DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - Trump to Launch New US War in Mali | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: July 23, 2026

Conflict reporter/writer/cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM ET. Jeff Dornik, CEO of Pickax, joins to discuss the Freedom News Network, AI data collection, how the social media industry silos Americans for rage clicks, and whatever else comes up!Today we discuss:• Will Trump start his 8th war? His administration is weighing military action against the West African country of Mali to target an al-Qaeda-affiliated group known as JNIM. So much for ending global strife and redirecting U.S. resources to Americans.• Could New Jersey cost us our democracy? A furious Gov. Mikie Sherrill announces that, under the former governor, a “serious software error” within the system used to issue New Jersey drivers’ licenses and ID cards registered 6,600 people who said that they were not U.S. citizens to vote. 400 of them actually cast ballots. This feeds directly into Trump’s election-fraud narrative.• Donald Trump signs a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that could enable the kingdom to enrich its own uranium for nuclear reactions. Safeguards? Not so much.LIVE ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShowhttps://x.com/tedrallhttps://x.com/JamarlThomas#tedrall #jamarlthomas #news #politics

Summer weather can be relentless, the heat, the humidity, long, hot days that leave you ready for cooling, relaxing relief. Karaloha bamboo sheets are naturally cooling, breathable, and luxuriously soft, letting you enjoy a sleep experience that feels better and recharges you every night. This season, Discover why Kariloja is proud to partner with the National Exima Association in celebrating comfort that's gentle on skin. sleep cooler, comfier, and cleaner with Caraloha bamboo. Visit caroloha.com. That's C-A-R-I-L-O-H-A.com. Cari-O-O-H-A-C-R-O-H-A-C-R-O-H-A-G. You are watching or listening to D-P-R-R-R-O-R-R-O-T-R-R-R-O-P-R-E-R-R-R-E-R-R-R-E-R-R-R-E-R-R-R-R-R-R-E.

inappropriately politically is producer Robbie West. Jamar Thomas, where is he? Do we know? He's still streaming. Oh, is he on with a certain Russian expert? It definitely could be possible. I don't know because I got up and as soon as I woke up, the wife was like, Robbie. Before we do anything else, you must go get me a professional coffee. So being a professional husband, a home brew is not going to work.

Oh, it's one of those. morning. It's one of those days. And so, sure answer is no. I did confirm though with Jeff Dornick. He'll be here at the bottom of the hour. Looking forward to have a good conversation with him. Yeah, exciting things happening. And we're very grateful to him. We'll be talking to him in 28 minutes thereabouts. He's for people unfamiliar or haven't seen him before. He's a very smart dude. He's also the CEO of Pickax, which is a new social media company, relatively new, and which you may or may not have heard of. If you haven't, I encourage you to check it out.

And to go and follow Robbie, go follow myself, follow the show over there on Pickax. It's very helpful to us. And they've been very helpful in helping the show grow and recover from the incident that shall not be named from April Fool's Day. Until the next time we decide to name it. Okay, so let's see. There's no point in naming it. I mean, it is what it is. Leave it dead buried in the past.

That's where it belongs. I mean, you know, that's why Lott's wife got turned into salt. She looked back. Because she looked back at Sodom and Gamara. So what you do, whenever you're going through a trial like this, if your world's getting turned upside down, looking back of what you used to have is never a winning strategy. All you do is go through it. Just go forward.

Just plow through. Just don't get drunk and have sex with your daughters. What? With your daughters? If it's the South, isn't that required? No. cousins in the south. We borrow that from our Islamic friends in Central Asia. Cousin fucking is perfectly legal. Oh, well, thank God for that. All right. There's Jamarle. I'm taking

Robbie out so he can go do producer things. Okay, good morning tomorrow. How are you doing? How are you doing, Ted? You're doing okay? I'm all right. I'm all right. So a little housekeeping. I always landing on the weirdest stuff. It's like, I'm sure. I think that would be true at, you know, in any random point in this show, it's something weird going on. So, all right, so we've got TMI coming up at 10, 11 o'clock DMC America with me and Scott Stantis. We'll be talking about the effect of AI on editorial cartooning in particular and cartooning in general. Hope you check that out. Okay, so lots going on.

We have Jeff Dornick, CEO of Pickax, joining us for an interview at 930. He'll be talking about Freedom News Network, the show, but he'll be talking about a lot of other stuff related to AI slop and stuff that's actually very German. remain to things that are going on nowadays. So, okay, we talked a little, we touched upon this yesterday. Mali looks like it's in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. We've got to talk about this story in New Jersey. I think we have to put that up front. It's a big deal.

And then Saudi Arabia, we got a, you know, we touched upon it yesterday, but maybe we can go a little deeper because we know a little more about it. So we know what's going on with this nuclear enrichment. deal that the Trump administration is basically, I love how they call it, Gibral, a transfer of technology. I mean, a transfer makes it sound like, you know, just changing busts. Summer weather can be relentless, the heat, the humidity, long, hot days that leave you ready for cooling, relaxing relief. Caraloja bamboo sheets are naturally cooling, breathable, and luxuriously soft, letting you enjoy a sleep experience that feels better and recharges

you every night. This season, discover why Cari Loja is proud to partner with the National Exima Association in celebrating comfort that's gentle on skin. Sleep cooler, comfier, and cleaner with Caraloha bamboo. Visit caroloja.com. That's C-A-R-I-L-O-H-A.com. Karoloha, same summer, just softer. It's a gift. It's like, hey, here's some uranium.

Have fun. Kind of. I mean, keep in mind, though, this is a position of weakness by the U.S. not a position of strength. I mean, the same thing is true with Turkey, with the F-35s. The U.S. held that over their heads for God knows how long. They wouldn't give it to Rode Rhea the F-35s. They're doing this because Saudi Arabia is floating closer to China, closer to Russia. And then, you know, the moment you get something like the U.S., the petrol dollar, in this case, the petrol yuan. Okay, then the entire edifice that the U.S. is baked on starts to unravel.

