Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 25, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:23:27

Democrats $454M Fine BACKFIRES, Trump WINS, Fine DROPPED To $175M As Dem Plan SPIKES Trump Polls

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 $454M Fine BACKFIRES, Trump WINS, Fine DROPPED To $175M As Dem Plan SPIKES Trump Polls Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:20:13

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:30

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to head over to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support our work directly, because this show is made possible thanks in part to viewers like you.
		If you like the work we do, become a member, and you'll also get access to uncensored, members-only shows from TimCast IRL, Monday through Thursday at 10pm.
		You can also join our Discord server and talk with like-minded individuals.
		Now, let's get into that first story.
		Today was supposed to be the big day that Donald Trump was going to pony up $454 million or else.
		But guess what?
		Trump actually got a minor victory in this battle, despite the fact they are still throwing the weight of New York State at him, not to mention all the other cases he has.
		He'll have to pay $175 million in order to appeal, and he's being given an additional 10 days to pay.
		Now, I want to stress it's a minor victory for Trump because he is winning.
		But you could argue that this is a big ask on the part of the New York state government.
		The judge says, give us literally everything you have or else.
		And then Trump appeals or he requests a lower amount of bond to 100 million.
		They come back and go, OK, fine, just give us.
		Half of everything you have.
		So 175 of course is not half of 454.
		What I mean is, 454 million dollars in cash actually exceeds what Trump has in cash as he stated.
		I believe the payment he'd have to pay is more Then, I believe it's closer to like 500 and some odd million now with interest, because it's accruing every single day.
		But for the bond, he'd have to pay the full amount.
		He currently has, according to the New York Times, somewhere around $350 to $375 million.
		So they're basically saying, give us half of your free cash right now.
		I think it would have to liquidate stocks.
		Otherwise, you can't appeal at all.
		Yo, this is still absolutely wild.
		I want to give credit where credit is due and point out Trump got this victory in this current battle, but it's still not winning.
		I mean, like, he's winning this current battle, but this shouldn't be happening in the first place.
		So we do have this in a bunch of other news.
		Frank Luntz, top GOP pollster, is warning Letitia James that if she starts seizing Trump's property, you're going to get Donald Trump elected.
		I agree.
		The polls show it.
		The sentiment shows it.
		New York has crossed the line.
		These people are psychopaths.
		Let's read the news.
		It was supposed to be, as I stressed, the big news is going to be what Trump was going to do.
		Were they going to seize his buildings?
		Freeze his bank accounts?
		Trump's got another week and a half here.
		CNBC reports.
		A New York appeals court on Monday paused for 10 days a massive civil fraud judgment against Trump and sharply reduced the bond to $175 million.
		The ruling by a panel of judges came on the same day that New York Attorney General Letitia James would have been allowed to start seizing his real estate and bank accounts.
		The appeals court ruling, for now, prevents James from doing so.
		Trump's lawyers, who had previously suggested the bond be set at $100 million in a court filing last week, said that it was impossible for him to get an appeal bond of $454 million.
		Yes, as Kevin O'Leary pointed out, this has quite literally never happened before.
		A half a billion dollar bond.
		None of these companies are willing to write that bond because they can't.
		Because of the size of the fraud judgment, the companies insisted that Trump show cash reserves approaching $1 billion.
		But neither Trump nor the Trump Organization company has that amount of cash on hand.
		And quite literally, almost, I think in only extremely rare circumstances, is an institution going to have a billion dollars in cash sitting around.
		And namely, that's going to be like a bank or something.
		Maybe a casino.
		Blah, blah, blah.
		We get it, we get it, we get it.
		We have this from Reuters.
		This was from this morning.
		Trump has hours to cover his $454 million judgment, but this has been updated and should now reflect that Trump basically won this pause, this minor victory.
		Now before we get into the politics here, let me tell you about the dirty nature that is the actions taken by New York State.
		The New York Times wrote this story, March 19th, updated the 25th, this morning.
		What we know about Trump's quest for a half a billion dollar bond.
		This is important politically.
		Let's start here.
		What was Trump accused of?
		Ms.
		James took Mr. Trump and his company and his adult sons to trial last fall, accusing them of fraudulently inflating the value of golf clubs, office buildings, and other properties to the tune of about $2 billion.
		Mr. Trump exaggerated the property values and, in turn, his own net worth to obtain favorable terms from banks and insurers, according to Ms.
	James.
	At the trial, which lasted months, Mrs. James' lawyers argued that Mr. Trump's company had ignored appraisals and manipulated numbers to sometimes absurd degrees.
	The reason why I show this to you, my friends, because fake news, New York Times.
	You see, this is the dirty game they play.
	There's so many people that are either in on it or outright lying.
	Let me pull this one up for you to debunk very simply this narrative.
	At the trial, which lasted months, here's one for you.
	New York Civil Investigation of the Trump Organization.
	In September 2023, Engron issued a summary judgment.
	There was no trial.
	Summary judgment.
	What does that mean?
	Summary judgment in law, a summary judgment also referred to as a judgment as a matter of law, is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e.
	without a full trial.
	They are lying!
	Let me explain to you once again.
	Oh, I just gotta say this.
	Whenever we have a major debunk, you know, here over at TimCast News, I request you share this video with people you know, okay?
	It's plain as day.
	Please just Google it yourselves.
	The New York Times says, At the trial, which lasted months, Mrs. James' lawyers argued that his company lies.
	In September 2023, Engrun issued a summary judgment that Trump and his company had committed fraud for years.
	A summary judgment does not have a full trial.
	They held a separate trial later on whether or not documents had been altered.
	Fraudulently.
	Not whether or not Trump had committed fraud.
	That was determined outright.
	Summary judgment.
	Bang.
	You did it.
	Next it's, was Trump personally liable for the documents?
	Now here's what's really important about this.
	They say that fraudulently inflated the value.
	Okay.
	How many of you own a car?
	What's that car worth?
	Tell me, tell me, tell me, what's the car worth?
	You got a Tesla Model 3?
	Alright, let's do this.
	Let's see, Tesla Model 3... Let's do a 2022, not the newest.
	Let's see, car and driver.
	Let's pull this one up.
	Here we go.
	A 2022 Tesla Model 3, starting at $48,400.
	Okay.
	How many of you have, say, a Tesla Model 3?
	I know they're very popular cars.
	So you bought it for $48,000.
	It's 2022.
	Um, you know, let's, let's do this.
	Let's do a 2024.
	Cause I want to, cause the prices are low.
	Let's say you bought it new.
	Okay.
	You bought it at $40,000.
	You drive it off the lot.
	It's got 10 miles on it.
	And you think to yourself, you know, I just don't like it.
	I think I made a mistake.
	I'm going to sell this one.
	What's it worth?
	Do you have an answer?
	This is the game, okay?
	Clearly, you just bought the thing, there were fees attached, so you're already in the hole $45,000 on this car and maybe got a loan for it.
	If you want to sell it, you got to pay back that loan of at least $45,000.
	You can't sell it for more than the new cost already.
	So if it's at a dealership for $45,000 and you drove it off a lot, you ain't getting $45,000 for it because if I'm gonna, I might as well just go buy it.
	What if you said $40,000?
	What if you said 40?
	What if you went to someone and said, look, I literally just drove it off a lot, had it in my driveway for a couple days, realized I made a mistake, I don't want it, I'm gonna eat a lot of money on this one because of my loan and the fees that were attached to it, but I'll sell it for 40 right now.
	You buy it from me, it is used, but it's basically brand new and you're not paying those fees.
	And then what happens when New York goes, that car is not worth $40,000.
	It's at least a 20% drop in price the moment you drive it off the lot.
	Everyone knows.
	And you say, it's my car and I'm going to choose to sell it for what I want.
	And the other person says, you're committing fraud by inflating the value of your car when wagering that That's what they did.
	Donald Trump approaches these banks and says, this building, they say it's worth, you know, 200 million.
	I think it's 250.
	The bank then does their own appraisal and says, we give it a value of 200.
	This is what the loan is going to be.
	Trump says, OK, we're done.
	They are lying about everything.
	They are claiming that because Trump valued his own properties at what he wanted to, that's fraud, despite the fact the banks value it at what they want it to.
	How was he punished?
	Well, we know this.
	$450 million.
	He can appeal.
	The appeal bond is $454 million.
	Trump would need to pledge significant collateral, about $557 million.
	That's insane.
	New York Times says he has around $350 million in cash, but I thought he was a billionaire!
	You're gonna love this one.
	While Mr. Trump has long bragged about his wealth, his true financial position remains something of a mystery.
	Most of his fortune is tied up in real estate holdings, which bond companies don't typically accept as collateral.
	He also has less liquid collateral viable than he even did a few weeks ago.
	Mr. Trump had to post a $91.6 million bond in the defamation case he lost to E. Jean Carroll.
