Trump Preps BOOTS ON THE GROUND In Iran Says media, Trump Says NO | Timcast IRL w/ Devory Darkins
Tim Pool and Devory Darkins dissect the Trump administration's potential ground troop deployment in Iran, warning of World War III escalation amid concurrent conflicts in Venezuela and Ukraine. They analyze Democrats' "Project 2029" lawfare strategy, alleging a coordinated effort to arrest officials while corporate elites buy media platforms to suppress independent commentary. The discussion covers Texas gambling inconsistencies, James Talarico's alleged election-stealing hoax, and accusations that AI models exhibit white supremacist biases, ultimately concluding that neither political side is willing to back down despite the looming threat of democratic collapse and elite civil war. [Automatically generated summary]
It is being reported that more Marines and ships are being deployed to the Middle East as the Trump administration is preparing for a ground incursion in Iran.
Now, initial reports is that this would just be limited to Karg Island, which is not the main body of Iran, to secure their oil distribution and force them to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
However, Donald Trump himself has put out a statement saying we are getting ready to wind things down.
So, at the same time, he's saying that the United States is deploying more Marines and ships to the region, so you have to figure out what you think is really going to happen.
And I'm of the opinion I think things are probably going to escalate, and hopefully they don't.
But some are speculating for the 800 millionth time that this, this, could be World War III.
Yes, right.
Venezuela could have been World War III.
Ukraine could have been World War III.
Actually, to be honest, I think there's a compelling argument that we are looking at potentially World War III, and that is, in World War II, the argument is it was a series of battles that started, and before anyone, no one really knew that it was a world war at the time when it kicked off.
And that's true for most great wars.
So the argument this time is, hey, guys, look.
You've got the Gulf in war.
You've got whatever happened in Venezuela and now with Cuba, which is destabilizing, but sort of stabilizing.
There's conflict.
You've got Ukraine.
You've got threats against Taiwan.
This looks like it could be something starting.
We don't know for sure, so we'll talk about that.
More importantly, my friends, it has been announced by Democrats Project 2029.
And what is that?
They're saying that they're going to arrest Trump's administration, federal agents who supported Trump.
And if they can't get you on criminal charges, they will destroy you civilly.
So, oh boy, it's going to be great if Democrats, when Democrats, win the midterms.
Or click the link in the description below to download the Rumble Wallet.
This is a non-custodial wallet.
That means you can't be banned from it.
They don't have control over this.
You hold the money.
It is Bitcoin.
It is Tether.
It is Tether Gold.
You can trade it with whoever you want, and they can never ban you.
The reason why it's important, guys, if we do enter a censorship era and debanking comes back with vengeance, it's never gone away, mind you, but it has been somewhat suppressed.
You're going to need a means by which you can transact with people where you know you're not going to get banned.
That's why the Rumble Wallet is a great way to do that.
You can also use the Rumble Wallet to tip your favorite creators on Rumble, like yours truly.
So again, check out wallet.rumble.com.
Download the app.
And don't forget, my friends, go to Timcast.com and join the Discord.
Help support the work we do directly and join the network.
It's not what you know, it's who you know.
And everybody here, you can help them.
They can help you.
Community is our strength.
And as a member, you support the work that we do.
So also, smash the like button right now in this video.
Click the little like button.
Share it wherever you can.
Thanks for hanging out on this beautiful Friday night.
I know you could be out partying, but you're here watching Tim Cast IRL and it means a lot to me.
So share the show again.
And joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.
Trump administration making heavy preparations for potential use of ground troops in Iran.
We then have this in the New York Times.
U.S. dispatches Marines and warships to the Middle East.
Officials said 2,500 Marines from 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit in California and the USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group will go in April to relieve Marines already deployed in the Persian Gulf.
Now, at the same time, as they are saying Trump is gearing up for a ground incursion of Carg Island, Trump himself boasts we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the terrorist regime of Iran.
One, completely degrading Iranian missile capability, two, destroying the defense industrial base, three, eliminating their Navy and Air Force, four, et cetera, et cetera.
You get the point.
The U.S. does not, he says, by other nations, blah, blah, blah.
If asked, we will help these countries in their Hormuz efforts, but it shouldn't be necessary once Iran's threat is eradicated.
Importantly, it will be an easy military operation for them, et cetera.
We get the point.
This is Trump talking about the Middle Eastern allies and trying to secure the Strait of Hormuz.
I'm going to go ahead and say my opinion on this one is that the war is not going well.
The independents are breaking from Trump.
Republicans strongly support Trump.
Democrats always oppose Trump.
The question is, where are the middle-of-the-road people?
You've certainly got many prominent individuals who were on the right who are now critical of Trump and this war.
But you also have two-to-one independents leaning away from this.
They do not support these actions.
And based on what we have seen in terms of deployment or announced deployments, as well as the request for $200 billion and the fact that there's now discussions of invading Karg Island, I don't think this is going well.
Trump is under a political meat grinder.
He has a midterm coming up, and this is the Iranian strategy.
They want to grind it out until Trump is curtailed after the midterms, and then they win effectively.
I mean, militarily, the U.S. is achieving the goals that they're looking for, but there's also the political goal of this, which is actually the removal of the regime, it seems.
And I'm not so sure that that's going to happen in any kind of timeframe that the administration wants.
Well, I'm really confused because Trump has said that we've won this war eight different times, but now he's coming to Congress asking for $200 billion.
My point is like, whether or not we want a war, like if we won the war, they'd still need to ask for this money, or I should say, want to ask for this.
