The Culture War - Tim Pool - Trump Orders NATIONWIDE National Guard Riot Plan, SNAPOCALYPSE Riots Feared ft. Sen. Rand Paul

Oct. 30, 2025 - The Culture War - Tim Pool

35:14

Trump Orders NATIONWIDE National Guard Riot Plan, SNAPOCALYPSE Riots Feared ft. Sen. Rand Paul

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) Guest: Senator Rand Paul @RandPaul (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

Participants

Main voices

rand paul

18:52

tim pool

16:16

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Our political system is addicted to just taking on more and more debt that we can't pay back.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		And there are ramifications to this.
		There's a story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today saying that we are hitting a peak at repossessing cars.
		That is not a good sign.
		When people cannot make their car payment, you know, it's one of the last things you quit paying because you need your car to go to work.
		So when they take your car, you take your car, you take your car, you take your car, you're a problem.
		So you pay it until you can't.
		So the fact that cars are being repossessed at this high rate is a consequence of the debt.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Pentagon has ordered a quick reaction force for civil unrest and riots.
		Sounds like Donald Trump and the Trump administration are planning for some major unrest in the coming year.
		Now, this is every state, every National Guard must be prepared for this.
		And at a time when we're contemplating whether or not we're going to see mass riots over food stamps, it seems pretty disconcerting.
		However, based on the riots we'd already seen in 2020, based on what we've already seen through this past year with the expansion of leftist terror attacks and now prominent leftist podcasters calling for people to be murdered, I can understand why Trump is doing this.
		Now, let's play the time travel test again.
		If I went back in time 10 years and told you that Donald Trump in his second term, non-consecutive, by the way, would be organizing every National Guard as a quick for a quick reaction force to deal with mass civil unrest.
		Would you believe me?
		You wouldn't.
		Nobody would believe it.
		The lengths we have traveled in this country are insane.
		I mean, we're looking at terror attacks against Tesla, ICE facilities, the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
		It's gotten pretty dang stressful and pretty worrying.
		The other day for the morning segment, I covered this clip from a podcast where a female podcaster with over a million followers, a middle-aged woman, celebrated the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the threat of death against Caitlin Bennett, and then said, Democrats better get on board with that, or they'll be treated all the same.
		That is, you'll get death threats or possibly be murdered.
		And I can't believe we are actually at this point.
		Now, I've long said, I don't know how long we can keep this up because sooner or later, I mean, social order is breaking down, particularly with the Snapocalypse.
		Well, we will be joined by Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul, to talk about the issues pertaining to the SNAPocalypse, the government shutdown.
		Right now, let me bring in the senator.
		I'm a big fan, by the way, and we're getting it loaded up.
		Sounds good so far.
unidentified		Booting up, and here we are.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Senator Rand Paul, can you hear me?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I can.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Coming in loud and clear.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for joining me.
		I do appreciate it.
		There's a lot of stuff in the news right now pertaining to the government shutdown, but also Trump's quick reaction force that we're seeing.
		But I'll start with the first issue, and that is the shutdown.
		The USDA website makes it very clear the Democrats are at fault for the shutdown and the loss of SNAP benefits.
		I'm curious your take on who do you see as being at fault for the shutdown, whether the shutdown is entirely a bad thing for, you know, a lot of libertarians are cheering for it.
		And do you think SNAP will actually expire on the first?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, it's extraordinary that the Democrats are refusing to vote for the same spending levels they voted for in December of last year.
		One of my complaints about the spending levels is that these are the Biden spending levels.
		So this is a continuing resolution of the Biden spending levels.
		Every Democrat in the Senate voted for them in December, and now they're voting no.
		And their reasoning is that they want to get the Obamacare subsidies that are expiring.
		They want them to continue.
		But there's not enough people actually talking about what the Obamacare subsidies are.
		These are subsidies to rich people.
		So if you make $225,000 a year, the Obamacare subsidies that they're talking about give you $1,500.
		If you make $100,000 a year, the Obamacare subsidy is $13,000.
		So this is an existence, people, and they're willing to let food stamps expire while preserving a subsidy for somebody making $225,000 a year.
		It is insane.
		And I think if they were confronted with it, I think they would buckle quicker.
		It's just that the Republicans haven't been very good at describing exactly what these Obamacare subsidies are.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they've typically just described it as healthcare for illegal immigrants.
