All Episodes
Previous Next
April 29, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:02:32
Trump SLAMS Amazon Tariff Pricing, Billionaire WARNS Shortages Coming Ami Economic Collapse
Participants
Main voices
j
jason fyk
17:47
t
tim pool
41:12
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
A new report says that Amazon is planning to launch, quote, tariff pricing on products so you can see exactly how much more you have to spend when you're buying a product made outside the U.S. Now, the White House has called this hostile against the U.S. and against the Trump administration.
A hostile act, indeed, but Amazon is denying it.
They're saying that it's not true.
This report is false, but it does highlight a serious concern that has been in the news this morning, and that is...
Will we face shortages?
Now, one story that's come up quite a bit is a rumor circulating over a conversation Trump had with several CEOs in the Oval Office some weeks ago.
When he announced these massive tariffs on China, 145% in total, several CEOs met the president to say there will be empty shelves.
That so much of what we get is made in China, not just core goods.
But also components of goods, even manufactured in the U.S., that this will cause supply shortages across the board.
And it's not just the tariffs on China.
It's the tariffs across the board.
You're going to walk into a Target.
Shelves are expected to be empty.
Now, Donald Trump's approval rating is down.
And it's not just from these.
Look, you know, I read like ABC News and Washington Post polls.
I don't believe those for a second.
But Rasmussen.
We learned to pronounce it correctly, by the way.
Has Donald Trump down four points?
It's not the worst approval rating in the world, and Rasmussen has been pretty dang accurate as it pertains to these elections.
But it does show that Donald Trump's approval rating has declined this month as tariff concerns, economic concerns, continue to grow.
Now, Ray Dalio, billionaire.
He appeared on Tucker Carlson some weeks ago and he said that we're in some kind of civil war.
Something is happening.
He's now put out another warning saying it's too late.
It cannot be stopped.
The tariffs that Donald Trump has put in place are going to result in a new global economic order, the likes of which we have never seen.
Now, we don't know what that means.
It could be very bad for us.
It could be very bad for everybody.
One proposed hypothetical is that Nations around the world are going to start building economic ties with other countries, largely with China, as the US is viewed as an unstable trading partner.
That being said, we don't really know exactly what will happen.
One thing I can say is that if we do see shortages in food production or any kind of core consumer good, Donald Trump will face a revolt.
Absolutely.
You can say anything you want about deportations, about Abrego Garcia, about Maryland men.
None of that matters.
The protests that we see in response to Doge?
Nothing.
They don't have any real impact.
But if it becomes nigh impossible for regular people to access food, if there are shortages, then you're going to see anger in the streets.
You're going to see demands for change.
And this may, depending on how long it goes, upset the midterms.
But wait.
There's more.
You see, elections, they happen in month cycles, not year cycles.
If everything gets really bad right now, then as people adapt to a just bad enough, but not bad enough to where they revolt, if Trump turns things around right before the midterms, look, I know it may sound a little jaded and cynical.
But people are going to vote for Republicans in spades.
If Trump improves things for people right before the midterms, then they're going to vote Republican.
And it seems really dumb, right?
Like you could have a standard of living that is OK.
Someone comes in and acts policies which are damaging to that to that standard of living.
People get really, really mad and they're upset you did it.
But then right before the election, you bring everything back to normal and people will feel uplifted.
They'll feel relieved.
It's called the big ask.
Now, whether or not.
Donald Trump is trying to pull off a big ask on the entirety of the American population.
Remains to be seen.
I'm not entirely confident that is the case.
But we're going to break down the news we've got for you.
I want to give a shout-out to Stephen Crowder and the Mug Club for rating this stream.
Shout-out to everybody.
This is the Rumble Morning lineup.
I have your noon hour.
My name is Tim Poole.
You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast.
Joining us today at around 1230, so about half an hour in, we're going to have Jason Fick, who is about to go to the Supreme Court.
Over Section 230, and it's debated, hotly debated, but this could be an end to the immunity protections of big tech platforms.
And a story we covered the other night, this may seem like it's inconsequential.
Someone running for city council in Charlestown, West Virginia, Courtney Nill, it's a city of 7,676 people, I believe.
Small number, right?
Facebook banned her.
Deleting her account and locking her profile, her campaign account, for no reason.
Now, she's a conservative, and she's running in a conservative city against a progressive.
Why is Facebook interfering in such a small election?
It makes no sense.
And there's no reason why she would have gotten banned.
They said she was impersonating herself right before the election has taken place.
Now, this story may seem inconsequential.
Who cares about city council in Charlestown?
Until you realize, Facebook's probably doing this in every small town, in every city.
They are manipulating the political landscape to help the far left win.
We've known about it.
We know it now.
And it is still happening.
So we'll talk about that.
Before we do, my friends, head over to CassBrew.com and buy some delicious CassBrew coffee two weeks till Christmas.
And more importantly, Alex Stein's primetime grind two times caffeine is being discontinued.
That's right.
We've sold out of nearly every bag, and I believe there may be around 100 or so bags left.
If you go to Casper.com and want to get this crazy bag of Alex Stein's Crazy Face Coffee, drink responsibly, of course, we will not be making any more.
We will, however, be launching something new with Alex Stein.
But in the meantime, if you want to get your hands on this bag, this is your last opportunity.
It will be going away.
And then we've got, of course, everybody's favorite Appalachian Nights, Low Acidity Graphene Dream.
Check it out.
Support the show.
Use promo code RUMBLE.
And you guys get 10% off every purchase.
Let's jump into that story from the New York Times.
They say White House attacks Amazon over idea of showing tariffs cost.
The White House press secretary Carolyn Levitt attacked the retail giant over a report that suggested Amazon would highlight tariff-related price increases.
Amazon said it was not going to happen.
Carolyn Levitt, the White House press secretary, said it was hostile and political.
Citing a report.
Disputed by Amazon from Punchbowl News, saying the company would start displaying the exact cost of tariff-related price increases alongside its products.
