Timcast IRL - Biden Farewell Address, Trump Secures END Of Israel Hamas War w/Bobby Sauce

Episode Date: January 16, 2025

Tim, Phil, Brett, & Raymond are joined by Bobby Sauce to discuss Biden's farewell address, Joe Biden taking credit for the Israel Hamas ceasefire deal, Gavin Newsom facing a recall effort for his failures surrounding the LA wildfires, and a heated debate about the looming TikTok Ban. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Brett @PopCultureCrisis (YouTube) Raymond @raymondgstanley (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Bobby Sauce @TakeNaps (instagram) Bobby Sauce is a comedian and social media personality known for his satirical commentary on politics, culture, and current events, often shared through humorous videos and posts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is a huge day for Donald Trump. This man negotiated the end of the Israel-Hamas war. He's getting credit from people who do not like him, and Joe Biden's trying to steal that credit. But I am seeing people who love Palestine and are critical of Israel, and I see people who love Israel and are critical of Hamas. And they're all basically saying Donald Trump did an amazing thing, putting pressure to get this ceasefire agreement. We're going to see how it plays out. It will be very interesting, but it's huge, huge news. In the meantime, we got started a little bit early because at eight o'clock, Joe Biden will be giving his farewell address to the nation. I know many of you may be, well, you may not like this man and you may not want to hear what he says, but I want you to do this.

If you don't like Joe Biden, as you watch him give this speech, just imagine every word out of his mouth or every sentence is simply I'm leaving. I'm leaving. I'm leaving. I'm leaving. And it doesn't matter what else he says. He's just telling you he's leaving. And in about four and a half days. Oh, boy. We're going to have President Donald J. Trump and hopefully we'll get confirmations on everybody else. Before we get started, my friends, head over to castbrew.com and buy some coffee. Look at all this beautiful coffee.

We got Phil dressed like Santa Claus. Look at that one. Let's go. We got Ian's graphene dream that he sold 1,250 bags. I think what's happening is every time I say Ian sells coffee like crazy, everybody rushes to buy it because they're like, it must be the best coffee in the world. But all you're doing is making Ian rich.

You don't know what he will do with that power. You cannot trust him with it. He's going to buy graphene. He's going to buy graphene. Also, you can head over to boonieshq.com and pick up the new 28th Amendment skateboard. Nothing else matters. Look at this doodle of that chicken.

Okay, if you're not watching live, you're missing out. Because this picture of this chicken is the greatest doodle of a chicken ever made. And it's a picture of Roberto Jr. Rest in peace. R.I.P. And also go boonieshq.com. We got a bunch of different graphics and fun boards and stickers. We got step on snack and find out stickers.

Look how cool that is. You can also go to timcast.com. Click join us. Become a member. We're going to have that members only show coming up for you tonight at 10 p.m. Not so family friendly, but always funny. Now here's the most important thing. When you become a member, you get access to the Discord community. And this is over 20,000 individuals. You're going to make friends. You're going to network with people. We just had someone call the other day and said that they're working on new projects together. If you want to meet people, if you want to find a passion, your mission, and make friends,

TimCast.com, Discord, where it's at, and you get to call into the show, talk to us and our guests. So smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Bobby Sauce. Thank you for having me, sir. Who are you? What do you do? Political comedian, joke maker, video creator, slayer of political demons. Easy enough. Yeah.

Raymond G's hanging out. What's up, friends? Raymond G. Stanley Jr. I work here. I do stuff. American Marine veteran. That's all I got. I look forward to Joe bumbling and his talking and hanging out with Bobby Sass.

Brett's hanging out. So, like, you took that direction so well. He'd have done that. I'd have been like, what do you want me to do? So, for those who couldn't see, I went like that. He knows hand signs. And then he slid over. Guys, yes, Brett here.

Normally Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. I am hosting Pop Culture Crisis with Mary. Tonight, however, let's talk politics. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. Let's go. lame duck for the whole year, but he's going to pop in at any moment. So before he gets started, because we did start a little bit early because we didn't want to cut off his speech with introductions.

I'm curious, they're taking bets on things that he's going to say. Some people are, I think there's a polymarket for whether he says malarkey. I don't think he's going to say malarkey, but he's going to take credit for every single positive thing he's going to say. It's all his fault. He did it all. Everything that's in any way, everything that can be cast in a negative light,

he's going to blame on Donald Trump. It was all Donald Trump's fault. And so even watching this, we'll get some yucks out of it, but there's no point in actually paying close attention because he's not going to say anything interesting. He's not going to talk about any of his failures or anything. He's not going to talk about Afghanistan. And if he does talk about Afghanistan or anything, he's going to say how great of a job he did.