		And on the USDA website, it says healthcare for illegal immigrants and gender mutilation procedures.
		But is that really what Democrats are holding out for?
		Like the transgender surgery stuff and illegal immigrants getting healthcare?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		No, that may be part of some of this money, but the overall picture is more subsidies for rich people.
		And I think that's a better way to approach it because that's exactly what they are and they can't run away from that.
		You know, $100,000 a year is not a poor person.
		In Kentucky, if you interview people from Kentucky and you say, I make $100,000 a year, people aren't like, oh, well, you need to be subsidized.
		You're so poor.
		I can't believe we need to take care of you.
		Here's $13,000 to go buy insurance.
		Republicans also haven't been very good at giving alternatives.
		And I'll tell you an alternative that would bring prices down.
		The Obamacare subsidies have allowed premiums to still continue to skyrocket, but there is an alternative.
		And what we should do is legalize the ability to buy insurance from a group like Costco, Amazon, Sam's Club.
		What would happen is Costco has 44 million members.
		If you're an individual person, let's say you have a podcast and you're your own business, you have four employees and you have to buy your own insurance.
		You have no leverage and you have to negotiate with big insurance and you get a raw deal.
		But what if you could join Costco and some guy at Costco takes the 44 million membership and he negotiates with the CEO of United Healthcare?
		My guess is you're going to get a better price and it'll drive prices down.
		That is currently illegal and it should be a big part of what Republicans offer is to make that legal.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, so where do you stand on the continuing resolution?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Are you for this opening opening up the government and for this CR?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I'm for opening government, but I think we should open government at a responsible spending level.
		The Republican plan, which is really the Biden spending levels, would allow for spending to occur over the next year and allow a $2 trillion deficit.
		The Democrat plan is at a much higher spending level and it would create a $3 trillion deficit.
		So the choices being presented are $2 trillion in debt or $3 trillion in debt, and I'm for neither one.
		So I presented my plan about three weeks ago and I was able to obtain a vote.
		It's called the penny plan and it's actually now called the six penny plan.
		But you cut 6% from spending each year for five years and it balances the budget.
		That I will vote for, but I'm not willing to vote for a spending level that continues the Biden spending levels.
		I think it's too high.
		Most conservatives said it was too high and now they're all voting for it.
		So go figure.
		But right now I'm by myself and I think I'm the only one left voting for a balanced budget in at least in the Senate anymore.
unidentified		Yep.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'd imagine the only other guy is going to end up being Thomas Massey in the House.
		We've been talking about this for the past week or so with the SNAP benefits expiring as being a good example of why you can't reduce spending.
		You've got 42 million people that are going to lose access to their food benefits.
		However, the system itself is not sustainable.
		You can't just have a class of people in a country that don't work and receive these benefits.
		I'm not saying everyone's exploiting the system, but there's a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse.
		But who is going to be the member of the Senate or Congress to step up campaigning for re-election to say, vote for me and I will cut your benefits?
		No one's going to do it.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll tell you what I've proposed is that maybe you shouldn't get Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
		Maybe you shouldn't get Twinkies.
		Maybe you shouldn't get porcrines.
		You know, maybe a lot of the crap that we're putting in our bodies should not be subsidized by the government.
		But I'm also willing to say that able-bodied people shouldn't be getting it.
		People going to college should get a job on the side to buy their food.
		They shouldn't hop beyond-bodied people should not be getting food stamps.
		They were originally intended for hard luck cases like a mom with four kids and no husband who can't work because she's got to take care of a one-year-old, two-year-old, three-year-old, and a four-year-old.
		And that's what food stamps were for so we didn't have starvation.
		But 42 million people, my guess is at least 10% of them are able-bodied, maybe 25% of them are able-bodied and ought to buy their own food.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's not just that, though.
		I mean, the assumption for these single mothers is it's they're widows or tragedy has befallen them.
		Now what we're seeing from all these viral videos, and I'm not suggesting it's every single recipient, but it's many people saying that the taxpayer should pay for their families.
		They shouldn't have to work.
		They're threatening to loot stores if they don't get this money from the government.
		And so what I see happening is probably with good intentions, a long time ago, we said, let's help those who are suffering and impoverished.
		And we've created a class of people that simply just live off of government.
		And I know you know this, but for the viewers, I think the numbers now 36.8% of our economy is government, which is, it's not sustainable.