	For that, he most likely had to pledge more than $100 million in collateral to Chubb, the insurance company that provided the guarantee.
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 ▲ ● ▼		While he's bragged about his wealth, he doesn't have half a billion dollars.
		Dude, anybody who's worth a billion dollars doesn't have half of that in cash.
		That's insane.
		Trump's values in his real estate.
		We've always known that.
		He's the reality TV real estate mogul.
		So they set the deadline.
		They said they can go after the properties.
		Easier said than done.
		Blah blah blah.
		Could she throw him in jail?
		It's a civil case.
		Engron could issue an arrest warrant if Trump repeatedly flouts court orders, but this is not likely going to happen.
		So here we are today, my friends.
		This is where we currently end up.
		Trump claims he has the cash, but doesn't want to use it.
		Why?
		This is what they are doing.
		Understand this.
		Trump says he's going to use this money for his campaign.
		He's already had to put up nearly $100 million for the defamation case, where a woman 30 years ago, or claims that 30 years ago, he sexually abused her.
		There's no evidence.
		There's no witnesses.
		But they rule against Trump anyway.
		It's insane.
		And now he's got to pay $100 million.
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What do you do?
		What do you do?
		And the issue for Trump is that New York is his state.
		His state's been taken over by communists.
		If Trump was based out of West Virginia, none of this would be happening.
		New York can file all the claims they want against him and he'd be like, screw off.
		But the reality is Trump has a lot of his wealth to lose.
		Trump Tower.
		Trump Hotel.
		How many Trump buildings are in New York?
		Four?
		How many Trump buildings in New York?
		Probably more than that.
		In New York City, I think, is what I'm really interested in.
		I think it's four.
		Four official Trump buildings, or is there three?
		It could be three.
		There's the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue.
		There's the Trump condos.
		I don't know if that one's called by the U.N.
		And then there's Trump International Hotel, which is in Columbus Circle.
		And he may have others, but I actually don't know.
		But they can seize all of that from him, and then that's kind of the point.
		That's the issue.
		If it was any other state, he could probably walk away.
		Bad news for Trump.
		Mike Cernovich actually points out it's worse than people realize.
		He said, I read the full Trump ruling finding him half a billion and it's worse than reported.
		For example, Trump paid back the post office, the DC hotel, not even New York, he paid the loan in full and made $126 million in profit.
		The judge stole it all, claiming Trump shouldn't have gotten the loan.
		When Donald Trump sold the old post office hotel, he paid off the Deutsche Bank loan, and the following profits were distributed.
		$126 million to Trump, $4 million to Eric, $4 million to Trump Jr., $4 million to Ivanka.
		It's really amazing.
		He gave equal shares to his three kids.
		When questioned about Weisselberg's guilty plea to tax fraud in connection with the employment of the Trump Organization, Donald Trump challenged that Weisselberg had committed any wrongdoing.
		Overall, Trump rarely responded to the question in general, blah blah blah.
		Here's what they're doing.
		The judge is claiming that because the loan was predicated upon false evaluation, it doesn't matter that Trump made money for Deutsche Bank.
		It doesn't matter that Trump profited and everyone was made whole.
		What matters is Trump thought the property was worth more than it actually was.
		Who sets value?
		If I say that this, uh, you can see the edge of this skateboard.
		Where is it?
		Right there.
		It's a skateboard right there.
		If I said that skateboard's worth $2,000, is that fraud?
		No, it means I want to sell it and I want $2,000 for it.
		I'm allowed to do that, right?
		What if I went to someone and said, I could sell this for $2,000.
		So you give me a loan for $1,000 and if I can't pay it back, you can have the skateboard.
		They then come and take a look at it and go, I don't see this skateboard selling for $2,000.
		I see it selling for $1,000.
		Maybe $1,000.
		We'll give you a $500 loan.
		And then I go, sure.
		How is that fraud?
		Absolutely insane.
		Well, here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
		Frank Luntz says that if they do this, they take Trump's property.
		Trump go win.
		Luntz is probably correct.
		Luntz warned Attorney General Letitia James against seizing Trump's properties.
		This is probably why they dropped the deadline.
		They moved the deadline and dropped the price because they realized if Trump plays a game of chicken with them and they go and take his buildings, then Trump says, they've just seized my buildings.
	This is insane.
	I mean, yeah, he'd be in serious trouble.
	I think Trump should probably even not pay this $175 million.
	Imagine if in 10 days Trump says, it's an absurdity that I would have to pay nearly $200 million in cash for the right to appeal a verdict in which there wasn't even a trial held.
	Let them try and seize his properties.
	Trump will raise so much money if they do.
	I have to wonder.
	Trump would probably have more money if he just sold the property and it took the cash.
	The former president's bank accounts could be frozen and his beloved buildings seized.
	However, Luntz, a trusted pollster by GOP for decades, yeah, no, not in the past 10 years, has said that James only stands to help Trump in his rematch with President Joe Biden in November if she begins taking his assets.
	If they take his stuff, he's going to say that this is proof that the federal government and the establishment and the swamp in Washington, that this is a conspiracy to deny him the presidency.
	Luntz, who is considered an anti-Trump Republican, believes that Trump will be able to create the greatest victimhood of 2024 if he starts having his property stolen from him by an establishment politician like James and all in the public eye.
	I agree with Luntz.
	He's going to go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him, once said.
	Not only that, but it typified what he believes is the stupidity of the Democrats and the never-Trumpers.
	Attempting to stop him.
	In the seven swing states, Trump is up by the margin of error in five out of seven.
	Why is that happening?
	Because his critics are stupid and they're running a horrible campaign.
	Attorney General formally registered judgments in Westchester County, where Trump has the two properties just north of Manhattan on March 6th.
	According to the county clerk's online database, the judgments were registered against Trump, the Trump Organization, and his two adult sons, Don Jr.
	and Eric.
	The action was first reported by Bloomberg News.
	It comes as Trump is facing a deadline to secure the order, this we know, and we've moved a bit beyond this.
	But let's roll, baby.
	Donald Trump is leading Biden in seven swing states.
	This as of February 29th.
	Leap day, I might add.
	Hope you all had a good leap day and got all your leap day candy.
	The Bloomberg News Morning Consult poll found Biden trailing Trump in several most critical states.
	Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, and Wisconsin.
	Let's play that game, baby!
	You ready for 270 to win?
	So Donald Trump's got Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin.
	Let's take it!
	We got Wisconsin going Trump.
	We got Georgia going Trump.
	We got Arizona going Trump.
	We got Nevada going Trump.
	We got North Carolina all ready for Trump.
	What am I missing?
	Pennsylvania and Michigan.
	Michigan Trump.
	Pennsylvania Trump.
	Why, my friends, if this trend continues, it's going to be 312 Republican to Democrats, 226 Trump wins.
	271 has the current map.
	Let's refresh it here and see if it- Okay, it's not gonna- Is there a reset button on this one?
	Uh, 2024 electoral votes.
	Here's the 2020 map.
	Wait, what?
	It didn't change.
	That is incorrect.
	Why didn't- Okay, there we go.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Oh, this map is getting silly.
	I don't know how to reset it, and now it's giving me the business?
	Oh, I see.
	I'm sorry.
	What we're looking at here is states that have lost or gained electoral college votes.
	So, California lost one.
	Michigan, PA, and Ohio, and New York all lost one.
	Illinois lost.
	Texas gained two.
	Florida gained one.
	And that is, I believe from the census, where everybody fled these states.
	So, as of right now, this is what we're looking at with 312.
	Let's say that Trump gets all these states, but he loses in Arizona.
	Why?
	We don't trust Arizona.
	Let's say Arizona goes blue!
	301 Republicans.
	They still win.
	Okay.
	Let's say Nevada goes blue.
	295 Republicans.
	Okay.
	Okay, now hold on.
	What's going on here?
	Let's say Georgia.
	Jumps as well.
	Still 279.
	Trump could lose three of these states.
	Now, I'm not so sure about Georgia.
	Arizona, I think, goes blue.
	Because we saw what happened with Carrie Lake, where the voting machines were busted!
	But they didn't care, and they said, election's fine.
	So I don't see Arizona surviving this one.
	But let's say Georgia also goes blue because in Georgia, we don't really trust how things operate down there.
	So if Trump has Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, he's still up at 285.
	He could even lose Michigan and still hit the 270 to win.
	It is looking phenomenal right now with the current polling and the current makeup of states.
	It could be that we actually see things that are shocking because of the third party.
	Now, I don't know if we can get the third party added in here.
	I don't think so.
	Oh, there's the reset map button.
	So, 2020... Okay, I don't know.
	I don't understand.
	It's not... You are viewing the 2024 census.
	Okay.
	Let's say Georgia goes Democrat.
	Arizona goes Democrat.
	Nevada goes Republican.
	Wisconsin goes Democrat.