I mean, keep your mind, we are based on predominantly oil and gas. The Middle Eastern countries sell their oil and gas and dollars, which creates a backstop for the dollar, since they're nothing backing the dollar anyway, right? Just confidence in American military. No, we're doing this because we need them to stay closer to us in our orbit. This is Saudi Arabia effectively doubling down on its association with the United States

in the face of recognizing, hopefully they recognize, they're not safe. Meaning you can't protect yourself. The U.S. can't protect you. They call it defense, but does it look like defense as the military bases in Saudi Arabia,

UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Syria, et cetera, gets obliterating. And your Saudi ships are specifically, they're the ones only ones that the Houthis are specifically pissed off about. and blocking from the Red Sea.

Have you seen the ship that they blew up yesterday? I did. It was impressive. Yeah, it was impressive. We said no, no means no. And what happened to the other two? Like deer, they turned the other direction. Well, if you're the captain of the ship, that's the smart move. Yeah, I mean, you just watch the ship get blown up.

And despite the U.S. telling you with Saudi Arabia saying, yeah, yeah, it's clear, go. Well, you see it. Yeah, it's like you're the one getting blown up, though. You and your men. You and your men. Yes. It's not, it is not good. Okay, so it's interesting.

I mean, the Israeli aspect of this is super interesting to me, right? Because it was anticipated under the Abraham Accords that Israel and Saudi Arabia would eventually normalize diplomatic relations and become like buddies. And obviously there's some sort of informal cooperation that takes place, you know, co-operation. overtly, let's just say, not so covertly, because we all know it happens. But they're like frenemies, basically. Nowadays, but obviously the Israelis don't really see the friend aspect. They see more the enemy aspect. They're kind of like, you know, now they're worried. They're like, well, okay, so you're going to give, you know, we're the only nuclear power in the Middle East, us Israelis, illegally and, you know, illicitly. And, you know, now the Saudis are going to counterbalance us. And, of course, you know, let's say the unspoken part, the quiet part out loud,

if you're in Tel Aviv, you do not know what the Saudi government is going to look like in five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. You don't know, you know, there's no safeguards in this agreement, apparently, that are designed to prevent enrichment to weapons grade. there's no punishments if Saudi Arabia decides to try to do that. You know, this is a, let's not forget, this is a radical Wahhabist, extremist regime. And all efforts on the part of the Crown Prince, MBS, to try to modernize the country and make it more appealing to tourists and international business,

doesn't change the fundamental nature of the fact that it's a brutal autocracy. see it's a vicious far-right-wing radical Islamist, you know, kingdom, and that, you know, we saw what they did to Khashoggi or anyone else who fucks with them. You know, this regime is, you know, more responsible than any other single force for the 9-11 attacks against the United States and for spreading radical Islam throughout the Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned, don't they? In the future, not right now.

In the future, I mean, you can make an argument that they're never a such thing as permanent friends, right? And so there's always the potential for something to change in the future that affects the Israeli government. I mean, I understand, I guess from their point of view, they want to be the hegemon in the region. They want to be the ones who are in control of nuclear weapons, nuclear power, et cetera, et cetera, meaning they don't want competition in and of itself. And they're going to bitch and moan with the U.S. giving away to F-35s or for that matter, nuclear power. What they don't get is that the United States is not all powerful.

and they seem to, they can complain all they want. The U.S. has limits. Those limits are being reached, and the U.S. is making deals in order to try to shore up its base in the region. Israel can complain all they want, but from the U.S. standpoint, we're doing this because we have to, not because we want to. Meaning it's not like the U.S. is just giving away gifts, right? Like, it's not this, well, we're just being kind and gracious and we're allowing you to. It's not bad. No, it's not that.

to pivot in the region. We need to double down. We need to make sure that these countries are going to stay on board with us, et cetera, et cetera. It's that. And so Israel can bitch and moan all they want. The U.S. is not doing this because they want to. There's a difference. Like, we don't extend gifts to other countries just to be gifts. We're not giving them this, especially with the level of hypocrisy associated with us complaining about Iran and now basically giving it over the farm to Saudi Arabia. So Israel can complain. You can make an argument that any of these things, even the Wahhabis or the terrorist government in Syria, same thing, right? Jalani's power or grip on power is not infinite. He's very dubious in regards to his position in that country. If that country falls apart

and some of these terrorist elements take over, Israel could be targeted also. But they play that game, right? Up to this point, the ISIS has never targeted Israel, which should be mind-blowing considering they want to create this kind of Muslim caliphate. Okay, why? I guess I'm saying the Wahhabi's death cult that is Saudi Arabia, or for that matter, the death cult that is under the Syrian government at this point, both of those things could be threats and risks.

We, I skate on, you know, they're nice. All right, we got some comments, and we have a few more topics. to hit. FU. So is, thanks for the dollar. Now that Israel controls our military and the security state, how many more wars will we all get to die in now? So yeah, I mean, this is obviously, you know, also another story, a major story for the day. The House of Representatives has passed the latest NDAA for 2027, $1.15 trillion. They, interestingly, not the full $1.5 trillion that Hankset asked for, but still, you know, a massive increase in spending over $150 billion additional over last year. They're asking for, and so part of it, and, you know, a lot of attention

has drawn to this heightened intelligence and other sort of synchronization between the Mossad and the CIA and other intel agencies. I mean, it's too much to call it. It's not a comprehensive merger of the two militaries. It's not like there's going to be joint command and control. It's not like, you know, it's not like IDF generals are going to be sitting in the Pentagon. But it's definitely a much heightened, you know, it goes further than I would go, certainly, in terms of, you know, merging with any ally, especially at such a fraught time when that ally has lied to you, misdirected you, and it currently has you embroiled in a shitty war. I mean, how, you know, so how seriously should we take this?

And do you think that's going to make it through the Senate? I mean, I guess the question is, could this be filibuster? I mean, if so, yeah, you may have enough in the Senate to filibuster it, but I guess the catch becomes, will it still pass? Meaning, can this, will this be filibuster? I guess it's the question. Because if the answer is, well, yeah, it could be filibuster. then it may have a hard way to go to get over that filibuster if it can't be filibuster.