Displaying the import fees would have made clear to American consumers that they are shouldering the cost of President Trump's tariff policies rather than China, as he and his top officials have often claimed would be the case.
And an Amazon spokesman said the company had considered a similar idea on part of the site Amazon Hall, which operate, I'm sorry, which competes with Timu, a Chinese retailer.
Timu primarily ships directly to consumers and has begun displaying import charges to reflect the end of a customer's customs loophole that had exempted low priced items from tariffs.
Teams discuss ideas all the time, the spokesman Ty Rogers said in a statement.
He said it was never under consideration for the main Amazon site, adding this was never approved and is not going to happen.
Standing beside Treasury Secretary Scott Besant during a briefing at the White House on Tuesday morning, Ms. Levitt tore into the retailer.
She said that she had just been on the phone with the president about the report, and she asked why Amazon hadn't done such a thing when prices increased during the Biden administration because of inflation.
Ms. Levitt said it was not a surprise coming from Amazon, as she held up a copy of a 2021 article from Reuters, the headline, Amazon partnered with China propaganda arm.
Now, I'll tell you what I think.
Maybe you all agree with me.
Maybe you don't.
I think that Amazon was intending on doing this because they're, of course, going to be losing money on the deal.
And then when Donald Trump calls Carolyn and she calls it out, Amazon says, whoa, we're not doing that.
That's a fake news report.
We were never planning on doing that.
I bet they were.
And I bet it's only because Carolyn Levitt came out, called them out, that they stopped.
And I think that's exactly why the White House wanted Carolyn Levitt to hold this press briefing at 830 in the morning.
Look, last night.
We're on TimCast.
We got Alad Eliyahu on the show.
He is our White House correspondent.
Love him or hate him, he does a good job in the White House.
And he says, I got an email that's going to be an 8.30 a.m. press briefing.
I think the White House was intentionally preempting this move that Amazon was going to make because, listen, when Donald Trump makes these moves, and I largely agree with selective tariffs.
I don't know how I feel about universal tariffs.
It's going to get interesting.
But when Donald Trump makes these moves, it costs a lot of people money.
Dirty people.
Evil people.
And they don't like that.
So they, of course, want to pass the brunt and the blame onto Donald Trump.
Now, putting tariff pricing on Amazon won't do anything for Amazon.
If a pair of shoes costs $100, but now the tariffs, it's $245, you're either going to buy them or you're not.
Putting tariff pricing literally just says, it's Trump's fault your shoes cost more money.
Now, I've been tracking this stuff.
I've seen a bunch of reports from small business forums and users that don't seem overtly partisan, but probably default-led.
I saw one story.
It was a forum written by an individual, and maybe they're fake, I don't know.
Excuse me.
Where they were saying that the normal cost for a good they sold...
As a reseller who takes supplies.
And let me clarify.
This was a forum post from someone who says, some of the components we get come from China, not the core goods.
So this wasn't a company that's buying a product made in China and then reselling it.
It's a company that assembles a product in America but gets certain components of the product from China.
I'm not sure exactly what the product was.
The point they were making was, with the tariffs on these goods, It's going to increase the cost of everything they're doing, not just a 145% increase, but substantially more than that.
A $200 product could go up to $700 because of the various components they have to get.
Understand this.
If in China, if they purchase resources from the US, so let's say they're going to buy steel in America.
I mean, maybe they don't, but let's just say something like wood.
Okay, let's do this.
They do buy wood from us.
Skateboarding is the example I always use.
It's the easiest because I actually know it.
So you've got North American rock maple.
It's in the Pacific Northwest and Canada.
In China, they will buy the wood from us, make skateboards, send them back to us.
It's the stupidest thing imaginable.
It seems like a huge waste of time and effort, but that's what they do.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
The labor is so cheap.
But hold on.
That means China, which is a tariff on the U.S. about 100 and some odd percent, when they buy that lumber from the U.S., double the price.
Then they make the skateboard, send it back, double that price again.
That cost will be massive.
A skateboard that costs $60 is going to end up, let's say it's $30 to manufacture.
So first, you've got the wood costs.
So if it was going to be $30, now it's $60.
Then you're sending it back at $145, now that's $80, $90 plus the margin on top.
A $60, $70 skateboard might jump up to $150 to $200 a piece.
You know what's going to happen?
They're going to stop making them.
Now to be honest, I am absolutely in favor of that, and I love that Trump is doing it.
But universal tariffs, literally on everything, some things can't be sourced solely in the United States.
I understand what Trump is doing, but here's the fear.
CBS News reports China exports to U.S. plunge as tariffs hit, leading some experts to warn of product shortages.
I'll tell you now, I'm not going to sugarcoat this.
This is bad news for Trump.
If he doesn't have a plan.
Now, I will respect that Donald Trump seems to, and often, has a plan, but it may be loose.
Who knows?
He seems to know what he's doing to a certain degree, but, you know, people like to play this game where they think a plan means you know exactly what will happen, when it's going to happen.
No, a plan means you have contingencies in place in case a variety of things happen.
Right now, in aggregate, Donald Trump's approval rating is minus seven.
I roll my eyes at this because you've got NPR, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, and CBS, all for some reason for this time span, having Trump double digits negative.
The corporate press, shocker, has Donald Trump negative.
But if you take a look at Qantas, Rasmussen, RMG Research, Trump's doing much better.
To be fair, Economist also has Trump minus nine.
But Rasmussen, I trust him.
They're at minus four.
And that's not good for the president, but it's not the apocalypse.
And when you actually do these focus groups, you find that Trump ain't doing that bad.
Now, here's why I tell you I largely think this is complete insanity, and I don't care.
I don't care about the polls, and I'll tell you why.
I will respect, to a certain degree, polls in aggregate.
Some polls I find are interesting only relative to themselves.
The reason I cite Rasmussen...
Newsweek says Donald Trump approved rating dropped seven points with GOP pollster.
Apparently Newsweek doesn't know how to do math because they say this.
On April 1st, 51% of respondents said they approve of Trump's job performance.
