DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - The Forever 60-Day Wars | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: May 6, 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:• Trump has used up his 60-day window to attack Iran without Congressional approval under the War Powers Act, so he’s resorting to a novel argument. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Operation Epic Fury is over, and the US has begun Operation Freedom instead—which is now on hold just 48 hours in. Will the US wage its unpopular wars in 60-day increments?• Axios reports Iran and the US are close to agreement on a one-page MOU. The deal would end the current war and launch a 30-day negotiation period for a full deal. Iran would accept a 12-15 year moratorium on uranium enrichment (negotiating duration), commits to no nuclear weapons or weaponization, removes highly enriched uranium, allows enhanced/snap UN inspections, and avoids underground nuclear sites. US agrees to gradually lift sanctions and release billions in frozen funds. Both sides ease restrictions on Strait of Hormuz shipping.• Elections in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan showed that Trump still dominates the Republican Party, and that Democrats seem to have the momentum ahead of November’s midterm elections. In Indiana, where he backed primary challenges against seven Republican state senators who rejected his redistricting plan, five of the president’s candidates won. In Michigan, a Democrat comfortably won a state Senate race in a bellwether district.• Senate Republicans proposed $1 billion to pay for new White House security measures, with lawmakers and White House officials disagreeing over whether the legislation would cover Trump’s planned ballroom.MERCH STORE: https://www.deprogram.livehttps://x.com/tedrallhttps://x.com/JamarlThomasLIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShowSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8ZuAPPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-ted-rall-and-jamarl-thomas/id1825379504

Good morning. You're watching D. Program with Ted Rall and Jamaril Thomas. It is Wednesday, May 6th, 2026. Thank you so much for joining us. Good morning, J.D. And we have... What's going on, my man? How are you doing this morning? I'm doing okay. I'm doing okay. So obviously a lot of war talk to get into. There's some really funny stories going on with the U.S. Israeli attack on Iran. Axios is reporting that the U.S. and Iran are. close to an agreement on a 14-point memorandum of understanding, in other words, a deal sheet. So it's so Trumpian.

There were some special elections yesterday in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. We'll talk about those results. It's kind of a mixed bag. Democrats have reason to be happy. Trump has reason to be happy. The Republican Party doesn't really have reason to be happy. And Republicans are asking for a billion dollars in order to upgrade security for the the president at the White House and specifically for the ballroom. Also, probably the most breaking

news just before we went on the air, the Washington Post was able to verify Iranian satellite information that shows that at least 228 U.S. military targets were severely damaged or destroyed by Iran during the war so far. And this has all been covered up by the Trump administration. So they're trying to like pretending like, oh, we won. We did great. We've destroyed. Iran and their military infrastructure, but not really so much. Please like, follow and share the show. We're here Monday through Friday. 9 a.m. Eastern time.

We appreciate your support. And we have a lot to talk about. I think maybe the first order of business is Iran. So Trump has used up his 60-day window to attack Iran without congressional approval under the War Powers Act passed by Congress in 1973 at the end of the Vietnam War. So with that over, Secretary Marco Rubio went out yesterday before the cameras, trotted out, and this has to be an uncomfortable feeling for the Secretary of State. He has to go out there and tell the press, well, actually, the war is over.

Operation Epic Fury, as the Israeli-U.S. attack on Iran was called, is over. It's finished. Of course, we won. We won bigly. And now we have Operation Freedom, which is the task of, escorting neutral, quote-unquote neutral vessels in and out of the Strait of Ormoor is mostly out. But that Operation Freedom is on hold because, you know, basically no one wants to avail themselves of this service that the United States is providing because they're scared of having their ships blown up by the Iranians. And to put a fine point on it, the Iranians have been attacking both those ships as well as their U.S. escort warships. So my question for you, and we'll start

with this is. D.T., is the United States planning to wage all of its future wars in 60-day increments so that it doesn't have to go to Congress to get approval? Well, Michael Ruby, okay, Monis said he believes that the war

powers resolution is unconstitutional. Like, the president should be able to wage war as much as he wants, right, without getting congressional approval. Because the reality of it is, the president waging war should be against the law. Like, meaning, If you have a constitution, and the Constitution says the president needs to get,

meaning there needs to be a declaration of war, Congress has pursuress, then you would think that needs to be a declaration of war. But instead, we have these miniature wars that the president runs, all presidents, which is weird. But meaning you have one guy who decides to wage war, as you point out, 60-day increments to avoid. Look, I would make the against that says us and this of being able to dictate terms to the rest of the world is effectively over. And the military might that's being used as a cudgel in all of this stuff.

Like, yeah, sometimes they use economic might, but Donald Trump has been leveraging military might more than many. That's over with. Like the moment that you have a regional power that can hold you off because technology has fundamentally changed, you haven't necessarily changed with the times, not to mention the geographic. the location of Iran. Call it a rat. You can't impose your will this way. You can do it on Venezuela. You can't do it on Iran

in larger countries do that way. I was going to see. I think that's exactly the possibility I would put on it, right? It's like, yeah, you can't. Certainly, when we go after Tuvalu, you know, their ass is ours. But, you know, if we go out

out, we go after Pakistan, maybe not so much. assuming that. Yeah. Iran is a country of 80 million people. It's three times the size of rock. The idea that they're thinking like,

this is the new Venezuela. It's nonsense. Like, what do you think was in their minds when they did this? Like, because it's, I always say racist people don't see the word clearly. And this idea that, oh, we could just knock them over. The blend of it is astonishing.

Yeah, no, I mean, we talked about that yesterday, and I think we're going to continue to talk about it because it is astonishing, right? It's baffling. I mean, look, you have a president who he's been around the block before. He already had a full term, right? He's effectively in year number six of his presidency. He should be a grizzled veteran. He knows how things works.

