Tim Pool and Theo Wold dissect how a Supreme Court ruling banning race-based gerrymandering enables states like Louisiana to redraw maps for Republican supermajorities, potentially eliminating 20 to 30 Democratic seats. They predict extreme geographic hyperpolarization, a fractured four-party system, and rising political violence linked to disenfranchisement and online rhetoric. The discussion also covers the Mallory McMorrow controversy, Graham Plattner's Nazi tattoo, conspiracy theories about Area 51 earthquakes, and critiques of private military contractors, concluding that broken incentive structures necessitate societal adaptation or the exclusion of non-contributors. [Automatically generated summary]
Louisiana has announced it is suspending its primaries for the House after the Supreme Court ruled that they had racially gerrymandered congressional districts.
And now Kathy Hochul is responding that New York will proceed and we're off to the races.
We already had this big redistricting battle.
Several states were already doing this.
Democrat, Republican, everybody's blaming each other.
But now with this Supreme Court ruling, basically every single state has an opportunity to make an argument they need to redistrict just before.
The midterm elections.
Now, some prominent Democrats say it won't matter because mail in votes have already been sent out in many of these Republican states.
Anyway, so what are they going to do about it?
The ballots are already out.
Louisiana just said, so what?
They've suspended the primary.
They are going to redraw their maps in the 11th hour to give the Republicans two more seats.
And Democrats are pissed, but I don't see them complaining about Virginia.
So nobody really has a leg to stand on.
This is it.
This is the game.
Take your state, take your control, turn it into a 100% Democrat or Republican state.
And then we'll see who wins.
Oh, what's that?
Republicans are going to win.
That's right.
Right now, if every state were to go blue and red purely, it would be a one seat Republican advantage.
Not particularly good, but better than Democrats losing 30.
If the VRA, gerrymandered districts, are redrawn, the Republicans can capture 30 seats.
Now, here's what gets crazy.
Based on interstate migration, Democrats are already expected to lose something like 20 seats, some ridiculous number.
You combine this with the VRA, and we are looking at the potential for a permanent Republican supermajority.
I mean it, supermajority in the House, where they're going to have upwards of 30 or 40 seats above Democrats.
So, this is the Democrats, they've got to go full scale warfare on this one.
That's why Hakeem Jeffery said maximum warfare.
And he's proposing retaliation.
Now, the funny thing is, he says, oh, yeah, well, you know, Illinois, New York, and California, and everyone's already like, you've already gerrymandered those states beyond recognition.
I mean, You can squeeze a little bit more out of California, but Illinois, I don't know what you can get to that thing.
That's like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, but they'll try.
Plus, big news the DOJ has released surveillance footage from the third assassination attempt.
This individual surveilling the hotel, and then actual footage of him shooting a Secret Service agent.
Apparently, he fired buckshot at close range.
The agent was okay, just struck his vest, but you could actually see the shots fired in quick succession.
So we'll talk about that.
Plus, An earthquake at Area 51.
That, alongside missing scientists, everybody's going to put those pieces together, whether they should or should not, but it'll be fun.
Before we get started, my friends, we've got a great sponsor for you.
It is Qualia Life, creatine plus, my friends.
When we're young, our bodies naturally produce and regenerate high levels of creatine, but as we move into our 40s and beyond, that production steadily declines.
The result?
Less readily available energy for both our muscles and our brains.
Here's the thing you can't just toss creatine back in and call it a day.
It needs to actually get into your cells and then be activated to do its job.
That's why taking it with electrolytes helps with absorption, and magnesium supports activation.
It's that simple, and it's the reason Qualia Creatine Plus was built to work with your body, not against it.
Qualia Creatine Plus combines two clinically studied forms of creatine with electrolytes, all chosen to support uptake and activation.
Easy to mix powder, dissolves smoothly in water.
It's the most trusted kind of creatine.
But it's not just creatine, it's the delivery system your body needs to make it work for you.
No creatine formula has ever addressed every step of the process from mixing to absorption to activation as completely as Qualia Creatine Plus.
Creatine is critical for energy, metabolism, cognition, and healthy aging, not just lifting like a bodybuilder.
It'll be good to have you because we're talking about all of this gerrymandering stuff and the lawsuits in states, and I think you can help us out with that.
Louisiana House suspends House primaries as red states face pressure to redistrict.
Governor Landry issued the order pausing next month's primaries until lawmakers can approve a new map, which could help the GOP gain one or two seats in the state this fall.
Now, it's not just Louisiana following the Supreme Court ruling.
Kathy Hochul moves to change the New York district map after SCOTUS ruling bans race based gerrymandering.
So I will say this.
In the end, if you get rid of all these VRA districts, you're looking at 20 to 30 seats gained by Republicans.
Combine that with the 2030 census, we are looking at Democrats losing an additional 20 or so seats.
I mean, this news is apocalyptic for Democrats.
Now, I will stress this with the news that, with the ruling from the Supreme Court, you got a lot of people saying, of course, that Republicans can gain a bunch of seats.
But the truth is, Democrats can as well.
If there's purple or blue controlled states, they can just all.
Argue, you know what?
We should redraw our maps too, just to be sure.
And if they have the political power, they're going to make that argument.
This map is one of the most interesting.
This is a map if all of the states maximally gerrymandered what it would look like.
Now, to be fair, Maine probably could eliminate this red seed, but the argument for this map is Maine is fairly split.
If you dilute too much of the blue, then you might actually just create two toss ups.
In order to create maximally Red and blue districts, you end up with 217 Democrat to 218 Republican, and it will just be this.
No more, I live in a district and there's mixed representation.
It's literally just if your state is red, you're red.
If your state is blue, you're blue.
And I really do love this California map that people are showing off because all it does is put like 30 districts in San Francisco.
You see this?
Every single district just touches San Francisco to make sure it's a Democrat district.
And this is one of the maps proposed by Democrats to eliminate four Republican seats.
So, what I will say is, all of the news seems to be good for Republicans going into this midterm if they take this action.
And it's the initial answer here from Jeff Landry is yes.
I think he's already set this off where neighboring state, you know, Kay Ivey in Alabama, her first response to the court case was sorry, we've got some pending federal litigation.
We're not going to be able to do this.
So the gauntlet's thrown not just at the Democrats, but I think the other Republican governors in the Southeast by Governor Landry here.
You know, you have to imagine at the end of the day, if all these states go to their maximum gerrymander, as like your previous picture or map showed, you have to imagine all of this just becomes a wash and we just wasted a ton of time where these states probably could have been doing something better and passed bills that affect their constituents' lives in a meaningful way.
But instead of doing that, they're clogging up their state government time with this.
And I don't know.
You have to think it's a.
Just a waste of time and resources.
And I mean, people were fundraising based off of this.
They were ballot initiatives in some states.
And if all of this is just a wash, it just goes to show how far it is.
Here's the crazy thing about the ruling is that what Alito said was the only guarantee you have as a minority is that you won't be, they won't use race as a factor in your district.
Now, let's say they end up redistricting in New York.
