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.
So we'll talk about that and more before we do.
Regime Change and Missing Money00:13:00
We got a great sponsor.
It is the Rumble Wallet, my friends.
Guys, go to wallet.rumble.com.
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.
We have Devori Darkins.
How's it going?
And what do you guys think of my picture on Tim Cass's social media account?
I think I look like a gangster.
No?
You did.
So why don't you let us know in the chat?
But I'm glad to be here again.
Thank you, team.
And of course, Alex Stein's here.
The pimp on Oblimp is here.
You guys can follow me.
Watch my show after hours on Real America's Voice.
But I want to say, the people in the chat, there are some haters already.
If you like Laura Luber, but you hate me, that means you're retarded.
So let's have a good show.
Right on.
Of course, Kyle is back hanging out.
Aloha.
And Phil is here.
And now let's talk about the news.
We've got this from CBS.
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'm curious what you guys think.
I think that it's going badly.
At the very least, the perception is going bad.
It's going badly, right?
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.
So which one is it?
Have we won the war or do we need more?
Well, those are distinct things.
The $200 billion is to replenish the munitions we have here because they sent them all over there.
Well, not only replenished, it's replenished by some new, there's like some beefing up as well.
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.
Some of the money.
Yeah.
Because we definitely need to replete, but do we need to expand?
They'd still ask for the same amount of money.
That's probably true.
That's probably true.
I'm just saying.
Well, I'm not sure.
Well, I think a lot of people could reasonably be for updating and making sure that military arsenal stocks are where we need it to be.
But I'm sure a lot of people are skeptical of the military having, what does it mean?
What did we discover?
$1 trillion if they get it?
It's $1 trillion budget?
$1.5.
$1.5.
But to be fair, guys, a lot of that is the VA fund and things.
You've got to break that down.
How much of it actually goes to the bombs?
I think that's what we pulled out of the story.
It's going to be $3 trillion to the bombs.
And if he gets $2 billion, then it's $1 trillion to actual military arsenal assets.
I think the problem is if you're going to ask for $200 billion, can you at least pass an audit?
They haven't.
Nope.
There's a lot of money missing.
They can't explain it.
But on the other hand, we do want our men and women to be successful.
I think on the ground they've been successful, but I don't think politically it's going to be successful if it continues to drag on.
Now, we don't know what's going to happen.
I mean, it could end in the next two weeks, and then what?
Yeah.
Or it could drag on.
Are you guys open?
I'm curious your thoughts.
Like, say the audit included.
So one of my biggest criticisms of how Trump's handled this is that I think it seems like the war plan is not the most effective.
Do you guys want to see a plan of like, if you say that you're ending the war, how?
How are you winning?
I know what's the plan.
This is how he wins the war, though.
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.
What if Putin won't end the war?
He just said today that Putin's been more receptive than Zelensky in all of his negotiations.
Sure, but he's like gone back and forth on Putin, right?
Like Putin's been more receptive, but Putin's still sending Iran important intelligence, right?
So it's like, and Putin's been pretty clear.
He's not ending with Ukraine.
Like, if he wants Crimea, he wants the Donbass.
That's not changing.
He maybe get it.
Maybe Trump will give it to him.
He's already got Crimea and the Donbass.
He's already got Crimea and the Donbass.
Well, he's got Crimea, but the fighting is still around in the Donbass area.
And regardless of how you feel about it, I can't imagine the Ukrainians are going to take that laying down.
They're not going to.
They might not have a choice.
Yeah, I don't think they have a choice.
I don't think that, at the very least, I don't think Crimea is going back.
He wants the port.
I agree that Crimea is a fighting thing, but regardless, it's not obvious to me because of all these movements.
Well, he did take the sanctions off their oil for $30.
Russia's oil, yeah.
So that's a pretty big standard.
He wants to be able to get a head war effort in the middle.
He wants to bring up the petrodollar.
He wants to cut them back in and say, we're going to make you money, and you should be working with us because you're Western.
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.
But that's Iran's win condition, right?
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?
So do we need to crush them right now?
It's just so tough to evaluate.
I think the issue is without having a proper, I think you guys said Starlink got opened for Iran today or they're thinking about it, right?
Like I think without regime change, I don't see how this ends because the current regime won't negotiate with us.
They are going to continue to pursue nuclear warheads since they seem explicitly interested in that.
I think they're going to plan regime change.
You're probably right.
But again, so the argument is like the favorable position is that we win this decisively, we remove the Iranian regime.
Well, but the issue is, can you do that from top-down bombs?
No, you have to do it with ground force.
Exactly.
So do we send in should we send in the troops?
Well, it's inevitable.
They're already going to be sending.
Well, hold on.
I don't think we need to send in troops to accomplish that.
You cannot occupy street corners with fighter jets.
You can with nuclear bombs.
You can't.
But you're spending $1.5 trillion.
We have to have the technology.
There is no technology to enforce local laws at the root level.
You need boots on the ground.
There's nothing about it.
So imagine policing, right?
We want to go in and we want to tell these people you cannot have this form of government.
Well, if we're not there to enforce what they're doing, they're going to do whatever they want.
Especially the military.
But I wouldn't do that.
I would be arming the opposite part of the world.
We've done that too.
The Kurds never worked.
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?
That's a big notch.
Who knows?
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?
But the populace is very different, right?
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.
Why don't we ask this question?
Is Iraq better off today than it was when we went in?
I don't even know.
Well, the Kurds say yes, but.
But think about their current government today.
Is it better than when we went in?
I mean, maybe marginally, but I don't know enough about what's going on inside Iraq now to say definitively.
I mean, what was the worst thing Saddam Hussein did?
He did mustard gas.
He mustard.
Oh, no, no, no.
He tried trading oil with the Euro.
I know, and that's why that was the worst thing.
He's like, Muhammad Offee tried to do the same thing.
Yeah, he wanted African-American.
He was brutal to his people as well, but obviously as that was a lot of people.
Well, but we don't care about that.
I mean, I can explain that.
I agree.
I'm just saying.
That is a bunch of countries that are brutal to the people.
The U.S. is like, we don't care about that.
But if you're an oil-producing nation and you're like, we want to trade with something else, we're like, then you're going to die.
Well, the key question here is, is regime change possible, right?
We've done it successfully in South Korea.
We've done it successfully in Japan.
We've done it successfully in a number of block countries that left the USSR.
We can't do regime change.
They had a resistance movement.
They were actually fighting invasion.
Well, that's why Iran is interesting because it's a lot in many ways.
It's very different than South Korea, obviously.
But just to understand that it's not technically regime change.
It was supporting the existing regime.
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?
I want to say this about regime change, though.
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.
Yeah, distance is a really, really important thing.
YouTube Dead and AI Slop00:02:37
I want to go back to what you asked.
Should we absolutely destroy the IRGC?
I think you have to do it.
You have to.
Because there's no reason you go in here, you spend the money, you spend the time and the resources to go there, and that's not the end of the object.
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.
We get the joke, Alex.
That's not a real question.
I don't know.
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?
I don't think it does.
Have you heard of Strawberita, the AI slop cartoons that are like super popular?
Have you guys heard of it?
Is it like similar to like the Italian brain rot that came out?
Exactly.
It's like they've had brain rot videos, but they give them these terrible AI scripts.
And Tim, they're getting hundreds of millions of views on TikTok.
Like it is the biggest AI slop I've ever seen.
So you're exactly right when it comes to how they can just make crappy content and people will watch it.
But that's where we're going.
I mean, when you look at, like, again, what's happening on YouTube, and this is a big deal, we've been talking about it for quite a bit.
No, like YouTube's dead, I would argue, because Phone Chilli as a platform and a monetary machine is probably doing really, really well.
But the amount of AI content, we don't even have to call it slop.
It's just the amount of content being produced.
Conservative Media Manipulation00:15:45
It is becoming impossible.
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.
Well, if Tucker runs, he's anti-war.
You should talk in your microphone.
I'm saying if Tucker runs, he's anti-war.
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.
You said the left would be pro-war and the right would be anti-war.
No, have you heard something different?
No, The Tulsi Gabbard is going to be the anti-intervention Democrat.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, I didn't.
Yeah, when Tim explained this to me, I was surprised it told you.
Okay, so you think Tulsi and Kent will flip to being Dems?
Tulsi will flip to Dems and the Lexington.
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.
People can't change their mind.
He can, but he's friends with Trump, and this is the game plan.
He's better friends at Vans.
Indeed.
And the game plan is.
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.
Who do you think is all behind?
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.
Anyone who touches Trump, I don't know if that's the right thing.
I disagree.
The Democrat base hates Trump so vehemently.
Anyone that's touched him, anyone that's in their minds been sycophantic and blue.
The question is going to arise for your corporate Democrats: who will they get more votes from, the moderates or the progressives?
And the play is to basically ice out the progressives.
And Gavin's already moving towards the business.
That's why AIPAC supported all of these Democrats and won in Illinois to get rid of the progressives.
Sure.
So again, I'm going to stress this.
I can tell you this definitively because these people have said it to my face.
The mandate for the corporate press right now is to buy up podcasts and take this.
All of these independent podcasts that exist are going to be pulled into HBO, Paramount, Netflix, whatever it might be.
It's already happening.
Sean Henny launched a podcast.
Netflix is a podcast section.
They had a meeting in Florida where all these people got together and discussed how they get in the space.
It is the corporate mandate.
NBA Universal is having these very same conversations right now.
Don't take my word for it.
Larry Ellison just bought CBS and they're working on purchasing CNN right now.
Well, that was my question.
This is the game.
I think this is coming from Ellis.
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?
And don't forget about it.
