Does Norm Macdonald love Andrew Yang? It’s complicated
Legendary Canadian comedian Norm Macdonald has a strange Twitter presence, certainly.
If one were to stumble upon the funny man’s account, he’d be smacked in the face by a stream of consciousness that bounces frequently between jokes, live tweeting sporting events, and rarely, politics.
Norm, who has developed a cult-like following with a younger generation thanks to YouTube video clips such as “I’m Not Norm,” has publicly talked about politics when necessary. In March of 2018, Norm appeared on CTV’s Question Period with Joyce Napier—who is his sister in law—in which he discussed PM Trudeau and the state of comedy in the world of Trump.
Though Macdonald had previously never overtly publicly endorsed a politician (though he did voice his preference of George Bush over Bill Clinton after insinuating that he was a murderer,) this all changed on December 26 last year, when Norm gave his endorsement to Andrew Yang and the Yang Gang, under one condition.
“I will give my full endorsement to Andrew Yang and do whatever is in my power to help him win (sic) on one condition. That he becomes my close personal friend. The ball is in your court, Andrew,” joked Macdonald, quickly gathering over 2000 retweets and nearly 20,000 likes.
To everyone’s surprise, though, Yang actually responded! Although Yang did not explicitly state that he would be friends with Norm, he did say he wanted to meet up on the campaign trail.
“Haha happy to work on it with you Norm. Let’s meet up in Iowa or New Hampshire.”
Since then, Norm has retweeted Yang and has built some Twitter rapport with the presidential candidate, who is currently polling around 4 percent.
On January 6, Macdonald enthusiastically tweeted “YES!” at one of Yang’s tweets, and just yesterday, Macdonald said that Yang is “who we need.”
Macdonald has even gone out of his way to provide a campaign slogan for Yang, even making it his Pinned Tweet. “How about this. YANG: 2020 VISION #YangGang,” the comedian tweeted yesterday.
It’s oftentimes difficult to tell whether someone is being sincere on the internet. This is doubled over when someone with a well-documented history of trolling, such as Macdonald, continually tweets favourably of, well, anything.
Whether or not Norm is sincere is up for debate. But the fact that Norm is even potentially in the #YangGang is already fantastic.
Comedian Dave Chappelle, already officially part of the Yang Gang, has endorsed for Andrew Yang for the Democratic contender for the White House. Chappelle joins Donald Glover (Yang’s creative consultant), director James Gunn, titan of tech industry Elon Musk, magician Penn Jillette, actor Ken Jeong, author and philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers, and others on the celeb roster for Yang’s ascendency.
Chappelle will be headlining shows in South Carolina at the end of January in support of the candidate. Yang and Chappelle have been talking since Chappelle reached out to Yang to find out more about his campaign.
Speaking to New England Cable News, Yang spoke about this new collaboration. “Dave’s team reached out to our team, and they were thrilled to put the two of us together,” Yang said. “We sat down and talked about his concerns for the country and what we need to do to for the next generation. Dave’s a dad like I am. And then after we met, he said, ‘Look, I want to help, and what can I do to help?’”
Glover launched a pop-up store in Los Angeles in support of Yang’s campaign, selling $1,00 signed sweatshirts, featuring both his and Yang’s signatures.
Yang has been shut out of tonight’s Iowa debate, and many political insiders have been dubious about his campaign, and unwilling to take him seriously. But his grass-roots following brings large crowds of supporters, and the last quarter filled his campaign coffers with $16.5 million. While Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Marianne Williamson, and Julian Castro made recent departures from the Democratic race, Yang shows no signs of giving up.
While Yang’s funding is on target for inclusion in the 7th Democratic debate, he did not meet the polling numbers necessary to step onto the stage. His campaign complained that there weren’t enough polls conducted during the time in question, and held a rally the night before the debate. A clear indication of his success is that Yang’s talking points are making their way into the broader Democratic discourse, and celebs like Chappelle are stepping up to spread the word.
Andrew Yang captioning New Yorker cartoons is the best thing on the internet today.
The candidate reviews cartoons from The New Yorker magazine’s cartoon caption contest, and uses the opportunity to make light of politics, and tout his platform.
“I wish there was some kind of competitive element to this. Like every time you successfully caption a cartoon, you get paid a thousand dollars,” Yang says. “I would like to make that true for all of us, but instead of captioning a cartoon, it’s living another month.”
For a cartoon where a smart car is on the couch in a therapy session, he captions “Did they realize that naming you a ‘smart car’ would put so much pressure on you?” Yang smiles, then elaborates “because you see, the car seems sad.”
“This is up my alley,” he quips about a cartoon of two cowboys on horseback, one riding a robot horse, “because I’m all about how technology is gonna take our jobs.”
Yang to laugh at his own caption before revealing it. “I find the robot horse makes me feel more secure about my manhood.”
The crew can’t stop laughing in the background. And neither can we, because this video makes Friday afternoon at work bearable.
“I really enjoyed it,” he notes at the end, “you get your creative juices flowing. This was a blast, I highly recommend it. Yeah, I’ve always loved comics. It’s a lost art form, so thank you New Yorker for preserving such an important cultural language. Look at that, I managed to make cartoons seem really important. That’s the kind of person we need in the White House.”
Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) and Presidential candidate Andrew Yang (D) have agreed to have a one-on-one basketball match for charity.
It all started on Twitter when Fox News producer Pat Ward retweeted a video from ABC News saying “Need a @AndrewYang v @tedcruz game”
Ted Cruz retweeted Ward and said, “Sorry. You gotta poll at 5% or more to play on my court.”
