Leftist TERROR Attack On Coast Guard, Liberals Claim Trump Is A TYRANT DEBATE w/ Austin Padgett & Brian Shapiro
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guests: Austin Padgett Brian Shapiro Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL Leftist TERROR Attack On Coast Guard, Liberals Claim Trump Is A TYRANT | The Culture War DEBATE
In the weekly hours of the morning, around 1 a.m., a U-Haul vehicle being driven by an unknown individual tried to reverse at high speed into law enforcement in Alameda, California, who were aiming weapons at the vehicle, seemingly expecting a threat.
This was at an anti-ICE protest outside of the Coast Guard base, Coast Guard Island, in Alameda, where federal agents were being housed for a potential upcoming ICE action in the Bay Area.
However, Trump had called this off after an intervention from big tech CEOs and other political elements, we'll put it like that.
So we don't know the real reason why he called it off, but he did.
After this protest began to die down, we saw this moment.
It appears to be a terror attack.
Perhaps you can call it low scale.
We don't know if this person was truly intending to run over this group of law enforcement, but they certainly reversed at high speed.
Two people were shot, the driver and a bystander.
We don't know if the bystander was involved in the protest, but this is just another story in a long line of extreme actions that we have seen over the past several months with several terror attacks on ICE facilities, shootings, or otherwise, which I believe has resulted in many federal agents being completely on edge.
We now have bounties being put on the heads of DHS officers in Chicago from Latin King gang members as well as other gangs and a fear that this will only continue to escalate.
In the meantime, Democrats are saying that ICE agents have been detaining U.S. citizens in these raids and that federal law enforcement and worse still, National Guard being deployed into their cities is tyranny.
And many prominent liberals saying, you've got to stand up now, push back on Trump.
He's trying to be a king.
And they march saying, no kings.
So we're going to debate this, talk a bit about what's currently going on and the, I guess, the scale of escalation and whether or not Donald Trump is truly a king.
Well, let's start with this story that we just saw.
And I'll line it up a little bit.
So we just had this protest over the weekend.
No kings.
One of the most effective protests we have seen in the history of the United States as following the protest, there are no kings.
So congratulations to the protesters.
They've succeeded.
We don't have any kings.
But the actual claim there is that Donald Trump is a tyrant.
He is trying to be a king.
He wants to be a dictator and all of these things.
However, at the same time, we are seeing a string of an escalation of political violence, terror attacks from the Tesla attacks to the ICE facility attacks.
And now liberals are claiming, or I should say the left, the anti-ICE, that these actions from federal law enforcement officers in blue cities is tyrannical.
And so I don't know if someone wants to kick it.
Maybe you want to kick it off, what your stance is.
Number one, you have a lot of agents across the country that are not identifying themselves as agents outside of courtrooms tackling people, outside of Home Depot.
That's against the law.
You have to identify yourself.
Something needs to say that you're ICE.
You know, you can't just go somewhere and tackle somebody and not say you're law enforcement.
So that's a big issue, number one.
Number two, most of the people, more than 50% of the people that are being detained by ICE and or deported are nonviolent criminals.
We were told by the Trump administration that they were going to focus on very violent criminals.
Am I comfortable in the circumstance where a criminal illegal alien who entered this country, and we don't know to which number, so I guess I could say there's certainly going to be errors in any and all law enforcement.
Kamala Harris famously, and I'm not saying you support her, but she famously had people kept in prison beyond their release dates, using them as slave labor and things like that.
Actually, that's a bad example.
I just don't like Kamalai's.
But mistakes happen in law enforcement.
We want to mitigate them.
They shouldn't happen.
U.S. citizens being detained for 24 hours in New York shouldn't happen.
But the question is of malice.
So if, I don't know, to what degree are we going to accept nonviolent illegal immigrants being sent to SciCOT?
And it's, well, no, nonviolent individuals should not.
Then there's another layer of the question, and that is what if the country will not accept them back?
Where do we send them?
Now it's getting really muddy and messy because if we don't have extradition treaties or treaties in general for handing deportations of foreign nationals, well, they don't just get to stay here.
So I'm not suggesting they should go to CCOT, but now we've got Kilmar going to, I guess, Uganda or whatever, Uganda.
Well, listen, I think 99% of the country would agree that if you're a violent criminal in this country illegally, you should be deported.
I'm one of those people.
I think there needs to be some sort of pathway to citizenship for people that are nonviolent criminals that have lived in this country for decades, some of whom do pay taxes.
I think there is a better way to do it than the way the Trump administration is doing it.
I want border security.
I'm not one of those people that thinks the borders should be wide open.
But listen, I just think, you know, you're asking me my thoughts on this whole situation, and I don't like the way Trump is going about it.
Why is it that he wants white people from South Africa in this country with open arms, but he doesn't want black people from South Africa in this country?
