Democrats IN PANIC Over Impeachment, Send DEMAND To Press To HELP THEM, THE END IS NEAR FOR BIDEN
HANG OUT LIVE IN MIAMI WITH TIMCAST - https://timcast.com/timcast-irl-x-miami/
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
Democrats IN PANIC Over Impeachment, Send DEMAND To Press To HELP THEM, THE END IS NEAR FOR BIDEN
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a new story from the New York Post, White House to send letter urging news outlets to, quote, ramp up scrutiny of Biden impeachment inquiry.
Get your tickets by clicking the link in the description below or by going to timcast.com.
The White House is pulling out all the stops. In a new story from the New York Post,
White House to send letter urging news outlets to quote, ramp up scrutiny of Biden impeachment
inquiry. You love to see it. Abject corruption right before your very eyes.
But you know what the funny thing is?
The White House didn't need to actually send a letter because the corporate press is already doing the work for them.
These scumbags, these evil pieces of human garbage that seek to destroy the fabric of this nation because they're better than you.
They're smarter than you.
So they lie about Everything to protect the corrupt, to protect their power.
We need a moral reckoning in this country because I'm reading through these news stories about impeachment and I'm sorry but I am just becoming increasingly infuriated as these journalists spit in our faces.
You want me to show you?
I'll show you.
You'll get mad too.
But I will say I try to see the brighter side of things.
And this story that has just dropped this morning that the White House is so pathetically desperate to deal with Joe Biden's career of corruption.
To cover it up, that they're going to just outright send letters saying, please be corrupt pieces of garbage.
Hey, corporate press, you know you're trash human beings?
Well, could you consider being garbage-ier?
But I'll calm down.
It's brazen.
It's out here right before your very eyes.
And that's what actually makes me feel a little bit better.
And so while I want to- I get angry reading these news articles because they're just lying about everything, and then I have to go and debunk it every single day.
I'm just sick of this.
I'm sick of these people.
They're just- they're scumbags.
And we start- we got to start calling out these evil people.
They're evil, okay?
They know they're lying.
They know they're covering this up.
Why?
Why?
Because there are special interests, corporations that provide funding and sponsorship to get attention.
And then the boss comes and says, don't talk smack about Joe Biden because we want access.
Because they're evil.
But in doing so, the White House has exposed their weakness.
And now what we're seeing is the pathetic, pathetic nature that is the White House and Joe Biden and his other crackpot cronies and criminals who should be in prison.
They're so panicked and desperate.
The only thing they can do is try and wield the DOJ against their political rivals.
But I hope, I hope, especially after all of this, There's an investigation, not just into those that sought to aid and abet, or those that directly were involved in the corruption, but those that sought to aid and abet.
That is to say, if there are people working in the press who intentionally committed fraud, For personal gain, to make money, to benefit the Biden administration, I say we send them to prison.
But let me clarify for all the whinging, cringy leftists who are like, he's saying to arrest journalists.
No, I'm saying if there is evidence of direct communication between a member of the press and the Biden administration to collude in fabricating a narrative for which the journalists would receive financial compensation, That is something we should pursue because we're dealing now, in my opinion, with a seditious conspiracy.
The gloves are off, baby!
You want to send Owen Schreier to jail for yelling outside and then claim that he's an extremist?
You want to say that your political opponents who disagree with you are not journalists?
We play the same game.
But I have standards here, and my standard is a member of the press who knowingly lies to cover up a crime For financial gain.
There's a lot of hurdles there.
So if there's a journalist who knowingly lies because they're ideologically aligned, well, you know, you can't say much about that.
People are allowed to lie.
But if they're getting paid to do it, if there is a direct line of communication proving that these journalists know they're lying and are in communication with the criminal parties, that's different.
I don't know to what degree that would arise to a level of crime other than I think it's a seditious conspiracy.
That the Biden was defrauding the United States, exploiting his position for personal gain and wealth.
We have more than enough evidence.
We've gone over the evidence 50 billion times and they just keep writing there's no evidence!
No matter how much evidence comes out.
That's why I'm pissed.
At a certain point.
We need to shatter this machine.
Break it into a million pieces and scatter it to the wind.
And I look forward to being a part of the corporate press's destruction.
Here's a story from the New York Post.
They say, Biden's White House is planning to send a letter to some of the country's most prominent news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and Fox News, urging them to ramp up their scrutiny of House Republicans for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ordered the inquiry yesterday.
We know this.
He said, Through our investigations, we have found that President Biden did lie to the American people about his own knowledge A culture of corruption?
We have so much evidence.
We have so much that it is shocking to me anyone else that had three years ago a confidant come out and say outright that they were peddling influence for cash That would have resulted in a very serious investigation, but no impeachment inquiry.
And you know what?
Maybe that's the Republicans' fault.
In many ways, Trump's fault, because this is 2020.
Now another confidant.
So you had Tony Bobulinski, you had Devin Archer.
They came out and corroborated everything.
You've got email exchanges, 10% for the big guy.
You've got text messages from Hunter saying he gives his dad his salary.
You've got Fake names used by the president to send government information to his son.
His son flew on Air Force Two to engage in private equity deals.
At what point, at what point will these scumbags in the press be like, Actually, there's a lot of evidence that Joe Biden was doing corrupt things.
You know what's really funny?
You know, I'm gonna pull up the story.
It's an old story.
It's an old story, but it's from 2019.
And we're gonna play this game.
Let's roll, you scumbag SOBs.
Politico wrote, Biden Inc., over his decades in office, middle class Joe's family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.
And they, I think they even have a graphic in here.
Maybe it's in the video.
Oh, no, they have graphics here outlining how, uh, how his, uh, you know, role in government led to his son and brother making a lot of money.
Yeah.
I mean, that's the gist of the whole article.
So, you get the point.
I'll jump down.
We've got some images.
I thought there was one showing, uh... I think in the video, they show this, like, track of when Joe Biden becomes VP, and then where his brother gets jobs, and it's just, it's all easily aligned.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Associated Press.
They tweeted, Since gaining the House majority, House Republicans have aggressively investigated Biden and his son, claiming, without evidence, that they engaged in an influence-peddling scheme.
I just love it so much.
I wonder who wrote this tweet.
These people are evil.
Because I pulled this up from October 22nd, 2020.
Tony Bobulinski's statement on under Biden.
C-SPAN.
A former business associate of Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, made a statement about business dealings in China.
He said he would turn over any electronic evidence of Biden family involvement.
Yeah, he outright said they're involved.
And this is evidence.
This is evidence, and there's a lot more, but I give you this tweet from Axios.
Just before the 2020 election, Biden and his campaign said that Hunter hadn't made money from China, and that Biden hadn't met one of Hunter's Ukrainian business associates during his vice presidency, but recent sworn testimony suggests otherwise.
Now hold on there a minute, Axios!
Recent?
Yo!
Recent?
That's crazy!
Tony Bobulinski came out at the same time just before the election alleging otherwise.
It's not a recent testimony, but hey, I like this.
Let's say, uh, but sworn testimony suggests otherwise.
Oh, it sounds like there's evidence because witness testimony is evidence in a criminal proceeding or in any regard.
Witness testimony is evidence.
This is the world you get with the corrupt corporate press.
The most predictable impeachment investigation in American history, writes CNN Politics.
And what garbled nonsense have they to say?
The initiation of an impeachment investigation against a president ought to be an earth-shaking moment in a nation's history.
Yet when Kevin McCarthy announced, blah blah blah, McCarthy argued the impeachment inquiry was the logical next step amid Republicans' claims so far unproven.
You see how they do that?
This is the game they play.
For what reason did they include that?
Let's go back to the AP.
You see how they do the commas?
House Republicans have aggressively investigated Biden.
Comma.
Claim without evidence.
Why?
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 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.
They want to frame the story before the information is given.
Because after the fact, when you start to learn about what's really going on, the people then go, that's unproven.
The way the game works is let's say that there's like a like a big building and you know I don't know a truck crashes into it and there's no video of it happening and then they come out and they say a truck crashed into this building and you stand outside of it and you're like Yo, I don't see a truck anywhere, okay?
You said a truck crashed into this building, I see the damage, but there's no truck, and they point to, like, a tire, and you're like, where's the rest of the truck, right?
And then someone puts out a video showing, like, blurry nothing, and then a crash happening, and they're like, see, there's the video of the truck crashing into the building.
You'd be like, that video doesn't show a truck crashing into the building, right?
It's just- it's blurry, I don't- I don't know what I'm seeing, but...
The corporate press then runs the story.
Video released of truck crashing into building.
And then what happens is, the average person who only reads headlines and does not watch the videos, will be hanging out, and they'll be saying like, man, it's really horrible what happened with that truck crash.
And then you'll say, I was down there, I didn't see a truck crash.
And they'll go, they released a video of the truck crash, what are you talking about?
And you'll say, no they didn't.
And they're like, yes they did, I read it, it's in every paper.
But they didn't actually watch it.
This is the game they play.
The manipulation in the press.