Today, it's at 47. Okay, that's not seven.
Okay, let me, from 51 to 47 is four points.
See?
Minus four.
unidentified
Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
He's down.
Four, not seven, but short.
The reason why this matters is because Rasmussen uses the same system.
So all that really matters is polls relative to themselves and potentially aggregate polling.
So if Rasmussen consistently does a poll every week or whatever, and they give you those numbers, you can trust the movement of those numbers because they're polling in much the same way each time.
So you will see a general shift in public perception of Donald Trump, whether they approve of him.
But for one poll, it makes sense.
Rasmussen had Trump up at the beginning of the month.
By the end of the month, he is down by four points.
Again, not the apocalypse.
But what's insane is that RMG might have Trump up one, and then literally in the same time period, Fox News has him down 11. I'm sorry, that just doesn't make any sense.
You can have Daily Mail showing Trump up eight, and then for the same time period, Daily Mail has him up eight.
And for the same time period, Daily Kos and Civics has a minus seven.
Yo, that's a massive swing, okay?
That makes literally no sense.
So I stress this again.
We really don't know.
What I can't say, my friends, is that we are in an administrative civil war, a cold civil war, call it whatever you want.
Conflict is happening.
And there are people who are trying to seize power.
If Donald Trump does take action that results in shortages or he cannot alleviate shortages, That are not his fault, whatever fault might be.
He's in trouble.
Really is.
Food shortages are major components in conflict.
And you will see a lot of people in this country livid if they can't buy their milk, bread and eggs.
Now I go back to that rumor.
That rumor that was circulating about how the CEOs warned Trump.
Big box stores like Walmart and Target, even places like Lowe's and Home Depot, are going to have empty shelves because of these tariffs.
So we'll see.
CBS News says leading experts are warning of product shortages.
Take a look at this from Reason.
How tariffs could cause shortages in American stores.
A sharp decline in ocean freight from China during April is a sign of the supply chain issues that will begin hitting in May.
The question is, what is made in China?
And what do we make from those products?
Food we largely produce here.
California is a massive food producer.
But we do import some things from other countries.
Not so much China, but we do get vitamins and drugs manufactured in China, which is absolutely insane.
So we'll see.
Now, Ray Dalio, the billionaire, has issued a warning.
The international world order is on the brink of breaking down.
Billionaire investor Ray Dalio is once again sounding the alarm.
The international order is on the verge of a breaking point, and President Donald Trump's aggressive use of tariffs is accelerating the unraveling of global trade and capital flows, according to the billionaire investor.
You know, I think I actually have his post on X right here, and we'll read it directly.
It's titled, It's Too Late, The Changes Are Coming.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it.
I think that this problem has been bubbling up for some time.
Let me warn you of this, my friends.
They're calling it the demographic cliff.
There are not enough 18-year-olds about to enter the market to sustain colleges and new rentals, provide low-skill labor.
The system is going to implode.
Now, whose fault is it?
Well, I'd say partly it's our fault.
We, the American people, sat by as these problems were brewing.
And I don't think people realize this is still a product of the housing crash.
Around 2007-2008, people stopped having babies because the economy imploded.
Whose fault was that?
Yeah, it was the banks.
It was the Federal Reserve.
It was the destructive political class that was extracting from us and just sitting back as the Titanic was about to slam into an iceberg.
The problems of that year, of those years, have not gone away.
We are looking at a fertility crash.
So let me tell you something.
When Democrats for 30 years have opened our borders, given away our manufacturing base to foreign countries, while encouraging young people not to have children, to get abortions, to fight climate change by never having kids,
by claiming the world is overpopulated already, they have created a recipe which spells disaster.
The millennial generation didn't have enough kids.
And so, and additionally, as they were supposed to be having kids, millennials, and hey, I'm right in this camp too.
I only had my kid this year, and I'm 39. I'm an old man.
I know all the older people are saying, Tim, you're not old, but no, come on, let's be real.
39 is way old to be having a kid.
And so you've got millennials who are supposed to be having kids in their early to mid-20s.
They didn't do it.
So 20 years ago, when millennials were supposed to be having kids, they stopped.
So with this demographic cliff coming, there is a shortage of labor.
Democrats try replacing the lost labor with mass migration of low skill immigrants, but it doesn't work.
It wasn't working.
Even Ro Khanna, a Democrat, said it did not work.
So what do we end up with?
It's too late.
The changes are coming.
Now, I see Donald Trump making these moves, not because he's a crazy man who wants to burn down the global order.
I mean, maybe he does a little bit, but he is reversing this trend.
He is trying to encourage people to have babies.
It's called the woman bonus or the baby bonus.
Have a kid, get five grand.
Not enough.
Not enough.
You need to say we are cutting income taxes for married couples with two kids.
No more income tax at the federal level.
Do it.
But I fear it's too late because even having kids today is not going to be enough to alleviate the fact that there is not enough labor.
Even in Charlestown, West Virginia, I was mentioning this.
You've got stores closing down, not for lack of sales, but for lack of labor.
They can't find anybody to do the job.
Nobody wants to work.
Nobody wants to do the job.
So nobody does.
So they can't be open.
People want to eat the delicious food at these various restaurants, but they don't have anybody who will do the work.
Now, Ray Dalio says the changes are coming.
And he says it's Trump's fault.
But I think this shows the ignorance and the short-term thinking of many of these individuals.
That is, these problems have been brewing for a very long time.
A very long time.
And now they're about to hit.
Dalio says, some people believe that tariff disruptions will settle down as much more negotiations happen and greater thought is given to how to structure them to work in a sensible way.
however i am now hearing from a large and growing number of people who are having to deal with these issues that it's already too late for example many exporters to the united states and importers from other countries that trade with the u.s are saying they have a greatly
they had to greatly reduce their dealings with the u.s recognizing that whatever happens with tariffs these problems won't go away and that radically reduced interdependencies with the u.s is a reality that
Most obviously, American producers and investors in China.
Okay, we get it.
We get it.