	Michigan goes Republican.
	Pennsylvania goes Republican.
	It's 286.
	So Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin I think are good candidates for actually going blue despite the polling.
	But that means with Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, I believe that's what it was, North Carolina.
	Are we getting this one?
	Am I getting it right?
	North Carolina.
	That sets Trump on a path to victory at 275.
	But here's what I think is also being missed.
	There is a decent possibility That you actually see, I don't really think so, but maybe even like in Nebraska, we get Nebraska full red.
	How do I set Nebraska full red?
	What are we doing here?
	The state.
	And there's three special zones.
	It's strongly possible that we actually get Nebraska, all five, going to Trump.
	Let's say one in Omaha's deep blue.
	That's still 275 Republican.
	I think it's entirely possible that we could see an upset in a place like Virginia, but I'm not entirely sure.
	New Hampshire?
	Probably not, but maybe.
	But with a third-party split, Maine could theoretically go red.
	Why?
	Because Joe Biden will lose out on a ton of votes thanks to RFK Jr., resulting in Trump actually winning with a minority position.
	In California, we had a Senate race, and it was actually fairly tied between the frontrunner for the Senate, Adam Schiff, and I forgot the Republican's name.
	However, it's because there were three Democrat candidates and one Republican.
	That vote split gives the Republican a chance, but ultimately, I think it goes to a runoff, I could be wrong, and then the Democrat's going to win.
	Now, in other states where it's win or take all, and we don't do runoffs, it's entirely possible that with RFK Jr., Trump wins with 35% of the vote, and the map could look very, very different.
	Right now, Trump is ahead in all of these states.
	Assuming no malfeasance, handily wins.
	We'll see.
	Ten more days.
	Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	We'll see you all then.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Last week saw an extremely intense terror attack in Moscow.
		Now it's claimed in the media that ISIS has taken responsibility for the attack, but the men involved have been captured, mercilessly beaten by Russian forces, and now Vladimir Putin's saying that these are Ukrainian-linked individuals.
		The story I've read, I don't have it pulled up right now, but It appears that these men fled.
		Major news was reported that they did not capture the terrorists.
		But this was apparently intentional to see where these men would try to go.
		And the reporting is they made attempts to enter into Ukraine, into the conflicted territory.
		It's fog of war.
		I can't tell you what's true or what's not true.
		I can tell you what's reported.
		Vladimir Putin is claiming Ukraine's involved because of course he is.
		The most predictable news ever.
		And now, we have fears once again that World War III is on the horizon.
		Fears spiral after Vladimir Putin's missile roar into Polish airspace during Ukraine blitz.
		Now, my friends, the big news today, of course, is the deadline for Donald Trump and whether or not he'll be able to pay off this ridiculous and unconstitutional, violating the Eighth Amendment, fine that was imposed on him for what is not even a crime.
		But as we await that, we do have major news developing over the weekend.
		And I know many people often say, Tim!
		Don't say World War 3.
		It cheapens it, it's blah blah.
		You know, I have two thoughts about it.
		I have two minds about it.
		I agree.
		How many times am I going to be like, oh, World War 3 again?
		No, I agree.
		And this is what the news reports.
		World War 3 fear.
		But then I'm of another mind about it.
		I'm actually more worried we stop caring.
		That's the tough part, I guess.
		The reality is, these are the building blocks of World War III.
		Look, we started on Israel, the Houthis, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, all of that stuff plays a role as well.
		But what we're seeing with Vladimir Putin outright saying, I will nuke you!
		And Macron and France, a chief military leader in France now saying, yes, we will send troops.
		I think the challenge we face with this is that we get tired of it.
		I get tired of it.
		We put out a story and it says, you know, Vladimir Putin threatens to nuke West.
		And we're like, holy crap, that's crazy.
		And then a week goes by and nothing happens.
		Then a week goes by and we're like, yeah, yeah, he threatened to nuke us before and nothing happened.
		We get complacent.
		You look back in the history books and you see how history is condensed.
		It seems to make more sense.
		But I assure you, in a hundred years, they'll say, following the, you know, whatever, following the terror attack in Moscow, Vladimir Putin issued a strong threat, started arming more troops and deploying more troops.
		It's like, whoa, wait, that hasn't happened yet.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because what they're going to do is, this just happened last week.
		Maybe in six months, Russia has ramped up conscription, gotten more troops and expands the war.
		Or this missile strike.
		History will be written in a very condensed manner.
		Like, the fascinating thing, I think, most of you probably already know by now because I say it quite often when referring to historical conflict, the American Revolution started.
		And then one year and one month later, the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.
		So, we were quite literally already at war.
		When the Declaration was signed.
		But most people actually believe the Founding Fathers went, Ah, hereby declare!
		And then sent a letter to the king and he went, Whoa!
		Send in the troops!
		That actually would happen.
		It was a 20-year period.
unidentified		But we read history and it's like an overnight thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This is where we're currently at.
		The breaking news from yesterday.
		Yesterday night.
		A Russian missile floated over Polish airspace, sparking NATO outrage.
		France is saying, we will send in troops.
		And that means, my friends, if NATO deploys troops, the U.S.
		is involved because we're basically NATO.
		And you think Russia just goes, oh gee, well, oh golly.
		I'm still at war with you.
		Look.
		Ain't no joke.
		The U.S.
		and Russia are at war right now.
		And they're just playing this game where they're saying it's not true.
		I can't believe there's any Americans still in Russia right now.
		The Sun says, Vladimir Putin's 57-missile onslaught plus a drone attack hammered critical infrastructure in Kiev and the western Ukrainian region of Lviv.
		But one of the Russian cruise missiles stayed over NATO territory in Poland for 39 seconds, triggering a major alert and fears of an escalation.
		Allied warplanes were scrambled to counter the dangerous incursion near the town of Osordo.
		Meanwhile, British Storm Shadow missiles were said to have blasted two more Russian landing ships with deadly strikes in the Black Sea naval ports of Ostapol.
		Can I just... Can I just point this out?! !
		British missiles struck Russian landing ships?
		They're not going to say it.
		There will be no formal declaration.
		One day, they will just say, war with Russia continues.
		Because they can't declare it.
		Because the people would oppose it.
		Nobody wants to go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
		They're just doing it.
		This is amazing.
		The Yamal and the Azov, each worth 170 million pounds, were knocked out in the latest blow to Putin's naval power base.
		Another Storm Shadow cruise missile had earlier devastated Russia's main communications center of its vulnerable Black Sea fleet.
		Defense Secretary Grant Schapps called the Black Sea Blitz an historic moment yesterday.
		Ukraine has switched its focus to the occupied Crimean Peninsula after suffering setbacks in eastern Donbass and Luhansk.
		Mr. Schapps suggested it could turn the war back in favor of Ukraine President Zelensky.
		I am not convinced, my friends.
		This is from RFI.fr.
		Newsguard certified.
		French military chiefs backs Macron over possibility of sending troops to Ukraine.
		Russia should not expect the West to limit its support for Ukraine to supplying arms, says the chief of staff of France's armed forces, General Thierry Burkhardt.
		His words echo President Emmanuel Macron's recent controversial suggestion that a military intervention could not be ruled out.
		The news from last week on the terror attacks as we saw them.
		Shocking videos, man.
		I don't know if you guys were able to see it.
		Some of the most nightmarish and brutal.
		These videos get sent to me, of course.
		I mean, I'm plugged in the news 24-7.
		And the first thing I said was, Ukraine.
		Only a moron would say otherwise.
		Ukraine.
		For what purpose would anyone attack Russia?
		Now, to be fair, there's a decent probability that ISIS could make sense because you have Chechenian Muslims and, you know, other anti-Russian forces that have long plagued Russia.
		But Ukraine makes the most sense.
		Now, it could be that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
		And these Islamic extremists from Chechnya or neighboring regions may have gone to Ukraine for aid.
		And it's basically, you've got a privateer type scenario.
		Ukraine says, we're at war, you're at war, what do you want?
		And these guys say, you give us what we need and we can carry out these attacks.
		And then Ukraine can deny all involvement.
		But it's one big war, baby.
		Putin tries to link, from the New York Times, assailants to Ukraine.
		The New York Times reports, President Putin of Russia laid the groundwork on Saturday for blaming Ukraine for the Moscow concert hall attack, and in making his first remarks on the assault more than 19 hours after it began.
		In a five-minute televised address, he claimed that someone in Ukraine had tried to help the attackers escape across the border from Russia before they were apprehended by Russian security services.
		He did not definitively pin the attack on Ukraine, nor did he refer to the assessment by American officials that a branch of the Islamic State was behind it.
		They were trying to hide, and they were moving toward Ukraine, he said, referring to the four men who carried out the attack and who the Kremlin said had been captured in Western Russia.
	Based on preliminary information, a window for crossing the border was prepared for them by the Ukrainian side.