So it's all going to be just fluff and garbage. Yeah, Bobby, you were saying it's going to be like nine minutes. I'm thinking it's going to be nine minutes. And I'm thinking the one guaranteed statement is going to be, it's not hyperbole. It's not hyperbole. He's going to say no joke. That's what he's going to say for sure. What what's no joke i wonder if there's a poly market

and whether or not he falls asleep mid-speech i have to cart him out yeah that's why it'll be nine minutes he's just soggy he has nothing going on upstairs he didn't negotiate any deal he's soggy he's got a soggy brain it's gonna be eight minutes that's all they can get out of him that's crazy too because um we're obviously going to talk about the ceasefire deal. This is huge news. It's remarkable for me to see people who hate Donald Trump posting on X how happy they are with Trump. And there's this clip we got from Don Lemon's show where this woman is like, I don't like Trump, but my sources are saying Trump did this. And Don Lemon just goes off. He's furious.

No, Donald Trump can't be the one ending wars and making the world a safer place. But Joe Biden took credit for it. Of course he did. I mean, it was his diplomacy. Abraham Accords were him, too. Yes. He took credit for that? I'm not sure, but I'm confident they were because of Joe Biden.

The Abraham Accords? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that he did those. You think? No, I don't think that at all. But I think that's what he's going to say. Oh, right, right, right. I'm wondering if Joe Biden comes out with his farewell address taking credit for the Israel Hamas ceasefire. I mean, all of those are kind of great litmus tests for how much people actually pay attention to what's going on.

Because they kind of did the same thing, not just because Trump negotiated the Trump negotiated the, you know, the pullout of Afghanistan. And then of course they botched it after the fact, but if you knew the people who actually paid attention to politics, they would have known beforehand that he was the one who actually negotiated it and then they moved it up. So whether they know Trump's relation to what happened with the Abraham accords, the Israel Palestine, this now, that's a good way to check to see if people are actually paying attention or just looking at headlines. Most people, unfortunately. Yeah. Well, they've been taking credit for the oil production, which a lot of that came into play because of all the

different changes that Trump made when he was in office. And they're like, we're outputting more oil now than we were under him. And it's like, yeah, because these things take time to drill, refine and all the rest. And he banned Keystone and fracking on public lands, which is going to shock production for the next several years. Trump is going to go in on day one. They're talking about 100 executive orders and a lot of it's going to be about oil. It's going to be like, get the energy flowing. But, you know, when I think about it, maybe maybe Trump needs a shadow president. Right. Because here's what happens.

Donald Trump negotiates the end of the Afghanistan war and then Joe Biden destroys it all and when it goes south, Democrats all say, well, it's Trump who negotiated. This is his fault. And it's like, Trump didn't negotiate you abandoning Bagram Air Force Base at three in the morning. Oh, here we go.

Hey, Joe. It's pre-recorded. Of course. Joe Biden. Before I begin, let me speak to important news from earlier today. Here it comes. After eight months of non-stop negotiation by

administration, by my administration, a ceasefire has been reached by Israel and Hamas. Can you get it up? The elements of which I laid out in great detail in May of this year. This plan was developed and negotiated by my team. Wow.

And will be largely implemented by the incoming administration. That's why I told my team to keep the incoming administration fully informed. Because that's how it should be. Working together as Americans. This will be my final address to you from the American people from the Oval Office. From this desk as Americans. This will be my final address to you from the American people from the Oval Office, from this desk as president. And I've been thinking a lot about who we are

and maybe more importantly, who we should be. Long ago in New York Harbor, an iron worker installed beam after beam, day after day. He was joined by steel workers, stonemasons, engineers. They built not just a single structure, but a beacon of freedom. The very idea of America was so big, we felt the entire world needed to see. The Statue of Liberty, a gift from France after our Civil War.

Like the very idea of America, it was built not by one person, but by many people from every background and from around the world. Like America, the Statue of Liberty is not standing still. Her foot literally steps forward atop a broken chain of human bondage. She's on the march, and she literally moves. She has built the sway back and forth to withstand the fury of stormy weather, to stand the test of time because storms are always coming. She sways a few inches, but she never falls into the current below. An engineering marvel.

The Statue of Liberty is also an enduring symbol of the soul of our nation. she never falls into the current below. An engineering marvel. The Statue of Liberty is also an enduring symbol of the soul of our nation. A soul shaped by forces that bring us together and by forces that pull us apart. And yet through good times and tough times, we've withstood it all. A nation of pioneers and explorers, of dreamers and doers,

of ancestors native to this land, of ancestors who came by force. A nation of immigrants who came to build a better life. It sucks. Yeah. A nation holding the torch of the most powerful idea ever in the history of the world. That all of us, all of us are created equal, that all of us deserve to be treated with dignity, justice, and fairness. It tells, written by leftists. That democracy must defend and be defined and be imposed, moved in every way possible.

