Democrats Funding MAGA GOP BACKFIRES Proving They're INSANE, Dems LOSE Voters As Party IMPLODES
Democrats Funding MAGA GOP BACKFIRES Proving They're INSANE, Dems LOSE Voters As Party IMPLODES. Democrats have been funding pro life conservative candidates they think are unelectable but this is just free money for Trump and the GOP.
Democrats are directly funding the messaging they say is destroying this country proving that they believe they are behind the sabotage of the U.S. in some hilariously stupid way.
But MAGA is actually growing more popular and it appears its thanks to the democrats.
#democrats
#republicans
#midterms
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Democrats have been secretly funding what they call far-right Republicans, thinking it'll be easier to defeat the Trump-supporting MAGA candidates than a moderate.
And it's backfiring.
They tried it in 2016.
It didn't work.
They're trying it now, and all they're doing is propping up the very message they claim is destroying this country.
If that's the case, Democrats are intentionally destroying this country by funding the people they say are destroying it.
It's insane.
But we'll see today in the primaries and the GOP how it plays out.
In our next story, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, who said that it appears there were paid agitators on January 6th, dies suddenly just before a surprise January 6th hearing.
In our last story, a 29-year-old male Defeated a 13-year-old female in a women's skateboarding competition, sparking outrage.
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.
Now, many of you probably have a lot of reasons why you think they're insane, be it on the left or the right.
Leftists, of course, are wondering why Democrats didn't codify Roe v. Wade when they had, like, a decade to do it.
Maybe they're not insane, maybe they're just duplicitous.
But on the right, you're probably saying, yeah, we know they're insane because they support insane policies that don't work, but I got one more for both of ya.
The Democrats have been funding MAGA candidates thinking it will help them win.
They're insane.
They are putting money into Republican primaries, supporting the far-right, as they call it, more MAGA candidates, more conservative candidates, thinking that it will help them win.
And what are we seeing?
Over one million Democratic voters have switched parties in the past year.
Now, of course, many are saying the Democrats are trying to sabotage the Republicans.
Well, some are.
And this funding is an attempt at doing that.
But, my friends, you need only go back in time six years to see exactly why this is insane.
The Democrats were trying to prop up what they called Pied Piper candidates.
Notably, Donald Trump, who then won.
Which makes you realize Right now.
NPR has reported this a week ago.
Politico is reporting it now that today is the primary.
We're going to see if it all pays off.
The Democrats funding Donald Trump, his message, and his supporters have expanded this idea.
So, if you're a Democrat, if you're a leftist, and you are wondering why it is that Donald Trump's support has grown, why he got 12 million more votes in 2020 despite losing, how could it be that more people are on board with America First National Populism?
It's because Democrats have been funding it consistently going back to 2015 thinking it helps them.
It's remarkable.
There's no such thing as bad press as they say.
They thought putting Donald Trump on CNN and MSNBC and HLN and all these networks and just ragging on him relentlessly was going to be bad for him, and then he ends up winning.
Many people point it out.
In fact, we had, I think it was TV News or it was Adweek, they put out this graph showing how much press Trump got versus Barack Obama or other candidates.
And it was insane.
It was like five to ten times more mentions in the press.
They thought, if we highlight the bad of these candidates, we're gonna win.
Well, here's the thinking.
Right now, Democrats are propping up what they call the far right because they view them as unelectable.
Here's what happens.
They flood money into the primary.
The more right-wing and conservative candidate wins, the message permeates into regular people who then start agreeing with that message and Voters who weren't planning on voting but had sympathies for these candidates come out to vote, and there you go.
The Pied Piper strategy didn't work six years ago.
It's not going to work today.
And they keep doubling down on it.
Here's the best part.
CNN is floating the idea of Hillary Clinton 2024.
Just stop.
Stop trying to make Hillary Clinton happen.
It's not going to happen.
And, well, heaven help us if it does.
But I don't see it.
That's why I think they're insane.
I think they've outright lost their minds.
They want to prop up Pied Piper candidates again.
That didn't work the first time.
And they want Hillary Clinton again.
That didn't work the first time.
It's almost like everything Democrats have complained about, with the January 6th hearing, with complaints about the far right and their threats of violence, are messages they've been propping up and then complaining about.
And it's not working.
So just stop.
That's the amazing thing.
They put money into what they claim is the problem.
The Democrats are directly funding and promoting what they are telling you, the American people, is the problem.
So, okay.
They deserve to lose for a million and one reasons.
Let's read exactly what's going on.
We have an NPR story and a Politico story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
You'll be supporting our journalists and our ever-growing, expanding team.
They write every day, we fact-check, and we really do appreciate your support.
We're working on some documentaries.
The Federal Reserve and Gun Control are two big projects we have lined up.
And we use infrastructure that is resilient to censorship, rumble infrastructure, because we don't want to put money into these companies that would censor us.
If you like what we do and you want to support the mission, head to TimCast.com and sign up.
But don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now with all your friends.
Let's get started with NPR.
Why Democrats are paying for ads supporting Republican primary candidates.
Democrats are buying ads supporting far-right GOP primary candidates in the hopes of facing them in the general election, a strategy that former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri tried in 2012.
It did work.
It doesn't work.
It won't work.
But thanks for the free money, I guess.
Now, I'll only read a little bit of this because this is an interview they've transcribed.
Ari Shapiro for NPR says, In Republican primary contests this election year, some candidates are getting a boost from an unexpected place.
Democrats!
They go on to say, Shapiro says, The House Majority PAC is affiliated with the Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The strategy playing out in many states goes like this.
Democrats give a boost to Republican primary candidates with extreme views, hoping they will be less competitive in the general election than a more moderate GOP candidate.
It's a risky move with potential to backfire.
Former Senator Claire McCaskill is a Democrat who has talked about how she used this tactic to win her race in Missouri in 2012.
Welcome back to All Things Considered.
McCaskill says, That is just so evil.
Every race is different. In my situation, there were three viable candidates. Like Todd Akin was kind of the weirdest
one.
I knew he might say some weird things if he were nominated, and so he had less money.
So we took a poll, figured out what Republican voters would really like about him,
and we spent millions of dollars promoting him by telling Missourians all the things that Republican primary voters
liked about him.
But the general election, independent voters didn't like about him.
Instead of saying like, here's the candidate, here's why you should vote for me, they trick people into supporting a candidate and then losing.
And every one of these people who bought into it, do you think they're happy when their candidate lost?
So I'll tell you what ends up happening.
The people who hear these things, who identify with this candidate, and then hear his message, They believe that message, they absorb those ideas, and they don't let them go.
Claire McCaskill, you're at fault for everything you claim is a problem today.
It's hilarious.
But here's what I want to say.
As we read the story of Democrats trying this strategy at a time when Democrats are unpopular, it shows that they are too stupid to understand why this won't work now.
People are switching from Democrat to Republican, not because the Republicans are offering something better.
They're doing it because Democrats are offering something bad, period.
Gas prices over $5.
Wokeness.
If you come out and prop up, in this way, a fringe far-right Republican, the voter isn't going to say, I don't like them.
They're going to say, screw the Democrats.
Gas is $5.
I would vote for a ham sandwich if it would beat you.
So while the Democrats prop up the message of the far-right, they say, they don't understand the reason they're going to lose has nothing to do with Republicans.
Andrew Yang.
With a Twitter thread.
Bravo, good sir.
I have things to criticize him for, but I do like the guy.
He says, Democrats are spending millions boosting more extreme and beatable candidates in Republican primaries around the country.
How much do you want to bet this backfires in some cases?
It already is, buddy.
It already has.
They've thought the same thing about Trump.
It's the perversion of the two-party system in action.
Tuesday's races feature four races in which Democratic candidates or groups are seeking to influence Republican primary voters, including a more than $30 million effort in the Illinois governor's race.
If one of the more extreme candidates wins, Democrats will then ask, how did this happen?
When anyone could have told them they were playing with fire, the losers will be the public.
Think about it.
Imagine weighing my chances of winning versus quality of leadership this community gets.