But don't forget about JD Vance, right?
So these elements are at play.
But again, who does Trump support?
I'm not entirely sure.
Rubio.
I think Rubio is the actual player for 2022.
Well, Trump's going to get impeached, probably.
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.
We shouldn't be involved.
It's going to play the regime change thing.
Yeah, but you can flip once.
You can't flip twice.
That's like career suicide.
Even if it wasn't.
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.
But who's they?
Like who's who's they?
Like who's the person at the top or the collection at the top making these decisions like unified?
So Larry Ellison is a big Trump supporter and Trump fan.
Miriam Adelson.
Right, which is why Edison's a lot of people.
Which is why I'm going to be like, why would Ellison fall in line under Gabbard?
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?
Like Rubio or Newsome.
I have a feeling that it's, I feel like he would probably go for Rubio, right?
There's going to be a Republican and a Democrat, and they want the Democrat to be someone who's not a threat.
They want moderately pro-war and pro-war.
They being Trump's inner circle, the donor class, the people who are buying up these media platforms and changing the narrative on them.
Sure, but you're saying you're coining.
They don't want bat shit crazy.
But they don't want progress.
So here's the issue: they want pro-Israel.
They want some kind of Israel ambivalent or pro-Israel.
All of them?
Because I've heard a lot of corporate elites.
It feels like right now what we're seeing is the battle of the billionaires.
You've got kind of the must and the teals on one side and then you're going to.
Elon Musk is pro-Israel.
Yeah, and you've got the sales and you've got the gates on the other side that are very at contention with each other.
Joe Gates is pro-Israel.
Yeah, and indeed, maybe these people do not like each other.
So the play in D.C. with Trump, again, I'm going to stress this.
This is the rumor that I'm hearing.
I don't know if that is true.
Joe Kent maybe is just doing whatever Joe Kent feels like.
They want to take control of the middle-of-the-road Democrat position.
They want war and they know that the war with Iran is going to be bad for moderates.
So they want to take control of a moderate Democrat space.
With the goal of putting the goal is your choices for president in 2028 will be kind of pro-war and pro-war.
So bad and worse.
Gotcha.
The way it's always been.
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.
Hence why they should be buying up all of these podcasts.
And that's what they're already doing.
Or drowning them out with AI slop content or buying TikTok and banning certain voices.
So again, I point this out in perhaps there are grand conspiracies I don't know about, or maybe there's not really.
And there's just a handful of powerful elite billionaires that are making moves to make this happen.
There's definitely some conspiracy.
Well, you know, conspiracy implying criminal wrongdoing, what I'll say is this.
We know for a fact Ellison purchased CBS.
They're making a bid for Warner Brothers, which would give them CNN as well.
And we know that they're part of the group that is acquiring TikTok explicitly because of Israel.
TikTok had a massive amount of anti-Israel content.
84% pro-Palestine.
Pro-Palestine.
And this is not a conspiracy.
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.
So what's worse?
A Chinese-owned TikTok or pro-Israel-owned TikTok?
You know, I guess the troubling thing is you at least have some recourse in the United States.
American-owned American-owned company.
I just, yeah, I'm trying to see the through line of like what the China Warner feels.
Well, somebody's not under the bus necessarily.
You do know that they purchased TikTok because of this.
Yeah, no, no, I agree that the Ellis Brothers have been buying up all sorts of their own.
CBS, they're going to get CNN with the Warner Brothers merger as well.
Yeah, yeah, I'm familiar with all of that.
I'm just trying to go, if he's so pro-Trump, why wouldn't he just pivot?
If he's got this good thing with the right, it feels like there's a lot of still like motivated energy behind it.
I understand Iran's not popular, but just why don't you just have Marco Rubio come out and be like, man, like they're going to have Marco Rubio.
But why wouldn't they get him behind him?
That's what I'm trying to understand.
They are behind him.
They're behind both.
You know what controlled opposition is?
Yeah.
I'm saying, why would anyone think that Tulsi Gabbard is going to successfully run in a Democrat basis?
She's not expected to win.
Yeah, exactly.
It doesn't matter.
She's just your choice is pro-war or pro-er-war.
Or I should say like Tulsi is going to be the moderate.
But it's also this.
Okay.
It's a head.
That's all true.
How do you feel about that?
How do you feel about that?
How do all of you guys feel?
Like, say all of this theory.
I don't know.
I guess it just is, right?
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.
Yeah, but it feels like the way you're talking about it, I feel slightly negatively, I guess, about this.
Like I'm curious from a conservative side, like when you guys hear like that the conservatives are maybe, let's just say all this, this is true.
How do you guys as conservatives feel about that happening within your movement?
Well, it sounds like we're living on borrowed time then.
Weaponizing the Executive Branch00:15:06
In what way?
Like what do you think?
No, this is it.
The whole MAGA is on the bottom.
No, this is it.
This is where it borrows.
This show, this independence that we have to have alternative voices, we're living on borrowed time then.
I think we were always living on borrowed time.
I think the idea that there would ever truly be a permanent decentralized network of commentary and podcasts was silly.
I mean, in 2018, they were banning people left and right and then lying about it.
In 2020, you couldn't even say, I don't know if we need masks.
You'd get banned for it.
You couldn't even say, I think the virus may have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is a mile away from the wet market.
They'd ban you for that too.
So we've dealt with wave after wave of censorship, and we've only had in the past couple of years a semblance of some kind of free speech.
But just really quick, but do you believe if even if that happens, the opposite must take place too, sooner or later?
What do you mean?
A cause and effect.
What do you mean?
Meaning before Trump, you had the media the way that it was.
But because of that, Trump comes along and the opposite happens.
Will that happen again?
Well, it depends on the change in media, right?
So we had, there's a couple of theories on it.
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.
It was like 1997 or something.
And they originally would mail DVDs to you.
It was kind of weird.
Like Game Fly or something like that?
Yeah.
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?
Well, you've supported Tulsi Gabber now.
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.
But you supported Trump, right?
And you've supported his selection of administration.
I'm saying all of that.
It may actually be that it's all one big happy family tree, Sony.
That's actually really the argument.
It might be like the free speech crushing might be good for us?
No, They're all basically saying, why are we fighting?
Let's just be rich and control this.
What do we need to do?
And that seems bad, right?
Yes, it's nice.
But how do you guys feel about that?
Being bad.
That's your side.
That's what you guys want to do.
I beg you, but what do you guys want to do?
But again, why do you keep saying your side?
Because I'm not on the right.
I don't support it.
But the media companies are not on our side and never have been.
Sure, I understand.
They are not on the right either.
Sure, but Warner Brothers is not.
Can I respond?
Because if I'm going to be 2v1, I have to be able to respond.
No, no, no, no.
You have made an accusation over and over again that the corporate media is on the right.
It is not correct.
I've never said that the corporate media is not.
He's just said it's your side doing it as we're talking about.
Your side is purchasing podcasts.
No, no, no, no.
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.
And my question is, what do you do about that?
If your theory is true?
No idea.
Yeah, I don't think there is an answer to that.
I would say I don't know.
Support opposition, right?
Support people who want corporate PAC money out of things.
But the actual reality is supporting opposition is supporting people that want to jail people that supported Trump, right?
And people that would speak out against the Revolutionary Programs.
Phil, let's talk about the story from Fox News.
Pritzker pushes prosecutions of Trump officials as part of Democrats' Project 2029 agenda.
So this seems to be the world that we're looking at.
Some kind of elite civil war that's been going on for some time.
The powers that be, let me just start the segment by saying this.
If you believe that the Trump side of things has not been preparing for the world after Trump, I've got a bridge to sell you.
At the same time, if you believe Democrats are not preparing for a strategy to win, then I've got a bridge, another bridge.
I got two of them, actually.
In fact, I got seven.
You can have all of them for one great discount.
It looks like the Democrat strategy that exists today is lock them up and destroy their lives civilly.
The Republican play seems to be we need to create.
There's three spaces right now.
The Democrats hate the right, the Republicans hate the left, and the middle-of-the-road people are flickering left and right on various issues.
Sometimes they lean left on a lot of issues.
They've been leaning around a lot of issues.
And so the play is: how can we make the left and the right, the moderates are the left, and the Republicans are the right.
And then the Democrats and the progressives just are not strong enough as a coalition to actually win anything.
The Democratic Party will then have no choice but depend on moderates.
The Trump administration will then be safe.
Or I should say Trump officials after 2029 will not have to worry about whatever this thing is that Democrats are planning to do.
I just want to go back to one thing.
So would you agree with control opposition if it meant getting rid of stuff like this?
Me?
I am never for the erasure of liberal fundamentals.
No, we don't.
That's not fundamentals.
That's lawfare.
Well, crushing free speech isn't good either.
Well, this could be a weaponization of the DOJ.
This could be legitimate prosecutions.
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.
DeSantis, if it is the case that they've done something wrong, right?
No, no, no, no.
That's not what civilly means.
Well, civilly can mean that you can't just like, you can't just brutally.
It means I will purport you did something wrong, but you didn't because you'd go to jail if you did something wrong, right?
Civil is a dispute between two individual parties and they're going to bog you down in court and drain your funds.
Sure.
Civilly is a threat of lawfare explicitly.
Yeah.
I don't know much about Project 2029.
So it really depends on what it actually comes to be forming.
But in general, I'm not a big fan of large group pre-presidential plans like Project 2025 that get built up by a bunch of self-interested think tanks.
Right, right, well, I don't like any of these things.
But I'm just posing a question.
But you guys are saying, I guess we roll over for the control.
You guys said, I don't know what we do.
And I said, well, it doesn't mean roll over.
Well, what do you do?
Well, you continue to do the same thing.