He negotiates with Putin, who's Iran's biggest ally, and then he simultaneously ends the war in Ukraine while ending this war, and then it can look like he did a two-for-one deal.
Well, I think the petrodollar is what's in limbo right now, because if all of these Gulf states don't actually feel like we're providing them any safety, then they don't even have to use the petrodollar.
And then we'd be totally screwed because we have nothing that backs our currency.
So it's like, I feel like this is a very slippery slope if this thing goes even more sideways.
Yeah, I mean, look, this is, like I said earlier, this is still a military success for the United States.
Like, the U.S., I think that when Iran is saying that they've achieved something because they managed to hit one F-35, like, that's a big deal to them, considering all the sorties that have gone over.
You've got B-52s, which are not stealth aircraft.
They're flying over there basically at their whim.
They've got total air domination, if I understand correctly.
You can't say that Iran is winning the war.
The fact of the matter is the U.S. doesn't have the, there isn't a likelihood that the U.S. is going to achieve its political goals.
And that's consistently what the U.S. has been doing.
They'll achieve the military goals, but actually getting the political goals is something that has eluded the U.S. for a while.
If the win condition for the regime is the regime stays in power, then if America backs off before the regime has crumpled and regime change has happened, the regime is going to say we won.
It is going to likely further solidify their very antagonistic position towards Israel and America.
And we're going to be left with this state that's extremely hostile towards America with potentially concerns, again, about are they going to begin just rebuilding their nuclear power?
There's an argument in Iran for arming the, because Iran is very different than Afghanistan and Iraq, right?
The issue is that, like, in the case of the opposition, they're so beaten down by the regime.
There's no coordination.
They have no access to weaponry.
So this is where the boots on ground comes of, like, if we hadn't started striking Iran, is there this question of before any of this happened, could we have gotten weapons into some actual legitimate, more friendly to democracy group that could have had a successful regime change?
Well, you bring up Afghanistan, but there is a huge difference when you compare Iran's military, which had 900,000 people in their three different branches.
And you look at the Taliban, they had 40,000 people.
So it's just going to be, and then what, it took 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban?
Iran has a very highly educated, high, large middle-class populace that has a large interest in regime change that does not like the regime that is asking for support in Shift.
Yeah, but in the case of Japan, it was like actual regime change, right?
And now they're closest allies.
And there's really, really good research actually that came out of the Pentagon as to like why we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And like these things I'm listening, like middle class, high levels of education, psychological interests of the people growing towards specifically the regime change that America's trying tends to lead to more successful regime change.
Whereas in Afghanistan, there's a number of areas where we like didn't work nearly closely enough with locals.
We supported oftentimes other counter-terrorist groups rather than looking for an alternative in the middle.
There was a lot of major mission mistakes that didn't happen in other successful regime change, which poses the question, is it possible?
If Donald Trump thinks that he can influence regime change in Iran, but he can't even influence the regime of New York City, I think he's going to have an echo battle.
I kind of think, you know, looking at everything that's going on, looking at the sentiment, looking at the media landscape, I wonder if the American, America as a hegemony is done.
It's gone.
There's a lot of money to be made for what we've seen over the past decade or so with global content, meaning making content that plays to a multicultural audience.
The simplest form of this is these just for laugh gags videos that have been viral for a decade plus, where it's comedy bits, but there's no English in it.
That way it can be played for anybody.
So if you're in the age of the internet and you're a business and you want to make money, especially with media content, targeting as many people around the world as possible is going to make you the most money.
You're going to be like, imagine if some dude lived in Malaysia and just all day posting Ian Miles.
Imagine somebody lived in Malaysia but posted nothing about American politics so they could run content in the United States, sell ads against it.
The same thing is true for everywhere else.
So if you can find a lowest common denominator cultural icon or item to produce content around, then, I mean, so we're seeing that with AI slop content.
We see that with comedy content.
But American-centric content is going to struggle against a sea of easy-produced slop and global, lowest common denominator content.
So if you want to maximize your audience, think about subjects that get the best amount of play globally and play that.
And do you think the American as a hegemonic power plays well globally?
The line used to be that an individual needed even just a tiny bit of talent to make a video that might get some views.
Even to just make the video, to turn the camera on, press record, press stop.
Now you've got, there's one video where a dude was explaining how he does something like $100,000 per month or $80,000 per month, working two hours a day by just clicking a button on an AI website and generating a video and then uploading it.
And he's like, yeah, I do like 10 of these per day.
And he's like, and I make 80 grand a month.
It's like, okay, that kid is a millionaire.
And you can't compete with that.
We can't compete with it.
Nobody can.
And as much as people are going to say, like, I don't want it, it doesn't matter because it's what becomes available.
There's going to be 700 videos that's AI trash.
And there's going to be two or three legitimate conversations about war in Iran.
And what's going to happen is that shows like this will not be able to survive this era.
I do think there's a big shift happening.
I believe the narrative machine is coming back.
It's going to be impossible for independent personalities to actually express opinions on these matters.
And we talked about it before, but my prediction is you had the era of free music, then you get the streaming music services where you subscribe.
You had the era of free movies, and now it's just Amazon where people just click the button and buy the movie or watch it on Paramount or CBS or whatever.
The same thing is going to happen to all podcasts.
It's already happening.
So expect, my friends, in the next couple of years.
You know what?
I'm going to let you guys in on a secret.
I'm going to tell you exactly what the play is right now behind the scenes.
