylon Bee.
I suppose this is not even satire, according to Babylon Bee, if they're saying it's truth.
They literally just said the Babylon Bee has named Rachel Levine its Man of the Year.
Now, of course, they're making a political point, I think it's obvious to say.
Twitter may see this and say, you're not allowed to make that point.
But therein lies the issue.
The article from the Babylon Bee isn't in any way disparaging.
I suppose because they're a satirical news website, it can be seen as offensive for them to make this statement.
But if the people of the Babylon Bee and conservatives genuinely feel that it's misgendering someone who is biologically male to call them a woman, well then they're standing by their principled belief in how they would use pronouns, and it's not in any way harassing to do so.
If an individual feels harassed, and we are going to set rules and take action based on what someone thinks or feels, then we have no standard of justice.
In a court of law, you know, someone who's been victimized, there has to be a clear and objective victimization.
In this instance, we're moving into this universe where there is no such objective victimization.
The Babylon Bee did not insult or harass this person.
They made a joke.
I mean, maybe they didn't even really make a joke.
They made a point.
But are we not allowed to make jokes about people at all?
Well, of course, on Twitter you are, just not some people.
Now, Jack Dorsey said on the Joe Rogan Podcast, it's because the suicide rate among transgender individuals is very high.
I responded with the suicide rate among many different professions is really high.
I mean, police officers, my understanding is, have a very high suicide rate.
Actually, I'm pretty sure we brought that up, but it's been so long, fact-check me, because maybe, maybe, you know, I'm misremembering.
It was a long time ago and it was a long conversation.
But I'll just add that point now.
Police officers and dentists, I'm told, have very high suicide rates.
Are they gonna say from now on, don't make fun of cops?
Well, of course not.
They are picking and choosing their ideology to be paramount.
I don't think Twitter should do that.
I certainly think there can be a policy against directly naming someone and harassing them.
But harassment then has to be objective harassment, which is, in most circumstances, if you walk up to someone and yell at them, it's not harassment.
If you walk up to someone and yell at them, they tell you to stop, and you yell at them again, might be harassment.
If they walk away from you and you follow them and you keep screaming at them, now you are likely to get arrested by a police officer because in an objective court of law, they're gonna say, you're going up to someone yelling at them, they tried leaving, you kept following them, you kept yelling at them.
At a certain point, the incessant action of yelling or berating someone or being aggressive towards them can be considered harassment.
In this instance, I don't see how that That makes sense.
Just the Babylon Bee made a statement.
So herein lies the question today, right?
We have this article from USA Today.
USA Today is allowed to declare that a person is a woman.
That's fine.
The Babylon Bee is not allowed to declare that a person is a man.
that's fine. The Babylon Bee is not allowed to declare that a person is a man. Not okay.
One of the things I've been exploring or sort of thinking about over the past several weeks is the
idea among us, I mentioned this briefly just a moment ago, that there's something bigger than us.
And I wonder if that is a major component in the two different factions of the culture warp.
So I'll give you an example.
I believe in free speech.
Why?
Because I believe that other people exist.
That's kind of it, right?
So I am not the end-all be-all, nor are you or anyone else.
We are all people.
We are all equal in the eyes of the universe, or God, or however you want to describe it.
And there is something larger and bigger than us outside of ourselves.
I'm not saying that means religion or God or anything.
I'm saying clearly the universe is massive and to our mind seemingly infinite.
It exists so profoundly beyond our comprehension that we struggle every day to try and discover bits of the universe.
From that perspective comes this view that, well, everyone has rights.
My rights are equal to someone else's rights.
Through due process, people can have certain rights restricted, I suppose.
That is to say that your freedom of movement will be taken from you if you are committing violent acts and violating the rights of others.
You'll be put in jail, right?
And so I believe that because I am not the end-all be-all, and because this world does not belong to me, and because we're all trying to work and live together as a community, Well that is to say then, other people have rights too.
And that's, this is where I come in and say, this is why my perspective on things typically is like a left libertarian point of view.
It's very communal, or communitarian or whatever.
Not communist, but I certainly think we need to come together and work together and strive for common goals, and you know, end violence.
Now we take a look at the modern left.
We take a look at someone like Lea Thomas.
Lea Thomas, whatever.
Transgender male swimmer.
What I mean by that is a person who was born biologically male and is transgender.
This is an individual who I believe is deeply narcissistic.
Now, I have no issue with somebody with Rachel Levine or Leah Thomas or anybody who wants to live as they want to live.
That, I think, you know, is immaterial to the argument.
The argument is, do you impose yourself on others?
Well, as for Rachel Levine, No, I don't think so.
I mean, I don't know much about the individual, and if Joe Biden or anybody else wants to appoint Levine to any kind of position...
I really don't care.
Now, conservatives absolutely have a different view than that.
They take issue with much of what's going on with transgenderism and things like that.
Sure.
Not my point.
Leah Thomas, in my opinion, is deeply narcissistic.
I mean, to the extent that you could be no more narcissistic.
That is, the maximum amount of narcissism a person could have.
There's that, we talked about, I talked about this last week, the photo of Leah Thomas winning the NCAA Swimming Championships, and then you have the biological females all huddled together taking a picture together without Leah Thomas.
Leah Thomas, of course, is biologically male, six foot four, broad shoulders, and all the advantages that come with being male from prenatal testosterone.