		This is not a function of a market.
unidentified		Right.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		And this is why I've opposed both of the spending plans, the Republican and the Democrat plan.
		But the other thing to enter into this thing is I'm not for eliminating everybody's food stamps, but I would spend less than we currently spend.
		I would have restrictions on the food.
		And the number one problem we have for people in poverty, the number one health problem is obesity.
		We don't have people starving in our streets.
		This is not Bangladesh, for goodness sakes.
		What we have are people 50 and 100 pounds overweight that need healthier food, and we just simply shouldn't subsidize it.
		There is no nutritional value in a sugared soda pop.
		There's no nutritional value at all.
		In fact, it is as bad.
		People say, well, with food stamps, you can't buy alcohol and cigarettes.
		Well, you shouldn't be able to buy sugar-infused drinks either.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, they're complaining about it.
		I mean, there's a video I was just talking about earlier in the day where there are people complaining that that proposal that you're making is one of the remedies.
		They're saying, if I want to buy sugary drinks and chocolate snacks, I should be allowed to.
		And they're offended at the idea.
		This is really funny.
		One lady said, one of the proposals is you'll get an allotment of milk, meats, fresh fruits, and breads that you can purchase or would be delivered to you.
		And that was an affront to them.
		And I'm sitting here thinking, that's literally my grocery list.
		I'm not buying the sugary garbage.
		So we're subsidizing unhealthy food that's keeping people in poverty and keeping them sick.
		While many of these people on these benefits are offended at the idea that that's what they'd be forced to buy.
		But with that being said, my question to you is on the political and the politics of it all.
		It's funny because I think it's Rhett Massey and you seem to be the only, maybe it's not fair to say only, but typically the only ones who are consistently saying stop spending and stop giving people free stuff.
		But even with your presence, as you mentioned, another $2 trillion in a $2 trillion deficit, the debt's going to keep going up.
		Eventually, the interest rate is going to overtake all spending in the budget.
		The system's going to implode on itself.
		And it seems like our political system is addicted to just taking on more and more debt that we can't pay back.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		And there are ramifications to this.
		There's a story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today saying that we are hitting a peak at repossessing cars.
		That is not a good sign.
		When people cannot make their car payment, it's one of the last things you quit paying because you need your car to go to work.
		So when they take your car, you take your car, you take your car, you take your car, you're problem.
		So you pay it until you can't.
		So the fact that cars are being repossessed at this high rate is a consequence of the debt.
		Why?
		Because interest rates are high because of inflation.
		Your interest payment is a combined that someone's giving you the money for a while and then you pay them back over time.
		So in order to get that money advanced to you, you pay about historically about 3% plus inflation.
		Inflation is about 3% plus the historic rate of 3%.
		That's about 6%.
		And what's happening is that people are no longer able to make their payments because of inflation.
		Their costs of their groceries and their car payment and everything else is going up quicker than their salary is going up.
		But it's all related to the debt.
		But then you say people, the Democrats say, well, I feel sorry for you because your car got repossessed.
		So I'm going to give you a car subsidy rental payment.
		So why don't we give you $500 a month so you can make your car payment?
		But then it makes the problem worse because the prices will rise even faster.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't think, I think the challenge is as you're going through the interest rate numbers and the deficit.
		Unfortunately, the average person doesn't understand how that trickles down and ends up affecting their daily life.
		I don't blame them.
		It's not the job of a tradesman or even an office worker for an insurance company to understand the minutia of federal spending, deficits, debt, the interest rates.
		They're trying to do their jobs that they're specialized in to support a civilization.
		Yet when you try and tell these people how the deficit's going to impact their lives, the only thing they're thinking is, look, man, I got to buy groceries for my kids.
		This high-level esoteric stuff, I don't understand.
		Tell me how you're giving me money.
		It makes it very easy for Republicans and Democrats to then say, we'll write you a check for free money and just keep spending, I guess.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I think you're right.
		And the argument is always easier for free stuff.
		Free stuff is concrete.
		If I give you a car or if I give you a payment for your health insurance, you see that.
		What we're trying to offer is something that is more less tangible.
		It is opportunity.
		It is the freedom to excel.
		But their system also doesn't work.
		So when they give you $1,000 a month for health insurance, does the price of your health insurance go up or down?
		No, it went up.
		And so next year, you need even more.
		So the reason why they keep increasing the Obamacare subsidies for health insurance is it hasn't brought the health insurance down.