You guys ready for this one?
People are going to get mad at me for saying this, and maybe this is going to be bad for my career, but I'm going to tell you what the perceived plan is based on the powers that be and the rumors that are circulating in D.C. is that Joe Kent is friends with Donald Trump.
Joe Kent did not resign in opposition.
He did not resign because he hates Israel or he's concerned about Israel.
He did not resign because he's concerned about this war.
He resigned intentionally to create a bifurcation in the right to shift the political parties in the next couple of years.
And he's going to run for office, likely with Tulsi Gabbard in 2028.
These conversations have been happening behind the scene for some time among many people in these circles.
If you follow Laura Loomer, she's talked about something going on with Tulsi Gabbard.
And potentially, she's working with Trump very well.
What I can tell you is, I have heard a handful of things in the D.C. area.
And that is, Joe Kent didn't just all of a sudden do a 180 on Trump.
This is part of the game plan.
They want to eliminate woke.
They want to restructure the political parties around a moderate Democrat Party and a neocon Republican Party that reflects more like the Obama-McCain years.
That way you have a Democrat candidate who says, we might have to go to war, but we should bring some of our troops home.
So you're going to have maybe war and yes, war, and there's not going to be a strong anti-war element, despite what people are claiming right now.
And that's one of the reasons we're seeing this play.
he's not what what we're hearing in dc i was gonna tell you what what what what the you haven't heard tucker say that he's against this war i'm gonna tell you Yesterday you said that the right was shifting.
So again, I don't, all I can tell you is I've heard a handful of things from people in DC who work in the space that have like, so there's a lot of rumors.
And it sounds to me based off a few things.
Let me stress this.
What I can tell you, I know for sure, the mandate of the corporate media right now is to buy podcasts, to absorb them into their infrastructure and put them on the front page of their streaming services.
Duh, look at what's happening with CBS.
Look what's happening with TikTok.
The play is the machine state wants the narrative control back, so they're flooding YouTube with AI content to suppress independent commentary and channels.
They will all get very small.
They'll still exist, but they won't have a big impact on the general perception of what's going on in the media.
Then you're going to need to reshift the political parties so you can have, I would describe it as a Kyla Democrat party, still kind of on the left, but more reasonable when they have a conversation, trying to make sound arguments.
I respect that.
But the weirder elements of woke and all of the weird gender stuff is going to slowly be pushed aside, and you're going to get a Tulsi Gabbard that is like moderate Dem with some social policies.
But the strategy is when she comes out, she will not say Trump is bad.
She will say, I believe Trump did his best with the information that he was given.
I respect him.
I'm not going to speak ill of this man.
He worked really hard.
However, I think this, and again, the play is they're going to restructure the narrative machine.
The conversation is meant to look more like it did 20 years ago and less like it did in the 2010s.
They don't want culture, war, insanity.
They are trying to bring it all back together.
So again, let me put it like this.
The rumors that I'm hearing, and this could be all just nonsense, but from staffers and lobbyists and people in D.C., is the play that's happening right now.
Like, why is Tucker Carlson all of a sudden saying, oh, this is a bad thing, I oppose this, when only several years ago, he was like, Iran is a serious threat.
And if you want to win this, you need controlled opposition.
There should be an acceptable Democrat and Republican party.
And with the Democratic Party and woke being largely unfavorable, they are going to try and create a moderate space that will attract the likes of Joe Rogan because you know he loves Tulsi Gabbard.
And then you're going to have Joe Rogan in a couple of years being like, you know, I thought the Democrats were nuts.
However, Tulsi Gabbard comes back in, and now we have real leadership for the Democrats.
I think they can win.
That's the game plan.
But this prevents culture war, civil war expansion, and allows for the military-industrial complex and the pro-Israel element to maintain their wars and the liberal economic world.
Because this is a lot of really, really, really big pieces moving.
And there's also an assumption that the Democrat base would ever consider.
Like, I understand you're saying the moderate, the moderate rights right now shift back to being the moderate left and vote for Tulsi, but you won't win anything without the Democrat base.
And the Democrat base is never going to go for Tulsi.
Why is Ellis interested in working, would be interested in Tulsi Gabbard?
Why would Tulsi be able to make a better bid for the moderate Democrat vote than somebody like Gavin Newsom, who's making a pretty hard movement towards trying to connect with you?
Trump's going to get impeached, and there's even speculation that Trump might actually step down early so that Vance gets in as president for a little bit before Rubio takes the opportunity for 2028.
Again, I don't know for sure.
What I can tell you is this: there have been rumors around D.C. for a while that Tulsi Gabbard was preparing to resign and she was going to start doing PR moves where she views Trump respectively so that she can maintain moderates.
She's not going to play the Trump derangement syndrome game.
She's going to say that she respects him.
He's a good guy.
The Democrats were wrong to go after him, but the war is wrong.
Even if it wasn't her, their strategy actually makes sense to me because at least you get rid of the progressive side of politics, which I think is the most radical thing on the planet.
And so if this is what they're thinking, if this is what they're planning, it sounds like a nice little strategy because even if Tulsi loses, if she is the person, that still means it doesn't go to the progressive side like Gavin Newsom.
So if a Tulsi Gabbard candidate is in, if your choice, like if Larry Ellison's looking at who his choice is going to be, and it's got to be a Republican like Trump or some whack-a-loon lefty, he's going to be like, can we get a Democrat in there that's not a threat to us?
