DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - Post Office Politics | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: June 26, 2026

Conflict reporter/writer/cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM EST. Today we discuss: • The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will refuse to mail election ballots in states that refuse to turn over its confidential absentee voter list to the federal government with their confidential absentee voter lists. If the USPS is being politicized—will it refuse to send mail from Democrats? • A cargo vessel in the Strait of Hormuz comes under drone attack by Iran's near the Oman coast. Oman said any system it creates with Iran to manage maritime traffic will not involve fees, but Iran was less definitive, saying it would work with Oman "to define future administration and maritime services in Strait of Hormuz." • The Future of War Is Here: South Korea expands its drone and counter-drone capabilities to counter North Korea, including by training 500,000 “drone warriors” and distributing tens of thousands of unmanned systems across frontline units. “Drones should no longer be equipment ​used by a limited number of units, but a universal combat tool,” Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back says, adding they should be ​used like a “second personal weapon.” MERCH STORE: https://www.deprogram.live https://x.com/tedrall https://x.com/JamarlThomas LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8Zu APPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-ted-rall-and-jamarl-thomas/id1825379504

watching the program with Jamar al-Thomas and Ted Rall. It is Friday, June 26, 2026. Thank you so much for joining us. J.T. are you up and running? You look puzzled, and I know you were on and off in the minute before we came on. Okay, that's no problem. All right. So we'll let J.T. do that, and I'll do some housekeeping. Thanks everyone for joining us. We're here Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. deprogram you from the mainstream bullshit. Appreciate you joining us following, liking, sharing the show. Yesterday, just a little housekeeping,

we didn't get to do the DMZ America podcast with Scott Stantis. Not my fault. It was Scots. He had some, we had to go see the doctor. Anyway, for him and his luxury item, going to get medical care in this country.

Anyway, we are going to do it at 11 a.m. This morning, Eastern Time. That's two hours from now. We're going to be talking about the pervy cartoonist, cartoon museum curator and his upskirt video scandal that's rocking the cartoon world. TMI at 10 a.m., please put in your comments if you're watching live in the 9 a.m. hour Eastern in YouTube or Rumble, pursuant to Robbie's Dictot coming, which he's merely passing down, like Moses coming down from the mountain from the overlords of Rumble, we he is it's not his fault but we need you guys to if you don't normally do it just pop into the chat and ideally say something you know meaningful but if you are like the president of the United

States and you have nothing to say meaningful don't let that stop you just go in and say yo or whatever just to be clear if you chat on YouTube it does nothing it has to be a rumble chat right although we don't mind you we love your comments on YouTube as well but the specific This specific call to action is for Rumble. All right. Thank you very much for that, Robbie. And I'm sure we will be seeing more of you. Looking forward to the weekend.

I don't know about you, J.T. I need the rest. Okay, so main stories today. Iran, things are getting spicy in the Strait of Ormuz again. The Iran fired on a vessel that was trying to skirt its regime for passing through the strait by going through. the Omani. One second, I'll be right back. The sound is off.

Something's going to screw with my sound and I can't really hear you guys. Give me one second. I'll be right back. No problem. So, all right, so I'll go ahead and put, I'll take, I'll take tomorrow out and we'll, you and I can just do this for a second. We'll be talking about the Strait of Ormoos situation. Some vessels have been trying to skirt the Iranian side and go through the Omani side.

The Iranians are making very clear, like, like, no, no, no, there's no workaround. You have to come through the Omani, through the Iranian side. Otherwise, we will drone you and our drones can reach you. And that's what happened yesterday. No one hurt, but the vessel was damaged. The Postal Service, I thought this was an interesting story. I hope you guys agree. The Postal Service is refusing to mail election ballots within states that refuse to turn over their absentee voter lists to the federal government. Let me be really clear here. The federal government doesn't control elections in the United States. Only states and municipalities do. So the federal government is trying to not only intrude into the electoral system that is constitutionally run by the states,

but they're trying to collect confidential voter data from people like you and IJT. And obviously, who knows what they're going to do with it. And this also makes me question if the post- service has become this politicized, it literally could decide, like, hey, we're not going to send mail from Democrats or from Ted Rawl or from Jamarlemus or whatever. I mean, if they're not just sending mail, then they're no longer a public utility anymore, right? There's something else. I don't know what they are. I mean, and finally, I guess we saw this coming. South Korea, which has a major military is planning to issue drones to each and every one of its half a million soldiers. So basically as a, like the same as a personal sidearm that, you know, everyone to be a soldier

in the South Korean military means that you have to be able to and willing to and equipped with to use drones. So obviously I think this is the beginning. We're going to see that a lot more in other countries. It's going to become, I think, standardized very soon, and it's a brave new world. Anyway, JT, where would you like to start? It's also going to be standardized in our police forces. Do you remember Minority Report?

I do. Great. Yeah, they would send the automated drone into the house in order to sniff in order to find the person. And it's rational, right? If you think about it. I mean, again, the issue with this stuff is that it's, we have to screw it up. world. If the world was a better place, then these drones will be used for different things, but we use these things for militaristic pursuits. And so you have a drone that would go into a house.

