Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 17, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:04:02

CNN SHOCKED Trump APPROVAL Went UP Following Epstein Scandal

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	With the Epstein scandal in full swing, Donald Trump's approval rating is up, down, left, right, back to front.
	Nobody actually knows.
	When you look at the aggregates, it's not perfect.
	He's gone down a little bit, but there's not really much to discern here.
	However, CNN's Harry Enton, of course, always surprised to find, somehow, amid the scandal, Trump's approval rating among the GOP has actually gone up.
	Numerous polls jumping.
	I think even their poll is jumping it.
	Now, of course, we can still say yes to him, but they've reported news week.
	I've got the link.
	His disapproval is at an all-time high.
	Guys, they're going to grab a single poll, a single poll and say Trump's disapproval all-time high.
	And then when you check the aggregates, you're like, it's like within the margin of error.
	It's around the same place it's always been.
	So if one poll is an outlier, they're going to say that's proof.
	Here's what I can't say.
	We've got a handful of reports.
	One, despite the Epstein scandal among the GOP upon Republican voters, Donald Trump has improved.
	Seemingly, Trump slamming his own base and his supporters has not caused his approval's gone up.
	You know what I think is, I think a lot of people appreciate that Trump's telling the F off.
	And they're like, okay, because as we've described before, back in the day, you know, people can rag on Trump all day and night and say he's a bad guy, whatever it is they're going to say, but he's a tough guy.
	And so when he's bullying people around, people go, eh, I'd still rather have the bully be on my side.
	That being said, it could be that the people who are more upset are more likely to be the conservatarians because of the libertarian types that voted conservative, voted Republican.
	But at the same time as that, Gen X now has a massive approval rating for Trump.
	He's soaring with 10 points, according to a single poll.
	And then, interestingly, my friends, among Hispanics, Donald Trump's approval has never been better.
	Again, according to these individual polls, on immigration, Trump is down a little bit.
	So one must wonder, as the Epstein story doesn't really seem to be impacting Republican voters, maybe it impacts moderates.
	I don't know.
	But there is that theory.
	The reason Trump is playing this game on Epstein is that he knows it's a story that doesn't move the needle for the average person.
	Sure, some comedians are going to talk about it.
	Politicos are going to talk about it.
	But Hispanics don't care.
	They apparently love Trump's immigration efforts.
	And if Trump is getting hurt on the story of immigration due to these wild headlines about children being abducted from produce farms, which is not correct, Trump wants the subject to change.
	Now, I'm not saying he's actually doing it on purpose, but there is the theory that Donald Trump intentionally pushes these stories, blasting out these true social posts, knowing it will inflame the story, pouring gas on the fire, because he would rather people focus on that than anything related to his agenda, which I might add is succeeding.
	I mean, they just finalized the Doge cuts, NPR PBS.
	They're freaking out.
	And so long as everyone's talking about Epstein, again, a story that can't really go anywhere, either they release the files or they don't.
	We don't even know what's going on behind the scenes.
	It keeps the media off of a tangible political issue, tangible political issue, such as immigration, taxes, tariffs, the border, whatever it might be, DEI.
	And instead, they chase after a narrative that isn't going to do anything.
	Now, I don't know.
	What I can say is, let's pull up the polls and go through what's actually going on with Donald Trump's approval writing, which is doing really well.
	Before we get started, my friends, we've got a great sponsor.
	It is AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.
	What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
	That's right.
	Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room.
	It's possible when you call American Financing today.
	If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas bills piling up, you're not alone.
	Most Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards, and there doesn't seem to be a way out.
	American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off your debt.
	You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments.
	Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without upfront fees.
	And their customers are saving an average of $800 a month.
	That's like a $10,000 raise.
	It's fast, it's simple, and it could save your budget this summer.
	Call now before it's too late, 866-890-7811.
	That's 866-890-7811.
	Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.
	And of course, don't forget the link in the description below, DCComedyLoft.com, July 26th, you debate me, Alex Stein, Matan Evan, Gavin McInnis, come up on stage, stand there with the mic, camera on your face, and tell us why we're wrong.
	We will be discussing whether Trump is still winning or not.
	Did you know that a large portion of his legal staff that defend his policies have quit?
	Reuters reported this.
	And then, of course, we have the Epstein scandal.
	Now, I still think he's winning, and I think his victories are very, very big.
	So we want you to come down to a live taping of the Culture War podcast where you, as members of the audience, are invited to the debate itself.
	That's going to be in D.C. at the Metro.
	The link is in the description.
	We hope to see you there.
	But let's get back to the news.
	We've got this story, of course, from Newsweek.
	Many of you may be saying his approval rating flips with Gen X. What does that really mean?
	I'm not going to waste your time.
	Newsweek buries the lead because it wants to keep you on the page longer, but it says 55% of Gen X voters approve of Trump while 45 disapprove, giving Trump a net approval of plus 10.
	Now, of course, to be fair, it's a single CNN poll.
	I get it.
	But I'd like to go to that CNN poll and talk about what Harry Enton has discovered relating to the Epstein scandal among the GOP voters.
	I will, however, add the most important point.
	A previous CNN poll from April found 43% of Gen X supported Trump to 56 disapproval.
	He was minus 13 among Gen X, and now he is plus 10.
	That is a massive, positive swing.
	And get this, check this out.
	Trump's approval rating with Hispanics surges.
	That's crazy.
	On immigration across the board, he's gone down.
	See, this is why I think it is manipulation in media.
	It is fake stories.
	It is lies.
	Because the Hispanic voters in this country are actually saying, now we're cool with this.
	I mean, let me put it this way.
	If it is true that the average person thinks Trump is raiding like, I don't know, strawberry fields and gassing children, if they actually believe that, and that's why his approval is going down in immigration, and then Hispanic voters are like, nah, I like that.
	That's kind of a weird thing to approve of.
	Or it could be that this community is actively paying attention to illegal immigration, cartels, coyotes, what we are seeing with these marijuana farms in California where child slave labor was discovered.
	And I've asked this time and time again.
	We had Steve Hilton on.
	He's running for California governor.
	Let me just ask you guys, am I being unreasonable?
	Do you believe that these undocumented children came to this country of their own volition?
	No, of course they didn't.
	Who believes that?
	Do you believe that after being brought here, they decided of their own free will to work on a marijuana farm?
	No, of course not.
	Okay, we call that trafficking when someone is taken against their will and slave labor.
	I think the Hispanic voters in this country are probably like, yeah, it's a bad thing.
	And we're glad that Trump is actually doing something about it.
	Now, that's speculation.
	I don't know.
	But here's the poll.