Again, the way I look at it is it is being viewed largely by these donors and these elites that we must have a narrative machine the way we did back in the 90s or the 2000s, where when we say we're going to war for the petrodollar, we do not get media opposition.
This is not meant to be shock content or conjecture.
We know for a fact that Republicans wanted to ban TikTok because the content was more progressive.
Democrats said no.
Then when Axios put out this report showing that the majority of the content after October 7th flipped to pro-Palestine, all of a sudden all the Democrats were on board.
And they said, yes, we should ban TikTok.
Trump's strategy was not to stop the ban of TikTok, although that's what it looked like.
And all these young people were cheering for him.
Trump's strategy was, there's a better way to do this.
You ban it, people get mad.
We sell it to pro-Israel American interests.
We win.
Just off of TikTok alone, I think it is fair to see the play for every Democrat, every Republican, and the investors is take control of the media and pro-Israel and the narrative will be pro-Israel.
Like all of my life until Trump won, this is what it was.
You could not go on TV if you opposed the war in Iraq.
They wouldn't let you on.
All of these anti-interventionist personalities, they were just on little micro blogs on the internet that didn't matter.
Well, whether it was intentionally or otherwise, these channels got really big.
Alex Jones got nuked.
He was doing over 100 million uniques per month, and he was making an insane amount of money, so they ban him outright.
Nick Fuente starts getting really popular.
They ban him outright.
All of a sudden, then you have several high-profile, prominent conservatives who were friends with Trump flip and now all adopt similar positions around the exact same time.
Now, I will say it's entirely possible that there is a global or cultural zeitgeist where this is the content that makes money.
This is what people are going to chase.
So you can call Tucker, Megan, Candace, and whoever else grifters who are just trying to make money.
And maybe that's really just what it is.
But I do think it's interesting that they all shift their positions at the exact same time, despite being friends with the Trump family and the administration.
So I'm actually friends with the individual who started Obama's Facebook campaigning, which many contribute to his victory.
He's mobilizing young people on social media.
And the perception is, or at least what this individual has told me, when the campaign was told to use social media, this is, again, this is like 2007, 2008.
Like no one really knows what's going on with it, but young people are on it.
The older crowd, the boomers, and the Gen X were like, why does this matter?
And it's kind of like the blockbuster phenomenon.
They take a look at, actually, let me phrase it like this.
You can't move until it's too late, right?
So Blockbuster, for instance, is the biggest game in town in video rentals.
Netflix, I believe Netflix was founded before Google was.
And well, that was, I don't know if that was the same company.
But then they had some streaming on their website, but some movies were only available for distribution.
Netflix apparently was like, buy us, Blockbuster.
And Blockbuster was like, no.
The issue is 80% of video rentals are at the video store.
And so Blockbuster is saying, look, we may be shrinking, but we are not going to allocate resources at a lower margin to a new market.
No one does.
So the same thing is true for the internet.
The powers that be look at the internet and say, listen, we're getting 20 million viewers per night on CNN.
Why should we bother with Facebook?
And then two years later, it's 10 million.
Then two years later, it's 5 million.
And then all of a sudden, Alex Jones is dictating policy effectively.
And so that is one theory that we went through this period.
We've gone through multiple periods where you had, as I mentioned, the Napster phase where music was basically free.
Then they wrapped it up into subscriptions and they got their money back.
Then you had mega upload where movies were free.
Then they wrapped it up into subscription services or Amazon.
And now they got their money back.
Now you have the political commentary and social media space where people are affecting the political worldview and they're going to wrap that back up, put in a subscription service and get their power back.
But so I guess I'm still, I feel like I'm not going to get an answer to this.
If I heard this, like my own side, people that I supported to some degree, are moving in such a way to further crush free speech and control the narrative, my answer goes, that's not good.
I like free speech.
So I think you guys, that's like what you're big on in the show.
So how do you feel about that?
Like, I feel like the answer isn't, well, guess we roll over and like take it up the bum.
It is what it is.
How do you guys feel about the fact that in many ways it sounds like you're hearing that your own side that in many ways you support my own side?
I would argue that the establishment powers and the millionaires and the billionaires have never been anyone's side other than the elites in the power.
What you said is Marco Rubio will be the one that Ellis is in support.
Tulsi Gabber will be the moderate, slightly pro-war, but not totally pro-war.
She's the controlled opposition that they're putting forward.
But all this is being organized in many ways, it sounds like, by people who are supporting Republicans in behind Republicans and believed in the Republican vision.
So what you're saying is a lot of people that in many ways were part of your coalition, whether you like them or not, are in many ways now moving against your own selves to crush free speech.
The idea that this will not turn into a witch hunt is kind of immediately literally said, if we can't get them criminally, then we'll get them civilly.
How do we look for, for example, in the upcoming elections, regardless of party, the candidates who we think that's somebody that we can get him behind?
And how do we leave behind these party ties to get good officials?
If there are certain Democrats that want to break liberalism, that want to break more of the Constitution to get retribution to the conservatives that they are mad at, I am opposed to that fundamentally.
This is why I think being a party diehard in either direction is really dangerous, right?
But I think we have to look at, okay, if we know that Trump is already weaponizing the DOJ and you guys agree that that's bad, right?
And we go, that's not a good thing.
I don't know if the next thing is we go, well, if they're moving towards a Marco Rubio who also wants to crush free speech and they're already actively right now weaponizing the DOJ, I don't know the answer shouldn't be, well, I just don't know.
What we do, for example, is like recognize that a democracy needs a strong left and a strong right.