This is going to make conservatives, right, wingers very uncomfortable, right? Is there anyone in the Senate though? Is there anyone in the Senate though that you can think of that actually have the stones to filibuster it? I can't think of anyone. Maybe Rand Paul, maybe. Rand Paul lately has been rolling full puss. Yeah, I know. I don't know.

Seriously, I'm not throwing shade. I don't know if there's anyone in the Senate that has the, that has the, that has. has detesticular fortitude to do it. Yeah, I don't think, I mean, it's true. It's like what, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, really? I mean, look, to be fair, though, this bill was close. It wasn't a blowout. No.

Like, meaning, it wasn't a situation where it was, you know, 400 to 2 or something like that. No. I mean, it was only within a few votes that it passed. Yeah, they have that, you know, like that. Six Democrats to cross over. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying, though, is if it was this close in the House, you only need a few votes to kill it

or at least the filibuster in the Senate. Yeah. Yeah, I think this is one of those bills. I mean, basically that I think if I'm in the Senate, I'm thinking if voters are paying attention to this, I shouldn't vote for it. And so I don't know to what extent voters are paying attention. But see, if that's the case,

then why did so many members of the House vote against them? Well, maybe they think voters are paying attention. then why wouldn't the Senate think the same? I'm trying to look. It seems like there's a mixed take on this, yeah. Well, I guess I'm saying I don't know. I'm going by the House as an indicator of the Senate. And if in the House this was a close vote, it wasn't a blowout.

Then in the Senate, why would I believe that it would be a blowout in the Senate? And in the Senate, you only need one vote to filibuster. So I don't know. I mean, I don't think this is going to be a blowout in the Senate. I think this is probably going to be, I think the Senate and the House probably going to mirror each other. Well, I mean, that's like, of course, that's likelier than not. Manchow, thanks for the $2. I don't know what everyone is winging about Mali.

This is the exact decisive action expected from a FIFA Peace Prize recipient. So much peace, the most peaceful peace ever achieved by anyone ever. Yeah, let's touch upon Molly and we'll get to New Jersey and the other comments. So there's this sort of this Islamist group called J-N-I-M. They are not, their Al-Qaeda affiliated, they're not ISIS in Mali. Mali is currently a military junta. They're one of the Sahel states that overthrew their sort of, in this case, French-backed government. It's, Molly is, you know, it's interesting to me that Mali would currently

entertain allowing the US to you know basically launch strike airstrikes into its own territory I mean it would seem like that would be a radically destabilizing effect upon the Mali and the Mali government based in Timbuktu right I mean if I were them I wouldn't do it there the US isn't popular there if anything you know the US is criticizing Russia this is hilarious right they criticized Russia for being involved there for having for having mercenaries provide security against radical Islamists. And now they're criticizing Russia for not being effective.

And they're saying they have to finish the job. You guys should really get your story straight. What you're really saying is you want more Russia. You know, it's, and I think the people, even if you're a dictator, you do care about popular opinion. You know, I don't know. I guess if you're asking. Pardon?

Is the U.S. asking? I don't think the U.S. was asking to launch air strikes in the Mali. I thought they were just doing it. trying to do it. No, they're trying to get permission from the president of Mali. They're not going to get it. They're not going to get it. Like the Sahel states, well, the Sahel states kicked out the French in the U.S. They kicked them out for a reason. And from the people who I spoke to on the ground, they point out that they full well believe that the terrorists that are there are coming from the West, meaning the French, the Americans are effectively paying these

people in order to do what they're doing to create a justification for the U.S. to say, hey, we need to come into the country and launch air strikes. I'm saying the government knows that. The Russians are there for that very specific reason of ensuring the integrity of the Sahel states. I don't believe for a moment they're going to give the U.S. permission. Trump may do it in an invasion, but I don't think they're going to give permission.

I would be shocked if they do that. Yeah, I mean, certainly it wouldn't, I mean, no ground troops are being contemplated. I can't imagine there would ever be any. This would be bombing. This would be Trump's eighth military engagement in a foreign country. since he began his second term, obviously this is not what he promised, right?

I mean, it's just, I got to wonder what the fuck he's thinking, just because, I mean, no one in the United States even knows where Molly is or why it matters. But, you know, they just hear, oh, here we go, another war. Again, you've taken your eye off the ball. You're not focusing on domestic issues. I mean, that to me is the takeaway for most Americans. What do you think? Yeah, he thinks we're idiots. I mean, well, for one, I think. like he thinks the Bali's are idiots. There's that. But like I don't, there's something unsettling and sinister about the way we do policy. Like for example, we would deal with the Russians and Trump would pretend as if we're not a part of the war despite the fact that we're the main proponent of the

war in Ukraine. I mean, the CIA, they were going on energy attacks in like warehouses, like Amazon type warehouses, but it's wildberries. Like we're waging a war, initially an energy war, but a drone war to kill Russians. And Trump will pretend as if, yeah, I'm trying to get us out the war. No, you're not. You're a party to the war. You're a clear proponent to the war.

And the same thing with the Mali thing, right? It's like, hey, we're just trying to help you guys out. But the Russians know that Trump is lying. The Mollies know that he's lying. But that doesn't necessarily stop him from doing that. And even in the process of doing that, where Putin is pretending as if Donald Trump is some kind of upstanding guy. Right? It's like, I hate it when you do that.

Well, hopefully he doesn't get that same reception from the Mali's where they tell him to F off. But it's very sinister. It's like, hey, we're creating a problem. Now we're showing up to try to solve it for you. Yeah. It's not an problem. It's about embrace the American way. That's the American way.