	Well, here's what to know.
	The president's approval rating with Hispanics is 35%.
	The survey was conducted July 11th to 14th among 1,680 U.S. adults.
	Trump's overall approval rating in the survey is 41.
	We get it.
	The week prior, his approval rating with Hispanics was 26.
	In one week, Donald Trump saw a nine-point bump.
	Now, I'm not saying he's above water with Hispanics, but it is surging.
	Despite all this, you'd think Trump would be going down with this major scandal.
	Instead, it's not happening.
	Now we've got living meme, Harry Enton.
	And I don't say that disparagingly.
	I'm a fan.
	I like Harry.
	He is always on CNN.
	I love his segments because he's like, look at this new polling data that we got.
	Oh my God, Trump's approval rating has gone up again.
	And it's just like, it's not always positive news for Trump, but I just love how Harry is always animated and surprised that Trump is improving.
	Gunther Eagleman has the post.
	He says, even CNN is flabbergasted after new polling shows that Trump's approval rating has risen even after the online Epstein fallout.
	Roll tape.
	Look, I think this one surprised me a bit because of all these complaints online going after Trump and the Epstein file.
	You might think his approval ratings were going down, Republicans.
	If anything, they're going up.
	Republicans who approved of Trump, look at our CNN poll.
	The prior one, 86%.
	The one out this week, 88% were Republicans.
	How about Quinnipiac?
	The prior poll, 87% approval of Republicans.
	This week out, 90% with Republicans.
	If anything, Donald Trump's approval rating has gone up since this whole Epstein saga started.
	He is at the apex or close there to in terms of his popularity with Republican voters.
	Epstein files, complaints, or not.
	You just proved that not everything online is real.
	Yes, yes.
	Twitter and X are not reality.
	Is there any reason that you can find that this hasn't taken hold and hurt him?
	Yeah.
	I mean, on X, all you hear about is the Epstein files.
	But how about out in the real public?
	Republicans who said the top issue was Epstein case.
	The answer is one.
	One.
	And not 1% responded.
	This is a great little finding that Ariel Edwards-Levy, who of course is part of the polling unit, found.
	Just one single Republican said that the nation's top problem is, in fact, the Epstein case.
	Not much of a surprise that, therefore, Donald Trump's approval rating has not suffered with Republicans because of the Epstein case.
	Because the bottom line is, most Americans say it's not high up on their priority list.
	I think they're right.
	I think it's completely correct.
	This is something that we've floated for a while now.
	It is politicos and only the most entrenched that truly focus on the Epstein case.
	So I've been saying this is a story that cannot go anywhere.
	Okay.
	And what do I mean by that?
	Let's start here.
	If you're a regular person working in this country, and let's say you're going to the grocery store and you want to buy a box of cereal and you're like $7 for frosted flakes, you're going to be like, what?
	There's going to be actions taken.
	When prices fluctuate, people get mad.
	Now, what about Epstein?
	You turn on the news and someone says, where are the Epstein files?
	It doesn't impact your day.
	You might just say, yeah, we should have the Epstein files.
	Then you go get in your car to go to work and you have to pay $5 for a gallon of gas.
	And you're like, I am angry about this, leading to action.
	The more people talk about Epstein, the bigger the story is.
	This is something that no matter what happens in the story, it is not going to be heavily motivating your average person to do anything political.
	That's it.
	Now, there are a lot of people saying, I'm done with Trump.
	That's all an X. And I think, again, if you're a hyper-focused individual in politics, you know why this matters.
	You know why we want these files released.
	And we all do.
	Roe Conna and Thomas Massey are putting forward a bill that I think is very good to get these files released.
	But I will then throw it to that age-old adage from liberals from Trump's first term.
	Trump intentionally truths things out to distract the media from issues he doesn't want them focused on.
	How about Israel bombed Damascus?
	How about Trump just provided more money or weapons to the EU?
	They're buying it, he says, but giving more weapons to Ukraine.
	What about the story where Donald Trump asked Ukraine if they were able to strike Moscow?
	There are many stories in the press.
	Donald Trump's ICE raids ongoing.
	Apparently now we've got raids in Pennsylvania.
	Now, while many people probably agree with some or all of those policies, if those were the news cycle, they could motivate action.
	Okay, that is war animates people.
	Donald Trump, approving of weapon sales, animates people for protest.
	Epstein stuff, probably not gonna.
	I mean, I mean that sincerely, and maybe some people are mad about it.
	Prices, tariffs, border security, ICE raids, all of these things animate people in the political space because it has a broad impact on them.
	As these ICE agents are going through these factories, we see videos of illegal immigrants fleeing construction sites.
	And you know what?
	While the GOP may cheer for that, regular people, not all of them, don't like it.
	I think even, you know, Joe Rogan may have made a content.
	I hate taking people out of context because I don't know the full context, but saying that these hardcore raids were insane or something to that effect.
	Like, come on.
	But this is what people on the right voted for.
	If Donald Trump really is thinking, let's keep the media off kilter, as liberals long claimed he did, maybe this is why he is choosing to pour gas on the Epstein fire.
	What is the end result of all of this?
	Well, his approval rating apparently has gone up with Republicans.
	He does need the moderates, though.
	But if they're asking this, you know, if you're a Republican, are you a registered Republican or not?
	I think the distinction matters.
	And I don't know for sure.
	Moderates may bail out.
	Many people probably don't care.
	And that's the harsh reality for those that do truly care about the Epstein case.
	And I think, again, it is very important.
	But when it comes down to it, Democrats want to stop Trump's agenda.
	Obviously.
	One way they can go about doing it is exploiting the Epstein divisions and forcing Trump to release documents that for whatever reason doesn't want to release.
	I think most people do want it released in the political space.
	Most regular people probably go, who?
	Now, I got to ask yourself why it is Democrats are all voting for this.
	Previously, we saw a vote on the House floor in which Axios reported that Republicans blocked an attempt by Democrats to release the Epstein files.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene then counters saying, no, that was a procedural vote on control of the floor, and the Republicans weren't going to give Democrats control of the floor.
	The media lied.
	So why are Democrats trying to get all this stuff done?
	Obviously, it's an attack vector.
	I can get me wrong.
	I'll take what I can get, right?
	We want the Epstein files released.
	But I do think their intention is not sincere.
	I believe maybe Rocana and Massey, but the cynical Democratic Party or the cynical efforts of the Democratic Party now, it's just to jam up Trump's agenda.
	Trump may be thinking, who cares?
	As long as they're not voting and making a big sting about the immigration, which can actually result in more protests, more violence or otherwise.
	So here's another way we can frame it.