We don't necessarily want to risk the policeman in the house by a guy with a potential gun. And so we send the drone and sniff them out. And if we can't necessarily get them out safely, we put a bullet in them using a robot to do so. That's already been done a bunch of times. Yeah. I mean, hell, Russia was using those drone dogs that would run into a house and then blow the house up. and the drone would be like a dog. And again, this was also on Black Mirror where the dog drones were effectively roaming the countryside and roaming the world going after people. And now huge robotics speaks that. Yeah, it's terrifying. I mean, when you think about it, these are flying killer robots. And in some cases, we're delegating the responsibility to the

robot to kill people, which again, it's rational. I mean, if you care about your population And you say, okay, well, we want to initiate war, but we don't want to get our people killed in the war. And more to the point, people don't necessarily like putting themselves on the line or being killed at wars. So let's use flying killer robots to effectively go and do the job that we human beings don't necessarily want to do. And when you see those animatronic robots, either in China or that the U.S. is trying to make, where you can knock them down, they get back up. They get the whole guns. They can go out and do a particular job. They may be very clumsy in the beginning, but at a certain point, obviously, the technology is going to get more.

pronounce. That is the future. That is the future. You can make an argument of potentially law enforcement or in the context of war. And I think people need to, you're losing your world. Like, basically, why do you think that billionaires are so interested in robots that can fight wars, work factories, etc.? It's because human beings ultimately have a faculty where they can say no, even if they're a condition. I mean, a cop can turn around and say, well, I don't want to kill this person, as opposed to having a robot that would just do it and not have a conscience about the fact that they did it.

When you have soldiers that you don't necessarily have to go to the population and say, we want to have these wars, okay, what does it mean to have the president's men? And president's men can commit particularly any atrocity without necessarily having feelings about the fact that they've committed an atrocity. Like, this is a brave new world is an understatement. that's an understanding. Yeah, I mean, that's right. I mean, look, I think, you know, a Pollyanna would say,

hey, let's just, you know, try to not go that direction. But that's going to happen. It's always going to be a technological race to the moral bottom. So, I mean, we should just accept that and try to figure, try to mitigate the damage and try to analyze what it all means, right? Which is why we're here. What it means, of course, is that killing is, going to get easier and easier.

I mean, aerial bombardment made killing easier when it, you know, the first time it originated, right, was in World War I, I believe in, during, where a pilot was passing over an Ottoman, I think it was a British pilot,

was passing over an Ottoman encampment in like a desert area. And he realized he happened to have a couple of grenades in his cockpit. And he was like, huh, I wonder, if and then he dropped the grenades on the, and that was the first time, you know, explosives were dropped from an airplane in combat.

You know, obviously that's accelerated. We had the drone wars that started under Bush, expanded under Obama, and they're off to the races now. And obviously, Ukraine is the first full-fledged drone war where it's, you know, used in massive, at a massive scale. You can't live in places like Pakistan without, in the tribal air. without constantly hearing the buzzing of drones passing over you, circling constantly. You just never know when suddenly, you know,

one's going to shoot a missile and blow you up or blow up something down the street or whatever. I mean, the thing is, I had this conversation with Bernie Sanders when I interviewed him for my book about him. He, I said, you know, we do what do you want to do about drones? And he said, oh, well, you know, person's dead whether you kill them with, you send a soldier over there with a gun. you shoot them with a bullet or you fire them with a, kill them with the drone. And I said, yeah, but it's easier with the drone. And he said, he conceded that point. And I mean, I think that's the problem is that when you had traditional warfare, you know,

war was a big investment for the political class. Like it's a risk. Like we're going to send your sons and your fathers to war, many of them will not return. And so this had better be worth it, right? Right. It doesn't have to be worth it now. Now it's like you can just throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks.

And no harm, no foul. I mean, you know, the harm happens overseas until it starts to happen here, which it will. It's inevitable. And I mean, I guess the thing is we do have the operative. We could say we're going to have an international convention on drone warfare. where we can say we have such a lead in this technology, although that's not necessarily even true. I mean, at one point it was true 10, 15 years ago.

It's not true now. I mean, they have this thing at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton called the Aviary, where it's a micro-drone research installation. And they have like mosquito drones that will land on you and poison you, like a mosquito. I mean, you know, there's no, there's just no putting the genie back in the bottle. And South Korea is smart. They're like, okay, well, this is the future.

We're going to have these paper plane drones. We're, you know, the paper airplane drones. We're going to do all those things. We've seen those. I mean, that's where war is. But it's absolutely terrifying because we've gone from a world where war took place on battlefields, usually away from cities. to now the whole planet is a war zone.

Yeah. If this idea of having a democratic order and a democratic system, it is behooveen or it behooves the populations of those countries to get control of itself in a way that it doesn't because this world is going to shit. Like, the things that they are doing that billionaires are looking at the world, it to themselves, okay, how can we make it better for ourselves? It's not necessarily mean it's also better for you. And these technologies are evidence of that. Like having a robot that can basically kill, having drone swarms that can go out and basically hunt people down, or for that matter,

having police that are effectively drones, which is ultimately what they want. Obviously, if you're leadership, one of the key issues in leadership is that the people who defend you can at some point stop defending you. Like this idea that I could pay half the poor to murder the other half of the poor is a real thing. That's what militaries are. That's what, you know, these kind of paramilitaries that these guys have are. What does that mean, though, when these are not robots in a sense of people, but robots in the sense of actual robots? These things are being built. And those, the mosquito thing to me is even more terrifying. Like, you know, infiltration drones, drones that go out and get dissidents. Like, I don't know, man, this is a, this is a technology that your country,

and that a public who is informed and who is aggressive at, let's say, maintaining an integrity of society, looks like we will pay more attention to, but obviously we don't. This is going to get out of hand before we realize, holy shit, this is getting out of hand. And at that point, it might be too late. You know what this reminds me of? I think it was the original Star Trek episode, JT. You'd know better than me. Was it?

There was this episode, and it was these two planets there at war with each other. but instead of using armies and blowing each other up, basically they agree to have a more civilized form of warfare where there's like a lottery. And if you came up on a lottery, then you're putting into this disintegration chamber. And this war had like 200 years because there was no cost to either government. It was just, it was a game.