And I'm talking about, I'm not talking about hormone replacement because hormone replacement does not change prenatal testosterone.
So, at least according to what we know in science now, if you trust science, and I do, I believe the science.
So, Leah Thomas has prenatal testosterone advantages such as more fast twitch muscle.
I believe what comes with that is... I believe fast twitch muscle is the predominant effect in vitro, right?
So, then you also have the advantages of male puberty.
Six foot four, broad shoulders, longer arms.
This is greatly advantaging Leah Thomas in the swimming competitions, specifically for sprinting.
Women actually have an advantage in endurance swimming, and that's why when you look at the time periods for long-distance swimming, the gap starts to close between Leah Thomas and the other female competitors, though Leah still is winning all of them.
Over a long enough period of time, women can swim longer, but not as fiercely, due to a higher body fat concentration percentage, which creates more buoyancy, so it's easier to stay up.
Interesting thing I was reading.
Anyway, I digress.
Back to the main point.
Leah Thomas is imposing on these women.
Now again, no issue with, you know, transgenderism or anything like that.
I want to make sure that's clear.
Because of course the left will try to take it out of context.
What I'm saying is, you know, I made a point about this on Twitter.
It's really, really funny how this plays out, because it really does play into this idea of the narcissistic left.
So, I was talking on Twitter about what was happening with Leah Thomas, and I said, no, not one of these women, these females, in the competition, stood up for themselves.
I will not pretend or be mad on someone else's behalf who is not mad.
So here's my point.
Apparently conservatives jumped on it and said, Tim Pool's hot take.
Look, if you have, um, I believe there's like, what, 16 females and one male in this competition.
And the six- sixteen!
And not a single one of them expresses any discontent Then why am I supposed to be angry?
It's like, imagine going to a party, and everyone's laughing and having a good time, and then you get mad because the spinach dip doesn't have enough, you know, spinach in it.
No one else is complaining, you're like, I think this party would be better, and it's like, dude, you're not actually at the- like, imagine you're outside the party, looking in the window.
You're not at the party.
No one at the party seems to care.
Why should I, outside, listen to you complaining about how their party has too much spinach or not enough?
I'm gonna be like, bro, it's not your party.
You're not there.
Any one of the people at that party can complain about the spinach dip.
Nobody is.
I can't intervene on behalf of somebody who hasn't even publicly expressed discontent.
If someone at the party was like, yo, this party sucks, man, there's no spinach in the spinach dip, I'd be like, sounds like it's a bad party, I guess.
Some people seem to be mad.
And then I'd be like, hey guy, get some more spinach.
None of these women are speaking up, but one young woman is speaking up, but it's the only woman who was bumped because of Leah Thomas.
So once again, I'm just like, guys, narcissistic universe.
I have tremendous respect for this young woman who was speaking out, saying, you know, this is unfair that she was bumped, but I have a question as to why none of the other women spoke up.
Is it because they didn't get bumped?
So it's very difficult for me to say, you know, someone was not invited to the party.
And they're outside saying, this party's lame.
And I'm like, dude, you're not in the party.
I would have been, you know, but someone else showed up and took my spot.
I'd be like, okay, now I agree.
That's messed up.
But no one else in the party is upset about it, that you got kicked out.
Maybe they don't want you there.
You see, that's my problem here.
So here's where it gets funny.
There is something really interesting in this Babylon Bee story that I had to record a segment about, that USA Today and Babylon Bee both made a statement, only one was considered wrong or banned.
I wonder what would happen if, you know, conservatives controlled Twitter, and USA Today came out and made this statement.
I have to be honest, I don't think conservatives would do anything about it, which is why conservatives tend to lose a lot of the culture war battles.
They'd just be like, we don't care.
But that is part of their values, you know?
Live and let live, or free speech to a certain degree.
I should say, to a great degree.
But I don't see conservatives controlling a platform and banning this kind of stuff.
It's possible, to be honest.
But in terms of a large corporate structure, by all means, you might get smaller and alternative sites that would ban, you know, USA Today.
I don't see it for the most part.
So here's where I think things get fascinating, and I'm gonna throw myself into this story.
So I made a point.
Actually, let me pull up this first tweet.
I made a point about how I don't tolerate BS.
And the point of the tweet was quite literally to be somewhat self-deprecating in that I'm a bit impatient, tightly wound, and easily agitated.
Not really positive qualities.
This was in reference to what was going on with the NCAA swim meet.
I said, I went to a diner with my girlfriend and was told it was a 20 minute wait.
After only a few minutes, a couple walked in and was seated right away.
I complained and left right away.
I don't tolerate BS and I don't tolerate people who think I should care when they do.
This was part of a series of tweets where I was saying, this woman, Emma Wyant, she was second place in the swim meet.
I said, people were like, she's the real winner.
I said, no, she's not.
She lost, she deserved to lose, and she is not the winner.
She has silver.
And a lot of people agreed.
My point was, she didn't speak out.
She didn't say no.
She said, I agree to these terms, and I will abide by them.
If you go to a casino, and you're like, how does it work?
You put $25 down, they'll give you two cards in blackjack, and if you beat the dealer closer to 21 without going over, you win double your money.
They'll give you another $25 chip.
If you went there and said, okay, I'll play, and then lost your chip, and then all of a sudden everyone's like, that's not fair, they took this person's money, I'd be like, what do you mean?
