Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 29, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:27:10

COVID Cultists ATTACK Anti-Mandate Protester, Biden Announces NEW VACCINE, Mandates ARE ALREADY BACK

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL COVID Cultists ATTACK Anti-Mandate Protester, Biden Announces NEW VACCINE, Mandates ARE ALREADY BACK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:22:24

Appearances

rachel maddow

01:57

Clips

josh hammer

00:32

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
		Now, let's jump into the first story.
		The rumors are circulating.
		Will there be a return to COVID lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccine mandates?
		And there is evidence to suggest that yes, we will return to this.
		Does it mean definitively we will?
		We don't know for sure, but certainly they're lining things up for this to happen.
		We have this viral video from Dan Dix.
		Unhinged masked protesters demanding a return to mandatory masks attack a man after being triggered by his sign.
		Exclusive interviews with all involved coming soon.
		Well.
		This is in Canada, by the way, not in the United States, but I do think that there's, you know, being a crossover in our culture, the video actually matters.
		In this video, you see many people who I would describe as COVID cultists wearing their masks, demanding lockdowns when a scuffle breaks out.
		A man not wearing a mask has a sign.
		The sign is saying that, you know, CBC is government-funded.
		It's basically propaganda.
		Pfizer lied.
		He is protesting the government, big corporations.
		And then a fight breaks out.
		One of the COVID cultists steals the signs and then flees with it.
		I think this shows that there absolutely is at least political fervor demanding these lockdowns on a personal level.
		Now, we don't need a video like this necessarily to justify why we think there may be lockdowns or some kind of mandate coming.
		We have all the evidence we need from the United States government, from schools and hospitals, as they begin to reinstitute mask mandates, vaccine policies, not so much lockdowns just yet, and Joe Biden saying he will request more funding for a new coronavirus vaccine.
		This, of course, from ABC News.
		There are a lot of people talking about, I hear this question a lot, When it pertains to Donald Trump, the election, and everything we're seeing.
		They say, if they were willing to do X, why would they not be willing to do Y?
		That is to say, if they're willing to indict and arrest Trump, his lawyers, media personalities, etc., in multiple jurisdictions charge them, put Donald Trump's trial date on March 4th, the day before Super Tuesday, if they're willing to do all of this in violation of the Constitution, and overtly, right in front of your face, why would they not?
		Take other actions.
		Now, of course, the argument there is they're saying, why would they not have cheated in 2020?
		Perhaps, perhaps not.
		That's that's for you to decide.
		You can think about that yourself.
		It's an interesting question, though, because my argument is more like this.
		If Joe Biden is talking about a new vaccine, if Rutgers is requiring vaccine mandates, if various schools and hospitals are requiring masks already, if multiple news publications are demanding return to mask mandates, And we are seeing many prominent celebrities, Democrats and leftists say it's time to lock down and bring masks back.
		Why would you not assume, considering they've already tried to jail Donald Trump?
		Why would you assume?
		Why would you assume they're not doing this?
		Why would you not assume they are doing?
		My point is this.
		The likelihood of lockdowns, mandates and all that coming back, I think exists.
		I think the probability is fairly decent.
		Does it mean it will happen?
		No.
		But I think it means check the writing on the wall.
		Because it may be coming.
		Now, here's my favorite part.
		Your friends in corporate media, they say this.
		Factcheck.org.
		No support for viral claim that COVID-19 lockdowns are returning this fall.
		No support, you say?
		Hmm, how about that?
		Here's what I really like.
		Conspiracy theorists spreads false information about the return of COVID-19 mandates.
		Conspiracy theorists, of course, are talking about Alex Jones.
		Well, let me break this down for you, my friends.
		There absolutely is evidence to suggest that lockdown mandates may be returning.
		I'll give you a simple version of it.
		Joe Biden says he wants a new vaccine and will be recommended.
		You've got Rutgers already saying if you don't get the vaccine, you're out.
		They're going to they're going to disenroll you.
		You've got schools.
		You know what?
		I brought the receipts.
		Let me just show you.
	This is from MyStateLine.com, 17 News, Rockford.
	Here you go.
	Schools close, bring back mask mandates over rise in COVID-19 cases.
	Schools close!
	Okay.
	Some are bringing back mask mandates, some are shutting down.
	Guess what?
	That is indicative of pending lockdowns.
	Absolute lockdowns?
	I don't know.
	Again, I don't know.
	But if you want to say there is no evidence to suggest they are lying to you.
	Why may this be happening?
	Well, you know, the simple reason is there are COVID cultists, right?
	I think that's a fair point.
	Fox News says, citing rising COVID cases, these US hospital systems have now reinstated mask mandates.
	So we know the mask mandates are back.
	We know that schools are closing.
	And Joe Biden is going to recommend a new vaccine.
	What was that again?
	Fact checkers of the corporate press?
	There's no evidence or support to suggest it's coming?
	They're lying to you.
	These people are crackpots, they're deranged, they're stupid, they're cultists, you name it.
	Now, of course, I always say this.
	Talk to a doctor about what's right for you.
	I am not here to make medical arguments.
	I don't care for any of that.
	I don't care that Donald Trump got funding for vaccines.
	I don't care about... Actually, I'll say this.
	I think it's great that we invested into medical technology.
	I think mRNA technology is absolutely wonderful.
	However, what's not great is the government FORCING people to get these things.
	What's not great is the government FORCING people to wear masks, FORCING them to lock down, FORCING them to do anything.
	We talked about this on TimCast IRL when Ian asked, what if it was an airborne Ebola?
	What if, what if?
	Sure.
	But fine.
	Fair question.
	I think we should think about it.
	If it was an airborne Ebola, and the death rate was 60% or some ridiculous number, I think most people would just lock their doors, stuff towels under the cracks of the doors, and then hide.
	But guess what?
	It's your choice.
	If you want to go out into the world full of dangers, and there are always dangers, it will always be your choice.
	On what authority should we allow, for what reason should we allow them to tell us we can't live our lives?
	I disagree with that.
	Donald Trump wants to take a bunch of funding and give it to Pfizer.
	My only problem is that he's giving no-bid, no-liability contracts to massive multinational corporations.
	Okay?
	So, that, on its face, I'm kind of like, I roll my eyes at and say, welcome to how the government operates.
	But when they come out and mandate it for, like, the military, for various jobs, you got a problem.
	Because you end up with stories of people who can't get it who are fired anyway.
	Nah, I don't play that.
	Now, of course, the corporate press wants to claim it's not coming.
	And I want to show you these ridiculous fact checks and tell you, actually, they probably are coming.
	I mean, we got a bunch of other stories.
	Here's one, August 27th.
	Vaccine-mandated health care facilities block college students.
	OK, so hospitals are having mandates.
	Is that what's going on?
	The Biden administration will encourage Americans to get new COVID-19 vaccine, Karine Jean-Pierre says.
	This is from August 28th.
	This is from yesterday.
	The media is lying.
	Here's what happens.
	And I'll give you a potential scenario.
	You've got the Biden administration saying we are seeing a rise in all of these COVID cases and mask mandates are coming back.
	So we are going to recommend a new COVID vaccine.
	What happens?
	The private institutions then say, based on the recommendation of the CDC and the World Health Organization, as well as the White House, we are instituting a requirement that you receive the vaccine.
	It's that simple.
	Joe Biden won't mandate it.
	Of course they won't.
	Maybe for the military, they'll say, no, no, it's a mandate only insofar as we have the authority, but we recommend it.
	And then private institutions will do the exact same thing.
	What did we talk about during the first lockdown?
	The Rat Hope Experiment.
	Remember that one?
	As the story goes, a man took three cylinders full of water and he placed rats in them.
	The rats swam desperately.
	They could not get out, for there was nothing to grab a hold of.
	Eventually, the rats became tired, and then just sank to the bottom, and died.
	I think it only took a matter of minutes, ten or so minutes, until the rats gave up and sank to their deaths.
	So, this man decided to do another experiment.
	Or, as part of the same experiment, he decided to do it again.
	This time, he put the rats in the cylinders, and they swam for about ten minutes before giving up and sinking, but then, he reached in and pulled them out, placed them down as they caught their breath, and then he dried them off and let them rest.
	Then he picked them back up, and put them back in the water.
	This time, They swam for 60 hours.
	You know why?
	Hope.
	The first time, it seemed hopeless.
	There was no point.
	No matter what they did, they couldn't do it, and it was just done, and they gave up.
	But for those rats that saw that hand save them, they thought, maybe, maybe if I just keep going, the hand will come and save me again.
	Only no.
	This time, he just watched as they swam for 60 hours and eventually gave up and died.
	I'm curious.
	I wonder what would happen if those rats after 60 hours were taken out, dried, and then placed back in the water.
	I have to imagine the third time, they'd probably just give up very, very quickly.
	Not necessarily because of willpower or hope, but because at that point they were too exhausted and drained of their ability to actually swim.
	And with that knowledge of the Rat Hope Experiment, the possibility we entertained was this.
	They will put us under hard lockdowns, stress us to the point of breaking and then.
unidentified		Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms for America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms for America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
		See you on the tour!
		They'll relent.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And we'll feel there is hope.
		That if we just hold out for a moment longer, the hand will come and save us again.
		So, with that in mind, what we had discussed on this show, as well as on TimCast IRL, was that perhaps they would once again place us in that water.
		The lockdowns.
		Only this time, they'll give you hope, remember?
		It only lasted about a year and a half.
		It will stop.