You could say it's racial, but it's clearly also very politically aligned.
Like the politics of the South African grievance politics and the communism versus the European descendant South Africans who are more free market and more in favor of property rights.
I think it comes down to compassion if we're talking about this situation.
And there are people in Trump's administration, and I know this goes into the healthcare situation, but there are people that do not believe if you're an undocumented immigrant and you're dropped off at an ER and you need life-saving care that you should not get that life-saving care, that we should be asking for your paperwork.
That is not the country, Tim, that I want to live in.
That is no compassion.
I'm not saying undocumented immigrants should be getting free health care.
And by the way, they don't qualify for Obama subsidies anyway.
But if somebody is dying and they're undocumented, okay, they should be able to get the care that they need in a hospital.
Well, let me flat out ask you, Tim, if somebody is undocumented in this country, I'm not even talking about a violent criminal, somebody who's in this country, undocumented immigrant, they're having a heart attack.
Do you believe that if they're dropped off at an ER, that those doctors should not be asking them for their paperwork, that they should try to save their life first?
Well, that's a bit of an extreme example, though, because in emergency circumstances, however, the argument of should illegal immigrants generally get medical treatment from our facilities at the taxpayer expense.
But they demanded my papers when I went to the emergency room.
In fact, I watched them demand everyone's papers.
Hold on.
I just went to the emergency room, and when I walked in, every single person who walked up to the counter and said, here's my problem, they said, papers, please.
One of the ways they saved money on the Medicare fraud was they looked through and looked how many millionaires were collecting benefits and how much fraud.
There was a ton of fraud and a ton of millionaires.
But it's necessarily true because Democrats changed the definition of what an illegal immigrant is, and now the ACA benefits will be extended to anybody who says the word asylum.
Okay, but 30% of the workforce, people that are working in this country, American citizens, are not offered health care benefits.
49% of them can't afford it.
And people in the Trump administration and people on the right want to make the argument, these are just lazy people that are on the couch that don't want to work.
The point about people who don't get benefits or can't afford it, it's like there's no reality where you go up to a Democrat or Republican and say, do you want to take a working class Americans or poor person's health care?
So what are those 15 to 20 million people that are going to be losing their Medicaid coverage if the big and beautiful bill, you know, was it based on what he said that they were ripping off the system?
There's always going to be a small percentage.
I hate this argument.
There's always going to be a small percentage of people that are going to take advantage of the system.
We could be talking about welfare.
We could be talking about unemployment benefits.
But many of these government benefits or maternity leave, Republicans hate it.
They want to get rid of it.
They want to abolish it.
And I'm sorry, I disagree with that.
There's always going to be a small percentage of people that are going to take advantage of the system.
That doesn't mean the majority of the people should have to suffer for it.
They are cutting medical benefits and Medicaid from people that they believe do not deserve it.
However, many of the people that are working are going to be losing their Medicaid coverage.
You could look up the bill and you could look up the literature in the bill and it specifically doesn't say, well, if you're working, we're not going to take your medical coverage away.
My understanding, so like the core of this debate over the government shutdown and the spending bill is that Democrats want to extend the ACA benefits to refugees, asylum seekers, and DACA recipients.
Okay, I understand that, but you're saying that you don't think that Mike Johnson should be reaching out to Democrats when Democrats are reaching out to him and say, okay, listen, we might not get anywhere, but let's at least try.
First, I would say, I already agreed, Republicans could shut this down in two seconds by ending the filibuster and the nuclear option.
And everyone says, but Democrats will get back in power.
Oh, yeah, fucking right.
If Democrats get back in power, it's the least of their worries that they might ram check, I should try to avoid swearing, ram stuff through the Senate.
So maybe they should just, in the Senate, say, okay, filibuster's gone.
Government's open.
The other issue is Republicans want the government shut down.
And I don't care too much about the government shutdown.
They want the government shutdown because it's giving them pretext to start firing tons of people, which is exactly what Trump wanted to do.
Families and fathers and mothers that are working in all different types of different positions in government jobs, they rely on that paycheck, and they're not getting a paycheck because of a government shutdown, regardless of whether you blame the right or the left.
Well, one of the responses I could say is stop relying on big daddy government to take care of you.
My first statement is, I'm sorry the Democrats did this to you.
Maybe if they didn't want to give ACA benefits to illegal immigrants, the government would be open.
Now, Republicans could, as I already mentioned, end the filibuster right now and reopen government, but they don't want to because Trump wants to fire a ton of people.
So I'm sitting back being like, well, it's, what is it called?
The Xanatos gambit.
I was reading about this the other day, where no matter the outcome, your side benefits.
Trump's attitude is if Democrats want to give illegal immigrants health care under ACA and keep the government shut down, they won't give us the five, I think they need, what, six votes?
Well, it's also important who's being fired, right?
Because we can talk about police officers, civil servants, et cetera, which is the majority of government workers.
