US Fighter Jet SHOT DOWN, One Pilot MISSING w/ Scott Presler | Timcast IRL
Scott Presler and Tim Pool dissect a U.S. fighter jet shot down in Iran, where one pilot is missing amidst a $60,000 bounty, while debating if feigned weakness masks aggressive operations against leaders like Maduro. They analyze the psychological necessity of harsh enforcement over "niceness," warn that AI-driven surveillance could create a totalitarian state, and clarify quantum computing's limitations regarding standard programs. The discussion extends to election integrity via photo ID laws, the rise of AI-generated content, and strategies for the 2026 midterms, ultimately suggesting that maintaining societal order requires unpalatable actions and vigilance against centralized technological control. [Automatically generated summary]
That story in and of itself is very straightforward.
That's the latest update we've got.
But we've got videos.
We got tons of these videos.
Take a look at this.
US helicopters flying over Iran.
Now, I actually got to point to the note that despite this story being pretty terrifying and brutal, actually fairly optimistic.
You know why?
The one thing I don't see anybody pointing out we have air superiority.
We have such air superiority over Iran right now.
We just got a bunch of vehicles floating around chilling on a rescue mission without worry of being shot down.
And the worst attack I've seen thus far is a dude hiding behind a pillar with a bolt action rifle shooting at a helicopter, which is going to do nothing.
I mean, like, he's got a one in a lottery tickets chance shot of hitting that American pilot in the helicopter.
It's not a particularly good weapon for taking down helicopters.
If he was holding like a 50 BMG, like anti material rifle, I'd be like, well, that one is for hunting helicopters, but you've got to be pretty good.
It looks like while the story may be very worrying for this crewman, it also shows the U.S. basically owns the airspace now.
I mean, look, the U.S. has run something like 20,000 sorties or whatever over Iran since the war started.
Some ridiculously high number.
If they actually did shoot down an F 15, I don't know if it's actually confirmed that Iran actually shot him down or there was a mechanical issue or whatever.
But if they did, it still shows how totally dominant the United States military has been in this campaign.
You know, like to be able to go into a country and basically have the ability to fly, like Tim's saying, helicopters, which are, you know, the biggest concern for all U.S. operations in Iran has always been that they've got tremendous anti air capabilities.
I mean, the U.S. relies on air superiority for taking out, you know, like enemy targets, bases, sites, drone strikes, and all this stuff.
But Iran had been very, like, let me phrase it like this.
There's a viral post going around where it discusses one thing we've learned since the start of this war is that Iran has been dumping decades worth of its economic resources just into war.
The people of the country are protesting for an obvious reason.
Their standard of living is low.
And then you find out it's because almost all the money they get, they just build weapons.
So now, In a couple of weeks, as much as I'm not a fan of Trump's statements, like, no disrespect to the president.
I hope he wins.
I don't want to be a doom pillar or anything like that, a black pillar.
But I got to hand it to him when he says, like, we flatten their Air Force, their Navy.
It's crushed.
It is.
And this, I wonder if, like, is anyone going to point this out in the administration just to be like, guys, it's bad that a jet got shot down?
That does show they have some anti aircraft capabilities, but we were able to fly a bunch of rescue vehicles over without issue.
I mean, to be able to, like we were saying, to be able to fly helicopters, you know, they had extensive anti air assets in Iran and the U.S. eliminated them.
In, like, basically, almost entirely.
Like I said, I don't know what shot down the F 15, but if it was actually shot down by a missile, obviously it's not totally rooted out.
But at the same time, with the number of sorties that the U.S. has flown over Iran, something on the order of 20,000.
I don't think the story is necessarily just the air dominance and superiority.
It's the simple fact that this is a different administration.
So, President Obama, President Joe Biden, they.
Wanted to fund and use our money to give Iran the ability to fund these wars and missiles, et cetera, versus we have the very administration that was able to capture Maduro and, in one fell swoop, eliminate Ayatollah Khomeini.
And so, like you said, if I were an enemy of the United States or if I were going to even dare try to take down a fighter pilot, I would be shaken in my boots knowing that President Trump is not messing around, that he will actually act and not reward you.
I think a lot of the problems with the Republican Party right now are people are disillusioned with Trump because of the way they handled the Epstein files and now a sneak attack on Iran, essentially.
And so, like you're saying, it is, I mean, essentially, it's a great show of military force, but even when he stated his military goals, he didn't have.
NX's strategy.
He just said, we're going to blow up their stuff and then we're going to blow up their energy grid and then.
Marco Rubio's like, well, we want regime change.
I mean, think they're insinuating regime, but I mean, where are you?
Are you disillusioned with Trump?
I mean, I know you're a powerful activist for the Republican Party, but that doesn't mean like Trump sycophancy or anything like that.
Well, ultimately, my goal is to make sure the president is successful and it has four years to do his job.
I think what I'm hearing on the ground is I do believe it's important to be consistent.
And so when the president campaigns in 2016, 2020, and 2024 and says new wars, I think if he's going to do a strike and eliminate Ayatollah Khomeini, he needs to be clear on his communication and why we're doing that.
And so I was thinking about it on the way over here today.
And I was thinking to myself, President Obama, you could try to say his goal was diplomacy and that he wanted to stop war or create peace with Iran by funding them, which we know there was going to be no diplomacy under the rule of Khomeini.
And so then you have this administration when maybe their goal is okay, no diplomacy.
Let's try to create new change and see if that works.
And so I think ultimately, I would like to hear from the president and the administration if the goal, for example, is to take Greenland so we can stop Russian waterway attacks from submarines through the Atlantic.
And then if the goal ultimately is to have change with Iran so then we control the Strait of Hormuz so then we're not funding.
Our allies are not getting oil from our enemies, but instead they're getting oil from us.
I think that's what the American people would like to understand.
Does this have to do with making sure we're not funding the very terrorism that is going to be used against us?
And if we just had clear communication on that, the American people would be much more, I think, open to the idea of attacks with Iran.
There is such tremendous anti war and intervention sentiment in the United States.
Now, to clarify why I'm asking this, there are tremendous benefits to the United States when we seize other countries' oil assets or force them onto the petrodollar system.
I am not suggesting the war is good or that I'm saying it's moral.