Well, then someone files a lawsuit, says, oh, no, they used race, they're just lying.
And then it goes to court again to try and figure out whether they used race or not.
And then New York says, no, we did it by politics.
And he's going to say, then how come it's got a higher proportion of, you know, black and Hispanics than white people?
So, Now, what are they supposed to do?
In order to avoid any challenge to the map, every district must be parity with nation level statistics on ethnicity and race?
So, what happens to Chicago when they say this district is majority black?
It's a racially gerrymandered district.
So, Illinois can't get really any more Democrat.
To be fair, some of the maps people have made of Illinois to make it Democrat, every district is a thin vertical stripe that goes up and touches Chicago.
Yeah, and I think the interesting thing in citing Chicago as an example is the Democrats are also in something of a political bind with one of their leading constituency groups here because there's some seats that you cannot reconfigure without sacrificing black members of Congress.
And so, I mean, Democrats could go to maximally redraw Illinois, but you're going to lose some of those old school black Democrats like a Danny Davis or someone like that or Benny Thompson in Mississippi, for example.
He's going to lose his seat.
So I think, yeah, when you're looking at the Illinois map.
It's insane, but there's also going to be a lot of pressure on Democrats, especially in New York, to keep some of those safe black members of Congress in some kind of seat, even if it's not a majority black district.
That imagine, you know, Democrats come to you and they say, hey, we're going to make it so your district is all black people.
And you're a black guy and you're like, but I'm a big fan of Thomas Sowell, and the guy across the street is a communist who wants to vote for communism.
How are we going to share a representative when our political values are totally different?
Doesn't matter.
You're both black.
That's the Democrat strategy.
That's their ethos.
That's insane.
What brings you all together is not whether you understand, agree with, or disagree on policy, it's your skin.
I do think, I mentioned this last night, I think that it came from a place where when they were blockbusting and like all the rich white guys would stage, take like 18 blocks of nice area and they'd say, no, black people can't move in, or they wouldn't say it out loud.
So there's the seafood industry, oil industry, there's flood erosion.
Coastal erosion.
So they're going to vote based on things.
And guess what?
If you're a black guy and your neighbor's a white guy, and next to him is an Asian guy, and next to him is a Mexican guy, and next to him is an Indian paraplegic transgender Muslim, Doesn't even matter because they're all going to say, We have a problem with coastal erosion.
Then they all go to a candidate and he says, I want to implement race based policies.
And they'll go, We don't care about that.
We're all mad that our homes are sinking.
That's what brings people together in terms of their interests that need to be represented in Congress.
When a congressman goes to the federal government and says, My district needs money, with this map in Illinois, they're going to say, What does it need money for?
But if you actually broke it down by, say, like farmland, they're going to be like, we need funding for, you know, machinery subsidy, corn subsidy, or something like that, whether you agree or not.
They're all going to come together and say, our district, we all work in the same area.
We have similar values.
This person represents us, and they're going to go to Congress for us.
If this map, this Illinois map, were real, would that mean that all the Republican voters then, when they vote for their representative, they have to vote for a Democrat?
And the middle one is light blue, indicating it's probably 55% Democrat.
So, you'll never really get a Republican winner.
The idea is everybody south of Chicago on the far right strip going down, this strip right here, every single person from this point down is a Republican.
But in Chicago, there's 200,000 Democrats.
So, when it comes to elections, the Democrats win the district every single time.
So, then if you just made Chicago its own zone and gave it like 12 seats or I don't know, whatever the aggregate proportion, then you just let all the farmers have their one.
Representative, that's how it was in Illinois for a long time.
Southern Illinois, and they in the last redistricting eliminated most of the Republican agricultural based seats.
So, this is just a maximalist move for what Democrats in Illinois have already done.
I think Tim is right, like you kind of look at it, it's like how much more can you get out of it because they've already done a version of this, nothing as obscene as that.
What's the point of doing that to make it a Democrat seat?
So then you can take a look at Rockford.
I love this.
Rockford's up here, and you stretch all the way around and down to Bloomington.
What is this?
It's because they want the city of Bloomington and normal, if we call it Bloomington normal, they want that to be in the same district as Rockford because it increases the amount of Democrats above 50% to guarantee they always win.
And then my favorite, of course, well, the other one was my favorite.
This one's my next big favorite 13.
Same thing, slicing through rural Southern Illinois farmland to connect East St. Louis, Belleville with Springfield, Decatur, and Champaign, Urbana to lump all of these tiny urban centers into one district to justify a Democrat majority district.
Because here's the reality outside of Springfield, this whole chunk, they got a lot in common with each other.
Not with Springfield, though.
Same thing with all these cities.
If they just broke these up like normal blocks based on farmland industry, there would be no Democrat seats.
They have already gerrymandered to oblivion.
I mean, if they want to try and go ham with it and do something like this, that'll never get through a court, but that'd be hilarious if they tried.
I mean, I think, look, I think Tim said this the other day where you take the Democrats at their word, which is it's maximum warfare, as the speaker in waiting, Hakeem Jeffries said.
And I think this gets back to the question of like, are Republicans actually going to exercise the will to maximize their advantage here?
Which is, you got to understand.
What does the game look like now?
The Democrats see what's coming, which is if you stop counting illegals in the census, if you actually eliminate race based districts, these majority minority districts, and if you stop some of the gimmicks that they played with election integrity rules in the 2020 and in some places in the 2024 election, a lot of the illegitimate electoral gains from Democrats just vanishes overnight.
And then you tie in there, like as you mentioned, Tim, the great sort where you have people leaving places like Orange County, California, and they're moving to places like where I'm at.
Boise, Idaho, or they're leaving Seattle and they're going to places like Montana.
And I incorrectly stated, many have been saying, was the Trump administration pressuring them to draw new maps mid decade?
Technically, that's true, but it's not the basis for why it all began.
The Trump administration said, We're dropping this lawsuit, and you've got several gerrymandered districts.
You can't do that.
Texas said, Okay.
Now they were finally able to drop new maps.
The Trump administration did make the argument they can't do racially gerrymandered districts, so they needed to change.
Then Democrats said, Oh, yeah.
And they started doing the same thing.
Or I should say, they started doing worse, because again, when you go to 270 to win, Eliminating four Republican districts by putting five districts in one city is psychotic.
And you can see they've done it.
Democrats wanted to play hardball.
Here's the truth both the Democrats and the Republicans made the VRA play in 2020.
The Biden DOJ made the move against Texas in 2021 when they tried to redistrict, triggering the legal battle targeting the Voting Rights Act.
Over the four years of Biden, all of these individuals in these states were preparing for this.
The moment the Trump administration backed off and the arguments had already made it to the Supreme Court, every red state was prepared to launch their salvo.
I think the other thing here that is missed is the opinion from Justice Alito.
I mean, the Democrats and the far left, Mark Elias and those guys are hyperventilating about this.
But the decision doesn't say that Section 2 of the VRA is gone and obliterated as they maintain.