And coming out with, my chances of winning are more important than the chance that we elect someone extreme and out of step because we spent millions helping them.
They did this in Pennsylvania in the governor's race.
I don't know where PA goes this year.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Does this kind of polarizing BS make the case for a third party?
Yes, it does.
I'm just going to read one response right here.
They say, as a PA resident and voter, I'm not sure which way it's going either.
It's a weird state.
I'm trying to get the other residents of the homeless shelter where I'm staying registered to vote.
I think I'm making progress too.
I support Josh Shapiro on social media.
All I can do.
Well, here it is.
Democrats' big bets on GOP primaries come due.
What to watch in Tuesday's elections?
I don't think it matters what happens here.
I think it is fair to say an honest assessment is that the Democrats are outright insane.
At the very least, any one of you, left or right, can agree with the following statement.
Propping up a candidate, regardless of their politics, will amplify their base.
If the Democrats' idea is that these fringe far-right, as they'd call them, are unelectable, it is immaterial to whether or not they win or lose.
What matters is propping up candidate A means candidate A gets more followers for all their views.
The Democrats may think, well, at least we'll win.
But a year from now, let's say there's a guy named John Doe.
And he's far right.
They prop up his message.
He builds followers.
He gets new social media following.
He gets more money and more resources.
And they push the snowball down the hill.
They're hoping that by doing so, you'll freak out and beg them for help to stop the snowball.
But even if they do intervene, the snowball will keep gaining momentum and they are helping it.
Right now, you have the Democrats screeching, but Donald Trump in January 6th!
Let me show you how evil they are.
I hope this message reaches Democrats.
I hope this message reaches those who are concerned about January 6th.
So let me say, if you know someone who is a Democrat who hates Trump, please share with them this message.
An article from Politico in 2016.
They always wanted Trump.
Inside Team Clinton's year-long struggle to find a strategy against the opponent they were most eager to face.
November 7th, 2016.
November 7th.
This is two days before the election in which Donald Trump won.
They write, a set of tables stood where the bed should have been in the 12th floor Manchester hotel room Hillary Clinton's aides were using as a New Hampshire war room.
It was February 6th and their candidate was 44 miles east, desperately trying to excite New Englanders at Portsmouth rally, at a Portsmouth rally, after limping out of Iowa essentially tied against her challenger.
But New Hampshire was a lost cause, and their team knew it.
So instead of watching Clinton deliver a speech, members of her senior team huddled around a television in the room that served as a home base for campaign chairman John Podesta, manager Robby Mook, chief strategist Joel Benenson, and communications director Jennifer Palmieri.
They watched in shock as the man they had feared most as Republican nominee tanked under an assault designed to boot him from the GOP primary race.
By the end of the night, the narrative was set.
Marco Rubio had just lost it all on the debate stage, across town from the Radisson Hotel room, stuck in a robotic delivery of canned lines under Chris Christie's brutal cross-examination.
In Brutal Headquarters, staff in the 11th Floor Nerve Center called the Nevada Room broke into giddy laughter every time the increasingly desperate Rubio repeated himself.
In Megan Manchester, the new reality hit Clinton's inner circle like a ton of bricks.
There might be no one left who could stop Donald Trump from clinching the Republican nomination.
When Rubio got taken out in New Hampshire on the debate stage, that was a moment when I said, OK, this looks like it, said former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Kathy Sullivan.
He was the golden child at that point, and then was just destroyed.
That's when I realized that there was something bigger going on, added one of Clinton's longtime friends and advisors who I remember watching in disbelief.
Feeling in the moment that the ground was shifting underneath the campaign, Trump, quote, is a master manipulator and a master in the counterintuitive.
He knows exactly how to get things done.
It's disgusting to watch, but it's effective.
I'm going to say, even with that view emerging so early in the contest, Clinton's team would struggle in the ensuing months to land on a strategy that would stick.
Within days of the February GOP debate, Clinton's aide started considering how to redraw the battleground map it had been relying on for well over a year, assessing Colorado and Virginia's swing state status and rerunning the numbers on suburban white women and young Latinos.
They would direct the Democrat to try out and ditch one campaign slogan after another.
And as she finally wriggled out of the primary to face Trump, the strategy was still evolving, producing dramatic tactical shifts.
From embracing disaffected Republicans to firing up liberals.
From previewing an uplifting closing stretch to savaging Trump with an unprecedented television ad barrage.
It was supposed to be Jeb Bush, if you asked Democratic honchos in mid-2015.
Except when it was always supposed to be Scott Walker, eventually they insisted it was supposed to be Rubio, but it was never supposed to be Trump.
Clinton Circle's initial planning for Bush began even after Democrats wipe out in the 24 midterms, blah blah blah blah blah.
I want to bring you down to the leak of the Pied Piper candidates.
The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.
In this scenario, we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more Pied Piper candidates, who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Pied Piper candidates include, but aren't limited to, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson.
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to take them seriously.
And that's the point.
Donald Trump was that man.
So as they said, they always wanted Trump.
Now the Democrats tried claiming to a great degree, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We didn't want him.
We didn't want to beat him.
They did.
They wanted to prop Trump up.
They were hoping that Trump would come out and everyone would follow suit and it would make the Republicans unelectable.
They didn't know.
The polls were busted.
Their data was bad.
And now here we are.
They're doing the exact same thing.
Quite idiotic, I might tell you.
Democrats have a lot riding on Tuesday's primaries.
The Republican primaries, that is.
Tuesday's races feature four races in which Democratic candidates or groups are seeking to influence Republican primary voters, including a more than $30 million effort in the Illinois governor's race.
There are also multi-million-dollar campaigns to boost far-right Republican statewide candidates in Colorado, the one-time swing state where then-President Trump was trounced two years ago.
Plenty of other big-ticket primaries are on Tuesday.
Don't involve inter-party meddling.
They own a mansion.
Illinois, J.B.
Pritzker, and other Democrats didn't want to face Richard Irvin, so they begin funding other people.
They say Irvin has been bolstered by an extraordinary $50 million in donations from Ken Griffin.
But despite Griffin's largesse, Ervin is expected to fall flat on Tuesday, in part because of Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association, which have blasted Ervin on the airwaves for months, mostly with ads intended to dissuade GOP voters from supporting him, calling him soft on crime and insufficiently conservative.
They're trying to prop up more conservative individuals.
But I wonder if any of that matters, considering the Democrats are less than favorable.
The generic ballot right now for Congress Shows that Republicans are up around three points.
That is, people are being asked, who are you going to vote for, a Democrat or a Republican?
And they go, Republican.
It doesn't matter if they're far-right or not.
So the Democrats are helping far-right Republicans, so they claim, so they call them, in the primaries, who will likely win, and then get elected because regular people would vote for a ham sandwich at this point.
It's really incredible.
Axios writes, McCarthy's coming headache.
They say far-right candidates are surging in House races across the map.
Republican leaders increasingly fear the red wave will wash in a raft of conspiracy theorists and extremists.
It is amazing that it is Democrats that are doing this!
I love it!
establishment grows ever weaker.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on the doorstep of the Speaker's office can expect
to be saddled with new members who have zero loyalty or predictability.
I love it!
It's quite amazing.
We had Congressman Troy Nails on TimCast IRL.
He said he'd impeach Joe Biden.
I dig it.
But he also said he'd support Kevin McCarthy.
I don't dig it.
But I like Troy.
So, you know, we'll see.
Good luck to him.
He also said he didn't want to repeal the NFA.
So a lot of people didn't like that.
Supporting McCarthy and not wanting to repeal gun control bills?
But the generic Republican leadership won't do what needs to be done.
They won't investigate.
They won't impeach.
And that's McCarthy.
So now, Trump's MAGA base is expected to be entering the fray.
And it's thanks to Democrats.
The Democrats who are funding and propping up Trump supporters.
Let me give a shout-out, though, to all of those on the left.
Let me show you this from NPR.
Frustration at Biden and other Democrats grows among abortion rights supporters.
I'm gonna tell you right now.