And I think it's what we're doing here is that we're dehumanizing war. Yep, but perfect example, Robbie. Because what they were doing, they would say something like, all right, there was a. bomb that went off in this city, 500 people were killed, and then 500 people would need to go to the incineration chamber. Now, there was no bomb that went off. They were doing this through war gaming in the sense of, like, well, we did a drone strike on you in the electrical sense, or in the theoretical sense. And we have worked it out that if we actually did have a drone, and if we actually

did this attack, we would have killed 300 people. So all these 300 people on your side need to go and kill themselves, basically, in a chamber. And we've done it this way because we were using drones at one point. We were using bombs. We realized that these things were costly to infrastructure and materials and et cetera, et cetera. So let's just make a deal and agreement to just have war in this way. And the obvious question will be, well, why don't you disagree to not have war at all? Right? Like, if this is what we're doing, why don't we disagree to this? And the weapons treaties always strike me that way. It's like, so we can agree to cut down the missile systems for this amount. So why do we just agree to not have war in the first place? And it's like, well, that's

insane. Oh, but it's insane to not have those wars and to come to agreements to not have those wars. But we know why, we know why wars happen. Wars happen because people have intransigent intent, intransigent disagreements, right? Yes. You know, Ukraine, you know, we want to join NATO, Russia. We can't allow that. You know, and so how is that resolved without military conflict? We disagree.

The issue with Ukraine is the blank check. It's the same issue as it was with Germany and Austria. It's the blank check. That's the issue. Oh, yeah. There was no issue with Ukraine, antagonism. Russia up into the point that the U.S. was pressing Ukraine to make a choice and Europe was pressing Ukraine to make a choice in order to afford a treaty or let's say a trade agreement

that they wanted to have with the Europeans as opposed to the better one that was with the Russians. Meaning that was press, that was pushed. This wasn't an issue. It was the U.S. pushing Georgia in which is the U.S. I mean, you know, that's the why, but it did become an issue. It became an issue, but I'm just pointing out that many of the U.S. these wars and many of these conflicts wouldn't be wars and conflicts if it wasn't for some party instigating these things to take place. Would the Philippines be really that antagonistic to China if it wasn't for the U.S. agitated?

Or what about Japan? Maybe Japan would, but Japan would get his ass kick. I guess I'm pointing out, would even Taiwan behave this way if it wasn't for the blank check coming out of the U.S. It's the blank check. That's the issue. But that's the point. That's what causes wars.

I mean, I don't know if you read it. The Council on Foreign Relations, they released a white paper. It was a 200 pages longer read. There's an interesting read called Overextending Russia. I don't know if you read or not, those in the audience, what I'm talking about, is that they war game this thing out saying that ultimately what the goal was is to bring down the Russian economy and then split the country up between eight and 12 smaller states. Yes.

But they would have to over-extend Russia to make that happen. And the one thing that the Russians would never allow would be Ukrainian integration in the NATO. Well, that's why Russia did what they did. Now, to Russia's credit, someone there read the same paper. So God bless them. It's kind of a patent reading Rommel's book. That's why wars happen is nations have interests. And that's why wars are always going to happen.

It's because one nation is going to see another one as a threat, especially a great power, in which case you'd knock that competitor out because there's no room in the system for more that for to me the large competitors and so that's what's going to happen is that it's never going to stop i don't know about that it's human like look i'm the start there jt right i mean war is diplomacy by other means i mean for what is there okay so okay we totally agree with like you know countries like the united states are constantly invoking and giving blank checks. Agreed, that's the why, right?

But the fact is that countries have end up with, for whatever reason, they end up with fundamental, what they view as somewhat existential disagreements. Yes. How, then how are those resolved? I mean, it would be great to be able to, you know, get a wormhole alien to say, hey, here's my case, or go to Q and say, hey, here's what we think. okay let's hear your side okay well I decide you win but we don't have an there's no neutral arbiter so so basically might makes right that's the world we live in war is the arbiter ultimately

no I understand the argument and the US has the might that's why they provoke that I mean that's literally what they say they say they tell a client state like Israel hey you know you go do this for us and don't worry we've got your back you know we can don't worry so It's cool. I'm not optimistic in a short term. I'm optimistic in a long term, if that makes sense. Like, I mean, and the reason I say to look at our trajectory, we are, if we were talking about 1756, just some random time, I don't know what's happening in 1756, countries could

have wars. Hell, let's go to 1940. If we're talking about it, like 1939, 1945, et cetera, countries. could have these large-scale wars. There were no no nooks. So you can lose hundreds of thousands of men. Hell, the Romans were losing hundreds of thousands of men. The Romans didn't have nukes. We are getting to the point where it's becoming so technologically risky to have these wars that we are going to kill all of ourselves if we indeed end up having large-scale wars. And so what do you get? You get countries like the U.S. that effectively uses proxies in order to avoid coming into grips or coming into rubbing,

ends with countries like Russia or China or for that matter, even India, because again, these are nuclear powers and they can end the world when they have these wars. Meaning, I guess my point is we're getting to the point as a world where having any large-scale war risks the end of all things. Israel is a nuclear power fighting Iran right now, and people are questioning whether or not nuclear conflict. Same thing with Russia going after Ukraine. I mean, Russia is not talking about it, but the fact that the U.S. is backing Ukraine in this, and the fact that Europe is involved in us makes it people very dicey about the prospect of a third war

coming from that, India and Pakistan. Again, will we get to a point where it's impossible to have these conflicts without there being the risk of the end of all things? And I guess my point is we have to get to a point of a world where we need to settle these things in ways that just don't involve war. Well, maybe weapons are technologically obsessed. elite or, you know, maybe we need more nuclear proliferation, ironically, but drones might be the big game changer here. I mean, they're really, look at this war. Iran won, defeated the United States

objectively, well, under previous standards, by 20th century standards, a formidable adversary that should never have been able to put a dent into, defeated them with cheap, shitty drones. And so money no longer matters, right? I mean, it's like, You can spend $1.5 trillion a year, but you can still be defeated by a inferior military. Nuclear weapons don't matter unless the nuclear power is really willing to use them, which up until now, they're not. So maybe drones are the game changer because everybody can get them. Vanuatu can have drones. Everybody can have drones. I don't think so, Ted, because you're a student of history.