		But this time, it's forever.
		The lockdowns won't stop.
		They'll lock everybody down.
		They'll take away everything from you.
		You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
		So let me explain where I think we are.
		The Biden administration is encouraging this.
		These are grains of sand, my friend.
		Grains of sand, in and of themselves, are not a heap of sand.
		It's the analogy that I love.
		You know I say it all the time.
		How many grains of sand until you have a heap?
		You drop one grain of sand on the table, you have but a grain of sand.
		You drop two, now you have two.
		At what point does it become a heap?
		It's an opinion, I suppose.
		My view is this.
		With all the lingering evidence of desperation and a need to stop Donald Trump, and of course the agenda around, you know, 2030 and things like that, reducing carbon and all of these things, them claiming climate change is causing all of these fires, them calling for climate lockdowns, yeah, the evidence suggests we are being primed for more lockdowns.
		They can't just put us in this cylinder full of water and watch us drown because people will freak out and they'll react badly.
		There needs to be a priming so that the cultists and those who are frail and weak will just give in and go forward again.
		I've heard from a lot of people who say they don't think it's possible.
		There won't be more lockdowns because the people won't stand for it.
		I don't know if these people are familiar with the rat hope experiment.
		Because it's actually the second time around, people are more willing to accept it and actually wade through it for substantially longer periods of time.
		People may get angry.
		There may be a backlash.
		So I think what they do is you are primed.
		I don't I don't think that they just throw us right into that water.
		I think they slowly inch you towards it until finally you're standing looking over the edge and you're like, I guess this is going to happen.
		Let's talk about these fact checks.
		No support for viral claim that COVID-19 lockdowns are returning this fall.
		In recent weeks, COVID-19 cases, as estimated from wastewater data and COVID-19 hospitalizations, have been on the rise in the U.S.
		This comes as the Omicron variant, EG5, recently designated as a variant of interest by the World Health Organization, became the newly dominant variant in the country.
		This has led some public health experts to suggest that some people, especially those at higher risk of severe COVID-19, wear masks when going on the public.
		Now, hold on.
		It's from August 25th, updated August 28th.
		Some, some people, some people might need to wear a mask, they say.
		Those at risk, that's what they say.
		No basis.
		A TSA spokesperson denied Alex Jones' claims, noting that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, not the TSA, is the federal agency responsible for transportation mask requirements.
		TSA is unaware of such a requirement, the spokesperson told us in an email.
		There was no TSA meeting on the topic.
		Okay.
		A spokesperson says there was no meeting on the topic.
		Does that mean Alex Jones is wrong?
		No.
		Alex Jones says he talked to a TSA agent who said this thing may be happening.
		This doesn't disprove it in any way.
		Why are they putting out a fake debunk?
		This is completely fake.
		Now here's how I would phrase it.
		Me, if I was fact-checking it, I would ask the spokesperson and say, we're not sure who Alex Jones spoke with.
		The TSA is denying this.
		However, there is a basis for returning to COVID-19 restrictions.
		What's that basis?
		They are citing an increase in cases.
		Joe Biden's calling for a recommendation on the new vaccine.
	Schools and hospitals are implementing these mask mandates.
	While the TSA denies such claims, we are seeing in the periphery, these things are happening.
	Why lie?
unidentified		Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know what's really funny is this credentialism and expertism or whatever to call it, where you can have all of these things happening around you.
		I love this.
		Imagine you're standing betwixt a tsunami and a fire, and you are saying to yourself, my golly, it looks like a tsunami and a fire are coming from both sides.
		And the expert says, yes.
		But there's no evidence.
		And you're like, what do you mean?
		I can see the fire down there.
		I can see the tsunami down there.
		And they're like, yes, but we have not declared as the experts a formal emergency yet.
		So there's no basis for your claim.
		The tsunami or the fire will reach you.
		It's like, OK, well, I can see them.
		Yes, but until the experts decide you are wrong.
		Really?
		Wonderful.
		We've talked about what they must do to stop Donald Trump.
		I'm not convinced they can do anything.
		But one of the most powerful things they had during the 2020 election was the lockdowns.
		They took away sports, they took away movies, they took away entertainment, and people were locked in their homes.
		And the only thing they could do was watch the news while the news shrieked at the top of their lungs, Donald Trump's fault!
unidentified		None.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They knocked on your door and they came and they said, fill out the ballot and make it all go away.
		Now, I don't think that'll work.
		They may have to implement some kind of lockdown so they can... I'll put it this way.
		Donald Trump lost by 42,000 votes.
		That's what I said yesterday.
		That means that if even a small fraction of the people that filled out mail-in ballots last time around are not home this time around, Trump wins.
		If, during 2020, there was no lockdown, the Democrat activists would come and knock on the door and they'd say, we're here to pick up your ballot, but nobody answers.
		Why?
		Because the person who lives there is out partying, yeah, or working or doing whatever.
		With the lockdowns, everyone's forced to be at home.
		The activists can then knock on your door and say, hi, you want us all to go away?
		Fill out the ballot.
		And then you have a higher chance of success that someone will be there and say, sure, we'll fill out the ballots.
		Many people didn't know, didn't care.
		Some were angry, some were not.
		But the ballots got filled out.
		This gave Joe Biden a massive edge.
		They weren't voting for Joe Biden.
		That's how we got the votes.
		They were voting against Donald Trump because they kept telling them, well, it's Trump's fault.
		This is happening.
		He's the one who said we should do this.
		He's the one who said 15 days slow spread.
		In fact, it's so bad.
		Even conservative Republicans are blaming Trump for this.
		I don't blame Trump.
		You know, I gotta be honest.
		Hindsight is 20-20.
		The alpha strain of the virus was really, really bad.
		And as it grew weaker, as it spread, because of what viruses do, we started to say, hey, you know what?
		Maybe it's not so bad, but don't forget how bad it really was.
		I don't blame Trump for this.
		I don't.
		I think we were wrong.
		I think I was wrong.
		But I think we should learn and do better.
		I think there were signs and people we should have trusted more.
		Thomas Massey, for instance.
		We should not have trusted Fauci.
		Never was a big fan of the guy.
		But I'm not super bent out of shape about it.
		I don't care that Trump funded COVID vaccines.
		I care that they were mandated.
		I don't care about mRNA.
		I care that it's mandated.
		Trump should have fired Fauci.
		I think that's true.
		We talked about it quite a bit.
		There were questions about origins of COVID and all that, and Trump just blindly trusted him.
		But when Trump said 15 days to slow the spread, you know, I don't know.
		What am I supposed to say?
		I can say this now.
		Don't trust the government.
		They're not experts.
		They're not always right.
		They're just people like you or me, and they get things wrong.
		We have to make the decisions that we can make, and that's all we can do.
		I don't know where all of this ends up, but I can tell you, you know, we've got, here we go, this is from Reason, from August 22nd, dozens of colleges still require COVID vaccines.
		It is likely, in my opinion, we will see some kind of restriction or lockdown.
		I don't know for sure, because of course I can't see the future.
		But here's my, here's my prediction.
		I think the greatest probability is this.
		Joe Biden will recommend the new vaccine.
		Mask mandates will emerge more in hospitals and schools.
	We're already seeing it.
	It's already here.
	Okay, let me just stop.
	Mask mandates are back, period.
	Thank you and have a nice day.
	Let's do this.
	No basis, no support for viral claim.
	COVID lockdowns are returning this fall.
	They put lockdowns in quotes.
	What happened?
	Alex Jones said something about mask mandates.
	You know what he said?
	He said that, here's what they say.
	Clips of Jones began circulating, which frequently, blah, blah, blah, blah, help spread false claims, blah, blah, blah.
	If bureaucrats, do they even explain?
	Here we go.
	Specifically, in August 18 of Alex Jones Show, the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones claimed they told him new lockdowns are coming.
	Specifically, he said a high-level manager in the TSA told him that by mid-September, TSA and airport employees will be required to wear masks due to concerns over the new variant in Canada.
	There we go.
	Mask mandates are already back.
	In hospitals, no.
	But they're back.
	Schools and hospitals are already implementing them.
	Is Alex Jones' claim that a TSA agent said mask mandates are returning unreasonable?
	No.
	In fact, it's completely reasonable because, once again, schools and hospitals have already reinstated this.
	For this, they ran a fact check saying false.
	And they put lockdowns.
	No support for the claim?
	What do you mean?
	Schools are doing it!
	Hospitals are doing it!
	Okay.
	The media is lying.
	I don't know why, whatever.
	But I will say this.
	The probability, in my opinion, is that they... There will be mask mandates in various areas.
	Again, they're already here.
	Vaccine requirements will be recommendations.
	Potentially, what happens is the CDC, the World Health Organization, the White House, recommend the vaccine, and thus private organizations then say, based on the recommendation of the CDC, we require it.
	The mandates will come from the private sector, not from the public sector.
	Joe Biden will then say, we're not locking you down.
	It's up to private businesses to determine if they're going to do this or not.
	Democrats are going to say, we're not doing this.
	The corporations are doing it.
	People could protest the corporations all day and night.
	You can't blame Joe Biden for this.
	But because of it, they can then say, we need to expand universal mail-in voting.
	They'll then say, we encourage everyone to quarantine because of the escalation in COVID.
	You know how bad it can be.
	And here we go.
	Businesses cannot discriminate against employees who choose to quarantine.
	No one's being forced to quarantine, but you can't fire someone who does make that choice.
	Uh-oh.
	Then what?