This is why when I'm in a lot of liberal spaces, when, for example, like Ben Shapiro is standing up saying there do have to be lines of who's in the tent, we go, that's good, right?
I don't have to like any of Ben Shapiro's policies.
You guys, I don't know how you feel about Dun Trio.
I'm not saying you have to, but we have to look at people who are saying, we must play by the rules of the Constitution if you believe in democracy.
And if you think that this nation's beautiful experiment of America is something worth fighting for, and you have to find the politicians and the speakers and the pundits who do this.
I would say this is where the Rawls Veils of Ignorance is so useful: you go, imagine you're in a society and you can't know where you're going to fall.
The best example is the current process due to an illegal immigrant who has an order for deportation is to be taken into custody and immediately deported.
The left argues the process that should be due is a judicial hearing where he can argue his case.
Yes.
But that is not the legal due process for an illegal immigrant.
Regardless, what I'm saying to you is, are you saying that we don't have due process as a principle at least that we're not going to be able to do that?
And so the question that I still have to pose as people who want to at least agree with these principles of free speech, of due process, though the way that I think of free speech and the limits that we have around it might be different than you, we still both value free speech.
I believe we should, whatever means necessarily to stop this escalation needs to occur.
Unfortunately, neither side will back off.
That means if Donald Trump pulls a move with powerful investors and billionaires to create a new Democrat-Republican spectrum, the progressives are not simply going to say, guess we lose.
They're going to get guns and they're going to go shoot people.
I don't know what the off-ramp is for all of this, but I can tell you, when Pritzker is saying we will arrest, and if we can't, we'll destroy you civilly.
Did you know that right now, there's a hilarious story from SFK, hundreds of millionaires, and this meant like hundreds, this is a large number, there are services that exist to facilitate the exodus from this country right now because of things like that.
It is not a question of if you are a political player.
There is a fear among high net worth individuals that the Democrats are going to Bolshevik your ass.
No, they fear it because the ballot measure in California, because of what's going on in Washington state, and because there's Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders talking about that same kind of policy nationwide.
So this is the thing that I'm trying to, I'm getting confused by.
You keep on saying this situation at hand and that both parties are going to ramp up and ramp up and round up and we're basically engaging in like brinksmanship.
And I'm saying to you, what's the conclusion that we take from that?
Well, my conclusion is I don't want a civil war because I don't want a bunch of mostly young men dying for this.
I think that that's the worst outcome.
I look at this and I go, this is the issue.
That's not the answer because both sides insist.
Well, one of the things that can't be the answer is insisting that it's just the left or insisting that it's just the right.
Let me give you an example that I've cited quite a bit.
Oklahoma has banned abortion outright.
Colorado has passed abortion to the point of birth for any reasons, elective.
A potential scenario that I've given would be a woman is six months pregnant and she lives not too far from the border of Colorado.
She decides, so in her mind, she says, this man is abusive and I have this child with him.
It's going to be a world of nightmarish pain and it could be harmful to the child.
I can't bring a child into this world.
So she flees.
The man's perspective is, I am not abused.
I've never touched her.
And she just kidnapped my child to kill him and she doesn't need to.
So what happens when she seeks to cross that border to get an abortion?
You have two states with polar opposite worldviews.
It will not be tolerated.
We already saw, I think it might have been Arkansas, they tried to have a woman hunted down because she fled the state with a friend to get an abortion.
And they said, it might not have been Ark, I can't remember which date it was.
They said that it was a conspiracy to break the law and therefore they needed to stop her.
At what point, I mean, maybe the argument is that a kid gets taken by a stranger and brought to Washington to get a sex change and the parents go, well, that's life, I guess.
I don't see that as being a reality.
I think the parents are going to be like, lock and load, mother, we're going to town.
The issue is that the idea that our country, like, it sounds like what you're saying is the conclusion that you're saying is our country isn't going to continue to exist as a democracy as we've known it.
No, I'm not making a semantic debate over constitutional republicanism.
I'm saying since Trump's election, we have not functioned in any real democracy.
And one could argue that we haven't since the liberal economic order.
My point is, Donald Trump wins, and they claimed for years he was propped up by Russia, even arguing the votes were flipped by Russia, and then launched an investigation and ultimately impeached him.
Then when Trump loses in 2020, the right says Joe Biden, the Democrats, stole the election.
There is no belief on either side that there is a functioning democracy right now.
Sure, but part of that comes down to we are under threat.
When you look at Russia Gate, for example, there weren't connections that could be made to Trump, but there were, I believe, 12 Russian individuals that were arrested, that had been found to hack multiple sites, and that were actually engaging.
Again, it's going to fall back to when the Democrats took power, knowing that they'd been propped up by the Ukrainians, they arrested a Trump ally and then told us he was guilty.
And if you're a Trump supporter, you're going to say, that's full of, that's BS.
just think this has to play itself out ultimately.
And again, going back to what Tim said, if If a president of the United States, along with his CIA director and other ICs, are making up manufactured intelligence to try to prosecute someone who's trying to get elected as president, yeah, I don't think we have a...
Went through his presidential, his daily logs, found a series of things they determined to be classified, and then put fake classification papers on top of it, took a picture of it.
Why don't we spend $30 million on a Mueller probe to investigate the Ukrainians who interfered in the election?
Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate to do this.
2017.
It's a good question.
Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials from a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton to undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aid in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter only to back away after the election.
And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors.
I mean, they've even come out and said that there's side effects of the vaccine, even though they save ineffective YouTube.