It's almost as if the Democrats are secretly Republicans.
And I gotta give this one to the Democrat liberal leftist conspiracy theorists who think that the Democrats are secretly conservative.
Now, outwardly, the Democrats are all in favor of all this stuff and are like, oh, Roe v. Wade, but, um, Many are asking, how come when they had control of everything, they didn't codify Roe v. Wade under Obama?
They could have.
They didn't.
Why?
They needed the wedge issue.
They wanted it.
They wanted a wedge issue.
Democrats are accidentally or intentionally supporting Republicans who are winning.
They're giving money to them.
I don't care what you... Let me just stop right now.
Ignore the reason they claim, and let me just say, Democrats are funding Trump-supporting GOP members.
That's it.
Because they're insane.
When they come out and they say, this is what's wrong with this country, and then you're like, yeah, but you're the one funding all of it?
Okay.
If by that logic, assuming it's all true, Democrats are sabotaging this country intentionally.
If a Democrat says, the far right is destroying this country, and we are the ones propping them up and paying them, then you're destroying the country!
It's backfiring.
I'm glad it's backfiring.
And the Democrats are insane.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, just in time for the midterms, CNN says, The whispers of Hillary Clinton 2024 have started— No!
But Donald Trump was bad, so you gotta elect Hillary.
At this point, with the generic ballot favoring Republicans, I just, I think people are gonna be like, nope.
Hillary's awful.
I'll take a Republican.
No, it isn't.
CNN says.
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court's monumental decision to overturn Roe v. Wade,
conservative writer John Ellis took to the internet to make a provocative case.
It was time for Hillary Clinton to make another political comeback.
No it isn't.
No, please stop.
Now is her moment, he wrote.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton
to get out of stealth mode and start down the path declaring her candidacy for the 2024
Democratic presidential nomination.
Ellis' argument is centered on the ideas that 1.
President Biden will be 82 shortly after the election.
He's simply too old to run again.
And 2.
The Democratic bench is not terribly strong.
I mean, those things are true.
He's not the only person called eyeing a Clinton re-emergence.
Writing in the Hill newspaper, Juan Williams makes the case that Clinton should be a major figure on the campaign trail this year.
Clinton is exactly the right person to put steel in the Democrats' spine and bring attention to the reality that ultra-MAGA Republicans, as President Biden calls them, are tearing apart the nation.
Keep talking and talk louder, Hillary.
Can I just tell you guys, if they prop up Hillary and more Trump-supporting candidates, you're asking for a repeat of 2016, which results in Hillary losing, people barfing in their mouths a little bit, and then an expansion of Trump support.
Thanks for the money, I guess!
They go on to say, Biden is giving every indication that even at his advanced age, he is planning to run again.
The New York Times posted a piece Monday night headlined, Biden irked by Democrats who won't take yes for an answer because he's too old.
But I'm not here to say the Democrats for themselves.
Nope.
They've done this to themselves, and you reap what you sow.
The Daily Beast, a fake news website, says NewsGuard.
Let me just make sure I can pull this up.
FAKE NEWS, says NewsGuard.
Opinion.
Will raging liberals cause an anti-Democrat backlash?
Dems hope the end of Roe v. Wade will energize their base this November, but you can expect progressive overreach to alienate everyone else again?
I certainly think so.
Oh, they want me to register.
I'm not going to read your ridiculous article, but The Daily Beast, you are fake news.
You are fake news, The Daily Beast.
Let's see if we can read it anyway.
Democrats are betting that anger over the reversal of Roe v. Wade will take down Republicans in the 2022 midterms.
This is a plausible of desperate hope.
The theory is that the winning side of such a long struggle will now be pacified, while the losing side is energized and outraged.
And abortion rights with some limits remain broadly popular.
Republicans have a secret weapon.
Democrats pensioned for progressive overreach.
We are already seeing signs at multiple levels among activists, elite celebrities, and politicians.
It raises the question, could there be a backlash against the backlash?
Yes!
Elon Musk has come out and said, y'all are losing it!
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating 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.
Anna Navarro doubles down on comments about aborting special needs babies.
During CNN's coverage of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, network contributor Anna Navarro used her own relatives of special needs to explain why she believes in abortion.
Quote.
I have a family with a lot of special needs.
I have a brother who is 57 and has the mental and motor skills of a one-year-old.
And I know what that means financially, emotionally, physically for a family, she stated.
I have a step-granddaughter who was born with Down syndrome, and you know what?
It is very difficult in Florida to get services.
It is not as easy as it sounds on paper, and I've got another.
I've got a step-grandson who is very autistic who has autism.
If it is conservative to say that people of special needs have a right to life, and that I believe we should provide services to help these people, but you think they should be dead, I will vote against you every step of the way.
They're going to elect.
The Democrats are propping up pro-life candidates.
That's what they claim is far-right.
In Colorado, they're like, this one guy is moderately pro-choice.
Let's prop up the guy who's completely pro-life.
I would vote for the pro-life guy if it means voting against you murderous psychopaths.
Some people... I have a friend who has a very, very, very autistic sibling to the point of complete disability.
And I feel bad.
Because the strain and the struggle the family faces.
But I also... I also feel a sense of... I don't know what the right word is.
I want to compliment them.
A family that raised someone of special needs, accepting the burden and the responsibility of what it means to have someone who struggles every day with this.
You think about what this means.
She says, their mothers and people who are in society, who are in that community will tell you that they considered suicide because of how difficult it is to get help.
Because that's how lonely they feel.
Because they can't get other jobs, because they have financial issues, because they care.
That they're able to give their other children suffers.
Tucker Carlson pointed out, it sounded like she was advocating for eugenics.
What else could it mean when you say abortion is important because I have special needs siblings and family members?
You're basically saying they should have been aborted.
So here's the issue.
There's a story that comes from my neighborhood.
And I apologize if I'm bringing up a sore subject, people back in Chicago.
But there is a very famous musician named Chris Medina.
I've known him since I was 12 years old.
I wouldn't say that we're like friends or anything, not to be rude, it's like we don't really hang out or talk, but we know each other from the neighborhood, and I would say we've made each other's acquaintances, we've hung out at the same places, many mutual friends, and he taught me how to make my first chord on a guitar.
He became very famous when he appeared on American Idol.
His fiancé had been in a car accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury.
Disabling her.
I knew them both.
I remember, I have a fond memory of being at a Halloween party and seeing them both and them both being like, yo, what's up man?
Good to see you.
And it's crazy.
I remember when this happened.
And it broke my heart and I saw their story and it brought a tear to my eye.
Tears.
Chris Medina told the story about how he would never give up on his fiancée.
And he wrote a song called Water Words because she was in a wheelchair, struggling to speak and to live, and he stood by her side, sacrificing his dreams.
And he became famous.
And his song became number one in Scandinavia, where he eventually moved and now leads, excuse me, a successful life, recently releasing more music.
I don't know the full details of his story with him and his fiancée, but she suffered a very serious injury and he stood by her side.
I bring this up because when someone insinuates that someone of special needs should have been aborted because people are suffering and they can't handle this, it's shockingly insane and it freaks me out.
Because the insinuation is that people who are suffering in special needs shouldn't be alive.
What does that say of someone like Juliet, who was a normal, regular human being, and suffered an injury, and then became special needs?
How could you say of this 57-year-old man who suffers, or someone who has autism, that abortion is important because of these issues?
It's like, Should they not be alive?
To me, that's really scary.
It's really, really scary that you would make that insinuation.
That these people should not be alive.
Because I know these stories.
So here's what I have to say.
This idea that people should not be alive because you don't think they're valuable or whatever is what drives me to vote for a pro-life conservative or a Republican.
It's shockingly scary and I don't know what else to say.
It's just pissed me off and freaked me out because I've seen these stories, I know these stories, and this is the direction the left has gone.
I can't do it.
I can't.
And they're funding the pro-lifers?
Well, I'll vote for whoever I have to if I'm voting against you.
If I'm voting against these ideas.
Because they're disgusting?