He has a lot of loyalists all surrounding him who are all currying favor. and all those people that he probably has good reason to trust mean him well, all told him this was a bad idea. Vice President Vance told him, don't do it. Secretary of State Rubio, who's now in the position of having to defend this policy, told him not to do it, and so on and so on, right? They all said, don't do it. What did he do?

Pete Hankseth, apparently, told him not to do it. They all said, don't do it. And they all said, we'll support you if you do, but we don't think it's a good idea. So he's got no one, even in the military industrial complex, calling. As far as we know, it's not like Northrop Grumman was calling him and saying, do it. So the only person that we know, the only source that we know was urging him to do this and has been for years is B.B. Netanyahu. Now, American presidents, and Trump included, have been skeptical of Netanyahu with good reason for a long time because they know he has his agenda. His agenda isn't even an Israel first

agenda. It's a BB first agenda. And so, you know, and especially he saw that he, Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 in large part because the Gaza war, waged by Israel with U.S. complicity, was so wildly unpopular. And he also reads the polls and he knows that Israel is more unpopular now than it ever has been. And for the first time, more Americans now identify with the Palestinian cause than with Israel. So, and that's only going to increase, right? So with all that, you know, from the polling standpoint, from, you know, from the geopolitical aspect, from the fact that you're getting advice to not do this from your cabinet and you ignore all that, you decide to go so, you go it alone. And I mean, it's baffling. And by the way, I don't know if

saw, you were on the air this morning, but Marco Rubio is now asking the UN to lead the effort to against Iran. I'm like, okay, so wait a minute, you decided you were going to go it alone. We weren't even going to bring in our NATO allies. We're like, we don't need you. Fuck you. We're on our own. We could take on the terrorists of Tehran ourselves. And then it's like, okay, go with God, right? Go. And so we go. We get our asses kicked, you know, 228 plus targets destroyed. The Iranians are laughing their asses at us. And like, yeah, they're missing some school kids. And that's sad. But they've won. And like now, now we come to the UN and say, you know, this really ought to be an international effort. And, you know, the global community has our interest.

are they fucking kidding? That was my monologue this morning. That was my monologue. You just gave my monologue, right? I didn't watch that speech. I watched that speech my mother. Because Rubio was making statements like, it is outrageous that they're attacking ships

and attacking their commercial vessels and they've taken their straight and removes. We just need the United Nations to come in and say this is a file, that they shouldn't be able to do this. And it's like, dude, you were murdering fishermen minute and then I got you serious right now. Like, I watched that speech thinking to myself, the level of mendacity would crush the spine

of a normal man. And Rubio gets up there and gives this radically hypocritical speech that is breathtaking. Like, even for Rubio, that speech is breathtaking. Oh, I can't believe Iran is doing this. This is outrageous. What is the point of the UN if the UN is not going to come in behind us in order to help us with this particular issue? How is the UN just sitting here as Iran?

attack vessels. You attacked a country. And as you point out, you didn't consult with anybody. You taught, you and Israel got in the room and say, hey, Syria's down. The door is open. Let's do it. And they had more, let's say, they were more robust and punching you in the nose than you imagine. And as you pointed out, all of those military bases that were hit in the Trump administration was lying like, yeah, we had three casualties. Really? They opened a cannon whip ass on like seven countries within 24 hours. And over the course of a prolonged time period of weeks, you've had like 17 aircraft.

You got bombed by F5, a cold water airplane. And you're like, yeah, we got them beat. We destroyed their Navy. We destroyed their airports. We destroyed everything. 100% of their superiority. 100% destruction of their Navy. 100%.

Really? Doesn't look like 100% to me. I mean, they claim that they online, you can find the me, we destroyed 100% of their Navy. And how come you're still destroying their Navy? Yep. I mean, we're redestroying the Iranian stuff over and over. We're redestroying their nuclear dust, as Trump calls it.

We're red destroying their nuclear facilities. We're redestroying their missile launchers. Man, I mean, these things just keep, they just keep popping back up. It's like a vampire movie. Yeah. And even worse, like war booty in this case. Like, meaning the loser doesn't get war booty. And the reality of it is Iran is grabbing ass in regards to the straight of remotes.

Meaning they have left this war holding on to something that they didn't have before the war. And for all of the proclamations of Project Freedom and all this other nonsense, they're holding on the district. The US can't do anything about it. And Iran is sitting there effectively holding their guns. I mean, meaning they are holding on, like this idea of dictating terms is off the table. Oh, it's ridiculous. It's completely ridiculous. You're up for taking some questions? Absolutely. All right. Manchild, Marco Rubio is also going to talk to the post to learn him about military in Christ. Oh, that's true. Manchild, thanks for the donation. Let's congratulate our mighty leader for spending a reasonable $50 billion and trampling the economy to begin to renegotiate the rotten JCPOA. Why can't we just all be grateful for this bargain? I think Manchild, point is really worth digging into, right? I mean, if Donald Trump, if he wins, if he gets the best

possible deal out of this, he ends up basically right back where he began before he started it, right? He ends up with something that looks exactly like the JCPOA that he blew up inexplicably without having anything to replace it back in 2018 in his first term. And maybe he ends up with ships being able to pass through the Strait of Armuz without getting hit by the Iranians, which he had seven weeks ago. So basically it's like he walked up to the big kid in the class, picked a fight, the kid beat him up, and now it's basically he has to go and like lick his bruises, you know, lick his wounds and just beat.