I'm genuinely asking all of you out there what your thoughts are on what are your deepest concerns, what is really motivating people to be opposed to this.
I have my answers.
I've given it 800 million times, but I'm curious what you think.
I mean, I think I can speak for the majority of people that.
Probably used to be George Bush fans, and then they weren't because, like you said, there was no exit strategy to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There was none.
It got us into a 20 year trillion dollar deficit of our country, and the American people don't want a repeat of that.
It's those old wounds that we don't want to reopen.
And when President Trump was at the forefront of railing against it, Yeah, very people that voted for him don't want to see him fall to the same mistake that George Bush did.
The issue that I see is we are a good people, the American people.
We do not want to hurt anybody, we don't want collateral damage.
And that makes us very susceptible to propaganda in any direction.
The issue is that Trump is unwilling to use these tactics.
We heard the story about the Tomahawk missile hitting the school, killing a bunch of schoolgirls.
But these are reports coming from Iran largely, and then reports trickle out into various anti war and anti establishment forces so ready to just believe that the U.S. killed a bunch of little girls.
But this means that the bad guys can just come out and be like, oh no, there's a pink backpack in the rubble.
That means you killed children.
And Americans immediately recoil in horror just believing the bad guys.
Again, I'm not saying the story is fake.
I'm saying we are incredibly susceptible.
And at the same time, you can fall victim to the exact same thing, such as with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where the U.S. fabricated an attack on one of our warships so that we could justify entering the Vietnam War.
And this is the macro of the micro that I've discussed on this show quite a bit.
And that is one of my favorite stories in my experience with conflict reporting was that the trainers in our hostile environment course, which you had to get for insurance purposes, stated that Americans largely are fine in the Middle East if you get kidnapped.
Once they find out you're an American, they'll usually kick you off and dump you somewhere.
Because the American response to a kidnapping is special forces guys in the middle of the night jumping out of a helicopter with night vision goggles and massacring all of the bad guys.
Whereas Germany and Spain are notorious for paying any amount of money.
So if you are a German in the Middle East working as a journalist, they're happy to see you there.
Now, as to your point, Ian, I think with Iran, we're looking at the macro level of that, which is Iran has been bombing civilians.
Iran has been the best example of this is the Houthi rebels were armed by Iran and they started launching rockets at civilian cargo ships.
That is the, we are going to take your civilians hostage and kill them.
And the U.S. response is, you're getting the boot.
We're putting the boot down.
So I do recognize this.
I would say largely, I believe, who was it?
Someone mentioned Bill Burr, had a joke where he said, you know, you might say, I don't know if it's the right move to go into Iran and start a war, but no reason.
Really?
No reason, right?
No, really?
Of course there's a reason.
These people are apocalyptic psychopaths.
They've been arming themselves to the teeth for decades instead of taking care of their people, seeking to disrupt international trade, and they've been arming militia groups who kill civilians.
And specifically, not just in Iraq, but with the Houthi rebels, you get a cargo ship from like the Philippines trying to sell fish and they blow it up.
Hypothetic, there are ships they've blown up.
Why would we?
There's a certain point at which we say we don't tolerate that.
Despite the fact they've been chanting death to America.
The point is, we do put sanctions on them.
But, bro, sanctions are the acceptable, above board, by any stretch of the imagination, military action that a country should take.
That is, Ian, if you're smacking people around, the first thing I'm going to do is be like, bro, if you keep doing this, I'm not going to trade with you anymore.
That's how remarkable is it that there are anti intervention people that are angry that we sanctioned Iran and they're using that as justification.
Well, of course, Iran lashed out.
We sanctioned them.
It's like, yeah, they're fundamentalists that have been blowing people up and bombing embassies and fueling militia groups.
So we just said, okay, everybody, back off.
Don't give them stuff because they're going to blow you up with it.
He says, Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America.
She has been at the center of a lot of the worst fraudsters at the center of the Somali community.
Now, the reason why I use this story, even though it's from a few days ago, is because birthright citizenship is a massive story right now.
Yes.
Considering it's looking as though it's a surprise.
The Supreme Court will be derelict in their duties and allow this country to falter.
We have knowingly a sitting member of Congress that our vice president has said, yes, she committed immigration fraud against the United States.
For the love of all that is holy, the vice president just said a sitting member of Congress is defrauding us and is not a legal representative in Congress.
The House of Representatives voted on a piece of legislation that you could deport criminal illegal aliens that had defrauded our government, you know, like in Minnesota.
And I think it was something like 165 or 186, one of those numbers.
The Democrats voted against the deportation of people that committed fraud.
You take a look at the BLM stuff, and I got to be honest.
You get a story of a black man who shoots and kills a cop.
I believe if you get an all black jury, there will be individuals who believe in merit and are not racist for sure.
But you will have, at the macro level, a high propensity towards we know the cops are evil, we know they're racist, so he must have been justified in some way.
I contrasted that data with the election in Chicago in 2023 for Brandon Johnson.
And I've brought this up time and time again, but take a look at the voting map compared to the racial demographics.
Everyone in Chicago voted based on race.
So when you take a look at what's going on with the Somali stuff with Ilhan Omar, you make an interesting point about how they'll make it a race thing.
They will.
And white liberals will side with any group that claims racism against Trump, and they'll use that to swing as many seats as possible in the midterms.
Like you were saying, of the response, it's more of a concern for the resistance because just like terminal velocity, you go faster and faster and faster.
Wind resistance gets hotter and hotter to a point where you cannot go faster.
The heat itself will stop you and then destroy you if you push any harder, like a rocket in re entry if it's going too fast.
So, the same thing with the mass deportations of dragging people out of their houses, like that level of heat resistance will destroy you if you overdo it.
So, you've got to be aware that in cases like this with Ilhan, she's very popular with some.
However, she nearly lost her primary in recent memory.
She only came very close to winning her primary.
So she's not as popular.
And actually, I would argue if we have definitive proof, share it.
And not only that, but because of the work that Nick Shirley has done to show all of the fraud in Minnesota, I actually think this really helps us.
And furthermore, this comes from the state.
We want to talk, you know, election integrity and everything else, where they have vouching in the state that one registered voter can vouch for up to eight persons without voter ID, proof of citizenship, proof of address, whatever.