	We had in one week after July 4th, starting on July 4th, three attacks on law enforcement.
	On July 4th, there was an ambush, a militarized leftist group.
	A guy hiding in the woods shot a cop.
	That Monday, another man with a rifle ambushed law enforcement, shot a cop.
	And then Thursday, we saw a man at the raids in California draw what appeared to have been a pistol and open fire on law enforcement.
	Trump might be thinking, the more they talk about this high-level political story for which there's no place to protest, there's no individuals to obstruct, it keeps them off the focus on what ICE is currently doing.
	That is, if the narrative was solely on immigration, protests would be getting bigger because there's something tangible that Democrats and liberals can do.
	They could go out to obstruct these ICE raids.
	I am not saying Trump is doing this intentionally.
	I'm saying that is typically the liberal argument, or it was during Trump's first term.
	Now, of course, their political attack Vector is, Trump is covering up for elite pedophiles.
	Unfortunately for them, Trump's approval rating is improving among Hispanics, Gen X, and the Republican base.
	So it's hard to say that this is an effective means of attack against Trump and his agenda.
	I will say it again: I want the Epstein's files released, but what more could Trump be asking for in a tumultuous time?
	To be fair, maybe Trump's just an egomaniac.
	I don't know who'd argue against that.
	And he's angry that people dare question him.
	So he's truthing in violent fervor, which perhaps may in some way benefit him, I guess.
	Well, CNN also writes this.
	Trump's angry, erratic behavior explains his lowball poll numbers.
	They say the president's incessant assault on the national psyche, I mean, everyone has become a little numb to his shocking style of politics.
	But even for him, Wednesday was a reckless ride on which he sparingly addressed the voter concerns that sent him back to the White House.
	Trump ignited more speculation.
	He may fire Jerome Powell after a Tuesday meeting, ousting Powell, blah, blah, blah.
	We get it, we get it.
	His volatile is very risky, sure.
	Indeed.
	Great analysis.
	I don't care.
	Angry, erratic behavior, explaining his lowball poll numbers.
	Guys, when has the media ever claimed that Trump was stoic and somber?
	They've always described him as angry and erratic.
	That's why I say shenanigans.
	Now here's the aggregate approval.
	What matters more?
	CNN has Trump minus 12.
	Sure.
	His aggregate approval rating is minus 4.8, which is within a few points of the margin error.
	He could be about 50-50.
	He could be a little bit worse, but let's just go with it.
	That ain't bad.
	It's not like he's good.
	If his approval rating was like 60%, that'd be good.
	But considering Trump, that's actually not that bad.
	But take a look at this.
	CNN says minus 12.
	Well, let's go down to the, let's jump down to their actual big list and take a look at the previous CNN poll, which I think probably goes back to April, apparently.
	They don't do that many.
	CNN released their poll and it's got Trump at minus 12.
	So we will scroll down until we can find the next latest, the previous CNN poll for which they don't really do them.
	And there we go.
	Trump was minus 14.
	So let me just say Trump's improved among CNN's base.
	Guys, individual polls don't matter.
	Because like I already pointed out, individual polls, they may have mattered 10 years ago, but it's become so psychotic and erratic, I can't tell you up from down between two different polls.
	What I can tell you is the direction a single poll moves based on the same methodology.
	That is, Ras Mussin currently has Donald Trump at a tie.
	Previously, if we scroll down, let's try and find the next most recent Ras Mussin poll.
	I always called it Russ Mussen until we had someone on from Ras Mussin.
	They're like, it's pronounced Ras Mussin.
	Oh, okay.
	I guess because Russ Mussen is daily, they're not going to show the previous ones.
	So, okay.
	Ras Musson usually has Trump positive.
	So if he's tied right now or negative, that shows movement.
	Let's try Morning Consult has him minus three.
	Let's go back in time.
	Here we go.
	Morning Consult in June had him also minus three, showing no movement.
	Let's go once again back, and he was minus eight, showing dramatic improvement.
	The point is this.
	CNN's previous poll had Donald Trump at minus 14.
	Their latest poll has him minus 12, showing a marked improvement for the president of two points.
	That is what matters.
	And here's why.
	If every poll, everyone dropped a poll today and they said based on the same timeframe, the same news stories and the same experiences, Trump's minus five, minus three, minus one, minus 10.
	I don't know what that actually means because all of the polls have different methodology and for the same time period are giving you different numbers.
	What I am interested in is if over the course of a period of time, the same methodology targeting the same people improves or worsens.
	In this regard, it does look like Trump has gotten worse in some areas, but in others, he's improved.
	So when CNN says he's minus 12, I just say, okay, show me the track record of CNN's individual polls.
	And what do we see?
	Trump's actually improved over the past few months.
	Russ Musson has Trump improving over the previous day because he was down three.
	It looks like the Epstein stuff is not hurting Donald Trump.
	Now, look, start of his term, he had that honeymoon phase, they call it.
	And he was loving it.
	I mean, his approval was above disapproval.
	His worst disapproval was actually in April.
	And it's since somewhat approved, improved.
	Now, it's gone down quite a bit.
	We can see as of July 12th, it dipped, and it's starting to go back up.
	I don't trust.
	And actually, let me say this.
	This is good because it shows you aggregate movement.
	That's what matters, movement.
	Now, his disapproval has largely remained stagnant, while approval has dropped, meaning some people say, I just don't know.
	He may be losing moderates on this one.
	What I will say to all of you, I think the important thing to consider is the successes of the Trump administration, for which there are many, and I'd like to bring up.
	But I would be remiss if I did not highlight Mike Davis.
	Now, I got no beef with Mike, but let me just point out this is a nuclear bomb.
	Okay, you don't want to do this, Mike.
	He said, let's be crystal clear.
	MAGA influencers do not have a power base separate from Trump.
	Their power is derivative of Trump.
	Trump isn't running for re-election.
	They need Trump a hell of a lot more than he needs them.
	I'll stay home in the next election.
	Go for it.
	No.
	What?
	Please don't.
	I don't care if Trump's yelling at you.
	Guys, you got to come out and vote.
	You know, this is a silly way to handle all of the great successes that Donald Trump has had.
	Now, even Elon Musk is going nuclear on Trump with all-night posting meltdown.
	And I think it's kind of funny.
	Grock, there's a viral post from Grock where it says even Elon was meeting with disgraced Epstein after his registry on the sex offender list.
	So it's like, guys, of all the wealthy elites, everyone's going to accuse.
	I don't think Elon did anything wrong.
	I'm pointing out that even Grock is saying he was going to meet with him as well.
	Elon's tweeting about Trump.
	This infighting, I think, is pointless.