So far, unproven.
Nah.
I'm gonna go ahead and say right now that proven is a pretty interesting way to phrase things, especially when it comes to criminal proceedings, because we don't say proven, we say proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Okay?
Would a reasonable person conclude that Joe Biden engaged in influence peddling?
Yes, they would.
And it's evidenced by all the polls showing that the majority of Americans actually think Joe Biden was doing bad things.
But how about this?
How does Ben Schreckinger, Schreckinger, write in August of 2019, Biden Inc., the Friday cover, over his decades in office, middle class Joe's family fortunes have closely tracked his political career?
How do you write a story?
Fraud allegations against the Biden family.
Actually breaking down these documents, these lobbying reports.
So Joe Biden gets put in charge of Iraq.
Shortly thereafter, they say that his brother gets lucrative contracts to build things in Iraq.
Ooh, yes, that's influence peddling and corruption.
That's nepotism.
How did we go from here, with this article, to without evidence?
So far unproven that Biden was enriched by his son's Hunter's business ventures when he was vice president.
Let's just pause right there.
Hunter Biden has text messages saying he gives his salary to his dad.
Next question, CNN.
Who wrote this?
Who's the... Steven Collinson.
You know what I think?
I'll tell you how it works.
In New York, you had bad cops.
Cops doing stupid things.
And there was this court case where they alleged that they only hire stupid cops.
The city defended it, saying, if we hire cops with high IQs, they get bored and quit.
They intentionally hire low IQ individuals who are too stupid to realize what they're doing.
Makes sense.
And this is what you get with politics.
I'd estimate that Stephen Collinson's IQ is 95.
Right?
I'm not trying to be a dick or be mean.
I mean this in the most sincere and literal sense.
There are two potentialities.
Stephen Collinson is an intelligent individual who is willfully lying to the American people for political gain.
Uh, I mean, there's the .01% that he works for an intelligence agency or something like that.
I don't think so.
No, I think it's most likely that, uh, the most likely outcomes here are that he's intentionally lying for political gain, but that's probably like 30%.
The reality is he's probably just a low IQ dude.
Really, you know, first order thinkers, 95 IQ, below average, the kind of guy who's sitting there and reads an article and they're like, Joe Biden did nothing wrong goes, Wow, you didn't do anything wrong.
No, I'll write that for you.
And that's probably who he is.
CNN targets people like this to bring them on.
So that when the morning editor says, can we get someone to write about these unproven claims against Joe Biden?
He goes, oh, I could do it.
And they're like, fantastic.
And you know, they're unproven, right?
Yeah, they're unproven.
All right, write that up.
OK.
And this is this is what you get.
And that's why they work for CNN.
And I mean this again with I will stress this.
I mean this literally, not as a dig and not as an insult.
This is what you find in modern media.
Anyone Who, like, let's say you want to find a host of a show.
You want someone who is perspicacious, audacious, insightful.
Um, well, good luck.
Anybody who has the talent in this day and age to host their own show, just host their own show!
And they build it up on their own.
We've, here at TimCast, we've talked to a lot of people who are very, very smart, talented, influential, and I say, would you want to sell your show and become part of the network?
And well, they say, why would I?
I can build it on my own.
I'm like, you're right, you can.
This is where we're at currently.
The people of skill and merit run their own shows.
Now, there's two types of people.
The next is, and the more reasonable is, younger people who are super smart and want to kickstart their careers.
So you're looking at someone who says, I can choose to work for someone else, or I can start building up from the ground up.
Well, you don't have the resources you need to invest to start something, so you go work for somewhere else.
Not everybody has the skills to pay the bills.
And there's a lot of work and effort into building stuff.
So, the reality is, there are many people of skill and merit and talent that don't want to run a business that I get.
But today's day and age, being a personality is a lot easier than it's ever been.
And most of these people find a way to build up their own platforms.
Or you work for someone, save some money, get some followers, and then go off on your own.
But when you look at middle-aged individuals who are working for the likes of CNN, it's because they cannot do it.
It is quite literally meritocracy versus this woke culture of just, you know...
Everyone gets a piece, right?
What happens is you have people of low skill and low intelligence who could not figure out how to become significant in their business dealings on their own, so in middle age they go and work for somebody else and then are told what to say and they end up saying really stupid things.
I am not saying everybody who's a personality for another company is stupid.
I am saying that CNN intentionally hires people, and I can tell you this from experience working with some of these big corporate outlets, they intentionally hire low IQ people.
Why?
They're smart enough to rewrite some garbled press release, but they're not smart enough to think beyond what these things mean.
So for this guy, Stephen Collinson at CNN, who writes that it's unproven, and that's a nonsense statement.
Would we ever say a thing is proven?
We'd say proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So far we have tons and tons of evidence of malfeasance, yet all the corporate press is writing caveats and primers in their headlines.
Long shot.
The fight it's ready for.
How Donald's DOJ gave Biden a major assist in the coming impeachment probe.
You see, There's very few... Oh, here we go.
Opinion.
Where is the evidence, Speaker McCarthy?
David French.
See, people like David French are lying on purpose.
Like, there's no way you spend this much time in politics and not know.
What do we do now that there's actual evidence published in the Washington Free Beacon?
Oh man.
Uh, uh, what's this?
Uh oh.
It's the New York Times!
The New York Times, what do they say?
They say, um, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.
Oh!
And, and Garland said, uh, he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge, take more as, act more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action.
Oh no!
What do we do?
We have evidence that Joe Biden flew to Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired because the prosecutor was investigating his son's company.
Oh no!
Is it proof?
No, it's evidence.
It's evidence.
It means you bring it to trial, and we have a jury hear it, and then you get a verdict.
And right now, if the polls are showing, hey CNN, that 55% of people find that what Joe Biden did was at least inappropriate, I'd like to see if they'd convict him.
Yeah.
The Senate never will.
So we also have evidence that Joe Biden was pressuring his Attorney General to prosecute his political rival.
And you know the funny thing is, when we talk about the banality of evil, we're talking about the commonplace and the ignorance that led to evil actions.
And then there's the malicious evil.
But when we get into the realm of malice, don't imagine the mustache twirling villain.
I'm going to do evil things!
You also have people like Luke Broadwater, who's like, well, you know, cursory Google search brings up a bunch of evidence, but I don't want to get in trouble at work, so I'd rather be evil!
Not literally.
But you have people like Luke Broadwater, Stephen Collinson.
I think Collinson is just unintelligent, because I know who gets targeted.
And it may be the same case for the New York Times guy, Luke Broadwater.
But this guy saying there's little to back it up, despite testimony, and testimony, and testimony, and emails, and texts.
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 Statements from Joe Biden himself, it's insane.
We are looking at an orgy of evidence.
In fact, there's so much evidence, I'm starting to doubt that any of it's real.
download your episodes wherever you get your podcast. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Statements from Joe Biden himself, it's insane. We are looking at an orgy of evidence. In fact,
there's so much evidence, I'm starting to doubt that any of it's real. I'm like, wow,
this is just too, too much evidence. And this guy comes, says, oh, there's a little back it up.
Why?
His boss told him to do it and he doesn't want to get fired.
Because he's a scumbag.
That's it.
No reasonable human being spends the past several years listening to the testimony of Biden associates, reads Politico magazine's breakdown of his influence peddling, It's amazing.
Ben Schreckinger reporting this for Politico.
So Politico's got it.
How could this exist?
Well, I'll tell you my friends.
Politico reported January 11th, 2017 that Ukraine interfered in the U.S.
election to sabotage Donald Trump.
They then reported from Politico EU that the narrative that Ukraine interfered was actually Russian propaganda.
Which is strange because Politico reported it.
So Politico reported propaganda and then claimed it was propaganda but never retracted their story.
Politico wrote Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to sabotage Trump and they never retracted their story.
No, it still stands.
And I've made numerous requests.
If you guys think it's not real, why don't you pull it back?
They don't do it!
They don't.
So I'll tell you, I'll say.
Let's entertain the possibility that all the evidence against Joe Biden is fake.
Then we have a problem here.
And that problem is Politico reporting it's true.
Effectively in 2019, the influence peddling of the Bidens.
We have stories from the New York Times themselves.
Themselves.
That Biden is pressuring the DOJ to prosecute Trump.
That's impeachment right there.
That's a high crime and misdemeanor.
And then they write later on, no evidence.
Huh?
New York Times, how did you?
You, you wrote that.
Okay.
Let's be fair.
Kevin McCarthy did not say that Joe Biden is targeting Trump to steal the election.
He should.
Matt Gaetz, where you at?
Let's get that pressure.
Let's turn it up.
He's targeting his chief political rival with prosecution, the New York Times reports.
That's impeachment right there.
So you know what?
I'm going to hit up some of these, you know, tweet at these guys and say, what gives?
The New York Times reported this.
The New York Times reported that Biden confided to his inner circle he believes Trump should be prosecuted and he's put, he privately wanted Garland to prosecute and be more decisive over January 6th.