The hand signal person's the one to do it. Our rights, our freedoms, our dreams. But we know the idea of America, our institution, our people, our values that uphold it are constantly being tested. Ongoing debates about power and the exercise of power. But whether we lead by the example of our power or the power of our example,

whether we show the courage to stand up to the abuse of power or we yield to it. After 50 years at the center of all of this, I know that believing in the idea of America means respecting the institutions that govern a free society. The presidency, the Congress, the courts, a free and. The presidency, the Congress, the courts, a free and independent press. Institutions that are rooted,

they just might not reflect the timeless words, but they echo the words of the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident. Rooted in the timeless words of the Constitution. We hold these truths to be self-evident, rooted in the timeless words of the Constitution. We the people. Our system of separation of powers, checks and balances,

it may not be perfect, but it's maintained our democracy for nearly 250 years, longer than any other nation in history that's ever tried such a bold experiment. In the past four years, our democracy has held strong. And every day I've kept my commitment to be president for all Americans through one of the toughest periods in our nation's history.

I've had a great partner in Vice President Kamala Harris. That's a lie. It's been the honor of my life to see the honor of my life to see the resilience of a sense of workers getting this through a once-in-a-century pandemic. She could have won.

The heroism of service members and first responders keeping us safe. This is pre-recorded for sure. The determination of advocates standing up for our rights and our freedom. Yeah, there's like no incentive for it to be lost. Instead of losing their jobs to an economic crisis. we inherited millions of Americans. There's no way that's a real window.

Millions of entrepreneurs and companies creating new businesses and industries, hiring American workers, using American products. And together we've launched a new era of American possibilities. That's a lie. One of the greatest modernizations of infrastructure in our entire history. Infrastructure? From new roads, bridges, clean water, affordable high-speed Internet for every American. Didn't they fail at that? We invented the semiconductors.

Yeah. Smaller than the tip of my little finger. California built one of those. And now it's bringing those chip factories and those jobs back to America where they belong, creating thousands of jobs. Finally, giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for millions of seniors. And finally, doing something to protect our children and our families by passing the most significant gun safety law in 30 years and bringing violent crime to a 50-year low,

meeting our sacred obligation to over 1 million veterans so far who are exposed to toxic materials and to their families, providing medical care and education benefits and more for their families. You know, it will take time to feel the full impact of all we've done together. Here he goes. But the seeds are planted, and they'll grow and they'll bloom for decades to come. Bro, you salted the earth. At home, we've created nearly 17 million new jobs, more than any other single administration in a single term.

More people have health care than ever before. And overseas, we've strengthened NATO. Ukraine is still free. And we pulled ahead of our competition with China. And so much more. I'm so proud of how much we've accomplished together for the American people. Didn't he say he was going to cure cancer as well? And I wish the incoming administration success, because I want America to succeed. That's why I've held my duty to ensure a peaceful and orderly transition of power, to ensure we lead by the power of our example. I have no doubt that America is in a position to continue to succeed.

That's why my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. Oh, God. Here we go. Let's go. This is a dangerous, and that's a dangerous concentration of power. In the hands of a very few ultra-wealthy people. And the dangerous consequences

if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence. It literally threatens our entire democracy. Our basic rights and freedoms. And a fair shot for everyone. It's not surprising. It's such garbage. We see the consequences all across America.

And we've seen it before. More than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then. Oh, the robber barons. And busted the trust. They didn't punish the wealthy. Just made the wealthy pay by the rules everybody else had to. So many wealthy people. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You can't even say that. Democrats are absolutely part of the rich. It happened for the better part of the past 30 years. Definitely 20. To building the largest middle class,

the most prosperous century any nation in the world has ever seen. We've got to do that again. The last four years, that is exactly what we've done. That's a lie. People should be able to make as much as they can, but pay, play by the same rules. Pay their fair share of taxes.

Mr. Buck, Mr. my son. So much is at stake. The top 50% of income earners pay all of the taxes. The existential threat of climate change has never been clear. No net taxes at all. Just look across the country. I think 10% pays 80%. California, North Carolina.

That's where I sign the most significant climate and clean energy law ever. Ever in the history of the world. The rest of the world is trying to model that. It's working. Creating jobs and industries of the future. Now, we've proven we don't have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. We're doing both. The powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps

we've taken to tackle the climate crisis, to serve their own interest for power and profit. We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and our grandchildren. We must keep pushing forward and push faster. There's no time to waste. It's also clear that American leadership in technology is an unparalleled, an unparalleled source of innovation that can transform lives. We see the same dangers of a concentration of technology, power, and wealth. Elon Musk. Yeah.