	Donald Trump has some tremendous victories, right?
	Laura Loomer is giving a, delivers Searing warning, says Politico, that Epstein could consume the Trump presidency.
	Indeed.
	And I'm saying, I don't think we need to be hyper-focused on.
	Look, let me put it this way.
	Everybody got mad at Charlie Kirk because he said, I'm going to trust my friends in the administration.
	And then he said, You guys know my position.
	I want the files released.
	And everybody immediately attacked him for the first portion of that.
	You're going to trust your friends in government.
	Well, he does have friends in government and he believes in them.
	I'm not going to stop talking about Epstein simply because it's convenient or because Democrats are attacking Trump.
	I think Trump's handling it poorly.
	That being said, there's a balance, right?
	Every single story can't be about Epstein.
	His story can't go anywhere.
	Either they release the files or they don't.
	They said there aren't any files.
	The only movement the story can make is Donald Trump's going to appoint a special counsel, I guess.
	Maybe he fires somebody.
	But nothing tangible happens in physical meat space.
	So while I think it's important to consistently have the Epstein story ready to roll, we want developments, get to work, there's a lot of stuff going on that matters a lot more.
	CNN claims six in 10 opposed Trump's mega bill.
	Yeah, well, too bad it passed.
	And polls are meaningless to me.
	I want to say it like this.
	There's one poll that mattered, and it was the election.
	And Trump won it.
	And he won the majority.
	That's tangible.
	That was direct action.
	And the people got up from their seats and they made that happen.
	So when they come out and they say this poll, that poll, or otherwise, that's why I say individual polls don't matter.
	It's another reason.
	I'm not going to come out and be like, look, Trump's approval is skyrocketing.
	It's one poll among Gen X, okay?
	The point is, polls are speculative and they're fine.
	Okay.
	They're good for what they are, but they don't beat the election.
	When the election happened, the American people said, this is what we want you to do, Trump.
	And so he did.
	And so, you know what?
	If they don't like the way things are going right now, the next election is coming up next year, and that's when you'll have your voice heard.
	Maybe Trump will lose the midterms.
	Let's talk about some of those victories, though, my friends.
	NPR CEO warns public broadcasting cuts could be a real risk to the public safety of the country.
	Really?
	Yeah, like some people may not get warnings and alerts.
	And it's like, well, then maybe you shouldn't have made these stupid articles about men being women or whatever, okay?
	That is not what public broadcasting should be doing.
	You don't get to advocate for anti-white racial bias and gender ideology and critical race theory.
	And then, and then when people are like, yeah, we're cutting your funding because of that stuff, you go, but think about the tornado warning.
	Yeah, well, you thought you should have thought about that before you decided to get into political game, okay?
	Major victory for Trump on this regard.
	Trump admin sues to remove board members of NPR and PBS parent group who refuse to leave.
	Victory after victory, my friend.
	Democrats' latest talking point against Trump's rescissions package is beyond laughable.
	That's right.
	Trump's getting the job done.
	There's an investigation into Joe Biden's associates.
	Second, this is Joe Biden's aide, pleads the fifth.
	Newsweek calls that red flags.
	Shane Gillis hosting the SPs.
	We got cultural victories.
	We got victories.
	We got Trump victories.
	Everybody's got victories.
	There we go.
	And then we got the Autopen scandal, where the Biden administration, Joe Biden himself, tried to downplay the fact that he did not approve of the bulk of the pardons that were issued by him, that it was his chief of staff that gave the approval, and then they put in an auto-pen machine.
	And that also applies to a lot of his executive orders.
	Was he even actually president, or did he win and say, okay, I'll delegate all my powers to you guys, which you can't do.
	Some, maybe not all.
	Trump has got tremendous victories right now.
	And, you know, when I brought this up last night, I had somebody comment saying, Tim got the call from the White House to drop the story.
	I don't care.
	Shut up.
	The way to describe it is this.
	I want you all to imagine Donald Trump is not playing 5D chess.
	He's playing good old chess, which technically is three-dimensional because the Knights can jump.
	He's sitting there playing chess, surrounded by a bunch of people screaming, take the queen.
	Take the queen, Trump, take the queen.
	And it's like, I can't.
	It's blocked.
	And they're just screaming, take the queen.
	And Trump's like, will you please shut up?
	I can't.
	And that was the argument.
	Let Trump cook.
	Now, that being said, I don't care if people are chanting, take the queen, because I don't trust that Trump is actually going to play this right.
	My point was simply the frustration of an administration limited in the moves they can make, being screamed at to make a move they can't for some reason.
	Dan Bongino and Cash are as good as it gets.
	I don't know what's going on.
	I want the pressure.
	I'll put it this way.
	I'll trust my friends in government.
	I'll also trust Rokana and Massey to put this bill forward and force this to come out.
	They put a bunch of restrictions in there so no victims will be re-victimized and investigations will not be hindered by the release of this information, which may mean Pam Bonnie comes out and says, I want you to pass this bill because all of the information we have would compromise an investigation.
	And then so be it.
	Have that be the case.
	But I'll tell you, the Trump admin is flubbing this.
	We must consider the balance.
	The victories, DEI out of government, the ICE raids, securing the border, some of the best we've seen in a long time.
	Donald Trump is hitting it out of the park.
	I'm not going to sacrifice the whole board because Trump is struggling to get one piece or refusing to.
	I will be mad about it, and I will say we shouldn't.
	Like, there's going to be no political acceptance of the refusal in Epstein.
	It will always be an issue for us, but we have to play this strategically.
	For those that are in the MAGA movement that are like die-hard Trump people, I totally get it.
	You're with Trump or against them.
	Me, I'm not.
	I don't care for Democrats or the Republican Party.
	Roquan is a Democrat.
	I like him.
	I think he's great.
	I disagree with him on a lot of his policies, particularly immigration and all that stuff.
	But I think he's sincere.
	I think he's a good dude.
	And I appreciate he gives me the time of day.
	I respect that.
	He came on my show.
	It's fantastic.
	And I really do appreciate it.
	Thomas Massey, again, I disagree with that guy too, but they're willing to communicate and try, and I respect it.
	Outside of those parties, I don't care if someone says I'm sycophantic, culty, or anti-Trump, whatever it may be.
	I want Trump's victories where he gets them.
	And I want the Epstein files, which can be released to be released and for the American people to be apprised Of the truth.
	But that being said, I don't care if the liberals attack me and the MAGA attack me, I'm going to be like, when Trump gets a victory in immigration, I will cheer.
	When Trump gets an economic victory, I will cheer.
	Because I'm approaching this watching two sides play a game of chess, and I know who I want to win.