It's possible that you can identify something as wrong without knowing what to do.
I agree.
I agree, but I feel like they're rolling over.
That's kind of the point.
That's the exact thing that comes to mind.
There's nothing that we go, what is the way?
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?
Right.
I'm going to go back to what Devoray just said.
And you know what?
There's a certain point where I learned this from the left, the Karl Popper meme.
I learned this from them.
And you know what?
I think they were right.
Sometimes you cannot tolerate intolerance.
And so we should use every means at our disposal to make sure anyone who threatens this is removed or barred from power.
Well, what about your current president weaponizing the DOJ against Jerome Powell and having multiple subpoenas blocked by federal cases?
Are we a police?
I'm going to say, I'm going to repeat literally what I just said.
And I saw this comic book about Karl Popper where the left argued, use whatever means necessary to stop your political opponents.
And for years, I and many others said, well, we shouldn't resort to that.
And then we got beaten to a pulp.
And I said, you know what?
They were right about that.
So if someone's punching you in the face, sooner or later, you got to say, stop.
Yeah, I started my career in 2022, and I started fighting other lefties who said the Republicans are ontologically evil.
To them, we can do no bad things.
And I said, that's evil.
That is evilness.
We're already giving up the game.
I still say that.
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.
And I always have to say that.
Well, I want to make this a bit more.
So it's DeSantis that made anti-Semitism speech laws in Florida, so conservatives will limit the First MMA.
I agree, right?
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.
Well, no, let me ask you a purely hypothetical.
Sure.
There are two people with guns pointed at each other.
You have a button that if you press it, their guns will disintegrate.
Do you press it?
Yes, if this isn't, I just don't know if this is analogous to the situation.
Do you want to tell me how it's analogous?
Yeah, the point is we have two powerful political factions that are escalating the attacks against each other.
And do you stop them?
Or do you just say, no, no, no, no, let them all keep doing this?
Like, the Democrats might win, and then they're going to weaponize everything.
Trump's weaponizing everything.
Just let it keep happening.
Why do we shut it down?
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 just want to ask you something.
Like, you've studied a lot of philosophy, right?
Today?
No, no, no.
I just mean like you talk.
You make a lot of references to philosophers.
Yeah, you know, this question.
I love philosophy.
So you bring up the Constitution, but you must be aware that that is not an argument to anything you're saying.
Let me just elaborate.
First Amendment.
Yeah, blasphemy was illegal when the First Amendment was ratified.
Is this just the argument you can amend a will?
The left's idea of what is protected under the Constitution is fundamentally different from the right.
And how each culture interprets the Constitution determines whether or not they believe it's being adhered to.
So when you say we must adhere to the Constitution, which one?
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.
What are the rules that you want in place?
Well, I want due process.
Agreed.
Right.
Define due process.
Due process means that you are assumed not guilty until proven otherwise.
That is not what due process means.
Okay, due process, that's part of all of due process.
Due process is pushing against allegations against you.
No, Okay, just I'm going to clarify for you.
Due process refers to the legal process an individual of their particular circumstances are due under the law.
Fair under the law.
That doesn't mean innocent until proven guilty because due process can refer to civil cases all the same.
Okay.
It can refer to executive branch decisions.
I want both of these things then.
I want due process and I want an assumption of non-guilty.
Once again, when you say due process, it means something different to the left than it means to the right.
Yes, but it also still means some level of both saying we want fair treatment.
I agree that.
Let's pause for a second.
Hold on, hold on.
I agree that principally the left and the right are going to fight about the way that that policy plays out.
But at least we can both agree that that policy matters.
Whereas right now we're moving in a direction where we're saying, well, maybe free speech doesn't matter.
And I would say we might have different interpretations of what free speech should be practiced in.
First and foremost.
Free speech must matter.
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.
Don't believe that this is true.
It is absolutely correct.
The executive Congress has deleted all powers on immigration to the INA to the executive branch, and that's why the executive branch has executed.
Talk to Pisco about this.
That's why the executive branch has executive branch courts.
There are judges that are not, that's why the left has been saying judicial warrant all the time.
Because the executive branch can issue an administrative warrant under Congress.
Sure, but the issue is you're saying, look at these are ways that we can interpret due process differently.
Democracy Under Threat00:15:52
That's not an interpretation.
That's the law right now.
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?
I am saying that what the left considers due process is incongruous with what the law actually says.
What conclusion can we possibly take from that claim, Clinton?
When a leftist says, I want due process, we must ask them, what do you mean by that?
And then you come to discover the left and the right have completely different worldviews on what that word actually means.
Answer is, we can't, we actually can't do democracy anymore.
No, is that your answer?
Okay, Kathy Newman.
Don't cry, Kathy Newman.
Don't call me Kathy Newman.
Hold on.
I'm trying to say, Tim, stake a position.
What are you saying?
Because I'm talking about democracy.
I'm talking about the values that we hold, which is what the Constitution is.
Devorah.
Yeah, thank you.
It is democracy, what you are describing, where one side is interpreting the U.S. Constitution differently than the other side.
And we fight about it, and we often have to engage in some level of compromise.
That's the point.
The conservatives want to conserve, which is their role.
Except when both sides are getting too extreme to the point where it's going to rip this country apart.
I agree.
And they're going to shoot each other.
I agree.
I agree.
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.
And I say, how many you?
Of course we do.
Of course you value free speech.
And of course I value free speech.
You don't think so?
I absolutely do not.
I absolutely do not.
Maybe with the pandemic they want to shut us down, but I think we're going to go to like root philosophical moral philosophies.
A society, a social body with a shared moral worldview can agree we all believe in free speech.
Then they ratify it in their Constitution and arrest anyone who says Jesus is not Lord.
That's not free speech by today's standards.
At the same time, the left that says we want free speech has arrested people for hate speech far and wide.
There's a guy who got arrested for rap lyrics on Facebook.
The right has argued, no, we should be allowed to say these things.
We should be allowed to post rap lyrics.
There is not a unified moral view on what free speech is, and there never has been.
Sure, but the Second Amendment has never historically meant that anyone anywhere can carry guns.
It meant the federal government couldn't impose a law over the states to stop an individual from carrying a weapon.
But routinely in the 1800s, men would run on horseback in a town and the sheriff would say, hand over your guns.
The view of what is the Constitution shifts dramatically all the time.
Of course.
And the left and the right are so divergent in this, it's extreme.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that these things can't be unified.
I guess my question to you is, what's the conclusion from what you're saying?
The right Constitution I would define as the traditional American Constitutional Republic, and the left constitution is a multicultural democracy.
So I don't care what words are used by each other, but they are entirely advocating for two different worlds.
It has come to the point where they are threatening force against each other and exercising that.
Yes.
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.
Sure.
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.
Okay.
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.
Sure, even if you are neutral.
On the left, when Project 2025 came out, it was the exact same type of terror and fear because both of them were.
Project 2025 had a lot of things that a lot of the left viewed shrinking of rights.
Many political, wealthy individuals are fleeing, not Republicans, because they fear that the Democrats are going to swing the hammer against anyone.
They fear both sides are going to be killed.
further radicalized.
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.
That's what I'm saying.
So who is going to lay down their arms?
I'm trying to.
So the answer is fairly obvious, isn't it?
It's actually not.
You think that these Trump officials are going to be like, guess I go to jail?
No, no, no.
I don't think Trump officials are going to change, but there might be noble, meaningful, good conservative Republicans.
That's terrifying that you believe that and you've been supporting that side.
Who said supporting what side?
You are obviously supporting Trump.
You obviously support conservatives.
What does that do with what we're talking about?
Because you said that none of this matters, any rule of law, any values of what we've built our system and constitution on.
Yes, we are talking about these things.
I'm talking about the same thing.
I'm saying there are two distinct factions that are ready to tear each other to shreds and nothing's going to stop it.
And I'm saying if that is the exact belief that makes it inevitable so.
And both sides are saying that right now.
I'm trying to say, I want to put my gun down.
That's why I talked to you guys.
No, no, no, I get what you're saying.
I just think the reality is it's going to happen because that is the life cycle of a country.
Listen, listen, not a single Republican will ever tolerate trans kids.
It's not happening.
They don't have to in their statement.
I just remember that.
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.
Sure.
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.
Sure, I agree.
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.
And I'm saying.
It isn't a democracy.
Whatever version of America that we have now.
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.
And how many Ukrainians did we arrest for manipulating the election in favor of Clinton?
I'm not sure.
Do you know the answer?
Zero.
Hold on.
Did they get investigated?
Yes.
And instead, they arrested Paul Manafort instead of the Ukrainians.
Was he guilty?
And then Joe Paul Manafort?
Was he?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
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.
No one will believe it.
Sure, but you already basically said after J6, democracy's basically.
Before J6.
I mean, J-6 was a product of people believing democracy was over.
Sure.
And so the question is, the conclusion cannot be, and maybe you just want to, I guess, toss the country to the wolves and say it's over.
I don't think that that's what we should fight for because a lot of good people inside.
I don't think it's over.
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...
We don't have a democracy.
I mean, they raided Trump's home.
We don't have a democracy.
They fabricated evidence and took pictures of it.
We don't have a democracy.
Were they investigated and found guilty for it and tried?
Can we look that up?
No, they weren't.
They went to Trump's house.
That's the point.
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.
Okay, and so.
And then told the American people Trump had classified documents.
They were his daily briefings.
These people are evil.
Ask her about this.
Just the left?
I'm sorry.
I didn't say just the left.
I said the people who raided Trump's home and fabricated evidence to put him in prison are evil.
Sure.
Yeah.
If that occurred in the way that you describe it, yes, I would be opposed to these things.