We get it.
Try and grease, grease it up a little bit, New York Times, but we can see it right there.
You reported it.
Okay.
I'll take it for what it is.
You outright, you want to call that a lie?
It's been reported by numerous outlets.
I use the New York Times to prove the point.
If your own sources are saying that Joe Biden is going to his confidants and saying Trump needs to be prosecuted, why won't Merrick Garland act more decisively and prosecute?
We know what that means.
And then when Trump gets prosecuted, are we surprised at all?
How has Joe Biden not been impeached for this?
Well, we'll see.
I think, to be fair, as I try to be, I think the Republicans are trying to wait until we get into the heart of 2024 to go after him on these things.
And impeaching him just before the election on having his chief political rival persecuted and prosecuted Goes a lot further.
So if come September 15th next year, a story drops that the Republicans move to impeach a second time because Biden ordered the prosecution of Trump, that's going to look really, really bad for Democrats.
And there's going to be campaign ads everywhere being like, Joe Biden ordered the prosecution of Trump so he could steal the election.
It's gonna get wild.
In the meantime, the corporate press, they're the enemy of the people.
They're scumbags, and I despise them, so thanks for hanging out, everybody.
Thanks for watching this, instead.
I hope it's been informative and enlightening, and you've understood the points that I've made, because these people are lying to you, and I think they're evil.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
It's another one of these stories.
They're filing to keep Trump off the ballot in Minnesota and Oklahoma.
Donald Trump is beginning to engage with these lawsuits, calling them BS, and we all agree it's basically bunk.
But here's the challenge.
I mean, looking at these procedural attacks against Donald Trump, boring!
Look, I get it.
They're going to file in every single state.
It is going to get insane.
We got a lot of new polling data, especially considering Joe Biden's impeachment looming.
And we got an opinion piece from the Washington Post where they're saying that Joe Biden should not run.
Wow.
So what, Kamala Harris?
Yo, let me show you the polls of Trump v. Harris because they're exactly as you'd expect.
Trump's up like double digits.
We now have another poll.
Showing Trump is up double digits against Joe Biden.
Joe Biden was just the corporeal form they used to embody anti-Trump votes.
And now we've got people coming out and saying, hey, look, man, I voted for Biden in 2020.
I'm not doing it again.
We've gotten more studies, more polls showing Black voters are saying no to Joe Biden.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Donald Trump's going to get this massive surge in support from the Black community.
But we are seeing Joe Biden losing support.
And that, I think, actually sounds a bit more reasonable.
You know, one big political strategy?
It's always good to get your enemies not to vote.
Or I should say your political opponents.
We don't want to say enemies, but get your political opponents not to vote.
It's better than them voting, right?
If one vote for Biden switches to Trump, that's a two-point swing.
But if one person just was going to vote for Biden and they don't, well, then it's just minus one.
We'll take what we can get.
So this is what they have to do.
In order to stop Donald Trump, they have to keep filing these lawsuits.
And I will admit, I am so bored with these stories, but considering everything we're going to see moving into 2024 is, in effect, granular and done in increments, we've got to stay steadfast and vigilant covering these stories and breaking down the news.
So, while there are a bit more sensational things that I could cover, let's talk about this story from TimCast.com.
Liberal group.
files lawsuit to keep Trump off the ballot in Minnesota.
There are also lawsuits seeking to keep Trump off the ballot in Oklahoma and Colorado.
And of course, New Hampshire was arguing over it.
And we saw in Florida, a lawsuit was filed.
Donald Trump is trying to move the lawsuit from Colorado to federal court.
He's being denied.
But let's start here at TimGas.com.
The latest 14th Amendment lawsuits filed by the liberal organization Free Speech for the
Oh, that is rich!
A liberal organization that claims support free speech while trying to get Trump removed from the ballot?
It's beautifully hypocritical, isn't it?
Paradoxical.
Donald J. Trump, through his words and actions, after swearing an oath as an officer of the United States to support the Constitution, engaged in insurrection or rebellion, as defined by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The lawsuit states, he is disqualified from holding the presidency or any other office under the United States unless and until Congress provides him.
Okay, you know what?
Define insurrection.
All right, fine.
How about we just start filing lawsuits against Joe Biden saying that he's engaged in a seditious conspiracy, which amounts to insurrection against the United States.
Why?
The New York Times reported that he pressured his AG to go after his chief political rival.
And as such, I think it's fair to say this qualifies as a seditious conspiracy and is an act of rebellion and insurrection against this country.
Can we get anybody to file a lawsuit?
Come on.
Like, I don't think these are going to succeed, but why not just do the same thing?
Let's play ball.
Let's start filing.
Come up with any novel legal theory you want, and maybe in one state you win.
It's all it takes.
Section 3 of the Fourth Amendment was created to keep Confederate leaders off the ballot after the Civil War.
It has only been used once since 1919, when Victor Berger of Wisconsin was barred from being seated because he was a socialist.
That's interesting.
It states that someone cannot hold office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S.
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Free Speech for the People has partnered with an organization called Mi Familia Vota Education Fund on a project to urge secretaries of states and chief election officials across the country to keep Trump off ballots.
I'm going to tell you, my friends, these are accelerationists.
What you are seeing from these leftist organizations that are trying to keep Trump off the ballot is accelerationism.
They know they can't win.
They know that the only way to remove the U.S.
Constitution is if there is a revolution or civil war.
These groups, I do not believe, are so stupid as to think that Donald Trump supporters will cease to exist the moment his name is taken from the ballot.
We had Brianna Wu, excuse me, man, on the Culture War podcast, and I get this critique from these liberals saying it's so dangerous of Tim Pool to talk about civil war.
And so I asked a question, of course, the liberal would not answer.
What do you think happens in 2024 if Donald Trump is taken off the ballot?
Do you think Trump supporters just say, well, good game guys, dust off their hands and carry on?
No answer.
A wishy-washy political answer of, well, I think, you know, in this country... Serious question to all of you.
Do Trump supporters, considering January 6th and everything these liberals have said about it, liberals who have argued Donald Trump tried to stage a coup in this country and are arguing in court it was an insurrection, do you think that if you remove his name from the ballot, the violent insurrectionists We'll just be like, well, you know, you got us.
I guess we lose this one.
It's nonsense.
There is no logic there.
These people filing these lawsuits know full well what they are trying to make happen.
If Donald Trump wins, he wins.
And then what?
More jam ups through the court systems or whatever.
The Democrats will accuse him of being a spy for, I don't know, insert country, Uzbekistan this time.
Or do they know, because they've claimed it already, that Trump supporters will not accept these moves and this will accelerate the United States towards a collapse or crash or conflict.
Of course they don't.
They're arguing it.
They're literally, in these documents, saying Trump did this.
So take his name off the ballot.
Okay?
What comes after this?
Fine, if you want to argue these people are just first-order thinkers.
But, ah, nah, come on.
You don't, look.
There are priests and priestesses of the cults, and then there is the mundane followers of the cults.
And these people don't get the positions of power they have with wealth and resources by being stupid.
There are a lot of stupid people.
I was talking about stupid people in media just a moment ago, in the earlier segment.
But I think these people are totally cognizant of what happens if they make this move.
They say the organization describes itself as catalyzing leader in the country, challenging big money in politics, confronting corruption in government, fighting for free and fair elections, and advancing a new jurisprudence grounded in the promises of political equality and democratic self-government.
According to a report from Axios, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has previously said it's up to the courts, not his office, to decide whether the former president is eligible for the state's ballot.
John Anthony Castro, a right-wing Republican presidential candidate from Texas, filed a lawsuit attempting to keep Trump off the ballot in Oklahoma earlier this week.
He also cited Section 3 in his complaint.
Another similar lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington, D.C.-based liberal group attempting to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado.
Saying quite literally the same thing, but let's talk about Oklahoma!
Look at this.
It's across the board, man.
They're coming for Trump.
It's going to be in every single state.
And all it takes is one, and they will have flicked the match onto the powder keg.
If you take Trump's name off of any state, any state, Trump loses.
Worse still, if Trump's name is removed from a slightly red-leaning state, it's over.
Think about it this way.
Winning a swing state is how you win the presidency.
Safe states, people don't pay that much attention to, we know that a red state votes red.
Florida likely going Republican this time around.
No longer a swing state.
So you can try and win in three swing states, or get Trump's name removed from the ballot in one safe red state.
Or I shouldn't say safe, but like, leans red, an area where they don't really consider it a swing state.
You know, there are some states that are just blood red, like West Virginia.
86% of the states support Donald Trump.
Okay.
That's not gonna happen.
But you find a state that's like 56, 57% and you can probably find an establishment conservative or Democrat judge who will say, I agree.
I hereby order Trump's name removed.
And if Trump's name is removed from only certain counties, which could happen, it is over.
Right now, the calculation is such.
Trump needs to win Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, maybe Michigan.
There's a handful of swing states that are key.
If he does not win them, he loses.
He only needed 42,000 votes in 2020 to have actually won.
