All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2026 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:00:51
Trump Says F*** YOU To Heckler, Heckler Suspended From Job

Text TIM to 36912 to get 60% off the BAERSkin Hoodie today! Or click: https://baer.skin/timShow more Host: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (everywhere) Guest: Amber Duke @ambermarieduke (X) Show less

Participants
Main
a
amber athey
16:28
t
tate brown
43:02
Appearances
t
tim pool
01:09
|

Speaker Time Text
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
What is going on, Patriots?
How is it?
Oh, my mic's over here.
I'm just, I'm not locked in.
I don't know what's going on.
We got here.
We got into the studio a little late, so I was having to set the show up quite quickly.
I do it all beforehand on my laptop, and then I pull it up on the studio computer.
But there was obviously some breaking news involving Renee Goode.
So Tim was in here looking for a buzzer beater to get that story out.
So yeah, we're up against the clock.
I didn't even have the mic ready, but I think we're sorted here.
I think we're ready to rock.
I am your host, Tate Brown, here holding it down for the Rumble Noon Live.
This is going to be a great show today.
We have a lot of news going on.
Obviously, we have the Trump boom, flip the bird, F you, total Patriot crash out, possibly.
I think that's more of a Patriot go-off moment.
I do think there's an important distinction there.
We're going to get into that, what that means, you know, what the implications are.
The worker that was heckling got suspended.
So I don't know if that was worth it for him to do.
We also have a lot of good news on the immigration front.
Headlines are coming in that the U.S. has now officially recorded net negative migration in the entirety of 2025.
So obviously, we saw some headlines earlier from outlets like the New York Times and whatnot, where they were saying, you know, we're at net negative migration at the moment.
Well, this is saying that throughout the entirety of 2025, we are at net negative migration.
In addition to that, Trump announced this morning, rather, Fox News reported due to a memo passed around by the State Department that the U.S. has frozen all visa processing for a list of about 75 countries.
So again, Trump had kind of floated a third world migration ban, and it looks like that's come to fruition.
And this is just fantastic news again on the immigration front.
So we have that.
We also have some interesting discourse on Twitter going on regarding the ladies, you know, the ladies.
There's some serious stuff going on.
Obviously, someone dropped in with a take, freezing cold take, I would say, in which they said that heterosexuality is just inherently flawed because it's an unbalanced power dynamic.
We're going to take a look at that.
What does that say?
Why?
What's going on at Floyd's?
Is everything okay?
Floyd's out there.
Is everything all right?
Things don't seem okay.
And to close the show, we do have the great Amber Duke joining us.
Everyone loves Amber.
She's fantastic.
I love talking to her.
She's just unbelievably wise.
So we're going to bring her on.
She obviously put out a piece.
If you saw, if you're following, if you're an Amber Duke head, you saw her piece she put out regarding legal observers, specifically relating to the Renee Good story, seeing as she was a legal observer.
What does that mean?
How do these leftist agitators, riders, how do they utilize this legal observer sort of gig to, again, enact sort of their thinking.
So we're going to get into all of that.
And I think we'll just jump right in.
We'll handle the ads later.
We'll handle the business to show business.
I don't know what's going on.
It's something like, I'm like just like flushed out.
I'm not this pale in real life.
I'm pretty pale.
I'm pretty ginger.
I'm of Scottish stock, but I don't think I'm this pale.
I don't know.
We'll sort it out.
But with that, let's get into the first story here.
Obviously, you guys saw the video by now.
We covered it yesterday on Timcast IRL.
I'm trying to think, do I have any other, I feel like I'm missing something.
I don't know.
I just rushed in here.
So we're getting after it.
But the first story, we have, obviously, you guys saw the news via TMZ, this video of Trump just getting after it at the Ford facility in Michigan.
a look at this video then he hits him with the wave emote um I think all of this can be understood if you just remember the fact that Trump is from Queens, New York.
This is just kind of how people there are.
They're like, well, this isn't very presidential.
I'm like, well, you elected a president from Queens, New York.
What did you expect?
This is how they operate.
This is actually how they express love.
Believe it or not, in Queens, New York, this is actually a mating ritual: you curse at each other.
You flash these obscene gestures, something like that, and then you fall in love.
It's a really beautiful thing.
So, this is actually Trump, from my calculation, making a romantic gesture to the people, to America at large.
He's saying, I love you so much that I am expressing this sort of queen's way of romance.
It's really a beautiful thing.
In all seriousness, this Ford worker was yelling pedophile protector out of Adam, completely out of line, just mouthing off.
He, for his trouble, got suspended.
So, the Wall Street Journal reported like an hour or two ago that this factory worker, whoever he was, has been suspended now.
And obviously, the left's going to turn this guy into a martyr.
But I think it's been precedent for a while now that if any president, no matter which party they're from, is visiting your workplace and then you just start screaming at them, you're probably going to get in trouble.
That's not like a rare, you know, quirk of the Trump era.
Like, that's always been the case.
You can't just like scream obscenely, you can't accuse the president of harboring pedophiles, you know, when he's just doing like a site visit.
That's always been standard practice for presidents.
So, again, this is kind of a go-off moment.
We were talking last night on the show about like kind of what does this say about Trump.
You know, we had Caitlin Bennett on the show, and she was talking about how this could be an indication that maybe the stress is getting to him.
I mean, he's under a tremendous amount of stress.
He is the president, but this kind of I'm not, I'm not necessarily dispelling that.
I mean, that certainly is the case that he is just kind of fed up with this whole debacle.
But I think it's more the case that he actually kind of has always operated like this.
And I don't know, maybe he's getting back to his roots.
You know, this is kind of like the stuff that we expect to see from Trump.
We, we kind of like every time you hear a libtard mouthing off, that's what you kind of want to do.
A lot of us can't do that because it's like in the workplace or it's a family member or something like that.
But that's a very like I made the point on the show last night that President Trump is really kind of like an avatar for the American people.
He's really kind of sort of this, for better or for worse, this ultimate culmination of sort of that core American population.
You know, he's loud, he's boisterous, he's over the top, he's a little rough around the edges, he wears his heart on his sleeve.
Those are all traits that you would really prescribe to the American people writ large.
And Trump just embodies that perfectly.