	Ukrainian officials have repeatedly denied having anything to do with the attack and American officials have said there is no evidence of Ukrainian involvement.
	American officials voiced concern on Friday that Mr. Putin could seek to falsely blame Ukraine for the attack.
	Now let's pause.
	We have no idea.
	It is entirely possible that Vladimir Putin is behind the attack on the concert hall.
	Let's break down the possibilities and try to do a general assessment as to what we think may be the most likely.
	Ukraine They're the force behind the attack.
	Why would that make sense?
	Uh, they're at war.
	They're on the western border.
	These men fled to the western border, reportedly.
	Should that be true?
	Certainly makes the most sense.
	Ukraine has engaged in aerial drone terror strikes already.
	And I say terror because they're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.
	It would make sense.
	Next up is... Muslim extremists.
	Decent probability.
	I'd put it on the lower end of the scale.
	Maybe they decided just now we're gonna go engage in this terror attack, but I don't think that makes a lot of sense to be completely honest.
	It may half make sense.
	If anything, these extremist groups from Chechnya or other nearby regions that are at war with Russia or fighting Russia, Would certainly have an incentive to go and join Ukraine to fight against Russia.
	The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
	However, it doesn't mean that they would actually be friends with Ukraine, so it's hard to know for sure.
	There is a strong possibility it would be Islamist extremists.
	That's fair.
	That's fair.
	Though I would put on the lowest possible end.
	Next up we have, of course, a false flag operation by Russia themselves to justify conscription and build public support for the war against Ukraine.
	I don't see what Ukraine has to gain from being involved in this terror attack.
	None at all.
	I can understand why ISIS would gain from it.
	So if we break this down, there's a lot to consider.
	And I'll stress this again.
	When I first saw this, I said, how would the West gain from a terror attack on civilian infrastructure?
	This one is blunt and straightforward.
	Terror.
	Ukraine sending a message to the people who live in Moscow, you will not be free from this conflict.
	If our people see it, you will see it too.
	But if that were the case, you'd expect Ukraine to take responsibility.
	Maybe not.
	All they needed was for Vladimir Putin to say it was Ukraine, and their message has been heard loud and clear.
	The people of Russia maybe may now think, I don't want to live this way, and they could flee.
	It could disrupt economics, could slow down Russia, or maybe even turn the tide against Vladimir Putin.
	However, Putin is taking the inverse bet and blames Ukraine directly.
	I think it would actually just bolster support from the Russians.
	Of course, Russian television is not saying it's Ukraine anyway, they're saying it's NATO.
	And when you got Macron saying outright, we will be sending troops, why would anyone think otherwise?
	I think that what makes the most sense is Ukraine did it.
	Really.
	I mean, this is... this is war.
	Now you're gonna love this one, my friends, from the New York Post.
	Well, I gotta be honest with you guys.
	to Washington DC if it were attacked by a nuclear bomb?
	Well I gotta be honest with you guys.
	We here at TimCast have taken this question quite seriously.
	We've done a range of simulations.
	I'm kidding.
	There's a website where you can type in the city, and it'll show you the blast radius.
	The good news is, even the most powerful bombs on Earth are not big enough to reach where we are outside of DC.
	But I gotta be honest, we're a little bit too close for comfort.
	I think we are like 15 miles outside of the largest possible blast radius.
	So, not a good thing.
	But fortunately with the jet stream current, the nuclear fallout would flow in the other direction.
	So we're mostly okay.
	That being said, were a bomb to drop on DC, it would probably... I don't think it would shatter the windows of any of our buildings.
	We're outside of even, like, all of the affected range.
	You've got the fireball range, the radiation range, the shockwave.
	So there's the initial blast, then there's the burning range, where it's like everything bursts into flames.
	Then you have the radiation, depending on the bomb, too.
	And then you have the shockwave.
	We're not even in the shockwave range.
	So I think for the biggest bombs, our windows wouldn't even break.
	It's kind of wild if you think about it, because we're not that far away.
	But everyone is kind of wondering, What are you doing, New York Post?
	Why are you sharing this story with everybody?
	Do you guys remember a couple years ago, New York put out a duck and cover PSA?
	Public service announcement.
	In the event of a nuclear attack, here's what you need to do.
	Huh.
	Maybe we're closer than we think.
	I guess what they said was to never look at the explosion.
	If you see the bright flash, get down, because the light travels faster than the shockwave and the sound.
	And they said to stuff towels under the doors of your home, because you want to keep the radioactive particles from coming in.
	The gases can move through, the particles can't.
	I think this is a really important thing for people to understand, too.
	Uh, when I went to Fukushima with Luke Rutkowski and we went- the red zone where the reactor went off, we got these, uh, uh, like, almost paper suits.
	It was like a thin... I think it was paper, I gotta be honest.
	They're like white radiation suits.
	And... I was actually kind of surprised.
	I asked them how does it work and they said the purpose of the suit is so that all the radioactive particles land on the suit and then you you doff you don and doff you that means when you take the suit off you make sure nothing touches your skins you ball it up inside out and they throw it in a bag because you don't want that radioactive stuff on your skin and you don't want to eat it so we wore masks and everything else.
	And I want to say this too, Sad.
	The woman who gave us the guided tour, we call them Fixers, she was older.
	She did not wear the protective equipment.
	She died of cancer.
	And it was not that long after.
	Take it seriously, man.
	No joke.
	Here we go.
	The New York Post writes, as two regional wars now rage nuclear ending, the world is
	closer than it has been in decades to the specter of nuclear war.
	Hell on earth, Washington, D.C.
	A one megaton thermonuclear weapon detonation begins with a flash of light, and heat so tremendous, it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend.
	180 million degrees Fahrenheit is four or five times hotter than the temperature at the center of the sun.
	In the first fraction of a millisecond after the bomb strikes the Pentagon, there's a light.
	Soft x-ray light with a very short wavelength.
	The light superheats the surrounding air to millions of degrees, creating a massive fireball that expands at millions of miles per hour.
	Within seconds, this fireball increases to a diameter of a little more than a mile.
	Its light and heat is so intense that concrete surfaces explode.
	Metal objects melt or evaporate.
	Stone shatters.
	Humans instantaneously convert into combusting carbon.
	The five-story, five-sided structure, and everything inside its 6.5 million square feet of office space explodes into superheated dust.
	All 27,000 Pentagon employees perishing instantly.
	Not a single thing in the fireball remains.
	Nothing.
	Ground zero is zero.
	Take a look at this.
	These are the landmarks, I guess.
	Yeah, if a nuclear strike went for DC, I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty sure it can't.
	D.C.
	is probably the most heavily guarded place on the planet.
	There may be a couple others that are classified, but I'm talking in terms of conventional strikes.
	There are likely, surrounding D.C., surface-to-air missiles.
	You think the Iron Dome is effective?
	Israel?
	And they have the THAAD, which is, uh... I forgot what THAAD stands for, sorry.
	It's T-H-A-A-D.
	They have that in Korea.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Spare me, dude.
		The U.S.
		likely has nuclear deterrent missiles surrounding D.C.
		like crazy.
		You know why?
		If there's one thing you can rely on, it's that politicians will spend everything on themselves.
		So when it comes to expenditures, yeah, the people in D.C.
		are certainly going to reinforce the place they have to be.
		And they'll say, And to be fair, true, we must survive for continuity of government.
		And I say mostly true, but, uh, you know, they're gonna protect themselves.
		Traveling at the speed of light, the radiating heat from the fireball ignites everything flammable several miles out in every direction.
		Curtains, paper, books, and wood fences, people's clothing, dry leaves explode into flames and become kindling for a great firestorm that begins to consume a 100 or more square mile area.
		That was home to 6 million people.
		So, this is DC in general.
		Let me see if I can pull up the nuclear map, actually.
		Because I think there's an app for this.
		Nuke Map.
		Is that it?
		Yeah, Nuke Map.
		Here we go.
		Let's pull this bad boy in!
		And select a preset.
		Let's do Washington, D.C.
		And they said one megaton.
		So let's zoom out quite a bit.
		Here's Maryland.
		And let's see, we're going to do a one megaton bomb.
		Wow, look at all these bombs.
		So let's do the Minuteman 1 warhead and detonate.
		There we go.
		So, uh, I'll give you a general idea of where we're at.
		Uh, I mention it often.
		We're in the, uh, Panhandle Tri-State.
		So we're- we're- we're up here.
		There's Martinsburg.
		We'll use Martinsburg as a good point of reference, because that's where, uh, uh, one of our main buildings is, and- and the rest of the studio and everything is relatively close.
		So, uh, you can see we're really far away from where that blast would be.
		A one- a one megaton, the- there's a- so for those that are just listening, let me explain.
		D.C., we're hit by a megaton bomb.
		There is a small fireball ring, which is one kilometer, and that is the crater.