It was close.
If they take Trump's name off of the ballot in even a handful of counties in any one of these states, and Georgia probably will, He can't win the state because that will remove, let's say it removes 0.7% from the ballot, takes it away from Trump, helps Joe Biden or whoever it may be.
I don't think it's going to be Joe Biden.
We'll see.
That's the game.
It doesn't need to be a whole state.
It can be in local jurisdictions.
You talk about the Secretary of State's filing these, uh, being told.
Remove Trump's name?
It doesn't need to be.
A county can simply have some officials say, we're not going to distribute ballots that have Trump's name on it.
And that means these counties are guaranteed not to go for Donald Trump.
And that means, especially in states that are winner-take-all, you only need to remove Trump's name from the ballot in a handful of counties to make sure Trump cannot win.
And don't think it won't happen.
It may come that 2024, during the election, They say, the efforts to remove Trump's name from the ballot failed, and Trump is on the ballot in all 50 states.
Except, um, a handful of these counties.
So then you look at a place like Michigan or Arizona or Georgia or Wisconsin, and they say Trump's name's on the ballot, and then you say, well, hold on, there's this one county that's got, you know, 10 or 20,000 people, and they took his name off.
Here's another county, and you find a spattering of counties where they're doing it anyway, and just blacking it out or removing it or however.
Now I know there's probably some precedence as to how they distribute at the state level the ballots.
I'm saying counties may just say no.
Look at Arizona.
I'm telling you, and I'm warning you, look at Arizona.
They printed the wrong ballots.
It was, what was it, a 19-inch image on a 20-inch piece of paper?
So the machine could not read it and they got rejected.
Uh-oh.
People were leaving lines.
And then they came out later and said nobody left lines.
And if they did, it wasn't enough people.
And that's what could happen.
They'll print out the wrong ballots for these areas.
Or better yet, they'll say, we've decided not to include Trump as our right.
And the state can say, no, we handle elections in the state.
And they're going to say, well, too bad.
Because even though in Arizona, they're going to do this in Arizona.
Come on.
Does anyone think it's not going to happen?
In Arizona, they screwed the ballots up and said, too bad to Carrie Lake.
We know for a fact it happened.
We know it affected hundreds of voting locations.
And they said, doesn't matter.
We still counted their votes anyway, so it doesn't matter.
But what about the people who are standing in line and had to leave?
You know, we had created these ballots that didn't have Trump's name on it in the event that Trump's name was removed because we wanted to be prepared and whoopsie daisy, we printed those and they accidentally got sent out.
There is nothing you can do about it.
The election's over.
Bye.
So now we're looking at Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota, Florida, and it will not stop there.
Axios says, what to expect from the lawsuit seeking to block Trump from the ballot.
Long-time former Secretary of State Joan Groh, a Democrat, and former State Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson, a GOP appointee, are among the petitioners.
Some liberal groups and state election officials across the nation are seeking to use a provision.
This we get.
The 14th Amendment is clear.
We get it.
Other parties, including the Trump campaign and the Minnesota Republican Party, could intervene.
What to expect under the state law, cases related to ballot eligibility go straight to the state Supreme Court.
The court will typically assign a judge to hold a hearing and prepare findings.
Do you think the Democrat judges in Pennsylvania are going to side with Trump?
Trump could even have his name removed from seven states.
And then it becomes an issue of there's no election.
Roseanne Barr came on TimCast IRL with Michael Malice.
She said there's not going to be an election in 2024.
She'd also said there was going to be military tribunals, and we all rolled our eyes.
But she made this bet there wouldn't be an election, and I said, let's clarify.
Are you saying that the election's just canceled like Joe Biden bangs a gavel and says, because of the war, we can't have an election?
Or, I think it's actually fair to say.
Master, do you mean Trump will have his name removed from the ballot so no one will think it's a legitimate election?
Democrats will claim it's totally legitimate.
The Fourth Amendment allows for this.
But not a single Trump voter, independent, moderate, will respect the results because how do you have an election if you take Trump's name off?
Look man, I don't know what's going to happen.
People will refer back to tons of videos I made throughout the election cycle and they'll say, oh look what he thought was going to happen.
Of course!
We are blind as to what lies before us.
We can certainly think about the results of our actions, the consequences, but too many variables down the line and we're looking at exponential outcomes we can't predict.
But I tell you this, the likelihood they get Trump's name off the ballot somewhere is really high.
It's really high.
Judge rejects Trump's request to move Colorado ballot case to federal court.
A lawsuit brought by a group of Colorado voters signing the Constitution, blah, blah, blah.
Trump tried to get it moved.
A judge on Tuesday denied former President Donald Trump's request to move a Colorado case aimed at removing him from the state 2024 ballot to federal court.
In a four-page order, Chief U.S.
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer sent the lawsuit back to a state court in Denver County.
Brimmer.
It was, it was, it was, it was filed by six voters.
Okay, guys.
I know there's a lot of you out there.
We are going to get, in terms of unique viewership, on the videos I produce today, probably three or four hundred thousand different people.
How many?
Divide that number by six.
Is there anyone out there who'd be willing to challenge Joe Biden's eligibility?
Saying that, look, off the top of my head, the demand that Trump be prosecuted is an act of seditious conspiracy against the United States.
Joe Biden is subverting the United States electoral system for political power, quite literally an insurrection.
Trying to steal and maintain power.
So, if they're going to go after Trump, do you think you can get a single Republican judge?
Don't get me wrong.
It's going to be a lot harder to get a Republican to actually agree on those terms.
You're going to find a Democrat who's going to look at this lawsuit against Trump and they're going to be like, literally don't care if it's true or not, we're doing it.
How many Republicans are willing to file those same lawsuits?
Let's see it in the news.
Is there anybody out there?
Any lawyers?
You want to just file the suit and say Joe Biden is ineligible?
The evidence uncovered by the GOP proves that he was acting to subvert the United States, to peddle influence and exploit and abuse power.
Acting beyond the scope of impeachment, he engaged in insurrection.
Trump's not been convicted of any insurrection.
Trump has not been convicted of engaging in any kind of insurrection.
They are simply saying, because I believe they've filed the lawsuits.
Well, I believe Joe Biden, according to the New York Times, is a fact, demanded Merrick Garland prosecute his principal political rival to, in my view, steal power.
So if you want to argue that Donald Trump giving a speech where he says we're going to go peacefully protest was an insurrection, then I think telling your White House staff that you want the AG to prosecute your political rival is an act of insurrection as well.
It's an opinion, right?
So how are there no lawsuits against Joe Biden?
Come on!
To everybody who says, what can I do?
How can I, how can I, how can I challenge them?
Okay, well, you know, I've often talked about how you start a business, make money, be successful.
Boycotts and boycotts only support businesses that believe in your values and make sure the money is going into your community and you are empowering those who share your views.
Here's another one.
Start filing lawsuits.
The legal challenges are well within our rights.
It is how we seek a redress of grievances.
And if Joe Biden, according to the New York Times, did this, and you can cite it right there in your suit.
I'm wondering, you know, I'm a bit reluctant to say people should be should be doing a direct lawsuit, but why not at this point?
Why not at this point?
Republicans, lawyers, anybody.
File the claim.
Six voters, six voters in Colorado did this and now Trump must answer for it.
Okay.
Let's get Joe Biden subpoenaed on the record to confirm this story.
The New York Times reported it.
I want to hear him testify under oath.
Is it true that he told his staff he thought Trump should be prosecuted and that he wanted Merrick Garland to be more decisive and take action on January 6th?
Because now we're seeing Trump get targeted.
I want to see the communications.
I think this is more than enough for discovery.
Let's see the lawsuits.
You could sue a ham sandwich.
Lay it on.
If six voters brought this suit against Trump, where are the Republicans to do the same thing?
What about America First Legal?
I mean, you got MAGA-affiliated lawyers.
Where's it at?
Well here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
I like this one.
New poll finds Trump holds double-digit lead over Biden in Iowa.
Uh-oh!
Uh-oh.
50 for Trump to 39 for Biden.
We got this one from TimCast.com.
Black voters still fleeing Democratic Party citing inflation, crime, and Biden's failures.
Ooh, maybe we want to do a longer segment on that one.
And, uh, oh boy, Kamala Harris's approval rating.
Let's say that Joe Biden does get impeached and convicted or he doesn't run.
The Washington Post says President Biden should not run again in 2024.
Woo!
I want to be clear.
A Washington Post columnist wrote this in an op-ed.
Here's your aggregate polling of Trump vs. Kamala Harris.
Harris has 3 polls, but overwhelmingly in the aggregate, Trump is a favorite against Kamala Harris by 5 points.
Probably true.
Imagine if Joe Biden gets impeached, removed, or name taken off the ballot.
Imagine if he bows out and they say Kamala's going to run and maybe Newsom's their VP.
Ah, they lose in two seconds.
And they know it.
This is why they have to get Trump off the ballot.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're not having an election.
I think Roseanne's correct.