But the people that he's really targeting are the half a million million federal bureaucrats.
And they're getting huge payout packages, which is fine.
We could pay them four times their salaries to quit, and it would still be worth it because they're the ones that are managing the economy without accountability and destroying innovation and costing us.
I've met a lot of TSA agents when I travel and they're fans, and I respect that.
But the agency itself, I think, is a bad expansion of government.
And we complained about it when it happened.
But the problem is the government creates something and then liberals defend it or independents or whatever your argument is, right?
So amnesty.
We get amnesty in the 80s and 90s and 2000s.
And once again, it's always going to be amnesty.
At a certain point, you got to be like, guys, we're not doing it a fourth time.
It's not going to happen.
No amnesty.
Everybody's got to go.
You're a criminal alien.
You got to get out.
And then the same thing with government agents and government shutdowns.
It's like we've expanded the executive branch, we've expanded federal authority, we've expanded federal law enforcement over and over and over again.
And instead of being like, maybe at some point we need to stop and say we're spending too much and expanding government too much, we get the liberal side, which is, no, no, just this time, we need amnesty.
Whatever it may be, pay all of them now.
Defending the TSA?
The liberals were angry about the TSA when H.W. Bush was creating all this stuff.
And I understand this because I've long talked about the problems in a post-capitalist society where, you know, I met a homeless guy a long time ago in Chicago, old black guy, and I had some pizza left over from a restaurant.
I asked him if he wanted it, if he was hungry, he said he was.
I said, here you go, brother.
And then I was like, can I ask you a question?
Just curious how you ended up homeless.
And he said, I'll give you the simple version.
He worked at the post office for 20 some odd years, never really a high-ranking guy or anything.
Eventually, they said they were going to be shutting down, you know, his post office was going under restructuring or whatever.
And so he didn't have a backup plan.
He couldn't afford a retirement.
So the first thing he does, he starts collecting some benefits.
But then it's not enough to pay his rent and pay for food.
He chooses between buying food or paying rent.
He chooses buying food.
Then he's laid on rent.
He pays what he can.
Eventually he gets evicted and that's it.
And he said, man, let me tell you, he's like, my friends are dead.
My family's long dead.
I don't got anybody else.
And eventually you got nowhere to go.
And I said, well, that's messed up.
This guy didn't do anything wrong.
How does he end up in a situation like this?
I can respect the individual and these circumstances, but we also have to understand that we are building a system that is growing and growing and growing.
And I'll put it like this, because I've experienced this as a business owner.
When we try to look at costs, why are we spending so much money?
You know what we find?
There is never one thing you're spending too much money on.
And so we're like, what are we doing over here with this skateboard stuff?
Are we spending too much?
Like, honestly, we're not really spending that much money at all.
Okay, well, then what about some of these shows over here?
I think one of my issues is just that we've built a society that continually expects things from others.
You know, it's like, I actually, I consider myself to be in favor of what I call universal basic health care, meaning actually assessing the situation.
We have seen circumstances where like a kid got the flu and died.
And you're like, well, how does it happen in the 21st century?
I mean, come on, it shouldn't happen.
Or someone has a broken bone.
It doesn't heal properly.
I'm like, these are simple things that, you know, it's not expensive to fix.
When somebody complains about something and you're the president of the United States and you call yourself a policymaker, they're supposed to come up with a replacement plan.
So you support a guy because for nine years he complains about a policy, and in nine years the imbecile doesn't come up with a replacement plan, and that's why you support him?
You don't think that's important from the president of the United States who complains about Obamacare, but my point is whether Donald Trump replaces or doesn't replace it, the healthcare system is broken and it's not Trump's fault that it's broken.
They can extract and then culture your stem cells, but they are nowhere near as effective as umbilical stem cells, and you have to get those in a third.
A lot of it is a technology and knowledge question, right?
If you just wanted the knowledge that it requires to make the machines, operate the machines, and do various tests, you could bring a full medical checkup down to like a $100 price point.
It's just illegal.
And we're talking about hospitals being overflooded.
And we don't know the exact numbers, but you benefited from it, and I was hurt by it, then we actually don't have a strong position on Obamacare, which was kind of my point.
Trump complaining about it, but doing nothing, I'm kind of like, it's kind of a moot point to me because this is healthcare has been screwed up forever, continues to be screwed up.
For decades, we've heard the argument, but yet for decades, we've had undocumented immigrants coming into this country, whether it be George W. Bush or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.
We've heard from decades and decades and decades.
Now, we'll see how this plays out.
Yeah, sure, there's not a lot of undocumented immigrants.
Here's my idea of what prioritation wouldn't be, what they're doing right now, which is going outside of courtrooms, people that are seeking asylum and tackling them and arresting them.
That's not, to me, those aren't the people that we should be putting as a priority or sitting outside of home.