So, when you see something like this, it's again, I'm not, I'm not trying to glaze just for the sake of glazing, but like, you know, it's a departure from these uptight, you know, presidents who are expected to just like laugh that off or take it on the chin or whatever.
It's like, no, you can actually, you know, if someone's chirping, you can chirp back a little bit.
So, the pearl clutching over this is ridiculous.
Most patriots, most Trump supporters loved it, but there's this contingent.
There's this contingent of the right that sort of likes to, for lack of a better word, moral fag over these types of things.
That's the best way to pearl clutch over these types of things.
That's like your David French crew.
And I'm saying this as, you know, I grew up Southern Baptist, like I'm a Presbyterian.
Like, I'm very, very well versed in the sort of evangelical Christianity today, Zeitgeist.
And this kind of group has always never quite understood why people resonate with Trump because they're like, well, he's, he's just doesn't have these like Christ-like values.
And it's like, dude, we're electing a president, not a, like, we're not doing a deacon.
We're not electing a deacon here.
Like, like, this is kind of how it is.
And I think if you're a Christian, as am I, speaking as a Christian, I think what these previous presidents have done to our country is a violation of sort of our Christian ethic at a much higher degree than like what President Trump's actions, like his, again, what he says, what he, what he, like, kind of gestures he makes, like, like, just completely misplaced priorities.
If you're a Christian, you just kind of, you just, you know, get down to brass tacks.
I mean, he sort of made the conditions that got Roe v. Wade overturned.
I mean, that's like the biggest victory for Christians in the last 60 to 70 years.
I don't know how you get around that.
And so the lack of gratitude is just remarkable.
But yeah, you saw these people like pearl clutching over this.
Seriously, are we still doing this in 20, it's 2026, the big 2026?
Are we still getting hung up on Trump's personal ethic, his personal way, his code of conduct?
Seriously, is that what we're doing?
So completely ridiculous.
This worker, rightfully so, has been suspended.
So that's the update on the situation.
Again, this is just a powerful image right here.
Look at this.
Boom.
I mean, does that just say it all?
That's kind of like, you know, this poster here, that's the way it is.
So true.
That is the way it is.
It just feels good.
It feels right.
So with that, we're going to get into the next story.
We're going to keep moving along here.
We're going to keep chugging.
This is from remarks.
They're kind of just a news aggregator.
I just picked them out at random.
Everyone had headlines like this.
Just in the U.S. records negative net migration in 2025 for first time in 50 years.
As I said at the top of the show, we obviously had some headlines in 2025.
The New York Times specifically put a piece out saying, you know, we're at net negative migration.
But that was a snapshot of the current, you know, in and out, the current people in versus people out.
But the jury was still out.
We still didn't know yet if 2025 on the whole would be a year where we would record net negative migration.
The data is in now.
We're at net negative migration.
This is really remarkable stuff.
A lot of people, it really is something.
A lot of people in the space have been advocating for this policy for a very long time and fell on deaf ears.
You know, people would have all sorts of counter arguments about why we need immigration levels high or why we need sort of immigration at all.
And those people had won out in the conservative political zeitgeist.
But we see now, we see this kind of this rethinking, this remodeling of our immigration system because people are saying, you know, with Trump, with sort of the MAGA movement, you know, if every aspect of the American government is fundamentally broken, if every policy that's been implemented over the last 50 years has functionally defrauded Americans, immigration is right up there.
You got to look, you got to take a look at immigration and ask, okay, what's in it for Americans?
What's in it for us?
I mean, it feels good.
Sure, I guess.
Like if we're running a charity, yeah, it does feel good to see people with nothing come here and are able to put food on the table, I guess.
But we're not a charity.
We're a country.
And this is coming at the expense of the American people who are bankrolling this entire immigration experiment.
You guys have heard me on the show talk at length about sort of the issues with our framing of immigration.
Again, that we kind of view it as a charity and that people are just willingly giving their country away.
They're just willing.
And this is all across the West.
This is in America.
This is in Britain, Australia, France, Germany, you name it.
People are almost excited to be minorities in their own country.
People are almost excited that America, that's always been sort of a country with this European heritage, is no longer going to be that.
You see these articles where they talk about like, look, oh, well, by 2050, the country will be minority white.
Isn't that a great thing?
I mean, you had, was it Joel Berry where he was like, my vision for America is that everyone just blends together until we're just a shade of beige.
That's textbook globalism, by the way.
That's like everyone's, you know, talking about globalism is globalist threat to America, which is very real.
That's textbook globalism, that we're able to just eliminate all conception of national identity and that everyone just becomes sort of beige.
Like there's no distinction between people.
Like, is that not the dream of globalists?
Because if you strip away a sense of heritage and a sense of national identity, then people will find their value in like something that they can acquire.
So people will find their value in consumer goods.
That's fundamentally what it comes down to.
So it's just really a pernicious, pernicious argument that people have made over the years.
It's suicidal to, again, it's just a poor reflection of yourself is that if you hate yourself so much that you just want to see your entire people go down with you, it's really a nasty, nasty way of viewing yourself.
And most people around the world do not view their people with such disdain.
I mean, for the same reason, like it would be tragic if America ceased to be American or Britain ceased to be British, for the same reason it would be tragic if Pakistan ceased to be Pakistani or if, you know, Cameroon ceased to be Cameroonian.
Like there is something beautiful about diversity at the global level.
These people claim to love diversity, but then on the flip side, they just want to see like a global homogenization of people.
That's how you get rid of diversity.
That's how you get rid of sort of this international mosaic of peoples.
And people will acknowledge this when it comes to biodiversity.
Like, you know, if there's some sort of tiger that's going extinct, right?
People instinctually see that and they understand that that is a tragic thing.
Like when an animal, you know, a specific species just ceases to exist.
It's like they never existed in the first place when they ceased to exist.
They just become a name in the history books.
That's a very tragic thing.
And everyone, right, left, up, down, agrees that that's a sad thing.
There's a video playing, but I don't know what tab it's from.
unidentified
No!
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
No!
unidentified
Shit!
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Ice shooting playing in the back.
It was that tab.
unidentified
Okay.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
That was a message of just someone being killed.
Anyway, where was I?
I was talking about tigers, I think.
Yes, so people are in agreement that this is a bad thing.
This is a negative thing.
But then when it comes to human beings, suddenly heritage doesn't matter.