	Now they're going to make the argument, Trump's protecting those Peters, you want him to win?
	Dude, Democrats did the same thing, okay?
	I'm going to take my victories.
	I'm going to advocate both parties do the right thing and release the info.
	But I'm not going to sit here and be like, oh, Trump's worse than the Democrats.
	Spare me.
	But my friends, we got to talk about other big stories.
	So I'm going to leave it there.
	The UK is lowering the voting age to 16.
	That poor country.
	So smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone you know.
	The interview will be up at 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash Tim Pool and youtube.com slash Timcast.
	Connor Tomlinson joining to discuss his poor nation.
	Thanks for hanging out, everybody.
	Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast, and we will see you all in the next segment.
	But for the rest of you, here's the story from the New York Times.
	The UK plans to lower the voting age to 16.
	Here's what we know.
	The plan has been described as the largest expansion of voting rights in Britain in decades.
	I think this is a terrible idea.
	I can't really speak for the UK because honestly, I don't live there and I don't know.
	So here's what I'm going to do.
	I'm going to pull in someone who does know, an actual Brit, Connor Tomlinson, who's actually just here.
	Let's pull him in.
	Make sure we're not getting any crazy echoes there.
	Looks good.
	And we're jumping in.
	Nope, we got Tate.
	Is Connor here?
	Doesn't look like it's loading.
	Wait, there it goes.
	It's going slow.
	Nah, it's not working.
	I'm looking out the window.
	No, we don't got it.
	These things happen.
	but Thank you.
	Wait, there it is.
	Can you hear me?
	No.
	Still can't.
	Oh, he can't hear me.
	Uh-oh.
	Looks like we're having technical difficulties, ladies and gentlemen.
	Should I pull in Connor anyway so you can see his face?
	Let's try this.
	I mean, you guys can hear me.
	Looks like it's all going through.
	But Connor's not getting audio.
	Connery, you there?
	Thank you.
	Apparently not.
	Let's try one more time.
	Let's try one more time.
	Loading up?
	Connor, can you hear me?
	Damn it.
	All right.
	Welcome to the amazing world of live content.
	Let me do this.
	I'm going to go jump.
	I'm going to go look out the – see what my crew's got cooking on this one and see if we can get Connor in here to talk about the voting age in the UK.
	Yeah.
	Let's go.
	12.
	You see, because we are made of duct tape here at Timcast, and with the ability to have duct tape, we are capable of doing things that other studios are incapable of doing.
	And that is, I'm literally going, we've got Tate coming in, and let's see here.
	We're going to call Connor on the phone and just hold his phone up.
	That way he can talk to us because he's trying to get it to work, but for some reason, audio is not coming through.
	And then you'll get it.
	And then you know what we're going to do?
	As I'm waiting, he's got it.
	We're just going to edit this out when we put it up.
	Will any of the microphones work?
	All right, let's go.
	Let's get it.
	Connor, can you hear me?
	His mic's off.
	That mic is off.
	Yep.
	Try again.
	You can just press the red button.
	Didn't work?
	Yeah.
	Try talking to the mic first.
	Test, test, test.
	All right.
	Connor, can you hear me?
	I can hear you, Tim.
	Finally, the gremlins are out of the way, I hope.
	All right.
	So technical difficulty, but Connor Tomlinson, you're a British guy.
	Hey, they're lowering the voting age to 16 in your country.
	Why?
	So I think the Labour Party are trying to increase their marginal gains in the vote chair because in the last election, they won what is called a land slip.
	So they got fewer votes than they did in 2019, but they got an overwhelming parliamentary majority.
	And that's because the previous Conservative government, after 14 years of very unpopular governing, for example, letting in thousands of Afghan so-called asylum seekers in the country, as we found out yesterday, that they didn't include in the population statistics costing the taxpayer £7 billion and all other such acts of treachery.
	Well, the public really wanted to punish that government.
	So they let Labour in, even though they weren't very popular.
	And ever since Kier Starmer has got in, as his name has become synonymous around the world with incompetence and treachery, he has become the single most unpopular prime minister in opinion polling on record.
	And so what they thought is, well, young people are kind of naive and gullible, and we own pretty much all of the teachers' unions and the universities in the UK.
	So why don't we just indoctrinate them from birth to grow up and vote Labour?
	The reason this isn't going to work, though, Tim, as we have seen throughout Europe, as we have seen with Gen Z in America, is that they are rapidly radicalizing in multiple different directions.
	Young women are voting overwhelmingly for communist parties in Germany.
	In their last federal election in February, young women voted 25 points in favor of Delinka, the Communist Party, whereas young men only voted four points in favor for the AFD.
	In the previous federal election in Germany, in the year before, so the EU election, where 16-year-olds can vote, they had an 11-point vote share increase among the AFD.
	So they're voting for right-wing parties.
	As we saw in America, we saw young men swing towards Trump, away from Biden in 2020, if all of those numbers are to be believed.
	And young women did not break for Harris as much was feared by the likes of the New York Times that forecast a massive gender split.
	But the most important thing about the UK that isn't being counted is the Muslim vote.
	Now, Muslim diasporas in the UK are significantly younger than white Brits.
	The average share of Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities that are under 24 is about 44%, whereas for white Brits, it's about 20%.
	We're an aging population.
	And so all Labour are doing is opening up themselves to more young Muslim voters.
	Traditionally, they've harvested their ballots as a kind of client block, especially through postal voting, where they can rely on the husband of the household and however many wives and cousins he has, often the same thing.
	Of course, getting his family to vote entirely for the same candidate.
	But what's happened this time around at the last election is a number of sectarian, independent, Gaza-obsessed Muslim MPs were elected not as Labour candidates, but as independents by the Muslim vote.
	And they're now forming a new party under former Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who Keir Starmer kicked out the party for anti-Semitism a few years ago, and a few Labour MPs that have been kicked out.
	They're jokingly calling it Jezboller, because, of course, Jeremy Corbyn has supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and pretty much all of Britain's enemies.
	And so what you're going to see is actually this massively backfire for the Labour government, because you're going to see young white British men vote right-wing if they're given a right-wing party, young women vote for Green and Communist parties, and young Muslims vote for the Muslim party.
	And Labour are going to end up capsizing by 2029.
	Okay, so here's my question, though.
	How do you just lower the voting age?
	I mean, we can't do that here.
	Oh, Parliament is almost entirely sovereign.
	I mean, it was first lowered to 18.
	I think it was in 1969 from 21.
	And they're passing a new elections reform bill.
	And because of the size of their majority, Parliament could just do basically as they like.