		It subsidized the price and the price goes higher.
		And next year you need more.
		So I guess my point is, is we, it is more complicated, but we need to explain to people, and they kind of get it.
		People know that Costco has cheaper prices.
		They know Walmart has cheaper prices.
		They know that when you buy a bunch of something, you can negotiate a different price.
		I think we could explain to people, let people buy their insurance through Costco.
		Let the very poorest among us get Medicaid.
		And everybody else ought to just buy their insurance.
		And people making $100,000 should be able to negotiate with people at Costco to buy their insurance.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's also to the heavy politics of it.
		One of the predictions that we've seen, and I actually agree with this, is that tomorrow Trump is going to announce, oh, we found emergency money for SNAP benefits.
		We're going to restore SNAP.
		Don't worry, you won't miss a beat.
		And this is blame the Democrats for the shutdown, say no to emergency funds.
		And at the very last minute, Trump can swoop in and say, I saved all of you.
		I kind of think that's what's going to happen because I can't imagine a scenario where the government addicted to spending would actually stop a program this large.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		No.
		And the thing is, as much as I want to save money, I'm not for a hundred percent reduction in food stamps.
		I'm for modifying food stamps to get healthy people off of them, able-bodied people off them.
		But I'm not for 100% cut tomorrow.
		So it doesn't make any sense.
		But really, ultimately, the Democrats are doing this because they want subsidies for rich people's insurance to continue.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me ask you: they just reported this the other day that Trump has ordered the National Guard in every state to have a quick reaction force for mass civil unrest.
		Maybe this is just overhyped in the media, but it sounds fairly alarming for two reasons.
		One, I mean, the idea that the National Guard would be prepped to patrol our streets for mass riots, but the other idea is there's a legitimate fear of mass unrest in the streets.
		I think this ties directly to a variety of phenomenon.
		One, the political just hyper-polarization in the country, but also when you have this spending to this degree, which you've warned about forever, what a lot of people don't understand is how this is ultimately going to destabilize the system.
		When the government has to tax you more or print money to pay interest on the debt, they're running out of the ability to even fund these programs.
		Now you've got people saying if they don't get their food stamps, they'll riot.
		Sooner or later, the bill will come due for all of this debt.
		And I kind of feel like it's playing a major role in why Trump is saying maybe we need to have this mass civil unrest response force.
		But I'm curious your thoughts on that reporting.
		If it's legitimate, is there a real threat of mass rioting?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
		I can't predict that for sure.
		I don't like the idea that we're going to be mobilizing the army in every city.
		I would rather fix the problem than be prepared to quell riots and stop rioting.
		You can't have rioting.
		I mean, you have to have a civilization.
		But at the same time, we need to try to fix the problems.
		And I think the problems are fixable.
		And I think there's a gradual way to do it.
		But if you think there are going to be problems with food stamps not going out, there's also going to be problems when their social security checks don't go out.
		Oh, man.
		That's coming in 2034.
		That Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt.
		And it may come sooner than that.
		So we should fix those problems now and not wait till there's going to be riots in the street.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how you're so calm about it all the time.
		I mean, obviously, as I mentioned, you are one of the leading adversaries of the mass spending.
		Whenever there's an issue of them trying to spend more money than we can, it is you that's calling out.
		And obviously we have Thomas Massey.
		And before that, it was your dad.
		But we're on a train that's not going to stop.
		We know about the Social Security problem.
		We don't have enough young people.
		Gen Alpha is estimated to be about 42 million people.
		And they're just beginning to enter the workforce at about 16 years old.
		We are not going to have enough taxpayers to fund Social Security.
		So just what a collision course.
		I don't know what do we do?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Well, with Social Security, you're going to have to start receiving it at a later age.
		And I've said the age has to go to 70.
		In the early 1980s, we went from 65 to 67 over about a 20-year period.
		It's not pleasant news to tell you, but it's the only thing you can do.
		Now, you could also raise Social Security taxes dramatically.
		Right now, you pay 15%.
		You pay 7.5% and your employer pays 7.5%, but really you pay 15%.
		If you want to pay 25%, you can keep Social Security the way it is.
		If you want to pay 25% of your check to Social Security, but most people, you tell them that, and most politicians say, well, gosh, that'd be devastating on the working guy to have a 25% tax on everybody.
		Then the Democrats say, let's just tax the rich people, which is their answer to everything.