Suddenly, you know, that's just a coincidence that you're the way you are, that it's a coincidence that, you know, your ancestors conducted themselves in a certain manner.
And this is not to make an argument that anyone's inferior or superior.
Again, I said that it would be tragic if Cameroon ceased to be Cameroonian or if Bangladesh ceased to be Bengal.
That would be a tragic thing.
And we understand this at the subliminal level, even in the West.
Like if you look at Britain, you see these incentives from the government to sort of preserve Welsh culture or preserve Scottish Gaelic, like, you know, the, you know, to sort of incentivize people to speak those languages.
Because they understand like with language, there is an intrinsic connection to heritage.
And it would be a tragic thing if Welsh just cease to exist.
So sometimes they accept the presupposition that, yes, it's sad when heritage is erased.
But for some reason, when it comes to like national, the national level with groups that are successful, like Americans, like Brits, suddenly it's like totally okay to just swap us all out.
Like there's nothing distinct about Americans that made America the way it is.
If you just swapped us out for Haitians, you would still get the same country.
It's just not the reality.
I mean, this is what Charlie Kirk, this is one of the last things he really hammered on before he passed was what is an American?
You know, if it's, if we accept the presupposition of like the blank slate, the presupposition of these globalists who insist that, you know, there's nothing distinct about Americans, like it's just an accident that we, you know, ended up the way that we are and that it's just like down to ideology or it's down to like something magical about the soil or the constitution.
If that's the case, then why is Liberia such a dump?
Because Liberia has the same constitution we do.
They had the same founding ethos we did in a lot of ways.
A lot of that initial culture.
And it's a dump.
So it's like, you know, it's just so easy to pick this apart.
And so, yeah, it's good to see the Trump administration making progress on the immigration front.
This was reported in Fox News, the pages of Fox News this morning.
The headline is U.S. freezes all visa processing for 75 countries, including Somalia, Russia, Iran.
Here's the full list, as we know, or as we can tell so far, of the countries that will be on this list of foreign visa processing.
They're hitting a few.
So this is the strange thing.
I was combing through this list.
Most of this checks out.
Most of this is like, yeah, you know, we're full.
And if we're going to accept migrants, we need to accept them from countries that are culturally similar to us.
And also countries that have demonstrated competency, countries that have demonstrated that their people are capable people.
These are all countries that are just disaster zones by and large.
One thing that kind of jumped out to me is like, you know, Uruguay is on this list.
Again, I'm not going to throw my hands up, you know, about it.
Like I, again, I'm an immigration moratorium guy myself.
But like Uruguay being on the list and then India not being on the list is a little strange, is it not?
Because Pakistan and Bangladesh are on the list, but then India is not on the list.
China is not on the list.
So again, like with the framing of this headline here, we see Somalia, sure.
Everyone, I mean, even most liberals at this point are coming around on the Somalia question.
But Russia, Iran, you know, they're picked out specifically here because they're global adversaries.
Sure.
Totally makes sense to me.
Why is China not on the list?
Why is India not on the list?
If there's one group that Americans are probably the most frustrated with, the immigrant group that people in America are the most frustrated with, it would be people from India.
It would be Indians.
So this is good.
This is great, actually.
This is fantastic, I would say, that we're banning, effectively banning migration from 75 countries.
That's great.
But like, you know, it's just, that's the question I have.
You know, this is not me panicking.
This is not me.
This is great.
This is fantastic.
I was relieved to see this.
It's just interesting.
It was just interesting.
I'd be curious to see why India is absolved from it.
I mean, look at this.
Look at the comments here are in agreement.
It's a little strange that for some reason India is off the hook here.
That would be like the first country I would put on there for a variety of reasons.
So with that, we're going to get into our next story.
This was a tweet that was put up by a Liptard, Liptard poster.
I don't know what the original post they were responding to was, but it was something to do with relationship dynamics.
And this poster said, my most woke opinion ever is that heterosexuality is a heavily unbalanced power dynamic that intrinsically hurts women.
I don't think I need to unpack why that's like crazy.
One point I will make on this before I kind of read through the commentary that people have applied to this is that every aspect of women's liberation since like the 1960s specifically has just resulted in more misery for women.
Because it's like all that's really happening is you're not really liberating women.
You're just assigning them responsibilities that men have had forever, like since the dawn of time.
So when you expect women to operate like men, they are going to be miserable.
Because, you know, as conservatives, we believe in hierarchy.
We believe in order.
We believe that there is sort of a cosmic order to the universe, sort of, you know, the way that God sort of laid out everything.
That's neither here nor there.
The point is that to sort of pursue the best possible life, to pursue the most fulfilling life, you ought to act in accordance with sort of your biology, sort of in accordance with, you know, your God-ordained, you know, way of being.
I mean, there's a reason that you're born a woman.
And so what you've seen with like women's liberation at large, feminism, is that they just really expect women to behave like men.
And as a result, they're very miserable.
Where women, you know, this is not like an epic red pill, you know, tactic or moment or whatever.
It's just true, is that women typically would like to be, you know, acting in sort of submission to a male.
Like they like to be led.
And then men like to lead.
It's not really a controversial take anymore.
This has been covered ad nauseum and it's been borne out in the data.
My proof for this is if you have a lovely lady at home or a lovely woman in your life, ask her where she wants to go to dinner and she will get angry.
Because when a woman is, you know, the way a woman perceives her man caring for her is that he's making decisions, making plans, you know, because that demonstrates leadership.
And you only lead someone that you care about.
If you don't care about them, you're not going to bother leading them.
So that's what's happening when that, like with that whole classic trope about how, you know, you ask your, your, your, you know, your wife or your girlfriend where she wants to eat.
And then she, every time you propose something, you know, they, they, they, they don't know, they're paralyzed by the decision.
It's because that, they want to see that you care.
They want to see that you care about them and that, you know, you have their best interests in mind.
Therefore, you would lead.
That would be the natural conclusion of things.
So the power dynamic that she's referring to here is that men fundamentally are in a leadership position.
And again, if you're a leftist, if you're a liberal and you have that disposition, that view of the world, you would view hierarchy as oppressive.
You would view structure and order as oppressive.
And so the idea that, you know, the reason that a heterosexual relationship works is because, again, the male is leading, that fundamentally violates their view of, you know, the world, that everything should be flattened.