		You then have the moderate blast damage radius, which extends seven kilometers.
		It's crazy.
		Thermal radiation, third degree burns.
		So, so everybody in the first, they're dead.
		Then you get the thermal radiation, which is 12 kilometers.
		And understand the area is exponentially increasing.
		From 7 kilometers to 155 kilometers squared, to 12 kilometers is now 466 kilometers squared.
		And then you have the light blast damage radius, that's the shockwave.
		Covering 1,230 square kilometers.
		Extending about 20 kilometers out.
		So, this does massive damage to Tysons, Bethesda, you've got Groveton, Suitland, I don't even know what most of these places are, Landover, Seabrook, uh, everything, but, I mean, Reston's not even that bad.
		I mean, here's the crazy thing, I gotta be honest, driving from Reston to D.C.
		is like 20 minutes, depending on traffic, I guess, so just understand that context, it's really interesting.
		If you're in DC, and you drive out to rest, and it could take, let's be fair, like no traffic, 20 minutes.
		Now think about how far you have to drive to escape a nuclear blast.
		That's why I think it's always important to consider, like, you can run from a nuclear bomb.
unidentified		Let's go to Sarbomba.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The largest USSR bomb designed at 100 megatons, and boom!
		Now us here over in Martinsburg, still fine!
		Still doing alright.
		Granted, taint no way a 100 megaton bomb is getting anywhere near this place.
		But that would be wild.
		You have the thermal radiation radius covering 17,000 square kilometers.
		That's nuts.
		But that's the biggest bomb ever detonated, uh, ever designed.
		They never actually detonated that.
		The most they've ever done was 50, uh, 50 megatons.
		So, Tsar Bomba.
		And, wow, this thing was, whew, thermal radiation extends beyond even the shockwave.
		Now, it's an important thing for y'all to understand when it comes to nukes.
		The radiation is intentional.
		You can see the radiation radius.
		Many of these bombs intentionally or do not intentionally have a radioactive radiation yield.
		Some of them are designed not to.
		So let's see if we get to, uh, what's the, what's the, here we go.
		China.
		I don't, I don't, I don't want to go with China.
		What, what, what, what do we think that the, uh, here's the, the largest, the highest ICBM US deployed is the Titan II.
		The first H-bomb IV Mike was 10 megatons.
		That's crazy.
		Massive.
		But let's see what we got with Russia's realistic Castle Bravo is the largest U.S.
		bomb.
		Let's go down to the Soviet Cuban Missile Crisis, 2 megatons.
		And so once we get to 2 megatons, we're still not even near Reston.
		So doubling the blast power, it's still not making a big difference.
		That being said, I mean, I'm basically saying, I'm gonna be okay.
		Yeah, but lots of other people will not be.
		And, uh, let's, let's, let's... What are the casualties?
		The estimated casualties in a two megaton nuke will be 731,000 dead, 1.1 million injured.
		Let's even go back to a one megaton.
		Let's just say it's a one megaton bomb.
		We're looking at estimated fatalities, still calculating, 524,000 dead, 915,000 injured.
		I just don't think people understand.
		You know, even when we deal with war and conflict, we don't see numbers this big.
		We have mass shootings, and it's like 17 dead.
		Or, you know, in Russia, I think it's up to 170 or some huge number.
		But 170 ain't nothing compared to 524,000 dead from one nuclear strike.
		I can't tell you where we go, my friends.
		I cannot, certainly.
		We got the suspects being dragged into court.
		They ain't looking too good.
		The Hill reporting, most Americans in new surveys say another world war is likely in the next five to ten years.
		And why would they be wrong?
		And of course, The Mirror running this story.
		Where Vladimir Putin would strike UK with nuclear weapons, and it's not where you might think.
		One thing to consider.
		D.C.
		may not be the principal target for Vladimir Putin or any other country.
		It's hard to know exactly where they would strike.
		But it may be something called a Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicle.
		MIRVs.
		One ICBM, twelve warheads.
		And the strategy with them is basically to pepper one city with multiple warheads to create maximum damage.
		The warheads detonate in the air, not on the ground.
		So if you ever see a warhead falling, it's going to burst in the air, not on the ground.
		This idea of the ground explosion and the mushroom cloud?
		Wrong.
		Airburst spreads out and blankets more of the ground.
		And if it were a detonate on the ground, it would create a blast crater, which would deflect a lot of the shockwave and the damage.
		Let's hope and pray it doesn't come to this.
	But you see, your leaders, if we can even call them that, are hell-bent on driving us into World War III.
	Why?
	Ukraine.
	Maybe.
	I've heard some say that the U.S.
	is desperately trying to spark World War III because they know the fiat's on the verge of collapse.
	Take a look at the financial markets and the predictors.
	They're off the charts.
	They're saying, like, something is wrong.
	I don't know enough about economics.
	All I can tell you is I see them on Twitter.
	I see them on X. And they're saying things like, unprecedented this, national debt's too high, interest rates are too high, the whole financial system is about to implode.
	And now here we are.
	Well, let's get back to the waiting game to see what happens with Donald Trump and submitting this $500 million.
	He says he's got the cash.
	We'll see.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	You may know her from The Sopranos.
	Drea Di Matteo says that she made more in one month on OnlyFans than on The Sopranos.
	Apparently, I read somewhere that she was only paid like 500 bucks an episode for the first season.
	Now, I've never been a big Sopranos person.
	I have only seen snippets.
	Maybe I've seen an episode here or there.
	I had friends and family that were super into it.
	People say it's like the best show ever.
	Super good.
	I didn't see it, to be completely honest.
	I saw this news, and the first thing I thought to myself was, I mean, I'll just show you the tweet.
	I said, women deciding to be hookers instead of having jobs is an arc I didn't expect feminism to take.
	And I mean, I'm only half serious, but this resulted in Drea responding and calling me a name!
	Which I believe she is wrong, but I also think exposes the hypocrisy and the shame of being a hooker.
	Look, I'm not here to mince words or play games, okay?
	I don't- I- I- Hooker.
	It's the word that we used growing up in Chicago.
	We said hooker.
	That's the term.
	It means prostitute.
	Prostitute is defined as somebody who sells sexual activity or engages in sexual activity for money.
	And I don't see a distinction between only fans, whether it's racy sexual content with some nudity but privates exposed, or full-on sexual activity.
	They're just degrees.
	And if we're arguing degrees, we're in agreement, it is sexual activity.
	So, let me start before showing you the Twitter, I guess, I don't know, I wouldn't call it a flame war or anything, but Drea responded to me, and she called me a naughty word in response, and I think this exposes a lot of the shame women have for actually being involved in this.
	It's dirty money.
	They don't like it.
	People don't like it.
	Guys get off on it.
	Guys will pay for it, but they ain't gonna give you no respect.
	I don't care if that's what you want to do.
	I just... I think you shouldn't pretend to be forced into doing it, and pretend to be ashamed or outraged that people would call you what you are.
	I don't know, Drea.
	I got no beef with her.
	And, to be fair, I did not explicitly call her a hooker.
	Though I did implicitly call her one.
	I will accept that.
	Is that word supposed to be offensive to a hooker?
	Like, I... I gotta be honest.
	I don't hear the word hooker and think insult.
	I... Descriptive noun.
	I feel like... I feel like prostitute is too heavy-handed.
	You know?
	Hooker was the slang term for a woman selling sex.
	Let's slow down.
	Let me show you the article in question.
	And, uh, where this all begins.
	From Barstool Sports.
	Drea, uh, Mateo, I'm probably pronouncing that wrong, made more in one month on OnlyFans than on Sopranos.
	You hear that from far, far away out in New Jersey, you hear someone saying, Christopher, yep, we effing did it, we got Drea on the podcast this week, and it goes without saying, it's one of my favorite episodes of all time.
	Drea is obviously Adriana La Cerva from The Sopranos, as well as Wendy in Sons of Anarchy and a whole bunch of other amazing acting roles, including Joey's sister Gina on the short-lived Joey, which is all fun and stuff to discuss along with her recently joining OnlyFans.
	Now, you see, we gotta pause there right away.
	It seems like, from the gist of the article, or from the headline, a lot of people are like, Wow.
	She wasn't making any money acting.
	No, no, no.
	Hold on there just a minute.
	Sopranos was a very, very long time ago.
	She's had work since then.
	She has made the choice to sell sex for money.
	And, Adreia, if you end up hearing this, you're gonna have to explain to me why you're offended by choosing to do the job that you're doing and me pointing it out for you to call me such an awful word.
	We learned that she's getting requests on OnlyFans, what she's posting on there, if Tony and Adriana would have hooked up, had they not gotten in a car accident, how she got on Joey, how she found out Adriana's fate in The Sopranos, and so much more.
	It truly was a joy, and I cannot compliment her enough for being so GD cool.
	She even sat back and enjoyed a tasty Four Loko Jungle Juice with us as our new sponsor.