I'm going to put it this way.
There will be a system by which people vote, of course.
But can you really call what's happening right now an election?
Right now is when we're supposed to be hearing the arguments from the candidates to decide who we should vote for.
Instead, we have lawfare.
Attempts to disqualify Trump and imprison him.
Already, it's fair to say, an election is not taking place right now.
They are cheating unquestionably.
They're trying to get his name off the ballot.
Let the American voter decide who they want.
They know they can't win.
So is this really an election?
I say no.
But let's see.
I wonder what's going to happen if Joe Biden starts getting the same lawsuits, and why wouldn't he?
If your opinion is that Trump spoke at a rally and said, peacefully protest, warrants insurrection, then Joe Biden telling his staff to take down his political rival is also an insurrection.
That's it.
Because it's all just our opinion on what insurrection means, isn't it?
Okay.
Then let's see some lawsuits against Joe Biden.
Maybe I'll have to be the one who files it.
Whatever.
I'll file in West Virginia and be like, Joe Biden shouldn't be on the ballot because he's waging an insurrection.
I'll have those conversations.
We'll see where we go.
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.
Recently in an episode of the Culture War podcast, I was asked what I thought about the intelligence agencies, and I said they are abject evil.
And I don't think there's any argument from a leftist perspective or liberal as to how they would not be abject evil.
We have this story, and I'll get into that, why I bring that up.
Is Elon Musk a traitor?
U.S.
to hold closed-door meeting over whether billionaire is conducting own foreign policy.
Why?
Well, a story came out that said Elon Musk shut down Starlink, preventing a Ukrainian counter-offensive against Russia.
The reality is, there was a request made of Elon Musk to activate Starlink to allow the attack.
On the Russian flagship fleet.
And Elon said no.
They've actually corrected and revised this.
The real story.
Elon was asked to allow his property, Starlink, to be used as a tool in a military offensive which could result in World War 3.
At any rate, it would be a dramatic escalation.
So, now you have this story.
U.S.
Democrat Elizabeth Warren is demanding an investigation into SpaceX, whose CEO Elon Musk could have disrupted Ukraine's attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet by refusing to connect the Starlink network in occupied Crimea.
Bloomberg reported on September 12th.
The Congress needs to investigate what's happened here and whether we have the adequate tools to make sure foreign policy is conducted by the government and not by one billionaire.
Abject evil.
No, no, that's Elizabeth Warren, okay?
What did Elon Musk do?
As a private citizen who has a massive tool, Starlink Network of Satellites, which I subscribe to and we have as one of our emergency backups for communication in the event of the shutdown because we're in a moderately rural area, Elon Musk said, you can't use my property for war.
And now the government is coming after him.
Here's why I say the intelligence agencies are abject evil.
Think about everything the left has complained about.
Ocean acidification, climate change, carbon emissions in the atmosphere, the garbage patches, racial inequality.
All of these things are emboldened by an intelligence apparatus that seeks to serve this country's interests, right?
Here's what I really think.
I think the United States is a great country, and I think that the intelligence agencies are typically rogue agencies that don't They don't operate under the will of the people, they operate outside of it.
To me, that's why I think, overtly, they are doing things that are evil.
Because this country must agree on the direction this country goes, and you can't have a permanent state.
Of intelligence agencies deciding what the best thing for this country is.
From the liberal perspective, all of the ills of the world you describe are emboldened, empowered, and propped up by the intelligence agencies, which is why I say there is no argument left or right as to why you would support the CIA or the FBI.
I know too many people who have been let down by federal law enforcement.
We personally here at Timcast have been let down.
We were swatted 15 times, and they did nothing.
Even the- and we went to local law enforcement, we worked with interstate, there was- I'm not going to say all the agencies involved, but there were several different departments and law enforcement agencies, and they did nothing.
At the very least, I can say, if they did anything, they didn't tell us.
Yeah.
And then after we resolved some issues, because we believe, we know who is doing it, we told them over and over and over again, after some issues were resolved, all of a sudden it stopped.
Now they're targeting Elon Musk.
And it reminds me of that scene in Iron Man 2, where Tony Stark is at the congressional hearing and they're like, we want the Iron Man weapon!
He's like, you can't have it!
It's my property, it's me!
To go to Elon Musk and say, you built something and we want it for war!
I have such tremendous respect for Elon Musk to stare down the U.S.
government and say, no.
You can't have it!
It's funny because Elon Musk was in Iron Man 2.
Electric planes or something like that.
The chairman of the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, is also concerned about this problem given that traditionally satellites are controlled by governments and presidents decide what to do with them.
Although SpaceX has won Pentagon contracts to launch spy satellites, the company has no defense contracts to use Starlink in Ukraine.
Elon Musk secretly, that's what they said, Musk allegedly secretly ordered his engineers to disable Starlink off the coast of Crimea in 2022 to disrupt Ukrainian defense forces attack on the Russian Black Sea fleet.
That's not true.
Later, Musk claimed he did not turn off the satellite network as it was not active in the air to begin with.
He said that while he refused to connect it at Ukraine's request, he did so out of not wanting to be complicit in a major act of war.
He stated, as a U.S.
citizen, he does not view himself as a traitor because of his decision.
This is where we're at.
War against Russia?
Or you're a traitor.
Man, I'm sorry.
These people are abject evil.
They are evil.
You don't get to rule in secret.
You can make the arguments every argument in the world.
You can say secrecy in the security state is necessary and you are naive to think otherwise.
That if we don't engage in this conflict, China takes over.
Yeah, maybe.
So you're doing a piss-poor job of justifying anything you've done.
And the lies?
Well, they don't become us.
So when you go and try to impeach Donald Trump, this is what you get.
You know what would be really interesting for someone like me?
You want to convince me that Donald Trump's not the guy?
First, no Joe Biden.
You do not get to have a Joe Biden, career politician, corrupt as they come, lying every step of the way, and then think, I would ever defend you.
Let's say you get a Vivek Ramaswamy.
Vivek runs for president.
Vivek wins.
Vivek then says, I'm going to level with you on what we're doing with Ukraine and the war.
Imagine you get a Vivek who says, there are classified things I cannot reveal.
They would compromise the security of this country.
We are in an active conflict and we must keep things secret to prevent a rapid escalation.
The conflict is with adversaries of this nation and for this reason it is very difficult to break down.
If you got a Vivek, someone like him, who was honest and outright just said, I only ask that you trust us, we're doing our best.
That would go 100 times further than crackpot lying corrupt Joe Biden with everything he's done.
And you know what the best you could probably muster out of me?
Because I'm not some hardcore libertarian type.
I am fairly anti-intervention, but I understand these arguments.
If you came to me with a Vivek, someone like him, who said, I know I won't be able to convince you to support our efforts, but I hope you can trust me that we do have the best interests of this country and we are trying our hardest to solve these problems.
I would respect that.
And I would say, man, It's a tough position to be in.
I don't want the war.
I don't want our involvement.
And you're telling me that there's a legitimate reason for which you can't reveal to the public?
I don't want China to be the unipolar power in the world.
But we don't have that.
We don't have someone treating us like adults.
We have someone treating us like chickens.
And while I'm hard-pressed to believe that even someone like Vivek, who's quick-witted and successful and smart and actually has real plans, even if he came and said, there is a reason for this, you're never going to get me to support it.
Because I require direct evidence of something in order to justify conflict that results in death.
But at the very least, I can be walked back from the more extreme.
There is absolutely no reason.
You would lower the resistance of a person like me if you were honest about what it was you really wanted to do.
That's all I'm saying.
I know there are a lot of people that are you can never convince.
But the issue we have right now is Joe Biden is corrupt, a corrupt influence peddler, and evidence suggests the intelligence agencies are working at the behest of a man who is compromised.
Because of what he was doing with influence peddling in foreign countries with his family.
And now he's desperate to try and cover this up, and we're roped into this conflict in Ukraine for no perceivable reason.
There's no evidence here.
These organizations, I see them as evil.
I see it as threatening Elon Musk, a private citizen, because he won't turn over his property for their war efforts.
Unjustified war efforts, where they simply say, we should be involved in a war with Russia.
Why?
Tell me why.
Come to me and say, EU needs cheaper energy to grow to outpace China.
And I'll say, interesting.
Donald Trump gave us a little bit and I laughed.
It's funny.
He said, we got soldiers in Syria guarding the oil.
And I thought it was hilarious.
I'm like, wow, at least they're telling us.
I know the state of the world is constant conflict.
You may, you may differentiate between active war by declaration and the state of conflict of the world.
But I think it's fair to say that we're always at war.
If you want to say the line of war is that we're actively shooting at each other, fine, but I do believe that China is engaging in malicious activity against the United States to try and subvert and disrupt us, as is Russia.
And unfortunately, the U.S.
government cannot expose what they're doing.
I know this because we deal with security issues here as well.
I cannot come out and tell you every story of the security problems or challenges that we've faced, and I can't explain to you how people have tried to wrong us or succeeded in wronging us because it would expose us, which means, yo, intelligence agencies overwhelmingly are working on things you'll never know about, risking their lives to keep you safe and ensure your luxurious way of life.