		But they don't realize that we already tax the heck out of rich people.
		Rich people pay most of the taxes.
		The income tax, the top 1% pays like 40% of the income tax.
		The top 10% pays like 90% of the income tax.
		So rich people already pay not only their fair share, they pay most of the income tax.
		So these are problems and you have to fix them.
		So you either have to reduce the benefits or means test Social Security, beans test Medicare.
		And I think you probably should do more of that because frankly, we just don't have the money.
		Instead, we just borrow.
		But as we borrow, we create the inflation that makes it even more difficult for those on fixed income and poor people to make do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, I will say this, you know, with all due respect because you are the one who's, I feel like, been the most honest about spending these bills, constantly calling them out, even when Republicans get mad at you.
		But I feel like every my whole life, the only thing I see is Democrats and Republicans increasing spending at infinitum.
		And at the end of the day, and I don't mean this derisively, but it's going to be Rand Paul standing on a mountain holding a sign saying, I told you so, as it all just crumbles down because no one is willing to actually pull this back.
		You're very calm about it, but we can see right now the economic impact of the deficit you were calling out years ago.
		And we know what's going to happen in 2030 with Social Security.
		I mean, in the 2030s with Social Security.
		But I don't see a reality in which someone is willing to run for office.
		Like I mentioned, outside of you and say Rhett Massey, they're going to tell you, we're going to reduce your benefits.
		We're going to extend, we're going to increase the age for Social Security.
		We are going to put limits here.
		Nobody wants to say it because then they won't get re-elected.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Well, the only thing I would push back on is this.
		I think people are willing to accept it.
		I've told people in Kentucky for years, I don't want to raise the age of Social Security, but we have to because, for example, the example I will use all the time is Alzheimer's research.
		Who could be against Alzheimer's research?
		Everybody's got someone in their family that has dementia or Alzheimer's.
		Everybody wants to find a cure.
		But when they come to me and they say, we want research money, I say, that's fine.
		We're a rich country.
		We can do it.
		But you got $100 million last year and we're out of money.
		So what if we gave you $94 million next year?
		Every one of them accepts it.
		So people are willing to accept that there's less money.
		They don't want to go to zero.
		It's the same way with food stamps.
		I'm not going to go home and say I'm going to take everybody's food stamps because I think that is not something people can accept and it would be too dramatic.
		But I will go home and say we only have enough money next year for 90 year for 90s or for 90s here for 90.
		The six foot four football player at UK doesn't need to be on food stamps, you know?
		So I think we can, I think people are willing to accept that.
		They're not willing to accept that we abruptly end all programs, but they're willing to accept that, you know what, there's going to be a little bit less money.
		It may be a smaller food stamp check, or it may be we can keep it the same if we get the healthy, able-bodied people off of food stamps.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But I do feel like this is going to be largely in red jurisdictions, districts, states, or otherwise.
		I think there's going to be a risk in swing states and swing districts where the Republican says exactly as you're saying, hey, let's be responsible and get spending done.
		The Democrat's going to come in and say, don't listen to him.
		I'll double your payments.
		You've got Zoran Mamdani in New York promising not just to make the buses free, but to make them somehow go faster, which is just meaningless.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		There's an image I saw on the internet this morning, which is a great, very simple explanation for the people wanting free stuff.
		And it shows a soda machine.
		One of them's free and one of them costs money, capitalism.
		Capitalism's completely full.
		The free one's empty.
		When you make something free, you have none of it.
		And so people are, I think people are smarter than you give them credit for because, look, we've been having this debate of, you know, bread and circus, free stuff to distract you versus opportunity in the American dream.
		And we've been able to get people to be convinced that the American dream is better than that.
		And really, if you talk to people, a lot of people on welfare don't want to be on welfare.
		They want, they aspire to something more.
		So we just have to be honest.
		We have to be better salesmen.
		But you're right.
		Mondami is offering you free food from the government store.
		But the old story from the Soviet Union was this.
		Guy goes into the store and he asks the guy, he said, are you the store that doesn't have any butter?
		And he says, no, we're the store that doesn't have any eggs.
		The store doesn't have any butters across the way.
		Because everybody was short all the time.
		In Venezuela, the average person has lost 30 pounds last year because socialism cannot provide the food and cannot provide because there's no incentive for people to grow the food.
		So socialism is an abysmal failure.
		And I don't know.