It just says, as Tim noted a moment ago, you can't use race as the sole basis for drawing congressional districts.
The old rules about it being compact, communities of interest, and as Justice Alito said, partisanship, all of those things can be factors for drawing seats.
And I often say, look, this is a lot like the judicial nomination wars, you know, where, oh, we nuked the filibuster, you nuked the filibuster.
And when you go back and you actually do the archaeological dig on this, the left started this fight back in the Obama administration.
If you guys remember all this push by Holder and Obama for the independent redistricting commissions, they did it in Arizona through a ballot initiative, they did it in California.
And every time the so called independent member, so you'd have like five Democrats, five Republicans, and then there would be one swing vote.
Every time the independent ended up being a Democrat plant.
For example, in New Jersey, where there was an independent commission, the member of that redistricting commission was a professor at Princeton who, at the time, was a registered independent.
He's now running for Congress as a Democrat.
And the product of those redistricting commissions were maps that always favored Democrats and obliterated incumbent Republicans.
So they were at this, again, a long time before Republicans got wise.
And then the litigation started under the VRA for what we call covered jurisdictions in places like Texas.
And then I believe nuking the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations with only doing a simple majority for Gorsuch and then also allowing Amy Comey Barrett to get in despite it being an election year, which is the reason why he's cited for not letting.
The Merrick Garland vote proceed too.
But I think Democrats would also argue that they have a lot to point at.
And if it's tit for tat, then it's just going for the vote.
So the actual judicial nomination war starts in the Obama presidency when he nuked the filibuster for appellate court judge nominees and they stacked the D.C. Circuit, which is, you know, that's just, again, one layer.
So it's like, yeah, you can look at Garland, but the actual story was when they put three Democrat nominees forward when they knew they didn't have the vote, so they obliterated the judicial.
They, when the Civil War started and Virginia called up all of its young men to come fight and defend Virginia, whatever you think about the secession is not the point.
Nobody was here to vote.
The only people who stayed were like, okay, let's have a vote while all the men have left.
And the remaining people voted not to go to war because they were like, I don't want to go fight.
Everyone else went to go fight.
When these young men came back, they found out they were in a different state now.
And then Virginia filed a lawsuit after the Civil War saying, that's just Virginia.
Oh, I mean, if you go back to Obama started redistricting, then the argument's going to be made, you know, yeah, but the Republicans, blah, Did the Bush admin do much in the redistricting era?
No, because I think one thing that people have missed as well in this national discussion about redistricting is the ability to use precision data.
Tools both on micro targeting and then also like the map analysis that's totally new.
Alito mentions this in his opinion, which is you can get a map like Tim was showing on Illinois because you can literally run 300 different permutations through the software of how you are parsing individual houses and neighborhoods.
And that just didn't exist to that level of precision until Obama starts redistricting, but Obama's administration also targeted the Tea Party and did a bunch of things like this.
And the argument they'll make is no, this is the Republicans.
When they were in power, they cheated and stole the election and then rammed everything through.
So, as soon as Democrats came back in, they said, We have to make sure they can't do what they did again in 2012.
Because you had, I'm sorry, in 2000, because you had Republicans for eight years.
Then Obama gets in and they said, How do we stop Republicans from stealing an election again?
General question I know you're not allowed to draw up districts based on race now, but what if they just say, no, no, no, it wasn't because they were black.
So, but I think if you were to say, hey, we just want a Democrat vote sync here, if you control the governorship and the state legislature, more power to you, you can do that.
Yeah, and I think that's the other part of this story is not all of this is going to play out this year.
I mean, the maximum advantage that Republicans may ultimately get out of this is going to be next year and for the 28 election and probably for the 2030 redraw.
And so I think the one takeaway from this week, both with the opinion from Justice Alito and what's already been going on with California and Virginia, is the redistricting wars are here to stay because both parties are now trying to lock in real electoral advantages.
But again, as you said, Tim, Democrats are looking at a pretty apocalyptic future.
I mean, we're looking at potentially like LBJ era 1960.
You know, when the Democrats had enormous numbers in the House and in the Senate, there's a real possibility by the end of the 2030 census, when you're looking at 2032, Republicans could have anywhere between 40 to 50 seat advantage.
And they say how state seats in the U.S. could change after the next census.
At the halfway point in the decade, newly released census data points to continued shifts in representation after the 2030 census.
So, for those that are just tuning in, what we've been talking about and in the previous segments, with the Supreme Court ruling on the VRA, Republicans could gain reasonably.
12 seats if they so choose.
However, if every single racially gerrymandered district was erased, it's around 20 to 30 congressional seats.
But wait, there's more.
The census is coming up in 2030.
So this redistricting battle will not just be happening right now.
In 2030, the prediction is that California will lose four seats, Texas will gain four seats, New York will lose two, PA loses one, Illinois loses one, Wisconsin one, Minnesota one, Oregon one.
We see Idaho, Utah, and Arizona each gaining a seat.
You see North Carolina and Georgia gaining a seat.
You see Florida gaining three seats.
And you see Rhode Island losing one seat, which is nuts because they only have two seats anyway.
So they're going to one.
They're going to an at large district.
So this is going to be we've got eight, nine, 10.
We've got 13 seat swing.
And this is a 26 vote difference now because they lose 13, Republicans gain 13.
Add in the VRA 12.
We are looking right now being modest in the next four years.
This is going to be probably by 2032 when this takes effect.
If everything plays out, Republicans will have a 24 seat majority.
And I think what's interesting here about this map is under the old reading of Section 2 of the VRA, even some of those seats that California would lose and, say, Texas would gain, they're not necessarily going to become Republican seats because you're still going to have to draw majority black seats in Houston, in Dallas.
Now, with this Supreme Court opinion, those are basically transferring blue Democrat seats in California to what will become.
So, one of the conversations that came up with the COVID exodus we saw, a lot of people were leaving New York and going to Florida.
And now, with all the weird tax policy they're doing, which is absolutely hilarious, Washington just, was it Seattle?
She just had to buy all the rich people.
The concern was if a bunch of blue people moved to a red area, would they not turn that area red?
In fact, no.
So, if you've got half a million people leaving Manhattan, the initial reaction a lot of people said was, and this is first order thinking, Well, 500,000 people are going to shift the makeup of another district.
Yeah, but those 500,000 people are dispersing in different areas.
Maybe 40,000 go to Connecticut.
Maybe 30,000 go to West Virginia.
Maybe 100,000 went to Florida.
When those 100,000 enter a district that is R plus seven, they only shift at maybe two points Democrat.
So those votes are getting diluted, meaning New York's actually going to be worse off.
The Democrats nationally not only are losing seats, they're losing urban concentration as people spread out.
The people who are moving.
From California, Texas, aren't going to the same city for the most part.
Many might, but then it gets better because even the people from California who move to Austin, they can just gerrymander Austin and say it's liberal.
If it's legal to gerrymander by political affiliation, can't they run like an AI algorithm to see all the voter rolls, all the addresses, and then after the fact be like, we're going to draw, because we can't do it by race anymore, we're going to specifically draw 14 Democrat districts and they're going to draw little snakes and it'll be totally legal?