Yeah, but what he wants to do is get the U.S. military back in Mali, back in Sahel. States. They don't like the fact that the Sahel states have gone in their own way, have developing their own resources, have shaped their own futures. Oh, yeah. No, that's not good. We hate it. Yeah, I mean, people, I mean, God, I would not, I always, you know, people who don't know about Molly, I'm like, you do realize Molly was the center of civilization for a long time, right? I mean, it's like literally like all civilization. But, you know, that history is, is not known to most Americans. They're not stupid people, I guess is my point. So, all right, well, we got Jeff coming on in seven minutes, and obviously, I don't know

how long that's going to go, but I definitely got to, we've got to talk about New Jersey. So this is like the worst possible thing that could possibly have happened. I mean, when you were the other day, I had a conversation with Esteban Carrillo. It was just, you know, in the afternoon when you were, you were away. And I were both, it was good, he's always good. And we were talking about how Trump seems to be really setting the stage. He knows he's going to lose the midterms. So he's setting the stage for trying to annul or neutralize the effects of the election

or suspend the results or whatever and say, look, it was all a cheat. You know, China is hacking the election. Who knows what Russia is doing? They're also, we've got the, we've got all the voting machines are being hacked. You can't trust any of that. And you have illegal immigrants voting. And, you know, up until now, everybody's been saying, well, legal immigrants don't vote. I've been saying that.

We've all been saying that. And now we have this news that comes out of New Jersey under the current recent governor of New Jersey. She just discovered that her predecessor a couple of years ago, Basically, the DMV there, the Department of Motor Vehicles, which has a different name there, basically made a mistake and accidentally registered to vote over 6,000 New Jerseyans who said, I'm not a citizen. I'm applying for a driver's license, but I'm not a U.S. citizen. I'm a green card holder or whatever.

They registered them to vote anyway, and apparently several hundred of them did actually cast ballots. There's a lot of sinister aspects to this, not least of which is the fact that, Trump is being uncharacteristically quiet right now about this thing that feeds totally into his narrative. Another thing that's really sinister about it is that this came to light not because the state of New Jersey and Trenton conducted some sort of internal audit and discovered it, but because the Federal Department of Justice contacted Trenton and said, we need you to look into this particular thing. And the state sort of got around to it. And they were like, oh, yeah. So how does the state, so how did the feds know about it?

Right. And so, you know, obviously the feds are poking around, spying on state governments. I'm sure New Jersey's, they're the first, but I'm sure they won't be the last. This has got to be a way to, this has got to be a way to sort of set that narrative, set the table for, you know, when he loses the house, he's going to say, it's all fake. you know, this is the illegals voting and look at what happened in New Jersey and maybe other states. I mean, this is bad news.

Yeah, but he did that already. I mean, Trump has been doing that ever since he lost the election. I mean, I agree with you. But that's all been lies. This is real. True, but and to be fair, I never thought,

I always thought it was possible that a few people that were not eligible to vote, voted, but not necessarily in mass. I agree with you. And 600 people in a state the size of New Jersey, even in a local election, isn't going to be enough to sway an election. Right. And I agree with you that the way this looks fits within a narrative that Donald Trump has been effectively trying to paint. And he is going to run and sell that narrative like grim deaf at the point where he gets crushed and wiped out in a student.

and House elections. I mean, this stuff is brotes. I mean, look, we should have, our elections should be clear, honest, transparent, and to be able to be validated after the fact. That's what it should be as an absolute flat fact. And if we went and tried to pass legislation under to do that,

I would support that. The problem is the moment that you start delegitimizing the elections, then you are on a path of civil war. The thing that allows us to kind of function and engage with each other in this way, despite our differences, is that there is a vote and the person who wins the vote confers the perspective of the majority.

The moment that that's no longer true or you can invalidate that, whether you believe it or not, meaning whether I think, whether I believe that it's invalid or not, I still play on it. Meaning whether I think I won the election or not is irrelevant to me being able to play.

play on the fact that the elections are in shambles, in which case we don't know who's in charge, in which case we have chaos. That's what Trump is playing against. And whereas he thinks that this is purely for tactical advantage from the standpoint of the state and the ability of the state, and I mean, the state as a country to function, you are playing with fire. You're playing with fire. Yeah. I think it's masterfully dangerous. I mean, look, when this story broke, I think you and I both recognized it. for the threat that it is. I mean, this could end up being, like, I mean, you could tell the governor was absolutely

furious. And you could also tell reading between the lines that she understood the really dramatic national political implications. I mean, representative democracy, electoral, you know, electoral democracies, elections in this country could come to an end as a result of a software error in Trenton, New Jersey. I think this is our 1860 moment. I mean, think about this. In the 1860 election, when Buchanan did not run for re-election, the southern states did not have Abraham Lincoln on the ballot.

Right. They were already checked out. Right. And to your point, J.T, elections, whether you think they're rigged or don't really matter, as long as the mythology around them exists, they act like a pressure release valve. Yes. People just need to believe that they matter. It doesn't matter if they actually do or not.

That just that belief has to be there. Once that's gone, the ballot box no longer matters, and it is the cartridge box at that point that makes a difference. Yes. And that's the problem. Yes. And that's what they're playing with. And by the way, this was understood for God knows how long in this country.

Like, that's the reason why the politicians never touched the voting thing. John Kerry might have been cheated in Ohio. John Kerry never brought that up. He never bought it up. Hillary Clinton, when Hillary Clinton wanted to challenge the vote, she didn't do it. she let Jill Stein do it. They didn't touch it for a reason.

It was like when Nixon lost in 1960, I mean, you can make the case that Kennedy cheated one Illinois, that won the election. Yeah, but it's not. It's not really true. I mean, there was cheating, but it didn't make the difference. Well, who knows?

It just comes out, do you believe it or not, right? At the end of the day, though, when Nixon was asked about it, we didn't know that he said this. He says, no, I'm not going to make us think of it. Because Kennedy loves the country. That's what matters. We don't have that anymore. No, we don't. That's the issue. And no, the Democrats started this frankly with Russia, Russia, Russia, Russian, Russia gate. This is just an escalation of that. Well, I mean, you know, honestly, Americans questioning election results is, like you said, goes back to, you know, 1860, 1876.

Well, it does. There's many other examples of Bush v. Gore. You know, I mean, Democrats have done it. Republicans have done it. That's true. But, but the. But the whole Russiagate thing is the first time you said that the other, the foreigner, the foreign actor, put their hand on the scale. I make the argument, Israel's been doing that for 50 years, but they're allowed to, you know, because they're not hacking voting machines or being. Well, they don't need to. Maybe they are, but we don't know about it. Well, they buy congressmen. That's more efficient.