So think about this. one of the very first people who won the noble priest prize i remember the guy's first name was last him was maxim he was the inventor of the maxim machine gun it's called the devil's paintbrush and and it showed to great effect in that movie the last samurai the tom cruise movie yes yes that was a gatling gun so i mean this is the next generation of it so it was the first real machine gun like no i had to do so long of sugar they didn't have to do a crank like i had to do with the Gatlin. And the reason why Maxim invented it is that he wanted war to become so costly that no one

would fight anymore. So when the Great War started, the Europeans are still fighting in continental battle style. And it was just, that's what got that name. He just wiped out entire regiments of people. And so then how did, how did humans compensate? They didn't think about, well, maybe this is stupid. Maybe the Archduke isn't worth this. No, instead, let's revolutionize warfare by introducing poison gas.

Humans are always going to become more efficient at killing other humans. Yeah, we're very, very good at it. When I was in Afghanistan, I encountered a, I was told about and saw the effects of something of mine called the Bouncing Betty. And, you know, when it triggered, it bounces about three feet up in the air. and it's designed to either cut you in half or blow off your genitals. That's unfortunate. Ingenious. Of course, there's the cluster bombs, cluster munitions that the United States was also dropping in Afghanistan.

It was a missile, which I think had about 20 or 24 canisters. Each can was that the Americans would spray paint them bright colors like bright yellow, bright green, in order to attract children. A lot of Afghanistan is very sandy, glacial flower. So the thing that the cluster munition breaks apart, the individual canisters, they have a mechanism inside that vibrates for like 30 seconds, just enough to bury it about halfway

so that kids see something bright and shiny sticking out of the sand, go and pick it up and get blown up. So you and you recount that story. Okay, two things. I want to respond to Robbie also. But you recount that story, but you disbelieve that the U.S. blew up the hospital or blew up the kid's school in Iran.

Oh, I know they blew it up. No, no, no. I mean, on purpose. Oh, no, I'm not discounting that. I'm saying it's entirely possible. I just don't think we don't have, I mean, you know, we're journalists here. I mean, I don't know. But, I mean, from what the official story is also credit.

which is that the U.S. used out-of-date maps. I mean, I also think that I know they do, so I know they use out-to-date, out-of-date maps. And so therefore, that's possible too. I mean, look, to me, it's a distinction without a difference because they were reckless. If you're reckless, like, you know what I mean? Like, okay, so, yeah, it's different.

If I go and find you and run you over with my car, yeah, it's worse legally than if I'm just a fucking idiot and I'm texting on my phone and I'm drinking. and I run you over with my car, but I'm still going to jail either way, right? I mean, it's like I see, and you're, and the end results all the same. The fact is, I'm an asshole either way, right? Yeah. So, I mean, we're assholes.

We didn't care. We weren't careful. We didn't pay attention because we didn't value the lives of people who might be caught in the crossfire. We don't care. So what's the difference? Also, the always thing. It's like when the Israeli is probably, right.

The always thing I disagree with. I mean, we look, we make assessments based on human history. And human history has always been this issue of survival being the top priority of human history. But we don't necessarily always have to be in that particular position of survival and scarcity and those type of things that basically incentivize war and conflict. And yeah, there's issues of control that come into it. But the truth of the matter is the reason that war became more revolutionized. And the reason that the guy had from the machine gun was wrong is because the war didn't affect the people who were making the choice for the war. If I'm making a choice and I'm untethered to that choice, meaning I could press a button and somebody dies.

What stops me from pressing a button? Nothing. And if you can sit in this kind of like George Bush can make a determination to send a bunch of people to war that he doesn't know, to kill a lot of other people that he doesn't know, then how is that adversely affecting George Bush? You're saying that if there was a scenario or technological innovation that could mean that, say, Jenna could get blown up because George Bush starts a war, that it might change his calculus? I'm saying if George Bush had to put himself in firing line, George Bush wouldn't want to war. Or if people that he cared about might be in the firing line. True. But I guess my point is the idea that the machine gun was going to stop wars because people would have said this is so cost. or the question becomes cost to them. Exactly. If it costs them, then they're less inclined.

Meaning, our governmental structure, the way that we organize ourselves, are organized in a way that incentivize conflict. Right. If we were different. Again, I assumed that people would care about their fellow, that rulers cared about their own citizens and cared about it. And I don't think they do. No.

I think they care about their objectives. The facts are clearly, clearly they don't. You know what the problem? The problem with y'all's argument is, is that y'all are thinking about this as rational human beings to have a question. Listen, I'm saying. Y'all are thinking this thing through rationally. We're laughing because you're right.

A lot of the leaders, they are not rational people. Logic does not apply to them. For them, it's all about power. Costs be damned. I would rather rule over the graveyard than be a peer in a city. I agree. So that's the point. And to your point, we are dancing around nuclear war right now.