But basically he goes right back to the point where he was before. No victory. I mean, that's what victory looks like. at this point. I mean, you know, I don't know how you spin this. And I guess the polls really reflect that. The American people, I mean, I'll give them credit. Usually they buy into the war bullshit a lot more than that. But on the other hand, the administration didn't lift a finger to try to sell it or put or promote it with any propaganda until after it had begun. Well, it was weirder than that. I mean, at least, look, George Bush is a sociopath that I

dies of cancer painfully in his bed for all the people that he murdered and the war that he started. But he did sell it. Like they did make shit up for us. Yeah, they put on theater. They were like, oh, we're in negotiations. We're working with the Brits. We're trying to find a way out of it. Oh, the French. All the French, we're having freedom for us. They were doing all that nonsense, right? And they did this stuff for like a year in order to whip up the warfare further. Trump just came out. It was like, yeah, they have WMDs. We can't let them get enough. So that's why we got to do it. And then it became, well, we need to nuclear dust. And now we need to open the regime change.

We want regime change. Yeah. Like it was never about. Iranian people. Get your story story. You're the Shah. Yeah. I mean, like all of the plans were, it seemingly made on the fly.

And as you point out, the American public just didn't accept it. His approval rating is he is 40 points underwater on the economy. Yeah. That is astonishing. I didn't even think that was possible. It's not going to get better. No, is that? I mean, literally, you're in the state now, if you own a car, you know, if you're like,

if you're at three quarters full, it's probably a good idea to go get gas because it's just going to be more expensive tomorrow. Top it off. There's a report coming out of the New York Post. This is all production won't return to normal until after the midterm elections, no matter when Iran ends the war. Oh, that's true. Yeah.

If we're lucky. If we're lucky. If it stops today. Right. Right, which it won't. To get into that, before we do, Rafael Lingut, thanks so much for the question. How did the Vietnam conflict last over 10 years and yet was never declared a war by Congress? So the answer to that is twofold.

First of all, there was no War Powers Act until 1973. That was at the end of the Vietnam War. And number two, Vietnam was technically considered an international joint effort by the United Nations, right? We kind of forget that. We Americans are always like, we fight every war alone. You don't give the Soviets credit for World War II. But the truth is there were other combatants there. It was a UN police action like the Korean War.

So that was the legal foundation for it. Let's talk about this deal, because you mentioned it segues really well. Axios is reporting that the United States and Iran, I'll believe it when I see it, are close to an agreement. This obviously looks to me like an attempt to manipulate security in the market. I don't believe it either, but we'll see. On a one-page MOU, a memorandum of understanding. So for people who've ever worked in corporate America,

a memo of understanding is basically a very short deal sheet that shows the basic points, and then all of that's going to be codified in a big, long, legalistic document to be figured out later. But basically, you just agree on the main points. Like if you're buying a house, like, hey, how much will the house cost? What will the interest rate be? How much will you put down? That kind of thing. So anyway, under this deal, the MOU would end the war and launch a 30-day negotiation period.

I don't really see the point of that. But why not just like negotiate it now? Iran would suppose would accept a 12 to 15-year moratorium on enriching uranium up to nuclear grade. They would commit to not having nuclear weapons or weaponizing what they currently have. They would remove the nuclear dust, the highly enriched uranium. By the way, it's not dust, it's liquid. They would remove it from Iran, and it would be kept, I guess, by some caretaker third party, maybe the International Atomic Energy Commission or something. Then there would be enhanced and snap UN inspections,

kind of like happened under the JCPOA, there would be no underground nuclear sites allowed, and by nuclear sites we mean just like nuclear research and nuclear power and labs and stuff. The U.S. in return would gradually lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in Iran's frozen money, and both sides would basically ease the restrictions on the Strait of Ormuz.

I see a lot of problems here. How about you? This is nonsense. Like, this is not the idea that, okay, A, Iran has already set up a regulatory management of the straighter firms. That's not changing. So maybe, you know, you can come up with a deal. For one, I don't believe this document, just to be clear.

Axios doesn't have any sources in Iran. Axios sources are coming out of the White House, which is effectively putting this chum into the water for, let's say, market reasons, not necessarily for reality-based reasons. I don't believe for a moment that Iran is going to give up its, quote-unquote, nuclear dust in the way that Donald Trump talks about it. As you point out, it's not dust. The idea that, what was the other way?

It was like they were going to give up the dust. They would have more time. No one around facilities they're going to. Yeah, I don't buy any of this stuff. The idea that they're going to have nuclear research is insane. Like, this is a fever dream that the Trump administration is putting out in the same way they used to do with the Ukraine war, where Trump would be like, hey, there's a 21 point plan that we're working on that we're close to a deal. They would put it out all the time and at war. I didn't believe it then. I don't believe it then. I don't believe it now. I don't, yeah, I don't think. I mean, first of all, even if they, even if the Americans are under the delusion that they think they're close to a deal, I mean, what they don't, they don't see this. They just don't.

understand the Iranian point of view here, which is, look, this has to work for both sides, right? And the Iranians have more at stake here. The U.S. can go home. The only thing the U.S. cares about really is reopening the Strait of Ormos. That's it, because they don't want to tank the economy. But Iran has to have the ability to have nuclear research to be a modern country. Because, I mean, they need it for medical reasons. They need it for their health care system. for their power grid. You know, they need it for a lot of reasons. And now, frankly, they need nuclear weapons

because they know that they have an existential threat from Israel and the United States. They need them to defend themselves. So I don't see how they can agree to that at all. The underground sites, they have to have because that's the only way that they have a reasonable chance of keeping their facilities safe from foreign bombing, U.S. and Israeli.