Regardless of what the next round of trade negotiations are like, while this need to minimize U.S.-China interdependence and worry about conflict is now broadly recognized, this view is now becoming more commonly believed by most people in most countries who are dealing with most issues related to trade relations, capital markets relations.
My guy, Ray, you're not a writer.
That was convoluted, to say the least.
But let's continue.
Though not yet fully realized, it is also increasingly being realized that the United States' role as the world's biggest consumer of manufactured goods and greatest producer of debt assets to finance its overconsumption is unsustainable.
So assuming that one can sell and lend to the U.S. and get paid back with hard dollars on their U.S. debt holdings is naive thinking.
So other plans have to be made.
He says, more simply, enormous trading capital imbalances are creating unsustainable conditions and major risks of being cut off, so they must come down.
Excessive imbalances, deglobalization, smaller trade and capital imbalances.
I love this narrative.
unidentified
You know why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Because if my good friend here simply listened to Alex Jones 10 years ago, 15 years ago, you'd know all of this.
I gotta give a shout out to my boy AJ over here.
I remember 15 some odd years ago, PrisonPlanet.com, whatever, Infowars, he was talking about exactly these issues.
Here's the problem.
The U.S. makes nothing, OK?
Not literally.
We do make stuff.
We export culture and we make movies.
But the U.S. is buying products on credit cards with places like China.
China then says we're going to hold U.S. dollars, effectively debt against U.S. labor that we can use at some point.
Hold on there a minute.
The U.S. government, then with the financial crisis, devalues the dollar.
So if we buy 10 hours of labor from China, which for us is cheap, China then says we have, let's just say they charge, I don't know, a dollar an hour.
China then says we have 10 bucks to spend in the United States.
10 bucks can buy me one Big Mac meal, right?
That's what I get.
I give you 10 hours of labor from Chinese peasants, and I get a Big Mac.
Sound good?
Sound good.
Well, while they are holding on to that debt, the U.S. devalues the currency.
So within a year or two, China's going, whoa, whoa, whoa.
This $10 bill can't even buy a cheeseburger anymore.
I traded you something for something, but this dollar is worthless.
Every year becomes worth less and less.
So what's the point of having it?
So instead, what do they do?
As the U.S. overconsumes and buys on credit cards, China turns around immediately and buys our land from us.
This system is completely unsustainable.
And at the same time, you've got progressives telling Americans, don't have babies.
You're a white supremacist if you do.
And now we have a demographic collapse.
We've got a population collapse, a labor shortage.
And the progressives' response?
Open the borders, let everybody come in.
Okay, so their responses cause problems that the U.S. You know what's funny is Alex Jones called it Problem Reaction Solution.
The Democrats created the problem.
The progressives created the problem.
And then with the reaction, these devastation in the labor market, they offer their solution, which is mass migration, unfettered mass migration, which ultimately results in the collapse of the American moral tradition and history.
We start seeing statues get torn down.
Laws get changed.
Street names get changed.
And Trump is trying to reverse course.
But maybe it's too late.
Dalio says, we're on the brink of the monetary order, the domestic, political and international world orders breaking down due to unsustainable bad fundamentals that can be easily seen and measured by anybody with eyes to see who's been paying attention, mind you.
He says, too, the progression of events leading to these increasing disorders is similar to those that have progressed many times throughout history.
Indeed.
Three, there's a growing risk that the U.S. imposing these challenges to deal with will increasingly be bypassed by a world of countries that will adapt to separations.
If these circumstances are managed in the best ways, the outcomes will be much better than if they are managed in the worst ways.
And have instead seen disturbing fighting and volatility that are teaching lessons that are leading to irreversible bad consequences.
For these reasons, I fear that we are moving beyond the ideal time to be knowledgeable about and properly plan for these big changes in the world order.
And believe that investors, policymakers and other decision makers need to stop undulating their views and positions in reaction to the day to day market moves and policy announcements.
and instead deal with these big fundamental changes in the world order calmly.
I'm going to say this.
I hope you all are preparing for the worst.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Because this problem was coming whether Trump did anything or not.
Clearly, the Democratic Party, the liberal economic order, is collapsing.
That is the system by which the U.S. has maintained global superiority.
It was never going to be permanent.
Donald Trump's emergence is not the cause of this.
It is a symptom.
People were upset with the loss of manufacturing jobs going way back.
Look at NAFTA.
Michael Moore made a documentary about how he gave away our auto manufacturing to foreign countries and destroyed the Rust Belt.
And this led to the populist uprising.
It should have been predictable to everyone.
And you know what?
They largely knew.
When you take a look at 2007-2008, and they outright say, they say it explicitly.
People are not having children anymore.
Fertility rates are collapsing.
There will not be enough 18-year-olds by 2025.
What was done to mitigate this?
They say Barack Obama was the deporter-in-chief.
Kind of.
I believe the explanation going around is that he was the turner-arounder-in-chief.
They'd call it a deportation if they caught someone at the border and sent them home right away, just kicked them right out of the country.
Expedited removal.
Okay, technically true.
Trump's deportations are a bit different.
He shut the border down.
So now they're saying he's not deporting enough.
Well, I mean, the border is shut down, so ain't nobody coming in.
They are arresting people internally and deporting them.
Democrats argue this will be the end.
And I tell you, this is why Joe Biden and so many other Democrats When they were asked on the debate stage, would you make crossing the border a civil violation, not a criminal one, they all raised their hands.
They know that they have set this country on a course for collision for disaster.
When you look at COVID, when you look at fractional reserve banking, it was impossible for this system to be permanent.
I think Donald Trump's trying to save this country.
I don't think he's trying to save the global liberal economic order.
I think Donald Trump's view is the system is breaking down and we will save of America what we can.
Now people ask, what is it going to look like?
With all due respect, Detroit.
unidentified
Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Collapsed houses, abandoned neighborhoods, crime, poverty, extremely high infrastructure costs, dirty water.
It'll be, in its own essence, some kind of dark ages for the U.S. Maybe I'm wrong.
But I do feel that it is largely political.