I think they're wrong.
Now maybe she'll come out and say, oh no, I didn't need that, I didn't need that.
But she said, her disabled brother and step-granddaughter, who has Down Syndrome, are examples of why they need abortion.
Sorry, man.
I'm going to speak out against you.
I'm going to vote against you.
And I'm pro-choice.
But what is this?
It's just... It's just vomitous.
So yes, people are switching parties.
If the Democrats keep propping up the far-right as they describe it, everyone's going to come out and vote for whoever they want, or they're going to vote for whoever they can to vote against you.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news.
The January 6th Select Committee has announced a surprise hearing to present new evidence!
And I don't care.
Not at all.
I'm not gonna watch it.
It's a waste of time.
And it's non-adversarial.
You've got people going up, just giving their opinions, and there's no cross-examination.
There's no real attempt at understanding what happened.
But there is, my friends, a conspiracy afoot.
So here's the story that's going viral.
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stanger, who was in charge of securing the Capitol on January 6th, dies suddenly just one day before the Capitol Riot Committee is set to call a surprise hearing to present newly uncovered evidence.
Well, Sergeant-at-Arms, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stanger, Had stated something about paid provocateurs or agitators being there on January 6th.
The Daily Mail has gone and done something humorous, in my opinion, or how about we just say irresponsible, and linked that to the surprise hearing, making it seem like he was supposed to testify and be like, there were paid agitators and, oh no, I'm dead!
In reality, Cassidy Hutchinson is going to be testifying, that's the surprise, the first White House staff to testify publicly at the committee.
But there is something that we really should talk about that's quite annoying and is a bit more conspiratorial.
While I do think we can read this story and address what it really means that this guy died, We also have another individual being raided by the Feds, this time pro-Trump attorney John Eastman, saying federal agents seized his phone and forced him to unlock it as Justice Department cracks down on ex-president and his allies' 2020 election fraud claims.
But here's the big story.
Story, uh, it's actually a couple days old, but I think, considering we have this news this morning.
New evidence undercuts January 6th's instigator conspiracy theory.
The anatomy of false framing, manipulation, and lies from the New York Times.
Ray Epps.
You've heard the name?
There's a video of him inciting people to go into the Capitol.
There's a video of him whispering into a man's ear who then breaks down a barrier and storms into the Capitol grounds.
The New York Times is engaged in quite a bit of media manipulation to undercut the claim to protect this guy, which in fact only makes the conspiracy theories worse.
Look, maybe Ray Epps is just some random guy.
He started cooperating with the Feds, so they cut him slack.
He sold out people at the event.
He gave them evidence, so they said, OK, you're free to go.
Simple.
I'm not saying that Ray Epps is a federal informant or anything like that.
I have no evidence to suggest that.
I'm saying that may be the case.
But the New York Times is omitting information and falsely framing the claims made against him, which just makes the conspiracy even weirder.
They omit evidence.
They then... I gotta show you this article because it is, it is, it is, like, I'm sorry.
It really does feel like the New York Times went out of their way to make sure they manipulated information on this story to confuse you.
Yeah.
So we'll read that, but let's get started with why this guy died and break down the conspiracy of the insurrection.
Daily Mail reports, The man in charge of protecting the Senate during the
Capitol riot has died just a day before the committee investigating the attack was set to reveal new
evidence in a surprise session.
Michael Stenger, 71, was the sergeant at arms of the Senate on the day of the attempted insurrection.
I have to say it like that because it's just so silly that they would say that word.
I mean, that's true.
And he should resign.
he had failed to react effectively to the building being overrun.
I mean, that's true.
And he should resign.
His sudden death on Monday came the same day an unexpected additional hearing of the committee investigating the riot
was announced.
The surprise meeting will present recently obtained evidence and receive witness testimony.
Okay.
The Senate Sergeant at Arms said there were paid agitators or something to that effect.
He died suddenly, but he was 71 years old.
Come on.
Dying suddenly at 71 is not so much a conspiracy other than he made it to 71.
Alright, well, the average life expectancy, I think, what is it, like 76 or something like that?
But that's 71 years old, man.
I mean, these things happen.
And I don't think that a non-adversarial committee hearing is going to present any evidence that actually makes Trump look good or exposes what this man was actually saying.
So it's just unrelated.
I know everybody wanted to believe that this guy was going to come out and be like, I've got the documents and slams them on the table.
No, it's a non-adversarial hearing.
The committee would never bring this guy on to actually testify and make Trump look good.
Sorry, it's not going to happen.
He's a 71-year-old man, he just died, and... I don't know, people want to believe in the conspiracies.
I tweet out the image with LOL whatever, and of course people are retweeting it, and of course I'm sure the left will get mad at me or whatever, because they're like, why don't you break down the context?
Shut up, it's Twitter.
In a private meeting, Hutchinson previously said Meadows was warned in advance that there could be trouble on January 6th.
Her video deposition was used to support the committee's argument that several of the Republicans later sought presidential pardons.
Quote, We had intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th, Hutchinson told the panel, in a portion of a transcript shared in court documents in April, and Mr. Meadows said, all right, let's talk about it.
Hutchinson was present during meetings between Meadows and multiple House Republicans who backed Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election.
She also said that she saw Meadows burn documents.
I mean, interesting stuff, but not under oath and no cross-examination, so she may as well be farting into the microphone as far as I'm concerned.
Meadows had been subpoenaed by the committee, but refused to cooperate.
I know that he was on several calls during the rally, Hutchinson testified.
And I went over to meet with him at one point, and he had just waved me away, which is out of the ordinary.
The shock additional hearing was reportedly kept a secret, in part owing to security threats to a witness, the Washington Post reported.
Hey, look, man.
If they're burning documents, lock them up.
Investigate.
But we need a cross-examination.
We need an investigation.
We need under oath statements.
You can't just be like, we're gonna bring in the people we want.
They can say whatever they want.
It's not under oath.
Come on.
Stanger previously served in the United States Marine Corps and spent 35 years in the Secret Service.
He was a chief law enforcement officer and head of protocol for the chamber since 2008.
Okay, okay, so we get it.
He said, there is an opportunity to learn lessons from the events of January 6.
Investigation should be considered as to funding and travel of what appears to be professional agitators.
Well, well, well.
And what does that really mean?
Funding and travel?
It doesn't mean feds.
Whatever he was saying, I think it's worth investigating.
You've got people who somehow make it to these events and instigate, and these are the questions that lead us to Ray Epps.
Was he a federal informant?
No idea.
Probably not.
I don't know.
Maybe he was.
Whatever.
Could he have been one of these professional agitators?
Yes.
Will there be an investigation?
Not from these people.
And these are the things that we want answered.
And that's the strangest thing.
If they just came out and said, look, we've done a background into this guy and honestly assessed the claims made against him, I'd accept it.
But they're not.
The New York Times is just obfuscating reality.
It's very strange.
I want to make sure I mention this before we get into the other story.
A pro-Trump attorney being raided by the feds.
Sorry, dudes.
The government is in disarray and it's collapsing.
That's just it.
You know what?
Look, I get it.
People in power want to try and struggle to maintain the system.
Civil war and strife, not a good thing.
But this?
You're not helping.
Sorry.
The Feds raiding Trump supporters, senior DOJ officials, it only serves to shatter confidence in the system.
It's only making it worse.
So when I look at this stuff, I'm just like, hmm, seems like the Feds are trying to destroy the United States.
And I mean that literally, like, this makes it seem Like, federal agents sat there and said, you know, asked themselves what they could do to destroy confidence in the federal government, and then went out and did it!
I can't imagine they don't understand the ramifications of their actions.
Because we've heard it publicly, like, it's dangerous to go after Hillary, we can't do it because it would cause disarray and all that stuff, and we're mad about it because if you break the law, you break the law.
But this?
Going after a DOJ official's phone, uh, raiding his house.
It's Jeffrey Clark.
The guy's not accused of any crime.
That's where things start getting crazy.
Because he wanted to investigate fraud?
I don't care.
The system is breaking down.