	We don't have the system of, let's say, checks and balances that the US built into its constitution.
	We ostensibly have that a little bit because Tony Blair introduced the Supreme Court in 2009.
	But as we know, there's no such thing as a neutral institution.
	And so the Supreme Court only ever steps in to block things like Brexit.
	So the Supreme Court probably won't end up challenging this.
	The other things that are included in this election bill is accepting bank cards as a form of voter ID now.
	What?
	Yeah, I know, exactly.
	So it's going to open up the election to even more fraud.
	And automatic voter enrollment.
	So they're not doing away with postal votes.
	They're allowing you to have even more loose forms of voter verification.
	And they're automatically adding you as an eligible voter to the voter role.
	So they're trying to gerrymander ethnically and via age demographics the vote in their favor.
	But I think ultimately it's going to be their undoing.
	What has happened to your country?
	Let me just ask a serious version of that.
	Based on everything that I've heard, I think many people have heard about what's going on in the UK, is it possible to save your country?
	Turning this around?
	So we are still, as, well, we need an emergency sensor to find out the exact numbers, but as of 2021, we are still 70% white British.
	And the British public on the whole are generally quite right-wing.
	Like they support the return of the death penalty.
	Nine in 10 constituencies want immigration lowered to the tens of thousands.
	And that's when they think that immigration is actually 70,000 rather than at least 700,000 every year.
	So they're underestimating it by a factor of 10, and they still want immigration restrictions.
	There are actually a sizable amount of Gen Zers who would sooner vote for Donald Trump than they would for any other British politician.
	So that shows that there is a latent right-wing electorate that needs to be spoken to on behalf of and tapped into.
	But the things that we lack are key representation.
	So for years, we've had Conservative Party politicians talking right and governing very far left.
	Even Keir Starmer attempted to do that recently with his Island of Strangers speech, which he since denounced.
	And also, we have a civil service that runs this country.
	So no matter who the politicians of the day are elected, they can't ever fire the permanent bureaucrats that run the country.
	I know America has a real problem with its deep state ever since FDR and LBJ and even the Obama administration, but at least you can hire and fire about 20,000 federal employees.
	And the Trump administration is in the process of still making appointments.
	In our country, you can't even do that.
	The Prime Minister can appoint a few of his cabinet ministers, of course.
	He can appoint a few advisors in Downing Street.
	The rest of the country is run by permanent secretaries because Tony Blair, who's kind of like the dark lord of all British politics, in 2010, he and his successor, Gordon Brown, just vandalized the British Constitution and made Parliament no longer sovereign.
	They made it subordinate to the permanent deep state government of the civil service.
	A civil service, by the way, which is larger per capita than communist China.
	So how we can get control of it, I mean, have a politician, a political party brave enough to actually speak to the values that the British public already hold and not be afraid of being called racist by the media who would rather see you fail than succeed.
	Identify and be willing to repeal on day one all of those laws that are getting your way, fire the bureaucrats, scrap the DEI patronage schemes baked into the civil service, and then just begin mass deporting the millions of illegal migrants that we know are here and stop importing over a million people every single year,
	95% of which we have to pay taxes for to subsidize their lifestyles, and are coming from cultures that are nowhere near proximate to us and are establishing Islamic sectarian ethnic enclaves and electing politicians that care more about Gaza than Great Britain.
	You know what I think?
	Give us a history lesson.
	Isn't the House of Commons relatively new?
	I mean, relatively a couple hundred years?
	No, no.
	I mean, it's been around far longer than your country.
	Probably.
	We've got pubs older than America.
	God bless you guys.
	I've been to one.
	I think the best reference point for this is probably using the Bill of Rights of 1689.
	So after Oliver Cromwell won the English Civil War, decapitated Charles I, deposed the monarchy, and appointed himself Lord Protector, Parliament essentially ended up writing up a Bill of Rights based on the original principles of the Magna Carta and which served as the eventual inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.
	And the idea was that these are the liberties that Englishmen themselves feel they are entitled to based on history and based on tradition.
	And this held up for years until about the 20th century.
	And we had our own version of FDR with the post-war government with Clement Attlee's government.
	What he did was he, like FDR, introduced Social Security.
	Clement Attlee introduced the National Health Service.
	Like FDR and his successors, LBJ, introduced the Civil Rights Act.
	We introduced the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to have inequalities between ethnic groups and created the speech offense of inciting racial hatred, which has now been used to lock up people for saying things that the government doesn't like, either online or in person.
	And they also completely reconfigured the civil service after the Second World War to be quote-unquote neutral.
	So that meant that it wasn't subject to any political party.
	But of course, if you're going to go into government, you're going to work for the state, of course, you have values that you're going to bring to bear.
	So all that meant was the civil service was put outside the scope of criticism by ministers, because if you were seen to be criticizing the civil service, you were seen to be politicizing it.
	When we all knew it was politicized anyway.
	So what would be best is if we repeal all of those laws from the 20th century and the 21st century that have distanced us from our ancient rights and liberties as recognized by Magna Carta and as recognized by the Bill of Rights of 1689.
	And, you know, personally, I would be a fan of repealing also the law that came in shortly after the Bill of 1689, which barred Catholics from ever sitting as monarchs, considering the established Church of England doesn't really know that it's a church these days.
	And our king, who could solve this problem but refuses not to, is more interested in hosting Ramadan events on palace property than saving his people from the replacement of their own culture.
	When did it stop that the king was the absolute?
	Was that never the case?
	So Britain is not like continental Europe.
	We've never really had absolute monarchs.
	The closest thing we could have had, I think, is Charles I, which is why not just for religious disputes between Charles, possibly marrying a Catholic, versus the Puritans in Parliament, but also because of the perception that Charles was impeding on parliamentary sovereignty.
	That's why the Civil War started.
	But we've always had a culture of the king having to abide by the laws he sets.
	Our mutual friend Carl Benjamin has spoken about this example many a time.
	In the old stories of Robin Hood, when the king, the legitimate king, returns to England and disguises himself as one of Robin's band of merry men, when he misses the shot on a hunt, Robin wraps him over the head with his bow.
	And the king doesn't get uppity about this.
	He doesn't reprimand Robin despite being a bandit for this.
	He abides by the laws that he himself has set.
	This was the point of Magna Carta.
	It was the barons getting together and saying, King John, you're going outside the remit of a legitimate monarch.
	We're going to constrain your rule by popular consent.
	And so we've always had this tradition that the king is meant to abide by the rules he sets, but he does have the power to disband Parliament.