	Well, for those that do quarantine, the businesses can file for a relief.
	Uh-huh.
	A PPP.
	Payroll Protection Program.
	They'll say, it is not us that is requiring this.
	We are sorry, businesses, but you can't fire someone because they're trying to take public health seriously.
	You cannot discriminate against an employee who is trying to stop the spread of COVID.
	We didn't force anyone to do this, but I'll tell you this.
	If your employees do choose, we'll cover that cost.
	It'll be a cheaper mass spending program than we saw last time, but that's the potentiality.
	Let me stress once again, I don't know that any of this does happen, but the idea from the corporate press that there's no basis for it is a lie.
	They need this because they want to win politically.
	Does it mean there's no medical bases?
	Don't look at me, I'm not a doctor.
	I can only tell you this.
	Politics is where my position stands.
	They will push this for political reasons.
	Talk to your doctor about what makes sense for you, I don't know.
	But don't be surprised when the politicians exploit a crisis to gain power.
	The question is, where will the Republicans stand on it?
	Don't know for sure.
	A lot of them are gonna come out like Nikki Haley and Chris Christie and be like, what do you mean?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		We gotta do it!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's for people's health!
		Nikki Haley is gonna say her stupid neocon garbage.
		And then we'll see.
		I can tell you this, expect the media to lie.
		Expect the government to lie.
		It's what they're really good at and what they do.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, I've read some crazy conspiracy theories in my day.
		It's fun to read them because sometimes it's fun to imagine the world is more magical than it really is, but often the world is more routine.
		Hence, the curse.
		May you live in interesting times.
		Because most people prefer to live in boring times.
		I know, boring is boring, but routine can be more peaceful.
		You have more opportunities for happiness, success, you strive, your passions, you accomplish.
		You explore, you live with your loved ones.
		Interesting times, historically, would be, well, kind of chaotic.
		There's death, there's risk, and for many people, yeah, you don't want to live in that stressful environment.
		I sometimes look at the Noble Rabbit!
		And it must suck.
		Little critters out there eating grass, stressed, 24-7, just like at any moment something's gonna come and eat you.
		But I've read a lot of these conspiracy theories because they're fun.
		They're fun to read.
		Some are more stupid and absurd, you know, Flat Earth conspiracies that there's an armed naval force guarding the ice wall or whatever nonsense some people believe.
		I'm not saying every Flat Earther believes that.
		Flat Earthers got mad at me about that.
		But, uh, some are more based on reality, to varying degrees.
		There's one where, you know, there's conspiracies about the World Health Organization and stuff, and the cabal, and the plan, and the global domination, and I'm like, I roll my eyes at some of that stuff.
		I say some of it because some of it, you know, is much more simple.
		And what happens is, you'll get someone who takes a tiny morsel of truth and then can stretch it out to an extreme degree.
		Which brings me to the latest crackpot conspiracy from everyone's favorite neolib Rachel Maddow.
		Rachel Maddow worries Trump will probably be president for life if he wins in 2024.
		Cue all the Trump supporters laughing, clapping, and cheering, saying, I want to agree with that.
		Trump being president for life.
		First, let's break down what that really means.
		Donald Trump is, what is he, 78 years old?
		President for life for Trump?
		His life expectancy, average life expectancy, he's about there.
		So, for life means maybe one more term.
		Maybe if he really is president beyond his second term, it'll only be a couple more years.
		So Rachel Maddow's president for life argument is actually quite hilarious because she's actually correct.
		Like, let's just be honest.
		With all due respect to Trump, the average life expectancy of a U.S.
		American male, uh, I'm sorry, of an American male, redundant, is about 79.
		So if Trump becomes president, then like, sure, okay, I guess.
		President for life, meaning the rest of his average life expectancy.
		But the reality is she's claiming he'll probably be president to his 90s or something like this.
		There'll be no more elections.
		The government will fall.
		And this is why they must, they must file these legal challenges to have Donald Trump removed from the ballot.
		And while all that's actually going on, it's quite funny.
		You've got this from the Washington Post, how secretaries of state could keep Trump off the ballot.
		You have Politico, this one from just the other day.
		New Hampshire Republicans feud over bid to knock Trump off ballot.
		You have from the Hill, Florida lawyer files challenge to disqualify Trump from 2024 race and the coup de grace.
		My favorite article here is NBC News saying Trump supporters flood New Hampshire election office with calls after false claim about ballot access.
		Conservative talk show host Charlie Kirk claimed the state was trying to keep Donald Trump off the primary ballot in 2024.
		What?
		Apparently the developmentally disabled individuals who write for NBC News did not read the news and didn't actually look into what anyone was talking about.
		I feel for them.
		Perhaps they are not qualified to do this job.
		But while all of these fringe, psychotic individuals are desperately trying to keep Trump off the ballot, we can see their motivations clear as day.
		They say MSNBC host notes that in the current political movement, far-right politics is coinciding with far-right violence.
		It's a lie, mind you, but let's break it down.
		In response to a New York Times report Monday about Donald Trump's legal strategy, Rachel Maddow laid out for MSNBC viewers the stakes of the 2024 election as she sees them.
		Concerned by the news that Trump's plan is to win the 2024 presidential election and then use the levers of power to make his myriad legal problems go away, Maddow warned that if he wins, it means he's probably president for life.
		Meadow also connected all of that to the surge in right-wing violence against racial minorities.
		That's a lie, by the way.
		That's not really happening.
		And members of the LGBTQ over the last few years, and urged people not to act as if our politics exist in a vacuum somewhere outside the rest of our lives.
		Watch the whole clip above.
		Okay, sure.
	Well, depending on how long it is.
	Four minutes?
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		This morning, heading into what we knew would be two big important court hearings on these Trump cases today, in federal court in Georgia and federal court in D.C., reporter Alan Foyer wrote a scene-setting piece about those two court hearings today for the New York Times, for the morning paper this morning, sort of reminding us all where this may be heading.
		He said towards the end of his article this morning, quote, the timetables for Mr. Trump's four trials have taken on outsize importance.
		That's not only because there are so many of them, but also because they're unfolding against Trump's crowded calendar as the candidate leading the field for the Republican Party's 2024 presidential nomination.
		As a further complication, Trump has made no secret in private conversations with his aides— We get it.
		—of his desire—known that was probably what he was planning, probably what he was thinking.
		Per the New York Times, it does seem sort of significant that that's what he's now telling people.
		That's what he's telling people he's going to do.
		He will solve his jumble of legal problems by winning the election.
		And, you know, whatever you think about that, that's how he's thinking about that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And?
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		And what does that say about the election for all of the rest of us?
		Right?
		It means in his own mind and those of his campaign and his supporters, presumably, these are the stakes.
		And again, whatever you think about that as a legal strategy for Trump, that is how he is thinking about the election.
		And that is how he is going to be talking to his supporters and his aides and his campaign about the stakes of the election.
		The election means one of two things, if this is the way he's going to approach it.
		Either he loses the election and he goes to prison, or he wins the election, he doesn't go to prison, and is that for life?
		That he gets to be president?
		Will we keep having more elections or no?
		If every election is a new opportunity for him to go to prison, do you think he allows us to have new elections?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh my.
		I mean, if those are the stakes, if winning the election is his plan to stay out of prison... Okay, just keep saying the same thing over and over again, lady.
		I get it, you have nothing else to say.
		Probably president for life because Trump doesn't want to go to prison.
		Absolutely amazing.
		And she's citing this report where they say Trump has made it no secret that he's like, if I don't win, I go to jail.
		Yeah, we all know that!
		So here's the real issue.
		You know what?
		I agree with her.
		That Trump supporters do think these are the stakes.
		Either Trump wins or he goes to prison.
		I don't agree with her in a crackpot legal theory that Trump trying to avoid prison will just keep winning elections or prevent them from happening because that's not possible.
		Unless, of course, there is a massive shift in confidence among the military and they decide to just do whatever Trump says and shut things down.
		Not possible.
		This is why, partly why, they're trying to shut down the election.
unidentified		Right?
unidentified		Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So let me get this straight.
		Rachel Maddow and other crackpot neolibs and leftists terrified that Donald Trump will win the election, destroy these, shut down these false criminal charges.
		He'll become president for life.
		Their justification for trying to end the 2024 election cycle to prevent there from being an election is to stop Trump from preventing there be an election.
		Accuse your opponents that of what you are doing.
		Filing criminal charges against Trump, trying to remove his name from the ballot across the board, is cheating in the 2024 election.
		Now, it pains me to say Republicans will do nothing.
		I mean, it pains me to say that, you know, in the sense that we wish someone, somewhere, would do something.
		And some people are, but it's certainly not the Republican Party.
		We'll see if they do anything in 2024.
		There are some files being released on Joe Biden.
		There is an investigation going on, being launched by some Republicans, but for the most part, they do nothing.
		While Democrats across the board launch all of these criminal indictments against Donald Trump, his lawyers, and now there's even investigations of certain media personalities, What do the Republicans do?
		Nothing, because they're in on it, for the most part.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We can't get a single local DA or state AG or anybody to file any charges against any of these people.
		How wonderfully pathetic.
		After reading the section, Maddow continued, I know that learning that Trump has been saying that privately to staffers is not shocking, right?
		We've known that was probably what he was planning, probably what he was thinking.
		It does seem sort of significant, that's what he's telling people.
		She just keeps saying the same thing over and over again.
		What does it say about the election for the rest of us?
		In light of this, she says that either he loses or goes to prison or he wins.