So my point is, nobody has gone to jail for that.
And then on top of that, I know people within the Department of Justice that actually tried to go after the people that put together the January 6th committee, and they don't even want to, the DOJ's not going to prosecute the DOJ.
Well, you can get some big booty Latina love potion at the same low price it's always been Casper.com no I think I think Alex I'll give you a little pushback the reason why they're dropping the mass deportation thing is because they're losing Hispanic voters this is what the internal this is what they're saying bro it's because of the when this first started he literally said we're not going to uh we're not going to do workers in Hospital and hotel workers.
This is why progressives would say we need to do things that rally against like the progressive argument, right, is to say this isn't left versus right.
The progressives reject the Democrat Party.
They say we need a complete revival where the power actually shifts back to the government.
So a guy in a black hoodie with a black mask on comes up and says the government is full of corrupt politicians and I go, here, here, brother.
And then he starts waving a red and black flag.
And he says, the military-industrial complex has been waging war, killing civilians without cause for generations.
And I go, yeah, man, I hear you.
And he goes, we got to change that.
And I say, I agree.
What can we do?
He goes, we got to put in a candidate who's going to put a stop to this corruption, who's going to fix our voting systems, make sure that people's voice is heard.
And I say, well, I'm in.
What do I do?
Vote for the guy who wants to cut this girl's tits off.
How about like just instead of take it away from the trans topic, like how about people that are like, we don't respect property rights and we're going to expropriate your property?
Just because the communists have a problem with her doesn't mean that she wouldn't institute policies that the communists want, first of all, second of all, that would also destroy the economy.
Yes, I understand, but I'm moving back more towards these broader conversations of how we try to unify these two bodies, right?
And the answer is if you always will have something you prioritize just preferentially over corruption, I guess, yeah, then we're doomed.
But I guess I would say if we care about like one of the fundamental things that made this country great that has shifted over time, but is built on like certain liberal, not left, liberal values, like strong institutions, balance of power, ensuring that like the votes have integrity, that we have some level of like regulation and whatnot.
If you value some of these things, if you value free speech, right?
The miracle that is Western liberal democracies, then you have to prioritize probably some other things over other things.
Definitely vote within your state against John's kids.
But here's one of the benefits of this latest kind of FCC pressuring of all these things is all of a sudden all the progressives that I was yelling at three years ago being like, actually, free speech matters even for people we disagree with, like conservatives.
Now they're going, free speech, free speech, right?
Now we're at this perfect type of position where a lot of the progressives, not just liberals, but progressives, are actually sensitive to certain, there's progressives that are 2A, right?
Like that's happening right now.
We're in this poised position.
They're wearing 2A the same way that there are fundamental rights getting removed and we're understanding why these rights mattered in the first place.
And what we shouldn't do is go, well, the billionaires are winning.
Because what's wrong if like, honest question, like, let's say the billionaires take back control and they seize media and then everybody has a homogenized worldview and everybody agrees almost on everything.
Okay, let's just pause again and I'll ask the question again.
The billionaires fund their politicians who win.
They take the media back over.
They buy it all up.
They put in personalities.
The country homogenizes around a similar set of worldviews with minor differences where anyone can speak their mind and say whatever they want whenever they want.
So when they buy up all the news networks, if your billionaires lead to a world where we just respect liberal constitutional values and amendments and these liberal things that I've outlined, these four things, sure, that's fine.
I'm fine with that, but it sounds like you're saying that they won't.
My point is, when there are five streaming services and every person who's hired to have shows where they get a lot of views are going to be either somewhat moderate on war or pro-war, what's like if you are an anti-war individual, they're not going to invite you on the show.
Like, if you want to get an apartment in New York City, the co-op board can just basically ban you for nothing, like if they just don't like anything about you.
And so I think that that will be, whatever happens in New York, it kind of can be extrapolated to the future of our society.
So it's like we kind of already do, like Tim says, has a have a hidden social credit score.
But I think it would probably be better if we had a forward-facing one, because then at least you get some free government assistance or something, right?
Because that's why people will sign up for it because they won't have to pay as many taxes.
They'll get a free car, free gas, whatever incentive they need to make us agree to it.
But if the Trump, Rubio, Gabbard coalition that we outlined at the beginning is moving for that direction, again, my question goes, what do we do about that?
Well, it would depend on, so she's flipped now Democrat, Republican, then back to Democrat.
I would need, it's kind of like this like Kamala thing of being like on County Valley of being like, remember when Kamala was like a progressive for her.
And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm going to be happy if a politician that I like his policies has win, and I'm going to be less happy if a politician that I don't like wins it.
What my actual position that I was outlining here that you were initially pushing back on was I was saying, well, aren't we concerned that if Gabbard is just a controlled opposition and it's not a legitimate person and she's just going to not do the policies that she runs on, I would look at that and go, that isn't as illegitimate as of democracy because then we essentially have a charlatan, right?
We have somebody who's saying, I'll do this, but she's actually just controlled by the other party and won't necessarily do that thing.
Okay, I don't want a puppet democracy all the time.
Well, to some extent, like there's actually this really interesting political theory that says all civilians to some degree assume that politicians are lying.
But we also still want politicians to enact like 60% of their policy.
Well, we're upset.
This is why people are upset with Trump.
He ran on no wars.
And now he's not doing that, which is why people are upset.
The issue that I'm largely getting to is like, there is no politician anywhere that legitimately runs.
It doesn't exist in this country.