You agreed to play by these.
You didn't complain.
If you show up and the rules were changed, or they did something that seemed untoward, and you said, whoa, I'm speaking up and speaking out about this, then I'd be like, okay, I want to hear your arguments.
Absolutely.
Emma Wyant did not complain, did not stand up, nor did any of the other swimmers who were on that podium.
They all just went along with it.
So why am I going to assume they're mad?
The point of my tweet.
Me?
I have a short fuse.
The point was that I'm such a short fuse guy that I walk into a diner and sit down, and if they sit someone before me, I get up and I walk out.
I'm like, you lose my business.
And you know what I say to them?
I know you don't care, okay?
When I complain, I say, listen, You're packed.
There's a massive wait time.
You're probably not concerned about me as a customer.
That's fine.
I don't need to be here, imposing myself on you.
I will leave.
Now they say, yeah, it's easy to say that about a diner, but, you know, these women have worked so hard all their lives to be in these competitions, and I'm just like, dude, If I, you know, if I set a reservation for a fancy restaurant and I was waiting a month or a week, yeah, it would be really annoying.
I'd be in there and they're like, I know you have a reservation for eight, but we're giving your table to someone else.
I would leave!
Okay, again, I know it's not the same as someone who's worked for 18 years or whatever, but at a certain point, if they are telling you, you will not win, and there's nothing you can do about it, what's the point of fighting for 18 years if you won't speak up?
This is what I just don't understand.
18 years, and you wouldn't stand up and be like, I object.
I've been fighting for 18 years.
Under these rules, I'm allowed these things, and you've changed them on me at the last minute.
Not okay.
Create a new division.
Here's the point I'm ultimately getting to.
For one, I think you understand my point about standing up.
The interesting thing about this tweet is that the left, I have no idea why, decided to make, like, this is the one thing they got mad at me about.
Of all the things I typically tweet, like the things that say, Tim Pool's transphobic, those don't make it to Reddit.
This tweet was the front top page on Reddit in two different subreddits, And they were wrong.
It was fascinating.
They want so much to hate me for something that's inane, to be completely honest.
They made this up.
Frank Luntz.
Frankie boy.
Come on, man.
He responded with me, Tim, before complaining, did you ask if the other couple had a reservation?
I'd like to point out something.
First, the assumption that the greater context of what was happening was easily contained in 280 characters, and that I am such a frustrated and angry guy, I didn't bother to check into what was going on.
I simply went, oh, harumph, and stormed out.
First of all, even if that was the case, it's totally fine.
It's kind of my point.
If I'm waiting in line, no joke, I've been, I'll be at a, I was at a 7-Eleven once, and I'm waiting in line, it was a long line, it was like four people.
And I got up to the counter, and this is a true story, this was in LA.
And I had like a hot dog and like a Slurpee or something, this was a long time ago.
And as I'm about to hand the guy my card, another guy walks in front of me and puts his hand up and then he says, I just need to get this real quick.
And the cashier looks at me and says, okay.
And I went, no, no, no, no, no, hold on there, buddy.
This guy just butted in front of me, and you immediately just go to, keep your stuff, I'm out.
I don't want it.
And I put it on the counter, I was like, you can have it.
Dude, I do have a short fuse.
Here's the point though.
Diners don't take reservations, for the most part.
Some diners do, you know, depends.
Especially in a big city, maybe.
But local diners don't take reservations.
And it's weird that the response from so many people was, like Frank Luntz I can respect for him asking, did you ask if the other couple had a reservation?
They didn't.
That was the point.
So the full story is basically, we were sitting down, and there's a couple seats, and they're like, it'll be 20 minutes, and then everyone gets seated around us, and then, you know, we're sitting there, and then four guys walk in, they get seated, and I think, I'm like, we've been waiting, we've been waiting, and it's frustrating, but they're not gonna give a table, a four-seater table to two people, so I get it, that happens.
Then, a couple that came in that we know pulled in after us, Walked in and said, can we get a table for two?
And they went, yes.
And they looked around and said, yeah, we have an opening right this way.
It was clearly, so I got up and I was like, you guys, we've been waiting here.
And they were like, oh, sorry.
And I was like, it's okay.
And we walked out.
I'm not going to impose myself on somebody.
That's my point.
If there's a situation happening out before me where somebody doesn't accommodate me, I always say this, no one owes me any favors.
None.
You don't gotta do me a favor.
When I had, speaking of Joe Rogan, when I had some beef with Joe back, you know, 10 years ago, because he booked me and then canceled on me, and then he booked me a year later and then canceled on me, and I had flown out, got canceled, flown out, got canceled.
Partly my fault, young and excited, going on the Joe Rogan Show, and Joe's attitude was much more like, yeah, you're booked, whatever, and then at the last minute, sorry, bro, I'm busy, I can't do it, and it, like, I flew myself out really wanting to do this.
It was a mistake.
My response was, look man, Joe doesn't owe me any favors.
Now it is, look, fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
You know, the second time I flew myself out and then he canceled on me, I should have been like, you know, after the first time I should have said, but you know, look, Joe doesn't owe me any favors.
He never did.
And I'm like, I'm not going to get mad at a guy for not doing me a favor.
Having me on his show would be huge for me.
And guess what?