Okay, we got to slow down because once again, so here, here's, this is what I always find with people who are anti-Trump is you're making a lot of arguments that are not related to each other.
I'm going to mute you if you try and play that stupid stuff because you interrupt me while I'm making the point that perhaps maybe it was a misdemeanor, falsification of business records from his CFO.
Perhaps, maybe.
Don't cut me off when I say perhaps maybe to change the context of what I'm saying.
Donald Trump was accused of misdemeanor, falsification of business records by instructing a lower staffer we don't know he actually instructed, all because of Cohen making a claim about paying Stormy Daniels.
This cannot be upgraded to a felony because it's what's called requiring an underlying crime, which never in the history of the United States has been done before.
Donald Trump, in this charge, was convicted falsely.
It is one of the most controversial cases in U.S. history where for the first time an aggravated charge was placed without the government proving an underlying case.
They upgraded misdemeanors which require an underlying crime, but they never proved a crime that actually happened.
So, Tim, if your daughter was 12 or 1, I don't know how old she is, but if she was 12 or 13 years old and she was in a pageant and a creepy man went in there without her permission and talked about it sexually on the Howard Stern show, which he did.
I'm talking about the moral aspect of why I don't support him.
Okay.
And I'm trying to have a conversation with you about morals.
Are you comfortable?
You're comfortable with the leader of the free world being a liable sexual abuser who's had dozens of women that have accused him of rape or sexual assault, including his ex-wife documents?
I have a trouble with the United States of America, especially because Barack Obama murdered a 16-year-old American citizen by bombing a civilian restaurant in Yemen.
We can just pause right here and say to everybody who's listening, I think my point is I can tell you the facts of these cases and why I have doubts, and you don't know anything about them.
Regardless of what your opinions are on the case and what you might think are valid that he didn't do anything wrong, what you might think are valid that he never sexually abused a woman.
Here's the bottom line, whether you like it or not.
A jury found him guilty on 34 counts that you obviously disagree with.
Whether I know the ins and outs of the case is irrelevant.
The fact of the matter is, is that he is a 34-count felon.
The fact of the matter is that he's a liable sexual abuser, liable.
Indeed, but even outside of that, it's that when an individual is convicted of a crime, it is prudent of a society to analyze whether or not this is a legitimate use of the judiciary of our legal system.
Of this is, if your argument is the very blanket a guy said a thing, we can certainly agree a guy said a thing.
If the question is, did Trump in a legitimate setting face these claims and convictions?
The answer is no.
And I can break it all down fact by fact, detail by detail.
Specifically with the Eugene Carroll case, there's numerous factors as to why this is meritless.
Notably, that the New York state legislature passed, it might have been, I think it was the state, passed a law allowing claims beyond the statute of limitations for a period of one year to be brought up for civil action.
The only person who picked it up was Eugene Carroll, and then it disappeared.
This is lawfare.
Additionally, Eugene Carroll's story made literally no sense.
She claimed to have been wearing clothes that didn't exist.
She claimed to have access to rooms that she did not have access to.
And Trump, the most famous man in New York, instead of going into his hotel across the street from the Bergdorf Goodman, went into a crowded building where there was no one for this one period for no reason.
None of it made sense.
And we can sit here and say, well, that story is certainly strange.
But why did she claim to have clothes that didn't come?
Why would she claim to wearing clothes that didn't even exist at the time?
A specific dress that wasn't released until years later.
More importantly, she didn't have a key to that room, nor did Trump.
And she also said the Bergdorf Goodman, one of the busiest stores in New York, had no people in it.
So will you then say, I find it all to be credible?
And the New York state legislature passed a law allowing her to bring it to it.
While we have a lot of disagreements on Donald Trump, whether he's a criminal or not, the fact of the matter still stands, he was found liable for such doesn't mean it's incredible.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying here.
I don't think a single action could define a man who's got great kids who have been very successful.
I think people are neither absolutely good or absolutely evil.
There's varying degrees of whether someone could be good, bad, or otherwise.
And Donald Trump has certainly done things that knock him down a peg or two and bring him down to the lower tier, but he's done a decent, a pretty good job with his family indeed.
Because the big thing that Dems blamed Hillary's loss on in 2016 was that she was accused of being a felon.
And they thought that that made a big difference.
And it did make a difference.
But they thought that if they could throw that felon label onto Trump, then there was an opportunity to get that to do the same thing that happened to Hillary.
But they don't realize there were a lot more intangibles under that besides the felony accusation, which is why Trump was able to spin it as outlaw.
And also, the law is important.
I think I agree like the law is important, which is why it's so important that we like really suss out whether there's political lawfare because that undermines the whole trust in the entire legal system and then you just have chaos.
Well, I mean, you know, going back to if you're making an argument that like some Christian Catholic person might agree with, it might work on a Catholic Christian or whatever or conservative.