And the thing about what I just said, we are probably closer to nuclear war than what we were even in the Cuban Missile crisis. Because we insist, we being the West, especially Europe, who has no economy to speak of, whose industrial base has been hollowed out, their birth rate is imploding. They have all these problems and still they want to continue provoking Russia up to the point of attacking inside Russia, even threatening their nuclear deterrent, which if Putin followed through their doctrine, meant that Paris would be evaporated tomorrow. Macron is there. He understands this. Kirstarmer, until he resigned, understood that too. Trump understands that. Washington, D.C., Baltimore, New York City, could all go away. if you're a rational person, you have factored this in. We don't have rational leaders.

We are at the mercy of the least rational person in the system. That's the problem. I'm saying that system doesn't need to propagate itself in the future. Doesn't need to be able. We have organized ourselves in this kind of hierarchical structure for God knows how long. Because it gets shit done. like the people who are involved in Occupy Wall Street. And it was like, oh, we just want, you know, a diffuse group of people, et cetera, et cetera.

Nonsense. Military structures get shit done, which is the reason why people put into military structures. I'm saying, though, that we are, this could be prehistory. And we're assuming that the way that we've always done things is the way that things are going to be done in perpetuity. And with technological innovation, with the way societies change over time, no stuff. don't know if that's true. I'm not making the assumption that war is always going to be a part of our world. I'm hoping that's not the case. Hope is the plan. Said it one more time, Robbie.

Hope is not a plan. As long as we've got human beings on this earth, we are going to have wars. How do you know that as a fact? Because we're human beings and human beings. That's not an answer. That's not an answer. No, it is. How do you know what it's going to happen in the future as a fact of now? So a couple of ways. One, the religious answer is because the Bible says there's going to be all the way to the very end. That's not the answer to me. But I understand that. So now I'll give you the secular answer.

The secular answer is that there's a segment of the population is always going to want to have more. And those people are gravitate towards power. Those people gravitate towards wealth. One hand washes the other. And so what that means is as long as there is an incentive, where I will take what someone else has by force, war will always be a part of the human condition. I'm on team, Robbie, with this. We've got to take some questions here. All right.

F you so. Valhalla, thanks for the dollar. Valhalla did a great video on that Trump is dying of congestive heart failure, how they try to hide it, and how he's pumped up with super experimental weight loss drugs. I mean, you might just be on DLB1s, right? I mean, it's not working. Yeah. No, I mean, you see a, if you see a side shot, it's clearly not working.

Right. Yeah. Look, I mean, he definitely has those black spots on his hands. His legs are, his lower legs are really swollen. He clearly has trouble walking. He's 80 years old. He's overweight. He doesn't eat well.

so he doesn't exercise. So it's not surprising that he's not in tip-top shape. His father didn't live to be terribly old. I mean, you know, he could kick at any point. I mean, you know, they're watching him and stuff. You know, he definitely could kick. I guess, what do you think would happen under a president, J.D. Vance, let's say, later this afternoon, J.D. Vance is the presidents of the United States.

How would that affect matters? I think domestically, we would continue on the same path. But, you know, in terms of the deportations and slashing, you know, gutting social safety programs and politicizing the post office and all that shit will continue. But because that's MAGA. But would it have an effect on Iran, on Iran? Would it have an effect on, would it make the deal more solid? How would it impact our relationship with Israel and so on?

That's a tough one. I mean, I don't believe for a moment that advance is anti-imperialists. I think anybody who takes the office is going to have an expectation from the standpoint of the public and their base, power base, to continue on with U.S. policy in general. Like, meaning, can you, like, for example, can you foresee a U.S. president accepting a surrender of, let's say in Ukraine, for example? I mean, I can't see that. I can't see a U.S. President, regardless of who that president is, looking weak in front of media and for that matter, in front of on the world stage. We still talk like we're imperialist.

The media is still talked to the president like he's God emperor. I don't see Vince. The office is a constraint, if that makes sense. At least I think so. I could be wrong on this. On the Israel front, I don't believe that Vance. is going to be that dramatically different, to be honest. But I could be wrong.

And again, I hope I am. But I don't see, I think the U.S. policy goes beyond the president of the United States. That's what I think. Yeah, I think I largely agree with that. I mean, although, you know, I mean, the Great Man theory of history isn't entirely wrong. I mean, true. Agreed. Nogities matter, as we're seeing right now with Donald Trump.

Personality is do matter. So we'll see. And by the way, I know that sounds contradictory, but because it sounds like I'm saying two things at once, I'm agreeing with the innocence of the great man thing. But both of these things run parallel. You can have a president that tries to claim authority in this way. That basically, I am doing this. I don't care what you guys think, right? Because otherwise, what would be the point of having a president at all if the president didn't have the ability to do something different?

But they just tend not to. They tend to follow the same pattern. And by the way, Democratic and Republican, the very fact that we can attack Syria now as a result of going through Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, et cetera. Meaning, it's all of that to get to the point of even being able to attack Iran. That stuff took place over the course of, what, 10, 15 years? Yeah. Yeah.

So, yeah. Let's keep going. Okay, John D. Cackeleller, thanks for the $2. Robbie, are we continuing our Baldersgate 3 campaign Saturday night? Uh-oh. 100%. Absolutely. And for those of you who watch, if you all have the game, either on console or PC, are more than welcome to join us.

It's fun. J.T., we've got to get you hooked up. You need to look at that game. It is. That's roaming around the castle, right? No. No. Okay.

So there's this channel on Rumble. It's called Putin Bot Gaming. You should check it out. It's got a crap. That's your channel. It's got a crap time of Baldur's Gate 3 content. Go check it out. You would love it.

You would love it. I'll tell you what. If you do, if you like it, I'll get you a copy. And we'll play. You'll like it. But Saturday, yes.

Okay. Personally, I would rather play SIF, if I'm being bluntly honest with you. And if we had like six or seven people to play it, I think it would be great. We need to get Ted a copy. Oh.