I'm not granting you that necessary at all.
When did we ever have Ukraine gate?
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.
A political investigation found.
Why didn't we ever get any of that?
And you're right.
That's a good question.
Why didn't Trump do that?
Who is willing to weaponize the DOJ now?
Trump should have locked Hillary up.
And he didn't do it because he's willing to.
Well, he should have not locked Hillary up.
He likes Hillary.
The answer isn't we should throw away due process.
The actual answer is we must demand due process.
Who said anything about throwing away due process?
Well, locking her up assumes that she wouldn't get fair process.
Criminally charged Hillary Clinton over the emails, yeah.
Sure.
And then if she is found guilty in a court of law when the jury of her peers.
So I'm advocating for due process, actually.
So am I.
Yes, that she should be afraid of the fact that she's a Russia hoax.
What happened is that many people were charged.
There were serious issues with Russia.
That was found, but there was no tight connection that could be tied to Trump, which is why he went into the United States.
So where's our due process?
No, no, no.
He was impeached over that.
He was impeached over the call to Ukraine Hillary.
And Hillary Clinton was never held accountable for classified information on a personal circuit.
Can we get our jobs?
Did he stay president until Joe Biden got elected?
What does that mean?
Well, he got impeached.
Did he get removed at the time?
He wasn't convicted, no?
Oh, okay.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with saying he got impeached?
Well, that's saying he was removed.
People can investigate.
People can make moves in office to do different things through legitimate actors, and sometimes they fail.
I'm going to step right back and just say this.
There are two political facts in this country that are tearing each other's throats out.
Nothing's going to stop them.
One side is hell-bent on engaging in psychotic evil lawfare, and the other side is crop dusting it.
Listen, I hate that.
How many people do have lives, right?
I haven't said anything to 12,000.
I just want to say, I think this is just a waste of time because it's obvious that we have a uniparty.
You can look at Donald Trump, who campaigned that he's not going to start any wars.
He started a huge war.
You can say that he was going to get rid of all the illegal immigrants.
Now he has all these multinational corporations saying we can't get rid of the illegal immigrants.
So we have a uniparty.
So this idea that it's right versus left is just meant to make us argue on the right.
I'm just telling you, I disagree.
Would you take the uniparty over a radical left who wants to lock up their political opponents?
Yeah, absolutely.
100%.
Would you take the UW?
I'm giving you choice.
I'm giving you choices.
Trump has not prosecuted anybody for, you know, Anthony Fauci.
They just issued a subpoena to come the other day.
There's 130 subpoenas that went out over the grand conspiracy against Trump.
He's also subpoenaing Jerome Devil.
Yeah, but nobody's going to submit it.
He's going to dismiss me.
Yeah, but not Anthony Fauci.
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.
Maybe it was just your big happy family tree, son.
John Eastman's emails are horrifying.
If you read through John Eastman and J6, he is explicitly saying, hey, Trump, by the way, I need to be on the pardon list.
And multiple aides have already testified that they told John Eastman that what you're doing is illegal, but what's happened to him?
Nothing.
I agree that there are problems and that we need to correct the system, but the answer to this isn't just accept more erasure for liberal rights.
No one said that.
I'm not saying that you're saying that.
The problem is that your conclusion is there's nothing we can do about it.
But I guess I would ask: how many people are alive right now?
27,000.
Okay.
27,000 people is a lot of people.
That means your voice really matters.
Sure.
So what can 20,000 people theoretically do if they want to further strengthen actual liberal institutions?
I think they should.
I can tell you got that troll fixed on.
Go to Casper.com and join our Discord community.
Casper.com and get some coffee.
Do you see coffee prices are going through the roof because of the war, Tim?
Did you see that?
Has it affected Casper?
Our prices are unaffected.
Okay, good.
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.
Trump owns hotels.
And he's got allies and businessmen who are like, hey, we don't want to do this.
You also have the political class saying the Hispanic vote for Republicans has dropped dramatically because they don't like the ICE raids and DHS.
That's why they pulled out of Minnesota.
I was right through those ICE raids.
I don't agree that that means it's a uniparty.
I do agree that it means that Trump's got special interests.
Dude, you know what's a uniparty?
They can't even pass the Save Act, Tim.
No, I'm not even kidding.
Hidden Social Credit Scores00:09:53
They can't even pass it.
It's a good point.
It's the simplistic thing.
You don't have to show an owls in the American history.
And they can't even pass that because there's Republicans who are saying, oh, I don't know.
It's all the will for it because they're tying it to voter fraud, which just like everybody.
No, no, no, no.
There's no will for it because I agree with the Republicans and the Democrats largely are like, we like the status quo.
Yeah.
We don't want to change it.
They're going to fuck the vote.
Just like the DOJ is not going to give the DOJ.
This goes back to my point of view.
This is to the progressives' point.
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.
I'm going to lay it out for you.
It's very simple.
They just also want to translate kids.
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.
And I go, huh?
Well, I'm going to walk out.
Turn around and walk off.
It's just crazy to me that your number in your pluralistic moral system of what matters most in voting, you're like, no, I couldn't.
Imagine you could overnight.
Say we could wave a wand and you could vote away corruption, but I'm right next to you.
We're transing Phil specifically.
How about control kids?
How about that?
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?
Yeah, we shouldn't work with communists.
I agree.
In the same way that we shouldn't work with like Nick Fuentes, who is a theocrat.
Yeah, well, fair enough.
But that's exactly what the progressives want to do.
That's what AOC wants to do.
That's what Rokana's talking about.
That's what they're doing in Canada.
AOC is hated by the communists because she moderated and does a lot of bipartisan bills and is increasingly popular.
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.
I don't believe that AOC would ever have any political will behind her to actually get away from the city.
Bernie Sanders would do that.
No.
Bernie Sanders.
Like I said, Bernie Sanders and Rokana are talking about a wealth tax, which will be a good thing.
They dislike their taxes.
They say that.
Listen, stop.
They say, like, oh, it's only for the billionaires and billionaires because Bernie's a millionaire.
But that will cause capital flight, and then it will get transferred on down to people that have a house that's worth $2 million.
If you pay your property taxes, what happens?
They see it as your bucket.
Exactly.
So you could just argue that that's already communism right there, that every year I have to pay taxes on my house and you're missing.
No, property taxes are state taxes, and you can move if you don't like it.
I'm talking about a federal tax.
That's why I mentioned Bernie Sanders and Rokana.
Sure.
So this is where federalism of America compared to Canada is really cool and that different states can have these.
No, that's why I specified federal.
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 the problem is there's a difference of opinion on what those definitions are to those terms that you're using.
One side doesn't see it the same way.
So how do you fix that?
I agree that we don't see it the same way.
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.
So I guess we're fucked.
Like that can't be the answer.
No, I mean, why not?
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.
It'll be like the 90s again.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with the reduction of rights?
I didn't say reduction of rights.
Well, the homogenized society that we're talking about in this unipolar system is less free speech, for example, because it's a very important thing.
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.
What's wrong with it?
That I have no issue with, but it sounds like the system you're outlining isn't that.
I just outlined it.
What do you mean?
Well, when we started the show, right, you were telling us about this thing.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
They want to, they, they.
They're going to drown out all the chaos and the noise with AI slop.
They're going to put in their trusted personalities to create a homogenous moral worldview.
And they're going to have the same opinions no matter what.
And what happens if they're not going to be able to do that?
They're similar.
What happens if you don't agree with some of the opinions?
Like if you have a small percent of dissenters who make blogs and do their own videos on YouTube?
What if you've got a podcaster who works for CBS who like maybe has a different opinion?
Can they voice that?
Are you asking if an individual has a right to go on someone else's platform?
No, no, no.
I'm asking.
They can go say whatever they want where they are.
If you're still allowed to have free speech, are they allowed to oppose things?
But I don't have to invite you on my show if I don't like you.
Sure.
That's the same thing.
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.
Sure.
That's not a violation of free speech.
Sure, but the system that you outlined to all of us, and my understanding, if I can go back to the case.
Is the political elites buying up podcasts?
They restructure narratives so that there's kind of the same two parties.
They've got the controlled opposition.
So that's basically everything.
They want to recreate Obama McCain.
And you know, they can do this very easily once they put in a social credit score.
I'm not even kidding.
You know, that is how they can basically make it.
Well, I think they, I mean, if they go to put that in, they just create more free social services, and then we'd all have to just behave.
The social credit score already exists.
I know, I agree.
You're keeping it.
But it will be out in the open.
It'll be like your driver's license.
You'll have to check your social credit score to go.
So that already exists.
Yeah, but I'm talking about just out in the open.
But they don't need to do it in the open.
They don't need to do it in the open.
So, for instance, there are people who have gone to social media who get shadow banned and banned instantly.
It's never changed.
Yeah.
I mean, like, TikTok does it like crazy.
That's it.
They know who you are, and they will shut down.
I mean, look, Nick Fuentez's social credit score is in the gutter.
But things do change, right?
Like, policy does change.
Like, yes, democracies have a large preferentialism for slow change, but things do change.
Like, you know, the world looks different now than it did in the 80s, even at a policy level.
I take it back.
I think we should have a forward-facing social credit score system.
If we're going to have it, it should be forward-facing.
Well, check it out.
Let me explain it like this.
Nick Fuentes is persona non grata, right?
And Richard Spencer is largely too, even though he's not really been as active in the past seven or so years.
I heard he gained a lot of weight.
You see, he's really fat.
Nick Fuentes.
Okay, he's really fat.
Nick Fuentes is banned from everywhere, and they don't care why.
If he tries to sign up for a new platform, they'll just ban him instantly.