It really was when I finally did come on his show.
And so that's my attitude.
If I go to someone else's business, And they're like, we can seat you or not.
If they don't seat me as per our arrangement, I have no problem being like, I get it.
I'll leave.
I'm not going to make a scene.
I'm not going to scream at you.
I'm not going to yell at anybody.
I'm just going to be like, have a nice day.
And I don't think they care.
And that's kind of the issue.
I'm like, if you don't need me as a customer, and I feel my time is wasted, I'm out.
The fascinating thing is, the left's response to this was that Tim Poole discovers how reservations work.
First of all, that's a grand assumption about what even really happened.
And diners typically don't take reservations.
And the other things people were posting were things like, they knew Tim wouldn't tip well or something like that, which is absurd, because I actually tip kind of insane, to be completely honest.
But as much as I will personally admit, this one includes me, it's personal, and I definitely want to talk about it for that reason, I was thinking about this, how is it that this tweet, no joke, first and foremost, 4,337 retweets!
I don't understand why people were retweeting it at all!
Like, there are people who genuinely like, I'm gonna show this with somebody, I'm like, I was just making an inane point about me being short-tempered.
But more importantly, they made up in their minds a fantasy about what happened for the sake of dogpiling something that was irrelevant.
Like, Tim Pool thinks he's cool by saying this, and I was like, no, I'm just saying that like I'm a rather, you know, kind of disagreeable person.
It's not a positive or negative statement.
Actually, I'd say it's a fairly negative statement, assessment about myself.
But my point is that it benefits me to a certain degree, right?
That I'm unwilling to tolerate these kinds of deals.
Imagine what that does for me in business.
When I go to a meeting and they say, here's what we're gonna do, when someone comes back and says, we've changed the terms, I say, have a nice day.
It's the deal or nothing, that's how I play.
But anyway, the reason I bring this up in the context of what's going on with the Babylon Bee is the two different realities.
The imposition mentality of the left and the unimposing mentality more of the right.
By all means, I think you have a right to complain.
If you go to a restaurant and they say, here are our terms, agree to them, and they don't abide by them, even if it's something as seemingly inane as waiting 15 minutes or whatever, well, you can choose to just grin and accept it, or you can choose to say, I humbly disagree, I feel disrespected, and for that I'll be leaving.
And that's fine.
I don't see a problem with that.
But I do think you can see that there are people Who don't want you to, for one, step outside of the collective.
Because I have no idea why they were mad at me about something so inane.
But you can see how their view is, they should impose on other people?
I don't understand.
They're mad at me for walking out the door and saying, I'm not going to impose on them.
And then you can look at how they do things.
They do impose.
So it's interesting.
I see things like that, and I see, from here, people making things up.
And so I was, you know, I was talking with Ian about this, too.
I was like, it's an interesting phenomenon.
I mean, look, you can see even, like, Leah Thomas is trending, 105,000 tweets.
I was like, it's really interesting, because people will make things up to defend their positions on the left, less so on the right.
Or, you have, we have a very serious conundrum here with this, with this diner scenario, in that Either people know it's nonsense to engage with, and they're just a hate mob, and that's what they're doing.
Or they don't, and they're just mindlessly following along.
And I'm like, either way, it's a kind of a weird circumstance.
But I don't want to derail too much into the diner thing.
I just thought it was interesting how you have this hate for seemingly no reason.
Or this demand, this desire, this rage, this entitlement.
And so going back to, you know, Leah Thomas, that's basically my point.
An individual who would say, I deserve to be here even though everyone is booing.
I'm like, that's kind of weird.
You know, if everyone is looking at you, wouldn't you feel more comfortable not being there and figuring something else out?
Now look, my attitude on all of this The rules are the rules.
Lea Thomas is allowed to compete, and none of these other females have said anything, so how am I supposed to say anything?
That is to say, if I were to go into this event, and I see people doing things I disagree with, I would just be like, I'm gonna leave.
I'm not gonna support this.
That's me.
Other people would?
Okay.
I just don't understand how I'm supposed to be mad about it.
As for the Babylon Bee, it goes back to Twitter, and basically the same point.
Twitter says we are going to abide by one worldview, and that's it, and if you refuse to abide by this, we'll ban you.
I don't know, whatever, maybe a little rambly, but I'll leave it there, otherwise I'm gonna go long.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The controversy surrounding transgender athlete Leah Thomas continues.
For those that aren't familiar, Leah Thomas is biologically male, has been on hormone replacement therapy for several years, and has moved from the men's division, swimming, into the women's, where Leah Thomas is now the champion.
There are many conservatives that are outright saying biological males should not be competing against females, and of course there are many feminists who aren't conservative saying the same thing.
Now, according to the progressives, these would be the trans-exclusionary radical feminists, but of course the controversy is still here, particularly because it was only recently that Leah Thomas won the championship.
In the latest story, former Olympic swimmer says her final spot was taken by Leah Thomas.
A former Olympic swimmer and college athlete claims she lost her spot in the NCAA finals because transgender swimmer Leah Thomas beat her in a 500-meter free swim.
Reka Gyorgy, a former Olympic swimmer for Hungary at the 2016 Rio Olympics and student at Virginia Tech, placed 17th in the March 17th Division I swim meet.
Now, Gyorgy says that Thomas took her final chance to compete in a college meet.