So we'll see.
Now, my friends, we do have another story that I want to get to because we'll be joined by Jason Fick in just a moment.
Facebook blocks Charlestown West Virginia City Council candidates page with no further appeal.
This is the censorship machine that is currently going on.
So let me let's see.
We got a new system that we are just setting up right now.
So this will be our first use of this system.
And I want to make sure we have it all working properly.
So, I believe we have Jason currently standing by.
I'm going to be pulling him in now.
Let's see if we can get this working properly.
Get this up and running.
And I believe we are loaded up.
I believe we are just about ready to go.
Jason, can you hear me?
Jason, you there?
There we go.
Jason, can you hear me now?
Nope.
It appears we have Jason.
Could not start the video, and this is what we get when we try and do new systems like this.
Let's try and get it going again.
Jason, are you able to hear me now?
Nope.
Completely broke.
Let's see.
It says it cannot be run, unfortunately.
You want to try?
We're trying to get a producer here to fix it?
Do you know what the problem is?
All right.
Well, y 'all can see him.
Jason can't hear me, though.
unidentified
Oh, weird.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So it defaulted that.
Jason, can you hear me now?
unidentified
I can.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Hey, all right.
We figured it out.
What's going on, man?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
I can't see you yet, but I can hear you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, I don't think you'll be able to see me because of the way we got things set up, but welcome to the show.
You're the first live formal interview that we're doing, and I know that you've got a big Supreme Court challenge coming up.
We were just talking about Facebook censoring a conservative city council member who's running for election.
Do you want to tell us what's going on with this Section 230 stuff?
unidentified
And
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Oh, weird.
Yesterday, it became official.
We were docketed in the United States Supreme Court.
We filed a petition for writ of cert.
It's number 24-1116.
And to summarize the petition, because everybody, some people know what Section 230 is.
For those that don't, it's the law that protects these companies from civil liability.
That law has been misapplied by the courts for almost two and a half decades.
It was a mess.
You know, we had had the one show that came in, and I explained a lot of it, but we figured out that, and see, people need to understand how this translates, right?
My case was about business, right?
It's an antitrust.
The case, basically, Facebook came in and they wiped me out because they take money from my direct competitors to essentially manipulate the algorithm anti-competitively.
Now, the thing is that that's essentially a viewpoint discrimination.
It's just based on money.
The translation here is that viewpoint discrimination, even built in the algorithm or product design or however it is, yes, it is their First Amendment right to do so, but when they do so, They actually have to justify it under Section 230.
The problem is that hasn't occurred.
A lot of people are completely unaware that the courts are applying Section 230 as an immunity from suit, right?
What I mean by that is that you don't get into court at all.
They say you cannot be treated as a publisher, meaning the platforms, and you're done.
That's it.
And that's essentially what they said.
They said that everything Facebook did...
Is irrelevant because they can't be treated as a publisher because it was my content?
Well, that's wrong.
And it's wrong on so many levels that we can prove it in so many ways.
For one thing, back in 2007, Judge Trauger out of Tennessee actually determined that Section 230 doesn't provide immunity from suit.
It's supposed to be a justifiable protection.
The thing is, if there's no justification, they can do anything they want.
Well, there you have it.
If these platforms can do anything they want with absolutely no accountability because the courts won't hold them accountable, they can censor any way they want.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Let's start from the beginning real quick.
This is Section 230.
It's the Telecommunications Decency Act.
Is that right?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Yes, the Communications Decency Act.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's been a long time since we've covered this, but this was a huge story eight or so years ago when this immunity was basically being used by big tech platforms to censor conservatives.
The media lied about it the whole time, and they were trying to stop Donald Trump from having support.
They were banning tons of individuals.
They were proposing ideological rules.
This was – of course, I had the moment on Joe Rogan where we talked about the misgendering policy, but this still exists.
So is it my understanding that your lawsuit could do away with that perception of immunity?
unidentified
It could change the world.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
It could change.
And that's actually not an understatement.
It's probably one of the most consequential lawsuits that nobody's paying attention to.
And that's the reason why I'm dealing with so much opposition is because it will change the entire economy.
And here's why.
If all of a sudden they are actually accountable for their own conduct, which is procedurally correct, it's based on the text.
That's correct.
The Ninth Circuit won't do it, right?
So California, there's a problem in California courts, which, of course, you know, is always implied.
We always kind of know it.
But no, we've actually proven it.
And here's why.
We're not coming back to the Supreme Court this time with just our hat in hand and saying, this is how it works.
No.
In fact, the Third Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Fifth Circuit have all said exactly what we have been arguing since day one in 2018.
We were right.
The court just won't do it.
So the only, obviously, the only court that can deal with a circuit conflict like this is, of course, the Supreme Court.
That's why we're here.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
What's the elevator pitch of your argument to the Supreme Court?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Elevator pitch.
Okay, so there's four reasons that the courts are doing this wrong, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, so let's start with, like, what is wrong?
How should this work on the Internet?
What should be happening for the average person?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Okay, so this is how it should work, right?
The platforms are supposed to be a neutral public forum, right?
And what I mean by that is that they are supposed to act evenly across all boards, but if they censor, right, if they take down any content...
They're supposed to be doing so in good faith.
Everybody knows that, and people argue it's the terms otherwise objectionable.
No, it doesn't matter, because if they don't actually get to court, meaning it's immunity from suit, you never have to prove that they acted in good faith, meaning they can do anything they want.
So, go ahead.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Real quick, it sounds like if...
So, here's how it's basically been operating.
Facebook will create rules where they're like...
If you support, you know, American natalism, right?
If you think white people should have babies, you're a white supremacist and we will ban you.
And so they've enacted policies much like this.
And we saw that we see this, you know, frequently, especially in the past eight years on Facebook.
And the story today, of course, that I'm showing is they've banned a conservative running for city council in Charleston, West Virginia, under false pretenses.
And they can argue we have the right to ban anyone we want.
And push forward any rule base we want and determine that anything we want is objectionable.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
So let me interject something here.