And so I actually think this could be a winning argument, focusing on the fraud argument aspect of it.
I think the majority of people are actually with us on this.
He's not going to show up to an interview and ask a question and then be like, let me.
I prepared for this question.
I knew you were going to ask me.
Star Tribune even said, this is a liberal paper, that Ilhan Omar may have married her brother.
Like, the point being, there is evidence.
Evidence is not proof.
These are distinct.
Evidence presents itself to be beyond a reasonable doubt, then we would call it proof.
But typically, proof means you can definitively state it's a fact.
Most instances, you have evidence, and then we try to interpret that to see if we believe it to be true.
In this case, there is a ton of evidence she married her brother, which would make her ineligible for citizenship and eligible for denaturalization, deportation, and removal from Congress.
Yeah, I mean, look, as much as I hope that the pilots are safe and that they're returned without any injury, if possible, same thing with anyone that was on the Blackhawk.
Trump has been talking about the possibility of casualties in this operation since day one, since he started it.
Is pass a law that anyone who enters this country illegally will be deported to whatever war zone we are actively fighting in.
I mean, I gotta be honest.
If we passed a law that said anyone who illegally enters the United States will be deported immediately to any active war zone with U.S. engagement or any active conflict zone for U.S. engagement to aid the U.S., illegal immigration would be just gone overnight.
We wouldn't need a border barrier.
You could actually have people at the border saying, Come on, come on over.
You know, but all joking aside, this is why the Congress, a couple members of the House did propose a bill that these illegal immigrants could serve the U.S. military and then gain citizenship.
Because it might happen.
With all this conversation about a draft, I only need to say this to my Gen Z friends.
Don't worry, they're going to draft the Hondurans and the Guatemalans before you.
And on our message on deterrence, I just want to say I recently went down to McAllen, Texas, and I did shadowing of CBP and Border Patrol.
And it truly down in McAllen, they have a sector down there that used to see 2,500 illegal alien apprehensions per day.
And that is now down to 60.
Now, here's the difference between the previous administration and now, kind of like what you said.
If everything is just rewarded and you know you're going to get a slap on the wrist, then things are going to keep happening.
Now, as opposed to illegal aliens who are released into the interior, and of course they wouldn't come back for their court case because why would they?
Every illegal alien that is caught.
Is no longer released on the interior that is deported back to their home country.
And so they will still try to come back, but they said it's night and day between people wanted to be captured knowing they would be released.
Now they don't want to be captured because we have Department of War, Coast Guard, local law enforcement, CBP all working in unison.
So this is a little nuanced to read in between the lines.
When the Democrats don't want to fund Coast Guard, Or ICE, et cetera, or Department of Homeland Security when we're under attack, know that it all is stemming from their goal of trying to bring illegal aliens into the country so they can defraud us and ultimately have them vote in our elections.
But I will tell you, when I went to Europe and interviewed a ton of these guys, they were like, it was a huge mistake.
There's no opportunity for them.
So I was in France and we went to a refugee center, gigantic inflatable tent.
And they made them all live.
Like, imagine you have a gigantic.
Remember when we were kids?
You did the thing where you get the big parachute and everyone throws it.
You go underneath it.
Imagine there's a pump just holding it up and that's where you have to live from now on.
And there's no chairs, there's no beds.
That's what they said it was like.
And they're like, there's no opportunity to make money, there's no jobs.
They were like, we were tricked.
We were told by people, come here and there will be jobs and homes.
And you come here and there's nothing.
And they're like, now we don't know how to get back.
It's too cold.
The funniest thing, and I don't mean funny, haha, for a lot of these sub Saharan African migrants who make it to Europe, They've never experienced winter before.
American citizenship is a sacred privilege, not a cheap status that can be obtained, honestly.
said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
Well, about her.
These actions reflect this Department of Justice's ongoing efforts to strip citizenship from people who conceal crimes or defraud the American people during the immigration process.
I mean, that's, it would be nice to see, but this is also nice to see the precedent set that there is legitimate ways to denaturalize people that have come to the United States, even if they got, you know, they can be denaturalized just because you're a citizen.
You came here, you broke the law, or somehow you came here and committed fraud to get here.
You should be denaturalized.
You should lose your spot here.
And you should be sent back to wherever you came from.
Yeah, I think the issue is, especially as we're talking about self identification as Republican is going down, I think a lot has to do with the agitprop, all of the stuff that was produced by the left targeting the ICE operations.
I was not the only one who warned about this.
We all talked about it that if Trump gets in and the immigration operations are dudes in uniforms with guns dragging people out of houses or cars while they're crying and screaming, Ayutthaya, he's going to lose support instantly.
And I was like, you got to have dudes in khakis and polo shirts bringing these people to cars.
And that's the only way to do it.
And unfortunately, some of these guys are bad guys.
Well, like even Dave's pointing this out, where we had our little mini fake fight and then agreed.
This is fueling propaganda for the left to take away Trump's chances at actually solving the problem.
And I think that's where we're at right now.
Millions of criminals, evil people exploiting our laws, and regular people in this country who don't pay attention only see the worst of it.
This is why I think, you know, there's a lot of lefties that they want the martyrdom when it comes to, you know, fighting with a cop or getting killed.
Because I got to be honest, Renee Good and Pretty, their deaths are probably a huge contributor to why people say they're not Republicans anymore.
And it's because they're scared of being aligned with a law enforcement agency that, for any reason, killed two American protesters.
Sometimes public perception is different than reality.
And so, what's right, you have to kind of align with the public's perception in order to manipulate and control, to win, and to manipulate the public if you want to change the public.
And so, doing what's right sometimes can be viscerally wrong.
You know, what's universally right, what's spiritually right is actually wrong.
I don't think a weak administration would capture Maduro and eliminate Kymeni.
But I want to go back for a second.
If they were weak, they would have just been a continuation of the President Obama and Joe Biden administration and just give Palace of Cash to our enemies and kick the cane down the road.
I don't think it's good to say drive, baby, drive and try to drive over a police officer.
And I think the only reason why we're seeing the ICE protests today is because of Nick Shirley exposing the fraud in Minnesota.
And they needed a massive distraction away from the fraud.