Yes. I could see Iran agreeing not to enrich up to nuclear grade, let's say for five years. I could see that. I mean, they'll need time to rebuild anyway. So it's the kind of thing, like, if I'm them, I'm like, let's let the Americans have that, because we can't really do it anyway. So I would say they can. And also, I think if I'm the Iranians, I'm like, I want my money.

money back and I want it now. I don't want it later. I don't want it in dribs and grabs. You know, I don't know. I mean, this is just like, this doesn't seem like the kind of deal that's going to make sense. If I'm the Americans, I would ask for something that Iran could easily grant, which is let's make this a mutual non-aggression pact. Like, we will not attack you, but you won't attack us or Israel either. It'll just, the war will truly be over. I think the Iranians would love that. How could you trust it? Well, in two days, the U.S. don't care. It's not about the U.S. doesn't understand. That's the issue with empires, right? I don't need to care about your priorities. I don't need to care about what you want. I'm an empire. I am imposing,

or at the release, I am dictating terms, which is what this deal is. They're acting as if they won the war, which is why I don't believe this nonsense. Meaning, they are putting out a deal that effectively is a one-sided deal saying, hey, we're close to a deal. And Iran is about to agree to this lopsided deal where they're going to give up their nuclear weapons, nuclear ambitions, nuclear energy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They're going to get their money later. Like, really? You think they're going to go for that? Like, you really think that Iran trust the money. I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a month today. Yeah. That's what I mean, right? It comes across as if the U.S. is projecting strength.

We are dictating terms. We are having this deal. This deal is one side on our side because we are the winners of this conflict. And yet, what's happening on the ground seems different. It just seems different. I could be wrong. It seems different.

Yeah, no. I agree. And, like, look, obviously, this is, it's a, it's ridiculous. All right, I think that we can agree on that completely. Let's look at a few more comments. here. Let's see. Constant to know the world is being held hostage to Trump's ego.

True. Pretty much. According to Republicans and conservatives, says a very long name. The UN has been bad for America. Yeah. True, but it wasn't. It's not in the world. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. So let's move on. There were elections yesterday. I don't know if, I think, look, we're looking for tea leaves for the fall.

And I think this stuff is interesting. This was a really mixed bag. These are minor elections, but Indiana, and particularly, is notable. So in Indiana, there were a number of local Republican officials who pushed back against Trump's plan to redistrict toward the midterm elections. and basically they were seven local officials who said, look, look, Indiana voters don't like the redistricting idea. We want to do it at the normal time after the census every 10 years. We just don't think it's good.

Trump was furious. He's like, this is the national plan. We started this in Texas and Florida, and now we're going to do it all over the place. So he, to get even, ran through some money in order to primary out these candidates. Five out of seven did indeed lose to Trump-backed candidates. So Trump can definitely claim their scouts in terms of the internecine battle within the Indiana GOP. And, you know, I mean, I'm torn about that. On the one hand, good on the Indianans for being

independent and for fighting back against Trump. But on the other hand, it sounds like the people of Indiana, they want their local officials to join in on this redistricting process and to, instead of convincing, you know, having a representative democracy where politicians try to convince voters that they understand their problems and that they have solutions for them, that instead we're just going to redraw districts into victory in the midterm elections, and they like that plan. There was also, but otherwise, things went well in Ohio and Michigan. again for Democrats. And generally speaking, that's been a continuation of an, they outperformed expectations in Ohio. The candidate there won by 20 points was expected to barely sweep by.

So, I mean, I guess my fear as a left-leaning person is that Democrats are going to interpret this, as they always do when they win the midterms, as vindication for their policies and their approach. They love us. Look, we don't have to change a thing. And that's really just not accurate. Yeah, that was my concern. I mean, even with, in the very beginning when Donald Trump got in office and you had Democrats like losing their mind. And I mean, run into the middle, like just the regular population.

And, you know, the plan was seem to be straightforward. Basically, let Trump be Trump and we'll pick up the pieces after Trump. F-set up. that is effectively what they're doing, meaning we don't have to change. We are perfectly virtuous. Trump is a monster. Trump is somehow unique in the political space. And they'll come back to us, and we will see that as a self-affirming, you know, the situation of paradigm.

As opposed to, yeah, both of you are hated. America hates both of you. They don't like it. It's the reason why they're slashing back and forth in the way they're slashing back and forth. And I think what you're saying is a Democratic printout. There's a book called The End of Time, End of History. But basically. Francis Fukyama.

Well, it's in a district Fugiamma. But this guy is Peter. Okay. Peter, Peter Fitchin, Thusson, Thucon. Thucon, Thucon, Thucon. And maybe getting the name wrong, but it's like, end of time or end of history or something like that. But basically what he argues is that governments run for about 200 years before. it gets to the point where there are so many elites and those elites are incapable of change,

meaning the political system gets so stick to it. Like, it can't make adjustments. It can't be flexible. It can't accommodate the needs of the population. And you have so many elites that are in office that benefit from that particular system that don't want the system to change so they don't change the system, which invariably ends up in some sort of governmental or, let's say, constitutional breakdown, basically the revolutions. Now, I find it to be super interesting about the redistricting. We've talked about

this before, that a lot of the laws that are made are made with this idea of good faith. Well, you have a good faith basis of doing so, so we're not going to put in bad faith into the law. You should put in bad faith. Like, meaning if you have a situation where the person could say, hey, if we redistrict, we can gain an advantage in the political space beyond the voters putting us in, but screw with the space itself in order to get an advantage from the system itself. Okay, there's something wrong with your government, if that's true. It just is. I mean, whether they're doing in California, whether they're doing it in Texas, wherever they're doing it.

Yes, I support it in California. I supported it in Virginia, but that was because of Republicans were doing it first. And this idea of them trying to get the strangle seems outrageous to me. I mean, give me your take on this. It feels like packing the. court in a weird way, despite the fact it's not a court as congressional districts, but it feels very similar to me. It is. Yeah, I mean, look, this is not, look, jurymen, one of the very first, maybe by some standards, the very first political cartoon in the United States was Ben Franklin's

The Jerrymander, which is basically a picture, I believe, of a Massachusetts voting district in the 1770s, that basically looked like almost like a dragon, like an evil dragon. So gerrymandering has been with us since the very beginning of the Republic, right? And it's always about like, you know, trying to make districts look, you know, more like, I mean, there's no, like, objective way to fix this. I've every, but smart people, much smarter people than me have thought about this for a long time. Like, how do you make it fair, right? I mean, there's kind of no inherent way to do it.