I bring you now to this story from the New York Times.
For those that aren't familiar, and probably don't care, because I gotta be honest, most people don't care about January 6th.
This is the reality.
Poll after poll shows people are just like, I don't care, gas is five bucks a gallon, get out of my face.
But I can't help it.
I saw a story and it was fake news and I said, oh, I have to address it.
Let's break it down.
New evidence undercuts January 6th instigator conspiracy theory.
So say at the New York Times.
Recordings released to defense lawyers directly challenge assertions by prominent Republicans that an Arizona man named Ray Epps was a federal informant and helped start the Capitol riot.
Okay.
Slow down there a little.
Slow down there a minute, Haas.
Ray Epps was a federal informant and helped start... Ah, you see how they play that game.
There's a lot of questions surrounding Ray Epps.
One, was he a federal informant?
Two, why has he not been held to account either way?
The reason the first question is being asked is because this man is seen on camera inciting people to storm the Capitol building.
And then, he's not being arrested or charged, so people want to know.
Now, was he a federal informant prior to the events of January 6th?
No idea.
There's no evidence to suggest that.
That's why people are asking the question.
They've denied it.
Many people have denied it.
Is he a federal informant now?
Perhaps.
But let me show you how the New York Times frames this to manipulate the story.
You notice they say, was he a federal informant and helped start the riot as if it's one fact check.
One thing.
And they use the one thing to discredit the whole thing.
I'll give you the example I'll often give on how the media manipulates you.
Donald Trump will do a backflip, you know, off the balcony into the Rose Garden and land perfectly in a superhero pose and the ground shakes and whoa!
And then everyone will watch the video, and they'll start talking about this amazing backflip that Donald Trump did, and they'll say, wow, this is why I voted for him.
Snopes will then say, did Donald Trump really do a backflip off of the balcony into the Rose Garden?
Say, never happened, it's fake news, and then all the way at the bottom of the article, for those who actually make it there, they'll say, well, Donald Trump did do an amazing backflip landing in a superhero pose, it was on Sunday, not Saturday.
Fake.
So then, people will take the headline, did Donald Trump do a backflip into the Rose Garden on Saturday?
False.
Not true.
Share it all around.
But if you removed the, on Saturday, ooh, it would have been true, huh?
I mean, I'm joking.
Donald Trump obviously didn't do a backflip, but this is what they're doing here.
Here's what they write.
Prominent Republicans, including former President Donald J. Trump, have for months promoted a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man named Ray Epps was a federal informant who helped to instigate the attack on the Capitol on January 6th.
Now, that is technically correct, the best kind of correct, but the issue is, Many people have promoted the theory that he was a federal informant because he's not been held accountable for inciting a riot.
That doesn't mean to say that people believe it's a guarantee he was.
The idea is, how is it this guy did a thing we all saw on camera and was not held accountable?
Why isn't he being investigated?
Maybe it's because he's cooperating.
Simple answer, right?
The claims made in congressional hearing rooms on Fox News and Mr. Trump's political rallies have largely been based on a video taken just before violence erupted at the Capitol, showing Mr. Epps at the barricades outside the building whispering into the ear of a man named Ryan Samsel.
Within moments of the brief exchange, Mr. Samsel, a Pennsylvania barber, can be seen moving forward and confronting the police in what amounted to the tipping point of the riot.
Despite lacking proof of their claims, many Republicans have surmised that Mr. Epps instructed Mr. Samsel to antagonize the officers.
They have also pushed the notion that because Apps was not been arrested, he must have been working for the government.
Now that last sentence is technically fair.
But what they didn't include is that the night before, Ray Epps tells people to breach the Capitol, and everyone starts chanting, Fed!
Fed!
Because it's an insane thing to ask people to do.
So when you have a video of him saying that, then you have a video of him whispering in a guy's ear, and then immediately he goes and tries ripping the barricade down and escalating the riot.
This guy had told people to breach, That's why people are assuming he told this other guy.
I don't know what he said, but the New York Times is engaged in media manipulation.
They say, for more than a year, well before the name Ray Epps was widely known, and the Circle's federal authorities have had information from both him and Samsell suggesting he was not a government agent and did not encourage the younger man to engage with the police.
The claim from both was that he went up to the guy and said, dude, relax.
The cops are doing their job.
That's what Mr. Samsel claims was whispered into his ear.
Perhaps.
And then right after Ray Epps said, relax, they're doing their job, Samsel stormed the barricade?
Okay, I guess.
I mean, sure.
But the New York Times is ignoring the video from the night before where people were screaming fed at this guy, Ray Epps, for suggesting people breach the Capitol.
Why is this not here included in this?
They say they've been debunked before, most notably after he spoke last year to investigators working with the House Select Committee, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Here's what I love.
They say, just two days after the attack, Mr. Epps saw himself on a list of suspects.
He called an FBI tip line and told investigators he had tried to call Mr. Samsel down when they spoke, according to three people who have heard a recording of the call.
Yeah.
Well, I haven't.
And I don't accept your reporting, New York Times, because you've omitted information already.
This is the kind of thing you get from the media.
The way the media manipulates.
This is why you end up with conspiracy theories.
Because the New York Times is either so completely inept that they did not actually know what people are arguing about this or they're willfully trying to manipulate.
And then you see this.
Pro-Trump attorney John Eastman.
The lawyer says he was leaving a restaurant in New Mexico when he was served with a warrant by federal authorities.
Eastman said agents gained access to his email accounts, a court filing says.
It reportedly happened the same day feds raided the home of Jeffrey Clark.
Clark is a Trump loyalist who the ex-president tried to install as head of the DOJ.
The Justice Department is intensifying its crackdown on members of Trump's orbit who are accused of aiding his attempts to stay in power.
So, the president comes out and says, I believe a crime was committed, and if you worked with him and said, okay, we'll take a look into it, the feds will come and crush you.
This is why there are conspiracy theories.
Because the federal government is going after Trump and people want things answered.
And the New York Times is manipulating the narrative and people feel like they're being underserved or they're being attacked by the establishment, by the media, by the Democrats, and by law enforcement.
Maybe the reality is these law enforcement individuals are just not smart enough to understand what they're doing and how it's going to destroy everything.
But this is what you get.
A non-adversarial January 6th committee that matters not to most people, that is targeting the political rivals of the Democrats, which continues on a track that we have seen throughout the Trump presidency.
That is, Hillary Clinton signing off of the Steele dossier, the lies levied against Donald Trump, which ultimately lead to the Russiagate investigation.
Hillary Clinton herself pushed these lies about Alphabank.
That Donald Trump was involved with some Russian bank.
Just complete fabrications.
Democrat lawyers posting that they were going to impeach Donald Trump the day he gets inaugurated.
And then Trump gets jammed up with his investigation.
It carries on.
For the past five years, many people in this country have felt like the country was ripped apart.
And I don't blame them.
The collapse that we are seeing probably happened in 2016, and now it's just a slow-motion fall.
Donald Trump was the Pied Piper candidate, the Democrats said.
He wasn't supposed to win.
And then he did.
And that's fascinating.
There's another story that I'll probably get into in greater detail later.
I've talked about it before.
Democrats are funding Republicans.
That's right.
Andrew Yang went off on Twitter complaining about this saying it's insane.
Democrats are pouring money into the candidacy of more extreme far-right candidates or MAGA candidates, whatever, thinking they will be unpopular and that will help them win.
It is one of the most insane strategies I've ever heard.
With Donald Trump, there was a leaked email where they said they should promote him because he was a Pied Piper candidate.
The idea was that many people would support Trump, but there was no way he could win an election.
And then he did.
And then in 2020, he got 12 million more votes than he got in the previous election.
Still lost.
But Donald Trump will beat Joe Biden in 2024 if there's a rematch.
The economy is just in the gutter.
So the Democrats are doubling down on this strategy?
It's absolutely amazing.
It didn't work the first time, it won't work the second time, but that's what they're doing.
So in the end, it's almost like everything they are doing is on purpose and will result in the end of the United States.