You know, his farewell address, President Eisenhower, spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Not Facebook. No. He warned us then about, and I quote,

the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power. He's still a military contractor. Six days later. He's one of the biggest. Six decades later. Because he's saving us a ton of money. I'maced power in the court. Six decades later, I'm equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well. Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling.

Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. It must hold the social platform accountable to protect our children, our families, and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time. He doesn't know real intelligence. Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy and our security, our society, for humanity.

Artificial intelligence even has the potential to help us answer Mike's call to end cancer as we know it. But unless safeguards are in place, AI could spawn new threats to our rights, our way of life, to our privacy, how we work and how we protect our nation. We must make sure AI is safe and trustworthy and good for all humankind. In the age of AI, it's more important than ever that the people must govern. And as the land of liberty, America, not China, must lead the world in the development of AI.

You know, in the years ahead, it'll help to be—it's going to be up to the president, the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the free press, and the American people to confront these powerful forces. We must reform the tax code. and the American people to confront these powerful forces. Bro, when I'm 80, I want to be one of those retirees slumped over at the poker table for 15 hours a day. Not by giving the biggest tax cuts to a billionaire, but by making him pay the first share. I don't want to think about it. Go away. We need to get dark money. That's that hidden funding behind too many campaigns contributions. We need to get it out of our politics.

There's no honor in this. I need to enact an 18-year time limit, term limit, time and term, for the strongest ethics reform and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court. We need to ban members of Congress from trading stock while they're in the Congress. We need to amend the Constitution to make clear that no president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president's power is not limited. It's not absolute.

And it shouldn't be. In a democracy, there's another danger. There's a concentration of power and wealth. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning. And people don't feel like they have a fair shot. We have to stay engaged in the process. I know it's frustrating. A fair shot is what makes America America. Everyone's entitled to a fair shot, not a guarantee, but just a fair shot.

And even playing field. Going as far as your hard work and talent can take you. We can never lose that essential truth. We remain who we are. I've always believed, and I've told other world leaders, America can be defined by one word. Possibilities. Only in America do we believe anything is possible. Like a kid with a stutter from the modest beginnings in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Claymont Dillard. Sitting behind this desk in the Oval Office. Why the face? It's President of the United States. That's the magic of America. It's all around us. Upstairs in the residence of Office. Get a close-up of his face. That's the magic of America. It's all around us. Biden's not doing that. Upstairs in the residence of the White House.

I've walked by a painting of the Statue of Liberty I don't know how many times. In the painting, there's several workers climbing on the outstretched arm of the statue that holds the torch. It reminds me every day of that sense of the story and soul of our nation.

The power of the American people. There's a story of a veteran, a son of an immigrant, whose job was to climb that torch and polish the amber panes so rays of light could reach out as far as possible. He was known as the keeper of the flame. He once said of the Statue of Liberty, quote, speaks a silent universal language, one of hope.

Anyone who seeks and speaks freedom can understand. Yes, we sway back and forth to withstand the fury of the storm, to stand the test of time. A constant struggle. A constant struggle. A short distance between peril and possibility.

What I believe is the America of our dreams is always closer than we think. It's up to us to make our dreams come true. She did. Yeah. Let me close by stating my gratitude to so many people. They weren't qualified at all.

To the members of my administration, as well as public service and first responders across the country and around the world, thank you for stepping up to serve. To our service members and your families, it's been the highest honor of my life to lead you as Commander-in-Chief. Of course, to Kamala and her incredible partner, a historic Vice President. She and Doug have become like family. And to me, family is everything. Except for your grandchild. My deepest appreciation.

No Christmas stocking for you. Our amazing First Lady was with me in the Oval today. For our entire family. You're the love of my life and the life's of my love. Life's of my love. My eternal thanks to you, the American people.

After 50 years of public service, I give you my word. I still believe in the idea for which this nation stands. A nation where the strengths of our institutions and the character of our people matter and must endure. Now it's your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. Okay, what's the pay? May you keep the faith. I love America.

You love it too. God bless you all. May God protect our troops. Thank you for this great honor. You mean the Republicans that are a threat to the very soul of our nation, Joe? Yeah. Right. He didn't say not hyperbole, though.

Wait, wait. He's still just sitting there blinking. Clear. That's it. he didn't say not hyperbole though wait wait he he's still just sitting there blinking so apparently uh according to trump war room that was that was pre-recorded uh and that's what i was looking at like right when it started i looked down at checking my phone i was not just checking emails actually uh there's this post from let me pull this up this is from trump war room where they say that the official live stream accidentally caught his handlers queuing it up uh i couldn't find this and they're they're not queuing it up they're opening like this is kind of wow like what is this what is this for real trump war room is not just some like random account that's posting nonsense

isn't it a real one yeah yeah it's. And so you can see they're loading graphics. And they said that I didn't see this on the official live stream. So I don't know where they got this from. But you can see all of these files and you can see 2025 Biden Oval Office slate. I wonder if it's not that they're playing. It's not a video. It's an image. I wonder if they were queuing up the prompter form or something like that.