There has to be a special interest behind them.
And when they do get elected to Congress, they have to cut a deal with like the NRCC or the Driple C. There is no such thing in this country as a duly elected representative, in my opinion.
It literally was just like I was on the phone with a high-ranking member of the government in West Virginia, and the subject of Maha banning artificial dyes came up.
And I said, oh, man, I hope this happens.
And they were like, really?
And I said, I think we got to get rid of all that stuff.
And I was like, I think it would be great because if you're in PA, Ohio, Kentucky, or Maryland, or Virginia, and you know that you can drive like three miles to go to a supermarket in West Virginia and you'll have no garbage in your food, I think tons of moms are going to do it.
I think suburban moms are going to drive that fetcha three miles.
And that could be great for the economy.
I'd love for that to happen.
Next thing I know, there was a meeting between the governor and RFK Jr.
It might not be the most square footage, but the most tables.
They get raided for illegal gambling and money laundering.
Because in Texas, you cannot run a gambling operation as a house.
The way it works in Texas, however, is card clubs emerged because they allow private games where you pay a membership fee, and that's actually within the law.
Well, here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
I have beef with every single state, and you will too.
If I were to ask each and every one of you if you think gambling is good, I already know what everyone's going to say.
Where today the regional championships took place in Houston where children wager $80 for a $71,000 prize with a $10,000 cash prize for first place on a card game of chance, which is illegal in the state of Texas, but they don't care.
And this pisses me off.
Now, in West Virginia, I've been talking to their government for some time.
And I said, look, the last thing we want is like casinos popping up like.
I had a conversation with the AG of West Virginia a while back before it was Morsey, before he got elected.
And I said, we have an issue in the state where you guys have like a thousand businesses where children are functionally gambling.
And, you know, I got some laughter.
I talked to the lottery commission, and they said, well, collectible card games are exempt.
So we made a collectible card game called Debate Me, which is functionally poker.
And I said, okay, we're exempt now, right?
But what pissed me off is when the Lodge got shut down, I read that the Pokemon tournaments were coming here that operate under the exact same structure.
You pay 80 bucks, you play a card game, tournament bracket style, and the winner gets cash prizes.
That's children gambling.
The law in Texas says you cannot put money up front to use cards or any other dice or gambling device for a chance to win cash prizes with any amount of chance involved.
The Lodge Card Club did not take money from the games.
They hosted a membership club, a social club, where you pay hourly as a member of the club.
Then you play the games amongst the players.
And they got shut down for that.
Meanwhile, children are directly wagering, and the company is directly profiting off of these Pokemon games.
So here's what's going to happen.
We have prepared a lawsuit, and I'll take it to the Supreme Court.
The states either have to ban Pokemon because it is illegal statutorily under the law or legalize blackjack.
Let's roll because you can't have it both ways.
You cannot allow children to make wages on Magic the Gathering Yu-Gi-Oh!
Now you got Teenage Mate Nichols Magic the Gathering cards.
You got children putting up money to win cash, cash, cash, cash.
That is illegal under the law in every single state.
So we have prepared a lawsuit.
We have a lawsuit draft.
And we're starting with West Virginia.
My argument is this.
I think West Virginia is, and I'll tell you why we're talking about this.
The casinos, you've got two big casino players in West Virginia, and one of them is Penn Entertainment, which is the second biggest casino chain in the country.
And it has been conveyed to me that the lobby there is extremely powerful, not because, back to the lobbying question, not because they will sit down with politicians and buy them dinner, but because they threaten them.
They say, we will pull funding from your PACs, and we will guarantee your opponent wins if you oppose us.
Colbert went on a show and said, Trump's FCC, I was told in no uncertain terms by CBS that the FCC was threatening us unless, if we were going to air an interview with Tallerico, because Trump doesn't want you to see this.
The only problem is the FCC Equal Time didn't apply to the Republicans or Trump.
It applied to Jasmine Crockett specifically.
And so Tellerico went on Twitter and said, this is the interview Trump doesn't want you to see.
But in fact, it had nothing to do with Trump.
They were trying to make it appear as though the only player was Tallarico and whoever the Republican candidate was going to be.
They didn't want to give Jasmine Crockett equal time on TV.
But what I'm saying here to you guys is that when it comes to politics, I have one really big priority right now, which is corruption in the government and trying to get the common man a voice back in politics.
It seems like Jesus made a very specific law that, yes, if you kill a baby in the womb, you can get just a financial fine instead of capital punishment.
The party who claims to love democracy, they sure have a funny way of showing how they do that because what they did with Jasmine Crockett is the opposite.
You made this point the other day that you said, I believe it was a Rudyard, if you keep making points, I'm going to have to rant for 20 minutes, or I can address them point by point.
So what I am saying, in the case of Jasmine Crockett, the FCC policy that got utilized against him, which wasn't actually pushed, the network was worried about it because there are increasing FCC pressures from CAR against late night shows specifically, which is equal time.
So let's just pause real quick and say the campaign from Colbert and Tallerico was to claim that Donald Trump shut down their interview so that it appeared James Tellerico was the only candidate in play and the only other candidate was a Republican.
So when people went to vote, he had a very high profile moment that got millions of views and across the board the media said this stunt put him over the edge.
Jasmine Crockett then went after she lost, she said they cheated, this was stolen.
I believe she also made a massive, I don't know if that's what she said.
How about the fact I'm sure she was like, literally the same day that he won, she made a large social media post celebrating James Tallerico on her own.