	And so hypothetically, and Ian is somewhere sort of shaking at the prospect, I'm sure, but hypothetically, King Charles could march the army down to Parliament and say, you are not serving the British people, you are betraying my subjects, and I'm going to dissolve Parliament until further notice, till we get a handle on these things.
	But he won't, because King Charles, unfortunately, has been very influential in co-founding the World Economic Forum.
	He is obsessed with the sun-worshipping climate cult of thinking the atmosphere is going to collapse on us and usher in a brand, just to turn the world into a big fireball.
	And he is obsessed with fostering what he calls interfaith dialogue, which basically means pushing Christianity out of the public square and amplifying other faiths, particularly Islam.
	When he obviously was coronated, he is meant to take a vow to be the defender of the faith, the established church of England.
	And instead, he said he wanted to be defender of the faiths, cementing this post-war modern mythology, the diversity-built Britain.
	We've always been a pluralistic nation.
	That's not the case.
	And so I wouldn't rely on the king, unfortunately, to defend our ancient rights and liberties any more than I would Parliament.
	You mentioned these permanent secretaries.
	And the reason I was asking these questions is Americans make a lot of assumptions about how your country operates.
	And to be honest, a lot of people don't even know the distinction between Great Britain, the UK, and England.
	Americans are not very familiar.
	But when you mention these permanent secretaries, much like our deep state, it sounds like at some point in the past couple of decades, there's been an effort to consolidate power under a bureaucratic establishment that is unelected and will operate with impunity.
	And then our electoral system becomes much more of a facade.
	Quite.
	So we can name the bits of legislation that did this.
	It was the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act of 2010, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, the Human Rights Act of 1998, which meant that written into UK law is now the European Court on Human Rights.
	So even though we've had Brexit, which means that we're not meant to be beholden to the European Union anymore, even though Kier Starmer, who campaigned to undo Brexit, has now just restarted payments to the EU and following their laws again.
	The European Court on Human Rights was separate to that.
	I think it was ratified in 1952, originally to ensure that things like the Holocaust never happened again.
	And is now, rather than preventing Dutch Jews from fleeing the Holocaust from being turned away from asylum, is now ensuring that Albanian criminals are kept in the country because, and this is a real case, his son doesn't like the taste of foreign chicken nuggets, therefore he can't live anywhere but Britain.
	UK law.
	Yeah, I know.
	There's a list of these, man.
	One of the worst examples is a Pakistani paedophile who said he couldn't be deported from the country because he wouldn't be able to see his kids.
	It's just depressing.
	But then there's this NGO-industrial complex, which you absolutely have in America.
	I mean, there's a real patronage scheme that the USAID and the State Department have been running for years to ensure that leftist activists are always comfortably funded and can manufacture consent for leftist causes by being the foot soldiers in the streets that the permanent bureaucracy and the permanent politicians with no termlines can point to and say, see, we're enacting the will of the people.
	Here's gay race communism.
	And in the UK, we've got things like the Charities Act passed in 2011 under a Conservative government, the Equalities Act, which insists DEI is written into the law of every public sector body.
	So you have to hire along racial, gendered, and religious lines, but obviously not straight white men.
	And we've got this sort of monolithic body of civil servants that are trained by something called the Tony Blair Institute.
	And Keir Stahmer's government have had a vast amount of employees and even cabinet ministers be former members of the Tony Blair Institute.
	So we've got this giant patronage network to unpick.
	A lot of this was started by Tony Blair.
	A lot of it's traced all the way back to the post-war governments as well.
	We've got a hell of a hill to climb.
	It's just difficult finding many politicians that are willing to do this.
	I can genuinely count them on one hand out of 650 sat in parliament right now.
	We've had a ton of stories going back, I don't know how many years, especially with Brexit, where there have been these movements.
	I remember you, Kip, and obviously Dank and Carl's efforts.
	You mentioned that you've got this right-wing electorate that needs to be activated, but again, I'm not super familiar with how your system of governance works, but it does seem like it ain't happening.
	I mean, how do you actually make it this is the time they're going to activate after all of these failings?
	Well, it has to be the time because at the moment, Muhammad is the number one baby name in the UK.
	In all of the UK?
	In England specifically, and it's been in the top 10 in the other regions for a number of years now.
	But yeah, it's number one now.
	And I know they're not very creative with their spelling over there, so there's a reason.
	But still, it speaks to a demographic volume that we can't ignore, and we don't have longer than five years to fix.
	So hey, look, real-time fact check, because I hear this a lot.
	There was a viral video out of, I think it was like Dairy, Ireland, where someone asked, what do you think is the most popular name?
	And they're like, Michael or Gregory.
	And he's like, it's Muhammad.
	And they're like, what?
	And they're all mad.
	I just did a quick fact check.
	Among girls, the top name is either Olivia or Amelia.
	Among boys, it's Muhammad.
	Really?
	It really is.
	It is in 2023 surpassed Noah and Oliver.
	Wow.
	So That is a culture shift, man.
	It's really dire.
	And looking at, I think it was the ONS data that came out in the last couple of weeks now, the share of babies born to at least the mother being of immigrant heritage is between a third and 40%.
	So, you know, we're not quite Canada levels, but we're getting there.
	As far as the reason why right-wing parties haven't grown up, luxury beliefs and instinctive liberalism strangle the established right-wing, like Japanese knotweed.
	Like getting these people to even identify the English as a distinct ethnic and cultural group to whom the state should owe allegiance above all others is impossible.
	But there is a growing influential online right wing that have a lot of credible faces.
	And some politicians in the Conservative Party, which should be getting desperate enough now to realize that their strategy hasn't worked for many years and they are just cratering into obsolescence, have started to pay attention.
	Robert Generich, Nick Timothy, Katie Lamb.
	But again, there are only three or four and they're not anywhere near power because the current head of the Conservative Party, nice woman that I'm sure she is, is very unpopular and is a first-generation immigrant who in her first speech in Parliament campaigned to lift visa caps on students and workers.
	So she is partially responsible for this situation.
	As far as the leading party in the polls go, Reform UK at the moment.
	So yesterday, Nigel Farage, who in recent months, ever since the election, has said mass deportations are a political impossibility and it's not his ambition, has said that if we politically alienate Islam by 2050, we will lose, and has said he is to the left of the country and Robert Jenrick of the Conservatives on migration.
	Yesterday, I think he's understood possibly that this is a really bad strategy and came out and said, we are now committing to deporting every illegal immigrant in Britain.
	We are now a net negative migration party.
	And also, we are going to ban foreign nationals from receiving benefits.
	Now, that's the thinnest possible end of the wedge.
	It's encouraging messaging, but they've still got no policies to this.
	But promises are not worth much in politics.