I'm an urban liberal moderate, and I think Trump has certainly sinned quite a great deal.
But people having done bad things does not define them as— So policy is— A singular bad action doesn't make someone a bad person.
So is it fair to say, Tim, that policy— Well, there are questions of whether being with a guy one time makes you gay.
But after meeting with Trump and having dinner with him, there were a few examples that stuck out, which seemed like really hard to fake empathetic impulses, including around Hillary, when we were talking about how Hillary got maybe pushed, maybe not pushed by the Secret Service into her car.
And we all started laughing.
And he's like, you know, that's actually not really nice.
I don't like Ron DeSantis, but I'll tell you something I would never do.
Shit on their military service.
I respect anybody who serves this country, and I respect their military service.
When you say you don't respect somebody because they were captured, can you admit and agree with me that that is just an awful, despicable thing to say?
I'm just saying there's all these liberals that are coming out aghast that there's a remodel happening.
And we had the worst riots in 50 years where all of our statues are being torn down.
And I'm not talking about Confederates.
I'm talking about Thomas Jefferson, Hans Christianheg, Frederick Douglass, and they were supporting that.
And so when you see the incongruent political ideology, then we're like, okay, I don't think some of these people are legitimately concerned about Trump's policies.
And there are certain things that I'm okay with and not okay with because what we're really arguing is the distinct moral worldviews.
For instance, riots in Dublin over the rape of a 10-year-old girl.
And the reaction from the right is large is going to be like, we don't like riots, but man, we really understand why they're mad at the cops over this one.
And then you get BLM riots and you're like, okay, these people are crazy.
Only nine unarmed black people were killed.
It's not 10,000.
Why are they burning all these cities down?
But I would say riots generally bad, but you empathize with those who share your moral worldview.
So in the instance of political civil disobedience, I'm not criticizing, at least for now, the violent criminal action of destroying property.
I'm criticizing the they desecrated American history, symbols, and figures, and are now acting aghast as though Trump remodeling the building is worse.
They were supportive of one and they opposed the other.
I mean, I understand where you're going with that, but again, we can go back to not to do whataboutism, but we can go back to January 6th and the desecrating on Nancy Pelosi's desk type stuff, destruction of property.
When the president of the United States calls people hostages and patriots who beat police officers with their own batons, some of those officers now have traumatic brain injury, and you're totally fine and you don't care.
True, so when you have this, when you have this issue of a group of rioters on January 6th who were violent, smashing windows, first thing I said was, lock them up, send him to prison.
Well, my understanding, and from what the prosecutor said, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that, and again, you're right, it is conflicted, that they're not even going to indict him.
In the Biden administration, at the start of Donald Trump's, in his campaign, he was accused of being a Russian spy of colluding with a foreign adversary of the United States.
There is a lot of conflicted information on this, but we know it's meritless.
However, regardless of that, we know that there was a meeting with Comey, Sally Yates, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, where they said, we're going to push this as like we're going to, in Trump's presidency, target him in this way.
Now, by all means, certainly some people are going to say, well, that was a legitimate use of law enforcement or whatever.
We now know that was never the case that Trump was doing these things.
There were false stories about Don Jr. having illicit access to WikiLeaks, false stories about connections to Russian banks.
There was the steel dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign.
Long story there.
All of that was fake.
How did this culminate?
We had the arrest of Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the presidency, under highly dubious charges in various places.
If that's the case, then why didn't Donald Trump ⁇ if that's the case, then why was Donald Trump able to call in the National Guard with the snap of a finger in D.C. a few months ago?
The argument from the right is always, why didn't Nancy Pelosi call in the National Guard?
Why was Donald Trump able to call the National Guard?
In September of 2020, I predicted that if Donald Trump didn't win the election, his supporters are going to go to D.C. It's going to be nuts, and they're going to storm the White House or something like that.
I think if Donald Trump didn't lie, which by the way, he did about the 2020 election, he's the only president in American history that has not conceded an election.
You think that January 6th happens, even if Donald Trump concedes the election and says Joe Biden won a free and fair election, you still think there'd be that many people storming the Capitol that trying to overthrow a free and fair election?
So my point is, the things that were happening in this country led me to believe two months before the election that Trump supporters would not accept a Biden victory no matter what.
Whether or not, and this is irrespective of Trump saying anything about the election being stolen because it hadn't happened yet.
If Donald Trump conceded and he said we can't be violent and he toned down the rhetoric and he lowered the temperature, I guarantee you January 6th doesn't happen.
So the issue is, of course, I've never argued the election was stolen or that there were Chinese ballots.
I'm not saying you're done.
I'm making this point.
However, I have argued that we are in a constitutional crisis following the 2020 election because the failures of the Supreme Court to pick up Texas v.
Pennsylvania.
So the issues at play from the Trump administration, largely, not the ancillary groups like Michael Lindell or anything like that, have to do with violations of the Constitution in the furtherance of a Democrat victory.