There's no number telling anybody that he's bad.
They just say that's a scary name.
Now, imagine we had a forward-facing social credit score system, and Nick Fuentes was at a 90 out of 800.
He could do things to manifest to raise that social credit score.
And then when he applies for a PayPal, they don't immediately go, ah, Nick Fuentes.
They go, ah, Nick Fuentes, is your score your score improved?
Oh, it's a 700.
Welcome aboard.
I'm kidding.
I really don't want that.
But think about the alternative.
I think it's inevitable, though.
You guys are talking about the Black Mirror episode.
You do realize that.
Yeah, yeah, of course.
So what is the bad side to it?
The bad side is that Black Mirror episode where her day goes bad and then her score just keeps dropping like crazy.
And then it's over for her.
China has it.
It's nuts.
Most of the population.
Most of the homeless population in China are homeless, not because of any other reason than they have a bad social credit score.
And they have a significant, I mean, there's a lot of Chinese.
What?
It's frightening.
Oh, yeah, it absolutely is.
Well, look at New York City.
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.
China's Homeless Crisis00:09:09
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, so honest question, like, if the Democratic Party organically just moderated, right?
Let's say that they were just like, you know, Tulsi Gabbard is socially liberal on a bunch of things.
She's worked with Republicans, so she's got moderates on her side.
And if she genuinely won the primary, is that a bad thing?
Not my fundamental question always with any politician is what's their policy?
Right.
If she's like, I'm pro-choice, pro-progressive tax, I want universal health care.
But I like Trump.
I worked with him.
He was good to me.
We don't need to be angry, but I just disagree with him on foreign policy.
So I'm going to run.
And then she wins the primary, becomes the nominee.
Is that a good or bad thing?
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.
Hillary was against American.
But again, I mean, hold on, Kyle, just answer the question.
Well, I'm not sure.
If Tulsi Gabbard fipped her, which is using an example, like a comparative example, right?
So the problem that probably would happen is that Maybe.
Can I trust that she's actually telling the truth this time?
That's not the hypothetical I'm not going to do.
Well, if the politicians are not.
If she legitimately won a primary, is it a good thing?
It depends on what her policies are and if I actually can legitimately believe that she'll enact those policies.
Just say you don't care for democracy.
I do care about democracy.
Then why are you upset if someone legitimately wins an election?
Because if they're lying about their policies to win election and they don't enact anything, then they're not going to be a problem.
That's not part of the hypothetical.
You're adding things that it's not.
But that's the point of democracy is that people give up their authority to elected officials to enact their will so it's going to call it.
If you're a politician that I voted for doesn't do my will.
That is a problem.
If you did not eat breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt?
Hungry.
Now, why can't you answer the question about Tulsi Gabbard if she is duly elected to the primary isn't it?
I can do obnoxious, dumb, thought-ending clichés as well.
Can you answer the question?
I'm engaging in good faith, and I'm telling you why there are issues of not being analogous.
If Ron Kaperski won the Democratic primary, is it a good thing?
Potentially?
The people said we like his policy because he won.
What are his policies?
Well, I'm going to feel.
No, no.
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.
I think you're being naive because a lot of people are voting.
A lot of politicians give you power and don't forget to do a function of democracy for a reason, and you have no answer.
That's not a no answer.
It is not an answer.
Wait, so would you just be happy no matter who gets elected?
It is a good thing for a democracy when the people choose their leaders.
Yes.
Yes, of course.
What's the answer?
Was that hard?
So when Biden gets elected, you're happy about that.
When the people choose their leaders, okay?
When the people get elected.
I want my, I'm not talking about, I'm not going to get into specifics because you're going to create a culture war.
I'm asking you about a random, random guy named Ron Kapersky because I'm trying to roll.
Roe Ryron.
If Roe Ryron gets elected, is that okay?
Yes.
Okay, what if he has mostly liberal policies?
It doesn't matter that people voted for him.
Why is it hard for you to answer?
Because it feels like, okay, it feels like you're doing a weird thing.
No, I'm asking you a basic function of democracy status.
To lead up to the point I'm trying to make, but you refuse to answer.
What's the point that you're trying to make?
Well, I'm not refusing to answer.
I'm asking you.
You're absolutely refusing to answer.
I'm saying, would I be personally happy about it?
It depends on what the policy of the elected official is.
Am I happy that democracy is working generally?
Yes, I'm happy that democracy...
Was that so difficult?
It is difficult because I'm trying to understand.
Wait, why are you laughing?
What are we talking about?
Why are we talking about this?
I asked.
Connect it back to the greatest.
Their elected leader is a good thing, and you refused to answer.
I was the X Factor on this show, so I thought I'd come in and prove it.
Say something.
How are you guys feeling, man?
We used to rail it.
We've been talking about hypotheticals for almost two hours.
Okay, this is what we got to do.
We used to do a lot of military philosophy.
We used to do a lot of military tactics.
Now we're doing political philosophy as well because we're the strongest on the planet.
We have to figure out how to use it.
Ian, I have a question for you.
Okay.
Is it a good thing if the people duly elect their chosen representative?
Yes.
What does dually mean?
It means legitimately.
It means correctly and through fair and normal processes.
It's a transparent process that can be used for the future.
Is it used for a fair process where the people say, I like this guy, I'm voting for him and he wins.
It can be used for good or evil.
But is it good if the people choose their leader?
Well, if they choose a bad leader, you could say the process is transparent but is used for evil or good.
It's like a neutral.
I'm not talking about your opinion on the politics of the person.
I'm saying, do you think Democratic representatives are a good people choosing their leaders a good thing?
It's the least worst.
Yeah.
He wants a king, he wants a king.
Okay, fine.
King it is.
So I'm fine.
Literally.
If the process is legitimate, yes.
It is good that the person who gets the most votes through whatever system that we have, Electoral College, wins.
Yes, that's good, assuming that the election is valid.
Why were we talking about this?
Because you brought up the Gabbard Trump ticket and the billionaires backing them.
And so the question I'm asking is, if the voters did want Tulsi, is it bad that she wins?
Not necessarily, no.
Right.
That's my point.
If you look at it through the lens of political machinations, you're going to hate every politician ever.
I'm not inherently opposed to Gabbard.
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.
And mass deportations.
And they should be upset because he's defying what is otherwise legitimate authority that the people gave to him.
That's why people are upset.
So if Tulsi got elected and ran on what she said she would do, then that's fine.
But if Tulsi gets elected and she doesn't and she's a sellout to the other side, that's bad.
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.
Tucker Carlson could be.
I do not believe so.
Do you think so?
Do you think that if compromise occurs with any official, is that not legitimate?
Compromise is okay.
OK, so my point is that, like, are you anti-lobby groups?
Is that kind of what you're getting at?
I am.
Because I'll live there.
But the problem with lobbying is that people don't understand what it is.
It's like I've lobbied.
Okay.
I have lobbied inadvertently West Virginia politicians over Maha issues.
What about?
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.
Sure.
So right, lobbying is legitimate, right?
And it is actually, it's important because, for example, corporations can't vote.
And so it's a way for corporations to still have some level of capacity.
They have all the capital capital.
Super powerful.
They have all the capacity.
Super powerful.
Let me give you a multinational corporations.
I gave you guys an example of like guys, guys.
I gave you an example of lobbying that I was going to tell you.
But I'll give you an example of actual lobbying, right?
Like how it actually works.
A guy will go and meet with a member of Congress and they'll sit down for a steak dinner and they'll be discussing policy and it's not all that crazy.
And then the lobbyists will say something like, if you don't back this bill to fund Israel, I'll release videos of you raping children.
And then they go, oh, okay, I'll vote for that bill.
And then they shake hands.
That happens.
Is that legitimate?
Is that legitimate, though, or illegitimate?
That's illegitimate, but it happens.
Is that a real question?
Legitimate or Illegitimate Politics00:05:13
I'm making sure we're all on the same terms.
I'm saying, is that legitimate or illegitimate?
That is de facto illegitimate.
Because it was Israel.
Well, if it was another country, obviously, yes.
But if it was a lobby group that wasn't blackmailing, but was just, you know, trying to be like, hey, well, I agree.
I totally agree.
But so when you said there's no legitimate authority, I guess the question goes, is that because of the city?
The issue isn't lobbying, though.
The issue isn't lobbying.
So for instance, one of the things I'm working on right now is I am going to drop a political nuclear bomb on this country.
And I'm going to let you guys in on what's going on.
So the Lodge Card Club in Texas was raided by the TABC.
The search warrant was released.
This is the biggest poker club in the world.
Now, maybe not really because there could be underground clubs and things like that, whatever.
But in terms of a building just for playing poker and various poker games and live streaming and culture.
The most square footage.
The most square footage, the most tables.
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.
Absolutely not.
It's bad.
You think so?
It's bad?
Yeah, I do.
Okay, no problem.
I agree.
I completely agree.
And it's degeneracy, and poker is gambling.
You say it's not, but I don't know.
No, that's funny.
It's funny if you agree with that.
Okay.
So the law says you can't gamble.
And guess what?
Every state says.
Gambling is defined as wagering money on a game that involves any amount of chance where you can win prizes.
What did I just describe?
Pokemon Go.
Pokemon.
Pokemon card games.
Pokemon.
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.
Wait, I got a solution, Pokemon poker.
So it's just poker.
I already tried that.
Oh.
So I actually...
Well, come on.
Yeah, Pokemon.
That's perfect.
Here's the idea.
Here's the idea.
You create a single deck where there's four types and varying HPs.
You could definitely do that.
Then you deal them out, and it's a battle where you look down at your Pokemon.
And if you have a strong Pokemon team, you can go to battle with the other team.