Everyone's an autonomous individual.
So this is some commentary that's on here.
And these are all true as well, in addition to my sort of point I've made.
This is from Zinnia, the village retard.
That's an interesting handle here.
She says, quote, male sexuality is evil is one of the central defining lib beliefs, which is absolutely true.
You see this strange thing occurring in the zeitgeist in which the most negative carnal aspects of male sexuality are celebrated and encouraged, like porn usage, promiscuity, open relationships.
These sorts of things are promoted.
And then the more healthy aspects of male sexuality, which is like basic attraction, wanting to lead, wanting to care for, it's shamed.
Josh Raynor, a buddy of mine, great total patriot, says it's illegal to be a straight man.
He's getting a lot of use out of that.
It's true.
It's very true.
And he put this commentary up, which is very salient.
This is a very salient point.
He said, Jordan Peterson's greatest contribution was his statement that leftism is, quote, revenge against God for the crime of being.
I mean, that's a really, really profound statement.
Because, yes, that goes back to what I'm saying, is which these people are born into the world and they're born with expectations based off of the identity that God assigns to.
And they hate that.
They hate the fact that there's expectations hoisted upon them.
They hate the fact that the world is looking at them like, hey, this is what you need to do.
And they hate the fact that every time they do operate in accordance with sort of the way you are, things, you're happier and things get better.
And they hate that because they want to rebel against God for the crime of being.
So they want to be able to operate as a purely autonomous individual with zero biases, zero impulse, zero responsibility.
And it's just really a very pernicious, pernicious thing.
But this tweet really gets at the crux of like what's going on with society because we're seeing with Zoomers specifically, in addition to millennials, but Zoomers specifically, is the relationship formation rate, the marriage formation rate, the birth rate.
They've all gone off a cliff.
For a variety of reasons, men and women can't seem to form relationships or marriages.
And part of it is because you've seen a massive stratification between the two sexes.
I mean, you see like this on steroids in South Korea, where men and women quite literally vote for different parties.
That's part of it.
But to a degree, men and women have always been stratified.
Men and women have always had different interests.
Men and women have always been different.
What's going on a little more is that it goes back to my initial point, in which women are expected to operate like men.
They're expected to be girl bosses, you know, get a job and operate at the same level as men.
They're expected to lead a household.
They're not expected to sort of carry children and nurture for them.
That's why abortion exists.
So it gives you an opt-out clause.
If you don't want to be a mother, you can just kill the baby.
Everything in society has actually been structured to counteract because, again, this sort of thinking, this initial post here, is the ethos that's driven the restructuring of our society over the last 50 years.
They've driven the fact that it's driven the policies that have led to women effectively being able to shutter femininity, that they've been able to operate like men and kill their children with impunity.
So it's very disastrous.
But with Zoomers, you're really seeing it kick off on steroids.
I mean, this was a piece in EV magazine.
Gina Florio wrote it.
And it just lays out quickly.
There was a thread a few years ago that was put up by a poster.
And I believe that's what she's summarizing.
What happened with dating apps, like when dating apps were entered the fray, it just institutionalized all of these changing gender dynamics where again, women were able to be breadwinners for themselves, these sorts of things.
And now it gave them the option to now be picky with the men.
Because before that, like people would end up getting married to people out of convenience, you know, people that were sort of around them, people that were in their circles, these sorts of things.
And then like that sort of fostered romantic love, these sorts of things.
But now that everyone's stratified and like we don't interact with each other, the only place that men, young men and women ever interact with each other is like college, church to a degree, but a lot of people don't go to church anymore.
And then also, even within churches, I'm someone that attends church, you know, regularly.
It's not really like, you know, it's not teeming with singles.
It's just not the reality on the ground.
It's kind of a bit of a LARP when some people say, well, just go to church and it'll figure it out.
It's like, well, it's more complicated than that.
But the dating apps have institutionalized all of these, you know, pernicious developments in our society because, again, it just puts the ball in women's court where now they can be very picky and they can demand much more out of men.
They can set their standards far higher.
Unfortunately, their standards are so high that most men are just not going to achieve that, especially when you're young.
I mean, young men especially won't have it all put together.
So the fact that like perfection is effectively the standard is going to result in, you know, relationships not forming, marriage is not forming.
And so this was the data that she put out.
Women are much more selective and find 80% of men unattractive on dating apps per recent research.
I think that was data from OKCupid.
The estimate, this is when this article was written, was that 44 million Americans were using online dating services now, 53 million.
And all it really does is because there's so many more men than women on these apps and men will pretty much like any profile.
It gives women the ability to be flooded with choice.
And I'm running out of time.
So maybe I need to cover this at length.
May I do like a video or something explaining especially why this is so broken.
But as she pointed out here, let's see.
This makes many people feel less sympathetic to the women who complain about the lack of success they've had on dating apps.
At some point, they have to admit that they're not helping their chances by being hyperselective, especially if they're not in the top 1% themselves.
It's just absolutely true.
It's given every woman the perception that she is flooded with choice when there's just really not the reality on the ground.
A lot of men are just liking every profile.
So there's a variety of issues.
But dating apps, I guess, in conclusion, is dating apps have basically just institutionalized all of these really grim changes in society.
So with that, let's see here if the guest is ready.
She is in, good to go.
Okay, cool.
Well, before we get to the guest, we're going to bring in Amber Duke.
We're going to talk about legal observers.
We're going to talk about the Renee Good situation.
I'm going to play a quick word from our sponsor, and then we'll get back to the show.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We got Bearskin.
Check out Bearskin, Bear.skin slash Tim.
That's B-A-E-R.
You guys already know about the Bearskin hoodie, right?
Well, if you've been waiting to get yourself one, now is the time.
It's officially hoodie season, cold mornings, windy days, surprise no one.
Right now, bearskin is running their biggest deal of the year.
We're talking 60% off for this Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
Now, this isn't some old fleece.
This thing is built with 340 GSM bearskin fleece, 10 pockets, a rugged athletic fit that actually looks good.
Plus, if it starts pouring, you can zip on the heavy storm rain jack and instantly level up to full waterproof protection.
You get free U.S. shipping from their U.S. warehouse, and the gear will last you season after season.
So what you got to do, to get 60% off, text Tim to 36912.
