All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 5, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:14:00
Biden Calls Alaska National Guard To US Border In OPPOSITION To Texas National Guard, Senate Border Bill IS GOP BETRAYAL

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 Biden Calls Alaska National Guard To Stand AGAINST TEXAS, Senate Border Bill IS GOP BETRAYAL Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:11:12
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:28
| Copy link to current segment

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 crisis on the southern border is growing.
We're now getting word that Alaska will be deploying National Guard to Texas to help secure the border.
At the same time, 14 governors gathered in Texas to assert their right to defend their states and their borders and stop an invasion of this country.
At the same time, news is breaking about the alleged bipartisan border deal.
Which is, in fact, more funding for Ukraine, Israel, and less funding for the border.
You're not gonna be wrong.
The bill itself does have money, technically, for immigration issues.
But the funding goes to NGOs.
The bill guarantees the Biden administration the right to bring in 5,000-plus illegal immigrants per day.
And when that threshold is met, it just moves them to ports of entry instead of illegal crossings.
Make no mistake, this bill is not a border security bill.
It is codifying the legal right of Joe Biden to strip the states of their power so they cannot defend themselves from waves of illegal immigration.
It would fund illegal immigration.
It would overwhelmingly, to the tune of $60 billion, fund war in Ukraine.
And it is an ultimate betrayal by Republicans in the Senate.
And so I see this news from Newsweek.
I gotta be honest, I'm trying to figure out what's the lead story?
What's the first article?
Every day, when I'm looking at this big news, I say, what is the story that captures everything?
And I have this story from Newsweek.
Texas stripped of powers in border security bill.
Now it was tough.
Tough call.
Because we also have this story.
14 GOP governors gather to support Texas' right to protect its borders.
Well, one of those governors was Abbott, so of course he's going to assert that.
But when you have these stories at the same time, the federal government is seeking to strip the state's powers to defend themselves.
They want it codified.
Meanwhile, 14 governors are asserting their right to do so.
Wow.
We are headed for a massive clash.
I don't know.
Part of me thinks it's all for show.
You know, many people have said, Tim, what Abbott is doing may be good, but it's not stopping anything.
And it's just for show to convince the American people, those who are angry, that something is, someone's trying to do something.
But when you look at what the federal government is doing, this border bill is shockingly psychotic.
And I gotta be honest, I am surprised how brazen it is, this attempt To steamroll the destruction of the American border, American sovereignty, and fund the war in Ukraine masquerading as U.S.
border security.
You see, I'll tell you why they do it.
The longest time there have been many libertarians, conservatives, not every libertarian, mind you, but even post-liberals, who have complained, why are we funding war in Ukraine when we're not securing our own border?
So they decided to put the funding for Ukraine war in a supposed border bill.
That's right.
More money, three times as much money will go to Ukraine As it will to southern border issues.
And the reason I say that and don't say security is that they're dumping money into NGOs to help facilitate illegal immigration and shatter our border.
The other night, I was having a good old time down over at MGM National Harbor.
You know, I go there from time to time.
It's a fun place, and I'm playing myself a fine game of poker with the boys.
There were some individuals there who are familiar with the show and my work.
Some who had worked for the Libertarian Party, and it was an interesting conversation.
But this story matters.
It's why they do this.
At the table, conversation came up about politics and what's happening in this country.
And, of course, it had to happen.
Someone said, have you figured out who you're voting for yet?
Snap!
Of course, Trump.
Well, one guy at the table lost his mind, started spitting, yelling and muttering to himself about how stupid everyone is, about how Trump is evil and a liar.
And he said, name one good thing Donald Trump did.
I'll wait.
And I said, Abraham Accords.
And before I even finish it, he goes, you can't name even one.
These people are so stupid.
You can't argue with stupid.
And he said, Donald Trump has never told the truth about anything in his life.
And that was so extreme, another guy at the table goes, oh come on, he's talked about sports at least!
But here's my point.
It was fascinating to see that interaction.
But understand, as much as many may be rolling their eyes and be like, Tim, we don't care about your poker stories.
No, listen.
The point is there are people like this, you encounter in the wild, who hear the news from CNN, and we have CNN pulled up, key highlights of the Senate's proposed border deal package.
And you get Joe Biden saying, Give me the power and I will secure the border!
And these people, who are not smart enough to listen to words and just mutter to themselves in anger as they bang on the table about how Trump is bad, hear the news that Biden's trying to secure the border!
These stupid Trump supporters won't listen!
They won't listen!
And I'm sitting there like, did you read the bill?
Unfortunately for us, these people don't read the bill.
There was a better conversation I had with another guy who was a lawyer.
He was a cool guy.
And he said, Colorado did not unrestrict abortion.
I said, yes, they did.
I'm not, I'm not sitting here to have some guy just mutter, nah, I'm not playing that game.
If you're a plumber and someone came to you and made some ridiculous claim about plumbing, you'd be like, no, stop, I'm not doing this.
And then he just went, okay.
But there are people who genuinely believe fake news because it comes from the corporate press and from Democrat personalities and leftists.
The bill itself unquestionably gives Ukraine 60 billion dollars, allows illegal immigration up to 5,000 per day or more.
It just moves into ports of entry and says they can now process more claims.
It codifies the legal process.
It basically legalizes anyone walking across the border.
This is not an exaggeration.
It is the antithesis of a border security bill.
But you get these people who won't read the news.
They'll only hear passively on the TV, Biden begs for border security powers, Republicans say no.
And that's the game.
When these Republican governors come out, inevitably, and say, this bill is a disaster.
When you get Steve Scalise, I believe I've got Steve Scalise right here.
He says, let me be clear.
The Senate border bill will not receive a vote in the House.
Here's what the people pushing this deal aren't telling you.
It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day.
And gives automatic work permits to asylum recipients.
A magnet for more illegal immigration.
Not only that, it removes, in some circumstances, the court process for quote-unquote asylum seekers.
That means, when a criminal alien enters this country, they can rubber stamp a work permit.
But of course, what will happen is, these individuals, like I encountered the other day in the wild, We'll say, Biden got a border security deal and the Republicans blocked it.
They're doing this because they just want to win.
Well, it is what it is.
Knowing is half the battle, right?
I can leave you all with some great satisfaction, however, from the encounter.
I had a good time as the guy muttered to himself and I said, listen, you asked me for one thing about Trump.
I said Abraham Accords.
And now you're just muttering to yourself that I didn't say anything.
And then he stopped.
And he's like, what?
And then at some point he goes, I bet you like Alex Jones.
You listen to, you're a conspiracy theorist.
And I was like, I actually know Alex Jones.
I consider him a friend.
And he was like, and then a couple of guys at the table were like, that's going to piss him off.
Look, dude, if your brain is so broken, you can't handle a simple conversation without experiencing Trump derangement syndrome.
Well, that's on you.
But the problem for us is that it is a problem we must face when we all know people like this.
And it is weird.
It's like, dude, calm down.
It's like we're sitting here playing a game of cards on the weekend, having a good old time, and you're losing your mind.
I didn't yell at the guy.
I said, I'm voting for Trump.
And he just, brain shattered.
The problem is these individuals will not read these bills.
And that's the game plan.
Biden will come out and keep saying, I'm trying to secure the border.
Why won't you help me?
In reality, it's funding for Ukraine.
We've got a lot to go through.
Take a look at this.