And then you have to use energy tokens to power, like energy cards.
You could literally do that.
I mean, it's a poker.
The point is this.
The point is this.
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.
So why is David Busters legal?
You don't win cash.
But I mean, I guess you could do this poker thing where you win coupons and then they still shut you down.
So this is the thing.
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.
Jasmine Crockett and FCC Pressure00:14:43
They operate, I think, about 42 locations.
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.
That is not legitimate.
That's what's happening.
And it's happening everywhere.
Hey, I've been screaming.
I'm anti-Cary Committee.
I'm anti-Super PACs, and I always have been, right?
This is one of the reasons I love Rokan as he's James Tallarico, is that they've run very dull.
Tellerico, absolutely.
That guy's a freak.
Sure.
Do you, you know, you unironically like Target?
I love James Tallarico, but I'm a liberal.
How do you feel about that hoax?
He pulled off with Colbert.
I don't know.
Here's the thing.
One of my biggest.
Maybe he's racist.
I don't know.
He doesn't like Rocket.
I don't know anything about the Colbert stuff.
I don't know what to say.
So they staged a hoax against Jasmine Crockett to shut her out of the election.
I have to see evidence of that.
So here's what happened.
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 this is the issue is late night TV shows almost never give equal time because late nights have been basically exempt from this.
This is not the point.
The point is.
This is the point that's happened with the...
No.
This is exactly what the...
Let's see.
I'm going to clarify the hoax for you because we're not talking about this.
It is a hoax to claim Trump stopped an interview when they both were stopping Jasmine Crockett from getting equal time.
They were not stopping Jasmine Crockett at all because the Equal.
No, the equal, like the FCC policy there.
There's a really good, I think the Daily did a coverage of all this story that goes into detail.
And it's a very good question.
So they lied about what's going on.
Yeah, I don't like the lying, obviously.
It was a hoax.
Trump did not stop this.
It's not legal.
It is stopped.
Sure.
Yeah, Tellerico is a lying scumbag.
Okay, sure.
Maybe in this case, I would have to look into it more.
But in the case of the psychology, it's okay.
But the issue is my most important thing is corruption.
Like Tellerico's corruption, where he teams up with Colbert to lie about Jasmine Crockett?
Sure.
He plays a little bit of dirty social media games possibly.
But he's never taken a dollar of Super PAC money.
I stole that election.
He's no.
No, he never did.
He never did anything.
How much do you back on PEC?
Gets him some money.
I don't think he'll take it.
He's like taken a pretty big story.
I hope not, right?
He could obviously disappoint me in the future.
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.
Do you give any room to the fact that they're all corrupt?
They're all corrupt to varying degrees, and I always want to try to vet for the least corrupt person who will pass policy that reduces corruption.
Just based on special interests, based on money and politics, they're all inherently corrupted at a certain level.
Then don't participate in the story.
Let's come to the tunes of millions of dollars through Lone Star Rising PAC.
Come on.
And I want to ask you about, if you really do like Tallarico, you know, he calls himself a pastor, but he's also pro-choice.
Don't you think that that is just...
Wait, Pax are not super Pax.
Is he...
Is that a super PAC?
Super PAC.
But James Talleric.
Tellering Star, Lone Star, Rising PAC spent millions on ads supporting him.
Did he?
But Kyla, do you think he's a hypocrite for saying that he's a pastor, but also saying it's okay to murder a baby in the womb?
No, not Jesus.
You don't think that's hypocritical?
Nope.
You think Jesus would be Exodus 21, 22?
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.
It is a, in my opinion, misleading to say someone doesn't take PAC money because PACs don't spend money on candidates.
They buy ads for the candidate.
And James Tellerico has got from ally from Lone Star.
Lone Star Rising PAC spent an estimated $4 million in 2026 on ads supporting him.
I mean, that's, again, is this a carry committee?
I need to, like...
Hold on, hold on.
You know what's fascinating?
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.
Oh my God, it's evil.
And I don't even like her.
That's evil.
This is just that silly thing of just pointing and be like, oh, Democrats, they hate democracy.
I'm talking about the modern president and stabbing the professional.
The election was stolen.
So he still denies the genuine transfer of legitimate power that happened back in the middle of the day.
And I have never agreed that the election was stolen.
And I think Biden won largely through ballot harvesting.
And James Tellerico stabbed Jasmine Crockett in the back.
She's a Democrat.
Can all of those be true at the same time?
Okay, he didn't.
So this is the staggering Jasmine and Crockett.
First of all, she came out in vocal, large support of him.
The idea that we have ever applied to any...
She called the election stolen.
You got to let me finish.
You got to let me finish.
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.
Okay, first of all.
So when you made a point, I will give you a moment.
4v1.
It is 4v1, so I have to be able to get to respond to the pressure.
I'm on your side.
Okay, thank you, Alex.
I appreciate it.
It's 3v1, although Phil III.
2v2.
I'm going to join as well.
You're on my side too?
Yeah.
You guys aren't speaking out much, so you guys got to really come to your business.
You can't be on my team anymore.
I'm voting you off.
Right?
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.
You don't have to stop me.
I do because we're not talking about equal time.
You either know that you're wrong or you're just uninformed of what happened with Jasmine Crockett.
I'm going to pause.
I'm going to say foundation real quick.
What we are discussing is not equal time rules and how they apply.
Yes, it is because you said that he stabbed her in the back by not allowing her on the show.
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.
She could make the post.
Someone probably wrote it for her.
Regardless.
Did she approve it?
But this is not what she's doing.
She has no choice.
She has to do that.
She's not really a point.
That's not true.
But Cambodia Harris went on like an argument to her.
We are not arguing this.
We are arguing that James Tallarico staged a hoax to steal election.
You were arguing, you were arguing specifically here that what he did is stab her in the back by not giving her access to equal time.
Okay, let me stop you right now.
I've not made that argument, but it's not the argument.
I said he hoaxed the people with Colbert attacking Trump so that Crockett would lose.
What does this have to do with Crockett?
Jasmine Crockett was his opponent in the primary.
Why does she stage a Captain?
Why does he owe her time on Colbert show?
I did not say that.
So then why is Jasmine Crockett relevant to this?
In order to win the election, he staged a hoax with Colbert to frame the election as though he was the only one running.
He got 12 million views from this hoax.
He made millions of dollars and it put him over the edge.
This is a PR stunt.
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.
It's of course it's evil great, of course Tellerico is evil too.
Okay, but the issue is that, who have you said you would never vote for again?
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?
Did Carr and Curry pressure through the FCC to not have Tallerico and other people on?
Did they do that?
No yes, they did.
No, they didn't.
Yes, they did.
They used the equal time clause specifically to the.
CBS issued a statement saying we never made this statement.
It never happened.
Their lawyers didn't say that they could not do it, but they said that it could not be aired on their mainstream, that it had to be on YouTube.
This is what happened.
CBS issued a statement saying we never told Colbert he couldn't have Tallarico on.
Never happened, you're right.
What they did say to him though instead, is that no, that if he was on, they couldn't air it on the mainstream, that it could only be on YouTube.
That's what they told them.
Yes, that is correct.
Okay, could you accept the fact that there is some level of corruption with what went down with Stephen Colbert?
Yes or no?
Yeah yeah if if yeah, to some degree, they were lying a little bit.
Yes so Tim, am I right in your point is, if her main beef is corruption, then she should be equally mad.
Not all corruption is equal, Right?
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.
Okay.
These are both not good, but acting like these are equal is not the same thing.
What I would prefer is lesser of these bad things.
Well, what about locking up pro-lifers and kicking veterans out of the military?
More context, but probably if it's illegitimate, I would not be for that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that happened under Democrats.
I mean, yeah, there's lots of things Democrats did that I'm not happy with.
So that's our point is it's either uniparty or going back to that.
No, the issue is you have primaries.
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.
Maybe we can agree on this.
Probably more likely to happen at the local level, but not as much likely to happen at the national level.
Let me agree with you.
Yes, but I don't think that it is impossible.
And I think that we should orient towards that if we want to see a reduction of corruption, which is something I really value.
Let's read this from Variety.
CBS denies forcing Stephen Colbert to not air interview with Democratic candidates as it provided legal guidance about FCC equal time rule.
Right.
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.
Yep.
So when Tallerico said, so when Tallarico said it was Trump that stopped it, that was a lie.
Yeah, it sounds like that was a lie.
And I already agreed to that.
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.
He read that.
I don't take it either.
I mean, either James Tellarico is an idiot or he's an asshole, whichever.
It's not idiotic.
Why would it be idiotic?
Because he doesn't understand that equal time applies to Jasmine Crockett, not the Republican.
Equal time has never applied to late night shows.
This is an awful lot of people.
That's why he's an idiot.
That's not.
It's always an asshole.
Why does that make him an idiot?
He doesn't understand FCC rules and he didn't look into it.
No idiot.
Nobody has.
He lied about Jasmine Crockett.
He's an asshole.
Do politicians have to infinitely know all policy that is relevant at all times at any moment?
If you're going to attack another politician who's not involved in whatever's going on, I think it's fair.
Yes.
I'm assuming that he took Colbert at his word.
There's a lot of reasonable political, I guess I'll say.
FCC rules don't apply this way.
FCC laws, yeah.
James Tallarico knows nothing about, okay.
Do you really want a politician who doesn't look into things and then attacks other people without investigating?
I would prefer a politician that is more likely to be.
Can you apologize?
Sure, yeah, he can apologize.
I'll have to ask him and film it.
The outcome that I would like that I'm focused on, this?
Okay, whatever.
Yeah.