Again, that's text Tim to 36912.
They'll send you a link so you can lock it in, click it whenever you can.
But you're not just buying a great hoodie.
You're also supporting the Fallen Outdoors and Hope for the Warriors veterans program.
So you're not just buying great gear.
You're backing a cause that matters.
Grab your bearskin while this Black Friday deal is live by texting Tim to 36912.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
All right, well, we are back.
We are getting back on the road here with this show.
I just kicked my table and almost knocked everything over.
And we are back with the great Amber Duke.
Amber, how are you doing?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Hey, I'm doing great.
Thanks for having me.
unidentified
Of course.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Well, I saw your sub stack, which is excellent sub stack.
Everyone in the audience needs to go be reading.
If they want to really improve their IQ, if they want to IQ Max, they should be reading Amber Duke's sub stack.
Your piece that you put up, I think it was yesterday regarding the legal observers.
I mean, this is something that is driving a lot of, you know, it sort of permits a lot of these leftists to agitate, to cause problems.
And it sort of ticks the protests into something else where it's not just a protest.
adds an extra element to it.
Could you maybe expand on your piece in regards to maybe familiarize the audience with legal observers for those who aren't and how this ties into the situation that we saw in Minneapolis?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yes, absolutely.
So the term legal observers, which the audience has probably seen being thrown around by a bunch of mainstream media outlets and left-wing activists, comes from campus protests in the 1960s.
It was popularized by the National Lawyers Guild, which is a left-wing group.
And they fashioned this term to refer to essentially witnesses who would be on scene at protests to film police and other officials, law enforcement officials, to make sure that they weren't basically brutalizing the protesters.
This term was used again during the BLM riots and the anti-police brutality protests that we saw about five to ten years ago.
And it's now being brought up again in context of the anti-ICE protest.
Now, the problem with the term is that it implies that these are people who have some kind of training or credential and also some kind of special status that prevents them from facing consequences for illegal actions.
These people are really just random protesters who pull out their phone and report.
There's nothing special about them.
And a lot of the groups who are creating these so-called legal observers are actually encouraging them to go beyond the act of filming and insert themselves in the situations like in an ICE immigration enforcement action or other federal law enforcement proceeding.
So for example, the Minnesota Ice Watch group, of which Renee Goode and her wife were allegedly members, says on its Instagram that people need to basically extricate suspects from ICE custody, that they need to use their bodies and their vehicles to obstruct law enforcement officials.
They need to be out there using whistles and bullhorns to try to distract and confuse the officers.
And they are not supposed to abide by legal and lawful commands to keep a clear area around an active police scene, which is precisely why Renee Goode was asked to get out of her vehicle because she was one, obstructing, and two, not keeping a safe distance from an ICE enforcement operation.
So when we see these people being pushed away from the scene as ICE agents are trying to arrest somebody or detain somebody, well, they are allowed to do that.
A lot of states set that distance at 25 feet.
Minnesota does not have a specific distance that people have to stand away, but it is clear in the law that if a uniformed officer, a law enforcement official tells you to stand back or clear the scene, they're well within their rights to do that.
And if you don't comply and are disobeying that lawful order, then you can have physical force used against you to actually remove you from the situation.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, it's really bizarre because I used to do some street journalism with a lot Ilyahu, obviously one of our correspondents here at Timcast.
And we would be on the streets of New York City.
I was running cameras for him.
So, you know, we were just documenting what was going on.
There was obviously a lot of protests a few years ago in New York City.
And I met these like National Lawyers Guild people and they wear these vests and everything.
And when you first see me coming in just completely bright-eyed and bushytailed, I'm like, oh, that's interesting.
These people are here making sure everything's above board, right?
Like foolishly, I was like, maybe these people are nonpartisan.
I don't know.
And then I found out very quickly that if they clock you as like conservative or just anyone that's documenting what these radical leftist protesters are doing, they clock you as an enemy, as sort of an opponent.
And so what would happen was when we were attempting to film like an arrest, or if we were trying to have a conversation with somebody, specifically with conversations, they would come up and they'd be like, these people are bad actors.
Don't talk to them.
Don't give them the time of day.
And so I see that.
And I'm like, I don't see much legal advice being disseminated here.
I just see you guys as like effectively trying to provide a module, a module, or what's the word I'm looking for?
A sense of credibility for these, you know, these protesters.
Where did these people, I mean, you broke it down.
Were these people ever like nonpartisan?
Were these people ever useful in any way?
Or was this quite literally just an apparatus set up by these leftist agitator groups?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, this was a way to protect people who were protesting, but even from the very beginning, it was selective protection and it also was meant to obscure any illegal actions from the protesters.
So that's why they don't want actual independent observers or conservatives filming because they want to be able to slice and dice the footage in the way that is most beneficial to the person that they are hoping to defend from legal action taken against them if they do break the law in terms of obstruction and getting involved in these precarious situations.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, so maybe you could outline, obviously we've seen reporting that Renee Good and her wife are at least in correspondence with these groups, these legal observer groups.
As it stands right now, is it safe to say that they certainly were at least in cahoots to some degree?
Do you know sort of at the Daily Caller what your guys is reporting is saying as far as the connection between the group and obviously Renee Good and her wife?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, all that we have right now is there's a New York Post report where they have several sources indicating that they were connected to that group.
And of course, the feds are trying to investigate Becca Goode, her deceased wife, her connection to those organizations, which the local police, by the way, are very upset about because they don't want the FBI to be looking into potential ties to these domestic unrest groups.
But the Minnesota Ice Watch group has a lot of really fascinating stuff on their Instagram page.
In addition to what I already mentioned, they also have a Instagram post that I found especially interesting in the context of our last conversation, which was about anti-white racism, where they actually tell specifically white members of the group to be the ones who are quote unquote putting their bodies on the line to extricate suspects from police custody.
Now, I'm sure you can guess the explanation for that is that black people will be more likely to be killed by the police if they decide to do that and put themselves in harm's way.
And also, you know, physical and emotional labor and all of that blah, blah, blah, gobbledygook nonsense.
But when we look at it from a more objective perspective, they are actually telling white people to sacrifice themselves on the altar of blackness, right?
That white people need to be the ones risking physical injury or catching federal charges to save black people and, of course, the criminal illegal aliens from facing justice.