This is a good point.
Who are they going to argue that to, Tim?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
To the courts.
Oh, you're right.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
They don't have to argue it to the courts because you never get in the door.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Exactly.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
They never consider the facts of the merits.
That right there is the fundamental problem.
They don't have to argue.
That they did anything in good faith or that they did anything legal or otherwise because they simply, the courts truly believe they cannot be treated as public.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So this is really interesting then.
The problem we have right now with these big tech platforms is that while they do have some, correct me if I'm wrong, they do have some kind of protection, but you can never challenge whether they broke the rules.
Because the protection is universal.
unidentified
Absolute.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
It's absolute immunity.
And the strange part is, is not only did the Tennessee court say that it wasn't immunity, the 9th Circuit itself in Barnes held that 231 is not an immunity from suit.
They're doing it procedurally wrong, continuously, meaning they're doing it on purpose.
They're not applying it correctly and immunizing them when they want.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So would the ramifications of your Supreme Court suit be not that a company would lose Section 230 protections as they're written, but they would be subject to lawsuit to determine whether or not it does fall under Section 230?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
You nailed it.
The point is it changes the idea that they can get out of suit entirely.
It means procedurally, and this is proven.
Case law proves this.
You are supposed to, and this is the formal way, so any attorneys that are listening to it, it is to go from a 12B6 dismissal immunity from suit, meaning you never consider the merits or the facts, it's supposed to convert to summary judgment rule 56. That was never done in my case at all.
They never considered the merits.
They didn't care what happened.
If it converts to a summary judgment, then you get into what happened.
You're saying, well, they're arguing with somebody that they can do this or that or the other.
With who?
You never get to court.
I never once saw a court.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
When is your hearing taking place with SCOTUS?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
All right, so this is the process.
It is now formally docketed.
Like I said, this is a monster.
We have, and it's not to be discussed today, but...
I think you're going to see we're going to have a lot more support this time around because a lot of people have recognized throughout the seven years I've been in a legal battle, we're right.
The question is, if we go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has to decide whether to hear our case, that's what's vital here.
Everybody should be supporting what I'm doing.
Everybody should be talking to everybody about it because if the Supreme Court takes this case, our argument's indisputable.
It's not whether we're right or wrong.
We're right.
All the court has to do, and this is as simple as it gets, Tim.
I'm not even kidding.
One sentence.
If the court affirms that 230C1 is not an immunity from suit and does not protect any first-party conduct at all, it resolves everything.
It fixes the entire Internet.
Converts 230 back to the original way that it's supposed to apply, meaning they don't lose 230 protections.
They will still have liability protections.
What it does mean is they will actually have to do it in good faith.
They will have to go after otherwise objectionable content, and if they don't and break a law, they go to court, and guess what?
Then they have to prove it, as you said, but to an actual jury of their peers.
Now, all of a sudden, they're responsible.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's fascinating.
You know, I deal with defamation all the time, as I'm sure you do, too.
And even with Times v.
Sullivan and anti-slap laws, you still get to go to court.
You still get to sue.
These are just protections they have.
So for those that aren't familiar, let's talk about, like, Times v.
Sullivan is a precedent that says that if you're—I'm paraphrasing, so bear with me.
I'm not a lawyer.
If you're a public figure— And someone defames you.
You have to prove that they either knew they were lying or they were reckless.
They had a reckless disregard for the truth.
However, either way, if I were to sue someone for defamation, I get to file in court.
I get to go to court.
They just have the opportunity to issue a dismissal under that precedent, but they still have to send a lawyer in.
So with anti-slap, it's very similar.
States.
Have created what's called anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation.
And the argument is, if you're suing a newspaper or suing someone for defamation, they can file anti-slap to get the case dismissed.
It sounds like what you're saying with Section 230 is they don't even give you an opportunity to argue.
They just say outright, Section 230, your suit's gone, and we won't even hear what you have to say.
unidentified
Correct.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
It is the equivalent of coming in there, you saying that they defamed you, and as you said, a lawyer has to go in, you have to have a hearing, it converts to a summary judgment.
Now, it can be dismissed early under summary judgment, meaning if it's facially non-defamatory, all right, we don't need to go to court, right?
It's essentially failure to show cause.
However, in this circumstance, what I'm saying that occurred, I mean, it occurred in my case, it happened to me.
The court said, we don't care about any of the merits.
We don't care what happened.
You cannot treat them as a publisher for their own publishing conduct.
Goodbye.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So they didn't even let you make an—like, the argument then is, Section 230 applies under certain conditions, and I argue they have not met those conditions, and the court basically said, we don't care what you think.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
We don't care.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Bye.
Dismissed.
Can't sue.
unidentified
Correct.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
You can't be a publisher.
And that inherently is the argument that everybody's struggling with is, are they a platform or are they a publisher?
They are both.
They are a platform, the dominant party, but they are also acting as a publisher.
In other words, they're exerting their own First Amendment rights, but the court doesn't believe that they can be treated as a publisher simply because content originates from a third party.
What if they change it?
What if they, let's just say, what if they recommend it, right?
That's one that's confusing to everybody.
Well, if they're recommending it, they're developing that information, right?
Meaning they're picking that this information is good to advance or restrict.
Well, as soon as they start to develop the information, they are exerting their First Amendment rights.
They become an information content provider.
That's the actual definition of it, which is a publisher.
And meanwhile, the court says, We can't treat them as a publisher.
unidentified
I just want to say, Jason— Well, they're a secondary publisher.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I just want to say, it's amazing how interesting you make Section 230.
I know, right?
We had you on IRL before, and I was getting messages after the fact, and they were like, this is—it's like court drama.
It's really interesting stuff.
I'll give you two examples of where I see the big problem of Section 230.
And this is even outside of your argument.
Yours is just, hey, let me sue, and a judge can figure out if I'm right or wrong.
Yeah, let me in court.
The first thing is exactly as you said, they pick and choose winners, so they've created an editorial guideline for people.