We'll give you a quick glimpse of CNN, because of course, they're going to falsely frame things because they're evil people.
Key highlights of the Senate's proposed border deal package.
They say, now to be fair, they do actually, as much as they try, they do actually get, you gotta get some of the facts in there.
New emergency authority to restrict border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span.
If that metric is reached, the Homeland Security Secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum.
Oh, basically it comes down to Mayorkas, who has already allowed all of this, so that means nothing.
If they increase above 5,000 a day on any given week, DHS is required to use that authority.
Now hold on.
It says if an encounter has reached 8,500 a day, they're required to trigger the authority.
What does that mean?
The federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority.
Ya see?
It's nonsense.
They're saying nothing.
So we've already had record-breaking days of 10,000 criminal aliens per day, and they're saying, well, if it gets close to the record, then maybe we have to trigger some kind of authority where we can determine upon our own discretion what to do.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America 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!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Here we go.
In the first year, the government can use it for 270 days.
This is not even... It's basically codifying all the illegal immigration.
It's legalizing it.
Codifies a policy that requires the government to process at least 1,400 asylum application at ports of entry when the emergency authority is triggered.
You see, what they're basically saying is, once they reach a certain threshold, and they're nearing the record of 10,000 per day, they will shuffle the others to the border to do the same thing.
And here's the important part.
They're saying the border must do it.
So they're guaranteeing up to 10,000 illegal aliens, illegal immigrants per day.
Basically makes them not illegal.
It makes it a legal process.
Raises the legal standard of proof to pass the initial screening for asylum, making it potentially more difficult for asylum seekers to pass.
I don't buy it for two seconds.
But I will say, that's there.
I read it.
Fair point.
But personally, I don't believe it.
Because expedites the asylum processing timeline from years to six months.
Introduces a new process in which U.S.
citizenship and immigration services would decide an asylum claim without going through the court system.
And it doesn't apply to children.
This means they can say whatever the standard is they want.
They can say the standard is more difficult.
And then when you overwhelm U.S.
citizenship and immigration and CIS, they're just gonna be like, nah, we agree.
Rubber stamp.
Nah, we agree.
Rubber stamp.
No more courts.
Just shuffle them on in.
Preserves the President's authority to designate humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis.
Includes limited changes that narrow the use of blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl It talks about fentanyl, it talks about these other things.
The bill itself has funding for Israel.
It has fu- Do I have one of these tweets pulled up?
No, we got a video of Texas securing the border, though.
That's interesting.
The bill itself would provide massive funding for foreign war.
Senators unveil long-awaited border deal from Politico.
Let's see if they got this one in here.
$118 billion agreement.
Now, hold on there a minute.
You may be saying, nah, I'm confused.
I thought it was a $20 billion border deal.
Here we go.
Senators in both parties have finalized a deal on stricter border and immigration policies, headed towards an uncertain floor vote.
Well, the Republicans in the House are saying no.
Democrats are saying all we've got to do is flip a small handful of Republican members of the House, and we win.
And perhaps they will.
Here we go.
Thank you, Politico.
No, seriously.
You can't get it from CNN.
The border foreign aid deal?
Ah, there it is!
$17 billion in aid for Israel.
Amazing.
They're gonna talk about what's going on with the rest of the border.
Where's our $60 billion for Ukraine?
Come on, let's get that number up there.
You gotta wonder why it is that you've got $118 billion.
Do they not get into Ukraine?
I love this.
There we go, there we go.
The $118 billion, legal crossings, blah blah blah, and sends billions of dollars to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.
As well as the border.
That's the game.
My friends, things are heating up.
I don't know exactly how this will all play out.
Part of me thinks it's all for show.
That Texas ain't gonna do nothing, the National Guard going down to the border is meaningless, and in the end, if this bill passes, it will strip the states of their powers, of some of them.
Alaska National Guard plans deployment to assist federal government on US-Mexico border.
The issue here, of course, is federal government.
Oh, man.
I don't know.
I gotta clarify what I was saying earlier because I think as I glossed over this I may have implied they were going down to assist Texas.
That's the assumption because so many states have teamed up.
But let's go.
The Alaska Army National Guard said Friday it had begun preparing for a potential deployment early next year in support of the federal government's U.S.-Mexico border control efforts.
Prepared statement, the Alaska National Guard on Friday, said the memorandum from the federal government had been issued, directing Alaska forces to prepare two LUH-22 Lakota helicopters, 20 guardsmen, to potentially be deployed in early 2025.
They would provide support on the border.
So I wonder what this, uh, yowza.
I, uh, I feared this would happen.
And all I can say is, I called it.
It's not much to call, though.
This is wild.
When we were talking about the National Guard on the border and the fears that the federal government would make attempts to nationalize the Texas National Guard, many people, many Democrats in government and personalities had called for this.
Many people Wow.
They had considered the implications of what it would mean if Joe Biden attempted to seize control of the Texas National Guard in this moment.
Right now, as I showed briefly that we have this video, Wall Street Silver posted of Texas with its shipping containers covered in razor wire guarding the border at the Rio Grande.
I asked this question, what if the federal government does not federalize, nationalize the Texas National Guard?
But what if they nationalize Louisiana and deploy neighboring National Guard against Texas?
Then what?
What an interesting predicament.
The federal government has the ability to call in the National Guard from a state under certain criteria.
One of those criteria being they cannot enforce the law in any other means.
So they have to use National Guard.
Texas has a State Guard and Florida has a State Guard as well.
They're separate from the National Guard and they cannot be federalized.
Although, my friends, some have argued, I was having a conversation on the culture war with some from Texas, I said, of course they can federalize the state guard.
And people said, you know, one guy's like, no, that would be crazy.
They can't do that.
And I'm like, listen, the idea that a thin piece of paper describes a process by which should or should not happen is not the qualification or it's not going to bar action from being taken.
If Joe Biden sent in the troops and declared he was, the real question is not, can he do it?
The real question is, would they, would they follow?
What the state government does is meaningless.
The command for the State Guard of Texas or Florida could say sure.
I doubt it, but it could.
And then what?
So here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
What are we looking at here?
Alaska's gonna deploy National Guard to help the federal government against Texas!
I don't even know what that means.
I mean, it's 20 guys, okay?
A couple helicopters.
Could this be the escalation which leads to civil war?
Joe Biden has called upon a state to stand against Texas.
Did anybody catch this story from the other day?
I mean, it's Monday, so I do the news when I can do the news.
We don't have the date on here.
Let's see, it's from the 3rd, I believe.
The story's from 14 hours ago.
Sorry, updated 14 hours ago.
It's from one day ago.
So I believe this story was published late on the 3rd.
It's over the weekend, and here we are on Monday with news.
Joe Biden has begun the process of calling state against state.
I wonder what's going to happen.
You know, in that movie, Civil War, that's coming out, they have a trailer.
The trailer shows a map of the states and where they're aligned.
And, uh, I don't recall... Let me actually pull up the A24 map.
It's A24 Films.
And, uh, we'll pull up this map and take a look at it.
Because it does show rather, uh, well, Alaska is a loyalist state.
So you take a look at this.
I'll try to zoom in here.
Actually, that's not working.
Are you kidding me?
Let's, uh, yeah, it's the best we can do.
The Republic of California, the Second Republic of Texas, the Florida Alliance, Western Forces, and the Loyalist States.
Yowza.