Because it's only by political affiliation.
But back in the day, they didn't know people's affiliation until they went to vote.
So you were building the district before you found out who was in it.
The argument being made here is that the end result of the gerrymandering war is every red state maximizes for red, every blue state maximizes for blue.
I think, and the two wrinkles here would be to maximize your advantage in redistricting, you got to hold the trifecta.
You got to hold both chambers of the state legislature, except for Nebraska, and you got to hold the governorship.
So, something like Nevada, you see that there.
You got a red northern district based out of Reno, and then the southern, so the two seats there in the south, which are based around Clark County and Las Vegas.
But if there's a Republican governor, it's going to be really hard for the Democrats in the legislature to maximize those seats.
It'd probably stay 50 50 swing seats like they are now.
The other thing I think, what Tim was just laying out, the breadcrumb trail there leads to an obvious conclusion, which is this is why Democrats are flooding the nation with mass immigration.
Because the great sort that is happening, it turns out, even if every Yankee who leaves Long Island and moves to North Carolina is still an unrepentant liberal, it kind of gets washed out and they don't actually pick up the real vote share.
And what we see actually is, The folks who are leaving California, Washington state now with the imposition of the income tax, when they're moving to Idaho, they're actually shifting both the ideological window but also the registration more Republican.
These are people who were sort of suffering under blue state policies and they're like, I'm happy to be in free, free Idaho.
You vote for the Democrat, it's going to, because there's one party.
So here's what happens primary comes up, union family walks in and says, don't vote for the weird suit wearing commie.
Vote for the working class rolled up sleeves Democrat.
The primary was what really mattered.
Well, those moderates, people like me, we've left.
So now the primary happens again, and you've got blue dog Democrat rolled up sleeves saying, We're here for the working class, but all their voters have left, and all that's left is commies.
So the commie wins the primary.
Basically, right now in every district, the primary is trying to sort by political party the boundaries and then finding the middle.
It's not necessarily intentionally how they do it, but what happens is you go to a district, the furthest left you go, you've got hardcore tanky communists, and the furthest right you go in the Democrat Party, you have like moderate libs who hate Trump.
So, the candidate who wins panders to both the most to generate the most amount of votes.
Eliminate the moderates.
That moderate guy could only get 20% of the votes he used to get.
The communist now panders to the socialists and the communists, and now you get a communist member of Congress.
This is both geographic and governmental hyperpolarization.
With these seats moving, you will see more staunch Republicans in Congress and more squad members in Congress.
You will also then have states ideologically opposed to extreme degrees, like Oklahoma banning abortion outright.
And Colorado legalizing abortion to the point of birth.
The end result of this is you will have states with things that are legal that shock the conscience, that bleed over between each other.
You will end up with, and I'm saying this as a joke to make the most extreme examples gay race communist by mandate in Colorado and the handmaid's tail in Oklahoma.
And then eventually they start fighting with each other because these ideologies will clash because there's proximity.
The hyper polarization, I don't know how you break it up.
But what we're watching with intermigration, internal migration, as well as gerrymandering, redistricting.
Look, if you live in Virginia and they just took away your district and they're putting a Democrat in charge of where you live, a lot of people are going to say, I don't want to live in a place where the attorney general said my children should die and they're going to try and trans my kids.
Another potential future that I've been thinking about lately is that.
You know, the two party system may change.
It may be that, like, the Republican Party splits in half and the Democrat Party splits in half, and we have a four party system for a short period of time.
Once the moderates are gone and you've over indexed on ideology for drawing these districts, you're already seeing this in places in New York with the Jamal Bowman race a couple of years ago.
You're going to see the moderate Democrat just totally annihilated in the primary.
The moderate Democrats that are basically in between the hard right and the old school Republicans.
In New York, you had Republican seats that were considered to be kind of toss up moderate.
When the moderate New York residents left, all that's left are Orange Man Bad and Communist.
So when the primary happens, that moderate Democrat who tried to hold things together to compete with a Republican, he's gone.
They don't need it anymore.
They're 60% socialists now.
It's squad all the way, baby.
So back to your point, Ian, about saying four parties.
The part where I'll disagree with you is technically there will be four parties, in that there will be a hard right and an old right, whatever you want to call it, but they will all be unified against the other.
So the country is going to break up into this silly map right here.
And then what ends up happening is this chunk is completely at war with this chunk.
And I mean figuratively.
When it comes to national level politics, all of these people are going to be like, those people are.
So far removed from what we believe, they are evil, dangerous.
We're at the point, Democrats and Republicans call each other evil for a variety of reasons.
We're at the point where Democrats want to ban trans kids, Republicans don't.
Democrats want abortion to birth, Republicans want to ban abortion.
So the extreme ends are there where it's night and day.
There is no more, can we compromise?
It is, these people have pushed abortion to the point of birth, and we don't want abortion at all.
That's not stopping.
We will get to a point where it's even further than this.
You know, when we're watching, The news out there before the show, we got four channels on one screen, and you can watch MSNBC, MSNow, sorry, and CNN and Fox News at the same time, and you can see the bifurcated reality in both.
And it is insane.
MSNow can't go 10 seconds without saying the word Trump.
And this is what's crazy to me.
Criticize Fox News as biased, they talk about a bunch of different things.
Even CNN talks about a bunch of different things.
I would argue that Fox News and CNN are left and right.
CNN is left-live, Fox News is right-conservative, and MS Now is psychopath, cult, Antifa lunacy.
You watch CNN, and I'm watching CNN, and they're saying things like: the war in Iran has led to an increase in gas prices.
We're joined now by an expert in foreign policy, and he says, well, the Iranians' strategy is going to be this.
And I think Trump is making a big mistake here.
But when you look at what you're saying, and I'm like, okay, obviously this is a war, Trump's involved, I got no problem with that.
You turn on Fox News, and they're saying, look, There's a plan.
It's short term pain for long term gain.
You turn on MS now, Trump, non stop, just Trump, Trump, Trump.
Trump is reckless.
He's dangerous.
And I'm like, it's not even news.
It's literally just, you know, I got to be honest, guys, I'm going to launch a new channel and we should do this.
It's like, it's the cringest thing ever to, you know, remember when Deepwater Horizon happened in the Gulf, the oil spill, and the CEO's like, we're terribly sorry.
Like, nobody believes you and nobody cares.
I'd respect you more if you came out and said, you know, obviously we're going to clean it up.
We're going to pay a fine for this.
It'll be a slap on the wrist.
It'll kill untold amounts of sea life.
We're not going to stop.
And we're sorry only because the malfunction happened.
When those old tweets from Mallory McMorry came out, and she has essentially what you're describing here.
One of her tweets said, Well, the future is the ring and not the horror film, but she was like, You know, the coasts will break off and they'll join with Mexico and Canada and they'll basically just napalm what's left in the middle.
Because the other guy, Abdul El Said, was the guy who said he didn't even want to, I think, celebrate the killing of Hassan Israllah or the Ayatollah, rather.