I mean, like, in the district that I grew up in, the third congressional district in southwestern Ohio near Dayton, the district made sense. It was the county, and it was like it seemed to make sense, right? So there's Dayton right in the middle. Then there's the surrounding suburbs and a donut. And then there's the rural farmland around it out in the hinterlands. And then you hit the next district in the county border. And that district looks kind of similar. But like most parts of the United States don't look like that.

And, you know, like in Manhattan, where I used to live on the Upper West Side, you know, it would have made sense to have, say, the Upper West Side of Manhattan be a contiguous district, but it wasn't. It was a very strange district that ran down the side of like the beach of Western Manhattan, jumped across New York Harbor and then incorporated like rusty parts of Brooklyn. And you're like, wait, what? So it makes no sense. I don't know how to solve that problem.

But that problem was a problem that we only dealt with every 10 years. Under Donald Trump, it's a problem that we are going to be basically dealing with constantly. And it does feel like packing the courts. It basically feels like something you do when you lose faith in your ability to reach out to appeal to voters and to convince them that you care about them. I mean, look, when people are this fall, American voters are going to vote Democratic. They're voting against the incumbents. They're sending them. message that they're pissed off at the Republican incumbency, and they want them, like, because we don't have a parliamentary system, so the only reasonable way you can send the message is by voting for the party out of power, then they become the party in power, and then we vote against them. And, you know, this is just the sick, twisted, gross system that we have that really blows. And it doesn't solve any of our problems. It doesn't even attempt to. So, you know, I mean, this is why the system is doomed because it's not only unresponsive to the American people. I don't think it can be responsive to the American people.

It's not set up to be. It doesn't make it. It incentivizes this kind of gross behavior. Well, there, wars escalate, if it makes sense. Like, the two political parties are effectively two warring armies in a devolved sense, meaning if there was a civil war, ideally, Democrats and Republicans will be the two sides, right? Wars tend to evolve, especially if you don't necessarily have an overriding point, overriding ideology. Like, Dune, they used to always say that governments require religion associated with it because you need it some kind of guiding principle over top of the government,

apparatus to support in line with government apparatus like an ideology, a guiding ideology. And with the guiding ideology, of course, you just have people fighting and finding ways to get around, let's say certain things that would ensure a representative government is representative. And that's what they don't. That's what they're doing, right? It's no difference. It's like, all right, we're not going to be able to win this thing because, you know, we really, I took a shit in the White House. So what am I going to do? Oh, I know. Let's just read redistrict. And if we redistrict, then it doesn't really matter with the population once. That was the whole T-party thing, right? Where you had Republicans in charge, despite the fact that it was a small percentage of people who voted them in. And it's like, okay, this is not, meaning you had certain T-party Republicans or even Democrats, right, that could be in a district that they were firmly entrenched. Didn't matter what they do. They can shoot a guy on Main Street. And it's still like, yeah, we're going to put that guy in. This is what? what we've gotten. And I understand the redistricting thing has been around for a while.

But if you remember, part of the Voting Rights Act was to prevent those weird looking districts where they would have like, okay, we're going to edge out all of the black population. We're going to put them into this thing so they don't have any majority rule or they don't have any ability to influence the voting, despite the fact that this particular area should be a district in and it of itself. It's that stuff. And from my point of view, that's just pretty much polished off. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean, with the voting. right, Zach has been ripped, you know, limb from limb at this point. Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I guess one thing, I mean, I don't know if I buy the idea that, you know, black districts want to elect black representatives or that white districts want to elect white representatives. I think black districts want to elect the districts that whatever that district wants to, the representatives that that district wants to elect, if that makes sense. Right. No, I agree with you. I guess, but it should be.

they should have some level of political clout to do so. That's my point. Right. Whatever the choice is let them have that choice. Right. I guess that's one point, right? Like, if you have less, do you remember, oh, what is his name? What is his name?

He was a Democrat. He got etched out when he redistricted. He was far to the left. Dennis Kucinich? Dennis Kucinich, right. But same for the moment, that Dennis Kucinich was in a district where there was a large predominance of blacks. and that's who they want. And then you redistrict

when you make the district in a way where those blacks are effectively edge out of having political clout, in which case he gets eliminated. I don't care if they vote for a white guy. I don't care if they vote for a Chinese guy. I don't care if they vote for Japanese guy. I want them to be able to vote their best interests.

And some of the districts that were created were created specifically to edge out the capabilities of them being able to do so, which is what they would do it. there has to be a better way to do it. Even if it's computer modeling, there has to be a better way to do this. Well, they definitely use computer models. I mean, the problem is, like, what's the goal here?

I mean, you would want there to be some kind of like Star Trek-in computer model that chooses districts based on demographics, class, race, whatever, that sort of, I think you want a community to be able to have. its representative. That makes any sense, right? And communities look different depending on what part of the country you're looking at, right? I mean, clearly to me, central Baltimore is a community. It's several communities. It's like, you know, the Annapolis is a different, entirely different community. And those people, they should probably be represented. And, you know, the sticky, I mean, obviously a computer makes it easier, but, you know, the point is that there's no goodwill here,

at work. Let's do some comments here. Frank Friel, thanks so much for the $5. Negotiating with the United States is like trying to negotiate with a tiger. True. P.W. Walker, thanks for the dollar. Democrats have been Lucy with the football for so long. They have no real base anymore except for shitlibs, right?

Which defines shitlibs. I mean, to me, a shitlib is just basically someone who votes Democratic, no matter what, blue, no matter who. and they don't care about the results or the policies. Right. Agreed. Agreed. I mean, but to be honest, look, I find a Democratic Party to be a problem. Oh, a huge problem is where the left goes to die.