There's five factions.
It's not gonna be two.
It's an interesting concept, because I understand, and I don't disagree with it.
But I was wondering, you know, when we looked at this, we tried to break down the contiguous United States, we didn't actually contemplate what Alaska or Hawaii would do.
And I think it's fair to say they would remain loyalists due to their requirement for outside support.
Alaska's gonna need food.
They got a lot of reindeer you can eat, but they need food shipped in.
I suppose this creates an issue, however.
Much of the resources being sent to Alaska are coming from the Pacific Northwest.
So, I don't know how the Western forces could take Oregon and Washington, and then flights would be coming into Alaska.
They'd have to be flying in from, I guess, Wisconsin or Nevada?
At any rate, a lot of people were like, how are California and Texas united?
They're not.
That makes no sense.
They're not.
They're two separate countries.
But they have an alliance with each other.
Kind of like NATO's an alliance.
What I can tell you right now is they are trying in every single way possible to destroy this country.
The bill in question would create policies and funding that would go well into Trump's next term.
So even if he gets elected, he will be barred from changing these things, from taking actions against them.
What could he do?
They will flood this country with non-citizens, and this bill provides them the legal ability to work.
Elon Musk tweeted.
So they could vote.
The big news, of course, I guess, is... And I just... It's tough, because I don't want to lead with this stuff.
I'm like, I don't know, I don't know.
The border bill's the big news and what we should be focused on.
And I don't want to act like 20 National Guard being deployed to Texas to stand against Texas is the, uh... I don't know.
Maybe it's nothing.
My concern here is one step at a time.
One grain of sand.
The federal government has called on the Alaskan National Guard to join them, which means they'll be standing against Texas.
And with this bill, the moves seem very clear, don't they?
The federal government will strike the state's rights to defend itself.
They will codify some issue where they say, you cannot stop what we are doing.
And they will call in National Guard from other states to stop Texas.
I wonder what would happen.
What do you think happens?
When Alaskan National Guard stands on the border with rifle and just 20 of them.
And they say, you guys, we've got orders.
GTFO.
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.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
What happens, then, when you have National Guard standing against National Guard?
unidentified
Fuck!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Try not to swear, man, but holy!
This is wild.
People were telling me for a long time, they were asking me, do you really think that soldiers are gonna start marching against each other?
Holy crap, dudes.
What do you call it?
What do you call it when Alaska National Guard stand against Texas National Guard?
You call it whatever you want.
I ain't interested in giving it a name.
I don't know what word there is for it.
It's gonna get crazy out there this year.
Hopefully.
Life isn't like a movie.
But I don't know.
We'll follow up more on this bill as the situation develops.
Next segment is coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I'll see you all then.
I think a lot of people don't know this.
The first civil war in this country started with a national divorce.
The civil war didn't start until after a national divorce already occurred.
Now, it is fair to say that the Union did not agree with the idea of divorce, and so, by force, they said, nah, we're gonna fight on this one.
A lot of people have the misconception they believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
Slavery was the cause.
The catalyst, as it were.
But why did people actually fight?
Oh, there's a whole bunch of other issues.
And I don't think it's fair to reduce everything to slavery, but that is, come on.
We're not going to have this debate.
I've watched so many documentaries.
And I know that doesn't make me a scholar or anything, and I know people have different worldviews, and whatever, and that's fine, that's fine.
I'll just tell you, in my research and study, which is limited, as it were, I mean, it's slavery.
It's obvious.
States were concerned the election of Abraham Lincoln would result in the banning of slavery, despite the fact that Abraham Lincoln was mostly saying, we're just going to stop the expansion of slavery.
There was already fighting happening in the country between abolitionist forces and pro-slavery forces.
And so, eventually, several southern states, I believe it was seven, said, Whoa!
Abraham Lincoln got elected?
We out!
National divorce.
Abraham Lincoln said, you ain't going nowhere.
And so troops, uh, it started with Fort Sumter.
Union didn't, Abraham Lincoln was like, there's no secession.
There's no, you're not leaving.
You didn't leave.
And then Fort Sumter happened.
Nobody really died in the conflict.
It's like an accidental death.
And then Abraham Lincoln's like, I think after that it was the Battle of Bull Run, which people died.
And then Abraham Lincoln's like, okay, we're sending in the troops.
Conscription.
This caused, I think, four more states to decide, we're leaving.
National divorce was first.
States decided we're out over conflict related to slavery.
Newsweek reports, California secession movement wants national divorce to avoid civil war.
And I've heard this over and over again.
You know, friends of the show have said national divorce can be done peacefully.
No, it can't.
I will stand firm.
I mean, people say, Tim's a milquetoast fence-sitter.
I will stand firm.
There is no such thing as peaceful national divorce.
Water.
Thank you, Nevin, I stay.
That's all you need to say.
Different states have interstate water boundaries, and that's going to cause conflict.
Already we can see in Africa, for instance, the Nile leads to a lot of conflict because the Nile, I believe, it flows toward the equator.
It flows towards the Mediterranean.
And so, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.
I'm not an expert on Africa, okay?
But I was reading several articles about potential conflict looming because of what some countries are doing to the water as it goes into other countries.
Now, of course, of course, people will argue, Tim, it's entirely possible that if California secedes, they'll negotiate some kind of deal with Colorado, Arizona, Nevada over the use of water and what can be done to avoid conflict.
Fair point.
Then you've got weapons, you've got oil.
Conflict seems inevitable because the federal government will be petitioned to stop the secession because it will result in a loss of resources.
Imagine California, which produces most of the food, actually does secede National divorce, we don't want to go to war.
And now the rest of the states are saying, our food prices are through the roof!
They're going to say, send in the troops.
Subsidize our food once again.
Conflict and crisis seems inevitable.
I'll concede there's a percentage likelihood, maybe it's a good one, double digits, that there's no war in the event of a secession or peaceful divorce or whatever you want to call it.
I mean national divorce, it could be peaceful.
I think the overwhelming likelihood is that they'll be fighting.
There will be.
I want to show you a couple articles.
And I want to have this conversation.
Kristi Noem warns of possible civil war amid border standoff.
Trump's potential VP pick says we should have, we would have war on our hands if Biden were to federalize National Guard troops being deployed to the border.
Which brings me to an article I talked about early this morning.
Alaska National Guard plans deployment to assist federal government on US-Mexico border.
They make clear This is not about defending Texas in Operation Lone Star.
This is specifically about assisting the Biden administration.
So let me see if I can pull up the Operation Lone Star.
They may have updated the article.
They always do this.
Here we go.
A spokesperson for Governor Mike Dunleavy in Alaska said the planned mobilization has nothing to do with Operation Lone Star.
That is.
These individuals who are being deployed and the materials being deployed will be to stand against Texas.
Why would they do this?
Now, many people have commented saying, no, no, no, Tim, you don't understand.
They do this all the time.
They do this all the time.
The memo's gone out.
They know what's going on.
They know the conflict that exists between the Texas National Guard and Customs and Border Protection.
And now they are bringing in out-of-state National Guard to stand against Texas.
That's it.
To help CBP.
Now, I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that turns into.
It could be anything.
But I will tell you this.
The Guardian reports from one year ago.
More than 40% of Americans think civil war likely within a decade.
More than half of strong Republicans think such a conflict is at least somewhat likely poll finds.
It's remarkable.
It's from August of 2022.