There are several things that need to be addressed in the statement from Rekha, as well as why Rekha is complaining, what other female athletes have to say, and what conservative media even does here.
The issue for me, as I've expressed Ad nauseum is that these female athletes competing against a biological male are not complaining about it.
They're supporting the rules, they're supporting the system, and yes, I kid you not, they are speaking out in support of Leah Thomas.
My question then is, why are conservatives mad about something the swimmers themselves are not mad about?
Now, of course, we have several stories where there have been some swimmers speaking anonymously or privately, and family members who also speak anonymously or privately, and some have come out with their names complaining about it.
But if the women who are actively competing say nothing, and actively support Lea Thomas, I don't understand where the complaint... Look, I get it, I get it.
I understand conservatives don't like the idea of males competing against females in any capacity.
But my response then is maybe you should be more involved in the schools and the rulemaking or make a new system where other women can compete and not include biological males.
My issue is just ultimately it comes down to who's really complaining about this.
So let me start with the first thing I can mention here from the Washington Examiner.
A big challenge for everybody in understanding what's going on is language.
Here we have a factually incorrect statement by Christopher Hutton, breaking news reporter.
And Chris, I hope you correct this.
He says that Leah Thomas is a transgender female swimmer.
He says, because transgender female swimmer Leah Thomas beat her in a 500 meter free swim.
The first thing we need to do to understand what's going on is agree on what words mean.
Now, of course, the left doesn't and the right doesn't agree with the left, but there are some things still we can agree on.
Well, there are many progressives that believe female and male are interchangeable with man or woman.
For the most part, at the higher level in colleges and in the rules, how Twitter and YouTube works, male and man are distinct.
Now, of course, conservatives don't agree with that, but at least we can all agree on what female and male means to a greater degree than what the left is willing to concede with man or woman.
The point being, Speaking in terms of the left's own argument.
Transgender female is incorrect.
It would imply that Leah Thomas was born biologically female and is now transgender.
That is to imply that Leah Thomas is a female who identifies as a man.
That is incorrect.
Leah Thomas is a transgender male.
Meaning, someone who is male and is transgender, so they identify as the opposing gender identity.
Now, of course, it's really hard to figure out what definitions are when both sides speak different languages, so... The best thing I can say is, it's important that even conservative outlets or any news outlet be factually correct and make sure they're using the proper terminology, because transgender female is confusing.
One of the reasons I bring this up, and some may say it's nitpicking, Is that conservatives tend to show an image of Mac Beggs, a biological female, competing against biological females, but identifying as a man, and I believe taking testosterone.
What ends up happening is, because this individual who is a female, a biological female, XX chromosomes, identifies as a man, and competes against females, conservatives believe it's someone who was born biologically male.
I know, confused yet?
The point is...
If the right wants to get, you know, get at this, you've got to be very precise in your terminology.
And you've also got to know your stories better, because right now, following the Leah Thomas story, conservatives keep posting the Mac Beggs thing, and I'm like, you are posting two females wrestling with each other.
Both with XX chromosomes.
Now, if you're concerned about testosterone and hormone replacement, by all means, be concerned about it.
The issue is Mac Beggs is not a male.
Now, the most important thing here that needs to be brought up.
Rekka Gyorgy not only issued a statement of support for Leah Thomas, Rekka Gyorgy is only complaining after being bumped, not before competing.
And that's where I come out and say, how dare you?
Look, I'm not going to pretend to be mad when no one is mad.
Conservatives are mad, but the conservatives who are mad are not the ones involved in or competing in this.
You want to tell me that parents are mad?
They can come out with their names and say, this is who I am, I am mad.
Because for the time being, an anonymous statement from someone I can't confirm or verify means nothing when the females competing against the male are openly saying they support this.
What?
Let me ask you.
If we were to create a female division that excluded transgender individuals, who would be competing in it?
Now, of course, I think it's fair to say that all of these women, these females, in the NCAA Championship would probably switch divisions because they have a better chance of winning.
But that just says to me they don't care about Leah Thomas, they only care about winning.
If you are inherently selfish, don't stand for any causes, and only speak up when you get bumped, sounds to me like you're just trying to argue now because you want privileges or benefits.
Rekka Gyorgi had every opportunity to speak up before competing and placing 17th, thus getting bumped.
If she did, I would actually value her statement a bit more.
But the next big issue here that's really important, that is highlighted in the statement by Rekka Gyorgi, And highlighted in another article from the National Review is that all of the parents and even RECA say they outright support Leah Thomas and what Leah Thomas is going through.
And so if that's the case, well then, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't know what you're complaining about.
I don't know what cons... I understand.
Look, I get it.
Conservatives are saying, we don't like this.
But if everyone involved does, or is unwilling to stand up for it, I'm sorry.
If you are unwilling to stand up for your ideas and values, your ideas and values do not deserve to persist.
Freedom, liberty, all of these things I value, and I will stand up for them and speak out for them.
Now, I want to read you the statement from Rekha Gayorgi, which I think it's important to point out because she actively supports and fully stands with Leah Thomas.
Some people have said, how can you criticize them when you use YouTube and YouTube censors people?
First and foremost, There is no 1-0 binary moral line.
I wish there was, it's not that easy.
So by all means, if you don't like the idea that I would use this platform while other people are being censored, by all means bring it up and state that opinion.
You're entitled to it.