And it's absolutely wild.
There was another post I found that I think you'll find fascinating today, which is that in June of 2025, so six months before this incident about the Minnesota Ice Watch group posted a video of a protester confronting a man who she claims hit her with his car.
So, this guy was in scrubs.
It looks like he was either on his way to or home from some healthcare facility, possibly a hospital.
They do not have a video of the actual incident where the guy allegedly strikes the protester, but they do admit that they were standing in an intersection, that he, I guess, was trying to get his car through and may have brushed one of them.
She's chasing him down.
She seems fine.
And when she catches up to the vehicle, she's screaming at him through the window.
They block his car and prevent him from leaving until the police come and escort him away.
But the comments were hysterical because in the comments, they are talking about how this guy attempted to commit assault with a deadly weapon, that he must feel so brave being behind a two-ton car that could kill somebody, and talking about how dangerous what he did was.
Well, what happened when one of their own was the person behind the wheel of that two-ton hunk of steel?
The exact opposite, right?
The police officer is ridiculous for being scared for his life.
He is, he's weak, he's pathetic.
How dare him?
She wasn't even trying to run him over.
So we see that their apparent observation about the potential deadliness of getting hit with a car is completely flipped on its head, depending on who is driving that car and who was the person standing in front of it.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
It's insane.
I want to ask you this.
I think it's a miscalculation from a lot of conservatives where they're just lombasting all of these protesters, agitators, as idiots or morons.
Certainly a good component of them are, and certainly their ideology is idiotic.
But something that jumped out to me was in that video that obviously went viral of Nick Sortor and Cam Higby, where they were reporting on the ground and they're in their car and they got surrounded by a mob.
And Nick had to get out of there.
So he had to make an evasive maneuver.
But on the way out, as he was driving out, there was that guy in the flannel shirt who jumped on top of the car in a very specific way.
This wasn't like necessarily a way where he's jumping up there and he's going to bash on the glass and try to scare the guy.
He kind of jumped on backwards and then he rolled off like a stunt double.
I mean, it felt like the Ryan Gosling movie, where he's the stunt double.
It was very impressive.
It was almost textbook Hollywood roll-off.
And I see that.
And at first, I'm like, that is kind of strange.
I mean, maybe this guy is just bad at intimidation.
But then a lot of people, obviously, that are experts on the way, the tactics that they use.
They're saying, no, he's trying to do that.
So then if the police are called, then he can say, they hit me with my, with his car.
I got thrown on top of the vehicle and it threw me off and these sorts of things.
That's like a very clever tactic.
That indicates to me that these people have a lot of protocol, a lot of strategies.
They unfortunately know what they're doing.
And that's an extremely pernicious thing.
And that's why, again, it's kind of a miscalculation almost to convince conservatives, like, hey, these people are just idiots.
They're just whatever.
Again, the ideology is idiotic, but these people have all these tactics.
They've thought this out.
They've sat down.
They've brainstormed, how can we get these people in trouble?
How can we get these people in handcuffs?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
That's exactly right.
And they are receiving training on how to do precisely that, how to make themselves the victim in any scenario and get away from the consequences that would usually come with that type of obstruction.
So it's throwing yourself on top of the car.
It's, you know, claiming when the police officer is detaining you that you can't breathe or you need medical attention.
It's the people standing around a ICE officer detaining an illegal alien and demanding to see a warrant as if you're like a federal judge or something.
It's all kinds of tactics like that.
There was a video recently that was going viral where people were claiming that a woman was pulled out of her car as she was trying to get to her doctor's appointment.
And I noticed in that video, and I can't speak whether or not this woman had a doctor's appointment, but I did find it a little curious that she stops and blocks traffic in the middle of this law enforcement proceeding.
She refuses orders to drive through.
She sits there and starts arguing with the officers.
And it's only after she gets pulled out of the vehicle that she starts screaming about this alleged doctor's appointment and how she's disabled, right?
And so to me, that's a little too neat and calculated to only bring that up after you're detained by officers.
And it seems quite in line with the typical tactics that are used by these protesters.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
I mean, that's very worried.
I just, I mean, I know these guys, you know, Sword or Higby, these guys are pros.
So they're very keenly aware of this.
But, you know, a lot of people are going to be inspired by a lot of this great work these guys are doing.
And they're going to get out there.
And I think they might underestimate, you know, how capable these people are of trying to get you in trouble, especially in these jurisdictions where, you know, Minneapolis Police Department is not playing ball with conservatives.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Right.
And I think if there's one thing that they are idiots about, to coming back to your previous point, I think a lot of people like Renee Goode and her wife, especially the liberal white women, have been misled about the seriousness of what they're doing.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
That's true.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
And because they're in a place like Minneapolis, where, like you said, the judges will give them a slap on the wrist.
The prosecutors might not even prosecute.
They might get at worst a citation.
I don't think any of them comprehended that if you try to flee the scene when you're being detained and hit an officer with your car, that the punishment could be death.
unidentified
Right.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
I don't think they ever comprehended that an officer might use deadly force against them.
They think that they're kind of playing a fun game, right?
The cleverness with which they're approaching these situations is cute and it's funny.
And we see the smug faces of the liberal white women in their car across all the videos that have been shared on social media recently.
And I don't think any of them thought that it could get to the point where they were either facing serious jail time or potentially a death sentence.
And so when people are talking about, you know, why would you put yourself in that situation, particularly when you have children, I suspect it's because these groups have convinced them that the worst thing that will happen to them is they'll spend a night in jail and their lawyer activist group will help make sure they never have to face any real consequences.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
I mean, like you said, I mean, why wouldn't they believe they could operate with impunity?
Because they had riots five years ago and barely any consequence was really, you know, had for any of these people that were doing these sorts of things.
You know, there's a new sheriff in town.
So again, all we're really doing is just like that's that's like obvious.
You can't hit officers with your car.
But for those people who live in a place like Minneapolis, they're like, hey, in 2020, you're allowed to do that.
You're allowed to do whatever you want.
Why would they expect the rules to change?
Something also really interesting, in addition to sort of them not understanding that you, you know, they're not operating without impunity, is there's something to be said about the fact that people like Renee Goode are willing to effectively put their bodies on the line for fraud, like literal criminals, literal fraudsters.