And you know, we talked about it when it came out.
We went, whoa, civil war, civil war.
I'd like to go back in time, my friends, to that year and four or so months ago.
Five months ago.
And I want to ask you, At the time.
Go read the comments.
You know what people are saying.
It's remarkable.
When we read this article in 2022 saying people fear civil war, we get a lot of comments, I'm not saying the majority of people, saying it'll never happen, it can't happen, you're crazy, this is hyperbole, oh it's clickbait, who cares what people think, it'll never happen.
And boy have I dealt with this every step of the way.
And I will always give you this disclaimer.
You know, maybe you're right.
Maybe this all calms down, nothing ends up happening, and it's a bad hair day, Donald Trump gets elected, says, we love you guys, Democrats are great, we're gonna hug, and then they all hug, and then everyone's like, why were we fighting?
And then we don't fight anymore.
I'm being a little bit facetious, let's say things simmer down.
Let's say the border is secured, Biden says, look, we're not gonna risk going to conflict, the states pull back their rhetoric, and things calm down.
Totally possible.
But here we are, once again, just over a year on, and we have a story that Alaskan National Guard is being sent to Texas to work with CBP.
Texas National Guard is in defiance of CBP, and the Biden administration has given the Texas National Guard a deadline to which they dropped because of the conflict.
Perhaps you are saying to me now, Tim, calm down.
The National Guard does this routinely and they're just going to help CBP with normal policy procedure.
The 20 National Guardsmen are going down.
It's for mechanical support, air support, helicopters.
They're not going to be like boots on the ground armed with guns.
This is what I find fascinating.
Never have we experienced a story where the news was, seemingly out of nowhere, 10,000 armed soldiers marched on Texas.
Everything is always a grain of sand added to the heap.
That's why I say that all the time.
Alex Jones talks about it.
Incrementalization, one small degree at a time.
Could you imagine going back 10 years, maybe 10 years with Donald, 9 years with Donald Trump, you said there was gonna be a civil war, they might be like, I believe it!
But go back to like 2017-18 and explain what's happening.
Texas National Guard would repel.
CBP, the Supreme Court, would side with the Biden administration, but Texas National Guard would refuse.
14 governors would convene to assert their right to defend the border and their states.
The federal government would then send a memo requesting personnel from Alaska to assist the federal government during their conflict, in their conflict, with Texas.
And you might say, it's just logistical support, nothing's gonna happen.
But what's the next step?
What's the next thing that happens?
Each day, they move two inches.
And, you know, if you were to watch it in time-lapse, you'd say, holy crap, you're speeding toward Civil War.
But when you watch it slowly, it's almost like it's not moving at all.
And then you eventually get to the point where everyone's just like, it's entirely normal that these things are happening.
If you took everything that has happened right now and slammed it into the United States on one day in 2018, the country would implode.
The pressure would be too much.
People would be screaming, civil war is here.
Instead, because it's happened slowly over 10 years, people are like, it still can't happen.
My friends, the breakdown is happening before our eyes.
It's more likely than it's ever been.
The polls weren't wrong.
I'm not saying it's a guarantee, I honestly don't know.
We've made the argument that we're in a civil war, perhaps.
Maybe January 6th, maybe Occupy, you never know.
I don't think Occupy.
I think it's too long ago.
But Bleeding Kansas was a seven year period before the Civil War where people were murdering each other in Kansas.
Over whether it would be a slave state or a free state.
You had the abolitionist forces well before the Civil War engaging in murderous violence.
You had John Brown.
Crazy stuff.
That dude was hoping to spark a slave revolt, but they didn't revolt.
Then war broke out.
Newsweek Reports.
The leader of a California secessionist movement known as Yes California told Newsweek that a national divorce is needed to avoid another civil war.
Yes California is currently campaigning on a ballot measure called CalExit 3.1, which would break California into two and establish a country separate from the U.S.
in the San Francisco Bay Area and along the central California coast.
It would be called Pacifica.
So far, 92,000 people have signed up to join the campaign through the movement's website.
It's unclear how many of these people are California residents.
There are many secessionist movements in California.
Some want the coastal areas to break off and the inland areas to separate so that there is a Republican and Democrat separation.
Sure.
I don't know how the coastal states would survive without farmland.
The movement was founded in 2015 by conservative activist Louis Marinelli, who is the current president of the movement, and Marcus Ruiz Evans, who was a conservative talk radio host at the time.
Evans left the movement in 2021.
Quote, So right now, we're more working on the concept of national divorce as an alternative to potential civil violence and civil war in the country.
Martinelli, uh, Marinelli?
Is it?
I thought it said Martinelli.
Oh, it is Marinelli, sorry.
Told Newsweek via telephone on Saturday, Our belief is that there's a lot of growing political violence and political problems in the country that may lead to fighting in the streets.
Civil war, too.
Some people are calling for it.
We are trying to propose the idea of potentially doing a national divorce of some sort to avoid that type of situation.
However, the legality of secession movements have been questioned, according to the Supreme Court case 1869, Texas v. White.
Individual states can't unilaterally decide to leave the union.
On Sunday, 2024, uh, Sunday, what did it say?
2024, GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley weighed in on the calls for Texas to secede, telling CNN's Dana Bash, the Constitution doesn't allow that.
I don't believe that matters.
The Constitution says a lot of things.
The Biden administration doesn't seem to care.
Presidents interpret what they want.
But more importantly, the crown did not allow us to secede from the British Empire!
unidentified
We just so decided to do it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Ulysses S. Grant wrote a great letter about this.
I believe it was a letter, academic writing, whatever you want to call it.
He basically said, oh yeah, anybody can cede if you want.
And if you try, we will go to war with you.
And if you lose, we will own you.
He made a good point.
He was understanding what it meant for the American Revolution and then some 80 years later, the Civil War.
The American Revolution, we said, we challenge your rule and we seek to break from it.
We won.
Thanks in part to the help of the French, for instance, we were able to win.
The Crown said, we can't, we don't care, we got so much other stuff going on with this British Empire that persisted for some time afterwards, by the way, that fine.
And so we challenged the established order, and we won, and thus we were free.
Ulysses S. Grant understands that.
People want self-governance, so they will choose to break their pact.
Some would view that as a violation of their oath and their debts, while others would view it as a fight for freedom.
Every person is entitled to fight for what they want, and if they lose, they will be ruled by their betters.
I believe that's what he said.
Something like that.
And that's what happened in the Civil War.
The South was defeated, and then the North occupied the South in Reconstruction.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, has used the term national divorce on several occasions, as we know.
The last thing I ever want to see in America is a civil war.
No one wants that, but it's going that direction and we have to do something about it.
More recently, she wrote in an ex-post in December, soon national divorce may be our only option.
Marinelli said that yes, California doesn't support a national divorce between red and blue states, but potentially, there are ways to draw lines at other places.
He explained that just by dividing the country by red and blue states, you don't alleviate the problem of the division between red and blue in any given state.
Yes, according to Marinelli, California is also keeping its eye on other secession movements in New Hampshire and Texas.
Two pieces of legislation relating to New Hampshire's efforts to secede from the U.S.
have been introduced in the State House.
CACR 20 and House Bill 1130.
CACR is a constitutional amendment that states that if the national debt, which is currently over $34 trillion, reaches $40 trillion, New Hampshire will declare independence.