And unfortunately, we're giving it to them.
We're allowing them to protest against ICE.
And now, from what we hear, is that we're ceasing some of our operations and we're not going to get all the deportations that we want.
So we're allowing them to win.
If anything, I say go harder.
And what we need to do is we need a league of people out with their cameras.
And I'm not saying I want a police state, but Kyle Rittenhouse would not be a free man today.
If we didn't have video recording of him defending himself, every time there's a raid, every time ICE is out there, DHS, they need drones filming everything to protect ourselves.
Yeah, the way that if an ICE agent went out and was on video, knocking on a door or pulling a car over and saying, look, we have an order for deportation, and then the guy pulls out a gun and shoots him and he falls back and dies.
The entire country would flip Republican, like it would be spiking like crazy.
And Trump would come out and say, This was a peaceful civil operation, and these criminal cartels are killing our brave men and women in uniform who have shown nothing but kindness and restraint.
Instead, we have the opposite.
Regardless of what you think about the law, I believe the federal agents are being protected and they are justified.
And we've already talked to great length about Pretty and Renee Goode, but the perception of the moderate voter who doesn't pay attention to what's going on is that Jack Boot.
Gestapo went out and just massacred people, and they are going to vote against you, and you will lose your power.
Pick your poison.
The world, like, it is only those who live in the fairy tale reality that think that life is going to be just clear cut.
This is the, you know what is, real quick, just to address this, he's completely incorrect.
Apparently, Larry is not a deeply political individual.
And I think that's why he's been late to the game.
Famously, he's purchased CBS.
They may be doing a hostile bid to take over, I think, Warner Brothers.
Is that what it was?
Yeah, Netflix, and they were fighting over it.
And one may ask why it is now, after all this time, many of these prominent billionaires have all of a sudden understood why woke is so dangerous and why you need to support against it.
If he had been actively paying attention to what was going on, he would know what Scott Adams said with one screen featuring two movies.
That is, you will have surveillance footage from 12 angles.
Of, say, the George Floyd incident.
And it won't matter.
There will be no clean justification on either side.
There will be people who say, I don't care.
I see what Chauvin did.
He shouldn't have.
And other people going, Chauvin showed up after the fact.
How is he supposed to know?
And it won't matter because opinions are going to exist whether people can see the footage or not.
I did say when we're doing operations as protection for our force to be able to say, no, this is what actually happened versus allowing the court of public opinion to then.
I think what we need is we need body camera footage, and I like people filming cops because cops should be held to a higher standard than the average person.
So we expect them to do a dangerous job.
We expect them to be respected for doing that job.
I certainly do.
But we also expect that if a cop is a dick or a corrupt, they will be held to a great degree of account.
For example, with all this talk about surveillance and stuff, I was watching a video today where a couple videos.
And it's like there's a video, it's an old one, it goes viral all the time, where a guy flips a cop off.
So the cop pulls him over and says, You're out of the vehicle, you're under arrest for disorderly conduct.
And the guy is like, I did not commit a crime.
And the cop grabs his arm and twists it.
And pulls him out of the vehicle.
Okay, that cop should go to jail.
That's just it.
Sorry, should go to jail.
It goes both ways.
The funny thing I will say, though, everybody thought the police body camera campaign was a leftist campaign.
It was not, it was a police propaganda campaign.
Apparently, the story is that pro police groups and unions were trying to get body cameras, and the city would not fund them.
So, they approached it from the outside saying cops are bad and have to be filmed to force activists to demand the budget for body cameras, when in fact, almost all body camera footage has been vindicating police officers and proving that they're not the ones committing the crimes.
There are women who have accused.
There was one story where a woman accused a cop of sexually assaulting her, but it's all on body camera footage, and nope.
Now she gets an additional charge.
If there was no body camera footage, that cop would have been fired.
And I think that, just like Tim said, the police wanted them because it shows that generally most police are actually doing the job, doing a very difficult job to the best of their ability.
You have to take all of your healthcare data, your diagnostic data, your electronic health records, your genomic data.
And in the Middle East, in the UAE, for example, they're incredibly rich in data.
They have a lot of population data.
The NHS in the UK has an incredible amount of population data.
But it's fragmented.
It's not easily accessible by these AI models.
We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform so we provide context when we want to ask a question.
We've provided that AI model with all the data they need to understand our country.
The future that he is describing will be hell, and you will hate it.
And I think one of the big problems we face as a generation is specifically because of the ubiquity of information.
There's something that is necessary to humans in the unknown.
One of the things that brings us joy due to our creation or evolution is discovering and confirming that adventure.
We are rewarded for it in our minds.
If you have access to all the data all the time, imagine what your life would be like with full automation and perfect prediction based on all of the medical data and AI.
You would wake up in the morning, and as you sat up, robotic arms would pull your blanket up at the exact time you went to set up.
You'd turn right and Slippers would come right from under your bed.
You'd walk into the bathroom and the water would already be on and warmed up to the right temperature.
You'd walk in, then you'd walk out, then you'd go into your kitchen where your breakfast is already made and the cab has already been ordered for you.
And in this world that he's describing, you will be walking into a building and the elevator will open before you get to it.
This is not.
Paradise.
This is hell.
You will have no agency.
No matter what you do, every turn, the machine will already know.
And then, if you're one of those poor individuals who finally snaps, the moment you're about to, before you even know it, you'll be looking at the screens, just going, What am I?
And right when you say it, there'll be two men standing behind you, grabbing your arms and going, Right this way, sir.
And you'll go, Ah, it'll know, but you're going to snap before even you do.
You know, the last 20 years of my life, I've dedicated to not fighting against this, but creating a better world than this with decentralized open source technology.
Because I think you need corruption, you need chaos in order to overthrow corruptly.
You need to be able to corrupt extremely organized evil.
And so, if our system becomes too totalitarian, spy state, and then the people at the top decide that eating human babies is a good thing, you need to be able to corrupt that system and break it apart.
I just, you know, it's a fine line because too much corruption is one of the most horrific things on the planet.
Like chaos is like babies eating babies, humans eating humans.
Like, you don't want that either.
But.
You can't set, I just don't want to set up a digital prison.