Or he didn't want to comment it because he didn't want to upset his Arab Muslim basin.
So she's got to delete them because that's her lane, right?
I wouldn't say anything ridiculous.
I think the other thing that came out of this story is a lot of those tweets she deleted talked about her participating in the 2016 DIMM primary out in California when she supposedly was already living and registered in Michigan.
So potential election fraud that she participated in as well.
Well, and which party now has elected mayors in some of the largest cities in America saying we will only hire, we will only contract with non white businesses, right?
That I would argue that Nazis would probably not be not okay with, but I would just say.
If you were a Nazi looking at the list of everything you wanted, you'd be like, well, we might lose a couple of things in the cities we don't want to be in.
But man, if those cities are saying they're only going to hire black people and all the black people move there and leave where we are, my point is when I see Graham Plattner with a Nazi tattoo, I'm like, he's just a Nazi who realized that to get through most of what a Nazi would want, the Democratic Party is your path forward.
He hates the Jews, he hates Israel, and he wants racial segregation.
I think it's transparent, like the double standard, though, because you saw everybody in the media trash aggressively Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for his I think it's an Iron Krause tattoo that, you know.
Yeah, there were many outlets explicitly saying that it might signify that he's a white supremacist.
I'm reading from Politico that it's associated with white supremacist groups, as opposed to articles talking about Plantner's tattoo that says how he expresses regret and it could potentially resemble a Nazi tattoo.
So they give him like this plausible deniability that they would never afford to Secretary Hegseth, despite Secretary Hegseth's tattoo not being any.
Anything resembling a white supremacist symbol, but this guy has a literal totem conf on his chest.
He was in his 20s on leaving Croatia, specifically Split, during his third deployment.
He and fellow Marines got very inebriated and decided to get tattoos.
They picked a terrifying looking skull and crossbones design off the wall at a tattoo parlor, seeing it as generic military pirate edgy imagery, common in military culture for scary tattoos.
I just want to stress these guys walked into a tattoo parlor with a giant Nazi Totenkampf on the wall that is available for public display.
In Croatia.
I have to wonder about what they were thinking when they entered that tattoo parlor and what the, let's just say, the business individuals, what were they wearing and what did they look like and what else was on the wall?
What was it called?
I gotta wonder if you're gonna put a Totenkampf on your wall, if there are not perhaps any other symbols, perhaps maybe an old Buddhist symbol that was ripped over.
Okay, at the very least, it demonstrates poor judgment.
Assuming, like, you know, give him every benefit of the doubt, I think this demonstrates his poor judgment.
And maybe it's not the judgment and, you know, thought process that somebody who would potentially be a senator should have.
Like, if you are getting something permanently tattooed on your body, you should understand or know what the symbol is or do some due diligence before doing that.
Yeah, I don't think like Jared Holt or anybody at the ADL would have thought twice if, you know, one of the people who they were tracking as a white supremacist had this type of tattoo on them.
I just think it's odd that people like Holt aren't all over this guy.
Well, look at the other interesting thing I was going to say was when he did his little sit down confessional, like the sort of like O'Donnell when she ran for Senate a few years ago, I'm not a witch.
He did the whole, I'm sorry for this.
And he said, Well, now I will pay to remove it.
Dude, if he had bad judgment 20 years ago, there was a long time in between there where he could have said, Oh, shoot, I learned about this symbol.
Well, the other thing here, just to note, I mean, I know he's doing this like faux working class hero shtick right now, but Platner comes from an incredibly wealthy, socially elite family in New York in the Northeast.
The idea that he was somehow ignorant about the significance or the symbolism, or like, I don't know, I just picked like a Pirates of the Caribbean looking tattoo for my chest, man.
I don't believe it because, again, came from an incredibly sophisticated, educated, Wealthy Northeast family.
The only real, you know, I guess, retardant in my view on this one is that people are allowed to say, I'm sorry.
Graham Platner is like, I, he has a mistake.
I'm sorry.
It's like, okay.
I don't believe him, but if people are like, I don't want to be associated with that thing and they say they don't, then I don't know if we can exist as a society that holds everyone to the standard of themselves for 20 years ago.
Yeah, I mean, that is literally the values of punk rock is where the most countercultural imagery is.
But the opposite of that is, yo, if you're going to project an image, you better know what that's going to do to other people when they see it and get behind it because you're doing it.
But I will say, I don't want to do too much pearl clutching over this because I don't think people want to hear Jewish people complain about the Totten Kampf symbol on this guy, despite it being there.
Well, I will say this running past Secret Service does not necessarily mean he's dumb, but considering the layout of the building and everything that's been put forward, like, this guy is very stupid.
Yeah, but I think the past few years have demonstrated that a motivated individual who wants to commit a political assassination, whether it be Trump at the Butler rally, Charlie Kirk, or Shinzo Abe.
In the game, you have a wristband that, and for no reason, I love the game lore, you cut your index, your ring finger off so that you can make a fist and the blade can go through where your ring is.
It makes no sense, but the point is, you have a concealed blade.
I'm saying the people who hate Donald Trump don't buy Trump coin.
They invest in Google.
They make a billion dollars, go to fundraisers, and then pay NGOs and work with the Soros group because funding DAs across the country is infinitely more successful for their cause.
This stuff is regularly happening in Minneapolis or somewhere in Minnesota.
There were a couple of council members outside of an Israeli embassy.
There was a couple of staffers that were shot.
Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, had a few attacks on him.
These are the only ones that I could think of off the top of my head, but people.
Aren't widely condemning this, and people do genuinely believe that the ends justify the means in our political system.
The more disenfranchised that people feel, the more gerrymandered that districts get, and the less competitive any of these elections are, people will feel more and more disenfranchised.
And their outlet for that may be violence, unfortunately.
And I think that the incentive structure really and the support around it we're not condemning Luigi Mangione.
No, um, Tyler Robinson isn't almost even not being blamed, and Erica Kirk is being made out to be.
You know, the villain here.
Of course, any violence towards any Jew or Israeli or so called Zionist is justified by the alleged genocide that they're perpetrating.
Of course, any Trump supporter is fair game because they're racist, fascist supporters.
So, I think the rhetoric around this is dangerous.
Of course, we've seen attacks on ICE agents and the doxing of ICE agents.
I think people want to take it into their own hands, especially the rhetoric online from the left.
They feel totally justified in what they're doing.
Well, I mean, the Minneapolis church, the Don Lemon event, right?
I mean, what they said was it was necessary for us to go into this house of worship because those people needed to know that one of their auxiliary pastors was an ICE agent.
It doesn't matter if you're interfering with worship or.
You know, a religious service.
We felt so justified that we had to tell these people, you have a pastor who is evil and a Nazi.
Well, if they buy into the rhetoric that is being fed to them online and by elected officials, it's hard to blame somebody with a little bit of mental illness for taking this seriously.
If Trump really is Hitler, if ICE is really the Gestapo, then aren't you doing something good?