Yeah, true. It's cheaper. Okay, well, I mean, I think we're going to continue to watch this New Jersey story. but you know if there's look it's bad enough by itself as a quantum singularity it probably could be enough but if there's more oh my god if there's even one more state god forbid and i really do want to know how the do joj got that information i mean before we bring in jeff they're poking around yeah they're poking around the trenton's computers right yeah that's crazy too it's a federal government spying on its own States. Anyway, all right, let's go ahead and bring in Jeff Dornick, CEO of Pickax, and who we've

been working with more closely lately. Jeff, thank you so much for joining us here on D. D. Program. Thanks for having me on. I always love chatting with you. Yeah, what do you think of this situation in New Jersey? I'm sure you're aware of it. Yeah, it's interesting because, you know, for me, what ends up being frustrating is I feel like everybody on all sides of all the arguments end up just taking their party line and then we don't actually get get anywhere, which is a little frustrating for me sometimes or a lot of the time, I guess, dealing with politics. But I think for me, the, you know, the, the issue when it comes to the, you know, people, people getting registered or it's a, it's, they always, they always blame a technological

glitch or, you know, whatever it is. Because we deal with, I deal with that out here in California all the time. I mean, we've got, we've got, you know, mountains and mountains of people that are registered to vote that technically shouldn't be or we need to call the role. and all that kind of stuff. I just wish that we could be intellectually honest about it. And, you know, one side, you know, the Republicans will oftentimes say, see, this is proof. The elections are rigged. And then the other, the other side is like, oh, and it was just a glitch, you know, not a big deal. Who really cares? And it's, the truth is usually somewhere there in the middle. And I feel like if we could be intellectually honest, then we could actually deal with something

and a solution that could actually bring about something to actually make it to where people can trust elections. You know, we're dealing with that out here. here in California after what went down in L.A. with Spencer Pratt where whether or not the elections were rigged, it's very unsettling to people, including a lot of Democrats that I talked to out here, because it took, what, like a month to flipping count the votes out here in California where people are like, okay, what is going on when the results completely flipped? They completely changed. it's in to me it's not about proving whether or not an election was was completely flipped for one candidate or the other it's about making people trust the election system and i and i feel like we're

not doing a good job of that yeah i mean i wonder you know that that california i mean thing you know that in ranked choice voting comes into it um obviously um i'm not i'm i don't understand why so many progressives love it uh it gave us mayor eric adams wasn't so great in new york city But, you know, it obviously it's time-consuming. Would it help transparency if there were, you know, more observers, or maybe even the media was allowed to, you know, be in the room where it happens or where the counting happens? So possibly, I think that the issue that we deal with out here in California is there's

so many different ways to vote. And there's, again, there's not a lot of trust in that system from that standpoint, including from Democrats that I talked to out here in California that are around me. So, like, for example, like, you could show up to vote the day of. You could, you could, they send at the same time, they also send a mail-in ballot to every single person. So, you know, technically people have an opportunity to go vote in person. They have an opportunity to do a mail-in ballot.

Also, what a lot of people don't understand or realize is that in the state of California, you can actually apply to have a printed home ballot. So on top of the mail-in ballot, if you have, if you have a disability or you're out of the country, you work or you work for the military, you can actually request. to print your ballot on printer paper. And, but it's a very low threshold to qualify for to be able to do it. So you basically just say, I've got a disability. I can't show up.

I'd like to print my piece of paper. So you print on printer paper, you mail it in. You sign the envelope on the outside anywhere you want because it's just a white envelope. You mail it in. And then you have an election worker will take your, your piece of paper that you printed from your printer at home. And they will copy your answers to a proper ballot, submit that, separate that from your envelope, so there's no way to identify it. And there's no way for you to actually know

whether the person copied your answers over properly. So there's no checks and balances there. So when you're actually- You're- Can you clarify the signature, Jeff? I mean, I was a banker, and we took extensive classes on handwriting analysis because we had to figure out whether the signature on the check was valid and was the same signature as the one on the signature card. But it's an art. It's not a science, right? I mean, how does some random election worker compare, you know, the various scribbles that someone wrote when they registered to vote 25 years ago and what they signed today? Yeah. And also on top of that, that reason alone, according to the state of California,

is why the elections have taken so long is because they have to, they have to check all the signatures. And so they're checking every single ballot that comes in, takes them a month to do it. And this is where it's really interesting because in the state of California, there's actually on the ballot coming up in November, there's the voter ID, you know, that's going to be on the ballot. So we're going to be voting on that in California. And there's a growing sentiment among even Democrats right now because if you had voter ID, according to even a lot of the Democrats that are now supporting this legislation, this would actually speed up the results because now you're not basing your identification of who's cast this vote based on the signature. You're doing it based upon

the ID. It would speed up the ability to actually do. you know, the counting and all that kind of stuff. So it's interesting how even that issue, as polarizing as the issue of voter ID is, where now even people are like, well, maybe that might help us to be able to count the ballots in two weeks instead of four weeks. You know, who really knows? Jeff, you're on the right side of the political spectrum. Can you tell me why Republicans want the SAVE Act?

Because when I crunch the numbers, it's very clear that it would benefit Democrats, not Republicans, because two main reasons, right? Like more Republican women change their name when they get married than a, than Democratic women. And so it's harder for them. Their birth certificate doesn't necessarily match their current ID name. And then also more Republicans have passports than Republicans have passports. So your passport is the easiest way you can prove you're a citizen.

Why on earth do Republicans want this legislation? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. So on one hand, I get the sentiment of we want to fix things, right? specifically when it comes to elections and election integrity and all that, it's like, I want clean and fair elections. I would love to. But I feel like a lot of times what ends up happening is the legislation that's proposed doesn't end up fully doing what you say it's going to do. And this is where you begin to build up this problem in order to come in with the solution. And oftentimes the solution doesn't actually fix the problem.