		If Trump and his supporters see the stakes as losing and going to prison or winning and being president, and probably president for life, How should we expect he and the Republican Party, Republican officials in swing states, are going to handle the conduct of that election that Trump may very well lose?
		So what's funny is, she talks about the rise in violence from the right.
		I'll just address this very quickly.
		We have this from the Volokh Conspiracy at Reason.com.
		Mass shooters by race and Hispanic ethnicity not far from the population as a whole.
		I don't think there's a very strong argument for a racial component in mass shootings in any direction.
		You know, you get a lot of people on the right that try to say that, you know, the black population is more responsible.
		The left says the white population is more responsible.
		Well, let's just break it down.
		We do see that, as for the percentage of population, Asians are represented twice as much, disproportionately, in the percentage of mass shooters.
		6.6, but only being 3.6% of the population.
		Black people in this country, 17.4% of mass shooters, despite only being 12.3% of the population.
		Then you have Hispanic, lower 8.3 despite being 12.5% of the population.
		Native American, 2.5 times higher.
		White and non-Hispanic, 54.5% of mass shooters but only 62.6% of the population.
		And then there's other and unspecified.
		So for this, I would say, if there's any consideration, it's that Asians are two times more likely based on their population size, but ultimately, I don't think these numbers are very significant.
		I think it's more cultural than anything.
		So when the left tries to come out and says that white people are causing all this violence against minority groups, it's like, well, at the very least, you can say white people are underrepresented, white non-Hispanics are underrepresented in the percentage of mass shooters as to the percentage of population.
		And then you can say that Asian and black individuals and Native Americans are overrepresented.
		But I gotta be honest, it's not that much.
		I think any argument over a psychopathic individual, psychotic individual, committing a mass shooting, and you're looking at their race for the reason, I just, I think that's silly and stupid.
		And a lot of this can be explained by historical trends, socioeconomic figures, values, but also I do think There are racial components not in the race of the individual, but in the ideology of the individual.
		That is to say that there are many people who are overtly racist of very different races.
		That being said, Rachel Maddow is trying to play that game.
		Yeah, I'm not gonna play that game with her.
		These people are crackpots.
		And because of this, they believe that fearing Donald Trump will be president for life, they are justified in removing Donald Trump from the ballot.
		Let me say that again.
		I know I said it earlier, but I'll repeat myself in the style of Rachel Maddow.
		So they're basically saying, to save the elections, we must stop there from being an election.
		Okay.
		Look, I get it.
		You can fight fire with fire.
		It's called a controlled burn.
		Farmers will burn a strip of their crops or whatever to stop the fire from spreading.
		Fine.
		But this is just a lie.
		This is Democrats knowing they're going to lose, and then Trump is going to probably fire some people?
		I say probably because I'm not even convinced Trump gets an AG who's going to actually indict anybody.
		It's funny, you look at what Trump did the first time around, and it's like, do they really think that Trump is gonna go nuclear?
		That he'll be president for life?
		Dude wouldn't even invoke the Insurrection Act or call the National Guard to stop riots.
		Or, I should say, not the National Guard, but invoke the Insurrection Act, because it's the states that do the National Guard.
		Trump could have fired Fauci, he didn't.
		Trump put on John Bolton.
		There's a lot of things to criticize Trump on.
		Now, I do think you are more likely to get firings and prosecutions with Trump than anyone else.
		Even DeSantis.
		Maybe Vivek, but I'm not entirely convinced.
		I still think Trump, it's like, well, you know, 51% maybe.
		So I'll take it.
		I think the real issue is they're concerned.
		If the chance is 51%, even 50.1%, that they go to prison?
		They will burn down this country to stop it.
		Oh, here's our good friend Jennifer Rubin.
	Here we go.
	Oh, no, don't worry.
	No one's trying to take Trump off the ballot except all of these politicians, the Democrats, and all these fake corporate press journalists.
	The Washington Post.
	Rarely do legal scholars compel government officials to embark on an unprecedented and hugely consequential course of action.
	But that is precisely what William Baud and Michael Stokes Paulson, authors of the Law Review article regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and the intellectual powerhouse duo, Michael Littig and Lawrence Tribe, have done.
	In a remarkably short time, they have driven home the implications of Section 3, that all officials with a role in the presidential election process must consider disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the ballot if he either engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, or gave aid and comfort to the enemies of that Constitution.
	Secretaries of State certainly have heard them loud and clear.
	Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson appeared on MSNBC, emphasized her plan to consider the issue exclusively based on applicable law, without partisan considerations, expressing concern that this issue could become weaponized in future elections.
	Benson also indicated that she would be conferring with secretaries of state in Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, but she smartly recognized that whatever she and other secretaries decide, the issue will undoubtedly travel to the Supreme Court for a final determination.
	Likewise, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlon said recently, when somebody makes a reasoned argument about what those provisions mean, I feel an obligation to at least listen to them.
	He added, a decision of that magnitude and that's a decision of deciding that somebody is not qualified to run a person is extraordinary and it really has to be treated with that degree of importance.
	That attitude serves as a model for not only secretaries of state but also all other officials blah blah blah blah blah.
	We get it, we get it, we get it.
	Now, Secretaries of State and other officials must grapple with how to make the determination.
	Does state law require they obtain a ruling from the State Attorney General or other legal official?
	Do they conduct open hearings to provide transparency and educate voters?
	There are no easy answers because we have never witnessed the accused instigator of an attempted insurrection run for president.
	And although Trump is not yet the nominee, it would be reckless not to prepare for the strong likelihood the Republican primary voters vote to nominate their cult leader.
	And that, in turn, raises a critical point.
	Primary voters, who might be contemptuous of the demands of democracy, should at the very least understand that they risk nominating someone who might not be on the ballot in one or more states.
	They could gamble that the hyper-partisan Supreme Court will ride to Trump's rescue.
	Hypocritically, ignoring the plain text of the amendment, do primary voters want to run that risk?
	A point that I brought up on IRL, discussing this with Eric Hundley.
	I said, will they use testimony in the Georgia case to justify removing Trump from the ballot?
	And Eric said, they can't.
	Trump's not convicted.
	And I said, that doesn't matter.
	This lawsuit is a civil argument, not a criminal argument.
	And he says, but he's not convicted.
	The point is this.
	Trump does not need to be convicted for a Secretary of State to simply say, it is beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion, that Trump engaged in insurrection.
	Therefore, he's removed from the ballot.
	And then you can file your lawsuit to the state court.
	Good luck.
	They'll do this in October of next year.
	They'll say just before the printing and release of early ballots, and they'll say, sue us.
	And they will.
	And it'll go to the Michigan court that will bang the gavel and say, we have no authority to make a determination on whether or not Trump did or did not engage in insurrection.
	That's for the Secretary of State to decide.
	Dismissed.
	Or better yet, they'll say, you are not the aggrieved and you have no standing.
	Donald Trump will be required to personally file in all of these states.
	And then they'll say, you are not the voter or the voting body Therefore, you have no standing.
	They will simply make up a reason.
	Of course, it could maybe go to the Supreme Court.
	So by January, the Supreme Court will be like, Trump's name should be on the ballot.
	Oh, the election's over?
	Well, maybe next time.
	So here's what I see.
	As it happens...
	As we begin to see the attempts to remove Trump's name from the ballot, and many people said it would never happen.
	Oh, here we are.
	I'm just, I'm so annoyed.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	I'm so annoyed.
	And ladies, you know, we don't want to exclude the ladies here, from everybody who keeps telling me over and over and over again, it's never going to happen.
	It's never going to happen.
	It's never going to happen.
	And then it keeps happening.
	Lord have mercy!
	Stop saying it's not going to happen.
	They won't indict Trump.
	Then they do.
	They're not going to go after anyone else.
	Just Trump.
	Then they go after his staff.
	Well, I mean, but that's where it stops.
	They're not going to go after his lawyers.
	Then they go after his lawyers.
	It's not going to result in... Yes.
unidentified		It will.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It does.
		It's happening.
		It's remarkable how many people said they would never indict him.
		It's remarkable how many people said street violence would not escalate to murders.
		We now have the Republican Council people who were murdered.
		We have a GOP guy murdered in his own home.
		Maybe it was a domestic dispute.
		We don't know.
		We had Aaron Danielson.
		We have the Summer of Love.
		You know, one city... I can't remember.
		I saw this.
		I glimpsed it.
		One city paid out something like $5 million to the extremists over their riots because the police acted too harshly.
		The game is rigged.
		And it's funny because there's no off-ramp.
		All of it keeps happening.
		They're not going to remove Trump's name from the ballot.
		Trump can't win anyways.
		Now it's begun.
		So, maybe Trump's name doesn't get removed from the ballot.
		They are certainly trying to do it.
		They, as in the anti-Trump faction, the never Trumpers, Democrats, neolibs, etc.
		They're trying to put the dude in prison.
		They just scheduled his trial date for the day before Super Tuesday.
		At this point, anybody who says they would not, just, the door's there, okay?
		You know, we had one of our members say they would not bring back lockdowns that go too far, and that we're probably clickbaiting and fearmongering, and now where are we?
		Yeah, it's been a week, and we've already got vax mandates at universities being Reinforced is a better way to put it.
		They've always been there.
		They never got rid of them.
		We have new mask mandates emerging and Joe Biden calling for a new vaccine to be recommended, which likely maybe could result in private businesses saying, well, as per the White House CDC and WHO recommendation, we will require them for our private business.
		And so this idea like it's not going to happen, they can't get away with it.