Yes, but I think they're a bigger problem than Republicans. Because the reality of it is, if you had a credible left party, a populist party that represents... On the way, we need to talk about that because there's a proposal right now. The DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, which is best known for people, Bernie Sanders and AOC, they just put out a missive yesterday. I don't know if you saw it online, basically saying we are calling to elect a presidential candidate in 2028. We are calling for an alliance of all the left, in other words, the left outside the Democratic Party, including but not limited to the DSA, to all come together and nominating.

candidate and wait for it, Jamarle, run them inside the Democratic primaries. Oh, that's so aggravating. I feel like we've done this, right? Like, if you remember, I don't know if you ever watched too much. Some Jewish guy from Vermont tried this. He tried that. A lot of people tried that. If you remember when AOC got elected, AOC was like, we're going to primary some folks.

I don't know if you remember this. Like when she was like, when she first get in, she's all, you know, spry. and she's like filled with confidence. I just took that Democrat out. We're going to primary some folks. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. We're going to wash those Democrats right out of our hair.

Yep. And then became Mama Bear. Mama bear. Oh, no, we're going to force the vote because, you know, Pelosi is kind of against it. And we were told that we were able to get $15 an hour minimum wage under Joe Biden and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. None of that came to pass. Not of it.

25 it is. And they remorselessly cheated Sanders. Multiple times. So for them to be like, hey, we're going to board the ship. This is the whole TYT thing, right? We're going to board the ship. We're going to board the ship. How's that going?

How's it going? I mean, look, it's funny because I had, so in the summer of 2015, I sat down with Bernie Sanders in Bill Press's townhouse in Washington, Disney, and interviewed him for my book, Bernie, which is, frankly, the, really the only bio of Bernie Sanders. even now, which is kind of funny. Anyway, at the time, he was running 2% in the polls. And one of my very first questions to him was, why are you running inside the Democratic Party

rather than as an independent, like Ralph Nader? And his answer, and it's not a terrible answer, was the Democratic Party has the infrastructure, right? Like they're on the ballot in every state. They're in every county. You can get media attention in a way that you can't get, that you're marginalized when you run outside of Democratic Party. So it's about getting attention.

I mean, he's not wrong about those. I don't accept that. But let's look at what happened. I mean, basically, the Democratic Party treated him like an invading organism that had to be expelled. They did everything possible to fuck him. You know, stupid stuff, like every candidate is supposed to get logs from the DNC, of all the, you know, all the Democratic registered Democrats in the country so that those parties can call them and reach out to donations. Well, but somehow they forgot to send them to Bernie's

campaign. Just shit like that, skull dougary. And, you know, Hillary Clinton got the debate questions, right? I mean, just stuff like that. And so where, I mean, I guess the whole point is it's almost like you're not going to learn this lesson from 2024. I mean, I understand the difficulty of creating a third party and getting it on the ballot in all 50 states. But look, you do have the Green Party. It does exist. You could do that. You could create something new.

I don't think, frankly, I think this is more bullshit. The point is you have to start, like Robbie says, on the local level. You've got to start with the dog catcher and the sanitation commissioner and, you know, city council and build from the bottom. you don't just skip straight to the White House. I mean, imagine if it worked, it wouldn't work, right? It wouldn't work. Let's say somehow you could get a president, I mean, you can't, but let's just say you get an independent candidate for president elected, right?

President Jamarle Thomas. Okay, but the point is President Jamarral Thomas has zero allies in Congress and literally never gets a bill passed, not one, not even to rename a post office, nothing. That's the problem. You have to have a party. Yeah. I think it's worse than it, to be honest.

Even, I call it an esoteric other. That when somebody goes, let's say you're a voter. And you say, okay, I want, I like Jill Stein. That's what the person says. I like Joe Stein. I like, you know, this random candidate. And you go to the polls and you think to yourself, but does this candidate have a chance of winning?

Right. And then you think to yourself, No, and I don't want to waste my vote. So I'm going to vote for this random person that I don't particularly like that's part of a Democrat or a Republican Party. And that's what most people do? Yeah, the esoteric other, right? It's like, what will other people do? I'm a weirdo.

I don't care that my vote is wasted. So I waste my vote. But like most people do what you did, what you're talking about. Right. They lump in. So even that's an issue, right? So Sanders is not wrong. I guess my thing, if I had a criticism of it, it became very clear.

The Sanders had a good chunk of, like, millions, like 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million people that would, like, crawl on high glass in the middle of an alien invasion to vote for Sanders. Well, they didn't show up to the polls to vote for him, really. True. They went to his rallies. They wanted to look for him. In 2016. In 2020, they did vote for him. Yeah, in 2020, had a better chance.

I guess my thought is his unwillingness to go to war with the party in the way that Trump was willing to go to war with the party. Meaning Trump was willing to effectively beat the Republicans into submission. It was a hospital. Yeah. Sanders tried to do something similar. Yeah, there were super delegates and stuff like that. But also Sanders didn't have to wield a little punch. Like meaning it's a lot of some of the stuff is with him.

Like meaning in 2020, Sanders had a chance. yeah, it just, I don't know. I mean, I knew a lot of people very high up in the campaign who knew the senator and his thinking at the time. And, you know, he's too much of a gentleman. And it frustrated the shit out of them because this is definitely a rusty knife fight. It is not, you know, it's not Queensberry rules.

DNC cheats like the day is long. Waterways, thanks so much for your donation. Good morning, Ted and Jamarro. Any predictions on China? China's role in settling the blockade of the strait. Iran is there today. The U.S. will arrive in a little over a week. China definitely wants that goal. They like it. I mean, I think they like the idea for their image. And they also be like big, big grandpa coming in and knocking heads together and fixing things. But also, they want the stability, right? They want the straight

reopen. They want the free flow of commerce. they want everyone to get back to business and stop blowing things up. I think they'll certainly talk to both sides behind the scenes, but they're not going to be, the U.S. will never agree to let China broker a peace conference. Too bad, they should, but they won't. No, they won't. I mean, but again, I don't know, like, Pakistan was being a stalking horse for the U.S., right? Pakistan was the one that was effectively saying being pushed by the U.S.