If Israel is really committing genocide and we're supporting Israel in committing that genocide, if you stop the people who are supporting it, Aren't you preventing genocide?
That's the sort of logical conclusions that a lot of dumb people being misled.
My point is like the conundrum you're presented with is kill a baby or let Hitler happen when it's like you could literally just move the baby to a different building and like it'll get adopted by a different family.
You could literally just take baby Hitler and then bring him to like North Sentinel Island where he'll grow up and just be firing bows and arrows with the North Sentinelese.
I'd like to bring this, I think, full circle to the gerrymandering, because I think that plays a role in this, because again, it gets more, as Tim was saying, more extremist lawmakers elected into office.
It incentivizes more extreme candidates because they only need to play ball in the primary and not the general.
And if their rhetoric is getting more extreme, people again have less of an outlet for their politics in these general elections.
I think you're kind of setting up a powder keg in many senses.
I think there have been some really exciting things that they've accomplished.
I think for those folks who like to say, well, 47 is the corrective to 45.
We solved a lot of the personnel issues.
I don't know if that's exactly right.
I think there are some of the similar problems that we experienced in 45.
There are people who are not aligned with the core parts of what Trump originally ran on, which is rewiring trade to favor the interests of working class Americans, stopping the mass immigration that is destroying the continuity, the coherence of our culture.
And no foreign entanglements, no forever war.
So I think there are parts of 47 that are distinct and different.
I think he has moved out faster on some of the core issues that needed to be addressed.
But in other ways, I think you see some of the same personnel.
Yeah, look, some of that's really difficult to disentangle from the nefarious influence of social media as a new way of not only just getting clicks, but monetizing.
So you mentioned the way that a grieving widow is now somehow twisted and reshaped as the villain of the story.
And there are plenty of people who have a direct incentive, a monetary incentive to do that.
So I think the.
The biggest voices in this discussion all have some very interesting incentives to part with the president.
Now, I think a few of the folks who have parted with the president most recently, it is on a question of conviction.
And I think as the situation plays out in the Strait of Hormuz and its cascading effect on the world economy, I think they feel like they are justified in that opposition.
So I think the question is now if President Trump were running for re election in 2028, would the coalition?
It's going to be funny because Eli's sitting here and then one day he's going to die and he's going to find himself walking on a cloud, being like, Where am I?
He's going to walk up and there's going to be these pearly gates and you're going to be like, Can I come in there and be like, Scientology was the right one and you made fun of him.
And there's going to be like a bunch of aliens up there and like, Thetans or whatever those things are.
That's truly looking back at 10,000 years when they look back at this era, they were worshiping money and they didn't, maybe some of them didn't even realize that they'd been a doctorate.
Ever since the Doge stuff, and he promised a trillion and only got a billion, I was just like, well, I knew before that too, but that was the nail in the coffin.
And I think, in a classic engineer's approach to government, I don't think he expected to find so many obstacles from his own side that people within the administration or maybe even within the cabinet were going to say, no, no, no, not this program because this is my part of the deep state and it has to stay.
You have kids who experience life and learn and iterate.
And the function of life, whether you want to call it purpose, is to organize free energy into complex systems, serving as negative entropy, although operating at a lesser rate than entropy itself.
So, like, America builds a space elevator, and then China's like, You can't have access to the moon like that.
We want access to the moon.
Then the U.S. starts moon mining real easily, and with access to these resources, starts growing too rapidly.
Other nations get threatened, and all of the resources coming from the moon and staying in Earth cause a shift in the rotation of the Earth because now they're displacing weight from the moon onto Earth, causing the Earth to wobble.
So, other countries are like, Dude.
Earth will be destroyed unless you guys stop moon mining.
And they're like, don't look at me, man.
I only moon mine a couple tons per year, but it's everyone doing it at once.
The same people building the Silicon Valley bunkers are building his.
Why are they all needing these bunkers?
Why is it so important?
Do you really think they're going to allow us to get back in power and risk them getting arrested?
They're all implicated in the Epstein files.
The only way he gets to keep the government buildings with his name, passports, the golden dollars, his statues, his arch, stolen billions, is if the billionaire and he wipes us out and stays in power.
If as soon as it's built, they line all of Trump's assets, just like gold, cars, and then right in the middle is a cryogenic chamber, and Trump just gets in and says, I resign.
And then lays down and just freezes them right there.
Well, so the conspiracy theory on the White House shooting is that it was staged to create a legal justification for the ballroom, which is dumb because it doesn't make sense legally.
You can't go to court and be like, this ex. Extraneous event occurred, therefore, I now have legal standing to build with taxpayer dollars.
So they're going to be like, these are unrelated things.
You don't get legal standing based on a thing happening somewhere else.
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, the one thing a lot of Americans don't understand about the White House is it's a 18th century house that's doing triple, quadruple duty now as the nerve center of the executive branch, as the official sort of meet and greet for the head of state, you know, for the first ladies.
It's maxed out.
It's totally maxed out.
There is, the president is not wrong.
I mean, when, you know, the thing that liberals made a big deal about in 45, that he came and he was like, wow, this place is kind of a dump.
I mean, there's so many people going through there, the quarters are cramped.
You mentioned the Situation Room.
The last time it was rewired was, I think, the end of the Clinton presidency.
The last massive retrofit of it was under President Nixon.
And these retrofits, because it's a place of work, they just kind of paper shit over.
I mean, I think, I mean, the first family, obviously, but I think that's right behind the chief's office, the chief of staff's office is in that corner over there.
Sam Altman said, Chad GPT will get to know you over your life.
And I also recommend you guys look into the current lawsuit, what's going on with Elon and OpenAI to learn about what they're doing behind the scenes.
I'm not going to say much, but wow, this is a crazy story.
Well, look, we got all these tech devices, and they're always listening to you.
They're always spying on you.
Venice AI utilizes leading open source AI models to deliver text, code, and image generation to your web browser.
There's no downloads, no installation, private and permissionless.
They don't spy on you or censor.
Messages are encrypted, and your conversation history is stored only in your browser.
AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy to use it.
With the Venice Pro plan, you get the full platform and features, including PDF uploads for summaries or insights, the ability to turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation.
The ability to change how Venice interacts with you by modifying the system prompt, limitless text, and high image limits.
So go to venice.ai slash Tim, use code Tim, check it out.
I've actually been generating a lot of videos with it, which have been, I'll just say, wow, very, very, very incredible.
Some of the best video generation from any AI I've seen.
We'll screw around with it a little bit in the uncensored portion of the show where we can, but check it out, venice.ai slash Tim.
We got Jay Dirtbiker says, rip to one of the greatest of all time in country music, Mr. David Allen Coe.
He's finally being called by his name.
Is that how you say it?
Ghostblade says, Southern Poverty Law Center has given a new definition to Hood Rats, a Democrat organization that falsifies hatred to gain fraudulent privileges and play victim to their own manufactured hate.
Codrum says, how about we just get rid of districts?
Just give proportional seats to each party, i.e., 20 seat state, that's 55, 45, Reg, it's 11 GOP and 9 Dem.