I do believe that was a prerecorded message. Yeah. 100%. Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's no incentive for it not to be prerecorded. There's no reason that they would need to. He was asleep two hours ago. Yeah, for sure.

He was out at like 6.30. That's a good call. What was the most egregious part of it, do you think? The opening. Yeah. Let me pull that clip up. Holy crap, dude. Look at this.

Tim Cass News has got it. In his final address to the nation, Joe Biden shamelessly takes credit from Donald Trump for orchestrating the hostage ceasefire. Negotiation. By administration. By my administration. A ceasefire and a hostage deal has been reached by Israel and Hamas. The elements of which I laid out in great detail in May of this year.

This plan was developed and negotiated by my team and will be largely implemented by the incoming administration. That's why I told my team to keep the incoming administration fully informed. Wow. Because that's how it should be. All right, ladies and gentlemen. Well, let's start from the beginning. In this clip that we just played, Joe Biden takes credit for what is the Israel Hamas ceasefire. People on the left, people on the right, pro-Israel, anti-Israel, they're all celebrating Donald Trump. Dave Smith said before the news was announced that if Trump does pull this off and there's no major concessions to Israel, he will enter his second term as a heroic president.

And if he also negotiates the end of the Ukraine war, put him on Mount Rushmore. There have been other people who hate Donald Trump, and I see them tweeting. This is incredible. Donald Trump pulled this off. Actually quite amazing. Now, Joe Biden has taken credit. The first thing I want to show you guys, let's see if I can, not that one. Here we go.

This is a White House statement from Joe Biden. He said, today, after many months of intensive diplomacy by the US, along with Egypt and Qatar, Israel and Hamas have reached a ceasefire and hostage deal. This deal will halt the fighting in Gaza, surge much-needed humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians,

and reunite the hostages with their families after more than 15 months in captivity. I lit at the precise contours of this plan May 31, 2024, after which it was endorsed unanimously by the U.S. Security Council. It is the result of not only the extreme pressure that Hamas has been under and the changed regional equation after a ceasefire in Lebanon and weakening of Iran, but also of dogged and painstaking American diplomacy. My diplomacy never ceased in their efforts to get this done. You see how he frames this? I laid out

the precise contours of this plan. You know what he's saying. Trump did it. And he's going, yeah, but it's just like what I proposed. So he's trying to take credit for it. He took credit for it directly. But let's just watch this clip. And you can see this is a statement. Donald Trump was directly involved. It's his ceasefire. Well, this is what I say.

You got to turn that volume down. Yeah. We had to crank the volume because of the. Because he can't talk that volume. According to diplomats who were involved firsthand in the negotiation, President Biden refused to put any pressure on Netanyahu. And ultimately, they gave up. That any deal would happen.

It was... And Don, you and I talked about President Trump. I have no love. And I don't want to give Trump any credits. But I know... but i am in the business of telling the truth same good for you donald trump intervention has been monumental in making the c5 the ceasefire deal possible and and just just to make people understand president biden not only refused on multiple occasions to put any pressure on the prime minister of Israel to do any deal.

People who were involved in the negotiation, including Israeli negotiators, told me firsthand that very often they felt that he was more than backing the negotiating team, the Israeli negotiating team. He was backing the prime minister agenda and his desire to stay in office the israeli media and israeli ministers including bing vir today confirmed that it was president trump israeli media also confirmed that that uh nathaniel was already gave up on the hostages he was willing to sacrifice the hostages for his political desire to stay in power however donald trump is happened to be a transactional president happened to be a transactional man he wanted to come to the white house with a win and that was always his approach well let me ask you this thing so why didn't why did they not wait until he took

office which is just going to be in about a week because he didn't want to deal with this issue as he get into office he want this table okay yeah you can get it done i don't like exactly i think donald trump would like to have started off we know donald trump the day of his inauguration or on the day to announce a ceasefire the The fact that it happened on Biden's watch, I think that leads many people to question whether it was. Look, I'm not saying that you're wrong. Let me just let me just try something for you, Donny boy. Could it be that Trump actually cares the hostages get released? Right. Exactly. When you when you are a political demon and you can't imagine doing something selflessly and not for political motivations, they can't imagine that somebody would do it just because it's the right thing to do.