Oh, Ted will love that. You don't enjoy it, actually. You know what? No, I could see Ted. No, Ted, he could play us to French. We could play on the Earth map. And I'll play as Germany. You can play as Britain.

And we'll just... I'll play it in America. We'll just... That's fine. We'll just... We'll... France will rise again. Napoleon's...

Grand emancipator. Paulus. Great emancipator. Got a rifle. I got to drop points. More questions. Okay. Grand Rising boys.

Hope you guys. Hope you guys have a great weekend. Thank you. Question about the trip. Tad are you still traveling to Uzbekistan? And will there be any videos or a vlog? So this is a reference to something that John and I had been planning to do. We were going to go to Central Asia together this summer later in the summer.

But since I haven't heard from John since about an hour before he decided to do his last show, and because John's departure has really had a massive financial impact on the show and on me, I can't. I'm not going to go. I would totally go with J.T. though. If we get the money, if we get some money going, the problem is, like, time is short. We would have to, you know, like basically you don't really want to go after September because you start running into major, you know, winter weather. But, you know, yeah. I'll go, y'all.

I'll go. I would announce that. I may be going to Iran for the Ayatollah's funeral. And so. Which is why, right? Yeah, July 2nd. I'll be there for roughly five days if. Okay, this is an indelicate question.

Where's his body all this time? Is it on ice? I don't know. That's a good question. I mean, I assume they waited until the hot still, the kinetic part stopped. That's my assumption. I thought most supposed to be buried like ASAP, the same day. I don't know.

All right. I assumed it was kind of like Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln Ben wrote, you know, run through the country. I was buried. It's just the public funerals. Kind of like how Yamamoto was cremated, but the funeral was like a month after you got killed. That's probably a memorial service. It's a memorial service.

Yes. It's not actual funeral. Okay, got it. John D. Cockfeller, to take for the $2. Terminator was meant to be fiction. Yeah, but it turned out to be very, very, very, yeah, very prescient. John D. Cockfeller, I don't foresee Ted being into video games, but we need JT on BG3.

He strikes me as a lawful good, which Robbie and I are lacking in our campaign. Wait, what do you mean? So you could be good in your campaign? This is a Robbie question. I don't know anything about that game. Yeah, I mean, it's open. And so the thing about Baldur's Gate 3 is it's an open sandbox, which is awesome. So every choice that you make will impact the game from characterications,

the choices that you make, like, you can be Benjamin Netanyahu level of evil, or you could be like a pacifist. It's entirely up to how it is that you want to do it. And it is a ton of fun. You've got to check it out. See, under normal circumstances, my rule is I am very, I leave people to their devices, even if it's it until you fuck with me, in which case, all bets are off and I become a maniac.

It's like instead of they used to have nuclear Gandhi, like people used to be like, how is Gandhi dropping nukes? Because Gandhi used to be a bit of a lunatic in one of those games. No, man, I'm very chill until you fuck with me, in which case I become a mouse. Okay. Well, because the game starts off with you being screwed around with and a mind player puts a tadpole in your eyes. So you start off being screwed with. I'm going to be a monster in the game. Yeah. I could tell for sure. I would have it. I would have to go to Pookin by gaming. Take a look. You'll

like it. Couple things. By the way, breaking news, Venezuela's death count from the earthquake has now officially risen to 589. So it's going to obviously keep going, unfortunately. Okay, we have an ad. It's been a long time. Rumble has been very stingy. But here we go. Let me go ahead and do this one. All right, it's for Rumble Wallet. All right, we hear a lot about crypto, but here's the one, here's the part most people miss. Crypto was created so you could actually own and control your money. After the 2008 financial crisis, Bitcoin was designed as an alternative to banks. So instead of a bank holding your money, delaying transfers, or limiting access, you're in control. And if you've ever had to wait for a transfer to clear, you felt that problem. Now, fast forward

to today. Everyone's heard of crypto, but getting started still feels complicated. That's exactly why we use Rumble Wallet. It takes all that complexity and makes it simple. Choose what you want, Bitcoin, dollar backed stable coins, or even digital gold backed by real gold. No complicated setup. It connects with MoonPay so you can use your credit card, debit card, or bank, and be up and running in minutes. Once you're set up, you can even support your favorite Rumble creators like us directly. So do it now. Scan the QR code or click the link in the description and download Rumble Wallet. From there, you can set up your wallet top tap buy and you're in the game in just a few minutes. from hearing about crypto to actually owning some.

Okay, more questions. John D. Cackelfeller, $1. Iran is just days away from developing nuclear drones. We need to intervene now, Israel in a few days. F.E. said, thanks for the dollar. Whoever invades Israel and confiscates their nukes deserves a peace prize of some sort. Oh, like all the peace prizes. P.W. Walker, thanks for the dollar.

Sociopaths are always attracted to pass. power and that's why no ism can no ism can survive contact with them they will always manipulate others for material gain true but that's different than a society that knows that like you know when i tell you that laws are made in good faith and they shouldn't be like that right yeah like you just have to figure out the way to deal with the sociopaths and you would hope that a post nuclear war society at the point where we blow shit the hell and people, you know, come from the rubble, that that impression would be so grounded in them that however they create their society, they create their society around the whole notion of keeping these people out of power.

That's the hope. Anyway, is that possible? I think so. Especially with awareness. But I understand it you too disagree with you on that. And by the way, I postulate a calamity of enormous. proportion from the standpoint of the world to get to that point because otherwise I don't know how to get it. Listen, if let's say in the example that you brought up, you know, let's just

say Donald Trump, if he knows that starting a war, that attacking Iran means that there's a high likelihood that Melania is going to die like in a week because, you know, the Iranians can send a microdron and, you know, and killer. Is he going to start that war? Yes. Maybe less likely, I think. Or he personally is going to die. Okay, that's better. That's better because I don't think about anybody.