It makes things worse. Yeah. And I think with this, you know, I think part of the problem is in Washington, Washington D is, a swamp and I think I think you know both parties are kind of two sides of the same coin and and I think that dealing with a lot of these proposed legislations they don't actually want to fix these problems they want to they want to say that they have a solution because they need a they need a boogeyman to campaign against they need they need somebody to raise money against but I think that this this is where it's like anytime anybody comes in with an actual legitimate solution then all of a sudden

they shut they shut it down because they need something to campaign against it's the same thing with like illegal immigration is you know for republicans republicans have historically always been you know we need to you know have stronger border security we need to deport illegals like it's it's always been one of those things pre-trump it was always you know so-and-so has a 68 point plan to deal with illegal immigration that you're never it's so convoluted so complicated and then trump comes in it's like well let's build a wall it's deport them it's a pretty simple basic pitch to the american to the american people whether you agree with it or not and and i think that for a lot of republicans and it's like, well, if he actually does this, then that takes away our boogeyman to campaign against,

which is illegal immigration that we've been fighting for for the last 30 years. And I think the same thing can kind of apply to this, where I think that it's a very imperfect solution with a saved act, with a save act. I think it may be a step in the right direction in regards to being able to see, are we going to be able to secure elections, make it better? Again, that's arguable, I guess, I guess you could say. But I think also on the other side, I look. at it from the constitutional perspective, does the federal government even have the authority to step

in with election laws dealing with election day when that is specifically delegated to the states? And this is where it's like, I think Republicans oftentimes think it's just about us versus them, when in reality we have to play within the rules and the laws that are established by the United States Constitution. And just because it's legislation that's on our side doesn't mean that it's constitutional. Well, that was my that was my, that was my, that was my, beef with Bush v. Gore, not the decision, but the fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The Florida State Supreme Court should have been the final arbiter on that dispute. You can be for that, for the reason that you just elucidated there, Jeff. So let's talk a little bit

about Pickax for people who are maybe unaware. So what does, you know, what was the thinking behind Pickax? What's the philosophy that's different between Pickaxe and other social media companies like X. Yeah. So for us, you know, obviously, obviously we're, we're free speech platform. The only stuff that we banned is, the only stuff that we banned is like illegal speech, you know, like the typical like doxing and, you know, harassment. Like, like very specific, explicit things. And then we also banned like pornography and, you know, things like that as well.

We want to have like an actual space where you can converse. I think what's really, what really separates us is our view when it comes to algorithmic manipulation. And I think that that to me has been the game changer for a lot of people. And I think we're now, now that we're beginning to see some of the early analytics and metrics coming in, I think we're seeing that it's a lot more effective the way that we're doing it. So if you're on most of the other social media platforms, they use algorithms in order to take your content, and then they will decide who's going to see your content, oftentimes irrelevant of who follows you. So they're looking, it's a very topic-based, theme-based algorithm on the vast

majority of these big tech social media platforms. So what ends up happening is a large percentage of the views and the impressions that you're getting on your posts on these other platforms are going to people that have no idea who you are. They've never heard of you. They've ever seen you. They don't follow you. And when you think about it just from a strategic standpoint, it's a cold market, right? So you take your post, you send it to 100 people that have no idea who you are. Your engagement rate is going to be significantly low. So if you look on platforms like X, engagement rates on average across the platform or anywhere from 1% to 3%. If you have anything above 3%, you are like dominating the platform, you know, there.

What we're doing with Pickax specifically is we're feeding your content first and foremost to your audience. And so the way that we see it is, you know, you've got your news feed. It's chronological as it's posted. Then if there's a conversation happening or something like that, it gets bumped back up to the top. And then that way, that would be the most likely thing that you would see. what we're seeing now is that because we're feeding your content directly to your warmest market, which is the people that have explicitly told us, we want to follow this person and see their content,

the engagement rates have skyrocketed on pickax. So if you're looking at X, again, average, I think across the platform is like one and a half percent, two percent engagement rate. On pickax across the entire platform, the engagement rate is 36.5 percent across the entire platform. It blows everybody else out of the water. And it's because we're feeding your content to the people that have told us, we want to see this person's content. Like, it's not rocket science.

Imagine. Think about it. There's a question for you from one of our listeners, one of our viewers. Wait, real quick, before you get to that, how do you maintain that? Sorry, Ted. How do you maintain that as you scale up? I think there's obviously a problem is if you have two billion users, then it's very hard to continue the level of engagement.

Or is it? I could be wrong with. You know this better than I do. Right. So I think as time goes on, we are going to see probably a drop in the engagement rate. As I'm looking at like the numbers and the strategy of the way that we're implementing it, I'm guessing that we're probably going to settle somewhere right around the 20% mark. So right now we're at about 36.5%.

As people, as more people come on, what you end up seeing is a more disengaged, you know, user base oftentimes because you'll have a lot of people that. that are just on to see what's going on or keep in touch with people or, you know, whatever it is. It's not going to be as engaging of an audience, but I don't think, I don't think it's going to be dropping down to the same level as, as others because of that strategy specifically. No, go ahead. No, no, I just said I see. I was listening.

I'm sorry. No, yeah, for sure. So, so I think, I think from that standpoint, they're, there, I think we're going to see a slight drop in those numbers, but it's, it's going to settle probably somewhere about 20, 25%. Okay. Yeah. Philip Blair has a question for you. He's a viewer here. Do Republicans want to be voting, this is the topic. Do Republicans want voting to be as difficult as possible, like the old Dixie Democrats and their literacy tests? I don't think so. I think that I think that what ends up happening is there's there's talking points that they get thrown around, right? And the talking point is that we need to clean up elections. But I think I think where the Republicans oftentimes fail,

fail is that they're not actually looking at where is the actual problem, right? And so to me, what we have to look at is what is the actual problem? And as of right now, and this is the, this is the, this is the issue that I have with this whole argument. Like, I've been on the forefront of the election fraud, you know, things since going all the way back to 2020. Like, you know, freedom first network when, when we, when we were really rocking a rolling, we got banned off a Spotify for talking about election fraud, what went too many times. Like, I've had all the experts. I've done all that. Honestly, a lot of the quote unquote election fraud experts are just grifters like that's really all they are they just they just know how to you know play the game but there's some very legitimate ones that i think have very you know like i think