That's right. Like I was saying yesterday, it's kind of the officially kind of close to the same deal that Biden has been doing for months or their administration has been doing for months. But Trump said, yo, Netanyahu, this is what we're going to do. Are you going to suck it up? Are you going to suck it up you're going to like it i've heard i've heard reports that netanyahu like has been has been uh either not not against getting the um the hostages back but it's not been trying very hard or whatever no he doesn't he doesn't i mean that's basically what she was saying that netanyahu didn't care he wrote them off and was willing to let them die see here's the thing it brett hit the nail on the head with the hammer. These people are projecting.

Don Lemon was telling you what he would do, not what Trump would do. He would let them suffer so that as soon as he came in, he could declare how great he was. Trump says, I don't want that on my record. You get those people free now. Plus, it doesn't hurt that you have the leverage of a guy that's coming in in five. It's like, I'm going to rain hellfire down upon you. And that kind of changes the leverage of the conversation a little bit. Well, so there's this viral tweet here.

Second city bureaucrat says, Israel's are reporting that Trump blew BB's back out. And there's this post. I'm not saying this is true, but it's a viral post. And it says, there was no deal. LOL.

The great and huge Donald Trump took Netanyahu's hand, bent it behind his back, bent it a little more, a little more, then pushed his head on the table and whispered in his ear that he would kick him into balls in a moment. It's a shame Biden didn't realize this a long time ago. It's fair. That's fair. I mean, I'm just going to pretend that that's the case. Look, remember, the United States has always had the United States, just because as much as like Donald Trump is doing, is going to do great things and has done great things just by the force of his personality. The reason that people listen is because he's the president of the United States. That means that it's the United States power, soft power and military power that actually does the job.

So Biden could have done this at any point if he had the balls and people believed that he would follow through. He could have called up Bibi and said, look, this is going to happen. And there's any number of different levers of power that the United States has had at its disposal for the entire time that Joe Biden has been president. And Joe Biden is too inept or too much of a coward to actually do it. So it's great that Donald Trump did this. It's awesome. But it's not like Donald Trump, the man, has is what made this happen.

It's Donald Trump threatening to use the power that the United States of America has. And it's all, and the fact that Joe Biden hasn't done it is all because he's a terrible president. I think a lot of the foreign policy we see, or I should say a lot of the actions we see overseas, particularly under the Obama administration, they wanted to happen.

The spread of ISIS, the deep state, Obama wanted ISIS to dismantle Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria. So they go, oopsie, it just happens. When it comes to the war with Israel and Hamas, Joe Biden and the Democrats want it to happen. Donald Trump, take a look at Ukraine. The war is escalating. It's coming up to the point of war and civil war under Obama. Trump gets in, nothing. Stops. ISIS crushed. Then Joe Biden gets in, war everywhere. I'm sorry, but I see a pattern. When these warmongers, there's a reason we call them that, get in power, war just happens all over the place. And then when Trump gets to power, it doesn't. And, in fact, it's stopping. I think the only reason Joe Biden, it didn't happen is because Joe Biden intentionally didn't want it to.

And the only reason he's taking credit for it now is because he has no choice. Because Trump said, I'm the president, I'm going to be in five days and I am going to destroy you and they're like, okay, okay, we'll stop. Well, isn't the solution to every conflict, every war, every disagreement, communication and agreement

between two powerful people and whether or not you believe Putin in his interview with Tucker Carlson, he's like, he's not even calling me. He's not even trying to talk to me. It's probably pretty reasonable to believe that most, if not all, conflicts could be solved through negotiation and discussion and communication. If he's not doing it, it's no wonder that this took this long.

I don't completely agree. I think it's largely true because there's a reason people go to war. They want something. But I do think there are a lot of circumstances where he ain't convincing anybody of nothing like the Taliban. I mean, Trump negotiated with them, but it was under threat saying we're going to back off. But if you go anywhere near these areas, we will come back and we will wipe you off the map. And the only reason they're able to come in is because Joe Biden like intentionally does these things. We'll put I'll put it like this. Bagram Air Force Base abandoned in the middle of the night with no warning to the Afghan security forces.

That was on purpose. That's impossible to be an accident. You don't accidentally abandon an Air Force base. Without telling them. Right. And then letting locals ransack and loot the base and steal weapons. That, I believe, and this is surface level stuff because I don't got clearance or anything like that. They want the chaos in the Middle East to justify further action.