Meanwhile, House Bill 1130 would create a commission to study the economic, legal, and sociological factors of the state exerting its sovereign rights.
Meanwhile, calls for Texas to secede from the U.S.
have grown this week.
Oh, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, boy.
New Hampshire, you're in for a wild ride if you secede.
Where do you get your food from?
You see, I'll tell you the benefits of a large United States.
Most of the food is produced in California.
We are able to grow things in warmer climates year-round, and ship those things to colder climates where it's harder to produce food in the winter.
There's a cost to this, but this means that the labor of someone working in the winter can receive food that normally they have to save for, so the shipping and all the stuff, it works.
Now, it's entirely possible that if New Hampshire secedes, they'll still trade, and they'll still import food, and they'll spend that money.
I don't know exactly how it'll play out, but they'll be on their own.
Federal tax dollars and mass spending have resulted in a high national debt.
The U.S.
just can't keep taking loans out to take this food and ship it around the country and subsidize these things.
So eventually, the system will break.
New Hampshire's probably thinking, we're better off.
Food's gonna cost more anyway.
With the national debt going this high, inflation's gonna be through the roof.
We may as well just work on our own.
It's hard to know exactly how this will take place.
Not the time for national divorce.
They say, Marinelli says, it may not be the time.
We support the effort of self-determination in general.
So if a state in the U.S.
wants to pursue its right to self-determination and have a vote on independence that's going to be fair and free and conform to international norms with respect to independence referendums, we would support that.
However, maybe right now is not the best time for us to be hashing out this domestic problem and divorcing the country, when we could be mounting on a united front to face the global problems we currently face.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
He meant 2024 ballot.
He says Hamas, etc., etc.
But Kristi Noem's warming about it.
Kristi Noem warns about it.
A new poll from The Meredith.
Do you see a civil war in the next few years?
A poll of North Carolina.
Yes, 38%.
No, 38%.
unidentified
Excuse me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I can't tell you exactly what we'll see.
I can just tell you it's certainly in mind.
Top of mind, they say, right?
At Rally for Border Security in Texas, fears of invasion and civil war.
A conservative convoy gathered on the Texas border to support the state's defiant stance on immigration.
Despite worries over potential violence, the event was peaceful.
Yeah, that's it.
The Take Our Border Back convoy came in, and they were all very nice and peaceful, and they had a little Trump trailer.
Talk of civil war is there, though.
The question becomes, what drives us to the brink?
January 6th?
I don't know.
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
unidentified
Oof!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Media clashes.
Let me give you, my friends, some white pills.
White pills, optimism, and normalcy bias.
The corporate press is in decay.
The ratings are in the gutter.
The Tim Pool Daily Show and Timcast IRL destroy the ratings for CNN.
And so we may be winning.
Digital media just had a bloodbath where they just laid off en masse.
I mean, even major newspapers, the LA Times, got rid of their DC bureau in election year.
The corporate press narrative is failing.
Donald Trump's polls are through the roof.
People are starting to say, enough with the Trump derangement syndrome.
It may be, my friends, that facing all of these things, come November, Joe Biden just loses.
Trump wins.
The world is an end.
There's no civil war.
Trump pulls us back from the brink of World War III.
And I like to imagine an optimistic conspiracy theory, an optimistic one, that the efforts we are undertaking are actually the efforts of the deep state.
You know, part of me thinks when I see China advocating for illegal immigration and child sex change surgery, that I hope that the true forces of the United States oppose these things and are actually trying to prop up traditional marriage, Donald Trump.
Maybe it's all one big psyop to get us to be like, we're punk rock.
We support Trump.
You know what I mean?
I don't believe it's the likely outcome.
I just hope that it was the case, right?
The idea being that facing these PSYOPs from foreign nations to subvert and destroy the youth, you have this rising and strengthening movement of making America great again, which has called into question some of the more aggressive and egregious liberal and leftist practices that have emerged over the past couple of decades, and is calling for not theocracy or anything, just understanding moral frameworks and being nice and compassionate Taking care of our country.
Securing our borders.
Being responsible.
But I wonder.
Who's gonna win?
Perhaps there is no strong deep state trying to strengthen our borders and bolster our population.
It's all just subversive forces at the top trying to burn everything to the ground.
But I like to believe, you know?
I like to.
I would like to.
That there is some American pro-America, we're gonna win, we're gonna crush our enemies and take over.
And that really does mean we need people making babies.
We need a secure border.
We need manufacturing brought back.
It's just hard to believe.
It is.
But I thought about this with Bitcoin, and I'll put it this way.
If you wanted to create, if you were a globalist, and you wanted to create a one-world currency, but you had resistance across the board, what would you do?
You would create the anti-currency, Bitcoin.
You would then fight it.
Oh no, it's bad!
And then all of the anti-establishment, anti-government forces would line up exactly for your global, traceable currency.
Right?
You become the enemy to rally them against you.
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying I wish it was, but it's probably not.
Because then the reality is, the end result of all of this is the resurgence of America, the raising of its flag, the calling out of the far-left crackpots, Donald Trump presidency securing the border, bringing our jobs back, no new wars.
Would love to see it.
But I'm not convinced.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
And so it has begun.
Or maybe not.
I don't know.
The Apple Vision Pro is out.
You may have seen it.
And people are seen walking around wearing these goggles.
I gotta tell you, I think a lot of it's fake.
But let me slow down here for a minute.
Apple Vision Pro is an augmented reality headset you can buy.
It's $4,000.
You put it on, everything looks normal, but now your iPhone experience is floating in front of your face.
They got a video on their website where they basically break it down, and the guy wearing these goggles you can see on screen, he can actually see through the lenses, so he can see what's in front of him.
There's no, there's no, I don't want to say there's no obstruction, but there's an obstruction, but it's transparent.
Now when you're using the app, and in the video they explain this, when you look at pictures and things like this, the lenses get darker.
So it's harder to see everything outside.
And you can see like, you know, your iPhone is floating and you can move things around.
There have been people who have used their Tesla app on the, on the Apple Vision Pro, wearing them.
And they've, you know, you swipe or whatever.
They're walking around, they're doing this with their fingers.
They look, you can't, they look insane.
And then like a guy pulls up the Tesla app, opens it, and it works on his car.
Doesn't need his phone anymore.
But I gotta tell you, the people who are walking around wearing these things, I don't see this as being a real thing.
This story is Tesla owner is pulled over by cops for driving down highway wearing Apple Vision computer glasses.
You see, you know Apple.
I remember ten years ago, it was longer than ten years ago, the Google, uh, Google Glass thing.
Now, look.
Do you guys remember Google Glass?
I actually have, like, two or three pairs lying around somewhere in storage.
And, uh, I don't know if they still work.
But it was this headset you could put on with a small cell phone on the right side, that had a little crystal display of some sort, like this weird little cube, that would rest right above your right eye, and when you moved, it moved with you.
So the only way to actually look at it was to look up and to the right.
Voice activated, actually was really cool, and much better than whatever this psychotic garbage is.
That being said, it didn't catch on because the use case was kind of limited, and we already have cell phones anyway.
One of the coolest things about Google Glass was that you could say, okay Google, take a picture.
I don't know, someone's device probably activated or something.
But, and it would take a picture.
I was in Turkey, actually, 2013.
And I had it.
And I was able to livestream from Glass walking around, and it was very impractical.
But cool!
Nonetheless.