	Amazing stuff.
	Till next time.
	So there was a bunch of big news last year about her joining OnlyFans.
	And now, I will be fair on this.
	I said, women deciding to be hookers instead of having jobs is an arc I didn't expect feminism to take, and the post has gotten 4.4 million views.
	And, uh, there's Cassandra Poynter, she's 52 years old as well.
	Now, uh, here's an image.
	I don't know if this is an OnlyFans image or what this image is, but you can see that her boobs are mushed and pressed up and sticking out.
	Whatever.
	I looked into it, and what I can say is, there are images purportedly from her OnlyFans of her fully nude, but covering herself, and other images that are sexually suggestive, like an up-close photograph of her boobs in a bikini.
	Now, by all means, many people may say, no, you can't say that only posing a picture of her boobs is sexual activity or whatever.
	It's like, no, no, no, hold on.
	Let me tell you this.
	Personally, I am of the opinion that we are only arguing now degrees of sexual activity.
	If a woman wears a bikini, not sexual activity.
	If a woman goes to the beach, not sexual activity.
	I can hear the feminists swinging already!
	What I'm saying is, if a woman takes requests to post pictures of her body, secondary sexual characteristics or sexual characteristics at all, sexually suggestive photos, and you know what they're for, that is just the lightest degree of sexual activity.
	That's what a prostitute does.
	But you see, people say, like, no, a prostitute specifically does the act itself, and I'm like, we are not in that era anymore.
	If you go back in time and go to the Bravels, sure, the majority of the time it was do the deed, get the money, but there are many circumstances, even today, where the man does not touch the woman, and the woman, so like in the Netherlands, for instance, Let me put it this way.
	Women are in small rooms with a glass in front of them.
	You go into a room and you pay.
	You don't get to touch the woman.
	Is that sexual activity?
	Yes.
	Now I can already hear some people are saying strippers aren't hookers.
	I disagree.
	And I suppose it might be fair to draw the distinction, because some people might say, if she's actually bringing the guys into the back room, there's a big difference.
	Look, man.
	What I'm saying is, degrees of sexual activity, it's still paying for sexual activity, and that is how we define prostitute.
	That's it.
	I don't know what else to tell you.
	Like, what would you call it if a woman was on a street corner wearing, like, weird-ass clothes, and a guy pulled up and was like, I want you to come back to the hotel room, and I want you to, like, strut around and take your clothes off, and I'm gonna sit back and watch and get off on it.
	We'd still call that prostitution.
	I suppose, legally, there may be a distinction.
	But this is why I say hooker.
	Because, you know, growing up, this is how we defined it.
	But let me stop ranting.
	Dre responded.
	Well, I'm glad Timcast clarified that I'm a hooker and he's a... She called me... I mean, like, this segment is already pretty unfamily-friendly, but the C-word, as it were.
	Keep saving America with your big influential platform by taking cheap shots at struggling single moms, tough guy.
	Super cool skater-ish bro, the hooker of Hollywood.
	Taking shots at?
	I don't see how anything I said was insulting.
	That was a legitimate thought I had.
	I was like, I'm sitting there thinking like, I really didn't think this 20 years ago, that feminism would be like, you will make more money by selling sexual activity on a social media platform.
	I don't know how that's anything other than neutral.
	Clarified that I'm a hooker, but you are.
	I don't understand why you're upset.
	Drea, you sell pictures of your body for money!
	Why are you offended that I point that out?
	How is that offensive in any way?
	Hey, you're selling your body on OnlyFans.
	How dare you?
	But you literally chose to do it!
	Oh boy.
	To which I responded, I don't see why it would be offensive to point out that selling sex on OnlyFans is hooking.
	What about pointing out that women are quitting their jobs to do sex work is c-word worthy?
	Y'all should be proud of the work you do!
	And to be fair, I never explicitly called you a hooker, because maybe you just post selfies on OnlyFans or something.
	But to be fair, I am implicitly calling you and women who use OnlyFans hookers.
	I will accept that.
	The issue is, however, I can't show you the pictures that reportedly are from her OnlyFans.
	I'm not going to sign up for OnlyFans or use it, but the news reports that have come out about her work on OnlyFans have shown several images, like there's one where she's fully naked, and she has her arms over her chest and her legs are crossed, but she's fully naked.
	And there's another one where it's just a straight-up picture of her boobs, okay?
	I... Yeah, I'm sorry, like... Some people may make the argument that they go on OnlyFans and they post classy photos.
	There are some who do this.
	That's totally true.
	But I don't think anyone believes that's the reality here.
	The reality is that women know they're selling their bodies for money.
	Women know that they are taking requests to engage in sexually suggestive poses so that dudes can get their rocks off.
	I don't... Look.
	Maybe you want to make the argument that you'd consider prostitution the direct act of a dude and a woman getting together and doing like physical contact stuff for money.
	But the way I see it is, we invented new means by which women can convey sexual activity.
	We still consider that the same thing.
	Like, you know, Walking up to someone in the street and tricking them and taking their money is fraudulent.
	Just because you sent a text, you can still be charged with fraud.
	Like, I'm just saying, like, doing it over the phone may remove the sexual activity, but, like, you are engaged in sexual activity for money, which is the literal definition of prostitution, under which strippers would fall under this, an act of prostitution.
	Maybe you might disagree with that one.
	Fair point.
	By all means, you're free to do so.
	So we took it to the internet and we asked, let's do a quick refresh on this Twitter thread, and I said, do you consider selling nudes or sexually suggestive photos on OnlyFans sexual activity?
	11,137 votes, 90.4% said yes, that is.
	137 votes, 90.4% said yes, that is. 9.6% said no it's not.
	I said, to clarify, do you consider selling sexually suggestive photos to be sexual activity, i.e.
	legs spread, clothes on, or nude but covering privates?
	85.7 said, it is sexual activity too.
	And I then said, does selling sexual activity make you a hooker?
	82.7 said yes.
	Okay.
	I'm thinking, maybe I'm wrong on this one.
	Maybe I shouldn't call women who use OnlyFans to sell images of their body in sexually suggestive ways for cash, hookers.
	I don't know.
	That's just how I grew up and the way that me and my friends describe things and viewed the world.
	That's our worldview.
	But I don't think I'm alone in this one.
	That's why I did a series of Twitter polls.
	To be fair, people who follow me on Twitter probably like the things I have to say, though many probably don't like the things I have to say.
	And I currently have 2 million followers on Twitter.
	Not like it's a scientific poll, it is a poll of the people who follow me.
	I grew up in Chicago, among liberals.
	I am a politically moderate individual who is an independent, leaning Republican today.
	I despise the Republican Party.
	I think the Democrats are substantially worse, but I don't like either of them.
	Probably would lean more Libertarian if the Libertarians actually had a shot.
	I'm a fan of the Mises Caucus.
	And here we are.
	It would seem that at least of the 11,000 in the first poll, the 5,000 in the second, and the 5,500 in the third, most people agree with the position that I took.
	At least in this poll of my followers.
	Selling a photo where you spread your legs but you're wearing a unitard is sexual activity.
	Taking a picture of your boobs in a bikini at request or for men and charging them money for it is selling sexual activity.
	It is the lightest degree of it.
	I'm gonna stress this for all the whinging women who for some reason are offended at being sex workers.
	Ladies.
	I did not say there's anything wrong with being a sex worker.
	Not once.
	I literally said I didn't expect feminism to take this arc.
	If you get offended by that, it says more about how you feel about your job than how I feel.
	You got all these feminists coming out and they're saying, sex positive, sex work is real work.
	And I'm like, okay.
	This is really fascinating.
	I tweeted, if sex work is real work, then a boss should be able to require a blowjob as a job requirement.
	Should be able to require.
	And feminists lost their mind and said, no, because that would be rape.
	And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no.
	What are you talking about?
	If sex work is real work, akin to the same things as being a janitor or a lawyer, why would it not be allowed for a boss to be like, we're looking for a maid and a hand jobber?
	It's just work, right?
	And then people say, it's the wrong kind of job.
	Like, if he hired her for sex... No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no.
	This is a lie.
	And it's because they know what they're doing is shameful and they're ashamed of it.
	I'm not saying they should be.
	I'm not saying it's wrong.
	I'm saying it is sex work.
	My point was, if you really thought sex work was just work and it's indistinguishable, then bosses should be allowed to keep it indistinguishable.
	But they can't accept they get mad about it.
	I'm gonna stress this again.
	If you got mad, Drea or anyone else on OnlyFans, that I pointed out, you're hookers.
	That says something about how you see yourself.
	Not how... Like, do you want to not be seen as a hooker?
	Are you, like, shocked that you're going on podcasts and giving statements to the press about how you sell sexual photos for money?
	And then you're like, oh no, people found out that I'm doing the thing I openly sell and talk about as a business?