But this is what I've said before.
You want to overthrow the U.S.?
How do you do it?
You want to take away guns?
It's tough.
That Constitution's right there in the way.
Nancy Pelosi came out and called the Supreme Court extremist!
Well, how do you get rid of the Constitution?
You need a civil war.
You need to rip this country apart.
I don't know for sure, but there's a lot of ideas, a lot of theories that I don't think have too much evidence, but it's just fun to speculate.
Thucydides' Trap, the idea that the United States will be entering a war with China, it's inevitable.
Because China is a rising economic power, and as soon as it supplants the U.S., war will break out.
Thucydides' Trap says that whenever a rising economic power displaces the dominant power, there's a war.
In 12 of 16 historical moments, it's happened.
How do you avert that?
Destroy the United States.
Prevent it from happening and, you know, prevent the United States from maintaining itself as an economic power, destroy its military capabilities and its culture, and then there won't be war.
Yeah, maybe.
A third world war with China and nuclear weapons would probably wipe out humanity.
And maybe that's what they're thinking.
Or maybe that's just not really happening and humans are just dominoes falling over, carrying along, and it's all entirely predictable.
I can't tell you because I don't know.
I can't see the future, as I often say.
I can only present to you these stories and say, A shock January 6th hearing, and the Sergeant-at-Arms mysteriously dies.
Yeah, okay, guys, come on.
The dude was 71 years old.
There's nothing that's gonna come out in the January 6th hearing or anything.
I don't know.
Maybe, sure, this guy was gonna come out and say, I can hold back no longer!
I have evidence on the individuals who instigated I think the interesting thing is, when he's mentioning professional agitators, he may be referring to Ray Epps.
And that's why the New York Times has an update on their article trying to discredit this idea that Ray Epps was somehow involved.
Maybe Ray Epps wasn't an informant.
Maybe he's just a Democrat.
Could it be?
If the Democrats are funding Republicans and Pied Piper candidates, as they claim, maybe Ray Epps is just a Democrat who is trying to instigate to make Republicans look bad.
That's simple, right?
Maybe if that information got out, it'd be really, really devastating for Democrats.
So they keep falling back on he was a federal informant.
No, maybe he was just some dotard, and he wanted to hurt Republicans by making them look stupid.
And it worked.
Maybe he was genuinely a Trump supporter who instigated and then went, uh-oh, and he's cooperated with the Fed, so they've let him off the hook.
No idea.
I don't know, man.
I think that January 6th is a big waste of time.
Let's talk about gas prices.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Another controversy is erupting pertaining to trans women in sporting events.
This time, the story from Tim Cass says, a 29-year-old transgender woman just beat 13-year-old girl in New York City's Border Open Skateboarding Championship.
I'm seeing a lot of people frame the story this way, and it's true.
But it is worthy of some deeper analysis.
Now I think it's a fair writing from TimCast.com because it's true.
Shiloh, who's 13, would have come in first place were it not for 29-year-old biological male Richie Trez competing in the border open.
However, this is not the same as the Taylor Silverman story.
In this story, Shiloh, who is 13, defended Richie Trez, posting a video to Instagram saying, I appreciate the support, but I am okay with what happened.
And this is where we need to have a conversation about what it means to have a women's division and what's currently happening in this space.
As most of you know, I am an avid skateboarder.
I recently, I think I broke my wrist.
Probably a small bone or something.
I've had sprains before, so I don't think it's a sprain.
But I will say, I wasn't skateboarding when I did it.
I was rollerblading.
But I do skateboard.
I was skateboarding the other day.
I typically don't get hurt skateboarding, but I've been rollerblading too.
Anyway, I digress.
I know quite a bit about the biological differences between males and females as it pertains to skateboarding because it's not solely about... It's not just about muscle strength or endurance or anything like that.
The shape of one's body plays a significant role.
In this story, many people are outraged for two reasons.
A trans woman, a biological male, competing against young girls, and a 30-year-old competing against a 13-year-old.
That one, I have no issue with.
A 30-year-old competing with a 13-year-old?
Yeah, well, this is what happens when you don't have enough female skateboarders, or women skateboarders, however you want to define it.
It's an open contest with no age brackets.
When it comes to male skateboarding, the male divisions, yeah, you're gonna get age brackets because there's 99% of skateboarders are males.
Now, That's where people start to take issue with this.
Well, at the very least, then, you have a male competing against a female.
There's so much to break down here.
But what I really want to break down is why Shiloh, who should have gotten first place, defended Richie, and what this means for Shiloh's dreams of being in the Olympics.
Shiloh, who would have come in first place, released a video on Instagram saying she is focused on her goal of making it to the Olympics, and she's not super concerned about what happened with Richie Tres or anything like that.
Okay.
Perhaps what we need, before I get too crass and make everybody angry, perhaps what we need is a female division and a woman's division.
Would that satisfy everyone?
Perhaps there should be a trans division.
I don't know.
The issue here is, women's division sports weren't created because sometimes someone wears a dress.
It was created because biological females have a totally separate set of... have a different biology.
It's bimodal.
compared to males.
This means that, well, I'll put it this way.
Did you know that many drug trials are only carried out on men, but drugs interact with
women differently?
Because they even have different organs than men.
There was a bill passed, and I believe it was 1993, that said drug trials needed to
be performed on women as well as men.
In fact, certain painkillers don't work as well on women.
So, women would be going into surgery experiencing extreme pain because the doctors were like, we trialed these drugs, they kill pain, so saith the men, and the women would suffer because of it.
So I'll bring that up.
I'll make sure that is clear.
There is a biological distinction between males and females.
I think everyone knows.
But young Shiloh here, she's 13, impressionable, and probably just saying what she's told to say.
That's my opinion.
But let's operate under her own desires.
In which case, young Shiloh, I'm sorry, but you are not good enough to be in the Olympics.
And it is my opinion that you will probably never be.
Now that's only based on your standard.
The reality is, for as long as Shiloh has been skating, she's just not that good.
Period.
Now hold on there a minute.
In the women's division, Shiloh's actually really, really good.
And therein lies the issue.
Is it bigoted and misogynistic, sexist, or transphobic of me to point that out?
Okay.
Um, I'll tell you this.
I don't know exactly how long Shiloh has been skating.
I can tell you I don't think Richie Trez should be competing against females, but Shiloh has said she wants that to be the case.
I don't mean to be mean or condescending to this little girl who's competing and trying her best, but I want to present to you a scenario.
How the future of sporting will be should we carry out exactly as Shiloh described it.
Supportive and accepting of what's happening with Richie.
And then I will put it very simply.
I don't know how long Shiloh has been skateboarding.
She posted a video to Instagram saying this clip was from 3 years ago, which would make her about 10 years old, and she slams pretty hard trying to do what is a trick called a roll-out smith grind.
She bashes her face on the ground.
Brutal.
She then, several years later, accomplishes the feat, performing the trick.
At three years, from 10 to 13, she's just not that good.
And I can prove it because I can show you a video of me skating for just about the same amount of time, and I'm thrashing!
Dropping tray bombs down gaps, doing feeble grinds down rails, just oof, wow.
Hey, but wait a minute.
Not only am I biological male, I actually started skating later than Shiloh.
So I'm like 17 years old, 16 and 17, doing frontside shifty flips, gapping, you know, 7-foot drops over railings and stuff like that.
And I know a lot of people are gonna be like, that's not fair, Tim, you're older.
I'm like, that's the point.
That's the point.
How can you judge the two of us, having skated at the same time, when not only am I older with more muscle mass and more bone density, but as a male, narrower hips, higher center of gravity, giving me greater clearance ability, jumping, ollies as they're called.
It doesn't make sense, does it?
Let me read the story for you, and then I'll show you what's going on with this.
And then we'll talk a little bit about Taylor Silverman as well, because this is... I think we need to have a nuanced conversation here.
From TimCast.com.
Richie Tres, 29, took first place and the $500 prize in the women's division, with Shiloh Katori, 13, coming in second.
Four of the top six finalists were 16 years old and younger.