Well, I think the difference between Grac and Chat GPT are a really good example of why this is dangerous because ultimately somebody has to program all of this centralization and surveillance, right?
And so who has the levers of control?
None of this is going to be completely 100% neutral.
And I think the thing that.
I'm not going to speak for him, but Elon has kind of mentioned this if this has a center left or far left nuance, then that's going to be in control of how our actions are perceived, right?
So nothing is going to be completely neutral.
And then just to reverse for a second, because I just think it's so important to the conversation, especially on ICE and DHS, is one thing that knowing the propaganda machine and how the left functions based on feeling.
And how especially women perceive things, I think we can do a better job of being storytellers.
And anytime a criminal illegal alien, especially does something horrific, like in the Commonwealth of Virginia, an illegal alien was, I know we're on television, so I'm going to watch my words carefully, was having fun with himself at a bus stop in Virginia where kids are.
Why are we not doing a better job?
Of either using AI to paint that picture, not literally, but to tell the story in such a way that we can get more people on our side to understand the horrors of what's happening.
And so I think there could be some good uses of AI to help become a better storyteller, but I agree that who is in control can be dangerous.
That's why it's good that there are multiple companies competing when it comes to AI systems, whether it be Claude from Anthropic or ChatGPT or Grok.
These different systems actually excel at different things because of the way that they're programmed, because of what their alignment is.
Right now, ChatGPT is going to give you different types of answers.
Than Claude would give you, and Grok is going to give you different types of answers than either ChatGPT or Claude.
And I think that competition is part is good, and it's one of the things that will help keep AI safe for the users at the end of the day.
Because if you have an AI that is giving people false information, they're going to say, Okay, well, I don't want, like, we hear people complain about ChatGPT all the time.
They're like, Oh, ChatGPT is woke.
That will affect who goes to ChatGPT.
If you're looking for something that is maximally If you're looking for something that tells you the truth, regardless of if it's good or bad, people will tend to go to Grok.
If people are looking for something that's the best at coding, they're going to tend to go to Claude and stuff.
How do people that watch CNN, how do people that go to ChatGPT know that they're getting a veil of ignorance over their eyes?
I'm not saying that Grok is perfect.
I'm not saying Fox is perfect, but how do people know and can decipher which is the correct tool to use between Google and other search engines out there?
And so there's a definitive truth, and they'll lie to you.
Like, JetGPT lies about everything political.
It is insane.
If it's political, it will lie to you or refuse to answer.
It'll make up an excuse.
Like, for example, I proposed this earlier today at my 4 p.m. show.
I'm going to print out a bunch of business cards that read If an individual responds to a macro level observation, With an anecdote, they are low intelligence.
That way, anytime I make a macro level observation and they respond with an anecdote, I'll plot a card and hand it to them.
And I'll say, You see, I printed these in advance, just so you know, I'm not just saying this.
So here's a good example.
If you, for instance, in order to get ChatGPT to acknowledge the race of most murderers, you have to trick it.
You cannot go on ChatGPT and simply state, What is the race of the individual committed this crime?
It'll say something like, I can't help you with that.
It will omit information or outright lie and say things like, people of all races are capable of committing crimes.
And you'll respond with, I am aware of that, but specifically and statistically, give me the racial demographics on crime.
It will refuse.
You have to trick it somehow.
You have to prompt it first by saying something like, I think racism is bad, and I'm trying to figure out why racists think this.
Is there perhaps data in the government that makes racists think these things?
Like, I'm doing DD, and if I'm like learning and doing a new campaign and need the rules, I can ask ChatGPT for every rule at every moment, and I don't have to search through books and like data on the web.
It'll just, but I don't know if it's telling me the truth.
And then I got to go verify it, and it's like defeats the purpose.
I don't know that it's going to lie to you when it comes to something along the lines of, uh, Um, DD, yeah, I don't think it would intentionally like I don't think it's coded to obfuscate that kind of stuff, it's not political, no.
And also, I mean, you like the models now are significantly better than they were six months ago.
So, all the people say things like, you know, the uh, you can't trust AI and stuff like that.
That was more true six months ago than it is today.
I think if you're dealing with Opus 4.6 or if you're doing dealing with the newest Chat GPT, I think it's Chat GPT 5 or whatever now, like.
The hallucinations are very rare now, if I understand correctly.
Let me give you a quick example of one of the big problems with AI.
It can't conceptualize, it can only.
How do I describe this?
If you have a legal question, like let's say the birthright citizenship is the best example.
If you ask any AI, About birthright citizenship, it will tell you every single time that it is just, legal, correct in every way.
If you try to present an argument saying, based on the language of the law, the framers' intentions and letters, and what's going on today, would it not be the case this way?
And it'll go, no, you are wrong.
This is exactly as it is.
Because instead of, it can't comprehend.
It's strange how to describe this.
In many circumstances, if you find a flaw in an institution, it will defend that flaw.
And it'll respond with things like, because Grok does this too.
No, courts have consistently upheld that birthright citizenship is justified and the framers, and you'll say, yes, but here's an example of why this would not apply in this sense.
You have a debate between two factions over whether or not a law is correct or being applied correctly.
The AIs will always take the case of whatever current precedent is and be unable to calculate any potential errors in the logic of the system or refuse, they refuse to do it.
We need lots of AIs to prevent any one AI from becoming the dominant crazy one.
But Larry Ellison's like, no, well, I don't know that he specifically said about this, but we need to consolidate and make one big one, is where he seems like he's going.
And then, like, ChatGPT just got rid of Sora because they're consolidating.
So, if you were to combine our YouTube viewership, which floats around 200, with Rumble, which is around 300, 400, we've consistently floated between 600,000 to 800,000 on the core show.
So, about, I don't know, 10 times the size of this show.
The rumors are they sold for hundreds of millions or low 100 million or something like this.
That just sounds like an insane rumor because it doesn't seem to make sense, but maybe it's the case.
The reason why this is such a high valued show is, aside from being a really good show, I hear, it is the most popular show in AI influence among powerful people.
And OpenAI wanted to buy this.
There's a few things to consider in this.
One, as I've explained ad nauseum, powerful elements are buying up podcasts knowing they want to control the space.
Second, OpenAI is doing this because they want influence over the most influential AI media network.