I made the joke before, I was like, how about I make a website, a news website, we'll call it the best news page in the world, everyoneagrees.com, and then I'll let anybody write articles, but I will only put on the front page things that call Democrats evil.
Right.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
That's content development.
You're deciding what stays, what goes, what's advanced, what's recommended, what's restricted.
That's content provision.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Imagine if the New York Times said, we're going to let anybody write articles for the New York Times.
We won't pay you.
And then we'll pick some of you to appear on the front page of the New York Times.
They would then argue, nope, third party, we're protected.
We're not a publisher.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Somebody else said it.
We're not responsible for actually publishing it or putting it on or choosing.
And it's like, yes, you are.
And the problem is the courts still believe that, no, they're not.
And it's, yes, as soon as they affirmatively act, meaning as soon as they get involved in the publication process, they're publishers.
And the funny thing is, and this is really interesting for those that want to get critical.
First off, I would suggest go to Social Media Freedom.
Look at the last petition.
I'd read it if you really want to understand this, but here's the thing.
The Fifth Circuit Court, just in December, so this is recent, determined that just because publication exists in the chain of causation does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff is seeking to treat the defendant as the publisher or speaker of that content.
They recognize the nuanced flaw there.
Just because publishing happened, It's a publishing website.
Of course it happened.
As soon as they do something, though, and you're saying that they did something, doesn't necessarily mean that you're trying to hold them accountable for what that content is.
No.
In fact, actually, in the third circuit, in a case called Anderson vs.
TikTok, they recognized, like, for example, they said the, what was it called, the blackout challenge?
They said, no, the plaintiff's not attempting to treat TikTok as The publisher or speaker of the blackout challenge, the plaintiff is attempting to hold the defendant responsible for recommending that challenge, which is its own negligence,
its own publishing, its own First Amendment, and the negligence to push that forward as a recommendation.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
They understood the difference.
What was the result of that case?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
They beat dismissal.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Really?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
They beat the dismissal that I can't beat.
The Fifth Circuit beat the dismissal.
The Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit all beat the dismissal that I cannot overcome in California.
Now, the craziest part, Tim, you'd think it's because, you know, and people argue, well, he's wrong.
The courts have already determined this.
No.
The courts use things like, oh, I was untimely.
Or the argument was...
What were some of their arguments?
Oh, it's irrelevant.
They just completely ignored the case.
Oh, it's irrelevant.
So they used procedural hyper-technicalities that were completely wrong.
They ignored their own decision in D versus Apple.
Essentially, the Ninth Circuit is sidestepping, correcting this, because as long as it remains ambiguous.
Now, think this through.
For your audience, Tim, think this through.
The fact that it remains ambiguous in California.
Which is the main court that deals with this, right?
They deal with 95% of social media law.
The fact that they can apply it ambiguously, meaning they can hold you completely immune from suit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, they just can't be treated as publishers, or they can get it right in other circumstances and hold them accountable,
meaning they have a leverage point.
If big tech doesn't do what the government wants, It will hold them accountable.
And if it does what they want, they'll immunize them from suit.
Until the Supreme Court fixes that in place, that it can't be manipulated back and forth based on who the judge is or whatever, the censorship industrial complex will always continue to gain ground.
That's how it occurred.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
This is fascinating because it basically means, I mean, immunity is not going to change.
If, you know, Rumble, for instance, if you get sued, you're not—you can file and say, I file a Section 230 dismissal or dismissal under Section 230.
You'll get a hearing.
The judge will then determine whether or not it does qualify as Section 230 or not and can move forward.
There will be a lot more lawsuits.
But you shouldn't be able to not get sued.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
You can't circumvent them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Right.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
That's not right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
One of the most fascinating cases, in my opinion, which clearly shows Section 230 law is completely broken, is Wikipedia.
Because I think we've talked about this before.
Wikipedia is not like X or Facebook or YouTube.
You know, YouTube's going to make the argument, hey, that video that says Donald Trump is a donkey or whatever, we didn't publish that.
We just allow people to publish whatever they want.
So take it up with him.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, allows you to submit information to Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia moderators and people they've chosen with special abilities can determine if that appears on the front page of that article, which states a byline from Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia.
Imagine if the New York Times said, we're going to publish a front page article on why Donald Trump sucks.
Anyone can submit to us anything they want, and we will include it if we choose.
Ha ha, you can't sue us now because John Smith is the one who said Trump sucks, not us.
That's laughably insane.
But you can't sue Wikipedia because of Section 230.
Here's the important factor in your suit.
I've talked to numerous lawyers about, specifically, not that I don't think it applies to me.
I think my Wikipedia entry is...
There's nothing in it that's over the top, defamatory and damaging, although it's not perfect and get some things wrong.
But James O 'Keefe's is a really great example.
It is ridiculously bad.
I talked to a lawyer and said, what if James sued Wikipedia because that's their byline?
And the response from every lawyer is it will be dismissed instantly without argument because of Section 230.
You won't even get a foot in the door.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
How do you challenge?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
And that is currently true.
At least in California, it's not true in the third, fourth, and fifth circuits now, right?
But reflexively, these judges are just tossing it because the case law that has been established over the past two and a half decades has done exactly that.
It's turned it into an immunity from suit when it's not immunity from suit.
And my court, my circuit, you know, when I was in the Ninth Circuit...
They won't touch it.
They will not let me in the door to fix it.
So, that is why we absolutely need the Supreme Court to step in here, because until the Supreme Court does, I mean, ironically, the judge even said that until the Supreme Court weighs in on this, this is the final say on this matter.
Meaning, even the court said, until the Supreme Court fixes this, we can't get it fixed in California.
unidentified
Meaning...
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Forget everybody's due process rights and their First Amendment rights.
The courts are just circumventing them.
That's a constitutional violation, too.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I think, you know, in California, they're just cutting a sweetheart deal for these big tech companies.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So we'll see.
But I got a couple questions for you.
Do you think you're going to win?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
If I am heard by the Supreme Court, it is indisputable.
The argument is legally correct.
There is no doubt about it.