Now, a lot of people have pointed to the age, saying, Richie is 29, that's not okay.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's... Chrissy Brown, a.k.a.
Saucy, is 28 years old.
This is an open skate division.
These are normal, okay?
If you don't like it, well, that's reality.
When I was 19, I skated in a contest against a 13-year-old and lost.
And, like, legit, the 13-year-old boy roasted.
You know what, can I just point this out?
I skated in a contest against a 13-year-old who was better at skateboarding than me at 19.
13-year-old boy, 19-year-old man.
I did some good tricks.
One of my favorite was that I did what's called a bean plant fakie on like a 6-foot quarter pipe.
That was fun because it scared the crap out of me because I'd never actually done it before.
But I was in a contest, I was all heated.
Um, I bailed.
My run wasn't that good.
Inconsistent.
You know, I was doing this thing where I was like, ollying over this box, and then I was doing a hard flip over a ramp and doing a trick called a hard flip, and I was landing it.
And then when it came to my run, I screwed it up.
I ollied a big gap.
Kid Kick flipped it.
The board flipped under his feet when he did it.
He was better than me.
So I lost to a 13-year-old.
It happens.
So I don't think age plays a role necessarily, because skateboarding's an interesting sport.
However, Richie Treys, as a biological male, has narrower hips.
That's just reality.
I'm not trying to dig at Richie.
Narrower hips means less likelihood of leg and knee injuries and ankle injuries.
Females have wider hips.
Obviously.
And this results in something called a wider quadricep angle.
So the femurs are at a greater angle with the quadriceps than in males who are narrower.
That means when coming down and absorbing impact, there's a higher tendency towards injury to the knees because the femurs are at an angle.
That's a disadvantage women have.
No matter what you do with hormones, it will not change that.
There's also fast twitch and slow twitch muscle advantages.
Prenatal testosterone increases the amount of fast twitch muscle.
Fast twitch muscle allows you to create big bursts of energy, meaning you'll be able to jump higher.
But have less endurance.
The big advantage for Richie Treys is the higher center of gravity due to narrower hips and broader shoulders.
In skateboarding, a low center of gravity is good for balance, but you can manipulate your center of gravity by crouching down.
With males having a higher center of gravity, if they jump, say a 12-inch vertical jump, meaning with their legs fully extended, they're 12 inches off the ground, they can then pull their knees up to their center of gravity, creating an additional maybe 10 or even 20 inches of clearance.
You can clear a lot by moving your knees up.
For females, they can't because their center of gravity is lower to their hips.
Meaning, even if they had the same vertical jump of 12 inches, if they pulled their knees up, their knees would only go up to their center of gravity, creating lower clearance.
It's a huge advantage males have in skateboarding.
Now, that being said, let's read more and talk about the future of what is to hold for people like Jordan Pascal, Shiloh Katori, Juri Likura, Chrissy Brown, and Jessica Palmeter, who were all bumped down and lost money due to Richie Trace.
Now, I will say, Juri and Jessica didn't lose money because they all got $100 for coming in their positions, but someone else was bumped off these rankings.
According to the report from feminist website Redux, in 2021 Trace became the first trans-identified male to attempt to qualify for Olympic women's skateboarding, submitting a virtual run for the USA National Skateboarding Championships.
Trace was unable to meet the short deadline to submit a hormone levels test, but was later told his testosterone was much higher than the required levels to compete in the female category.
The report says that Trace is comfortable with where they are hormonally and is not rushing to lower testosterone levels.
In a video that was published on YouTube, they mentioned that upon review, the judges said Tres would have won.
I believe would have qualified for the Olympics, at the very least, qualified.
But there's a problem with trying to use testosterone as the limiter.
It's absurd.
Wider hips, period.
Prenatal testosterone.
That's an advantage.
Nothing can change that.
People want to talk about how puberty is the advantage.
I can prove that's not true.
First, let me show you the video from Shiloh.
unidentified
Hey, it's Shiloh.
I'm at Rome right now for the World Skate Event, and I wanted to address everything that's been going on on the national news.
I've received hundreds of messages, and it's pure strife.
It's a little quiet, so I'll just give you the gist of it, but Shiloh posted this video, thoughts and feelings, saying she's not mad about what happened, she supports Richie and hopes that everyone can learn to work together and live together and all of that stuff.
You got a couple pros here.
Independent trucks.
They're all cheering for it.
Whatever.
Far be it from me.
I am no longer competing in skateboarding.
I barely did it.
I mean, actually, I was in probably like a good dozen contests in my day.
And I just want to point out two things.
First, Shiloh is 13.
Let me show you this video real quick.
This is Shiloh 3 years ago at 10 years old falling and taking a slam and then accomplishing the rollout smith grind.
So it's a rollout because the rail is lower than the ledge.
That's just what I would call it.
Shiloh doing some tricks grinding this rail.
That's that's that's that that's it's good.
Here's a clip of Shiloh doing a gap to board slide taking a slam It happens you got to pay your dues what we call it.
I think Shiloh's great I think that's it.
This is LES skatepark in New York.
That was a gap to board slide good trick There's a 50-50 up on the rail Look at this gap does it was that a backside lip side or a front board cuz that was good I'm impressed look at that 50-50 on the rail Right on.
There we go.
That's cool.
A little Ollie over the apple.
Okay.
Here we go.
50-50 grind.
I'm just going to come out and say it.
Shiloh, for a 13-year-old girl, shreds.
That's why she would have won first place should Richie Tres not have been in this contest.
Shiloh defends Richie Trayes.
Probably because she doesn't want to be involved in politics, or because her mom or friend said, you know, just do that, and these pro skateboard companies come out and defend her.
Okay.
Let's start from that standard.
That Shiloh is okay with what happened.
Based on your opinion, Shiloh, and what you said, I would like to just be blunt and say, at your age, you are not good enough to be in the Olympics.
Now, maybe in the women's division, but if you are arguing that a 29-year-old biological male is also able to be in the women's division as well, then I'm going to say it again, you are just not good enough.
Now, granted, there are testosterone moderation manipulation levels, like they have to lower the testosterone, but look, I'm not trying to be mean to a 13-year-old girl.
I'm trying to say, if we operate from the standard you have presented in defense of Richie, I'd like to show you a few things.
This is a video from Red Bull in 2012.
The first ever 1080 done.
The first ever 1080.
This was a major accomplishment in skateboarding that sent shockwaves So much so, the video has 3 million views.
And it was accomplished by a 12-year-old boy.
A 12-year-old boy going up and performing, I can't play it because I don't want to get copyright dinged or anything, but he performs the first ever 1080 spin.
That is three complete rotations.
I believe it was 1999.
Tony Hawk, at the age of I believe it was 31, Landed the world's first 900 two-and-a-half rotations.
It was groundbreaking.
A 12-year-old boy, look at this, 12-year-old Tom Schaar lands the first ever 1080.
This was groundbreaking!
Why Shiloh?
Shiloh, why should you be in the Olympics?
When you're a year older than Tom Schaar was when he landed the first 1080.
The reality is because in the women's division, you rock!
You are an amazing skateboarder.
I mean, look, I gotta be honest, that rollout Smith sick.
That back lip on the rail, actually really impressive.
For a 13-year-old girl.
Let me show you this video, because I got tons of videos.
Oh, actually, here's a video of me at the CastleCastle giving Taylor Silverman $22.50.
That's funny.
Let me see if I can pull this one up.
This is a video from 2005.
It's a compilation of skate clips from between the age of 16 and 18.
I started skating when I was 13, a bit older than Shiloh was.
Look, the first clip, let me just play it with no sound, is me doing a nollie flip off a bump.
Okay, that right there, it's hard to compare the back lip gap to rail better than this.
So here's a switch frontside 360 over the hip.
Let's see what else we have.
We got a feeble grind down the rail, much higher.
Arguably, backside flip.
Here's me at, I believe, 16 or 17.
I think I'm 16 or 17.
Here's me doing a nollie hard flip over the hip.
Here's a tray flip down a gap.