The problem I see, the lies and the manipulations to remove Donald Trump, the exploitation of our goodwill to subvert the will of the people.
If Donald Trump was so bad, they could have gone about dealing with Trump in a much more successful, more intelligent way.
If the concern is that Donald Trump will lead America down a foreign policy path which will ultimately allow China to take over, that may be the case.
The only problem, I see these corrupt individuals working with China.
I see Mike Pompeo under the Trump administration saying that China has infiltrated every level of our country and buying up this land.
So right now the preponderance of evidence suggests, in fact, the intelligence agencies are working with China.
And therein lies the big problem.
Abject evil.
They're not going to be able to justify what they do.
And by going after Elon Musk, I think they just prove more and more that they are corrupt entities seeking to manipulate and gain power for their corrupt benefactors.
Not all of them.
That would be stupid.
I've spoken with people who work at intelligence agencies who tell me outright they're scared.
They say that the politics inside are the same as outside.
There's a lot of people who believe in this country who supported Donald Trump.
But they're scared to speak up.
It's time for that change.
Because if y'all start speaking up now, the culture is forced to shift.
The reckoning happens.
I hope so.
I guess the point I'm trying to get to is that I am not an unreasonable person who believes that there are not enemies of the United States.
There are certainly good people at the CIA and the FBI who are trying really, really hard to fix things.
I know that's true.
I'm saying that the people who are running the show there, they are evil people, either because they believe they should be allowed to exercise unrestrained power without the consent of the people, or they're just manipulating the system for personal gain.
You tell me which one.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The AI revolution is coming, and I think no one really understands just how insane it is going to be.
Elon Musk warns of the civilizational risk AI poses in a meeting with tech CEOs and Senators.
Musk of Tesla Next met his Mark Zuckerberg.
Sam Altman and others are meeting with Senators Wednesday.
The behind-closed-doors forum has skeptics in both parties.
It was interesting to hear that Elon was flying out to have this conversation, but he's right.
And I don't think people are truly considering what this means.
But I'll tell you.
We talk of Neuralink.
Elon Musk plugging your brain into the machine.
Perhaps at some point we get to the Matrix level, where you can hook an adapter up to your neck or somewhere in your body, send a signal into your brain, and provide you with sensation.
It's entirely possible.
For a while, I didn't think so.
I thought that human brain interface was limited by the fact that each human mind, while following similar patterns of construction, are too different.
Unique like a snowflake, thus making it very difficult for us to actually create a programming language to properly interface with the human mind.
I was wrong.
Limited by the technology of my day.
I did not quite understand what we could actually accomplish through brute force artificial intelligence code writing.
Oh boy.
Now what do I see?
Well, everyone's brain and pathways may be different.
Mapping it out is a simple task for an artificial intelligence, which has been given the data on all human minds, or many of them.
It can then brute force, through simulation, how to write and navigate the human mind in a way to create sensation, effectively turning you into a brain in a vat.
What I mean is, instead of writing a code on how to interface the human mind, An AI is generated that looks at all of the data of all of the brains running simulations to interface properly and eventually figuring it out.
When you first plug in to the Neuralink system to interface your mind, what happens is the Neuralink knows your brain, being unique like a snowflake, will need a unique set of code to interface properly.
That's it.
The system then effectively brute forces your brain until it figures out how to generate the proper responses.
What does that mean?
You'll be able to plug your brain into the Neuralink, and you will be able to go anywhere, and do anything, and be anyone, anytime you want.
For base reality, that spells... that spells nightmare, disaster, and the collapse of human civilization, for the most part.
We won't travel the stars.
We will travel our own imaginations.
We will give up on the reality that we are in.
Maybe it's not even base reality itself.
Maybe we are in one of these simulations.
For all you know, you sitting there.
Maybe you're an electrician.
And you got a nice house and a family.
Maybe in the real world, you're a race car driver billionaire.
And you got a lot of stresses in life.
And so you're simply playing a video game right now.
You're like, oh, I'm running another Fortune 500 company.
This is crazy.
I just want to play Second Life or Otherworld or whatever you call it.
You plug in your brain and you're a humble electrician dealing with the daily lives.
And in the span of 10 minutes in base reality, you're experiencing 70 years.
Or maybe your memories are fake and you've only been here for 20 minutes and you're just going to play the game for a little bit and you're gone in a moment's notice.
Let me tell you where we go with AI.
Assuming we get to the point where a Neuralink interface can brute force signals into your brain to create sensation, which I believe is entirely possible.
The harder part's going to be the hardware installation process.
How do you surgically implant the Neuralink into someone's brain?
That's tough.
That's tough.
But I think we can find a way.
Especially with nanotech.
And it may be much simpler than anything else.
It could simply just be a few simple copper strands laid over the back of your brain in a simple surgical procedure, which then figures out how to send signals into your brain to override it, creating sensation.
There's an episode of Black Mirror where these two guys in college are playing a fighting game.
And the one guy likes playing the Asian martial artist, and the other guy likes playing the female martial artist.
When they're older, a Neuralink-style device is released to the market, where you put it on your temple, and it transfers your mind into the game where you can physically feel everything.
So they're in this world where they're actually fighting and they can feel pain and everything and throw fireballs and jump super high.
And then the story breaks down and they start having sex with each other for whatever reason and it's like, well, okay.
If the game was that expansive, why would it be so limited?
This is what Black Mirror misses with the concept.
If you can create a neural link pathway into the brain to deliver sensation, AI will give you anything you want.
I am amazed by MidJourney.
Take a look at this image that took me 30 seconds to make.
I just did a bunch of prompts where it was like, um, the final scene of the movie Steampunk Crisis.
The incredibly, generically titled.
Man, this photo is incredible.
The guy's face is a little, you know, mashed or whatever.
But here you have a man in a suit walking from some big, burning, exploding tower.
Walking downstairs.
What an amazing image.
So then I said, give me a promotional poster for this movie, and it made this.
The interesting thing is, it's a similarly looking guy.
Here's where it gets even crazier.
Someone made a quick AI animation of it already.
Imperfect, but wow.
Look at this.
Storm Crow says, and here it is quickly animated.
AI artists are here to work with you.
We are a few years away.
There will no longer be video games.
There will no longer be movies.
There will be no comic books.
There will be nothing but the AI.
Our imagination amalgam, mashed into one, to create whatever it is we want.
No longer will there be billion-dollar movie studios.
You won't need it!
You'll go to the AI, and you will say, and we're talking a couple years out, I want to watch a movie where Captain America, starring Chris Evans, Has to fight the Hulk.
The Hulk becomes, you know, who's super intelligent, discovers that there is a quantum rift that could destroy the world.
But in order to save the planet, he has to engage in an otherwise morally ambiguous effort which could kill many people.
And the battle begins, where Captain America is saying, this is what Thanos wanted, there's gotta be another way!
You can make near perfect images of Donald Trump getting arrested.
People have done it.
A year ago, the images of Trump were goofy looking and hard to understand.
But the programs are becoming better and better and better.
We are already at the point of AI generated video, speech, images.
You combine these things, and here's your future.
In ten years, maybe.
With the advance of AI, brute-forcing, we are learning about these crazy technologies where you can brute-force anything.
And brute-force implies, the computer system tries every iteration until it unlocks the key.
Unlocks the lock.
Until it discovers the key.
So let's say, it's like in the movie Iron Man.
I love the Marvel references, right?
When he's trying, Iron Man 2 actually, what a great reference with Elon Musk.
When he's trying to create the new element, and he keeps telling the AI to simulate, simulate, simulate, and it can't do it.
And then finally he finds something where his dad's, he finds this video and his dad's like, I'm limited by the technology of my time, but I believe you'll crack this.
And then he's like, take a look at this, do this.
And then the AI is like, this should work, a new element.
And then he makes it.
That's what we're going to get.
But the real world won't matter.
None of that will matter.
Why?
When the system can brute force your brain and find a way to break in and give you... stimulate you and give you... program you, basically.
You're gonna say, not you maybe, but a lot of people.
They're gonna say, dude, yes.
Because I've played Skyrim.
It's fun.
But imagine you could be in Skyrim.
An immortal god who can throw fireballs!
And you know what?
No one needs to program it.
No one needs to design anything.
You simply tell the AI.
You walk to your little pod with the Neuralink port, your adapter on your brain, and maybe it's even wireless.
All it has to be is a little thing that just snaps to your neck like a magnet to transmit the signal.
And you go, uh, today I want to be a space traveler heading to colonize a new planet when we get intercepted by the, the, the Gli- the Glibo alien race, the Glycons, the, the, uh, Glycerins.
You know, they're, they're, uh, gonna sing to us, or whatever that song's about, I don't know.
And, uh, you just say it.
And then the AI procedurally generates this universe that you can go in and do whatever you want.
Maybe you want to be influential.
You want to be famous.