These questions have never been answered, and now we are in a nebulous state where it's going to impact us very heavily in 26 and 28, especially with the Voting Rights Act going to the Supreme Court.
I see this as a catalyst for the complete factionalization, balkanization, or otherwise or collapse of the United States.
He hasn't shown any evidence or proof that it was rigged.
This claims the mail-in ballots when he told his own supporters not to do mail-in ballots.
And then he claims that the mail-in ballots were rigged and all these votes were counted in the middle of the night.
The bottom line is when we look at Mike Lindell, who I think is a clown, and we look at Dinesh D'Souza, who I think is a clown, and we look at these people as a source to, oh, I think the election was stolen.
Well, you know, I like Mike and Dinesh, but I agree that they're wrong.
And because I've consistently made the arguments, which apparently I just learned from Mike Benz, put me as made me a target of Democrat NGOs in the Atlantic Council.
So it's like, can we fix that suspicious stuff around our election processes and then we can solve this problem of losing trust in the system, et cetera.
And actually, I don't know as a fair answer, but we can at least say Texas v.
Pennsylvania needed to be answered, and the Supreme Court are a bunch of cowards.
They were too scared to enter into an original jurisdiction legal case in such a contentious election that they said, we will abstain from our sworn duty.
So for BLM, if the Trump administration started set up Capitol police offices around the country and started raiding random activists' homes who were not violent and were just marching down the street, I'd say absolutely not.
Trump should not be doing this.
And if Biden pardoned those people, I'd say, okay.
Furthermore, the people who did riot after three years, I'd also say, I think three years is a long enough time in prison for a riot.
Okay, you're entitled to that opinion, but I would say the difference between me and a lot of other people is when it goes, I don't care whether you beat a police officer on, I think we agree on this.
I don't care whether you beat a police officer during Black Lives Matter protest or you beat a police officer on January 6th.
You're not a hostage.
You're not a patriot.
Now, we could disagree on how much time they should have served behind bars, and that's fine.
And so then what happens is it becomes very hard to isolate a granular moment in J6 because it's a singular political incident where Trump says too many innocent people have been assaulted by the DOJ, so we're shutting it down.
Now, you come to me, if they did not arrest people, hunt them down for walking on the grounds, if they didn't arrest Owen Schroer, who didn't go in the Capitol, or Brandon Strzok, who didn't go in the Capitol, if they said, no, no, no, no.
And I've met many people who, there's one story that I talk about quite a bit.
I met a woman.
She showed up an hour or so after everyone had already left the Capitol, but the barricades had still been removed from the grounds and the doors were still open.
She and her husband were leaving the peaceful protest and walking through D.C. when they walked up to the Capitol building.
No police, doors open, no riots going on.
And they went to, I forget which door it was, but it wasn't the side where the windows were all broken.
It was the side where they opened it after the fact.
She walked in and there's that hallway, and her and her husband looked around and then left.
And then several months later, their door was kicked in by feds.
They were arrested for misdemeanor trespass and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
So many of those stories freak people out.
The story he mentioned about the officer, there are stories of people on the front line during the riots who are asking the officers, what can I do to help?
and fighting the rioters back who got sent to prison.
This became such an egregious blanket that for a political moment, people were just like, don't know, don't care, put a stop to it.
And so, again, on a singular incident, we'd be like, as I said, from day one, those people who attacked cops and rioted should be locked up.
I would have had to keep all those innocent people in jail to figure out that in almost any aspect in life, you're going to find situations, including January 6th, where people are overcharged.
Like, is there a Democrat official, an elected official?
They say that about Charlie.
Want me to pull up all the bunker boy quotes?
Ask you a question because I hear that, and this pertains to right now, and I don't mean to change the subject, but I hear from the right, and I talked about this on Pierce Morgan, where Riley Gaines said, Democrat politicians are celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.
What we've learned, and hopefully we will learn more in a court because I don't like to hear what people say on Fox News and OAN and Newsmax or what Matt Gates has to say about it.
What we've learned is he was obviously radicalized.
There were seven accounts online from transgender individuals that expressed foreknowledge of Charlie Kirk's murder.
We don't know if some of them were just lucky statements, like Charlie Kirk will get what's coming to him very soon.
But some of them were tomorrow, there's going to be big news about Charlie Kirk and he'll regret it, like things like that.
We're like, okay, that's foreknowledge.
We do know, and again, this is if we trust the current state of the case, that the individual Robinson stated in these messages that it was Charlie's hate and that, you know, and he loved this transgender furry individual.
unidentified
It appears, again, why do you talk about a transgender like that?
For example, Politico says top Republicans reject any link between GOP rhetoric and Paul Pelosi assault.
Of course you should reject any link.