		Like, well, here we are.
		Schools are closing.
		Mask mandates are already reinstated at hospitals and schools.
		Newspapers are calling for more.
		Stop saying it can't happen because it literally just keeps happening.
		That's all.
		All that happens is it keeps happening.
		There you go.
		So where do we end up?
		It is very likely, in my opinion, you will see a unilateral decree to remove Trump's name from the ballot somewhere.
		And then it all comes crashing down.
		Don't say it can't happen.
		I'm not interested in the optimism bias.
		It is now normalcy bias to assume this will happen.
		The longest time.
		Many people suffered from what's called optimism bias and normalcy bias.
		Optimism bias is a bias which affects people.
		They think the bad thing can't happen.
		No, no, no, no, bad thing can't- civil war can't happen, bad thing can't happen.
		Yes, go look up the first battle of Balron, the Battle of Manassas, where the civil war, uh, officially, you can say Sumpter was the beginning, no one really died except for a guy who accidentally, you know, blew himself up or something like that.
		Nobody thought there was going to be a real conflict.
		So they were picnicking, as the story goes.
		Optimism bias.
		And we've all suffered from that for a long time.
		Maybe people have been disabused of this notion after seeing all of this, but we still have normalcy bias.
		People who keep saying, it won't happen!
		It won't happen!
		It's never happened!
		It won't happen!
		And then it happens.
		And I'm just like, dude, at a certain point, it is normal to assume this will escalate.
		Will they indict Trump?
	No, that can't happen.
	It's never happened before.
	Then they indicted him.
	Okay.
	Well, that's going to be the extent of it.
	I can't imagine.
	And they indicted him again and again and again.
	And people just keep saying it won't happen.
	And I'm like, bro, I'd like you to go back in time and track all of the things that you kept saying would not happen.
	And look where we are, right?
	Here's my point about Rachel Maddow.
	I think it's stupid for her to say that Donald Trump will be president for life.
	But that's why I said early on, she's correct.
	The view of Trump supporters is either Trump wins or he goes to prison.
	Now, I think the way she sees the world is fairly broken, but she makes an interesting point, a mirror image to who we are and what we represent.
	In her mind, Donald Trump is a psychotic, Hitlerian despot who is trying to take over this country through force and an insurrection.
	And as they write for the Rep, or I'm sorry, it wasn't the Rep, I think is what she said, they're going to elect their cult leader.
	They genuinely believe, not all of them, but some of them, because they're very, very Let's just say, cognitively deficient, to be polite, individuals, they think that there is a Nazi rise happening in this country, and they keep regurgitating these lies.
	It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, what matters is they believe it.
	That's why I say she's correct.
	Her view of things...
	Represents we are split.
	I sit before you today saying they will, they will likely remove Trump's name from the ballot.
	I don't think it's a crackpot conspiracy theory on par with Rachel Maddow saying Trump will be president for life.
	But in their world, they view this as and everything I'm saying about civil war and all that as insane.
	But that's why I push back and say they are the ones who insane are insane because I'll make it simple for you guys.
	They sit before you and say that Donald Trump wants to be president for life, that he's facing serious legal dilemmas and seeks to become president to absolve himself of any accountability, that he waged an insurrection and rebellion against this country, instructing his supporters to storm the Capitol and steal power.
unidentified		But there's no civil war happening!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Come on.
		Either you think Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who's trying to overthrow the U.S.
		government, which implies civil strife leading to civil war, or you think you're the baddies trying to steal power, and then there's still civil strife leading to a civil war.
		What is the argument that this doesn't escalate?
		I'd like to hear it.
		Because you can certainly say people get tired of it, they start focusing on other things.
		But yo, we've been in an election cycle since 2015.
		It's never stopped.
		Not a day has gone by that we have not been in an election cycle.
		So here we are, entering the next phase where, a year out, they are already making their moves to remove Trump under crackpot conspiracy theory ideas that Trump wants to be president for life, that he tried to wage an insurrection, or that he did and failed.
		That's it.
		Tell me I'm wrong.
		Fine.
		We live in a bifurcated country.
		I think they will remove Trump's name from the ballot unilaterally.
		I don't know the probability to which that is.
		I don't think it's absolute.
		For all those who don't quite understand, because they're cognitively deficient, many of these people on the left, these liberals, live in a world of black and whites.
		When I say I believe that they will remove Trump's name from the ballot in some state unilaterally, what I mean to say is, to clarify for all of you who can't quite understand, is the probability lies with his name being removed.
		But that could be 51% for all I know.
		In fact, it could be 30%.
		And it's just that there is no greater percentage of the plurality falls with Donald Trump being removed.
		It's possible there's a bunch of outcomes.
		His name is challenged.
		His name is obfuscated.
		They flip someone else's name.
		Whatever.
		I don't know what the end result is.
		There are many different variables lying before us.
		But if you think it stops here and Democrats do not make moves to try and cheat beyond just arresting Trump, then you're incredibly naive.
		The idea that it stops here is stupid.
		Because every step of the way, when I've been like, wow, this thing just happened, I believe the likely outcome will be this other thing.
		And people have said, no, that can't happen.
		Then it did.
		I simply look at it this way.
		I read the news.
		You have a story where it's like person A steals $1,000 from, you know, from this lemonade stand.
		And then I go, wow.
		Lemonade Stand lost $1,000?
		Are they insured?
		They're not insured?
		I guess the Lemonade Stand's gonna go out of business.
		Ladies and gentlemen, I think tomorrow there won't be a Lemonade Stand.
		And people go, oh no, the Lemonade Stand can't go away, it's been there forever!
		And I'm like, but they can't pay their bills now, and then the next day it's like, breaking news, Lemonade Stand shuts down because they have no money.
		That's basically how I see what's going on.
		And you know what I can't predict?
		Maybe the uncle of the lemonade stand owner swoops in with a bailout.
		And I go, okay, well, I couldn't have known about that.
		I'm just saying, based on X, the next thing that's most likely, without any changes, will be Y.
		You get street violence.
		The media lies about it.
		You get these high-profile incidents.
		The media lies about it.
		And I say, well the likely scenario then, if these things are happening, is that this thing will happen.
		And then sure enough, there it is.
		So I don't know exactly what happens.
		I am just telling you.
		If they're claiming that Trump wants to be president for life and he's an evil despot trying to avoid accountability, and he's an insurrectionist who tried to steal political power, and they're trying to put him in jail, I'd actually say it's easier to believe they unilaterally remove his name from the ballot because they've indicted him for a RICO and his lawyers.
		You know, in terms of what is believable five years ago, if I said, in 2024, some Secretary of State will try and take Trump's name off the ballot or would actually do it, you'd be like, wow, that's crazy.
		I don't know about that.
		I mean, they might try.
		And then I said, also, Trump and his lawyers will be indicted for criminal conspiracy.
		Oh, that's crazy.
	Right?
	The point is, Trump being indicted is crazier to think would happen than Trump's name being off the ballot.
	They could say that you could remove Trump's name from a ballot for a variety of reasons.
	It is easier, in my view, to believe they removed Trump's name from the ballot than they indicted him.
	But they already indicted him!
	If they're willing to do that, how far are they willing to go?
	So, my friends, we'll see.
	We'll see.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	I gotta be honest with you guys, periodically, and if you watch all my videos you know this, there are videos where I have to talk about the news, but boy I just don't care.
	Really don't care, but I kinda care.
	From the Postmillennial, National Archives drags heels on release of 5,400 records related to Biden's pseudonyms after June 2022 FOIA request.
	NARA said they've identified approximately 5,138 email messages, 25 electronic files, and 200 pages of potentially responsive records that must be reviewed before release.
	Okay, alright, let's slow down.
	The story is basically that there's like 5,400 emails where Biden was using a fake name so he could conduct business with his son.
	Well, while he's vice president.
	Okay, it's really important that you know this happened and is happening, but at what point is it, like, just redundant?
	Does it matter?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Biden's corrupt.
	News at 11.
	You know what I mean?
	We should talk about this every day.
	And typically when I get into these moods, I'm like, I get it.
	We can't let this become normal.
	Where we start to say, we all know Biden's corrupt.
	We all know he was engaged in illicit business deals.
	But at this point, it's not news anymore.
	We can't get to that point.
	There are a bunch of stories I've covered in the past where this has happened, where it's like, dude, everybody knows.
	Is anyone going to really care about this?
	Here we go again.
	Here's the challenge.
	For me, it gets boring being like, oh, look, more evidence that we already know Joe Biden is as crooked as can be.
	And without that shock factor of like a big drop where we lay it all out, it's a slow roll and people just say, I get it, I don't care.
	And then what happens?
	I make a video about it.
	I say, hey, everybody, more evidence that Joe Biden's corrupt.
	They don't click on it because they're like, I know, man, whatever.
	So it's a bit depressing.
	But that being said, here's the news.
	The Daily Mail reports President Joe Biden may have used pseudonyms in nearly 5,400 emails, electronic records and documents when he was vice president.
	A bombshell letter from NARA reveals the trove of communications was confirmed.
	and for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, filed the Freedom of Information Act for emails connected
	to aliases allegedly used by Biden, including Robin Ware, Robert L.
	Peters, and JRB Ware.
	JRB Ware.
	Republicans have been demanding the release of the emails they say could show Biden used
	the names to discuss foreign business with his son and share information on countries
	where he was doing deals.
	The White House has insisted Biden was never in business with his son,
	and vice presidents and high-level government officials often use synonyms to prevent being
	inundated with spam and emails from the public.