In fact, that's the point.
You should be saying what your concerns are and speak out against those, you know, you have an issue with.
More importantly, however, with Rekha Gyorgi and these other fema- uh, first of all, the parents, anonymously issuing statements.
I don't know who they are, and I have no idea if they're involved.
Why don't you come out and say, my daughter is this, I am this, and I have concerns about this?
You don't have to be mean or anything, but you can say, I don't like it.
They don't do that.
As for this criticism, I'd love to address.
I'm on YouTube.
I regularly complain about this.
I regularly platform people who have been censored by YouTube on more than one occasion.
Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, for instance.
Good examples.
I think we have Alex on like three or four times and Bannon on I think three times now.
So of course, I don't like censorship.
I regularly protest against it.
I do use this platform.
It does suck.
But guess what?
I can bring people on the show at risk to getting banned because whatever.
And have them speak their minds and have those conversations.
Now, as for the female athletes, I'm not asking all of them, by demand, quit.
I am saying they could choose to boycott it all at once.
There's a big difference between a platform with billions of people, and it's hard to coordinate, and 15 women.
They could just be like, do you agree?
Do you agree?
Do you agree?
Okay.
Well, they don't.
Now, I'm still not saying they should quit.
They could all at least wear a ribbon.
They could all at least, you know, put a color on their arm, which is a sign of protest.
At the very least, speak out.
If these women were speaking out, I would be 100% on their side, but I have no idea if they're even mad about this.
Now, Rekha Gayorgi seems to be mad, but let me read.
She says, my name is Reka Gyorgyi from Hungary.
It could be Gyorgyi, I don't know.
Gyorgyi is the only... whatever.
I'm a 2016 Rio Olympian, represented Virginia Tech for the past five years, a two-time ACC champion, two-time All-American, and three-time Honorable Mention All-American.
With all due respect, I would like to address something that is a problem in our sport right now and hurting athletes, especially female swimmers.
Everyone has heard and known about transgender Leah Thomas, and her case including all the issues and concerns that her situation brought to our sport.
I'd like to point out that I respect and fully stand with Leah Thomas.
I am convinced that she is no different than me, or any other D1 swimmer, No.
Sorry.
I don't support you at all.
her entire life for morning practices. She has sacrificed family vacations and holidays for a
competition. She has pushed herself to the limit to be the best athlete she could be.
She is doing what she is passionate about and deserves that right. On the other hand,
I would like to critique the NCAA rules that allow her to compete against us, who are biologically
women. No, sorry, I don't support you at all. In fact, I will heavily, heavily criticize you.
Do you want to fully respect and stand with Leah Thomas?
By all means, do so.
Leah Thomas has abided by all of the rules set forth.
The only time this person comes out and complains about the rules is when they lost.
Let me give you, let's go back to the censorship analogy.
You have these leftists.
And they say, well you got banned, too bad, YouTube's a private corporation, they can do what they want.
Free speech warriors are wrong.
And then they get censored and go, this isn't fair, I'm not supposed to be censored!
Same thing.
I don't give those people the benefit of the doubt.
I say, welcome to the world you created by supporting this.
Tarek Aghaiorji, I'm sorry, but it's a good thing you lost.
It is.
It's a good thing you got booted, and your words mean nothing to me.
You have every opportunity while the, if you have an issue with Leah Thomas competing, you have every opportunity, every day, to post on social media, to speak out against it.
It is only now that you have been booted.
You are saying, I actually have an issue with this.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
You can't argue after the fact the rules you agreed with and fully stood beside.
That's wrong.
It's wrong to do that to Leah Thomas.
I'll give you my opinion.
I don't believe Leah Thomas should be competing against biological females.
Period.
I think that there are advantages that come from prenatal testosterone.
Science basically shows this.
And I think that perhaps the best thing to do is create a new division.
That's it.
The problem I have here, let me break this down a little bit further.
We have first and foremost a statement from, let me show you.
Just behind Leah Thomas is Brooke Ford, a young woman who brought home a silver medal.
I believe that treating people with respect and dignity is more important than any trophy or record will ever be, which is why I will not have a problem racing against Leah at NCAAs this year, Ford said about the situation.
Ford could teach certain media outlets many things about respect and dignity.
So, the second place in the 200-yard freestyle and the 500-yard freestyle, I'm sorry, Brooke Ford is just behind the 500-yard free, totally said, this is great, I'm good, this is awesome, this is the way it should be.
All of these women are supporting this.
If they want to lose, I just don't know what you want me to be mad about.
We also have this, from Erica Sullivan, American Olympic swimmer, why I'm proud to support trans athletes like Leah Thomas.
They're absolutely on board with all of this.
Well, there you go.
It is only now, all of a sudden, that RECA has a complaint.
I don't agree with it.
Let me show you this article from the National Review, which I think makes a point very well.
Parents of female swimmers speak out.
Shame on the NCAA.
This is from Madeline Kearns.
Writing.
When I spoke with parents of female swimmers at the NCAA Women's Swimming Championship this week, there were typically two main concerns they wanted to communicate.
First, they are not transphobic.
Second, allowing a biological male to compete against their daughters is unfair.
As much as I sympathize with the falsely accused, so long as avoiding accusations of transphobia is the primary concern, this madness will continue.
Okay, well.
That's what I can say.
My personal opinion on this matter.