the issue of chain of custody to me is the most important one because i think that that's the one that that fails in almost every state across the country um you know you know there's no there's no enforcement mechanism when it comes to chain of custody and in a lot of states when it comes to elections so i think for me it's like if you actually wanted to clean up elections i i think that you you could make the argument of of of voter ID as a Republican. But I think the most important one would also be chain of custody, knowing who handled the ballots, who passed them on to who. And there's not like a window of time where there's like six hours where we have no idea who was handling these things. Again, I'm just looking for transparency. And I think oftentimes what ends up happening is the Republicans

then come in with solutions to problems that they theorize might be out there possibly. And then they make things complicated without actually let's let's actually find out. what is actually going on? What's the actual problem? And then let's fix that. Let's be honest. This is more about winning, not integrity. I mean, this is Paul Weirich, back in the Heritage Foundation, said it openly and honestly. We don't want everybody to vote. Voters or elections are not won by the side with the most votes. They're effectively one to boil it down to his argument. We want to make voting difficult because we want to stop various, elements of the electorate from voting that will vote against us.

He literally said, we don't want everybody to vote. Elections are won by the side with most votes, not necessarily by the side with the most voters. Yeah, suppressing the other side's votes. Yeah, it's a part of your strategy. That was argument. That was the Heritage Foundation argument. It may have been recrafted into, well, we use older idea.

We need voter integrity. And who knows if the votes are accurate or not, et cetera, et cetera. It may be recrafted into that in order to try to make the argument more satisfying as opposed to him arguing we don't want everybody to vote. But I would argue that Wyart was being honest and that Republican policy up to this point has just been to find a way to refashion what Ryatt Wyrt is saying and to a more palatable way for people to accept, which is, you know, question the integrity of the voter base. And by the way, I would agree with you if the issue was transparency and if people were being honest and those type of things, I want the

elections to be like just obviously accurate. But I don't trust. Republican policy on this. I don't trust Republicans on this because I don't I don't I don't trust anybody on this like like that that's that that's my thing with that's my thing with this is I feel like every like there's not like a lot of consistency in a lot of the argumentation and I would probably actually agree with a large you know sentiment of what you were talking about right there when it when it comes to Republicans wanting to make it more difficult to vote and I think I think in their mind it's it's a way to make sure. sure that only the engaged, educated person is voting.

And so then they used a lot of these tactics in order to, quote, unquote, accomplish that goal. You know, because there's a growing sentiment among conservatives and Republicans right now that we should go back to, you know, there's, was Andrew Wilson is talking about like making it to where women can't vote again and taking it back to the end. There's a growing sentiment among other other conservatives about making it to where it's only people that own land or own property or own a house or whatever it is. And they're adding all these things. And I'm like, you guys are number one, you're missing the boat. Number two,

it's horrible. Like even if that's what you believe, like you're never going to get that past. Is that really the angle that you want to take is alienating yourself even more from the conversation? Like to me, for me, I'm looking at it from the perspective of how can we make them more transparent to where nobody has an excuse? Nobody can point to the elections and say, this was rigged. I think that's completely fair. when this last presidential cycle, I supported RFK Jr. for president and I was, I was decently close with the campaign was running.

One of the things that he put out there, and he went to a lot of the civil rights leaders, you know, that obviously oppose a lot of the voter ID, you know, laws and suggestions out there. And it's like, what if we made it to where,

you know, anybody who said that they can't afford it could go down to the local post office and get, and get a, you know, like a passport card or a, you know, some kind of card.

for free and do it, like, would you be okay with voter ID then? And they're all like, yeah, for sure. The issue is that's-way, you did that in Virginia. Virginia sent out voter ID cards to everybody. I don't understand, you know, even if you're rich, why should the government be charging you for official documents? Totally agree. You know, I mean, official documents should be free. You're paying for them with your taxes. Yeah, I mean, look, we all know, obviously when you start voting, you realize it's a puzzling, clunky system, right? Like, anyone can mail in a, a voter registration card. You know, we talked about the signatures.

Signatures, really? I mean, who's using signatures now? You know, if you move from one state to another, nobody says, you don't have to notify the Board of Elections where you used to live. Oh, I don't live there anymore. Please, you know, but if you move your car from New Jersey to New York, you have to tell New Jersey that, you know,

and surrender your plates. Otherwise you're, so it's really, like, apparently, I guess voting's less important than, your car registration. So I mean, so I'm a dual citizen. My mother was French, so I have, I can vote in French elections. It's all digital. I mean, it's like you can, you know, we move thousands of dollars around in our bank accounts on our phone. And like, it's amazing. It's dual, it's two-factor authentication. On election day, you receive a, you are texted, a code that you input into your phone. It's only good for that day. It expires as soon as you cast

your ballot. It's, if the app is good. great. I would, you know, I'm like, this is the future. I mean, I know homeless people can't do it, but I don't know how many of them are voting anyway. But I mean, seriously, I mean, other countries do this a lot better than we do. Yeah. Right. Well, I think, I think on that front, I think, I think number one, the one thing that I would, I would caution, though, is that, and this is what I, this is what I would say, especially as we're entering into the era of quantum computing and, and and AI is that anything that's connected to the internet is hackable. And so if we're looking at it from that standpoint,

and you're talking about like foreign countries getting involved, especially like China in this quantum race, like the CIA right now is concerned that like if China, if China achieves quantum computing before us, they're gonna have all of our national secrets. So at that point, they basically have access to everything. China's actually stealing a lot of our encrypted files that are national secrets and they're just sitting on them

because even though they can't crack them, they're waiting for the day that they can achieve quantum computing and crack them. So, so like we like, I always argue anything that is connected to the internet at some point can be hackable. I think, I think Iranian scientists learn during Stuxnet, right? Right. Yeah. I was like, you guys should should not be work from home if you're a nuclear scientist. You probably go to the, what?