Why is the Republican Party, why is the conservative movement to blame for gay schizophrenic nudists that are hemp jewelry makers breaking into somebody's home or maybe not breaking into somebody's home?
By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out.
The fact of the matter is two factions are trying to rip each other to shreds, and you're not going to convince people on the right to apologize when the left doesn't apologize either.
We can easily pull up instances where the left and the right have apologized for things.
As to each other, it is mostly, and this is the funny thing, because I always find myself in these positions where I'm like, yes, the right's not going to apologize.
And leftists are like, the right.
You are unable to step back from your position and see what's going on.
I am telling you, the right is going to say nasty things about the left and never apologize for it.
And the left is going to say nasty things about the right and never apologize for it.
Because indeed, it's not right.
It doesn't matter.
It's a war.
Donald Trump going after Letitia James and Adam Schiff is not because he's like, I want retribution.
It's because he's like, I'm at war with these people.
He is going after them for, I would say, tangible political effects that he wants to obtain.
Now, it doesn't mean that I wanted him to be murdered.
I want to be very clear on that.
He was a father.
He was a husband.
My understanding, the good father, right?
I hate the constant attacks on brown people, on gay people, on women who get abortions, calling them murderers, which, by the way, he's called time and time again, which I think is absurd.
I don't like what he stood for.
Now, I give him credit for building what he built with Turning Point USA.
Quite an accomplishment, the following that he had.
But I'm not going to celebrate his life.
I would certainly never celebrate his death.
I can tell you, I hate Donald Trump.
I hate everything he stands for.
Doesn't mean that I want him to be assassinated because I don't.
What happened to Charlie Kirk is terrible for the country.
It's terrible.
It's terrible what happened that day.
I know people that were 10 feet away.
It's awful.
And I was emotional because I'm a human being and I have compassion for people.
I can hate what somebody stands for and still have compassion for somebody.
But especially in some states in this country, if you're the victim of incest or rape, you have to be forced to have that child.
I find that to be reprehensible.
And for the people out there that are so anti-abortion, and I don't call it pro-life, for the people out there that are anti-abortion, I ask you this question.
We can get into the weeds on that one, but there are brilliant people who perform pregnancies every day, brilliant doctors who would disagree with you on that.
When you have, so the, these, our brother's up time and time again, Colorado has unlimited abortion to nine months.
Oklahoma has banned it outright.
Okay, so what's going to happen is women in Oklahoma are going to be like, oh my God, I have to leave.
They'll go to Colorado.
And then men and or I'll just say men and women in Oklahoma who are liberal are going to be like, we better get the fuck out of here.
And men and women in Colorado who are right-leaning are going to be like, holy crap, we got to get the F out of here.
It's going to hyper-polarize both states.
And that's going to entrench the political worldview where in the United States, we, in the 90s, we had a left and a right that largely agreed with each other on most things.
The argument over abortion was the amount of weeks that it would be illegal.
And it was going back and forth.
Right was saying, we shouldn't have any abortion.
And there was a compromise.
Okay, maybe six weeks, maybe 14.
Today, it's no abortion, all abortion.
What's going to happen now is in each hyper-polarized state, California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, as blue ones, the left and the right will become moderate liberals and leftists.
And in red states, it's going to be moderate conservatives and the far right.
What this means is, as the, so if in the United States as a whole, our left and right largely agree with each other, you find a middle ground, which is very similar to both.
If people geographically hyperpolarize, then you will get a moderate conservative, let's say, Indiana, debating a far-right, ultra-nationalist or whatever.
And you'll find a middle ground, which is now relative, like no longer moderate.
Now it's staunch, hard, conservative.
And the blue states are staunch, hard left.
These individual states now looking at each other will be like, your worldview is so far away from mine, you're a threat to my existence.
That is what has been happening.
New York saw, I think, 500,000 people leave since 2020.
These are all moderate to conservative individuals who left and went to other areas, entrenching those politics.
The reason why Chicago is going the way it's going, the reason why Portland is going the way it's going, where the cops are arresting conservatives, is because the state is now a debate among various factions of left with no conservative and the conservatives of left.
This will end up with Trump sending in the troops, as he's doing, and will end up with the states defying it, which they are doing.
And then ultimately, I think it's very likely we get to a point where Trump suspends habeas corpus along the routes in which the troops are being deployed, just like Abraham Lincoln did.
And then after winning whatever right reconstructive or whatever war that happens, Congress will retroactively approve of Trump's actions.
This is there's two dimensions to it, which is the diverging values.
We're outside of a media monopoly, so people are rediscovering their values.
And then the other element is there's huge cultural differences within the U.S. that go back to the settler groups that even within intra-British separate districts that still make a huge difference on how we vote politically.
And so when you have a country with different cultures, just like Iraq, as SUNY, Shi'i, Kurd, then you have this problem where one group's going to dominate the other or you're going to get a strongman.