Maybe you need a separate division.
However, the parents and the athletes are more worried about being called transphobic than about their sport and the rules.
Enough.
Conservatives need to stop supporting those who do not support themselves.
Maybe that's a little too crass.
Maybe there are some people who need a little help.
But maybe there's a line.
And that is to say, if Matt Walsh, for instance, who's regularly spoken up about issues of transgender ideology and things like that, if none of these parents are speaking up, and then he came forward and he said, everyone listen, you need to speak up now, I will be that first person to step up and take the hit, and then everyone said, you know what?
Alright, we're standing up.
I'd be like, absolutely, okay, fantastic.
Here's the issue I have.
Matt Walsh has spoken up.
Ben Shapiro has spoken up.
How many conservative personalities are speaking up?
How many LGBTQ personalities are speaking up themselves?
There's been Caitlyn Jenner.
There's been Blair White.
There's one transgender athlete, I believe a marathon runner, a scientist, who has even spoken up.
If after all of this, the women in the NCAA are still unwilling to say anything, and not only that, actively support it, I have no idea what anyone at this point is complaining about.
And in fact, I think Rekha's statement is extremely distasteful.
For all of you to come out and welcome Leah Thomas publicly and now be mad and use being trans against Leah, if you came out from the get-go and said, I won't swim in this or I will speak up against it, at the very least, just express your discontent, I would have been like, I respect the statements.
They're not doing it.
They're not.
So this is where we are.
I don't know what the political controversy is at this point or why anyone is acting like they're concerned about this.
Everyone's saying Emma Wayant.
She's the real winner.
I'm like, no, she isn't.
She supports this.
She accepts second place with a smile on her face.
It's just the weirdest thing to me.
It is.
So I don't, I don't, look.
I can tell you one thing.
There is a very serious question over the rules and whether or not they make sense.
That's fair.
But I'm not an NCAA swimmer.
One thing I often point out, which I think is very important, is this.
This is SwimmingWorldMagazine.com saying, Leah Thomas is not the only transgender swimmer to make the 100 freestyle final.
The NCAA Women's Division.
Isaac Hennig is a transgender swimmer for Yale.
His story is very different from Thomas, but also extremely similar in a lot of ways.
Hennig identifies as a transgender man, but has not gone through hormone replacement therapy, so is eligible to compete at the meet.
Hennig finished tied for 5th in the 100 freestyle in 47.32, tied with Louisville's Gabby Albiero.
Okay.
They're using male pronouns for Hennig.
Hennig is female, but identifies as a man, and thus, the media outlet and the left will use male pronouns.
My question is, why is a man competing against women?
Is it the female division?
No, because Leah Thomas is biologically male.
Okay.
Is it the women's division?
No, because Isaac Hennig identifies as a man.
So what are we doing?
That I will point out and say, I take issue with how they're operating this because there's no logic behind it.
The logic could simply be that it's the testosterone, it's the lower testosterone division.
Okay.
Maybe what we do then is we have like testosterone concentration brackets.
You know how we do with like boxing or UFC or whatever, MMA?
They'll be like, you know, the featherweight or the welterweight or the heavyweight champion.
Yeah, we're not gonna put a dude who's 5'5 and 160 pounds up against a dude who's 6'3 and 250 pounds of muscle.
It's like, that's dumb.
But what if we just separated MMA from men and women?
Then you would not have any of these smaller-ranking guys.
Stands to reason, then, maybe there would just be weight divisions.
Or height divisions.
I don't know.
Maybe it needs to be broken up that way.
Truth be told, though, I still think there's going to be inherent differences that are more pronounced between males and females, which play a role.
Such as body fat percentage, center of gravity is different between males and females.
It changes if you're exercising and building upper body muscle mass and things like that.
But women will still have a much lower center of gravity, which is interesting.
It is really interesting.
I was reading about skateboarding.
And I read some things about how women have better grind balance because they're lower center of gravity, because of the hip size versus shoulder size.
You can also see this in, there's this thing you do where you stand completely flat against a wall and then try and bend down to pick up a chair.
Women, females, can do it because their center of gravity is lower than men.
Men fall forward because their center of gravity is pulled higher.
That means that men can jump higher, but will need to crouch lower to be more stably balanced, things like that.
So anyway, I digress.
Look, the point is, What we're trying to work through here, in my opinion, is how we create divisions between people so that they're fair.
If, in fighting, we go by weight, you still have a men's division, but then you have, you know, a heightened division class.
Maybe that's what we could do.
Maybe what we do for the women's division is you have a 6' plus, 5'8 to 5'11, 5'6 to 5'7, and then Leah Thomas would not be competing against any of these other 5'5 females.
Maybe we make a transgender division, and then Isaac Hennig and Leah Thomas can compete against each other.
Leah Thomas, of course, not being on hormone replacement therapy, Which has hindered Thomas' ability to compete.
And Hennig, who is biologically female but identifies as a man... I think the problem right now is there's no rules.
That's it.
The rules the NCAA has put forward, I can plainly say, make no sense.
As for whether or not the rules should remain or change, my personal opinion is, I don't understand why they would stay this way when it doesn't make sense.
Either Hennig needs to be removed for being a man in a women's division, or Leah Thomas because it's a female division.
You can't have it both ways, it's confusing and makes no sense.