You know, I always make the argument. I'm like, you know, everybody's like, what do we do about quantum computing and AI? I'm like, honestly, go back to pen and paper. Honestly, that's the way to do it from a security standpoint. So but but I but I think I think that there's a lot of very tangible like to me common sense things that we can do in order to streamline the elections, but then also bring transparency. Like I don't know why you know, I'm looking at it from my perspective as a voter out here

in California out here in California. I, you know, I submit my ballot. I can tell when they count the ballot like I'll get a text message and say, hey, you know, we got your ballot. Your ballot's been counted. But I, but I feel like also on, on, on another side, I should be able to verify that my vote with my vote tallies matched what I actually voted for. I have no way of knowing that.

And so it's an interesting question. How would you ever know that, though? Well, to me, what you, to me, what you could do is you could actually make it to where. So when you, when you submit your ballot, you either have like a code or something or something like that. Because what they do is they detach your ballot from your, from your signature, right? So they separate those out for anonymity. But then if they tied a code to that ballot, then you're actually accessing it by that, by whatever that code is to be able to fact check it as opposed to tying it to your name or your ID or something like that.

How could you back check it? Yeah, I don't see how you can fact check it either. Because let's say you have an election, I don't know, let's say it's a small race. Let's say it's in a little town. But what are you going to do? Get like all 20,000 people in that town to all show up in like the town green. here's my receipt. All right, boys, let's count them up. I mean, but we do everything digitally as is right now.

So at all, all everything, everything, everything, everything, all from, from that standpoint. I feel like there, there could be a technological way in order to make it to where, like right now, if I log in, with the California Secretary of State out here in California, I'm able, I'm able to see when my ballot was accepted. I can see when my, when my ballot was submitted. But especially if you're going back to those print to those printed home ballots, I feel like for me, I'm looking at, I'm looking at from that standpoint, like, okay, so I'm basically trusting that an election worker is going to copy my answers over properly to the other one. And I have, but I actually have no way of actually knowing whether that was the case. And again, you know, I think I think logistically, there's a variety of ways to do it.

But I think also on the other side, there's also the issue of transparency to where when you're looking at the result. of Los Angeles and nobody actually trust the results of what actually happened out there, whether or not it was rigged or not, there's got to be able to to be able to clear that up at some point. No, I agree with you. I don't agree that there's a way to do it.

I think there is. Meaning there's always as a software engineer or somebody who uses a software engineer, if you're a lot of technology, there's always a layer between you and that technology. I can show you anything, meaning I can show you okay, this is your ballot, this is the result, And still in the system, there'd be something completely different.

I'm just showing me what I need to show you. Yeah. I mean, like, I understand. Like, it's a, I agree with you that it's a problem. We should have transparency. We should have trust in the electoral system. I guess the catch is how do it and how do you get to it? And I don't quite know full answer for that.

The banks have showed us how. And they actually did it with gold because now they use gold and link it to the blockchain. And that's how you verify what, you know, what gold is that you move. And then that's how you're able to use like, a lot of the debit cards and stuff. So once you make a transaction, the gold has moved from one pallet over to another. As you gets positive, your account,

you're able to do it. If you get up with gold, you can surely do that with a ballot. Gentlemen, we're out of time. Thank you so much, Jeff Dornick, CEO of Pickax for joining us today.

I hope you'll come back real soon. Sounds like a plan. I always love it. All right. Thanks so much for everything you do. All right. Talk to soon. Okay.

So let me, Okay. So we got a few questions here before we close out today's show. By the way, I agree with them. I know I'm sounding critical of Jeff. But I agree with him that there needs to be a way. But I also agree with you that fundamentally, whoever's counting the votes is going to decide this and is corruptible. And we kind of have to have faith in whoever's counting the votes. I mean, otherwise, I mean, there's no other, there's no alternative. Agreed.

Dead meme club. Thanks so much for the 10 bucks. Oil is now $200 a barrel will easily go to $200 a barrel, even if the war ends today. Supply would not catch up in time to fill the gaps. That's true. Phileas Fob, thanks for the dollar. Colonel Lawrence Wilkinson, Powell's chief of staff has a story that someone in the Pentagon literally had like six Israelis working in his Pentagon office, something like that. Yeah. I've heard you like that. Yeah, I'm going to be talked to him later today. Yeah, he mentioned that basically. And I think it was John mentioned that too, though. I look, the Israelis were.

Yeah. Well, I thought John said that like every member of the House of Representatives had their own pet Israeli. They do. Or they're the pet more to the point. That they have minors. Thomas Massey made a point saying that all of these guys have Israeli minders that check in with them, that, you know, work with them,

that monitor what they're doing. regards the policy. Yeah. Disgusting. Manchild, fuck elections, thanks for the dollar, cage match to the death. At least there will be some good, clean fun.

And we already know how to do it. We can do it, set up the octagon on the White House lawn. It'll be awesome. We can just leave it there. Just have it be permanent, right? I back those. Yeah, I'm not against that. Okay, the hosts,

E-Body Mopar, the hosts are confusing, Republican elites with Republican voters. Republican elites are closer to Democrats. Republicans are fighting their elite more than Democrats. I mean, to some extent that you didn't say Democratic voters are fighting their Democratic elites as well, though. Bill Blair, Trump wants people to believe the 2026 midterm elections will have been stolen if he does. Why is he trying to make everyone disgusted with his stewardship of the U.S. presidency? because he doesn't care. Look, if the president comes out and just says, yeah, these elections are stolen, then it doesn't matter how bad his stewardship was. I mean, and I think it's two points. One, Trump is not going to be elected again.

So I don't even know if he cares. He may care about legacy. Well, he might care about not wanting to, you know, deal with House investigations next year. That also, right. I mean, because he would. Think about all the grifting he's been doing. He doesn't want to be dealing, answering questions about that stuff. And he wants to be able to keep the money that he's stolen.

It's quite a bit too. Yeah, meaning he doesn't want to be arrested. Like after he's... Who would? Who would? Who would? Who would? All right. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Jamar. Thanks, Robbie. We will be back tomorrow for the end of the week, Friday, 9 a.m. Eastern time.

Stay tuned for TMI show coming up up right now. DMZ with Scott Stantis and myself. We'll be talking about cartooning and the effect of AI on the profession. I think it's going to be pretty profound. Anyway, all right, thanks, JT. See you tomorrow. Thank you, good one, guys. Bye-bye.