		I think people can't understand that.
		But we have to be better salesmen because for me to sell you opportunity and the opportunity to succeed in life in the American dream, which is not concrete.
		It's an image.
		I have to be better at selling that to you because if someone wants to give you a car, it's easier to take the car than it is the American dream.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I wish I was as optimistic, you know, seeing how popular Zoran Mamdani has become, seeing even AOC, she's contemplating a run for president.
		The idea of free stuff forever, it's hitting a lot of people who believe it.
		I've been to Venezuela.
		I was there, it was about 10 years ago, and I saw how the government trying to create jobs stripped people of their actual wealth and prosperity.
		They tried to control everything, and their currency was worth less than toilet paper.
		I went to buy a cell phone.
		In order to buy a cell phone, you had like six different staffers where you had to go to one for the sales choice where he shows you a picture.
		Then after you choose that, you go to the next guy who then says he's requisitioned where he has to go to the where go into the back to find it.
		They had one guy do every tiniest job to make sure fake jobs existed.
		And what ends up happening?
		The stores are all empty.
		Nobody has anything.
		It doesn't work.
		But for some reason, there are people in this country today, young people that are buying into these lies.
		And it's going to result in a catastrophe.
		So I wish I was as optimistic, but we're seeing the rise of the Democratic socialists and people wearing communism shirts in the Democratic Party.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		You are, but you're also seeing that used by the other side to say how crazy they are and how marginalized they are and why we can't get these people in charge, let these people become in charge of our country.
		So it is an eternal battle between those offering you baubles, offering you free stuff, and those offering you an American dream or offering you opportunity to succeed.
		And it is a difficult sale.
		But in the end, you look at our country versus the disaster that is Venezuela.
		And I think people are smart enough to grasp the differences between that.
		And we still do have the majority of people who do work hard in this country.
		I mean, you want to see who's now become the Republicans?
		Go in a machine shop, go into a shop where they're working on cars and the guys have grease up to their elbows because they're working their butt all day and ask them what they think about food stamps and welfare.
		And you'll find the most conservative people in America are the ones busting their butt every day, working eight to 10 hours a day, making decent money, but they've got no sympathy for those who are out there just collecting a check.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'll give you that one for sure.
		It does look politically, I mean, with the Republicans basically winning everything in the last election.
		And even right now, although history predicts Democrats should win the midterms as the opposition party, Kalshi's prediction for it is it's 58 to 42.
		Republicans have a strong chance to actually increase in the House.
		I do think perhaps it's true.
		The socialist push that we're seeing in some of these cities has been a boon for the Republican Party because people are saying no to this stuff.
		So I got one.
		Go ahead, go ahead.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I was going to say, I think we'd do better if we didn't offer them socialism light.
		You know, so if we want to be AOC light or socialism light, once there's not a distinction, there's a problem.
		This happened in the Georgia special election when right after as Trump was leaving office, they were still offering checks to people, $2,500 checks to everybody.
		The Republicans, that was a Republican message.
		Meaning that while they were calling the Democrats down there radical socialist Marxists, it's like, what is more Marxist than sending everybody out $2,500 check?
		That's ridiculous.
		So we need to be a distinction.
		We need to be a real difference and present something.
		But, you know, it doesn't have to be austerity.
		What we can present is something that the American dream of working hard and getting something for your family.
		I tell kids every day, if you're an electrician, you'll make a good living in our country.
		You'll be solidly middle class.
		But if you hire four electricians and you're an electrician, now you're an electrical contractor, you'll be richer than any doctor in any town.
		You can do that with a high school degree and a technical degree in our country.
		You can be fabulously successful.
		I know an electrician who's now a billionaire because he has one of the biggest electrical contracting companies in Texas.
		But I think he started out as an electrician.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's how you do it.
		Well, I got, I don't know how much you can opine on this next one, but Trump truthed yesterday that he was restarting U.S. nuclear weapons testing.
		And, you know, the reaction that I'm seeing from people is kind of like they're shifty-eyed both ways.
		Like, what's going on?
		Why are we doing this?
		There's fears of, you know, Russia is testing some nukes and or nuclear-powered rockets, China as well.
		Is there any concern over this?
		Is this saber rattling?
		What do you think?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I would need to know further exactly what he means by that.
		We haven't really done significant nuclear testing since 1992.
		So that sounds like a pretty significant thing if we haven't done it in, you know, 20-some odd years.