Anybody that reads it, you don't even need to be a lawyer.
It's real straightforward.
It defies the procedure.
Rules of civil procedure, it defies that.
It defies the actual text.
Remember last time, I believe, we talked about a versus the, changing the definite article?
The actual language of the text, which you have to follow the law's actual text, defies what the courts have done as immunity to suit.
Section 230 doesn't mention immunity from suit.
If it is immunity from suit, it means that the Good Samaritan general provision, meaning Congress's mandate, you have to be a Good Samaritan to gain protection, is completely defeated, meaning it actually violates the congressional intent.
And lastly, if you cannot get legal remedy for someone restraining your individual civil liberties, which is exactly what they're doing, if you have no legal remedy as immunity from suit, That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment due process rights.
I have a right to go after Facebook, and the courts are preventing me from engaging in that right.
It is an unconstitutional mess.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That was a really interesting point you made last time you were on TimCast IRL, was that the A versus the.
A publisher and the publisher mean two completely different things.
You can be a publisher of the content, meaning there's more than one, or the as the sole responsibility of that content, which makes for an interesting legal case.
Now, a lot of people have said, oh, that's silly, but I think that will be interesting to get clarification.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
It's the text.
You're supposed to follow the text.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Real quick, we've got about two minutes.
If you win, what happens?
How will the landscape change?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
This is up there with Brown v.
Board of Education.
This will fundamentally change America.
Censorship will die down dramatically.
It will still occur, but it will occur in good faith if they seek legal protections.
The companies that are not engaging in this kind of overt censorship don't need to worry.
Because they won't be held accountable.
More lawsuits will occur.
I mean, that's going to happen.
And many of them are going to have to supersede a summary judgment hearing.
The thing is, we've at least got to get to a summary judgment hearing.
So if this gets sorted out, it means that those lawyers that are saying you'll just get thrown out are wrong.
And I'll actually add this.
If you want to go after Wikipedia, and James knows me, even yourself, if you want to go after Wikipedia, oh yeah.
The thing is, I act as an expert consultant for other lawyers that want to break through this because although it has not been unified by the Supreme Court yet, we know it's right.
We know how to fight it.
And if you get a decent judge, you can actually get through this.
The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Circuit has set precedent, meaning if you get to sue in those jurisdictions, you will make it through Section 230 now.
It's just unfortunate.
The lawyers are just not aware of how it actually works.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
I'm surprised it's gone this far with Section 230 as long as it has because it defies logic.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
What's really strange is Justice Thomas himself has put out three different decisions in which he's calling for a case that is identical to mine.
Mine nails it.
This is the third time we're going to the Supreme Court.
It's indisputable.
We need the Supreme Court to take this.
Period.
It affects literally millions, if not billions of people worldwide because it will change free speech in America overnight.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Interesting.
unidentified
It's huge.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So it's been docketed, but I suppose the issue is they may reject it.
They could say, we're not going to take this up.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Yep.
And then meanwhile, the Supreme Court, and it's funny because there's lots of decisions that they go after and they take up cases.
This one affects more people than any other case out there.
Because literally everybody uses the internet.
And this affects everyone because behind me, everyone else is sitting there going, we can't sue because the courts won't let us in because lawyers won't even take it.
It's basically a violation of due process because it chills due process.
It stops people from even holding them accountable.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That's a problem.
That's a big problem.
The scary thing, I suppose, is Supreme Court, they don't like taking up these big cases that have massive ramifications very often.
I suppose we'll see.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Nobody else can fix this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
The California courts won't fix it, and no other court can settle when we have a three—here's where we're at.
Three circuits against the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit conflicts with the Ninth Circuit.
The lower court district court under the Ninth Circuit conflicts with itself.
It violates the constitutional rights.
It's violated my constitutional rights, and it affects every single American that is using the Internet.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We do.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
There is no other court other than the Supreme Court that should be dealing with this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I look forward.
I hope they do pick it up.
Jason, it's been awesome to have you.
We got to bounce, but where can people find you?
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
Socialmediafreedom.org.
You can contact me through there.
I'm also on Twitter at JasonFYK.
My last name, JasonFYK.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
All right, man.
Well, thanks for hanging out.
I really do appreciate it.
And we'll hear from you next time.
jason fyk ▲ ● ▼
All right.
Thanks, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Take care.
Ladies and gentlemen, absolutely incredible, and I look forward to what they're going to end up with.
I look forward to seeing where he goes with that one.
I think we need it.
Section 230 is clearly busted, and it's high time we get some accountability.
Now, if what he's saying is correct, that all that really happens is you are now allowed to sue, and they can seek a dismissal under Section 230, that will be tremendous.
Because it means you will get a wave of lawsuits.
And there will at least be some concern from these companies.
If we censor these people, we may win, but a lawsuit still sucks.
Right now, they're basically saying, you can't sue us no matter what, so what do we care?
I look forward to seeing how that plays out.
In the meantime, my friends, we are going to be sending you all over to hang out with our friend Russell Brand, who I believe is gearing up to go live right now.
I believe Russell is just about up.
And we're going to initiate that raid.
Make sure to follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast.
That was our first live interview.
And I saw some people saying, test live at your own peril.
We actually did multiple tests not live.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
The first run's always going to be that way.
You see, we did have the system set up.
It worked.
But we're going to improve it.
It actually is surprisingly more complicated than people realize to do these calls.
I kid you not.
It is stupid weird how hard it is.
So, my friends, smash that like button.
Share the show.
I believe tomorrow we are—I don't know how much I can say or should because I don't know if we have confirmed everybody, but we're hoping to get Ben Davidson on to talk about the atmospheric phenomenon that caused massive power outages in Europe because he's been warning about this.
And then when these things start happening, you kind of want to ask them a little bit more.
So we'll see.
We'll be back tomorrow.
We've got more segments coming up throughout the rest of the day.
Then, of course, we're back at Timcast IRL, 8 p.m.
My friends, smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
Thanks for hanging out.
▲
Export Selection