	You're offended that people have pointed that out?
	What should I describe a woman selling nude photos of herself, or spread eagle photos, or photos of their boobs for money, taking requests from men?
	That'd be fair.
	She does say that some people pay her to yell Christopher or something.
	Great.
	We've got Fiverr for that, and we've got, what, Cameo.
	How about this?
	You wanna yell Christopher, or you wanna yell anything, and, like, let's say, uh, you had a bit part in a movie, where you're the guy who says, well, M's the brakes, and everybody loves you, that's called Cameo.
	Cameo's an app where someone can say, I'd like to pay you ten bucks for a cameo.
	You could totally do that.
	Tons of personalities do.
	OnlyFans is almost predominantly, or at least the presumption of, and I believe it is, uh, sexually suggestive content, and overt sex content.
	Really hardcore stuff.
	So, uh, why are you mad that people are pointing out you're doing what you said you're doing?
	And I'll throw it here to H. Pearl Davis.
	Jeremy Boring.
	Let's start with the tweet from Jeremy Boring, actually.
	H. Pearl Davis responded.
	Jeremy Boren says if you take your cues about morality from a man who uses sex to manipulate women into doing porn for profit, and then sells a course teaching others to do the same, all while lying about his wealth and boasting about his sexual conquests, you deserve the contempt he holds you in for being as foolish as he counts on you being.
	H. Pearl Davis says anyone that has spent a lot of time interviewing sex workers knows they are not manipulated into doing it at all.
	They enjoy it.
	Remember, the average OnlyFan model makes $150 a month.
	They are not doing it for money.
	They are not manipulated into doing anything they don't want to do.
	I don't know if I completely agree with H. Pearl Davis on this one.
	I believe there are many women who are manipulated into it and come to regret it.
	We see many women who have done porn and then say that it was wrong, it was a mistake, they were lied to.
	There are many women who are promised lots of money and then don't make any money.
	I knew this woman a long time ago, and she was talking about how she hated working.
	She was like a waitress or something.
	And she's like, I don't make any money.
	I make like 10 bucks an hour or something.
	And I laughed and I was like, that's how much I made when I worked at an airport.
	What am I going to do about it?
	And so she said she was going to, this was 15 years ago or whatever.
	She's like, she was going to do cam girl stuff.
	And I was like, are you joking?
	She's like, I think I'll make a lot of money.
	And she made nothing.
	And boy did she regret it.
	Because now those photos and videos of her are everywhere forever.
	And she got nothing for it.
	And she's ashamed of it.
	Look, man.
	Here's what I think.
	I think a lot of women do like doing it.
	I think Pearl is correct on this one.
	A lot of women really, really enjoy it.
	That's why if you go on Reddit, they have a bunch of forums where women literally post their bodies for nothing.
	That's right.
	I can't remember the name of the subreddits, but there's several, where women will post pictures of themselves, sometimes they'll blur their faces, I think typically they do, of their naked bodies, and they'll be like, rate me.
	And men will rate them.
	And they love doing it.
	For free.
	But not every woman.
	Not every woman.
	I actually do believe that I believe the large majority of women who engage in OnlyFans stuff aren't ashamed of themselves.
	And the reason why we see the feminists who are like, sex work is work, and sex positive stuff, is because they are desperately trying to rationalize, like, they feel bad, and they need you to tell them it's okay.
	You know, let me tell you.
	How often do you see me come out and go, Podcasting is real work!
	Podcast work is work!
	Okay, I'm a podcaster, okay?
	I never do that.
	Because I am working.
	And I sell a product.
	That's about it.
	There's something about sex work where they're desperately trying to seek validation because they need people to tell them it's fine what they're doing, but they know in their heart of hearts what they're doing is shameful.
	Not every woman.
	A lot of women enjoy it and have no shame in it.
	I'm saying there are many women who are desperately trying to justify what they do as work because they're ashamed of it.
	How many women are going to come home to their family and brag about the new promotion they got in the porn industry?
	Mostly, they don't.
	But I'm telling you, some women do.
	Now here's the issue I take.
	Ultimately, it comes down to this.
	Drea is selling images of her body in sexually suggestive ways for money.
	According to numerous reports, Showing photos that I can't show on YouTube.
	I mean, this is the crazy thing.
	One of these photos, I could not put up here without getting demonetized or flagged or age restricted.
	And that in and of itself, this video is already on the line with everything I've talked about.
	And that in and of itself, I'm like, those are the news reports.
	You choose to come out here.
	You say, I'm doing this for money and I'm making so much.
	And it's like, okay, well you're a hooker.
	And then, how dare you call me what I just said I was?
	Huh?
unidentified		Is it the word hooker that you don't like?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I guess.
		That was just the colloquial term we use for a woman who sells sex.
		Prostitute is so, like, heavy.
		You know what I mean?
		And prostitute also is used, according to the definition on Oxford, as someone who exploits their talents in amoral ways for money.
		And I'm like, that's an interesting way to put it.
		And I think the idea is because prostitute implies you're doing something untoward.
		That's why I've never been fond of the word, because...
		You know, people will call someone a prostitute.
		They refer to these journalists as prostitutes.
		Because it's an insulting thing.
		It's saying you're doing something immoral.
		And hooker is just an informal word to say.
		Prostitute, which means someone who sells sexual activity or engages in sexual activity for money.
		And I'm like, that's what OnlyFans is.
		It's just an e-hooker.
		Digital hooking.
		You're getting as close as you can as to doing it with a guy, but you know, you're not crossing, you're not in the real world, but it's as hooking as you can get over the internet.
		That being said, once we get like Neuralink, or even now with like VR stuff, VR stuff's gonna be wild.
		Because you're gonna get, like, some woman, she's gonna put on her goggles, it's gonna create an avatar of her, and it's gonna do, like, fake simulated stuff or whatever, which, like, the guy's not gonna feel anything, but, you know, they'll take care of themselves, you know what I'm saying?
		I'm just telling you, this is hooking, okay?
		I got no- I- I- I- I don't even know why y'all mad about it.
		Well, no, no, that's not true.
		I know.
		I said it.
		Because they're really ashamed.
		They are ashamed at what they've become.
		From being a prominent actress in a bunch of shows, to being a hooker.
		The hooker of Hollywood.
		Yeah, you wouldn't be the first.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 6pm on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see y'all then.
		Now, I wouldn't personally take the same line of questioning as we saw in this, but it is amazing As Senator John Kennedy destroys Olympic skier Gus Schumacher, the Democrats invited him to testify as an expert witness on climate change and reads out his damning old tweets.
		OK, let me not bury the lead.
		There's a climate change hearing.
		Democrats said, I know, an Olympic skier will generate some press for us.
		Let's bring him in.
		How much do you think, how well informed do you think the professional athlete is on issues of climate?
		I gotta tell you, not at all.
		If not at all was your answer, you'd be correct.
		Apparently this guy, this Olympic skier, was going to come in and be like, there's not so much snow now.
		How am I supposed to do the sport when there's not so much snow now?
		And it's kind of like, okay, let's start there.
		Why, sir, is there not much snow?
		Climate change.
		Well, what about climate change is reducing the amount of snow?
		What do you mean?
		The planet's getting warmer.
		That means no snow.
		Hold on.
		You can't just say things like that.
		I'm asking you as an expert witness.
		Tell me what is happening.
		What we can do about it.
		This is the best part.
		There's a couple things I don't agree with.
		That's why I said I wouldn't take the same line of questioning as John Kennedy.
		Because he asks him, like, why did you tweet about Black Lives Matter?
		Why did you tweet about the police?
		And I'm like, none of that has anything to do with destroying this position on climate change.
		Now, I will pause, because I can already hear the whinging, as we often do from the left, screaming in the wind.
		I actually do believe that humans are contributing to changes in... I don't know if... I don't know if I like the phrase climate change.
		Environmental shifts.
	And so what I'll put this as... Humans are mass-producing hyper concentrations of certain chemicals.
	There is a massive die-off in the bug population.
	There are dead zones in the Gulf, in various parts of the ocean.
	Where, like, there's no life.
	And that's alarming to me.
	And I think it's plainly obvious to anyone that hyper concentrations of waste are bad things.
	So I'll describe it like this.
	I got chickens.
	You know chickens are base AF.
	Now, if you have a big field, and the chickens be running around poopin', that poop gets absorbed, dissipates with the rain, actually helps fertilize the soil, plants grow beautifully.
	Now what do you think would happen if I took like 15 gallons of chicken crap and plopped it in one spot?
	The rain would struggle to dissipate it.
	It would kill everything around it.
	So what could be a good thing turns into a very bad thing at hyper concentrations.
	This is what I think the problem is with liberals in big cities.
	They complain about everybody else.
	They want you to give up all your rights when they're the ones who are living in these hyper dense hyper concentrations of filth.