We can go and blup countries, remove governments, and they can use all the chaos as their justification for it. Trump says no. But look, Vladimir Putin wants something from Crimea. He wants Sevastopol. He wants that area. I don't think communication guarantees it ends. Trump puts the weight of nuclear bombs behind his words. And those are the kind of words that might actually stop the fighting. Well, the point the point of that is that, yes, I don't disagree. But I guess

the point of what I'm trying to say is that ultimately it comes down to negotiation. It's like I'm twisting your arm, you're twisting my arm. It's a negotiation that solves it. Ultimately, I lose a power position, I lose the upper hand, whatever. It gets negotiated out. So at the very least, if it couldn't be solved purely on negotiation, then isn't it reasonable to say that you should probably be calling this dude regularly? You should probably at the very least be in communication regularly to figure out what the deal is. But if you just never call him, it's no surprise that it would never end. That was also a problem as well, because they would get mad whenever Trump would say, yeah, I talked to Putin, I talked to these guys, and then say, why are you talking to him?

Because they don't understand what diplomacy actually is. One of the most interesting things she said in that interview was calling him a transactional president, meaning that is actually the point of diplomacy when you actually have leverage, which is that he will open lines of communicate communication with them but also they have to take worry that if he actually puts a threat out there that he would enact it where they don't have to worry about that with the current administration yeah transactional meaning deal making yeah that's the solution maker which is funny because that concept should be seen as a benefit to everyone, right? Like you can't simultaneously call him like an unhinged dictator and then also call him somebody who wants to go to the table and negotiate.

One of the things about Donald Trump is Donald Trump wants wins and Donald Trump wants victories. He'll make deals. He will. I've long said that if the Democrats had embraced him in at the very beginning of his his candidates or his presidency in 2017, if they'd embraced him and said, we love this guy and patted him on the back and said, let's go win for America. If they had done that, he would have played ball and he would have been an asset to the Democrat party, he would have probably not have had, he probably would have destroyed the MAGA coalition that grew around him during his first term, and he would have essentially become a Democrat. That's because he wants people to like him, and he wants to win. So if it's not a situation of, oh, I have these deeply held convictions that I want

to see happen. All he wants is good things for the country. That was actually evident in the first term. Do you remember when he sent invitations to all the members of the National Black Caucus and asked them to come in for a meeting, and they all just refused to go in there? He wanted to deal. He wanted to play ball with everyone from day one, but they couldn't do that because they had backed themselves into the corner of calling him a bunch of names that didn't actually pan out. If you look at what Biden was saying, he was basically saying that thing Trump did,

I did. All the good stuff that Trump is about to do, actually, that was me. Yep. How's the point? All the stuff I did and all the things that are coming, I planted the seeds for. He's literally just vacuuming up as much credit as he possibly could. I think the worst part of all of that was the talk about, when he was talking about climate change and he was talking about securing a future for your kids

and your grandchildren, while not addressing the fact that the debt just keeps piling and the national debt just keeps growing and growing and growing. They've sold out your children's future. They've sold out your grandchildren's future long, long ago. So to tie that to climate change, which is just another way to tax you anyways, is insane to me. Oh, I love it, too, because just to reiterate what we said the other day, we played this clip where Bernie Sanders is like, oh, Borat, climate change is coming. And it's like California enacts tons of regulations due to climate change.

They tax people at the highest rate in the state. And then they fail to manage their problems and they get these wildfires and then blame it on climate change. So basically what they're telling us is climate change mitigation does not work, right? Well, because California is doing all this mitigation, right? Didn't do anything for you. Okay. Well then stop. What's the point? You're wasting money. Well, it's like, you know, people are saying like, oh, it's, it's a, it's a natural disaster. It's like, you don't have to do a thing to make a thing happen. Like for example, if I decreased the amount of the laws that happened happened if you broke into somebody's house,

and then I turned off all the streetlights, and then I made it illegal for you to lock your door, your house is about to get robbed. So that's exactly what happened there. And they're like, no, it's the wind. It's the exact thing that we want to throw more money at and squander more money at. It's absolutely perfect. Let's pull up this story from the Post Millennial. Kevin Newsom faces recall effort over leadership failures amid LA wildfires.

To be fair, the man is under a constant threat of recall. They almost recalled him already. So I can't say that I'm surprised that after this unmitigated disaster, and that's literal, he's facing another recall effort. Now, the dude leading the effort, this is Randy Economy. I believe he's led an effort prior and was already in the process of preparing to recall Gavin Newsom. But I'm for it. This guy should be removed from the governorship immediately. The mayor of L.A. should be removed immediately. And if they don't do it in California, I believe the federal government needs to intervene in whatever way they have to get a handle on what's going on. I do not know how this country operates with rogue states in this way. And it's not just about the wildfires, but it largely is.

It's also about the free health care for illegal immigrants. Violation of federal law. This California and New York, they're both operating as rogue states in defiance of constitutional rights. I don't know how we can be in a partnership at the federal level with Congress, the Senate and the and the presidential elections with states that are in violation of federal law. Is that in relation to sanctuary cities? So what California does, sanctuary state, not just cities, they effectively allow people to cross the border in mass numbers, refuse to cooperate with federal government to deport them, effectively shield and protect these people.