Not D. Districts are different, and you don't want to be in a blue state where you have no representation.
Graham says the only reason Michigan is blue is because 60% of voters are in the southeast of the lower peninsula.
All right, let's grab some more of these here, Super Chats.
What does it say?
War a pack?
What does it say?
War a pack?
I don't know how to say your name.
Is being a fascist worse than being a communist?
Communists kill more people in history than anyone else.
Yeah, actually, and fascist countries actually just dissolve.
Communists, fascist countries eventually just like they dissolve into general elections.
Communist countries kill everybody until they blow up.
So I was actually reading an interesting academic article about this that if you look at, you know, Spain, for instance, It eventually just soft turned back into a standard republic.
There is a battle going on, and they know that there's this dude who lives in Virginia who's one of the best tacticians ever, but he's just not in the army.
They can issue a field commission.
They can be like, We need you.
Because this is when humans made sense and it wasn't bureaucratic.
It was like, Listen, I'm in charge of this.
Would you like to fight alongside me?
I'll give you a field commission.
They'd be like, Okay, you can't do that anymore.
Now it's like, Did you go to college?
It's like, Well, you could have a guy who's one of the best in terms of private military stuff.
Trained with a bunch of crazy top tier guys, and they're going to be like, Sorry, we can hire you privately, but you literally can't join the military unless you go to college.
I think there is credit that should be given to Hegseth here in getting rid of the idea that promotion through the general officer ranks relies on you getting a degree from Princeton or Harvard.
That's gone.
But to Tim's point, I mean, like, Look, under the current bureaucratic system we have, you know, MacArthur would have been out before the end of World War II.
LeMay would have been out because it's promote or you're out, and there's an age cap on promotion.
So, all this genius that we credit now would have never been in the positions they were in in those pivotal moments because of bureaucracy.
And I know it's a large organization, so not everyone has the same experience, but the people that I know who have served when I stayed briefly at Fort Carson for about a month and a half when my My sister was living there and I stayed with her.
And I lived briefly outside of Fort Eustis when my brother was stationed there.
And the stories that I hear from people there, they're just like, it's like working at Walmart.
You know, you go to your chain of command, you might go to the chain of command, you might be like, hey, here's a thing that needs to be solved.
And they're like, the mechanism doesn't allow for us to solve problems that way.
I think we've already had the discussion with administration people, and it's like, bro, trying to get the Secretary of War to come out here for your show.
Like, go there, and he'll sit down with you, and he'll talk to you.
I do think this is why you see such a virulent reaction the antibody reaction from the deep state and the DC elite to Hegseth is because he is changing a lot of the ways that we recruit and we get the general officers, but also some of these really.
Fake and sort of silly requirements.
I'm like, well, you can't be an officer unless you went to college, or you can't promote unless you got this fake credential from the executive program.
Like, there's going to be some dude, and this is the problem with the over reliance on private enterprise to subsidize effectively the failures that we're having in our military.
Now, by all means, I think it's great if you're signing up, if you're enlisting.
That's absolutely fantastic.
I'm not trying to rag and say don't do it.
I'm just saying there's a lot of guys who work in cybersecurity, for instance.
And they grew up in a world of computers where they became some of the best OPSEC guys on the planet.
And they did not go to school and they did not train to be in the military.
And now the government relies on private contractors for most of this stuff.
Maybe not most of it at this point.
Maybe things are changing.
But it was always so to me, and largely this view is predicated upon this that I knew people who were the best hackers you'd ever see in terms of actual computer networking, real hacking, real computer hacking.
And they would do private contracts, be outside the chain of command.
And I'm like, this is dumb.
Why can't they go to you and say, we're going to put you through basic training?
You are going to come in as an officer specializing in cybersecurity.
You can be in the military.
Nope.
Can't do it.
So, what they do is they hire you privately and then you're outside the chain of command.
And I think to your point, the over reliance on the private sector subsidy just compensates for the obvious inefficiencies, the pathogens in government.
I suppose the argument that I've heard is that there's a lot of things you need to know that is administrative about being an officer the functions of the chain of command, the ranks, even pay structures.
What got it for me is how many times I heard someone who was really passionate and wanted to be in there for a career, but they felt that they were held back by bureaucracy.
Oh, I think, I mean, really, honestly, I think you're exactly right.
I would say it's even bigger than the military, though, that we have so many people in our country who are autodidacts, they're self trained, they learned a skill on the farm, they learned a skill from dad, who was a skilled tradesman.
And unless they have a paper credential saying, oh, you are an expert in this, there's no place in our economy for them.
Go to X. Instagram, check out my covers, my musical covers on Instagram and YouTube, which I haven't been posting on lately, but I do sometimes.
I put a short up about how to wake people up from when they become an NPC.
You can snap them back because what's happening is the spirit is like a player that's playing the game of Earth, and you're a character in the game that it's moving around.
People, sometimes the spirits stray from other humans and they're just walking around without a spirit.
And when you look them in the eyes and acknowledge them and realize them, the spirit, like wave particle duality, snaps into position.
And now you have a spirited human in front of you, and they're a player character again.
So because there's an international treaty, when these other states, like Arizona specifically, file suit saying, we want to ship water from the Great Lakes, they go, Your lawsuit doesn't have standing because it extends to a foreign country, which now involves international relations.
And I mean, imagine we have a massive drought on the West Coast.
Let's say the California drought extends, because the last drought we had extended in Nevada and Arizona as well.
Let's say it gets real bad.
And then they start saying, we want this water.
The Great Lakes states could secede for that reason.
Outside of anything political we're watching right now, in the event there's a water catastrophe, these states are going to create their own government.
The first thing that happens is the brine that's produced from desalination.
So, they've got.
I actually have a mini doc on my channel.
You can watch it.
They have these massive walls of all these PVC tubes.
They high pressure force water through and the salt.
Gets left behind, but it's not just salt, it's brine.
They basically create two substances fresh water and brine.
So you have salt water and you get fresh water and brine.
The brine is then just exhausted into the ocean where it's heavy and goes under the waterbed, killing all of the base level organisms, which causes ecological collapse in the region.
Well, I don't know how much that affects algae, but I interviewed a guy and he's like, it's hot.
It comes out hot and that produces a problem.
The other issue is the main reason why big environmentalists don't want to advocate for it, despite the fact that desalinization, like the production of water, should be more environmentally friendly considering the groundwater pumping, is because if we set up desalination plants along the coast, there is a risk we could actually increase salinity of the ocean over a long enough period of time and artificially remove fresh water from the ocean,
creating an ecological imbalance which would kill off massive fisheries.
So, you look at the Nile, you can see how, like, How they're trying to artificially create farmland and stuff.
There's no organic matter to create arable land because there's not been enough water.
And here's what people need to understand arable land is dead organisms.
Where we are in the United States with all of our farmland, you have thousands of years of life dying and creating a soil layer.
That allows more advanced, or however we don't describe it, more complex forms of life to grow in the corpses of bacteria and dead animals from 100,000 years ago.