Okay.
Objectively, my friends.
Here's a nollie inward heel flip, then I do a nose grind, and then in the actual cut I did a tray flip, but it's such old stuff.
Let me see if I can jump to something a little bit better.
Here's me doing a manual kickflip out.
It's a manual.
It's bouncing on two wheels and then kickflipping.
And let me just jump.
Actually, there's a nose manual nollie flip, which I actually learned on that day at that spot just by deciding to do it.
Here's me jumping up a set of stairs, turning around and doing what's called a switch frontside flip down the stairs.
And then I think there's some other stuff.
Let me just do this.
Okay, here we go.
Here's me ollieing over.
It's jumping over what is like a two and a half foot guardrail and then over a six foot drop.
All of these, if I were in a contest, would win against Shiloh.
But that's why I shouldn't be in a contest against Shiloh.
At the time of some of these clips, I believe Shiloh's been skating probably longer than three years.
Three years prior, she was trying to do a rollout Smith grind.
Some of these clips are me skating for about three years, some are me skating about four years, because I started skating just right before I turned 14.
I was at the end of 13.
And so, I hadn't been skating as long as her, and yet my tricks are better.
Not like profoundly better, but a decent amount better, like Nose Mail Nollie Flip, or the Nollie Hard Flip.
She's doing a lot of basic stuff, like board slides and Smith grinds.
The fact is, obviously I'm doing better.
I'm a guy, I've got testosterone, I'm fit, and taller, I'm older, more muscle development.
And therein lies the issue.
If you want to make an argument about age brackets, I get it.
The issue is there just aren't enough female skateboarders, so they do open contests like that.
That's a reality.
But, come on.
Of course.
It's, it's, it's, look, okay.
Let's operate from their standing point.
Let's operate from the standing point that there's no difference and there's no reason to differentiate.
What's the difference then between me, who had been skating in that video for a shorter amount of time than Shiloh, Am I just better than her?
Is that it?
Okay, sure.
Fine.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to point out that a 16-year-old guy who's been skating for less amount of time than a 13-year-old girl is better?
The left would say outright that there's no difference and I'm just a better skateboarder so I deserve the $500.
Well, they say, wait, wait, you're not a woman, Tim, and Ritchie Trayes is.
But Ritchie Trayes, according to the report from the Olympics, does not have modified testosterone levels, so would not qualify for the Olympics.
Having male levels of testosterone and competing in the women's division, there's no difference.
Now, I'll say this outright.
Even today, as a 36-year-old man who's prone to injury, I would, like, there's another video of Richie Treys competing in a Red Bull contest, and I'm just sorry, like, I don't compete in skateboarding.
I would win.
Like, I am a better skateboarder than Richie Treys, and I'm not saying that to drag Richie Treys at all.
This is not about, that is an issue.
It's about Richie Treys, if Richie Treys were to enter a contest having male levels of testosterone, Being a 29-year-old biological male, but trans woman, I would win, and I don't skate competitively, nor do I skate to film, or be better, or... I mean, I did all that when I was 19, and I got a leg injury that was, like, not too severe when I was about 20.
I was doing a lip slide.
It's a trick.
I was doing a trick in a six-foot mini ramp, and I fell, and I twisted my leg.
And then I started slowing down and just, you know, started focusing on other things.
There's not a long career life when you're doing skateboarding.
So let's break this down.
If Richie Tres has male levels of testosterone but says that they are a woman, what's stopping me, as a 36-year-old man, from competing against Shiloh and winning as well and taking the money?
I don't think that's fair.
That's just me.
If you think the difference in divisions is how you claim to identify, then there's literally nothing stopping me from entering these contests and saying, yeah, I'm a woman.
That's how I feel, and I'm going to win.
And I would.
And that's kind of absurd, in my opinion.
I don't think it's fair.
So let's break this down.
Shiloh in this video says she's in Rome at a qualifier with her dream to enter the Olympics.
The Olympics have a testosterone requirement, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still advantages related to the Q angle and center of gravity, which are related.
There's other advantages as well.
As I mentioned, fast twitch muscle.
If Shiloh thinks it's fine that what happened at the border opened, what's making Shiloh believe that she will qualify for the Olympics when you have every skateboarder in the country vying for a spot on a 12-person team?
There are many more trans women who are substantially better.
Maybe the issue is there's a bunch of really good trans women skaters.
They're not entering these contests against women, probably understanding that it would not be fair, or maybe just not wanting to be in the spotlight.
Men on the left would probably say, well, that's not fair.
They should.
I'll tell you this.
If Shiloh wants to get one of a dozen spots to be on the Olympics, but also agrees that trans women should or should be allowed to, then Shiloh, you are not good enough to be in the Olympics, and in my personal opinion, you probably never will be.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
I think the issue is that males and females are different.
I have, a good friend of mine was one of the best female skateboarders in the world for a while, competing at the Olympics, winning gold medals.
She was actually better than many of the dudes in the Chicagoland area hitting handrails.
But if you go and watch female skateboarding versus male skateboarding, never has there been a more clear distinction in my opinion.
When I watch tennis, I can't tell if the females are better than the males.
I watch two women play and I'm like, I don't know.
I watch two males play and I'm like, I don't know.
Are they faster?
Are they better?
I can't tell the difference.
I just see people hitting the ball back and forth.
I don't know.
In skateboarding, you don't need to be a skateboarder to understand there's a difference.
To put it simply, you have this 13-year-old girl saying she wants to qualify for the Olympics.
And what is she doing?
She's doing some grinds on rails.
In this video I showed, she's doing a gap-to-board slide, and falling.
A board slide is the most basic slide trick, probably the first anyone ever learns, one of the safest.
It's great that she's gapping out.
That was sick.
That was a backside lip slide.
It's similar to a board slide, but you got up and over and then blindside.
That's good.
I'm sorry.
That in no way will ever compare to a 12-year-old doing a 1080 40 feet off the ground.
There are some good young women.
But when people come to me and say that puberty is the big defining factor, I ask this.
Why is it that, I believe it's Skye, Adam, uh, Skye?
I can't remember her name.
Skye.
A young, like, 13, 14 year old girl is not doing 1080s when Tom Schaar was when he was 12.
Why is it that a 13 year old girl competing and getting second place would have been first place, not for the trans women.
How is she nowhere near this level?
Well, let's be honest.
Some people are better than others.
Tom Schaar is cream of the crop, best of the best, even to this day.
So fair point.
Maybe he's number one.
But there's also Mitchie Brusco, who landed the first 12.60 and also landed a 10.80 at a very young age.
There's Guy Currie, who landed the first 10.80 on a basic halfpipe.
This is a mega ramp on a standard halfpipe.
Also, I think 13 years old.
How is it that some of the greatest accomplishments in skateboarding are being done by 13-year-old boys, but there is no comparable 13-year-old girl?
Perhaps because puberty isn't the issue.
Prenatal testosterone and other factors play a role.
Perhaps the answer is a female division and a women's division, or a women's division and a trans division.
I don't know.
I would love for everyone to have a smile on their face and have a good time.
I'm totally down.
Richie Trez looks like a really nice person, laughing and having a great time.
That's what skateboarding is all about and I can respect that.
If people agree that these are the standards by which they want to continue competing, so be it.
But that means, Shiloh, you probably will not qualify for the Olympics by this standard.
You could.
I'm not saying you won't.
I'm saying probably.
Because the competition you will face will be tremendous.
If we are going only by biologically female, adult human females or adolescent or whatever, I don't want to describe it, biological females, then Shiloh likely will qualify for the Olympics because Shiloh's actually really good for a female.
That's not me being mean.
I'm not trying to be sexist.
I'm just pointing out that some of the best females in the world don't land 1080s.
I'm not making it up.
I'm showing you that.
A 12-year-old 40 feet in the air landing the first ever skateboarding 1080 is a historic feat.
A 12-year-old girl or 13-year-old girl doing a Smith grind on a rail is what you see 7-year-old boys doing.
Figure out how you want to solve these issues.
I don't know.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