By the same token, Pakistan also opened up land routes for Iranian oil to get through in certain locations. So I know the U.S. is not going to want China to be an intermediary. By the same token, I don't know who either side would agree as an intermediary. Let's say, for example, they come up with a deal. And in the context of the deal, Iran might say, well, I want Russia and China to be parted to the deal. Do you think the U.S. would agree to it? meaning security guarantees. I mean, and that's assuming Russia and China even agree

the security guarantees put themselves on hook like that. I don't know. I mean, I would imagine an Arachi is going to solidify strategic ties with China. China does want to get back to business because from its point of view, the longer time goes, the better of an advantage it would have

militarily and industrially. And so the longer things, they calm, the better off China is from a sense, standpoint of the U.S. effectively being. But frankly, the better off we are, too. And the thing about the United States, we're such children. I mean, letting someone else take point sometimes is not a, it's not a weakness. And, you know, turning to the Chinese and saying, like, we'd love your help brokering this.

It would be an act of maturity. I don't think it would be like, oh, my God, we've been cooked. I don't believe that. I just, maybe I don't think right. I just don't see it that way. I don't think you're thinking like an empire. I don't think you're like an empire. How does an empire like subordinate itself?

You're not subordinated yourself. You're sort of like in Central Asia, whenever there's a border dispute, which happens all the time because the borders were drawn by Stalin in a way that was meant to divide and conquer. The Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz are always brought in to negotiate. Kyrgyzstan is one of the poorest countries in Central Asia. When the Uzbeks and the Kazakhs have the Kyrgyz come in and sit down, they're the Kyrgyz are the poorest people at the table. But everyone respects the Kyrgyz and their wisdom. Now, so maybe it's okay for them for the Uzbek and the Kazakhs because everyone knows the Kyrgyz

are poor and China's not poor. So maybe the analogy doesn't doesn't work there. I don't know. China is big and rising and powerful. Maybe that's the problem. I mean, Pakistan works. because they're not perceived that way. Hell, let's get Monaco to do it.

I mean, do you, the U.S. is news. The U.S. considers itself a superpower. The U.S. is not interested in making a fair deal. The U.S. wants to dominate. And so the idea of subordinate yourself to somebody who's going to be fair in some kind of deal is off the table. Look, I accept your point, right? It's like, dude, if you're trying to get a fair deal

and you want to get out this conflict, find a third party or neutral party that can do it, the Chinese could do it. But we're not looking for a fair deal. I'm thinking, like if I'm thinking like the American Empire, I'm thinking, let the Chinese take this role. If they have to serve as neutral arbiter in the future and they have to be perceived as neutral arbiter, that means they can't be aggressive. That invading Taiwan would go against brand.

This kind of backs them into the peace corner and the calls. calmness corner and they kind of effectively neutralize themselves, I'd let them do it. It's jujitsu. I hear you. I hear you. Anyway, all right. Let's move on here. Maybe Bluth, thanks for the dono.

Guys, the DSA is a sci-op, in my opinion. Try to join in Chicago and got a, let's get coffee invites from informants. Let's get coffee invites from informants. I don't know. I'm just saying. Look, my interaction with DSA was very, very peripheral over the years. And there's a certain cultish aspect to them, you know, with the people that you meet. Like sort of like you kind of like I went on a date with a DSA chick. Did you?

And she was kind of like, you know, to fully commit. I would have to join the DSA. And I'm like, why? Why? Like, it's like, it was kind of like understood. And I'm like, you're cute, but you're not that cute. It's like, you got to be a Catholic, no. There was, I don't know if you've ever watched Nanda Day, Beyonce. There was a white woman who was into black guys.

I have seen. She was into Africans specifically. And she went over into, I think, like detouria or somewhere like that. And the guy was like, you must meet my witch doctor, uncle. And he has to bless the union. And it's like, what?

It's like, is that really this important? So what is like this kind of religious thing? It's like, well, you had to be a Catholic in order to be with me. I mean, yeah, I don't know. And she's not the only one I had that experience with, where it's just sort of like, yeah, it's kind of like, you know, back in the 70s, they called this recruiting on your back. Yeah, yeah.

What? Recruiting on your back. Oh, jeez. Yeah, yeah. Is that it was? Yeah. Yeah, it's like 11 light, hip-it's hooking up with rand-o bums. I'm sure that there are many people who are in DSA, who are fine human beings and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But there is sort of a somewhat culty vibe. There just is. Anyway, Anyway, thanks for P.W. Walker, Democrats run on identity as a substitute for economic progress. We had the first black president, the first retired senator, the first female secretary of state as accomplishments. And probably if I'm right, the first gay presidential nominee, and we've had the first woman presidential nominee and all that stuff. That is their thing.

That is their thing these days. And, you know, Barack Obama is a great example of, like, Yeah, you can have a black president who is not a liberal. Yes. You know, that didn't, that wasn't true in the old days, right? Like, it used to be automatic. If you were, if you were black and you were in politics, you leans left. There was no exception to that. But that stopped being true, I would say in the 80s, maybe, 90s, 90s.

I mean, third way Democrats. You're the same with the James Clyburns and those kind of people. Yeah, I would argue third way Democrats. I mean, they kicked out New Deal Democrats and they defended. their territory, which is why they went after Sanders. I mean, Sanders was only like an old-time Democrat. Yeah, he, he, he's a super country with a Brooklyn accent. Yeah.

Yeah. So I don't know. I mean, I think it's when third way Democrats got in, they defended their intellectual space, if that makes sense. Like, meaning they had a body of ideas in regards to how to get elected. Hey, we're going to use wokeism stuff. We're going to depriety prioritize economics. We're going to take all the money in the world.