	No, I get it.
	A lot of you do live in big cities.
	But we've got to manage this stuff better.
	I like that we moved out of the middle of nowhere.
	We're on a septic system.
	Way more sustainable.
	Not 100% sustainable, but substantially better.
	We've got chickens.
	We have, in the past, grown our own foods.
	We try to be more sustainable.
	I'm a fan of that.
	So I can have that negotiation with someone on the Democrat side being like, You wanna have an argument about climate change or whatever?
	Let's stop there.
	Let's talk about what we can do that we agree on.
	And I like renewable energy.
	I do like fossil fuels, though.
	I think Democrats are full of it.
	Here's the best part.
	Let's skip the ranting on climate change.
	Schumacher, who's 23, struggled in a series of excruciating exchanges, claiming that the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere was a huge part.
	Of course he was gonna walk in this.
	The dude doesn't know anything!
	This is the problem with Democrats!
	I'll tell you what.
	You come to me and say, Tim, we're mass producing too much waste chemicals in one area.
	And I say, that's true.
	Hyper concentration of pollution and human waste is a bad thing.
	And then you say, and now this is going to cause ocean levels to rise.
	And I'll be like, really?
	How so?
	And they're going to say, well, you see.
	All of this concentration is disrupting the natural heat cycles of the planet, creating a release of greenhouse gases, which, uh, from the carbon emissions, resulting in more energy being trapped in the atmosphere, warming the planet, melting the ice caps, and then the waters will go up.
	And I go, huh.
	And then I say, aren't the waters in the north mostly over water?
	And even in Antarctica to a certain degree, meaning much of that is already displacing water.
	So if the ice did melt, the water levels may actually decrease and increase.
	And to what degree, we're not entirely sure, but we have estimates.
	And then, whoa, slow down, slow down.
	If the ice melts, there's more water.
	Dude, ice displaces water.
	Ice expands.
	So you're gonna have to tell me.
	Okay, fair point.
	They do.
	Greenland, for instance, has a lot of glacial ice resting on land.
	And if that were to melt, it could increase water levels.
	And I say, okay, okay, let's just stop there.
	We're getting to this major macro stuff.
	I hear ya.
	First, I don't know.
	Let me just hear what your solutions are.
	Your solutions are, we gotta cut back fossil fuels.
	We gotta reduce pollution.
	And I say, okay.
	How do you propose we do it?
	And then they say electric cars.
	Okay, well that makes no sense because you're generating electricity through fossil fuels.
	Now, if we're doing natural gas energy plants, sure.
	I believe it may be carbon neutral, I'm not sure.
	Fine.
	Okay, and nuclear energy.
	Okay, I'm a fan of that.
	But still, more than half of our energy production is fossil fuels, electric or otherwise.
	I don't know if that solves the problem.
	What else have you got?
	Well, that's when we find out that our good friends over at the Democratic Party, like Barack Obama, have bought beachfront property.
	And according to NOAA, their property will be underwater.
	And these banks are selling... Okay, now I'm just like... Did you just buy beachfront property while telling me the ocean levels are gonna rise?
	Is your attitude that you're gonna be dead before it happens, so you don't care?
	Then why are you telling us we have 10 years to get the job done, otherwise it's the end of the world?
	Yeah, see, I don't buy what they're selling.
	I do believe humans are impacting global environment.
	I don't know if climate change is the right word, but it's plainly obvious if we're mass-producing certain byproducts, we're going to be disrupting things.
	Fair point.
	Anyway, I don't want to get into all that argument.
	Let's read.
	They say it was all downhill for Gus, a 23-year-old as he struggled to answer basic questions and could not remember his tweets regarding the war on drugs, blah blah blah.
	The excruciating exchange continued with Schumacher, insisting, carbon dioxide is a huge part of our atmosphere, before
	Kennedy pointed out that it accounts for 0.04%.
	Uh-huh.
	We did this escape room over the weekend, and they had this thing where it's like, you have to get the atmospheric levels back to normal in the, you know, in the room.
	People are trapped in a submarine or something.
	And I was just like, okay, well, I don't know about, no, I just, I don't like these.
	Look, there's good escape rooms and there's bad ones.
	I'll put it that way.
	This one was like the worst.
	And, uh, so I'm like, okay, let's do the normal levels.
	And so they've got, like, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, uh, oxygen, freon, argon, and I'm like, okay, let's just go with the basic values of what air is comprised of primarily.
	Nitrogen, and then, you know, what are we at?
	What do we have?
	What's the percentage of oxygen?
	I think it's around 15?
unidentified		70%?
unidentified		Uh...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's get it right, because I don't know everything.
		21%, I was a little bit low, I was a little bit low, 21%.
		And nitrogen is 78%.
		And so, oh yeah, so it's almost entirely nitrogen and oxygen.
		But this thing, like, it was weird, because it was like the Freon levels were up, and I'm like, I certainly don't think we want to have Freon in our environment, but... I'll tell you why I don't like these escape rooms, as an aside.
		I've done escape rooms where it's like, There's a series of puzzles that all lead to the next puzzle, and they make sense.
		So it's like, uh, you- you- I don't know if you've ever done- They're not really escape rooms.
		Typically today, it's like a room full of puzzles you have to solve in order.
		The door's always open.
		I have done an escape room where they actually lock you in the room.
		That's fun.
		And, uh, but anyway...
		A good puzzle design is, like, you've found the combination for the lock, which was, like, in the dude's coat pocket on a note saying, like, don't forget passcode.
		And then you're like, okay, and then you open the lock and you find a key, and you're like, where does the key go?
		You try a few locks, you pop one open, and inside, you find the next puzzle.
		And what I really hate with these escape rooms is when the puzzles are, like, just generic puzzles that have nothing to do with the actual game.
		In this one we did the other day, and here's my bad review.
		The puzzles were all just random things.
		It was more like tedium quest.
		I was just like, this is so boring.
		It's like, there's a bunch of random locked boxes, and a bunch of random words scattered about, and it's just, start putting them in until one of them works, and I'm like, but... Anyway.
		Back to this.
		Here's a guy who has no idea- I brought it up because they had that puzzle where it's like how much- and it was completely unrelated to actual atmospheric levels of gases.
		It was so stupid.
		Anyway, I went to high school, but carbon dioxide is a gas, the skier told him.
		I'm not a professional to talk about carbon dioxide so much.
		So Kennedy is like, okay, if you don't know this, what do you want us to do and why are you here?
		He's like, because there's no snow.
		So what?
		What does that mean?
		Oh look, there are clouds in the sky.
		We must dance until the clouds come back!
		That's basically what this is.
		Dude, I don't care if you're telling me there's no snow.
unidentified		Sometimes it doesn't snow, okay?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I remember in Chicago we had the Blizzard of 2000 or whatever they called it.
		The big storm that came.
		And so, sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.
		What these Democrats do is they're like, over the past several years there's been less snow.
		Then a guy comes out and goes, I am a skier and I see less snow.
		And it's like, and?
		Like, what are you telling me?
		You know, if you're someone who's like 70 years old, you're gonna be like, oh, we've had countless snowless winters.
		Yeah.
		That's a normal thing.
		You know, the funny thing is back in the day, 1800s, they would love it to have no snow in the winter.
		They'd be like, this is great.
		No snow.
		Snow comes, you die.
		Now, we're like, oh no, there's no snow.
		Carbon dioxide is what I see as, you know, a gas that exists in our atmosphere, Schumacher said.
		Certainly it does!
		Is it a major part of our atmosphere, Kennedy asked?
		It's a huge part of our atmosphere.
		It's a very small, small part, actually.
		Well, okay, but yeah, I don't know.
		What are you asking specifically?
		Kennedy is pointing out that you were brought in as an expert, and you're an athlete.
		Bro, if I want to ask about proper technique for getting speed and gliding while cross-country skiing, you are the man!
unidentified		And I would never doubt a word you said!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If you told me to, you know, put flames on my skis and it'll go faster, I'd be like, really?
		Well, I kind of doubt that, but I'm gonna do it anyway!
		Now, to be fair, I probably would not take that seriously.
		But if he said, like, you know, if you have a slight, uh, if you sharpen the edge here, and you're pressing, you do this, I'd be like, okay, I'll take your word for it, because you are the best.
		Now, when it comes to explaining why the snow don't come, I ain't gonna be asking a guy who doesn't know how to snow come.
		You know what I'm saying?
		So they end up just humiliating themselves in this hearing.
		But I will say this, I'll wrap this one up.
		He took a line of questioning where he was like, you tweeted that Black Lives Matter and police are bad.
		And he's like, I don't know.
		I'm like, you don't need to bring up the fact that he's a leftist to question that he has no idea what he's talking about.
		How about this?
		We just point out he has no idea what he's talking about and then we're good.
		Anyway, congratulations Democrats!
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment is coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
		over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