	At the time, the Obama administration dismissed criticism the communications were secret because they were all archived.
	But the sheer volume of emails raises questions over whether then VP Biden broke the absolute
	wall he said he maintained between the personal and private and the government.
	Emails from Hunter's laptop also reveal business partners referred to Biden as
	the big guy. That's right. What did it say? Like H will hold 10% for the big guy or something?
unidentified		Or...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh boy, what's this?
		Staffers used Biden's other address, Robert L. Peters, at PCI.gov to send a message about meeting then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
		Hunter was copied in on that email.
		Why?
		Why was Hunter copied in an email where the Vice President is talking to a world leader?
unidentified		Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Very interesting, to say the least.
		Now look, I would not be surprised if after all this breaks, they get us all riled up and say, yeah, they're doing business.
		Information drops that Donald Trump was also conducting business.
		Yeah, I don't care.
		The left likes to maintain this narrative that Trump support is all a bunch of cultists.
		No, Trump gets booed sometimes.
		You know, Trump says things people don't like sometimes, but people typically like him because he's just a bully.
		He's their bully.
		It's like being, you know, the way I described it before is like, imagine being on a playground, and there is a schoolyard bully.
		He's not like the worst guy, he doesn't really pick on everybody, but if you're mean to him, he's mean back.
		And then, you get to stand behind him.
		So the other kids who are bullying, you gotta bully, like, you got your own, you got your own guy.
		He's like, I'm not gonna bully anybody, but he's gonna bully back the other bullies.
		You see what I'm saying?
		In this instance, if it turns out that Donald Trump is doing business dealings, and I believe he was, uh, already criticized him for that.
		Yeah, remember when Trump tried to have the G7 at Trump Doral in Florida?
		He got roasted by everyone, even his own supporters.
		And then he came out and was like, okay, fine.
		Now, many of his supporters defended him.
		There's a fair point to be made.
		He was saying, if we have this meeting at my golf course, we do it at cost.
		It saves the government money.
		Fair, but it also provides, uh, covers expenses to maintain Trump Dorrell.
		That is, employees will get paid, Trump won't personally profit, but revenue is generated for his business, which can help his business stay afloat.
		There's personal gain there, no matter what.
		Trump backed down, it's okay, fine, we won't do it.
		There was also, I believe it was a State Department website, in the UK was advertising, uh, Trump's golf courses, or resorts.
		Not, not okay.
		And there were instances where, I believe it was members of the Air Force, I'm not sure, stayed at one of his resorts.
		Same argument.
		Trump personally benefits, even if it is at cost.
		Now, there's a fair argument to say he's saving the government money, which is you, the taxpayer.
		Okay, fair.
		But he privately benefits, even if it's, you know, just by covering costs.
		Already criticized Trump for this.
		The issue with Joe Biden is that he's lying about it every step of the way, and more importantly, When when Victor Shokin, the prosecutor in Ukraine, was investigating Burisma, Hunter Biden and his associates contacted D.C.
		for help.
		Joe Biden then flies out, goes to the president and says, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the billion dollars.
		Joe Biden has no authority to withhold congressionally approved loan guarantees.
		And what does the left say?
		Burisma wasn't being investigated by Shoken.
		Sorry, Shoken says he was.
		Sworn affidavit and there's documents of the open investigation.
		But they were on hold.
		Doesn't mean anything.
		On hold or otherwise.
		If they were on hold, could it be for procedural reasons?
		Could it be for evidentiary reasons?
		I don't care.
		The investigations were happening.
		Hunter Biden and his associates made this phone call.
		Yeah, but it was in line with foreign policy.
		The president wanted it.
		The president has no authority to deny or reject congressionally approved loan guarantees.
		That was the argument the left made over when Donald Trump called Ukraine and said, what's going on with this Biden thing?
		They impeached Donald Trump for investigating criminal activity carried out by the Bidens.
		What a world, huh?
		By all means, criticize Donald Trump.
		I ain't gonna sit here and tell you otherwise.
		It's fine.
		I'm talking about Joe Biden.
		Don't give me any whatabouts.
		If you could come to me and show me that Donald Trump went to a foreign leader and said, I will block your country's weapons unless you give my son millions of dollars.
		Yeah, we got a conversation.
	But I got bad news for you.
	You know, when you come and you talk about Abraham Accords, when you talk about Ivanka's copyrights in other countries, private deals, I don't like.
	In fact, I think they're very bad.
	You know, I get it.
	It's the family.
	It's private.
	But I don't like it.
	I don't like influence peddling.
	If you want to claim that, you know, Trump derailed all that stuff, those are bad things Trump should be criticized for.
	And I'm not going to defend Trump for doing things I think are bad.
	But Joe Biden?
	Yet Joe Biden engaged in a quid pro quo and that, at the very least by your own standard, is impeachable.
	And Donald Trump seeking to investigate that quid pro quo was impeached.
	That specific reference is hypocrisy and for which I believe Joe Biden should be impeached.
	Maybe impeachment isn't the right word, he should retroactively be 14th Amendment-ed or something for a seditious conspiracy against the United States.
	Because now, with that evidence, or not even retroactively, now with that evidence we can see he's sending all of this money to Ukraine, and I'm not convinced it's legitimate.
	I believe that Joe Biden is likely sending all of this money to Ukraine because he owes them a favor.
	That's right.
	Donald Trump wanted dirt.
	I actually think that Joe Biden only ran because they knew Trump was investigating what was going on with his corrupt deal.
	Trump saw a video online of Joe Biden bragging about withholding congressionally approved loan guarantees and benefiting his son and then called him and said, what was this about?
	Can you investigate this?
	And for that, they said impeach him quick.
	Oh, and he had help from the CIA.
	He had help from Democrat.
	They had help from the CIA.
	They had help from Democrat lawyers to get him removed.
	So yeah, perhaps after Shokin's sworn statements and testimony, and the evidence we've already collected from all of these reports now, Joe Biden, oh, he's lying the whole time, perhaps now not only could we impeach, But after that, we could have criminal charges against this man who engaged in a, what I would describe as a seditious conspiracy against the United States to subvert the nation's interests for personal gain, leading us into what could become World War III.
	I believe Joe Biden should be impeached, convicted, then indicted, then criminally convicted, and then imprisoned.
	But you know what?
	Fair point.
	Dude's too old.
	Put an ankle monitor on him, lock him in his Delaware house, and be done with it.
	I think this is all abjectly criminal, and it's staring us in the face.
	But I must confess, at a certain point, I don't know what else there is to be said.
	We know he's doing it.
	We know it happens.
	And then what?
	I don't know.
	And then what?
	That's it.
	And then what?
	We're sitting here waiting for the Republicans, with all this information coming out, to just do something about it.
	And do they?
unidentified		Well, they're doing a little bit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want to remain optimistic, but I don't know if I can.
		Perhaps they're waiting until next year to drop the hammer.
		Have him impeached just before election or something?
		October surprise?
		I have no idea.
		I'm just not all that confident.
		And all I can say is, once again, we'll see.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment is coming up at 6 p.m.
		on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
		Here's my analogy for all of you.
		Imagine you go to your local grocery store and purchase a gallon tub of chocolate fudge swirl ice cream.
		One of those big plastic tubs.
unidentified		And you crack it open, you get a big spoonful.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Mmm, delicious.
		And right when you strike again, you hit something.
		Something hard.
		And you scoop the ice cream away and see a dead rat.
		And you go, oh, well I'm outraged by this.
		You know, there's a dead rat here in my ice cream.
		And you keep eating it.
		Yo, I'm not gonna help you out, okay?
		If you have dead rat in your ice cream and you keep eating it while complaining about it, I'm not entirely convinced you are serious enough in your concerns about what you are currently doing.
		Which brings me to the story.
		This is the story of a Wyoming sorority.
		Judge dismisses University of Wyoming Sorority Sisters' lawsuit attempting to block transgender woman Artemis Langford from joining and says the court will not define a woman today after they accused her of being a sexual predator.
		Her, as in the biological male.
		I love this.
		The plaintiff said, a woman is an adult human female.
		That's literally the definition, scientific or otherwise, but apparently the defense said, no, woman means many things today.
		Okay, well, from now on, it's simple.
		You just have to make whatever it is you're making for females only, I guess.
		But here's the story.
		These women, who are complaining about all of this, they're staying in the sorority.
		They're staying in the building.
		They know there's a biological male doing crude and crass things they've accused this person of doing, and they stay.
		And so I'm like, okay, I'm a bit torn.
		With all due respect, they are filing a lawsuit, they are fighting this, they are challenging it as they should, based on their views.
		But at a certain point, maybe you just boycott.
		And then boycott.
		Shout out to Public Square.
		We're huge fans of Public Square, the app where you can find businesses that support your values and you can support them.
		Now, I don't know what you'd do if you're trying to be in a sorority, but here's the story.
		They say six members of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority have challenged Artemis Langford's admission by casting doubt on whether sorority rules allow to transgender women.
		A district court found in favor of the sorority, and Langford, ruling that the sorority's bylaws as a private voluntary organization don't define who's a woman.
		Really?
		So the bylaws outright say in the charter, only women?
		The six members had raised safety concerns and detailed allegations against Langford, but said they were told to change our definition of woman in the September 2022 lawsuit.
		Several members of the sorority also claimed Langford's presence in their home left them feeling vulnerable and uncomfortable.
		Here is the individual in question, Langford.