Because the whole fiasco in Minneapolis started from the Nick Shirley video where he just went around and he was like recording very obvious fraud in daylight.
Obviously Tim Waltz gets scalped in the process.
It's so amazing to me because then Noam responded by sending in DHS agents saying, okay, we need to mop this mess up because Tim Waltz and Jacob Fair are clearly not serious people.
They send in the DHS again to mop up the situation.
And that's how the protests and then eventually riots start is over all of that.
So what does that say about our country that you literally just have fairly ordinary middle-aged men and women like quite literally putting their bodies on the line for people that hate them?
I mean, they hate them enough to defraud them of their taxpayer dollars.
I mean, this is just like the most insane self-hatred I think I've ever seen.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, and they hate them because they are now saying that you cannot use the phrase say her name in response to Renee Good's death because that's reserved for black women.
unidentified
Wow.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
And how dare they use that for a white woman?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
So yeah, like if you're a white woman, you are like the scum on the bottom of their shoe.
They want you to use yourself as like a meat puppet to block ICE and whatever happens to you, they don't care.
So it really is crazy.
I mean, my theory about the liberal white woman thing has always been that they, a lot of them do not have families and the ones that do have, you know, sort of weird family dynamics and structures.
Like in this case, Renee Goode was reportedly divorced twice prior to meeting her wife.
She was married to Ben.
She has three kids, but I guess only has full custody of one of them.
And they tend to use the sort of female empathy that they normally would on their families to protect who the liberals tell them is the external marginalized victims.
So in terms of like the psychology behind it, I think that's a lot of what's happening.
But it really is wild to see the type of people that they are defending.
In addition to the Somali fraudsters, I mean, there were cases where ICE was picking up literal pedophiles, drug traffickers, and they're out there protesting.
I mean, the incident I mentioned earlier where the doctor or nurse had allegedly hit one of these anti-ICE protesters with his car, the reason they were out in the street that day, I found the action that was taking place.
Mayor Jacob Fry even admitted it actually wasn't even an immigration operation that they were protesting.
It was actually a federal and local police operation to take down a $25 million meth operation.
So they were out there really trying, they're serving a warrant on this massive meth den.
And we had anti-ICE people out there basically acting like they were taking away, you know, their nanny.
And so there's just so much ignorance and misinformation that is being fed through these groups from Democratic politicians to the useful, clever, but idiotic people who are out there actually doing the work of trying to obstruct the proceedings.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Right.
Absolutely.
Well, I want to do this.
So obviously our last conversation, we took a position on the story that maybe wasn't as in vogue, you know, because at the time with the compact piece, and it was a good piece, but we described it as a permission piece.
We said there were some issues with the article.
The framing was bad.
I think, again, I'll see if you agree with me.
I'm taking a position on this that maybe isn't in vogue.
It's kind of cuts against what a lot of the popular conservative commentary is, but I believe this to be true is something that's interesting to me.
I have this sort of framework.
Other people coined it, but I use this framework of the idea of safe edgy, where people sort of want to be perceived as edgy, have like a heterodox opinion.
And so they just like go all out on a group because, again, people see it and go, wow, this guy's like really pushing against the mainstream.
But they're actually obfuscating from sort of what would actually be edgy, what would actually be sort of the real underlying issue.
So what I've seen in response to the Renee Goods situation is that people are going on and on about Karens.
And really, when they're talking about Karens, they're just talking about middle-aged white women broadly, liberal or conservative.
And they're positioning Karens as if they were like the number one issue in the United States and that Karens are really holding back society and whatnot.
And from my perspective, I'm like, yes, liberal white women, they have this borderline suicidal tendency to defend these people that absolutely hate them.
But when you look at like white middle-aged women as a voting bloc, they're like 50-50.
Like they're not this brainwashed, you know, HR lady.
And so what I'm seeing on the conservative side is a lot of people just want to attack them because it's safe.
It's like, okay, this is a group that can be perceived as edgy to attack, but it's not actually getting at the bigger issue, which is like a large reason a lot of these cities are really unsafe is black crime.
And we saw this with the Arena Zaruska situation.
But these people, they won't address that because it's just much easier and safer to just attack middle-aged white women.
And like in the audience, people in our lives, like we know these women, there's like half of them are patriots.
I mean, like, what are you going to do?
I don't know if you agree with me on that, but it's just frustrating for me to see like the all-out vitriol against Karens.
And then they obfuscate from these other groups that are causing a lot of problems.
The conversation is like whether there's cultural policy, et cetera, et cetera.
It's just weird that Karens are receiving all the ire in the current zeitgeist.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I think that's a good point.
I mean, they focus on the sort of the cover-up or the permission structure for minority people to behave a certain way without consequence and not the behavior of the minority group.
And like, I'm going to go to bat for Karens a little bit because there's a positive side to being a Karen.
Yes, there's the Karen who is blowing a whistle at an ICE agent, but there's also the Karens who are calling in suspicious things that they see on the street that are helping to keep people safe.
There's the Karens who switched to a different subway car when someone who is clearly acting weird and aggressive is sitting next to them, right?
There's the see something, say something Karen.
There's the Karens who don't stand for litter and loitering and all of these quality of life crimes in their neighborhoods.
So I do think it cuts both ways.
And lumping all of these people into the same group is not particularly helpful from a public policy standpoint.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
unidentified
Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Totally.
I mean, yeah, that's the best way to put it is like, yeah, addressing the permission structure without addressing the underlying issue of why there has to be permission structure in the first place.
Because I think about it, this is like on Timcast.
I have a few takes that the audience hates.
I have my take on pit bulls.
I'm very anti-Pit Bull.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Me too.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Tattoos, marijuana.
I'm a prude.
I'm very willing to admit.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
They're kindred spirits, Tate.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Exactly.
But the Karen, I'm kind of tactically pro-Karen because I think about it, I'm like, you won't know what you had until they're gone.
And it's like, do you know how bad restaurants are going to get when you don't have Karens just crashing out all the time?
Like it's going to get ugly.
And again, I get it.
I worked in retail.
I understand how annoying some of these people can be, but they kind of keep everything moving.
They're the only people left in America that have like standards.
Maybe they're too high.
I don't know.
That's a conversation to be had, but they have standards.
And like, I'm from Memphis, Tennessee.