Yeah. I mean, I just think, yeah, or all his buildings are going to be blown up by $100 drones. Or his kids. Yeah. Your kids are going to die if you do this. This week. We're going to release subsidy files if you do this. Tomorrow.

They're going to do. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. I think that might really truly be mutual assured destruction finally realized. If you basically, in our society, if you go to war, the public has consent. Otherwise, you know, you get to. Even if they do, you might all still, you may all still die. Yes.

And your society might not consent either. If they're like, if it's kind of like, okay, so we're going to go to war against Iran, but you're all going to be dead within a few. few days. Or there needs to be cost. I just think there needs to be shared costs in some way. The leadership shouldn't be isolated from the cost. Just that.

Like meaning you shouldn't be able to get rich off of us being in war. You shouldn't be able to gain, meaning nobody in society should be able to gain from it. So weapon manufacturers shouldn't be able to get billions of dollars when people are getting themselves killed. Financial companies shouldn't be able to profit when we're getting ourselves killed. shared sacrifice. So yes, people may lose their lives. You are not going to get your profits. Your people may, like there needs to be some kind of cost. Otherwise, you create this isolated bubble that people are in that are sending other people off to die with other people still getting profits. Obviously, people are getting profits have an incentive for the wars to continue. The people have

in power may have an incentive from the standpoint of their own ideological wants, as you point out, of expansion and greed and etc. I'm saying something needs, there needs to be a structure that disallows that in some way in a society that's rational. But that's not what we've evolved to. We've just kind of, it's not like society has ever stepped out of itself and thought to itself, hey, what do we need to look like? It's only been this kind of just pivot and move, pivot and move, pivot and move. Well, that may break, that chain may break. And when that chain breaks, we may get something different. That's what I'm that's what I'm postulating as being on on some level necessary. Otherwise, we're just going to end ourselves. We can't be going like this. That's my point.

Oh, no, clearly. By the way, we have a very generous supporter, Alexander G. Thank you so much for two generous donations. One for 20 Norwegian Krona, another for 200 Norwegian Krona. This stingy support, on the first comment, and on the second 200, I really do appreciate your work and Robbie. We appreciate you and we appreciate Robbie also. And also San Palmasano, thanks so much for the $44. Question for all. Favorite U.S. President of All Time?

Question for Robbie, favorite game of all time. Despite, besides Baldur's Gate, love you all, keep up the good work. I can't get past Thomas Jefferson. as my favorite president i just he's my favorite i think fdr for me andrew jackson for me because i mean he went to war it's because he went to war against him well sometimes that's that's what you need i mean he was the first i mean he was a frontiersman he was definitely a creature of of his time killer but the fact that that he that he killed

the bank of the United States and kept us from becoming a economy banking cartel it up as a banking cartel anyway so yeah but it but it took over it took 90 years for it to happen so yeah so yeah it happened in 1837 when the economy collapsed no that happens as far as my favorite game besides balder's gate three i would have to say Rome total war because it has a mission. It has a lot of everything. It's got economics. It's got politics.

It's got war. It's real-time strategy. It's a great game. And I actually take a page out of JT's book. I'll leave you alone to a screw with me. But if you do, I will salt your fields, pillage your cities, and then raise them to the ground. Yeah, I'm horrible when somebody felt like that.

I could give Titus lessons on how to erase a city from the face of the earth. Yeah, I go on genocidal rampages when countries fuck with me. Like you better like, you better destroy me. And my ex-wife used to like get so pissed off. Because I would have like spies and stuff and she would be upstairs playing. I would be downstairs to play and she would have like the spy going to her country. She was like, you're motherfucker. I hear you what you know. What are you talking about? Yeah. Yeah, those games. Now, man, Andrew Jackson, he was just he was such a complicated figure and if he was just so was Jefferson. So we're all of them.

Yeah. Yeah. I think what I liked about Andrew Jackson is that he was very honest. Like you knew what he was and who he was. Especially the people who insulted Rachel, his wife. He took that grudge to his grave. He will end you. True.

True. That is true. Guys, we have nine minutes left. We should talk about these. I don't know. a lot to say about the Iran thing, but I definitely want to talk about this Postal Service thing. I thought it was disturbing. I don't know, JT. Am I being paranoid? So basically, there's this controversy here in the U.S. where the Republicans have decided, for some reason, that they don't

like absentee ballots. There's no indication, by the way, that the use of absentee ballots disfavors Republicans or harms them in any way. They haven't really suffered in the elections. I mean, when they get their voters out to the polls or to the mailbox, it works just as well. But whatever, it's like a bur in their saddle about election. They think it's full of election fraud. So Trump is demanding that all the states turn over their absentee voter lists,

which, to be clear, are highly confidential information over to the federal government. for God knows what purpose to the Homeland Security Department, which is, of course, incredibly untrustworthy and terrifying. And so, and they say that the Postmaster General, who is basically Trump's bitch, is saying, okay, well, we will go along with the administration, and we will not mail. So in other words, we will, our guys, our sorting machines,

will look for absentee ballots in the states that don't do this, and we won't deliver them. So in other words, talk about election interference. This is like, let's say, I live in a state that has these ballots and is not going to cooperate with the United States, a government. So I send in my, I mail in my ballot, which is how a lot of Americans vote now, and I don't receive my, and then it never arrives. I think I voted. They shred it, but I was, I was disenfranchised. I mean, that to me is a big fucking deal, even as a threat.