You'd think in ten years, technology would have improved enough where they could make something functional that was slim, sleek, and able to have a good cell connection.
Instead, they make these abominations.
Sorry, dude, I don't know what the use case for Apple Vision Pro is.
I really don't.
And maybe it catches on for some reason, and everybody walks around wearing these things.
Fine.
I guess.
I don't see it.
Google Glass had a really great feature where you could say, okay Google, translate.
And then someone could talk to you, and it would show you and read what they said.
So I'm in Turkey.
It was actually really cool.
I went to, uh, I don't know, I was in Brazil, I think.
I think I was in Brazil, and I didn't know how to say receipt.
I think it's, what is it, Hasibo?
It's been too long, I don't remember.
But in Turkey as well, I needed a receipt, because whenever you're traveling and the company's done, you gotta get your receipts.
And so I got Google Glass, everybody's looking around like, I don't know what this guy's doing, he's a weirdo.
And I went in and the guy was, you know, I was trying to buy a mask because of the rides.
I wanted a face mask because of the tear gas.
And so I just, you know, I was like, face mask.
And he said something and I said, OK, Google Translate.
And then it's like a voice tells me what he is saying.
Cool.
You can do that with your phone.
So you don't really need Google Glass for it.
Google Glass is basically like, can I wear a cell phone on my face 24-7?
Well, yeah.
And you don't need to, you can put it in your pocket.
And it can do everything else.
And so we have like a touch pad on the side and it is whatever.
Here's the latest gadget.
The Apple Vision Pro.
There's videos of people walking around wearing it.
They're walking through the streets as they go like this.
And it's just like, dude, look.
Everybody called people wearing Google Glass, glass holes.
And the issue with Google Glass was everybody wanted it but nobody could get it.
So when it first came out, the demand was massive.
But they were like, only our explorers can actually get it.
I tweeted at them saying, like, I want to use it for breaking and live news coverage, and etc, etc.
And they said, yes, we agree.
Invited me to their Google HQ, said, it's 1500 bucks.
I was like, yikes!
I bought it.
And I used it, and it broke several times.
So the way you'd view the lens, there was a little sheet of like Mylar tape, and it would fall off, and when it did, the projector couldn't reflect back onto the screen, so the way it worked is a projector hit it, reflected onto an angled screen, and then it appeared in front of you, and without it, you saw nothing.
I mean, you saw, like, it faded out, and you could barely see it, or whatever.
You could still hear it, I guess.
But here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't know that this video is real.
Take a look at this.
You got a guy driving a car, wearing Apple Vision Pro, and... I don't think there's any, like, functional audio or anything.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's just him driving.
Okay, okay, all right.
He's wearing this, driving his car.
At one point, his hands are not on the wheel.
My friends, many of you are Tesla owners.
I'm a Tesla owner.
This is, like, you're not supposed to do this.
Some people do it.
I know there's a bunch of you out there who bought those clips that you can put on your steering wheel so that you don't gotta hold on to it.
When you're driving your Tesla in full self-driving, every so often, it'll say, like, apply force to the steering wheel, and if you don't, it disables self-driving.
Not to mention, there are many instances where it disables self-driving.
There's many instances where self-driving fails I'm driving down the road, and it asks you every time, it's like self-driving, disengaged, what happened?
And then you can, if you want, press the button and then say what happened.
I do it all the time.
There's this one highway by us in West Virginia, and right before the exit for the off-ramp, it's on to 340.
There's like a state-use only turnaround.
And Tesla always tries to go into the state use lane for this like administrative turnaround area.
It's like only for cops.
And you have to force it back.
You've got to disengage, press on the brake, or just grab the wheel and turn it.
And then every time it's like, why did you do that?
And I'm like, dude, that is not the highway exit.
That is the administrative turnaround.
You have to drive further.
But I'll say that.
I'll say the car keeps trying to go off every time we do.
Anyway, I digress.
You gotta keep your hands on the wheel.
There are people who buy these things, and they strap them to the steering wheel to apply weight, so the steering wheel thinks there's a hand on it.
It's just so stupid, dude.
I've been driving on the road, and it slams the brakes on, or it jerks to the left and nearly hits cars.
I like self-driving.
It's 90% fine, but you got those moments.
That's why they say, keep your hands on the wheel.
This dude is, uh, it's kind of cringe.
Look at this.
He's, like, tapping the air.
He's pinching and zooming.
Aw, dude.
It's so... I'm sorry, man.
I just think it's cringe.
I just do.
You look so weird.
What are you doing?
And here you go.
The cops.
And he's still wearing the goggles!
Apparently, he got arrested.
And he should have been, too.
If he did.
The story, uh, let's zoom up.
Pulled over by cops.
I've heard he got arrested.
I don't know if he actually did.
He might have just got pulled over.
Apple explicitly says not to operate machinery or do anything dangerous, you know, while wearing these.
They call it $3,500, bro.
Go to their website.
It's like four grand.
Okay?
I mean, like, after taxes and everything, sure. $3,500.
On Friday, the same day the headset was released, it's not a VR, it's AR.
Augmented Reality.
A user named Dante posted a video on X, formerly known as Twitter, of him driving a Tesla while wearing the tech.
The video shows him wearing grey pants and black long-sleeve shirt as he drives.
At one point, both of his hands are off the wheel.
I don't, I mean, I don't know how you fake something like this.
So, I guess.
It's unknown where he was driving to.
unidentified
Alright.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
What's the point of this?
Why do you have it?
Look at this guy.
Sitting at- I gotta be honest.
I will buy one.
Pro and the company website explicitly prohibits using the headset while driving.
Never use Apple Vision Pro while operating a moving vehicle, bicycle, heavy machinery,
or in any other situation requiring attention to safety.
Alright, what's the point of this?
Why do you have it?
unidentified
Look at this guy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I gotta be honest.
I will buy one.
I will buy one because whenever there's some new technology, we want to know it, we want
to review it, we want to find its use cases.
So that's why, for a while, I had like four or five cell phones every year.
Because we were doing app development, too.
But, uh, considering this is a new product, we are seeing it, yeah, we'll probably order one.
The funny thing about it is you can't actually buy it.
I mean, you can, but you have to have an iPhone already, and you have to scan the size of your face and head before you can buy it.
So, you know, sure.
Okay, whatever.
Which means, you know, I was like, I should probably order one of these and then have people test it out and see what its use cases are so we can actually, like, talk about it, report on it, and when issues come up, we know what we're talking about.
Uh, I can't buy it.
I gotta get an iPhone.
Uh, I have an iPhone, it's not here, so I have to go get it, and then I can scan my face and buy this silly thing.
Here's where it gets fun.
The Simpsons predicted Apple's Vision Pro eight years ago, and all hell broke loose in Springfield.
You know what?
To be fair, they did.
Kind of.
This is not a hard thing to predict.
The funny thing is they're wearing goggles with wires that go to their glove.
No, the Apple Vision Pro doesn't require any kind of gloves.
The cameras can just see your hands and it knows what your hands are doing.
And you like pinch and pull and you're doing these things and you look like a lunatic.
It's cool tech.
It is.
It follows your eyes.
So when you're looking at the screen, you look at whatever you want and pinch.
I think it's very counterintuitive and it's gonna be weird.
You look at the app you want, pinch your fingers together, and it selects it, but everyone's gonna want to grab it.