		Here you can see all of these sorority sisters hanging out at their taco about mental health.
		I guess they were selling tacos or something.
		And, uh, there's Langford in the photo, as all the women do that, uh, what is that?
		What is that pose they do?
		Uh, hands on the knees?
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's like a... What is that?
		I don't know.
		Is it because they're trying to make room for people who might be shorter behind them they do that, I guess?
		Yeah, I don't know.
		They alleged that she would stare at other girls for hours without saying anything while sitting with a pillow in her lap.
		I gotta pause real quick and just, you know, provide at least a little defense for this individual.
		They alleged that she, they're talking about the biological male, would stare at other girls for hours not saying anything while sitting with a pillow in her lap.
		I'm sorry, you're not allowed to be mad at someone and sue to have them removed because they're sitting there quietly not saying anything.
		They're looking at you.
		I just, I know, whatever.
		Some people may not like it.
		But the real argument here is whether or not males are allowed in sororities.
		Not whether or not somebody was sitting there looking at you.
		For real, I know, I get it.
		However, let's read more.
		They also accused the biological male of taking photos of the girls at a slumber party and
		making inappropriate comments to them, including about what vaginas look like, breast cup size,
		whether women were considering breast reductions and birth control.
		Okay, you see, now that's a problem, right?
		Okay, I hope you're all ready for this one.
		On one occasion, one woman claimed she was changing clothes inside the house without a bra on, but turned around to find Langford, 21, staring at her.
		The complaint alleged.
		Fellow sisters reportedly later said that Langford had his hands over his genitals and appeared sexually aroused.
		Now, if you're to question that, you're a bigot.
		Okay?
		You've been warned.
		At the heart of the lawsuit was the issue of defining a woman.
		With the sorority sisters arguing that because KKG's governing documents defined it as a space exclusively for females, the organization broke its own rules by admitting a biological male.
		If the document says female, it says female.
		Sorry, trans women, not allowed.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's the defining documents.
		The sisters claim the sorority changed its criteria to allow Langford to apply, while KKG's lawyers said the definition of woman has evolved since the sorority's founding 150 years ago.
		The term is unquestionably open to many interpretations.
		No, it isn't!
		Because the left can't even define what the word means!
		So I gotta tell you, if woman is open to any interpretation, then you have no criteria for eligibility and I could apply.
		No matter what it is you claim, if woman is not defined, that means literally anyone from anywhere for any reason can apply and you can't deny them.
		Literally, if you said blank is allowed to apply here and you can insert anything you want, okay.
		Let's talk about the multiple interpretations of woman.
		I believe woman is defined as 37 year old, lightly bearded male of mixed race descent who wears a beanie all the time, isn't a member of your college, or have anything to do with anything related to anything you're doing anywhere, and doesn't have to pay any money to join.
		Okay, obviously a little extreme, but you get my point.
		There has to be a definition of who you are inviting.
		If you say there's no definition for the word woman, then a dog could be admitted.
		Let's play that game then.
		No definition?
		Adult human female seems to work for me.
		But if that doesn't work for you, then I think a dog can be a woman.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well then, let's get the dog in!
		To be honest, I think everyone would really appreciate a slobbery Labrador running around, doofing about, because everybody loves dogs.
		So where's the complaint?
		You know, nobody's gonna complain about having a dog.
unidentified		I guess people who are allergic.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The case at Wyoming's only four-year public university drew widespread attention, as trans people fight for more acceptance in schools, athletics, workplaces, and elsewhere, while some, like the sorority sisters, push back.
		They describe the sorority as a safe space to grow together and build genuine, long-lasting relationships, as well as a refuge for us biological women to relax and release from the pressure and stress that come with college and life.
		Wyoming U.S.
		District Court Judge Ellen Johnson, In his ruling, found that sorority bylaws as a private voluntary organization don't define who's a woman.
		Interesting.
		A federal court cannot interfere with the sorority chapter's freedom of association by ruling against its vote to induct the transgender when last year Johnson ruled Friday.
		With no definition of a woman in sorority bylaws, Johnson ruled that he could not impose the Six Sisters definition of a woman in place of the sorority's more expansive definition provided in court.
		With its inquiry beginning and ending there, the court will not define a woman today.
		Johnson himself, an alumnus of the university who was honored by the school, as Distinguished Alumnae in 2015 wrote, The sorority sisters who sued publicly shadow Langford's presence in their house made them squirm.
		It is really uncomfortable.
		Some of the girls have been sexually assaulted or sexually harassed.
		Some girls live in constant fear in our home, Holt Meyer told Megyn Kelly on her podcast.
		So I guess this is the Wyoming judge?
		Look, don't think the boomers of the silent generation are gonna come save you.
		This guy in Wyoming is saying, I don't know what a woman is!
		This guy right here, look at him!
unidentified		Judge!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't know what a woman is!
		Alright, well that's too bad for him.
		Perhaps he is cognitively deficient and should be removed from office under the simple argument that his brain no longer functions properly.
		And it is a sad state of affairs, but if someone is suffering from dementia, perhaps they should not be in a job of any type.
		Well, I suppose there's some jobs for people with dementia.
		Maybe you can be a Walmart greeter.
		You know, I guess the one scary thing is the outbursts.
		Some people with dementia suffer.
		We have to be careful of that.
		Bouts of anger.
		But I believe this man may be unwell, for he cannot define what a woman is.
		There is no argument, period, in court, that you could be like, well, I don't know what a woman is.
		That's insane.
		But here you are.
		Welcome to the breakdown of law.
		Now that they are starting to get these lawsuits through where they say women doesn't mean anything, what do you think that means for all existing law on the books in every state and in this country?
		If the law says women are protected for this or that reason, but women means literally nothing, then no one is protected from anything!
		Civil rights goes out the window.
		You can make the argument, I think a woman is a black person.
		I think a Mexican person is also what a woman is, despite being male.
		If woman is just a vague term for someone who feels a certain way, then anyone at any time for any reason can be a woman.
		And you can't bar them.
		What argument would they have in any capacity?
		They wouldn't.
		And perhaps that's the purpose.
		From the ashes of the old, we shall build anew.
		They're gonna break down our legal system.
		They're gonna make it so that you can't figure out what is what and who is who.
		You can't set standards.
		And if you can't set standards, what are you gonna get?
		You're gonna get a bunch of people who are terrible at what they do, trying to fly planes, build bridges, and otherwise engage in sporting activities and other professions, and then it all breaks down.
		Bridges will start collapsing, planes will fall out of the sky, uh-huh, uh-huh, you get where I'm going with this.
		No, we need standards.
		And, uh, we need to know what the law is.
		Now, by all means, if the sorority wants to have trans people, I don't care.
		And if this woman got a problem, leave!
		I'm not saying, you know, not fight, but if you don't feel comfortable in the house, you gotta get out of the house.
		Right?
		Or do something to counter it.
		If the legal system is not there, then play procedurally.
		Play by policy.
		If they don't define woman, then I tell you what.
		Bring in your grandfather.
		Bring- Invite- Here's what you should do.
		Ladies.
		Invite a retirement home to come live there.
		Men.
		Old men.
		Invite them all in.
		Find out how many people are willing to bet I'm a woman, and just have them come in.
		And then you know what?
		When they're all living there, tell anyone who has a problem with that, you'll see them in court.
		Because this is the game they're playing.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
unidentified		Uh-oh!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're mad!
		They're mad at me!
		I've been trending non-stop for a week!
		Because we had Fresh and Fit on the podcast, The Culture War, and in the discussion we talked about issues pertaining to society and culture, women, and slut-shaming and things like that, and oh boy are they really pissed off.
		In fact, I've gotten messages from some lefties I know, and they're like, did you really say that men should slut-shame women for having high body counts?
		I love it, because you know that they didn't actually watch the show.
		We have this tweet from Tree of Logic, who wrote, There are less than 1,000 Bugattis in the world, so the chances of any woman seeing a man drive one would be highly unlikely.
		Only men who are terrible in bed or have small dicks like Tim Pool care about a woman's body count.
		I'll describe this as the fake rage machine of the internet.
		Here's what really happened.
		On the podcast, I was talking with Fresh and Fit, as well as Jason Howerton.
		Jason Howerton is high-value dad.
		He talks about having kids, being a good dad, and having a family and all that stuff.
		And Fresh and Fit talk about similar things, like those are important, but in today's day and age, women are sleeping around.
		They have access to all of these different men.
		With Instagram, high-value, high-profile, wealthy, successful guys, you're always in a state of competition.
		The argument that was actually made was not that I was saying that guys in Bugattis should slut-shame women.
		It was a hypothetical argument to address the concerns Fresh and Fit had, not a prescriptive treatment for the ales of society.
		Tree of Logic, of course, takes the clip out of context and then makes it seem like I was literally saying that all men should go and do this thing.
		The actual context of the conversation is.
		Effectively, if you are making the claim that it is bad that men and women are all sleeping around and that men have no choice but to sleep around in order to compete, how about you, I said you guys, like imagine someone in a Bugatti pulls up to a woman and she's like, oh, I want to ride with you.
		And he says, what's your body count?
		And she gets all offended.
		Then he says, I don't want a hole in my car and drives off.
		No, I wasn't saying all men who find themselves to be high value should pull up and slut shame women.
		But it's a rage machine.
		They just want to get clickbait, so they want to take things out of context.
		Or to be fair, maybe they're just not smart enough to understand what the argument actually was.
		I didn't tell women they couldn't or could not do anything they want.