You want to eat good food.
And then what happens?
When we give up on our senses, because we can sense anything we want, you'll eat the bugs and you'll be happy.
Don't believe me?
You will.
Why?
Your home will be a pod.
You will eat the bugs.
But it's not going to be the way you think.
If we get to this point with AI, what will happen is there will be real multiplayer universes where you are conscious of everything.
And so you say, you know, you don't really need most jobs because, uh, automation.
So you go into your pod, you plug in and say, take me home AI.
And then you are now sleeping in your pod, but in your mind, The pod is actually this massive 10,000 square foot, amazing mansion of everything you could have ever wanted.
And then even in this house, you can go Simulation Computer Access Command.
Bowling Alley Lane?
Generate.
And then, it just makes a bowling alley for you.
Or not even that.
If you want to be in the privacy with your friends, or you want to go to the bowling alley, you'll be in the pod!
It's the Matrix, dude.
That's if Neuralink gets to this point.
In the meantime, before we get to that point, I think it's some ways away.
You're gonna be sitting at home, and your movies, your video games, your art, your comics, your books, it's all gonna be amalgam, procedurally generated.
Right now I'm playing Baldur's Gate.
Awesome game.
But who cares?
You buy Baldur's Gate.
What's the point?
If in the future, you can just download the game called AI Game, and it will say, what kind of game do you want?
And you will say, I want Baldur's Gate Give me a new version of Baldur's Gate, where you are customizable characters and everything like that, and the main storyline is that there's an interdimensional group, a dimensional rift opens up, and from another plane of existence, a horde of monsters are trying to destroy Earthrealm or something, in the style of D&D, blah blah blah, and it'll be like a very similar game, there will be communications and voice and storylines, and it'll be instantly made.
We are really, really close to that.
Before it comes to video games, I think it'll be movies.
You'll say, like this?
Look at this, dude!
We're... A year ago, we couldn't make anything like this.
Now they're animating this guy, with the fire and explosion behind him.
Absolutely amazing.
Steampunk crisis.
In the image, the detail is pretty amazing.
In the animation, not so much.
But look where we were one year ago.
With images.
And now, one year on, we're moving them.
We are getting really, really close.
Really close.
In a couple of years, we'll be there.
Already, using ChatGPT, OpenAI's Playground, you can give it a prompt, like, tell me a story about a ninja who's hired by, you know, a feudal lord to assassinate the emperor, and it will write out the story.
And then you can keep getting it to generate more and more and more, and it'll write you a whole book?
So this means what?
We're probably a year away from you being able to say, write me a novel about John Doe, a man who lost his memories but slowly comes to discover that he's got masterful assassin technique abilities and martial arts prowess, and he uncovers a conspiracy where the villains had his memory erased in an attempt to make him work as a weapon for their evil corporation.
And then it'll write it.
Then you'll read it.
Now, maybe in the next year or so, these stories will be like, eh, that was a little weak plot point.
And then you'll go in, you'll... This is what you can do.
You can then change a plot point in a sentence, and then tell it to regenerate from that point on, and change the story.
That's how crazy things are getting.
Movies, video games, art, you name it.
This is the civilizational collapse because people will give up on the real world.
They'll stop going to work.
They'll stop eating and drinking.
And think about this.
Let's say there's someone that's desperately in love.
A stalker and a celebrity or something like that.
Now the good news here is, this stalker is going to plug their brain in and be like, just give me the celebrity!
And they'll appear and they'll be like, life is so good, I'll never leave.
That's better for the celebrity who doesn't want to be stalked.
But then think about a dude who's in love with his best friend, but his best friend doesn't like him back and is going to get married.
He'll say, I can't live in this world anymore.
I'm going into the Matrix.
He'll never see his friend again.
I don't blame him.
Or her.
I want to be with this person.
So they'll go in their digital universe and they'll create the person and just be with them.
Imagine somebody who's been... fired from a job.
They're just gonna say, all of my hopes and dreams are in this universe.
Here's the hard reality, the harsh reality.
If you go into the pod, and go into the Matrix, into the multiplayer version where you can hang out with your real-world friends, you can't be a king.
They know who you are.
They'll say, you're just some portly fella who got dumped.
So trying to create this avatar is... whatever.
For somebody who has an identity outside of their physical body, or incongruous with their physical body, a trans person or whatever, anyone even, someone who wants to be a carrot, if you go into the digital universe and you're hanging out with friends from the real world, you know, they know, you're not really a carrot or a rabbit.
So what do you do?
You create an AI universe where you are and everyone treats you as such and it feels good, doesn't it?
It's a scary thought.
Because the temptation is there for anybody who's played any video game ever.
It's fun!
It's fun to play World of Warcraft and be a warrior or a rogue and sneak through the shadows and complete the missions.
We love it!
Imagine if you could live it, experience it, and feel it, and... You're gonna eat the bugs, you know why?
Because in the real world, Neuralink goes beyond the fake world.
If Neuralink is as such, That you need only attach a small device to wirelessly put thoughts into your mind.
You go to a restaurant and you sit down and say, I'll have the, um, I think I'll have the filet mignon Oscar style.
Big fan of that, by the way.
I love it.
And we'll do the, uh, the roasted garlic and, uh, let's get a side of Brussels sprouts.
They bring to you a plate full of mashed roaches.
And then you go, ah!
Norlink was off.
Tap, tap, and then, oof, it all turns into exactly what you thought it was.
Then you're sitting there, eating a spoonful of mashed roaches, and other nasty bugs and crickets, and it's the most delicious steak you've ever tasted.
Why would you care?
Now some people would be like, that's disgusting, I would never do that.
Honest question though, why would you care?
Why would you care?
It's... You're eating delicious steak.
You're not in the Matrix.
It's only altering your experiences in the real world.
Isn't that something?
You could do it for everything.
You can order the delicious creme brulee cookie dough cheesecake with extra fudge drizzled all over the top.
And then you look at it and you're like, that Neuralink was off.
Tap, tap, and there it is.
The most delicious cheesecake you've ever tasted.
Why would you want anything else?
The temptation will be there before you.
All of your desires granted to you.
Everything you could ever want and more.
So I believe that will lead us to civilizational collapse.
Why?
Society may still exist.
The machines will be run.
Someone will do the work.
But most people will just remove themselves from society.
They'll choose to live in the fake world where everything feels perfect.
An amalgam.
A simulation.
And there'll be glitches.
And some people will say, I don't want to know of the real world anymore.
We saw the movie The Matrix, and in this movie, people didn't know they were in it.
And it was considered torturous, and we wanted freedom.
I suppose the canon is what I'm told is that humans chose The Matrix because the world sucked.
Because of the war.
And that's what it would be.
You don't even need war.
It's gonna be like, dude, it's hot outside.
I wanna go skateboarding.
Just plug me into the thing, and I can never get hurt, and I can do all the tricks I've ever wanted.
I have Skater XL, the video game.
It's just fun to have a little dude ride around and then kick, flip, crooked grind down the handrail.
What if you could actually experience it perfectly?
Plug your brain in.
You would dissociate because it's just easier.
A lot of people will resist it.
But over time, those people will probably lose out.
Technology keeps advancing.
And I don't know what this means other than humans locking themselves in pods and forgetting the world.
I consider that to be a civilizational collapse.
I consider humans recoiling from existence, to live in a fake fantasy world, apocalyptic.
And that's what we'll become.
We won't need to travel the stars.
Now maybe.
One thing we could do with this technology is that people could be placed on spaceships, sent to distant planets, and while they're flying, they're actually in these fake universes, so they can live full lives while base reality is actually just a spaceship on an 80-year voyage.
And so the kids they have, and the families they have, they're real people.
And they grow up in the real world.
Or I should say, they grow up in a simulation of the real world, learning real things.
And then one day, they're told, in ten years time, this reality will come to a conclusion as we land on the new planet we are set to colonize.
Imagine that.
What if one day, you woke up, and you were ten years old, and you were in a pod?
And you're like, what is this?
What is going on?
And the pod opens up, and they say, we are about to land at Colony 71X, A39, in the whatever system.
It's been a 300 year journey, where people were born and bred in capsules, To live as if they grew up in America in the 20th century.
Why?
So that everyone would learn and share their values.
And when the humans who made it to that planet arrive, they would be knowledgeable and have that information.
You'd be like, but I'm 10, but that's right.
Everything you experienced in that pod was a simulation of a real life so you could learn true American values.
That way, when you're finally ready to come out at 10 years old, you have all the knowledge and experiences of an adult human being, thus making you wiser and more successful in your colonization efforts.
Something like that.
Wouldn't that be crazy?
The technology could do a lot of good.
But I think most people are going to choose to just, look man, I want to eat a whole box of Cinnabons.
It's the, with just ice cream everywhere.
Just give me a simulation of a soft serve machine with cookie dough and I'll just go.
Like, who would not?
Come on.
No consequences.
You can't get sick.
You can eat all the most delicious things in the world.
There would be, I'm not, I'll tell you right now.