And I mean, what's next? Are they going to just say, oh, you know, hey, you're a dirty socialist, Ted. We're not going to deliver your check to the visa so that they don't get your payment this month. Or you're not going to deliver your paycheck from your syndicate to you so you'll starve this month. I mean, what the fuck? I guess the question is when does, for one, I agree with you. I mean, this is problematic on several fronts. One, the whole point of bureaucracy is that, or one of the points of bureaucracy, is that it's not

imperially managed, right? Like the whole thing of Nixon using IRS to go against political enemies, I mean, that was seen to be, you know, frowned upon. It's frowned upon because you don't necessarily want somebody with that much power, using that much power to act like a king or guard emperor to be able to use the material of government itself. to go after political enemies, which is effectively what Trump is using the post office to do. The idea, I mean, for one, we get the government we deserved. They put his ass back in office as opposed to impeaching him and putting him in cage. The party system, we do not get the government that we deserve. We get two shitty choices.

Yeah, I mean, who chooses those choices? Not us. Support the system. Millions of people still go vote for these shitty choices. Sure, but they don't, nobody tors you know, as we saw with Bernie, you could, people can go and support someone and it doesn't matter. Okay. I am not of the belief that if 300 million people or if even a good percentage of those people decided that they want something else, that they don't get something else. That is a force that sure, you could shoot part of them, but how many of them can you actually stop? I'm making a point that we still acquiesce to it. I mean, we say, this goes to the culpability of Americans, which I think is a fascinating. They're not culpable.

By the way, we have a couple of big donations and some questions to go with them, so I definitely want to, you know, touch upon these. Sam Palmasano, by the way, thanks so much for that $44 from before and also an additional $100 just coming in. We'll keep watching and donating until I get a, I apologize if I'm not pronouncing this right, Mecca, Camelian Gaming Stream different question what traits would you look for in a person that was going to be marrying your son or daughter in this modern generation slash Generation Z that's pertinent to me since I have a kid of recently marital marriageable age I would say Loyalty to my two personal loyalty but loyalty to my son would be the thing I'm looking for someone who's going to be there for him no matter what. And mental flexibility, someone who's able to pivot and react to changing

circumstances and be able to figure, help think him out of the box because a lot of people are very stiff and rigid in their thinking and they can't recognize changing circumstances. And we live in a very disruptive, disruptive world right now. So those would be the two things I would look for. Plus, I'd like her to be pretty so that my kids are cute. My grandkids are cute. Go ahead, Robbie. You have a kid.

I don't. Yeah. So, I mean, for me, the important thing is I wanted to marry, I wanted to marry a Christian, so that where they're equally yote, at least have a moral foundation that they're able to relate to each other. And then the parrot, Ted, love, marry someone who you're able, who you are able to honor and who will honor you in return and help each other out. be a help meet.

And that's the most important thing. You just have someone that never life knocks you down who can help you up and vice versa. And have a lot of kids, a lot of grandkids. That's what I want. I want lots of grown kids too. Pugs and Bubbs, thanks so much

for the $50 donation. No message. Thoroughly enjoy the show. And make sure to watch it every day. Have a great weekend. You too, Pugs. Anyway, you were saying, I don't have a kid,

But I think if I had a kid, yeah, I agree with you, Ted, this idea of honesty, loyalty, intellectual flexibility. I would prefer them to be, and softness with each other. Sweet. Sweetness is rare. No, I say softness. Oh, okay. Like, meaning there's a level of forgiveness built into the people that when they engage each other, they engage each other in somewhat of a soft way. way, if that makes sense. That's one, it's hard to explain. Like how in charts, it will be like

a lot of Neptune in a positive sense, like moon to Neptune, moon to Venus, the type of stuff with the people, how they relate emotionally. It's not harsh. They care. They give shape in real terms, not just in a marriage sense, but they actually care about each other in a human sense that goes beyond their marriage, if that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's, yeah, huge. I don't care if they have kids. I don't want to be interested. I need the raw family line to continue. Right.

Right. Right. It's like once we take over the world. Well, kids are important because if you don't have if you're not passing the world down to the next generation, what do you care if it gets better or not? I mean, but that here. I can care about whatever I want to care about. Yeah, no. If that's the only thing that matters that the things I care about.

I'm not about you in general. I'm just talking about no specifically, no corporately. I mean, if people who people have kids or grandkids, if they have any kind of a moral center at all, wants to leave a better world behind than the one that they inherited. True. If the line ends with you, the thing like the, like the baby boomers, right? They had theirs. They don't care. That's not true.

Why do you think that? People care about what they care about. But I mean, that's the reputation that they have, right? is arguably the greediest generation that they had the best of both worlds. And now their kids, their grandkids are being left with the scraps. And they still have the political power to go in and affect change. But they don't because it's still all about them. The point that I'm trying to make is that someone who there's no greater love than being a parent.

I know. But you've just made the argument that even people who have kids in this quote, greater greatest generation, as they call themselves, despite smack, as you pointed out, the greatest generation. They have kids and they don't give a shit. Correct. And I think that's... Pick it on me.

Who don't have kids? Quickly. Yeah, no, I'm not picking on you. I'm talking about this as just people in general. Like, you have a vested interest in the future if there's a future that you're leaving behind. We all die. Okay. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. All right, guys, we're going to have to leave that there. We'll be back Monday, 9 a.m. Eastern Time. We can pick that up or anything else we want. Have a great weekend, everyone. TMI Show with me. Manila Chan and myself. Coming up right now, DMC America dealing with basically sex scandals and abuse scandals in the world of cartooning.

That's in one hour from now on YouTube and Rumble. Keep it right here for all of that. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, guys. See you soon. Have it going, guys.