I think if I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton took more money. That was the most money a candidate had gotten even above Republicans, if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong on that. I need to be fact-checked for that. But my point is, right, yeah. Yeah, I mean, so they changed. They became something else. Oh, what is that? Thomas Frank talks about that. And we're supposed to, like, you know, people who criticized, like, black conservatives as, like, race traders were like, well, you know, it's racist to tell, It's racist to tell black people that they have to be Republicans. And I'm like, yeah, I guess so. It's not, it's not, it's not, it's not incorrect just to make that argument.

But, you know, a lot of people still see, you know, if they don't, if they're not familiar, they're not following closely. They're like, oh, like, he's black. He must be a lefty. It's like, yeah. Maybe. Well, he must be a Democrat. Condi Rice, not so much. All right, let's do an ad here.

Here we go, loading it up. All right, quick question. How much control do you actually have over your money right now? Technology has changed everything, and now it's changing how money works. Crypto started as a niche, but now it's going mainstream. Faster payments, more control, fewer middlemen. This isn't hype. It's just where things are going.

And getting started today is easier than you think. That's where Rumble Wallet comes in with Rumble Wallet. You can buy Bitcoin, hold dollar-backed stable coins, even own digital gold, backed by real gold all in one place. Setup is simple. It connects with moon pay, so you could use your debit card, credit card, or bank account, and be up and running in minutes. Start small, $10, $50, $100, $100. It's not about the amount.

It's about getting in early and understanding what's coming next. And once you're set up, you can even tip your favorite Rumble creators, like us, directly. So do this now. Scan the QR code or click the link in the description and download Rumble wallet. From there, you can set up your wallet. Tap buy, and you're in the game. Take control of your money. Get started with Rumble Wallet today.

Let's see. A couple more questions. Maybe blue. If you haven't mentioned quotes from what is to be done, I'm not sure DSA is a great place to join if you haven't memorized quotes from what is to be done. Well,

they're not, I mean, yeah. The thing is the DSA people, I've met, they all have Lenin on their shelves, but I don't think they have Lenin in their hearts. You know what I mean? Like, they're not looking for the violent overthrow of the state. Not real. No, they're looking at a massage the state. Like for, they want to move in a particular direction, not bash the state, if that makes sense. I agree with you. I mean, I don't think Sanders, despite himself calling for a political revolution, was looking for a political revolution. that makes it.

Yeah. Because after all, you don't need to say political revolution, but revolution is a political act by definition, right? So, like, just the fact that there's an adjective there for some reason sort of tips you off that something's not quite there. We should talk about the ballroom. Yes. So Donald Trump basically had bulldozers come and not denounced.

on the east wing of the White House without any kind of approval from anyone whatsoever. He's basically acting like it's his own house. Donald, you're only a tenant for four years, unless you're removed. Then you'll be evicted earlier. But anyway, and then the idea, he said, oh, I'm going to put up this big, beautiful ballroom that basically there's been all this controversy over, mainly because it was the original design was that it was going to be bigger than the White House itself, which a lot of people were not into. So now it's been, brought down. So now the construction's kind of on hold as they try to figure out what to do. One of the big talking points on the right has been, well, no one should be upset because the ballroom

is privately funded. Well, it turns out that now the Senate Republicans are asking for $1 billion in substantial part, not all of it, but in substantial part to cover the construction of this reinforced security center and apparatus that will be under the ballroom in order to protect, I guess that's where the, maybe where the new bunker will be or whatever. We don't really know what we'll be down there, maybe a new situation room, maybe not. Anyway, a billion dollars while people are starving to death in the streets. I mean, it seems real extreme to me. I'm against any protection for the president going forward, period.

like the idea that you're spending a billion dollars on a random ballroom is outrageous. Like nobody asks for it. You decided that you wanted it almost like this kind of grand thing, as you point out, the president acting as if he owns the White House, which is just outrageous. And you're dropping a billion dollars of American money on it while the economy is going into a tailspin.

Yeah, there's this. I mean, it's tone depth. Like, of my mind, they just, they don't care. It is okay. No, they don't care. The thing is, you know, I agree with you. I actually think that, like, the president of the United States no longer should get security. I mean, it's kind of like if the people love you, the people will protect you.

You know, you should. I mean, I don't have security. You don't have security. No one kills us. We're okay. You know, it's like also I'm not killing Ghazans or Lebanese people. Maybe that's why no one's trying to shoot me. You know, it's like, yeah, enough is enough, right?

I mean, like, if, look, let's put it this way. If you need a billion dollars or half a billion dollars to protect one man's life, maybe we shouldn't have that one man. Right. Right. He has secret service. He doesn't need a billion dollar bunker under a ballroom that nobody asks for. No.

Like, just no. Why do Republicans think they can get away with this request without like pissing off the American people to no end? I don't think they'll go. Yeah, I don't think they, somewhere along the way, they stopped caring or they believe that the American public is disengaged. I don't know which one is. It's bizarre. Anyway, all right. Well, so anyway, that doesn't for today's show.

We'll be back at 12 noon in just two hours through now for the. Wednesday, 12 noon Eastern Time Q&A show with Jamarle and I will be answering all your questions about anything you want, politics, personal stuff. We could still do my advice thing. J.T. and I will answer your relationship questions. I'm good at this. There were a few questions in the chat that we didn't get to today about astrological stuff. J.T. could... What?

Anything you want. So Q and A at 12 noon. Please stay tuned for the TMI show with me and Manila Chan coming up in just a minute or two. We're going to try to rate it over today successfully. We failed yesterday. We apologize for that, but we'll do that today. Looks like it probably is going to work. And I think that does it.

We are back tomorrow at 9 a.m. at the regular time. See you at 12 noon. If you're so inclined, by JT. See you at 12 noon. Have it going, man. You tell you.