If this stuff- I don't know if I would ever want to get a Neuralink.
The idea that it could help people walk, see, and hear who are- that's amazing.
But to just get the experiences?
I don't know, man.
But if I had one?
Come on, why not?
I've already done the VR where I fought robots.
It's fun!
If you could actually taste the most delicious pizza, you could eat at the finest restaurants and have the best desserts, you'd go nuts, you'd be like, this is gonna be fun, we're gonna eat like crazy!
And then you just decide, I'm satisfied.
There's a brave new world before us.
The AI will create a world perfect for you.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see y'all then.
I saw this headline and I just thought it was so funny.
MAGA is the leading red flag for 18 to 34 year old women, while reading is the biggest turn on for both genders.
The survey showed what men and women aged 18 to 34 considered to be red flags for a romantic partner.
Look, I actually agree to a certain extent that someone coming out and saying they're hardcore MAGA, probably a turn off.
Why?
Well, because like strong identities like that attract strong identities.
So, someone who comes out and they're like wearing a Trump shirt and they're like, yes, Trump, Trump, you're gonna be like, I don't really relate to that zeal.
You know what I mean?
Me personally, I don't care if you do it.
But I gotta say something for the pollsters who say, For men, 59% say identify as a MAGA Republican is a turnoff or a red flag.
Sure, call it red flag.
I hate to break it to you, but, uh, if these ladies with this Trump flag in these American flag bikinis or, you know, I guess American flag-ish, one woman on the right, it's not really an American flag.
Yo, if they walked into any room Anywhere!
With 18- to 34-year-old men, those guys are going to tell you, I don't care that they have a Trump flag.
Just that much.
So, when you look at this data, and it is funny, and it's like, do you consider each of the following behaviors as traits?
A green, beige, or red flag.
59% of men said it's a red flag that they identify as MAGA Republican.
Meaningless.
Completely meaningless.
There's a meme where it's like a dude says something like, I don't understand why he keeps going back to his crazy ex-girlfriend, and then it shows this woman in a very, just like, you know, you get it.
It shows the woman on the bed and it's like, Dude, guys don't care, overwhelmingly.
Older guys, like, I don't mean like old, but like, guys who are leaving the, you know, older than 30, say older than 34, are probably gonna be more like, you know, I'm old enough to realize you need a stable human being as a partner.
But, Let's take a look at all the red flags, because I want to break this one down.
It's actually really, really funny.
76% of women say that it is a red flag that a dude identifies as a MAGA Republican.
76.
And so, here's what I think about this first.
I quite literally don't care and don't think it matters.
None of this.
If you're a MAGA dude who is just screaming, TRUH!
Do you want to be with a woman who is not like you?
Do you want to be with a woman who does not also agree with you politically?
In which case, who cares if 76% of women think that it's a red flag you like Trump?
Wouldn't you want to just date someone who likes your political views, like agrees with you, and is going to build a life that works for you?
If you are a woman who thinks MAGA is a red flag, you're not going to date a MAGA guy!
So for somebody who is into Trump, they're not going to date someone who's not.
They might.
And also, what does the red flag really mean?
Here you go.
They have no hobbies.
These things start to matter a little bit more, but the political ones really don't.
Having no hobbies.
66% of women, 60% of men.
It makes sense.
Women tend not to have hobbies.
Tend not to.
But don't always.
They care more that men don't, because men do things.
Like, men should be, like, doing something, right?
But I also think it's somewhat immaterial.
They say all lives matter.
I gotta be completely honest.
If you are someone who goes on a date and you tell the woman or man, well, I think all lives matter, do you?
That's kind of a weird thing to ask.
Who cares?
Right?
Certainly if you're having political conversations, you're not going to want to be in a relationship with someone who isn't sharing these conversations.
But let's move on.
They say there are only two genders.
I love this one.
34% of men say it's a red flag if a woman says there are only two genders.
Meaning, the overwhelming majority of men are actually good with women saying there are only two genders.
58% of women Think it's a red flag if men say there are only two genders.
Isn't that amazing?
Look, they are so unbothered they never ask details.
Men really don't care.
That's not saying like, you know, a dude will walk up to a woman in a Trump bikini and he's gonna be like, literally don't care.
The bikini, the bikini, it's not the Trump that's the problem, it's the bikini.
Here we go.
They identify as a communist.
I love this one.
64% of men think it's a red flag if you're a communist.
55% of women.
We get it.
I love this next one.
They listen to Joe Rogan.
35% of men think it's a red flag if a woman listens to Joe Rogan, whereas 55% of women think it's a red flag if a man does.
Yo, it's simple.
My view is that women are going to start bending in the other direction, towards conservative.
The reason being, Twelfth-grade boys, overwhelmingly conservative now, are skewing that way, and twelfth-grade girls skew liberal.
What's going to happen is that men care less about social interactions than women, so the pressure is going to be on women to start to, uh... Well, I'll put it this way.
The pressure's there.
But we see that married women tend to be more conservative.
Why?
Men tend to be more conservative.
Women, I believe it's in this data, it suggests women are more likely to adopt the social characteristics and behaviors of the men they're trying to court as opposed to the other way around.
It also seems to fit standard evolutionary biology between the sexes.
A man is going to be headstrong, egotistical, arrogant, and less agreeable.
A woman is going to be more agreeable.
In which case, if a woman wants to be with a guy that she finds attractive and strong, and he says, yeah, but I think these things, she's more likely to be agreeable than a man would be in the other direction.
Which is to say...
As these young women get older and start to start to think like, hey, you know, I want to have a family now, they're likely going to have to, they're likely going to adapt their behaviors to become more like the majority of guys who lean away from the Democrats.
They say.
Refusing to see the Barbie movie is dumb.
Half of women think if you don't care about politics, it's a red flag.
29% of guys don't think so.
And this makes sense.
Women want guys to pay attention to the world and know about this stuff, right?
Standard evolutionary biology.
Look at these women following their gender roles.
Imagine a woman dating a guy back in the day, and the guy's like, I literally don't care about worldly affairs, or whether there's anything going on around us.
She's like, uh, we're gonna die.
Like, if you don't know or care about that, those bears and those wolves and those barbarians, that's stuff you should know about.
There's a, uh, the king says, we're gonna come and take your crops, and he's like, I don't know what the king's saying.
Well, if you're not paying attention and then he shows up and takes our stuff, that, that's worrying to me.
For guys, they don't care if the woman's paying attention.
They want someone who's going to be taking care of their family.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
They own a gun.
This one's cool.
Women and men mostly don't care if you own a gun.
Based.
Even liberal women.
It's funny.
They watch reality dating shows.
Men care more than women.
Agreed.
What about all these ladies watching that show Married to Strangers?
That's like the most popular show among women right now.
Have you seen it?
90 Day Fiancé.
Fiancé or whatever.
Women love that stuff.
Men think it's a red flag if women are into astrology, but women don't?
Yeah, I kind of agree.
It's kind of weird.
Men don't like liberal women, 33%.
Mostly don't care, though.
Women don't care if men are liberal.
They frequently post on social media.
Eh, it's negligible.
They say black lives matter.
I love this.
33% of men say it's a red flag if women say black lives matter.
After this, nobody really cares about any of it.
But I do think it's really funny that 64% of men The scale is based on women, actually, not men.
For men, the most alarming thing is that they're a communist.
Seriously.
So if you're a guy, and you meet a woman and she's like, I'm a MAGA Republican, you'd be like, okay, that's kind of weird, I guess.
And if they said, I'm a communist, you'd be like, that's kind of bad, actually.
It's only off by, you know, what, five points?
But men care more about women being communists than they do about women being MAGA Republicans, which I find absolutely hilarious.
Now, let's break down what red flag means.
Red flag means you don't date.
It means it's a sign the person may have other issues.
So I gotta tell you, I don't know what this, where this image, hot babes for Trump Facebook page.
Yo, I guarantee you, any one of these guys Are gonna see these women and be like, literally don't care.
Same thing with communists.
Guy goes to a bar, and there's some hot chick, and he's gonna be like, so what do you, what are you into?
It's like communism, and he's like, uh-huh, yeah, how about that?
Anyway, uh, couldn't help but notice your body.
That being said, the science is clear on this one.
Communists tend to be ugly.
Conservatives tend to be more attractive.
So the reality is, you're gonna find a lot more women that are fit, in shape, and believe in meritocracy who are supporting Trump, and you're gonna find a lot more women who identify as communists as being, like, you know, unattractive.
That's why they're communists.
People who are attractive and can get by on their own, Don't want to give up that power to other people and share it, and people who struggle to get by on their own because they're uglier or less skilled, team up.
Makes sense.
Do you have packs of sharks swimming together to go hunt fish?
As far as I know, not really.
Sharks do swim in remaining groups, like all species like to be around each other.
But schools of fish swarm together for protection.
And that's exactly it.
If you're smaller and weaker, you want collective protection.
And if you're bigger and stronger, you want to be left alone to exercise your power!