So every time Trump has done massive, I'm just wanting to make sure you're consistent.
You're so mad at James Tallarico and you can't trust him at all.
Well, don't moralize at me about how bad and awful James Tallarico is if you won't engage with me very seriously about whether or not you have an issue with him lying about Ruby Friedman to support his argument that his it's it's not just bad oh, it's evil.
Democrats yes because, let me clarify what I said was, unless the party is purged and they bring in moderates who have not supported transient kids, how do you vote for someone who, five years ago, wanted to lop off a girl's book?
Somebody insisting, for example, that the 2020 election results are not true and pressuring his staff to change and try to delay the certification of the vote, that is not the same thing as being like the FCC told us that he couldn't be here.
And it's like, oh, it turns out the FCC didn't say that exactly.
They just said, if he's there, you have to give equal time to Jasmine Crockett.
You have primaries to vote for politicians that have different leaning ins of different things, right?
You have grassroots movements to go and canvas behind people who won't take PAC money because if you don't take PAC money, it's really hard to get your home on this.
In a statement Tuesday, CBS said the late show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with rep James Tallarico.
The show was provided legal guidance.
The broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including rep Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.
The late show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal time options.
Well, the issue is it's not nearly you did a Mott and Bailey.
You made it seem like it was this really big hoax and he was doing all sorts of shifty stuff.
He did one thing, which is yeah, he lied and said that the FCC said he couldn't.
And I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if he wasn't told this, that Colbert said this to him.
So probably the main person who did the hoax was Colbert and possibly even because Colbert slightly misunderstood what the lawyers meant when they said you'd have to explore other options.
But more importantly, the reason they chose Taylor Rico is that he's a Democrat who wears a Christian suit.
So they're hoping that the less informed, like the default Christians, who are non-practicing Christians, will find him an acceptable person to vote for because he says, I'm a Christian, vote for me.
He says, for Chuck Norris, a true American and man that inspired tens of millions of young men to not give up on their dreams, may his legacy grow even in death, allegedly.
No, I have to correct you here.
Chuck Norris did not die.
After several decades of intense meditation, he has figured out how to break through the astral plane to the afterlife because he is hunting death himself.
He has simply transformed into a being of pure light energy where he will persist.
Resident peace, Chuck Norris.
I really do love that for the past several decades, we've had this weather somewhat joking, but this image of being the ultimate man and being masculine.
And the joke was that he was strong, he was powerful, but he was a hero and he was good.
And with many jokes that we would make, still, it's good for young people to envision this like, you know, it's like one thing to have a Superman, which we know is just silly, but Chuck Norris is a real guy that they pretend is Superman.
The argument that people make when they say, oh, well, you know, the leftists, they want guns.
They only want guns insofar as they are going to use them in the revolution.
Then they will take them away.
Under no circumstance did Marx believe that the people should have guns to defend their lives or property.
That is a totally different way of understanding what arms are for.
He did not in any way believe that the people should be able to overthrow the government or defend their property because he didn't even believe you should have property.
So don't listen to leftists that say, oh, no, we believe in guns.
They only believe in gun rights insofar as it's useful for.
Considering the situation that we're in now, which is basically 29 states are constitutional carry, if they were looking to expand that kind of stuff, I would, yes, because of the fact that it advances individual gun rights.
My problem with it is the leftist perspective on profit is that it's something undo when the general understanding of profit is just it's the excess F cost.
So for the working class, when these leftists were saying things like abolish profit, it's like, listen, the dude who makes birdhouses and sells them, it costs him $20 to make the birdhouse.
He sells it for $30.
That extra $10 is the profit he uses to buy milk for his family.
So when you say abolish profit, you're saying he should work for free.
But they don't understand that.
Then they go, no, we're talking about corporate profits.
And I'm like, those go to the shareholders for the most part.
And I think the problem more so is mass formation as opposed to any individual policy.
It's because as a Korean person, I have tried asking it a question about Koreans and it kept telling me it refused to answer on the basis it could be offensive to Koreans.
And I was like, I'm Korean and I'm asking you this question.
And it was like, no.
And I'm like, but if I'm a white person, it's fine.
Well, I mean, I don't think, I wouldn't use the word nihilist because of the way it's interpreted by most people, but I certainly recognize subjective views on reality and the limited understanding the average person has.
So I'd make the argument that while I do believe there's a God and things like that, the general function of the regular person serves towards something nihilistic.
But anyway, my point is, I don't know if this is true or not, but I do think that the powers that be the deep state are just like, they go to YouTube and they go, we want these shows.
We don't want this show.
Ban that show.
And so Alex Jones has banned it funded as his banned.
Well, my theory is that the machine, like we know that Twitter and Facebook, when it was Twitter, had backdoors for the FBI and the government.
Why wouldn't YouTube?
You know what I mean?
So I do think that most of what we see in terms of who is the bigger show, including ourselves, is a function of the government being like, this is acceptable.
And they still put guardrails on it.
Like when they banned our Alex Jones, Joe Rogan episode for fake reasons.
Get some big booty Latina love potion at cashbrew.com and watch my show After Hours with Alex Stein on Real America's Voice Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern.
You can check out my Patreon where I have been writing op-ed stuff.
I just posted one today about a CIA memo that came out in 2021 talking about how white women are the new vector of infecting the youth with extremist values.
Go read it at patreon.com/slash Phil that remains.
You can check out the band All That Remains at Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer.
We're going on tour this spring with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes.
We start April 29th in Albany, New York, and we go through all of May.