		In fact, I am a sex-positive individual.
		I believe that sex work should be legal and regulated, and I think that it's silly for the government to intervene.
		I also don't care what women do with their bodies, and I'm actually pro-choice.
		Although I think the Democrats have gone full-scale pro-abortion, I do think there should be restrictions.
		So it is funny, then, that their minds go and break down.
		Only men who are terrible in bed and have small dicks.
		Lady, I'm sorry, the ego-striking stuff doesn't work on me because I quite literally don't care.
		Like, I gotta be honest with you.
		I got a million and one things going on in my life.
		I am in a happy and committed relationship.
		Your words are meaningless, but it does show your insecurities.
		In fact, the response to the out-of-context clip makes you look worse than I do.
		Especially to the people who might otherwise agree with the clip, even though it is out of context.
		Ladies, listen up, she asks.
		If a low-tier man asks for your body count, simply ask how small is their dick in return.
		High-value men don't obsess over the sexual activities of other women.
		Only low-value men do.
		Never forget that.
		Okay, let me play the clip for you from the Culture War show of me talking, and then we'll break down what is actually being said.
		No, no, no, hold on, hold on.
		Go ahead.
		I agree a lot with what he's saying.
		Imagine if women are only looking at the top 8, 9, 10 of men, if these guys, if guys like you just started shaming women, You know who's paying for OnlyFans, right?
		It's low quality, it's lower quality guys.
		So if high quality dudes who got really nice watches and pull up in a Bugatti and this woman's like, yeah, I want to come hang with you.
		And he'll say, yeah, what's your body count?
		And he goes, how dare you ask me that?
		I don't want to hone my car.
		And he takes off.
		Now she's embarrassed.
		She got shut down and more women are going to say, If I want to high value men because only the guys are going to come after me are going to be high value.
unidentified		So maybe flip the grill here though.
unidentified		Are we going to turn this into the Dreamcast?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So Fresh and Fit argue men will never do that.
		Which is the point.
		Which actually is in alignment with what this lady is saying.
		To act like I said something otherwise.
		Jason Howerton was saying resist that culture.
		Do not be a party to going around doing all these things.
		To which my point was, I agree with what Jason is saying.
		Hypothetically, like, if guys were shaming these women, wouldn't that fix the problem you claim is a big problem?
		You see, let's slow down.
		Jason and I had a similar position in that there are tons of really great women out there.
		In fact, I argued the things that Fresh and Fit were saying about these women I'm like, you're surrounding yourself with bad women.
		And they said, no, dude, like, all women are on the internet, no matter where they are.
		And I said, bro, if you go to a small town church, you're going to meet a young woman who does not believe these things, and you're good.
		I didn't say anything about... I did not actually say that men, all men of high value, should be doing these things.
		They responded by saying that because women are going to do this, men have no choice.
		And then I said, OK, what if men like you said no and shamed these women?
		And they said, that's never going to happen.
		Of course, this lady lost her mind.
		Now, I gotta be honest.
		I think it is simple to break down.
		When people like this- Uh, which clip do we have?
		When people like this get really, really mad when you highlight the idea of body count, it shows their insecurity.
		Lady, I ain't got none.
		You're- I- I- I'm sorry, dude.
		I'm- I'm gonna have to say it.
		Lady, I am a... Uh... Let's just- Let's just go straight for ego.
		I am successful.
		I am wealthy.
		I own lots of property.
		I really don't care about how many dudes you've been with.
		I don't care what you think about my genitalia.
		I don't care about your opinions.
		And she's not the only one.
		Sorry to highlight Justice Indevil, but I don't care to go through all these other tweets.
		But like, they're so bent out of shape over this.
		Yo, I'm talking about the negative opinion that Fresh and Fit have over this.
		I'm not talking about you.
		Why are you so mad?
		The reality is, it's true.
		High-value men do not obsess over the sexual activities of other women.
		That's a fact.
		That's actually the point I was making.
		If these high-value guys, as they describe themselves, did, would that not create something different for which they would want?
		My attitude is just find a good person, have a good relationship, commit to each other, you know, those normal things.
		And there are good and bad people out there all the time.
		I think the insecurity shows a lot.
		She followed up by saying my tweet yesterday was only to clown Tim Pool because I despise him.
		However, it revealed the huge insecurity in these red pill manosphere men have, which I am not one of.
		They use body count as a shaming technique, but get as mad when we shame their penis size in return.
		This is good to know.
		I'll be using that again in the future.
		Actually, it shows the insecurity you have.
		Right?
		Not the insecurity I have.
		Like, I'm in a relationship.
		I literally, I don't care about what you think.
		I'm not interested in chasing down women at a club or driving my Tesla Model S Plaid up to a club and being like, hey ladies, I have a girlfriend.
		We go get breakfast together, and then we go get dinner together, and we play poker together, and we skate together sometimes when she wants to skate, and she helps me out with my life, and it's fantastic.
		I literally don't care about what you think or what you do.
		But it does show when we have this conversation, and especially with Fresh and Fit Boy, Do they get mad?
		It makes me wonder what kind of person this is and why they have to react in such a way.
		Low cognitive function?
		Because I never actually said what she's claiming I said.
		Here's one response.
	One person said, I disagree, sort of.
	I think there are high-value men that do not care about body count.
	I hate that term, though.
	And some that don't care all that much.
	I don't think it's fair to say that only low-tier dudes and dudes with small penises care about that.
	He's right.
	She said, present one.
	Just one so-called high-value man who cares about body count.
	Go.
	Dude.
	Quite literally, Fresh and Fit were on the show.
	They are, I believe they're millionaires, very wealthy Miami dudes who've got women all around them.
	Maybe they're faking it, I don't know.
	And they outright said they do.
	There are numerous podcasts where dudes who are famous and have lots of money talk about these things.
	There are many people in the quote-unquote manosphere, or whatever, who are millionaires, who are six foot tall, chiseled, driving Bugattis.
	Okay, not literally Bugattis, but my point was driving very fancy, nice cars.
	She's right, though.
	There's different people of all different types.
	Whether the size of their penis... Hm.
	Nice try, lady.
	The fact that she brought up something that is clearly false shows her insecurities over what she does.
	That's just it.
	And I'll tell you who this lady is.
	She's a lady who watches the guy give the glizzies.
	Okay, I just, I'm sorry.
	Have you guys seen this video?
	Of the guy giving the mock BJs while taking money and saying glizzy?
	And like, the dude's just, like, okay.
	I don't know if you've seen this video.
	She said, yes, I would watch this for an hour, don't judge me.
	It is a dude Giving a mock blowjob up to the camera while people donate money saying, Glizzy, bruh, do people make good money for this?
	This guy is just making softcore gay porn.
	Porn's not the right word.
	Fetish content.
	Softcore fetish content for gay men.
	Whatever.
	I would watch this for an hour, don't judge me.
	I would not!
	All that ice cream so good stuff, I think should be banned.
	Not literally, I guess to a certain degree, free speech and all that, but it is weird and nasty stuff and it shouldn't be prioritized in the algorithm.
	But anyway, I digress.
	I must stress, I apologize for singling out this one individual.
	There's a bunch of people who are tweeting about it and acting like... You know, I got messages and that's why I was like, what are they talking about?
	Like, I never literally told men to go do this.
	I was addressing a perceived problem that Fresh and Fit had addressed and I said, here's your solution.
	Why not do this?
	They laughed and said, is this Dreamcast now?
	Men will never do that.
	Duh.
	That's the point.
	Men will not.
	They don't care.
	So here's the issue that it really boils down to.
	These women are clearly upset about it.
	Desperately trying to justify what they know is socially unacceptable to a large degree.
	Most men, socially, it is a trope, typically, do not want women who have slept with a lot of guys.
	Fact.
	They're upset about it.
	They want to sleep with lots of guys.
	They want to do whatever they want.
	I don't care.
	They can do whatever they want.
	They're clearly upset about it.
	They're clearly triggered by it.
	The fact that society says... You know, it's just really simple.
	There's that old saying that they talk about where it's like, a key... A key that can open any door is a good key, but a lock that can be opened by any key is a bad lock.
	That's the analogy they often use.
	I'm not a fan of that.
	I think it's kind of silly.
	I think human beings can engage and, you know, do what they want to do.
	And I think personal responsibility plays a role in whether or not you're going to have a good family or not.
	I do think social order breaks down for a variety of reasons, including some of these.
	But...
	Clearly.
	With these tropes that exist in society, they are in the minority position, desperately trying to justify using an emotional attack against someone.
	Be like, haha, you have a small dick!
	I'm like, lady, I don't care.
	You're a hoe, right?
	Is that what you're trying to tell me?
	I don't know how many people you've slept with and I really don't care.
	And your response to what is clearly a social phenomenon is meaningless to me.
	But you're clearly hurt by it.
	I don't, I, that's it.
	I guess what I'm trying to get to is, they big mad.
	But it's true!
	It's not my opinion.
	It is not me prescribing for society.
	It's me saying outright.
	It is a fact.
	On average, guys don't like being with whores.
	Define it however you want.
	I don't necessarily agree.
	I'm more sex positive.
	I don't care about people engaging in sex work.
	None of that.
	I don't think it should be made illegal.
	I think it should be legalized and regulated.
	And it's up to you to live how you want to live.
	Just don't get kids involved in it.
	But you can see the emotional reaction they have.
	So whatever, man.
	Thanks for watching the Culture War podcast and spreading the word.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up today at 4 p.m.

▲