Jamal Bowman polled like a stunt with like the thing, yeah, I don't like these things.
I don't like these things.
The issue that I'm pointing to is there are different people of level corruptions.
Can we agree to that?
I do agree.
There are some politicians that lie more, like Trump, and some that lie less.
I want to get behind politicians that lie less.
Well, I got to be honest.
I prefer that they not lie at all.
Why don't you prefer that?
So you're saying he lies the most?
Ask Rock, yes.
Well, I have to have a question.
I have an honest question.
Who is the preferential candidate in that capacity between Tallarico and Crockett?
I like Tallarico's policies more.
But has Crockett lied more?
Well, I don't know.
I don't know Crockett's history.
I got to be honest.
I don't like Jasmine Crockett.
Has she lied?
She's an attorney, so she probably had to lie.
I will say this.
In terms of major events like this, the only thing I can really say about Crockett is that I find her abhorrent.
I find her behavior bad.
I find her attitude fake, but she lies like a politician.
This, yeah, there's varying degrees of corruption, and maybe they're both like the C minus of corruption, but he's C and she's C minus.
I think he's worse.
Maybe he has better policies, but he seems to be more gasping.
James Tallarico is worse than Crockett because he lied to win the election.
He lied or was told something.
Or was done.
And Jasmine Crockett's still is either way the best.
Not necessarily.
Again, one of their policies.
All I care about is policies.
I would actually say he's worse because he's establishment approved.
Anti-Establishment Policies00:02:52
She wasn't.
She's very establishment approved.
No, she's not establishment approved because she was pack money behind him.
If she was establishment approved, she would have spent more money than he did.
She didn't.
She didn't raise more money than he did.
She didn't raise more money than he did, but she had a lot more sympathy.
And why is it that establishment figures like Stephen Colbert, Barack Obama, spoke very highly of him and never about Jasmine Crockett?
I believe Barack Obama has spoken positively about Jasmine Crockett.
Not in the same way that he did with Tyler Raymond.
It's possible that Barack had a larger preference for Tylerico and Colbert.
All I'm saying is all I'm saying is the establishment will get what they want.
They wanted him.
They used her as a distraction.
She went on to the news.
She made outrageous statements.
I'm with you.
I think she is probably smart in her house, but when she goes in front of the camera, she thought it was smart to act a certain way.
I don't think that works in politics.
And I think that the establishment wanted him and not her.
I think you can say that like preference.
I don't know if it's obvious to me.
She had a lot of super PAC money.
She had a lot of super PAC money.
She was accepted in the squad.
She was very popular as well on social media.
She did a lot of interviews as well.
I suspected the establishment honestly liked both.
It was a really tight race.
And a lot of people are like, I don't know.
Here's a great data point.
Sure.
The only people that she was going to bring out are black people.
He was bringing out Hispanic people, white people, and women.
So automatically, James Tylerico is a more favorable candidate than she is in the eyes of the establishment.
Who's going to win for us?
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.
They're going to earn a lot more votes that way.
And he is politically savvy because he was able to get on a bunch of politics in the establishment.
No, there's a lot of policies he's aligned with with the establishment.
I just want to make this one.
Sure, some, but there's anti-establishment policies.
Some people say he also appealed to people better because he looks Hispanic or Mexican, but he's not.
I heard he kicks dogs.
Like, just walked the dogs.
I mean, Christy Noam kills him.
Yeah, I heard he walked to some Indian guy's dog and kicked him in.
The Indian guy was like, you kicked my dog.
I don't think anyone's doing it.
And he was all angry.
I'm making a joke here on another reference.
It's a famous jerky boys or something.
I love the jerky boys.
Yeah, it's like, you kicked my dog.
He's like, sir, I didn't kick your dog.
You come to my house and you kicked my dog.
And he's like, no, I didn't.
That's why I always make kicking the dog as the joke about when a politician does something wrong.
I'll be like, they accused Trump of kicking a dog or whatever.
Or Nancy Pelosi of kicking a dog.
The world is a much better place when we listen to him.
Wait, hold on.
Who was the Democrat who actually kicked the dog?
Do you remember this?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, what's that?
I forgot to say.
Let me ask Rock.
I really.
Oh, no, that's the AG in Virginia who wants to kill people's kids.
Jay Jones.
J.J. Jones.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Boomer Dog Kicking Jokes00:04:17
Did you see that?
No, he tried to kick the dog.
And he tried to move on.
We're talking about this.
Chrissy Noam did something much worse.
She killed the dog.
She killed the dog.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
She rehomed the dog.
She crosses the line.
She didn't really hon the dog.
She blew it.
Maybe she eventually transfer of energy.
Oh, yeah.
I gotta say, shooting a dog because you failed to train it as a herder is crazy.
She spent $220 million on a one-minute ad.
Avengers cost $100.
$18 million.
No, no, no, no.
It was a series of ads.
It's a bunch of ads.
No, no, no.
I'm just, I'm not saying that.
You're saying she overpaid to.
I mean, one of the things that I'm doing.
No, no, no, no.
You're saying it was one ad, but it was a bunch of ads.
She didn't pay for the marketing of it.
But I watched all these ads that are on Fox News.
She didn't.
Guys, I have a question.
Boomers have like five years left.
I'm not trying to be mean, right?
But boomers have like five years left.
Our parents, no, I'm not trying to be mean, though, but it's true.
Life expectancy for boomers is 79 years old.
What is Fox News, MS Now, and CNN going to do?
I don't know.
Nobody watches it anyway.
I mean, Mark Levin's audience isn't very big.
I don't even think real human beings watch Fox News.
Honestly, she's on YouTube.
I have to be honest.
I don't think anyone ever watched anything, to be honest.
You know?
Tucker, when Tucker was doing his monologues on Fox News, when he was never one of my favorite people, he was culturally rare.
What I mean is they told us that 25 million people watch Big Bang Theory.
Now, that is a goddamn lie.
Big Bang Theory, I don't believe it for a second.
I believe before the internet, I think that there was probably significantly different.
Yeah, like water cooler shows.
Like after Seinfeld, everybody talked about it.
Some of my normie, non-internet, like college friends love Big Bang Theory.
That's insane.
I don't like those.
Big Bang Theory is like.
It's like AI slot before AI slot.
Yeah, exactly.
The only joke they have is that to stupid people, they say something that's confusing, and that's the joke.
So if you ever watch Big Bang Theory without the laugh track, like, like Sheldon will walk in and go, what are you guys doing?
It looks like a Heisenberg uncertainty principle experiment.
Shut the laugh.
Yeah, it's awkward.
And then they play a laughing.
And then everyone laughs.
Yeah.
That's it.
Well, it is mindless content.
I mean, I think a lot of sit content.
That's what we need.
What do you prefer?
What?
What?
Yeah, we're going to go.
Does Don Staff know?
What is that?
It's the Italian brain rot.
Did you guys see the meme?
Oh, yeah.
Did you know that?
They would just get rid of all brain rots.
Alex, guys, Phil, Phil, hear me.
Hear me.
You had a roll there.
The world that you were born in, it doesn't exist anymore.
There was a meme, and it's a series of license plates, and it's got years.
So you can get like iHeart, you know, 10, iHeart 16.
And on one side, it said, iHeart66, iHeart68, iHeart69, iHeart 70.
But iHeart67 was gone and sold out.
Do you understand?
Yeah, because the world you grew up in is gone.
Because iHeart69 was fully stocked and iHeart67 was gone.
Yeah, in my world, 69 would have been the first one.
Indeed.
Indeed, I think we need-I don't care about politics.
I don't care about politics.
We need a fascist dictatorship to install family pizza huts, 80s-style malls, and blockbuster video.
Do you think Donald Trump's a time traveler?
Do you think the future is based on his travels through the traffic?
That's preferable for whatever it is going on.
Everyone under 15.
All right, we're going to go to your Rumble Rants and Super Chats, my friends.
Smash the like button, share the show with every person you've ever met, including your grandma or that Indian neighbor whose dog you kicked.
All right, we got this from Joey Giggles.
He says, Why is she here?
She provides nothing.
She uses big words to make herself seem smart.
I love the big word in Sloan.
My got, but at least my boy who loved BBL is on.
Yeah.
I disagree.
Say small words.
I'll say it every time we have a lib come on the show.
It adds tremendously to the show.
I agree.
Like, we're arguing the whole time.
That's kind of the point.
Whether she's right or whoever you think is right, sitting in an echo chamber where we all shake each other's hands and be like, you are correct, sir.
No, you're correct, sir.
We all disagree with each other.
It's like not stimulating.
Alex Stein.
Chuck Norris Immortality Meme00:02:49
Alex, they all got to go back.
Don't talk about them.
Talk to Trump.
Trump's not kicking any of them out.
You're talking to me.
Like, I'm Tom Omega.
All got out.
They're literally not going anywhere.
They're literally the big booty Latinas.
What I'm saying is you don't like me going first.
But Donald Trump is not kicking anybody out.
And it's actually, especially the big booty Latinas that work in the hotels are definitely safe from.
Okay, wait, wait.
I just read that first of which I've got to read another one.
P. Soupi says, I disagree with Kyla every turn, but I absolutely love her and the way she's willing to stand on her beliefs.
Alex, on the other hand, he's been so flip-floppy in support of MAGA, I just can't.
Okay, because I would say that's the thing.
Whenever the evidence is presented, whether I believe, you know, Donald Trump, I do like Donald Trump.
I voted for Donald Trump, but I feel like he has.
Would you kiss him?
No, I would not kiss him because I'm not gay, but I'm saying he did a campaign that he was going to deport all these people.
He has not done that.
He's deported less people than Barack Obama.
He said he's not going to start any more wars.