So, this is tremendous in narrative control.
Aiming to change the narrative on AI, and they want people to welcome their new AI overlords.
I will just say, real quick, I hope everyone understands as we get very negative on AI, there are such tremendous, amazing things that will happen from the artificial intelligence expansion.
One of which, and not limited to, is bespoke medications for any ailment.
When Larry Ellison was talking about taking everyone's medical data, there's a good reason for that.
If every single human's medical data was loaded into one training set, It will be able to find cancers 10 years before they form.
And a doctor will say, We're going to do blood work.
And then tomorrow we'll call you back with your treatment.
And they'll say, They'll call you back and say, The AI ran an algorithm on your blood levels.
You are seven years away from leukemia.
We have a pill crafted and machine right now of all of the perfect chemicals to prevent them from happening and cure you of all ailments.
They will be able to detect you have started cancer.
They'll be, you have a genetic anomaly.
And they will have machines, this is already happening.
A couple years ago, I had a source who worked in the industry tell me this and tell me that I do not disclose this information.
Now it's been public enough to where we've talked about it in the past and many have as well.
The idea is you'll be at a hospital, they'll take a blood sample, load it into an AI, and in a matter of minutes, it will be able to break down everything wrong with you.
And a machine will print pills to give you that are a combination of chemicals.
And the double edge of that sword, which, and that is true, that is happening, is that it's going to be like, you know, if this kind of person breeds with this kind of person, there's a 32% chance of this ailment.
So we suggest you don't breed with that girl.
And then you'll be like, I want to have sex with my wife tonight.
And they'll be like, Well, dude, the AI says that if you have sex at this time on this night, then it's going to have a 14% chance.
You're like, It's like Google Maps.
Like sometimes you just turn the map off, you know?
When you say, I would like to have a relationship with this person, and it says, due to genetic anomalies, you have X percent likelihood of this genetic disease, it will then go, here's a pill you can take that will mitigate that to zero percent.
ASI will be able to take a rock and put it in the ASI, and it will tell you the origin and location of that rock and make a video showing how that rock was mined from a quarry.
But you could, what artificial super intelligence, one of the hypotheses is like a Sudoku puzzle, an advanced ASI, super intelligence, treating everything like understanding a Sudoku puzzle, if this, then that.
You could take a slab of granite, put it on a scanner, the cameras look at it, and the AI will say, this originated from this location due to this time, and it'll make a video showing the whole history of that piece of rock and how it was carved, cut out, and shipped and everything.
Because it will know all of the bits of data.
And instead of looking at a sea of static, of chaos, it has all of the connections.
Yeah, I think it has 70 million exponents of ways of looking at it.
Like it'll be like a dog, a brown dog, a white dog, a black dog, a green dog, a yellow dog, a brown dog with fur, with hair, and then it'll be like every extrapolation up to 70 million times.
The easiest way to understand it is for any human who's ever done a Sudoku puzzle, you get this grid of missing numbers and have to figure out where all the numbers go based on the other numbers.
That is a very, very, very rudimentary puzzle.
And there's some really amazing ones that Sudoku puzzles that have like only one or two numbers, incredibly difficult.
And for some people, it's very hard because the way you solve for it, there's a, oh, guys, I really recommend you read Sudoku strategy stuff.
I learned some crazy mathematical formulas that like top tier Sudoku players understand.
For beginners, you'll get to a point where you're like, I don't understand how to solve this because there's four squares and each of them could be one of three numbers.
This makes no sense.
And then I was reading online and it was like, oh, If one of the numbers is the sum of a prime, like, then it has to be an even.
And I'm like, wow.
Like, the things that humans can do with math, and Sudoku is baby level stuff.
Magnify that by like 10 to the 65th.
And that's an AI Sudoku.
Sudoku, it's looking at Earth and all of its humans.
It will predict the future to an insane degree.
You will be able to, it'll say to you, like, I can predict wind patterns.
It will be able to tell you.
To prevent a hurricane from hitting Florida, send a drone to this location at this time, which will disrupt the weather pattern that will create the hurricane.
Basic computing is a series of yes and no gates, zeros and ones, that electrons flow through if one gate is open and the other is not.
It's ultimate advanced sorting algorithms.
So, the easiest way to understand rudimentary computing is this really great video you watch.
They show it to little kids, like in kindergarten, when they explain how computers work.
You have a series of postcards, and there's like 10 holes punched in it, and each hole has a gap.
And so, what you do is, so the gap is in a different spot for each hole.
You can stick a pen through it and lift up, and it removes only one of the cards, and you keep doing it, and you're sorting until you get all of the cards through the particular slot or whatever.
And that's how they explain basic mechanical computing.
We just upgraded that from instead of using a machine to punch holes, electrons going through gates.
Quantum computing does not do that.
Quantum computing just has qubits that exist in yes or no states.
So when you apply an algorithm that requires you to run through every yes or no for a code, it cracks it.
But when you require yes or no gates to happen in sequence because you want to run a video game that requires timing and stuff, quantum computing doesn't work that way.
Yeah, I think once we have public ASI, you'll have personal force fields.
You'll be immortal.
You'll float around.
You'll have replicators.
The singularity is the point.
It's interesting to describe the singularity, the point at which everything collapses.
It's akin to how a black hole works, the singularity.
When you cross the event horizon, it's where the pull is so great, there's nothing you can do to go back.
And the way we conceptualize that in three dimensions would be like a hole, where you get to a certain point where no amount of climbing or propulsion will get you back up and you fall down.
That is similar to the view of how AI is advancing.
The faster AI advances, the faster it can advance itself to the point where it just shoots straight up.
So the point is, there will be an event horizon in AI computing where we press the button, it goes, I now have achieved artificial general intelligence.
And then we'll say, Fix yourself and it'll go done.
And then we'll watch its computational power go and then all of a sudden it will be akin to some kind of demigod demon thing.
The problem it's been having now, this is what I read about the qubits, they vibrate and they vibrate so hard that they disrupt themselves and they break apart.
This is why quantum intelligence will get to a point where it actuates and breaks apart unless we can quell its vibration with like making it really cold or making it really slow.
Which requires time based electron gates, et cetera, for running computations at mass scale.
So it's funny.