		I think we need to figure out exactly what he means by it.
		I wouldn't immediately say no because I think that our nuclear weapons probably have to be tested sometime.
		So if that's what it means, if it means testing new thermonuclear plutonium bombs and exploding them on atolls in the Pacific, that's a much different story.
		But it also involves conversations.
		And as much as we're at odds with the Chinese and the Russians, I am for ongoing and continuous nuclear arms discussions to make sure we don't have a nuclear war.
		And nuclear weapons are not something you can just say, oh, well, we'll just explode a couple of them, you know, in a war.
		We don't want to have a nuclear war.
		No one wants to have a nuclear war.
		And so I think it needs to be something thoughtfully discussed and not maybe just randomly sort of said in a press conference.
		So I'm going to look into it more.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I don't want to imply or ask, I'm not trying to imply you have aspirations to be president or anything like this, but I do have this question that were you to enter the office of the presidency, do you think you'd be able to resist these forces that try to put you into that status quo of, you know, it seems like everybody who runs says, here's the way things should be.
		And then the moment they get into the presidency, they largely just fall in line with what we've seen from every other administration.
		I ask you this of yourself, but do you think it's possible that we could ever get a president who's going to be, yeah, no, I'm not playing that game.
		We're not doing that.
		We're going to negotiate.
		We're not going to, you know, keep funding these wars overseas.
		We're not going to play these games, actually be different.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		The answer is yes.
		There are people who can resist the allure of power, but our founding fathers thought that it was sort of basic to mankind that men and women aspire to power.
		Once they have it, it's like a drug.
		They become addicted to it.
		And so when they wrote the Constitution, they assumed that there would be presidents who tried to usurp power.
		They assumed that Congress might try to usurp power.
		So Madison said we will pit ambition against ambition.
		And so the powers would be checked and balanced by the ambition of Congress to check and balance the Congress.
		And so that was the intention.
		I often will say, though, it's too bad that Congress has no ambition.
		Giving up all their power to the presidency.
		Yeah, but I think it takes an extraordinary person to resist the allure of power.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Was there anything else you wanted to add before we wrap up?
		I do appreciate you coming on.
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
		I think that's good.
		Thanks for having me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for, is there, you got, I don't know, social media or something where people can learn more about what you're working on?
rand paul ▲ ● ▼		I'll bet you can go anywhere on any of the venues and find me.
		I'm on all of Monmon X. I'm on Facebook.
		I'm on Instagram.
		I think I'm on Snapchat.
		I think I'm on TikTok.
		You name it.
		I think I'm there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on.
		Well, Senator Rand Paul, thank you so much for hanging out.
		We'll see you next time.
		That was Senator Rand Paul.
		I'm a big fan.
		Nobody's perfect.
		And it's stupid that I always have to caveat this because there are so many people that think if you say Rand Paul does a good job, you're defending literally everything he's ever done.
		Same thing with Trump.
		So there are often times where Rep Massey, best member of Congress, in my opinion, before him was Matt Gaetz.
		Matt Gaetz was the best member of Congress because he was willing to stand up.
		Massey gets things wrong.
		There are things I really disagree with Thomas Massey on all the time.
		But he's an honest guy.
		You may not like his opinions.
		He'll sit down with you.
		He'll talk to you about it.
		He makes a good case.
		Same thing is true with Senator Paul.
		That's why I really do like these guys.
		I wish we had a system.
		I wish everybody in Congress was more like they were, but it is what it is.
		I will also add, you know, with all due respect to the senator and to every other politician that we sometimes bring on these shows, they're always politicians.
		It's not going to be as, you know, they want to refrain from making heavy predictions or being too heavy-handed.
		And that's kind of my point.
		No one is going to want to come out and say, shut down the food stamps.
		Not even Rand Paul.
		To be fair, he's not wrong.
		We can't just overnight shut this stuff down.
		It could have a ripple effect that destroys us.
		We've got to wean off of the drugs.
		So fair point.
		But what if you can't?
		What if you can't?
		So we'll see.
		I wonder what Trump thinks is going to happen with these riots.
		We'll leave it there.
		Smash the like button, my friends.
		Share the show with everyone you know.
		We're back tonight at 8 p.m. for Timcast IRL.
		Don't miss it.
		Join the Timcast Discord by going to Timcast.com and clicking join us.
		Thank you all so much for hanging out.

▲