The problem, however, ultimately though, is what I revert back to.
You know what?
I don't know why I should be complaining about something I'm not involved in.
I do want to add one final thought, though.
I'm curious as to where this all leads, because I believe the ultimate conclusion to everything is outright transhumanism.
Hormone replacement therapy, I believe, started mostly in the 60s.
Hormones were first identified in 1905, and I can't remember what the first hormone identified was, but it was around like 1904, 1905.
And that's when they were like, hey, look at these things, hormones.
I believe that they were discovered and the term was created like a year later or something like that.
It was in the 60s when they started investigating, I believe they were investigating like helping women with menopause and hormone treatments.
So the ability to take hormones to generate secondary female sexual characteristics is relatively new and became prominent in the 90s.
So only within the past 30 or so years, which is why we're only now seeing these things happen, well right now.
You now have people who have been on hormone replacement therapy for long enough to have these questions be brought up.
But imagine a world before the discovery of hormones.
Someone who felt identified as a female or a male, a man or a woman when they weren't, you know, the corresponding biological sex.
They'd have no means of doing anything to change it.
I mean, they could dress up, but they couldn't change what their hormones were doing to their body.
Now we have an interesting question.
A technology has been developed.
Hormones have been isolated, and now we can suppress hormones and then supplant them with alternatives.
That means a biological male can have their testosterone reduced, and they can introduce estrogen, generating female secondary sexual characteristics.
It doesn't change the biological sex.
But the technology, it is the technological advancement that has created a cultural phenomenon.
I'm curious about what happens in the future, 50 years when we have Neuralink, and someone can enter a digital world where they can completely manufacture what their body will be.
Now, Neuralink is in its infancy.
Who knows how long, until we're at the point where you can attach a, like, you know, I don't think it'll be a hard input.
It could just be something you go on the side of your head or whatever, that syncs up with an implant, and then sends impulses to your brain to simulate reality.
Let's say in the simulated reality, you can touch, smell, see, and hear, and it's just like, it's actual reality almost.
It's not base reality though.
You could be playing Skyrim, and actually feeling the heat in your hand as you throw a fireball.
Imagine that world.
Now imagine, imagine this.
In today's reality, we do a lot of our work on the internet.
Many people have a digital persona that never interacts in reality.
There are people who work from home and don't actually meet people.
In fact, we have writers at TimCast.com.
I interact through chat, and I never see them.
They can come over and hang out, and they do sometimes, but for the most part, I never see them.
Our digital personalities communicate more than our physical realities, our physical personalities.
In which case, what happens when the metaverse becomes real?
And instead of commuting to work, we create a virtual reality office where we can sit down and talk to each other in real time.
What happens when we have that?
And one of the things we do with Timcast IRL, we don't like doing remote shows.
Because there's something missing when you're looking into a camera at somebody and hearing them talk versus sitting in front of them and actually arguing and talking over each other.
What happens when we can sit, argue, and talk over each other in the neural-linked metaverse?
What happens when you can create any body?
Well, I'll tell you this.
A transgender individual, like Leah Thomas, who enters into the metaverse, is likely going to create a fully biologically female avatar, not a male body that is transitioning.
They would, I would assume, prefer to just create a totally female avatar.
In that space, you might not know who that person is outside of that reality, because you could go into the metaverse, or whatever you want to call it, Go for a job interview and meet your co-workers, and you meet a bunch of strong and built six-foot-five men.
Everyone's chiseled, no one's out of shape, everyone's handsome and gorgeous.
And you talk to them and say, hey, you have a great personality.
And then you, maybe you're a woman, a biological female.
You enter the metaverse with a persona identical to your actual body, or facsimile of it, because that's how you identify.
And then you meet a very strong and attractive male, and you hit it off.
And then later on you you realize it's actually a female playing, you know, who identifies as a male.
There's going to be profound impacts on society as technology advances and people will be able to become whatever they want.
To put it simply.
Get ready for some dramatic changes.
And I don't think there's anything you can do about it.
You'll enter the metaverse, and you'll go to your workspace where you're working on a movie or a digital project, and there's going to be a cartoon tiger sitting in front of you.
Because that's what people identify as.
And he's gonna talk like this, with a voice filter.
That will be reality.
Not base reality, but where you do most of your work.
So what do you do?
Do conservatives say, no, no, no, no, no, we can't allow anonymity in this space?
Everybody has to be a representation of their actual physical self in the metaverse.
Of course not, that would never happen.
You will see identity issues never before seen.
The idea that someone could actually be biologically male and transition is only possible because of technology.
That is to say, don't be surprised if once we're in the metaverse in 30 to 40 years, you'll be working alongside Optimus Prime and The Mask.
You know, Jim Carrey's The Mask character.
If someone has the ability to take a hormone, a technology, and to transition, grow female breasts, or grow a beard, don't you think there will be people who will say, I want to be a dragon?
And they can use the metaverse to express that desire?
They will.
I don't think there's any real difference.
Now, I think the interesting thing is, regardless of what you represent yourself as in the metaverse, in base reality, your body will have a profound impact on what's happening.
Testosterone makes people aggressive, males or females.
So males tend to be more aggressive.
In the metaverse, you will see.
The people who are more agreeable will have a higher propensity towards being biologically female in base reality, and the people who are more aggressive and assertive will have a tendency towards being male in base reality.