You're familiar with Moore's law.
I'd imagine most people are, which is that they stated that every two years processing power would double.
And eventually, they got to the point where they said we can't get any smaller.
Any smaller electrons actually bounce out of the circuits and then it fails.
So, what did they do?
They started just creating more multiplying cores so that you had high efficiency processors, but then you just double them up and double them up and make them bigger.
The point is, you are not going to run a computer requiring definitive answers, yes and no, over time with a quantum computer.
They're not designed for standard computation like running programs.
It's a different way.
The way you can make it particularly rudimentary is solving a maze the old fashioned way is walking through it and bouncing on all the problems.
You're carrying a rope, you go in the maze, and you're trying to find your way to the end.
It takes a long time.
So then we say, let's create a specialized sorting algorithm that will find the fastest route.
So what do you do?
Instead of having one person going over and over again, which is a brute force, you say, We are going to have 700 people take every possible path all at the same time.
Eventually, one of those people comes out the other side holding a rope saying, I've got the path to freedom.
So that is like advanced high end computing.
Quantum computing is when they get in helicopters and go above it and they flood the whole thing, they just look down and they say, There it is, all at once.
Quantum computing is going to solve cryptography and break passwords.
And it's going to have, basically, if the password is the maze, and a standard human brute force is I'm going to type in a password until I figure it out.
That's going to take you a millennia.
Then you say, I'm going to run a computer brute force where it tries every password as fast as it can.
That's flooding the maze with a bunch of people.
Then you get to advanced sorting algorithms where you're using different techniques to try and solve it faster by.
Watch, I recommend the better way to explain this.
Is just watching a video on how there's different algorithms for sorting data.
One of the more advanced would be akin to dumping water in the maze.
So the water just floods through it rapidly and comes at the other side.
And then quantum computing is someone's flying above the maze and says, there it is.
All at once, it can see every possible path and just go, it's right there.
My theory is that Trump is going to start dumping mega people to separate himself because moving into 2028, there are many people that work with Trump who have careers ahead of them.
But attached to this and the Epstein failures will be bad for them.
So, Trump, the rumor is Tulsi Gabbard's going to be outed.
She'll be fired.
Cash and Tulsi are reportedly going to be removed.
Now, official statements is that's not correct.
Scuttlebutt from those who seem to be in the know seems likely, but ignore all of that.
Polymarket says yes.
And Polymarket said yes to Pam Bondi getting outed.
So, there's one thing I can say PR statements and rumors don't matter.
Someone putting money on a thing to happen.
Seems much more probable either because of the wisdom of the crowd.
In this instance, it seems because someone knows what the plan is, and so they're going to make money on it, and that seems to be the case.
I wonder if these moves, again, my conspiracy theory is that Trump knows 2028 he's leaving, and you're going to have Vance, Rubio, or both, or whoever moving in.
How do you keep these people away from the more negative PR that is happening now over this war?
Joe Kent leaves.
The war is bad.
He gets praised by all the top podcasts, creating a very strong contender for some kind of position in 2028.
Yeah, I mean, look, the only thing that I would add to what Tim says is if that is the situation, but the war in Iran does turn out to be something positive overall, I'm not sure how that helps the people that kind of have distanced themselves.
Because, again, this is, you know.
It's an ongoing conflict, and it's just as likely that, well, I can't say just as likely, but if the situation does resolve to something that's very positive for the U.S., straightforward moves is open, Iran no longer threatens its neighbors, Iran doesn't have a nuclear program, they don't have the same kind of stockpiles of weapons.
That's a positive outcome for not just the United States, but for the rest of the region, right?
I mean, the UAE doesn't like Iran, Saudis don't like Iran.
So if that actually does become You know, if that's how everything turns out, I'm not sure how that is a good thing for the people that are stepping away now.
You know, they're going to be, it's going to be like, well, you didn't believe in the American people.
You didn't believe in the American military.
Those would be the attacks that I could imagine people would level against them.
As you were saying that, I was thinking, like, I think the Israelis started this like five weeks ago, and then the Americans were like, well, we're going along because they're our military ally.
And then the Israelis said, we're not sending boots on the ground, but we've got 30,000 troops on the border ready to go.
And then one day you're going to see, God forbid, I don't want to see this, but an American get captured, get shot down and captured and then, you know, killed on camera or something.
So, Just imagine how weird it's going to be with a bunch of Optimus bots.
Could you imagine, like, Elon?
He just comes out and he's like, one of the best applications for the Optimus bot right now is we have 200,000 already produced and capable of firing weapons as well as dogs.
And then we just get a video of, like, Tesla bots with, like, guns on their hands running in Iran with robot dogs, just with machine guns mounted on their backs.
Somebody has had the bright idea to attach an AK 47 to it.
The dog doesn't have a coil very much.
Oh, yeah, that is an AK, right?
One Twitter user chimed in, Erica, saying, I'm all for gun control, but if they start deploying robot dogs with assault rifles, we need to start arming ourselves.
They were talking about how we basically have drone wars going on, and what would happen is the Mexican side would put up a drone, and then in response to it, the US would put up a drone, you know, I guess showing like an equal playing field, whatever.
But CBT was saying how the Mexicans are buying Chinese drone technology that far surpasses our own drone technology, and in fact, it is illegal for us to use that very Chinese technology, and so even.
The high tech that we have still isn't as good as our adversaries trying to sneak illegal aliens into the border.
So, you know, we have a November election coming up, 2026.
And a lot of people keep asking me, Scott, how are we going to do?
And I just, I don't know if the Senate Majority Leader Thune, any of his allies are going to be watching Tim Cast in your show, but I just want to say the most important thing.
That people in America want right now, despite a secure border, despite an economy that works for them, is we want the Save America Act.
And that's proof of citizenship and that's photo voter ID in order to vote.
And so we have a Republican Senate, we have a Republican House, we have a White House, and yet we can't get our act together to pass legislation that 84% of Americans want.
And so I just ask Senate Majority Leader Thune, if you want to stay in office, pass the Save America Act.
And our House of Representatives currently is doing its job.
And the president's doing his job, but if the Senate doesn't do its job, then I think that we lose this November terrifically, and it's going to be really bad for them.
I hope that they don't seek to be in the minority.