Because, like, when I'm looking at my screen, I guess, I look at something and I'll tap my finger to it, but, I don't know, it just seems weird, but I do think it'd be fun to try out.
Now, as for The Simpsons, yeah, I mean, eight years ago, they didn't predict this, but it's easy because everyone predicted it.
VR goggles had come out, everybody was excited, and they were like, Everyone was making the joke, people are going to be using these things in stupid ways.
To be fair, it's a little on the nose with people walking around outside wearing them.
You know, here's Skinner's mom falling into a sewer.
And, uh, yeah.
They absolutely did predict it, so once again, Simpsons get it right.
Okay, I'll get it right.
Here's my question for all of you.
Here's a picture of a guy in a subway wearing these things.
Here's a guy walking down the street wearing these things.
You know what?
I want to say to these people, You live your life.
Good for you.
They don't care what anyone else thinks of them.
It's walking around, you've got the wire going to it.
I imagine that's what plugged into their phone?
Is that what it's doing?
Whatever, man.
Maybe not.
A battery?
No idea.
They clearly don't care what anyone else thinks of them as they're walking around.
But I have a question for anybody who does have these.
What's the use case?
What is the use case for why this thing exists?
Honest question.
Is it so that, like, you're sitting in your living room, but you're at remote work or something?
unidentified
I- I- I- I don't get it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We got some Oculus, the new ones.
They don't cover your entire field of vision.
And they're- they're AR.
They're trying to do something similar.
I guess the VR thing wasn't good enough.
You know, the idea that you put on a headset and go into a, you know, dinosaur world or whatever.
What is this?
I think this function is both, to be honest.
XR, dinosaur-viewed and Apple Vision Pro headset.
Sure.
Whatever.
It's cool tech.
Transparent screen.
I love it.
I think it's really cool.
You've seen these TVs they have now with their glass?
And then when it turns on, that's cool stuff.
I like it.
But what's the use case?
600 new apps designed for it?
You're sitting at home wearing goggles?
I suppose it's easier than holding your phone up the whole time if you're, like, FaceTiming with someone.
So, as, like, a phone, I could imagine this making sense, having it set on your coffee table, and then you see your phone's ringing, and you put it on, and you're like, yo, what up?
And you don't gotta hold the phone.
But is it really that big a deal to hold your phone to your head?
I guess if you want to FaceTime or something, but it's... You can't, because, like, the other person still has to hold the camera up to their face.
So what is the point of this thing?
I dunno, perhaps I'm just some old fogey.
Can't quite understand the true power that is Apple Vision Pro.
I'm sure there'll be some fun video games or something, but I gotta say, I think this one fizzles out, nobody uses it, and everyone's kinda like, well that was a weird thing.
I don't see this becoming ubiquitous at all because you don't need to have your apps open all the time.
There was a funny video though, I think it's hilarious.
A guy was playing blackjack while wearing them.
I don't think it was at a casino.
Because you're not allowed to use real-time communications devices at casino tables.
I think it might have been like a private thing.
But, consider this.
A potential use case that we don't yet see.
Blackjack is a great example, and I know everyone's like, you know, Tim's telling stories about gambling.
Hey, hey, hey!
A guy was at a casino doing this.
It's part of the story.
Imagine you're at a blackjack table, and you're wearing these as you're playing, and it's got real-time, it's counting cards in real time.
Cards comes out and it tells you your win percentages based on the cards that have already come out.
Yo, that'd be wild.
You'll know when to bet, when not to bet, and you don't even gotta think!
The computer does it for you!
I think it's better if you want to count cards, you'll learn how to do it.
And you can play double deck blackjack at casinos where there's still some capability.
Most casinos have continuous shuffle or like six decks and it's like, you know, whatever.
But the guy's playing, it's probably telling him exactly how to play perfectly.
With these goggles, you never play poker again.
Like, it's gonna be telling you what to do in real time and you'll have a heads-up display.
Phones can do this, but having your hands free while you're looking through the screen, that, I get, could be very interesting.
Google made the case for Google Glass.
If you're, like, in a workshop and you're working on things, it can give you real-time data, but the screen was too small.
With this, Let's say you're working on... There are use cases.
I'm not saying there's none, but for the average person, I don't know.
Let's say you're working in a wood shop or construction, and you're looking through these Vision Pro things.
Measures everything instantly in real time.
Instead of pulling out a measuring tape or a laser or anything, even temperature, it will show you active... I mean, it's wild.
It can be useful in many professional circumstances related to construction.
I don't know what else.
Just because I don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So I certainly think, like, if I was going to be measuring a room, or I wanted to know the distance between two objects and I had these things, it could be very useful because it will draw a line between the objects and then just, like, show you the angles.
Pretty cool stuff.
In the meantime, I suppose it's fair to say, I look forward to seeing what use cases they can come up with.
Because I'm not going to sit here and pretend it's all useless.
It's interesting.
We'll see.
I went to Best Buy recently, and they had the new Oculus, and I put it on, and it was augmented reality, not virtual reality.
And this is the big push I guess they want to do.
The idea is, the original virtual reality goggles you'd put on, and it's darkness.
You're looking at a phone, basically.
Original, super old VR, you actually slide your phone to a box with two lenses, and then it would make a VR screen using your phone.
That was olden days.
Google would give out these little boxes you could open and slide your phone in, it was silly.
And then they actually sold the cases, you could stick your phone in to do VR.
But now, with, uh, then you got modern VR, which we have downstairs, you put them on, and then you're, like, looking around, and you're in, like, you know, Space Pirates is one of the most popular games, it defaults to the Oculus, and you're fighting robots or something.
Now the big push is gonna be, you see the world, straight through a clear lens, and when you turn the game on, everything turns into it.
So this should be interesting.
In the meantime, a bunch of morons are driving cars, wearing them.
They're going to crash.
And I can certainly see... You know, look.
I was looking into the history of the automobile.
And just thinking about how crazy it must have been when the first people started driving cars.
There were rules already for horses and carriages, and what side of the road you're on, and all that stuff.
Turn signals, uh, like, in some form existed because you're signaling and you put your hand up or whatever.
But then someday someone's driving a car, and eventually they're like, these are going too fast.
They're going way faster than the horses ever did.
We gotta put a limit on how fast you can go and start implementing these laws.
You had a bunch of people do a bunch of weird things back in the day with, uh, when there's no laws pertaining to things.
I mean, back in the day, people were building planes when they did, and they would just fly them!
Now it's kind of like, we got rules.
We got rules, because we don't want people flying all over the place and doing weird, crazy things.
In the meantime, welcome to the Wild West of people wearing crazy goggles and doing stupid things with them.
I think we'll make it, we'll be just fine.
I'd love to see, it'd be hilarious if this thing became ubiquitous, but whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Welcome to your AI future nightmare.
Next segment is coming up at, what, 6pm?
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
A betrayal.
That's what a lot of people on the right are calling this quote-unquote border bill, which I talked about earlier this morning.
Because it's not a border bill, it's an amnesty bill funding for Israel and Ukraine.
Ukraine would see 60 billion dollars of it.
And Chuck Schumer now demands the border never closes, and the bill pass, or else US troops will have to fight in Ukraine.
He didn't say Ukraine specifically, but that's basically what he said.
unidentified
Quote.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
If we don't aid Ukraine, Putin will walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war, and we could end up fighting in Eastern Europe in a NATO ally in a few years.