So in places like the Sahara, You can't just put water and expect life to emerge in the short term.
That's why, even in these areas where you have like these reservoirs, there's nothing growing.
You can see in some areas where they are, it's really cool actually.
If you, let me try and find some of these farms they built right here.
You know, I'm sure it hasn't improved much since you were in the Trump admin, but I've always been curious or I don't know, worked myself up mentally about it.
But how much of an impact for the Neocon never trumper contingent and then the.
I want to play a friendly, proper game of checkers while I watch the left play murder ball type of Republican.
I mean, I'm known for being pretty dark by disposition.
And I mean, I'll just tell you, like, in the 45 in the White House, there were like, I think, you know, a buddy of mine would say there was maybe at tops, like, 10 of us who were actually on board with the MAGA agenda who worked there.
So our ranks are not that great.
And then when you look at Congress, this is why I say it's like one of the darker takes on the Trump era we haven't done much to reconfigure the elected Republicans in Congress.
They're largely the same people who were there in the Bush years.
And sure, some of them have tried on new clothing and call themselves MAGA and they've got the red cap.
But most of them, their policy preferences are the same as they've always been.
And a good example of this is the Save America Act.
And there's not any will, any will from Senate leadership to advance this piece of legislation.
And think of it they've got the richest dude in the world, they've got the president of the United States, they have 80% of the voting electorate saying, we need this, do it.
And what do they do?
They take a recess.
They say, ah, Senate procedure.
And just to give you like a little inside baseball here, one of the reasons why they haven't brought it forward is because they say, well, the Senate parliamentarian will strike it down if we try to attach it.
Who named the Senate parliamentarian?
Where did she come from?
She was appointed by Harry Reid, yeah, dude who's been dead for years, by a liberal Democrat from Nevada.
She was named to that job now 15 years ago, 16 years ago, and she's still in the gig.
If Republicans were serious, her ass would have been fired a long time ago.
So it just shows you excuses.
Excuses.
Very little has changed with the elected Republicans in Congress.
And that's one of the reasons why, as you kind of noted, and as Tim said, you know, last night, Hakeem Jeffries is playing for keeps.
Yeah, I think what Tim was saying earlier is exactly right.
Democrats are just going to move further and further and further left.
They are going to.
The social.
Social justice Democrats is just a polite way of saying basically Maoists.
So, yeah.
And so, and one way of looking at this, just think about this conceptually would Connecticut or Hawaii ever elect a moderate Democrat?
Like, no.
But you look at some of the reddest states in America and they elect moderate, sort of rhino, cuck, use whatever pejorative you want to use Republicans who, you know, want to do bipartisan deals and are there just to hang out and be a U.S. senator.
The leftist states in the union are all about maximizing ideological outcomes.
The rightist states in the union basically elect people who are just there to be in the club.
And I think that asymmetry is why you see the Save America Act just die on the vine.
So, I think it's a sliding scale for who you are saying we as.
So, if this is your friend, then you get involved a lot sooner than if this was just some acquaintance of yours, different from if it's your parents, different if it's your siblings.
If you're asking from the standpoint of the government, when should the government get involved?
They'd have to be pretty far down the rabbit hole, if at all, that I think the government should get involved in this, uh, something like this.
I think this isn't a problem for.
The government in particular, I think it's a problem for civil society to deal with.
And we always look to government, I think, to solve some of these issues, but we can do them in civil society through different institutions that exist beyond the government, like churches and different community groups.
So I think, you know, on the personal level, it depends on how close you are with the person.
I mean, the truth is, we just need a strong moral society to say we're going to do it.
The consequences be damned.
Like, if there's some dude who says, I'm going to chop my hand off because I've got body dysmorphic disorder, you stop him.
And when people are like, we're going to trans the kids, you stop him.
The problem is.
I think people who have strong virtues tend to be less willing to engage in conflict than people without them.
So when you look historically at every single country, they always just degrade until they collapse completely into, you know, Sodom and Gomorrah esque degeneracy.
If you saw, if you were walking down the street and you saw a woman on a bed pregnant and a doctor had the forceps and he said, I am now going to kill the baby, would you shoot the doctor?
And look, this is your reference to Spain a moment ago.
Like, this is the difference between Franco and a lot of.
The people we have now, which is Franco saw the unrepentant slaughter of innocent nuns, of the clergy, of innocent monarchists, and said, Yeah, we'll bring the same fight to them until they quit.
To answer your question a little bit, too, about ideologies, if you can, how to help people or when you should step in when someone has a poisoned ideology, that takes me to the root ideology of fear.
When you know someone that's living in fear, the antidote isn't to make them stop.
So, Tim, if I may, that actually cuts a lot to my point because I used to be a couple years ago very much like we have to save everyone.
And as I've gotten a little bit older, even though I'm young and dumb at just 24, I've come to the conclusion that there are just those so determined to rot in sickness and they want to burn everything around them that.
It is not our job to save them because part of being saved is you have to choose to be saved.
One of the problems that we have as humanity, and it may actually be a function of evolution, humanity, and adaptation, is that let's say you're in a ship and you're sailing in the seven seas and you crash on an island and there's 10 people.
You go, okay, we're crashed.
No one knows we're here.
We better start getting to work.
We need shelter, we need food, and we need water.
And one guy lays back and says, let me know when you find it.
It doesn't work.
Then one guy shows up and says, I got fish.
One guy shows up and says, I was able to fill up some buckets full of water.
And another guy goes, While you were all away, the rest of us built this great shelter.
Then the guy was sitting back doing nothing, walks over and says, Gimme.
So the issue is someone drew a picture in Paintbrush where it's a bunch of blue people standing under a hydraulic press, and the red people are going, Guys, get out from underneath that.
And they go, You've killed us.
It's like you chose to press the meat grinder button.
So, I mean, my first thought was when that guy was like, Gimme, I was like, We all go walk to the beach to go work, and we're like, we know where our next meal is now.
He's sitting under the tree.
We're going to go kill him and eat him.
We're not going to give him anything.
He's not going to work.
He's going to die, and we're going to eat him.
So that's my take on the fat, lazy guy.
But I'm not saying in society we need to slaughter and eat all the useless eaters.
I was going to say on the island situation, I don't know if you guys saw this riff recently about.
You know, Anthony Burgess, who wrote, or sorry, William Holding, who wrote Lord of the Flies, it was based on an account of young British boys who ended up on an island.
And what those boys actually did was exactly what Tim just described.
They like assigned tasks, they worked together collaboratively.
And that's a mark, really, of Western civilization.
The evolutionary, psychological, and biological theory is that.
The people who moved further north who chose not to work died in the winter.
The people who moved further north who worked industriously all year round survived, had kids, and created cities based on the ethos and genetic structure of I must work 24 7.
However, the people who came from areas where there was abundant year round food and didn't have to work sat around, they slept, they don't have to do anything.
You take these two different groups of people and put them in the same place, and you're going to have one group of people that works really hard and the other side saying, Gimme.