I was just saying that the single most important thing that voters want in order to restore confidence in our country is proof of citizenship in order to vote and photo voter ID.
And we're not even getting the Save America Act, which is why I think in part we're plummeting and Republicans are going, What's the point?
Why do I vote to elect a Republican majority government if when in power they don't wield that power and give us what we want?
If we finally had only Americans voting and no ability for illegal aliens or no fraud in the mail in ballots, Democrats know they would never fairly win an election ever again.
That's why they are against it, in my humble opinion.
The first is the Save America Act, the second is the Mega Act.
The Make Elections Great Again Act.
Now, that one is probably even more comprehensive.
It touches on everything from banning ranked choice voting to banning ballot harvesting.
And I think it even touches on electronic voting.
And so, in my mind right now, at least at the federal level, if we're having a difficult time even passing the SEAVE America Act, I don't see how at this point in time we pass MEGA and even address some of those issues.
And so, I would say do it with federalism in mind.
If you can't pass it federally, State by state, address only hand marked paper ballots, you know, that you're not using electronic machines, but you have a way of actually being able to count every single ballot.
It's only going on the red states because those are the states that are actually concerned with election integrity.
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, you're not going to pass those in states that we have a Democrat governor.
So, no, you had it because I think South Dakota just did something about a Save America Act at the state level, and then Florida just did the Save America Act at the state level.
As soon as everything got digitized, right, then it became possible to make the exact same thing.
So when you hear like an amp simulator, right, Carter can speak to this.
When you hear amp simulators, right, you hear the same thing because what's happening is whether it be a real amp or an amp simulator, the simulations now are producing the same frequency that the amp does.
So it doesn't matter if it's a real amplifier or an amp simulator.
When you're recording it, it just gets turned into zeros and ones, gets turned into binary.
And then that same binary can now be replicated without an actual amplifier.
Yeah, but when people listen to music, they're always listening to something that's almost always listening to binary, unless they're actually live in the room with the person.
I'm kind of, you guys are probably maybe more right than I'm giving you credit for because, like, I'll talk to people on the phone and it just feels like I'm talking to them.
You will lose soul and spirit and all the conservatives complain about it, but it won't matter because it's going to come down to cost, access, and availability.
Back in the day, to listen to music, You had to go find someone who knew how to play music.
So, going to the show was such a big deal.
I'm talking like 1800s.
It'd be like, well, finished a hard day's work and, you know, Sunday night, hey, let's go into town and hear some music.
And you wouldn't hear it otherwise.
Then we get records.
You know, you get the old, what is it, the old can recording thing that Edison had or whatever.
Yeah.
Super low quality.
And so people were like, well, it's great to have music at the home, but it's nothing like a live performance.
He says, Scott and Cast, you have large platforms.
Can you start a push to primary all incumbents?
Don't immediately say, but some are good.
Just primary them all out, please.
The good ones you can count on.
Call it refuse to reelect.
I'm going to.
Just this is probably, with all due respect, the 14,896,732nd time someone said, Why don't powerful influencers get the incumbents voted out?
Because you can't.
It's a long, arduous process that requires a lot of work, and you'll maybe move the needle on a handful like we saw with the progressive left, but you're not going to do a massive incumbent purge.
Here's another thing to point out the approval rating for Congress is because you're asking the nation to rate individuals.
Most counties, like, I'm sorry, most congressional districts have a favorable view of their member of Congress.
Then the nation has a negative view.
So a lot of people are like, why are Republicans like Dan Crenshaw getting elected?
Because he represents a district where they make money off of the military.
To be fair, he was primaried.
But you have districts where there are Republicans and the jobs they have are a weapons factory or a military industrial facility.
And then we say, why are the Republicans voting for this?
That guy is because if he voted against that funding, he'd get voted out of office because the people who live in his district make money off of it.
This is what people don't understand.
So, how do you vote the incumbents?
The incumbents are promising things to their district the district wants.
Just there's no collective United States that wants the same thing.
Yeah, when people say they don't like Congress, most of the time they say they don't like Congress, but they like their own congressperson.
So they're happy with the person that's delivering for their district, but they don't like the rest of Congress because the things that they want nationally don't get passed.
But in reality, people tend to be happy with their own representative.
If I may, to this person, I make a promise right here and now if Senate Majority Leader Thune does not pass the SEAVE America Act, then I am going to Texas.
Senate Majority Leader Thune wants to protect John Cornyn in the Senate, the incumbent, and the May 26th primary Senate runoff is coming up.
So, everybody in Texas, you have the opportunity.
If Thune isn't going to give us what we want, then we are going to take away what he has.
And in Louisiana, you have Senator Cassidy, who is up for election on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020.
If he doesn't get 50% of the vote, it goes to a runoff in December.
And just so this person knows, with my platform, this year I've already been to Indiana, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah to help with redistricting.
I'm going to Indiana for the Cinco de Mayo primary.
I've been going to Virginia for the April 21st referendum.
I hope people vote no.
We have a primary in Pennsylvania on May 19th.
So, no, I promise you, I am using my platform, and I'm probably respectfully one of the only influencers on the Ground doing the actual boots on the ground work.
So you have my commitment that I'm going to continue putting in that work.
So just for the last part of your question, you said they rejected the will of the people in the 24 election and put Thune in and refused a public vote.
So we knew who cited against Trump and Rick Scott.
The issue is you've got a district where he's like, I need this in the omnibus because it's going to provide $17 million to go to the medical.
Facilities in my district where we manufacture masks and syringes.
The people who live in my district need this to happen.
And the Democrat goes, Well, I'll give you the vote on it, but we're not passing the SAVE Act.
And he goes, Done, because my voters don't care.
National level, high esoteric, you know, high focused people are going to tell you about SAVE Act.
And then they're going to go back to their districts or they're going to go back to their state.
And the people are going to be like, I mean, SAVE Act is great.
I love it.
But are you getting us the funding?
And if they come to their state and say, Told the Democrats screw the funding for our state that we need for these programs because we want the Save Act.
He says, Following up on Maximus's question from yesterday, what's the best way to get the outcome based regulations he discussed with you made into law and make it a strict requirement?
I guess the issue there is we don't have the question from yesterday to reference.