When I think about what the issues are in Memphis, Tennessee, why 80% of the city is like off limits, I'm not thinking about like Karens.
That's not like what jumps to mind of like, what's like really causing me problems in Memphis.
But conservatives is like all they want to talk about.
Because again, it's like safe edgy.
You're just like, you know, you get a really good line in on Karen's and everyone's like, yeah, screw them, whatever.
And it's like, what are we doing?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
No, I totally agree.
I mean, like, if we could tie this to the pitfall conversation, like, am I a Karen if I'm walking around my neighborhood and I'm upset that someone's not following leashing laws for their giant dog?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Like, maybe, but also.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
It's called the first role, yes.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
And if I go to a restaurant and they have a 20% COVID safety surcharge and I dispute it on my bill, am I being a Karen?
Like, yeah, again, maybe, but also we shouldn't have to pay that, right?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Like, there's a reason why women complaining has probably been a net good for society.
Literally, yeah.
And sometimes it goes too far.
But, you know, being that sort of mouthy person who's willing to kind of point out that something's not right is also really important.
And it's how we keep our society from falling into total decay.
And I'm, look, I'm pro-HOA too.
I'm a member of my HOA board, right?
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
So good.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Because, like, who wants, okay, I live in a townhome, right?
My property value is directly tied to both the two houses that are attached to mine and also the rest of the neighborhood.
If someone decides to have a bunch of junk cars in front of their house with the wheels off and, you know, my neighbor's trying to sell their home, like, who's going to look out for them?
This has to be a group effort.
So I do think the anti-Karen narrative does kind of cut at this idea that like communities don't really matter and we're all just super hyper-individualistic.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
So true.
That is so true.
Like the, it's a leftist, people are using leftist arguments when they're like attacking Karens where they're like, oh, yeah, they uphold basic societal standards.
Like, yeah, that's good, actually.
I'll go full, you know, I'll just go full woke feminist lip tart.
I'll make this point.
If you and me were at lunch and the food came and it was incorrect, if I pointed that out, if I caused a problem, I was like, hey, you know, waiter, like, it's not the right order.
People would be like, wow, this guy's really standing up for himself.
This guy, you know, he has like expectations for what he's paying for.
If you did that, they'd say, Amber's such a Karen.
Like, what?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Let bygones be bygones.
Maybe that's my most liberal take I have, but I do think like women, unfortunately, just are so quick to be lambasted as a Karen for like expecting their food to be correct as they ordered it and these sorts of things.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I agree.
And I see this a lot among younger millennials in Gen Z that they're so scared of being labeled Karens that they don't ask for the basic things that they're paying for.
Like they will not send a meal back.
I mean, I'm on Reddit all the time and I see people who are like, was I too aggressive because my meal came out and it had the mayonnaise on it and I didn't, I asked for no mayonnaise and my friends said that I was crazy for sending it back.
Like, what are we doing?
unidentified
Yeah.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Like, it really gets to the fundamental issue.
This is a completely different topic, but it's just, it's so true.
I mean, we got to hit on this before we go.
Is people are uncomfortable with advocating for themselves anymore.
And this actually does kind of tie into, you know, the self-hatred that's driving a lot of these like liberal white women, but you know, people at large is people just have a really bad perception of themselves.
And when you have that, you're never going to advocate for yourself because you're never going to believe that, you know, you deserve things.
You, you know, you deserve standards.
You deserve to be treated correctly.
And so that's like really the fundamental issue with Zoomers is they're so black pilled, they're so nihilistic, or they're nihilists, is that they just don't even feel the desire or urge to advocate for yourself.
And it's like, you're going to get completely thrown around by life.
You're going to get completely ran over if you don't.
Again, it's not saying you got to like make it everyone's problem because they didn't have a lemon in your water or whatever, but like speak up.
Like you got to advocate for yourself a little bit.
You got to take up the space that you are existing in in the world.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, let's tie this together real quick.
You know, you got the person who asked for no mayonnaise on their sandwich and they don't say anything because the waiter just must have known that I should eat it with mayonnaise.
And it's the same thing with the people who, you know, secretly are uncomfortable with crime and uncomfortable with certain characters on the subway.
But they look at the reaction from the liberal social media zeitgeist and they say, no, no, no, I must be the one who's wrong.
I must be crazy.
I've got to listen to them.
I think it's a lot of the same mindset going on there.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Absolutely.
Well, when the permission piece comes out in Black Crime from the Washington Post, you'll be the first person I call.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
I love it.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Well, Amber, thank you so much for hopping on.
This is a blast as always.
Where can people find you?
And where can people find that fantastic substack article?
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Yes.
So they can find my work at dailycaller.com and my substacks are just under my own name, Amber Marie Duke.
But they also get cross-posted on the Daily Color substack, which you should definitely become a paid subscriber to.
It's called State of the Day.
We've got banger newsletters just like mine coming out every single day.
And they can also follow me on X at Amber Marie Duke.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
Awesome.
Thank you so much, Amber.
I'll catch you next time.
amber athey ▲ ● ▼
Thanks.
Bye.
unidentified
Bye.
tate brown ▲ ● ▼
All right.
Well, that was the great Amber Duke.
Yeah, it's so good.
It's so good that someone else is, because I feel like I'm just a crazy person.
When I'm like seeing something that's so obvious with the Karens, I'm like, agreed.
Like the original description of Karen, that's annoying.
Like someone that's just cranky and whatever, PMS, et cetera, et cetera.
But like it's, it's gone way too far.
We're like, now we're just being racist towards white people.
Like it's literally anti-white sentiment driving this where it's like, if a white woman, you know, expects like crime to be minimal, then she's a Karen.
Like it's crazy what's going on.
So I'm so thankful Amber just walked with me down that route because it's so true.
If anything, I just kind of throw out like kind of garbled like an idea.
And then she knows what I'm talking about.
And then she just frames it perfectly and she intellectualizes perfect.
So yeah, people, people are going to be, you know, people are going to be hating.
People are going to be, you know, doubting the Karen defense, but it's true.
It's just objectively true.
I'm sorry.
I hate that it is the way it is.
But follow, well, I just hit that table hard.
Follow me on X and Instagram at Realtate Brown.
And we'll be back tonight for Timcast Direlle at 8 p.m.
▲
Export Selection