So the only way we can fix this is by reducing the power of the federal bureaucracy so there's less to fight over.
But make no mistake about it, going back to abortion.
The reason why in some states in this country, there's no exceptions for rape or incest is because of Donald Trump, because he appointed these people on the Supreme Court who overturned Roe versus Wade.
Now, you could have your opinions on abortion and that's fine, but it is so beyond unreasonable to me to look at a 13-year-old girl in the eye and say, hey, you have to have that, for lack of a better term, rape baby.
People are sick.
Now, if you want to have your daughter, that's your business.
I'm not going to get involved.
But there are states in this country, Tim, and that is because of Donald Trump, because he appointed certain members on the Supreme Court who overturned Roe versus Wade.
So with the last few minutes we have, I'll point out Roe v.
Wade being challenged in any way ultimately will lead to a conclusion that you will absolutely despise.
And we're only halfway there.
I think the next move from the Supreme Court will likely be to have a nationwide ban on abortion.
The reason why is the 14th Amendment, which I will read.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, I'm sorry, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What I see as being very obvious is, first, in the 14th Amendment, you have the question of definition of person.
Person and citizen are completely different.
A person can be born, implying that there are persons who are not yet born.
It says all persons born or naturalized.
Now, they're making a reference to persons who exist outside of the United States who were not born here.
There is also going to be an interpretation that a person born implies a person unborn.
Whether you agree with that argument or not, I think the Conservative Supreme Court will side on the fact that the unborn is a person.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
What's likely going to happen, in my opinion, when this question next arises, because liberals will likely challenge the law once again in some state.
It will then go up to the courts.
Supreme Court will then have to answer the question of personhood as it pertains to the 14th Amendment and the unborn.
The conservatives will likely agree there is a this is actually a component of Roe v.
I think it's a very difficult circumstance because then you're a mother that knows that you have a child out there somewhere that you're not a justification for killing the child.
Will that child, or to be a child, whatever your definition is of a human being, they will have foster parents?
there a guarantee that that child will be able to be live with with parents that well i can't see that far but what i can say is that's an important question though don't you think of Of course it is, but it's an after-the-fact question.
One of my arguments from the right is that, you know, people get involved in crime because they're raised without parents, you know, the nuclear family.
I'm just saying, if that did happen and there was a law that was passed, I would want to make sure that that child would have parents.
You know, I don't want them waiting for decades to get foster parents.
So I think if that child would be guaranteed to have a parent or parents, then I think I might feel a little bit differently.
Men throughout history, some who have wanted children and some who have not, have found out years later they had kids they never knew about, but women never experienced that because women have the kids.
Or the inverse where a guy rapes the woman and then she has the kid a long time later.
This is creating a circumstance where, yeah, you don't get to just kill an unborn fetus, whatever you want to call it, if it can be saved by the doctor.
And I believe you will likely lose every argument because the majority of people don't want limitless abortion.
If you go to the average person and say, we have great compromise, women can get an abortion whenever they want and the baby will be saved.
And there's a big political debate on how we do it.
The issue with the advent of this technology, perhaps it will exacerbate this problem, but there is no legal argument for the termination of a life if the life can be saved.
You can grant the woman the right to end the pregnancy.
And I don't want to have a kid is not an argument.
So the important argument, the understanding is while I largely don't agree with many of those Republican policies, I do understand why they vote for them.
As an ideal potentially, we shouldn't have anything.
But I don't think we should get rid of it while we're tying people's hands behind their back with this regulation that's enforcing this oligopoly and four companies dominate 80% of each market.
That's one of the worst jobs reports we've had in years.
And whether you want to blame Trump for that or not of the tariffs, that's another conversation.
But you're telling me someone who works really hard who makes $30,000, $35,000 a year, very little money, living paycheck to paycheck, they lose their job.
They're not fired for cause.
They just lose their job.
And you don't think they should get maybe three months or six months of unemployment benefits?
But I don't believe that if you're a billionaire, you should be paying a lower amount percentage-wise on taxes than a household income of, say, $50,000 a year.
And then, yeah, I would say just free Shane Malone, who's Lamond, who's the police officer who was trying to simmer, bring tensions down on Jan 6.
And then free IanNow.org, free IanNow.org.
Please sign that petition to help a crypto guy who's been unfairly prosecuted, as many of them have.
And then I would just close off with Watch History 102, which is a great show that gets into some of the themes that are behind all these political disagreements.
And to summarize, the deep South was settled by English aristocrats who were in for 200 years in South America first, so it's very authoritarian.
The New England is also authoritarian because it was settled by Calvinist theocrats who wanted to create their own Church of England.
So we need an alliance between Appalachia and the Midlands to tamp down some of this crazy.
And for the record, 10 seconds, I just want to say I've heard rumors allegedly that people on the left, they'll do your show and they'll say they'll come back and then they don't come back.