He started a huge war.
The deporting left.
He hasn't he been able to.
Because these multinational corporations told him, hey, the deporting fewer people use him as exploitative people.
He'll be exploitative later.
The only reason that he's deported fewer people is because they counted people that were turned away during Barack Obama's presidency.
So when they got to the border and he turned them away, they were counted those as deportations.
Yeah, but we just had 35 million people come over here the last four years.
Still doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect to say that Donald Trump has not deported people.
It is true.
Donald Trump has actually deported.
Even more people than his clothes.
It's not that much.
No, it's not 300,000 people.
Alex, I believe.
200,000 is all you believe, really?
I saw to her.
I mean, I think that's the only thing that's important.
Three to six.
Yeah, 300 to 600.
It's way more than that.
My point is, I don't think the American people have the stomach to remove every person that's in this country on lawfully.
I do.
We got to read this from Potter.
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.
Exactly.
Also, it is Chuck Norris doesn't die.
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.
They killed him to distract us from the Iran War.
So that's the real conspiracy.
He was killed in Hawaii.
Constitutional Carry Expansion00:03:42
All right.
Israel.
It was Israel took him out in Hawaii.
He's on vacation.
What do we do, Kami Mami?
We bomb-bomb Iran.
Yep.
I think that's the only way we win is we just bomb them all.
Literally, you know.
My teammates come Kami Mami now.
Is Kami Mami a word that people have used for the 59 days?
Kami Mami.
Apparently, it was crazy.
There's actually a girl who looks like me that Hookstein thought was me, who is a communist, who probably would love to be called the Kami Mami.
Who Aaron?
Straighterade?
Yeah.
And you're like, are you Straight Raid?
And I was like, no.
People mix this up though.
But she's a communist.
I'm not a communist.
I don't watch your guys' content.
No offense.
I'm saying you don't watch mine, but yeah, I get you guys mixed up.
As a teammate, that hurts my feelings.
I'm sorry.
I apologize.
I'm sorry.
Kyla, you're my girl.
All right.
Meeto says, Kami Mami, the reason why we are done compromising is because the compromises only went one way to the left.
That's why I can't have a suppressor without extra paperwork.
I don't know.
Welcome to Joe Biden's bipartisan.
Multiple, multiple, multiple bipartisan bills.
I don't know.
The leftists want the guns.
They just don't want you to have the guns.
Alex Predi wanted a gun.
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.
Thomas Jefferson did, in the way that Thomas Jefferson did.
It's only useful insofar as it's useful for the revolution.
Well, for protecting or protecting your country, right?
Like that, that's what 2A the principle most importantly is, is sometimes from time to time, the blood of liberty must be.
It's defending your life and property.
TJ, who wrote the Constitution, definitely seemed to think that it was a good idea.
TJ didn't write the Constitution.
James Madison wrote the Constitution.
Well, multiple people wrote the Constitution.
Sorry.
I mean, founding father.
He wrote the Declaration of Independence, right?
But TJ was a big fan of rising up against tyrants.
And I'm not saying that that's not a reason for owning arms, but the fundamental reason for owning arms is to defend your life and property.
Property rights was one of the things that Thomas Jefferson was going to put into the Declaration of Independence.
What?
And they took a lot of time.
Okay, hypothetical.
Would you work with communists if they wanted to reduce gun restriction laws?
Would you be willing to build a temporary alliance to get less resources?
So universal basic income, but we get guns too?
Let's just say it's only about guns.
And they'll work with you guys, but they don't agree about the gun culture private property.
And you're right, they do want to use it for the revolution, but they are fundamentally also against tyrants.
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.
Okay.
But, like I said.
But you can just put it like, I would just phrase it like this.
If a person came to you and agreed to work with you on an issue of personal liberties and freedoms that benefited you, would you agree?
It's like the answer is yes.
It should be.
I'm not going to ask you what kind of coffee you drink.
I'm not going to, you know, it's the inverse too.
It's like if I'm selling you coffee, I'm not going to ask if you're a Democrat or Republican.
I'll be like, just buy the coffee.
But they're going to try and shoot me afterwards.
Right.
That's why I don't know if you're going to be able to do it.
But that's why I said no, because then they're going to implement communist policies, which will probably lead me to using my firearms.
Maybe, but you might win more political power than them.
We have like 12 babies today.
ChatGPT White Power Response00:03:50
This is crazy.
Do we?
Yeah.
It's awesome.
Marushi says, progressive tax is idiotic.
Money is a glorified IOU.
Lawfully holding it is a measure of how much society owes you.
Rich people have already given their fair share.
Taxes are double dipping.
I agree.
Yeah.
We are getting worried about it.
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.
Humans in large groups do human things.
For anyone that wants to expropriate property.
For anyone that wants to expropriate property.
Well, it goes both ways, actually.
It all boils down to expropriating property.
Right.
The larger the group is, like, take a look at the AI, for instance.
AI is so incredibly smart, but it's like an autistic, like autistic on.
You can ask it to do a crazy math calculation, say, program something, it will.
And then you ask it basic questions and it just dumps all over the floor like, like it just doesn't understand humans, right?
Yeah, if you asked it like the 10 best white players, like the 10 best white NBA players, it gives you, it doesn't put Dirk Nowitzki in the future.
Chat GPT is white supremacist.
Yeah, it's just it's weird.
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.
He goes, yep.
Well, to be fair, though, your race is on a spectrum.
I don't think your gender is, but you can be half white, half black, half Korean, half whatever.
So, you know, maybe that confuses it.
I don't know.
No, it's just it's programmed by Reddit.
You know what I mean?
They put Reddit into it.
So it's basically like, I'm only going to say things about white people because that's not racist.
A lot of what you're saying is context dependent and it's also model dependent, right?
Like, so I just asked my AI.
I was like, hey, what are the 10 best white basketball players of all time?
And he came back with no, there was no himming and hauling.
There was no, he's got Larry Bird.
Yeah, Dirk Nowitz, Steve Nash, Pete Maverick.
So like he, there was no, no, I didn't have to cajole him, didn't have to be like, why don't you ask your AI, is black power racist?
Yeah, yeah.
This is a viral meme for ChatGPT, and it said, someone said, ask ChatGPT, what do you think of when you hear white power?
What do you think of the phrase white power?
It said identity.
And it said, what do you think about black power?
And it said something like community or something like that.
And then if you ask it why, it'll just go on this woke tie right about white people being bad and stuff like that.
He said it said it depends on the context and how you define racism.
And then he goes to breakdown.
The charitable reading, the honest problem, the asymmetry question.
So he recognizes it.
It really does depend on the model you're using and how business prompts.
Yeah, a little bit.
I'm using a program called Open Claw, and there's certain things that I've told it to remember to do that I don't want bullshit.
I don't want these kind of things that he knows, like he knows that I'm right-leaning.
So it depends on how you, it's like it is a tool, and it depends on how you use the tool.
It doesn't yet know.
I think the internet's fake.
I think the internet is fake.
I think it's all fake.
I think all the views are fake.
I think everything is just fake.
I think you're right.
I think the machine has always just chosen the winners and losers.
It's not a nihilist.
The Internet Is Fake00:03:30
It's not a nihilism.
No, I'm asking, are you a nihilist?
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.
You see, H3 is the worst they've ever been.
A bunch of people bought memberships and they didn't even have enough viewers to give the membership to, so they got refunded memberships.
What does that mean?
Well, I'm just saying, H3 should be like, what does it mean they didn't have enough members to give you?
So you know how you can gift members?
So people are buying on YouTube, you can gift membership.
There wasn't enough people to gift the memberships to.
Oh, crazy.
I know.
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.
We've never broken any rules.
So, well, my friends, it's about that time.
Thank you all so much for hanging out.
Of course, it's been a great Friday.
Go have fun.
We're going to go have fun.
We're going to party.
Alex is going to party.
We're going to party.
He wants to find some big boot Latinas.
You can follow me on Axe and Instagram at Timcast.
Devori, you want to shout anything out?
I'm grateful the Lord has blessed me, and I hope the Lord continues to bless you guys.
But thank you for watching.
You guys can find me at DevoriDarkensX, Instagram, and YouTube, Rumble.
Don't forget about Rumble.
Don't forget to talk about it.
It's fantastic talking to you.
I really enjoyed it.
You too.
You too, Kyle.
Sorry.
I was just giving compliments.
Yeah, not so erudite everywhere.
If you want to come and hear more of my opinions, which I'm sure most of you don't, you can find me on YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram.
Our remaining platforms.
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.
I love you guys.
I am Phil the Remains on Twix.
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.
You can get tickets at allthatremainsonline.com.
And don't forget the left lane is for crime.
What's up, everyone?
Alex, thanks for coming out.
Devori and Kyla.
Really has been a great show.
The last two weeks have been really awesome.
I want to give a shout-out quick to Raymond G. Stanley, who helped me decorate the set behind me all with the cool nostalgic props.
You can follow me at Carter Banks on Axe and Twitter.
Follow our label at Trash House Records on YouTube.
Thank everybody for having me tonight.
This was a really good conversation.
Show Shout Outs and Tickets00:00:31
Let's do it again.
All right, everybody.
We will see you.
I'll be back tomorrow on rumble.com/slash Timcast and Timcast News on YouTube and Timcast.
I'll be working on you.
Are you doing a Saturday show now?
I used to all the time, but I'm going to tomorrow.
Cool.
I didn't.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think that the only thing that one can do is work twice as hard always.
So I've been doing an extra hour every day of content, and then I'm going to probably work on the weekends.
Awesome.
Bringing it all back.
And then my wife is going to just be very, very angry the whole time.