	I'm happy to hear their Gamascine conversion, but I need to know how they're going to do it before I invest in them.
	The last person to mention is Rupert Lowe, who is the former MP of Reform, one of their first five, who was kicked out by Reform's Muslim chairman, who he falsely accused Rupert Lowe of making death threats against him.
	And the police raided Lowe's house, took all his guns.
	This guy's a 67-year-old granddad with a spotless record.
	It's utterly inexcusable.
	And now he is an independent MP.
	He's not got a party, but he's launched a movement called Restore Britain, which is a sort of a PAC or a pressure group.
	It's probably The closest analogy for America.
	And they're already promising to bring back the death penalty, to repeal all the speech laws, to conduct mass deportations, and to be net negative on migration.
	And even if he's not in a party, if he can force the other parties to catch up to him, Britain will be in a much healthier place come 2029.
	It's wishful thinking, man.
	I mean, I certainly hope so.
	But we've seen these videos, right?
	There was a lady who closed her eyes outside of an abortion clinic and she got arrested.
	The speech laws in the UK seem it's been going on for how long now?
	I mean, at least a decade or longer, right?
	It's been going on quite a bit longer than that.
	You're referring to Isabel Vaughan Spruce, who, alongside Adam Smith, Connor, are clients of ADF, a law firm that I've spoken with and gone to their conferences.
	They're doing great work.
	I'm glad, so grateful that Vice President Vance is drawing attention to this.
	And your State Department, I mean, I've shown them some of the heinous things that have gone on in the UK, and they've been very quick to condemn it.
	So who would have knew that the American State Department would be doing more to defend British English liberties than our own governments?
	But funny times we live in.
	As far as it goes with those speech laws, I mean, they go all the way back to the late 60s, early 70s with the Race Relations Act.
	They go back to the 80s under Margaret Thatcher with the Public Order Act and the Malicious Communications Act.
	They go back to Tony Blair with the Communications Act of 2003.
	They were passed under the recent Conservative government.
	They're the ones that put in those buffer zones, which make it illegal to stand outside an abortion clinic praying silently in your head because it is determined as intimidation, which as someone actually joked the other day to me, it turns out the British police actually believe in the power of prayer more than Christians.
	The prayer themselves can stop the abortions, right?
	We just need to get rid of all of it.
	We should not be prosecuting people for something that would not fall afoul of the American First Amendment.
	The last example I'll give, if I may, Tim, is Lucy Connolly.
	This is a mother, a childminder, who lost her child due to medical malpractice and then has now got a baby girl.
	Her husband is a Conservative counselor and he's rather unwell.
	Last summer, when Axel Ruda Cabana, the second generation Rwandan migrant, murdered three girls and stabbed 10 others at a Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, and the country, mainly in labor areas, spontaneously erupted into protests, Lucy Connolly tweeted something to the effect of mass deportations now.
	If the hotels burn down, for all I care, I don't care.
	And then she deleted the tweet.
	Now, one might say it's unwise to tweet that if the government are looking for an excuse to lock you up, but it certainly wouldn't fall afoul of the Brandenburg test in the US.
	Lucy Connolly is now sat in prison for 32 months while sex offenders get a shorter sentence.
	And she is only one of 12,000 people every year who are arrested in the UK for social media posts.
	Jeez, man.
	Last question, quick one.
	Do you think with the gutting of USAID in the States, this will have an impact on your government through this NGO complex?
	I would hope it would dry up some of the slush fund for the leftist industrial complex, but it's our own government funding it.
	Like the Home Office of funding a communist group called Hope Not Hate who doxed Lomaz, helped dox Lomaz, doxed my friend Charles Cornish Dale.
	They've gone after me, calling me an anti-Semite, and they've gone after Carl repeatedly and all of our friends.
	They are a communist group who, now the Attorney General who sits in government, the lead lawyer in the land, used to work for, and they've broken the law, seeming to break the law multiple times and they've never been prosecuted.
	And it's written into the law that basically they get funding until we repeal that law and until we ban them as a group.
	So I think USAID might have dried up some of the funds, but the funds are still coming from my own pocketbook.
	And until 2029, we can't stop that.
	Connor, thanks so much for being able to call in.
	We figured it out.
	Where can people find you?
	Thank you very much for inviting me back on Tim.
	Always love doing your show.
	They can find me on Connor Tomlinson on YouTube.
	I have a weekly podcast called Thomson Talks, and they can find my writing on Courage Media.
	And I tweet about the fall of my country in real time at Con underscore Tomlinson.
	Right on, man.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	We'll see you next time.
	Thank you.
	That's right on.
	Hey, we figured it out, guys.
	See?
	You know, we're not like those big fancy TV studios where they have backups upon backups.
	And they just, you know, if the call didn't work on the other person's end, they got, I guess, we lost them.
	And then what they would do is they'd have a backup story.
	I don't have a backup story.
	We plan for the interviews.
	Or, you know what?
	Like, either I'm going to do an hour-long monologue, like just talking, or we plan for the guests.
	So when we can't get Connor, what do we do?
	We call him on the phone and hold the fuck up to the microphone because whatever works.
	I mean, to be honest, as long as you guys can hear the perspective of somebody who's deeply involved in the politics and understands what's going on and what this means, I think it's beneficial.
	But we're going to wrap it up there, my friends.
	So smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone you know, literally everyone you know.
	Your grandma, your grandpa, nieces, nephews, so long as they're old enough.
	We're getting ready to raid our friend.
	I believe Russell Brand is getting ready to go.
	He is upcoming and should be live at any moment.
	So we'll get that raid for you guys.
	Hey, make sure you check out the DC Comedy Loft event in the description below.
	We want to see you there in DC.
	Tickets are going fast since we announced Kevin McInnis and Matan Evan.
	We've been selling a lot more.
	Obviously, people were like, how am I going to buy a ticket if I know he's going to be there?
	But hey, I'll be there.
	Alex Stein will be there.
	And we're actually hoping a bunch of liberals show up because we want this to be, you guys can come up on stage and debate.
	So we're actually going to be, we've got a trailer, we've got little commercials we're going to be doing, and we're going to do some billboard ads, hopefully to attract a general audience.
	The idea is to have this debate, be a little contentious, but to be laughable, enjoyable, and fun.
	I want the liberals who show up to be laughing and having a good time despite the disagreements and the arguments, the same as the conservatives, and then try and, you know, just bring people together, help them understand each other.
	Let's get you guys ready to head over to Russell Brand.
	Again, follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
	I appreciate you guys.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	We'll see you all in the next segment.
	Tonight, 8 p.m., Timcast IRL.

▲