Okay.
Let's break this down.
We will lose the war?
unidentified
I'm pausing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I'm gonna let that sink in for a second.
So just allow the dead air.
We will lose the war?
I didn't realize we were at war with Vladimir Putin.
Oh, come on.
You all knew it.
We all did.
But now they're openly admitting it.
And if we don't give amnesty, and if we don't fund Ukraine, it could be us.
What does that mean?
It means your sons and daughters.
It means your brothers and sisters, your friends, They will be fighting in Eastern Europe in a NATO ally.
Now, he didn't say Ukraine specifically, and I'm seeing a lot of people use that headline, so it's maybe.
He would have to be implying that Ukraine would be a NATO ally.
He could be talking about Poland, maybe now Sweden even.
He is basically saying, if you don't give us this money, We are gonna be boots on the ground in Eastern Europe.
They know.
They know it's a threat.
They know the American people do not want war.
They know the American people do not like war.
And they know the U.S.
people do not want to be in Ukraine.
It's fascinating, I tell this story about being at the poker table, because it is funny to hear these Trump Derangement Syndrome people, but the ubiquity of the people around me at this table.
One guy's got Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Everybody else is like, let's be honest, we shouldn't be funding Ukraine at this point.
Everybody agrees.
But here we are.
Speaking with MSNBC on Monday morning, after the Senate released its bipartisan national security bill that includes funding for Ukraine, border security, and Israel, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the bill needs to pass, or we could be fighting in Eastern Europe and a NATO ally in a few years.
Schumer said negotiations on the bill took a long time, and lawmakers fell off the tracks a whole bunch of times.
The bill is crucial, and history will look back on it and say that America failed itself.
Schumer said this bill is crucial because if we don't aid Ukraine, Putin will walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war, and we could be fighting in Eastern Europe in a NATO ally in a few years.
unidentified
Americans won't like that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
These people are scumbags.
They are so evil.
I got one for ya!
How about we don't fund the war in Ukraine, and then when Vladimir Putin walks all over it, we say, huh!
How about that?
This is the game they're playing.
Vladimir Putin will invade Poland.
I despise these people, man.
It's not like Republicans are any better.
If we don't help Israel defend itself against Hamas, the perpetual war will go on and on and on.
If we don't help humanitarian aid to the starving Palestinians in Gaza, hundreds of thousands could starve.
Oh boy.
I'm with Vivek on this one.
I like Israel.
Israel can and should defend itself.
I have no respect for Hamas, and I don't accept the arguments that Israel is at fault for what Hamas initiated.
There was a point someone made in response to these leftists saying genocide is when the side we don't like is winning.
Hamas started a war.
A war is going on.
And there is now war.
It is all bad.
All of it's bad.
There are things Israel does I don't like.
There are a lot of things Israel does I don't like.
And you know what?
I'm not Israel.
I'm the United States.
I wish them peace, prosperity, and security.
I think they're capable of it on their own.
I don't see why the U.S.
should be so heavily invested in all of these countries.
I certainly don't see why they would be giving money to Palestinians when we know that money often is funneled to Hamas.
It's a sick game, isn't it?
Perhaps if we stayed out of it, these problems would, to a certain degree, subside.
And again, to clarify, giving money to Gaza, which then funnels up to Hamas, who's in control of the region.
I should say of the territory, I don't want to say the region, because I'm not talking about the Middle East.
It's a tough spot with Israel, but I'm sorry.
As much as I've got many people who really love, and I totally get it, I'm America first, baby.
We shouldn't be supporting and funding Somalia or Afghanistan or any of these countries, Israel included.
I think it's fair to do trade deals, and even cut some deals.
I do understand the military prospects of an ally in the region, and I do understand that people are trying to wipe them off the map.
Certainly, Israel gets a little bit more than Ukraine does.
But still, I'm not playing this game where we're going to dump billions of dollars of our money into foreign wars for what?
Oil?
Is it the best you can do?
And this is the game they're playing.
It's basically fund World War III or else.
Or else you will have to go fight it.
They can make an argument if they wanted, but they don't make one.
And the border.
Everyone has said it's chaos.
Too many Republicans, including Speaker Johnson, are just scared to death of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has said he wants chaos.
Well, wait until I become president.
That'll take at least a year.
Ukraine could be gone.
The border will get much worse.
War in the Middle East will get worse.
Schumer is an evil, despicable man.
Now, I'll throw in this one.
Trump has made those insinuations.
He's basically saying, yeah, let it all, if all this chaos happens, I mean, then I'm going to get elected, huh?
And then I can fix it.
But that's the lie.
The lie is that Republicans rejecting an amnesty bill that sends $118 billion, much of it overseas.
That's chaos.
Rejecting that is chaos.
$60 billion to Ukraine, $20 billion to the border, $14 billion to Israel.
And he says if you don't do it, you're the bad guy.
And this is why you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Because crackpot evil scumbags like Chuck Schumer with a smile on his face will lie.
They can make an argument.
I'd love to hear it.
Let's hear the argument. Russia's expansionist policies are going to cause an economic crisis
in Europe, not invasion of Europe, but the control of natural gas is straining European
growth at a time when China is rapidly expanding. Thus, we need to stop Russia's monopolistic
control in the region.
We need Ukraine.
We need to be able to run gas from other areas to offset the Gazprom monopoly, for which they control about 20% of natural gas into Europe.
For that reason, we're at war.
That's an argument.
I can make all the arguments in the world.
To my response is, wow, that's really bad for Europe.
And the argument they come back with is, but China will expand.
And my argument is, they are expanding.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
Is the issue we're going to Thucydides trap our way into World War III?
How about we secure our borders, get our NATO allies to pay their fair share for national security, we should produce more energy in the United States, tap into the resources that is Alaska, encourage population growth and expansion in our home country, give anybody who has at least, let's say this, let's go totally Broad with it.
If you got two kids, you don't pay taxes.
How does that sound?
You got two kids, no taxes.
None.
Income taxes, I guess.
Or maybe we do a scaling thing, like you get one kid, then you get no property taxes, or we do something like that.
We want, we want to win, right?
If that was the case, people like Chuck Schumer would be doing very different things.
Europe being flooded by refugees and economic migrants does not help Europe grow.
So, the arguments that have been made, the argument about Gazprom and the expansion of Russia, their control on the gas market, I don't buy it.
I don't buy it because they're destroying Europe.
Their policies are gutting the country.
They want to make an argument that China's doing it, sure.
Why allow the NGOs to facilitate this in Europe and in the United States?
No.
I think their real play is the destruction of everything.
They're sending all this money here because it is gutting and destroying everything.
Now, why would they do that?
If you want to unify the planet, it's a long way to go.
If you want everyone under the boot of one global ruler, we're a long ways away from that.
Certainly there are many people who do.
But Europe, for instance, has been trying to mold everything into one state, the European Union, for a long time, and that power's been growing.
Give it a hundred years and it'll be solidified.
The countries will be little more than states where the jurisdiction matters none.
And that's what they want.
How do you do it?
Well, it's really difficult when everyone speaks different languages and has different culture.
Flood the countries with a bunch of people from all over the planet.
Same thing for the United States.
And then your individual cultures are flattened and flooded by this generic, expansive multiculturalism, to which you can then control.
Sick.
I say give them not a single penny.
But we'll see.
Next segment is coming up at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
▲
Export Selection