Luckily enough for Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur running on a platform of a Universal Basic Income, a nationwide poll showed him touch the 5 percent mark that very day itself.
Ted Cruz accepted the results and called on Yang and three of his staffers to face off against him and his three staffers. The loser of the match would give $5,000 to a non-political charity.
Yang went a step further: he called for Cruz to face him one-on-one.
And Ted Cruz accepted.
The game is scheduled for Friday, September 13th in Houston, where Yang is present to participate in the Democratic debates.
Archeologists were recently reminded of a particularly gruesome part of ancient Peruvian culture, as they discovered a massive graveyard made up of the skeletal remains.
Experts believe that they’ve unearthed the bodies of 227 children, all between the ages of four and 14, sacrificed to placate the gods of rain and floods sometime between 1200 and 1400.
Other nearby sites found during the excavations prior found other shocking yet similar discovery; the corpses of over 100 children and 200 llamas, only miles away from the Huanchaco scene, believed to be similar in nature.
The thought that a civilization would justify the murder of their own children in an attempt to change the weather is stomach-churning. The violent nature of the event makes it even worse to think about. Sacrificing your future to the gods in exchange for good weather, though, is not something we’ve grown out of.
To “properly” sacrifice the future generation in hopes of changing the weather, one only needs to look at the climate cult that has arisen and intensified in the last few years.
“Birth strikers,” for example, are climate activists who have made the choice to no longer bear children out of fear the future generations will experience famine, flooding, extreme droughts, or severe natural disasters, leaving the planet unfit for humans.
The movement also looks to curb on “overpopulation,” helping to preserve the planet by not having any more children who would take up the planet’s natural finite resources.
CNN’s climate doomsday meeting
The climate cultists have stepped into the limelight in recent years in response to the observable changing weather patterns. While we should all be concerned about our environment, the inhumane behaviour that is being “justified” by climate change is what’s most alarming.
This was put on to full display last night during CNN’s climate town hall event, in which several US presidential candidates took the stage to discuss our future and the relationship between civilization and Earth.
Let there be no confusion, either: This is a doomsday cult. When presidential candidate and US Senator Elizabeth Warren discussed the future of humanity, she stated that “we’ve got, what? Eleven years, maybe…”
This eleven to twelve-year figure comes from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report,
The problem with reports like these is that “doomsday” reports of similar nature have popped up numerous times over the last few decades. A senior U.N. environmental official said “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels” if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. That prediction, again made by the U.N., was clearly off the mark.
Perhaps most famously, former US Presidential candidate Al Gore and his climate-cult classic, An Inconvenient Truth, missed the mark on plenty of grandiose predictions, like that Mount Kilimanjaro would no longer have snow on it.
Candidates gave what can be described as “Green-Authoritarianism,” vastly expanding government’s control and influence over people’s day to day lives. It’s not just one candidate espousing these ideas, either. It’s the mainstream.
Take Kamala Harris’ stance on educating the public on “the effect of our eating habits on the environment,” even going os far as to say that she would change the dietary guidelines to reduce the amount of red meat you can eat.
Another key point mentioned by the climate doomsayers was abortion. The hot-button issue was mentioned side-by-side with overpopulation, notably in a question to candidate Bernie Sanders.
The question, which talked about unsustainable human population growth, was thrown at Sanders, to which he gave an answer that outlined the idea of funding birth control, as well as abortions to third world countries around the world.
The DNC’s acceptance of radical climate alarmism legitimizes doomsday ideologues who are in full propaganda mode, pulling every trick in the book.
Brainwashing the youth
Take, for example, climate figurehead Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish climate alarmist who has Asperger’s syndrome, along with selective mutism and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
The reason Thunberg’s role as a figurehead is seen as so cynical to some is due to how incredibly difficult it is to attack her ideology without directly attacking a 16-year-old girl. We’ve already seen one Canadian federal party leader try—and completely blunder—an attempt to call out her ideas and motives.
There are valid criticisms of Thunberg. The language she uses, particularly the call for people to “panic,” is alarmist at worst. But she is not to blame for her behaviour—she’s very young and impressionable. It’s unfair to attack her.
What is to blame, though, is the irresponsible “end-is-nigh” preachiness that has completely taken over discourse.
How far will this go? The ideas being espoused by the climate cult have lost much of their civility, and it’s beginning to become evident that it could even turn macabre.
Take for example the Swedish researcher who promoted cannibalism as a solution to climate change in a talk titled “Can You Imagine Eating Human Flesh?”
The behavioural scientist and marketing strategist Magnus Soderlund actually attempted to break down the “ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh,” referring to those taboos as “conservative,” and states that people’s resistance to it as a “problem that could be overcome.”
We’ve descended into discourse that calls for birth strikes, abortion to curb population, and on the farthest end of the spectrum, the consumption of human flesh, all to save the environment. If the “human flesh” speaker seems unfairly lumped in with the DNC, then at least acknowledge that outlets like The Guardian are promoting the idea of eating mealworm-based substitutions.
There’s a way to have productive conversations about the environment. The way that this conversation has been hijacked is dangerous, and we must collectively find a better way to do so.
With that said, perhaps we should all be paying more attention to Universal Basic Income advocate Andrew Yang who focused the conversation on actual answers, regarding the economy and the politics of climate change.
In his responses, Yang highlighted all of the problems with our system, and offered realistic solutions to them. He did not demonize, he did not hyperbolize, but he instead gave a cool-headed, rational outlook on the issue that provided relief, knowing that these issues are not the unconquerable bogeyman that the rest made it out to be.
Because at this rate, it’s only a matter of time that some nutjob suggests suicide as a measure to reduce carbon emissions.