Then you've got abject mismanagement. But there is a litany of circumstances in which California has been defiant and in violation of federal law and abusing our federal system, notably how they use illegal immigrants to gain more congressional seats and more electoral college votes. Then you've got the issue of them promising free health care to non-citizens. So right now, you're paying the highest taxes in the country in California, and then your house burns down because there was no water and there are no firefighters. Don't worry. The 23-year-old

illegal immigrants got free healthcare. And they've got $700 coming your way. And the rest of the United States is going to have to help to pay for the rebuilding. The rest of the United States is going to have to help pay for the infrastructure repairs. It's insane. No money if california wants money it comes with federal oversight committees going

into california and assuming control of all of the garbage they're operating and you know what trump can appoint the person who does it nationalize california i had an issue uh i had an issue with that at first like giving them um they have to do this, do that, or whatever in order to get federal funding. But if we don't do that, then it's going to make it worse. It's going to hurt our economy. It's going to hurt our state. It's going to hurt. A bit of the fire.

Yeah. Okay, I'm all on board now. Let's go. If homie comes up to me and he's like. Who's homie? Homie, my buddy. If he comes up to me. I'm walking down the street and I see homie and he's shaking and he's like, bro.

That homie. I need some money. And I'll be like, bro, I need some money. And I'll be like, bro, you're a drug addict. Yeah. Okay. If I give you money, you're going to do drugs. No, I need money for my rent. Otherwise, I'll be homeless.

And then he points to his house. His landlord's right there saying, you can pay the rent right now and he can stay here. I'm going to be like, do you know why he needs rent money from me? Because he's using his money for drugs. If I enable him by giving him this money, it's not going to make his life better. It's going to make his life worse. He's going to take the money, take the freebie, and he's not going to solve his problems. If we go to California and say, we're going to give you aid to cover the cost like Biden already did, basically.

Gavin Newsom says, OK, we're done. I don't got to do anything right. The money, money's problem solved they won't fix the problem there will be more fires more disaster more DEI the only thing

that we can do because these people do need help is to say we're going to write you a check but we are going to send an oversight to manage

how your government is operating because they they mismanage this well and the conditions are much like you would get conditions from your parents when you're in high school. If you get straight A's, then you get permission to do this or whatever.

So it's not like the strings that they're attaching benefit them. The strings they're attaching are for their own good. These are precautions and benefits that will help them objectively and prevent them from being their own worst enemy, which is exactly what a parent does to a teenage kid. It the exact same thing it shouldn't have to be that way but unfortunately it is i'm i mean yeah help out north carolina let's go north carolina who are like it was a good state yeah like i said the other night like they they have been dragging their feet taking care of of north carolina for eight you, what, three, four months now? It's been so long.

When was it? It was September, was it? Yeah, it was September that the hurricane went through. They've been dragging their feet since then, but they're all hop-skippity on California because it's millionaires that lost their homes, and these millionaires were all donators to the Democrat Party,

to Joe Biden's, you know. That's not possible. I just heard from Joe Biden that all the rich people are. Yeah, right? And fires are bigger and more flamboyant, you know, no pun intended, than floods. It's a Democrat-controlled state, has been a Democrat-controlled state for, you know,

decades now, and these people largely donated to Democrats for a re-election. So that's why they're so hob-skippity on it. I think it's the voice. I think it's their voice, because celebrities can change and persuade people to do tremendous things. So it's like if you have a bunch of Hollywood types that say that we should try to kick Gavin Newsom out, the loudness of that is far more significant

than any volume that could ever come out of. So let me play this clip for you guys from Jimmy Kimmel. It's pretty good to see you. I heard you had to evacuate your home. Yes, yes. Like most people, I had to. I got lucky. You know, the winds moved, but, you know,

the fire was coming and all that stuff. So I feel lucky. Are you guys back? And I think everybody did a great job. Sure you did. Not like the internet, you know, the fire was coming and all that stuff. So I feel lucky. Are you guys back? And I think everybody did a great job. Sure you did. Unlike the internet, you know? Yeah, right, I know, right? Oh, my God.

Can you say that when it's not even done? Why didn't you just fly a helicopter into the ocean? And then just, I don't know, because it was 100 knot winds. You want to do that? You want to do that at night, you f***ing lunatic? I don't know. Maybe we could put water in the fire hydrants. That's just an idea.

That seems like a good start. Bill Burr, the man who admitted he doesn't actually read the news. How are you? This was definitely mismanaged. That's a big word we're hearing now. Mismanaged, like some f***ing idiot on the internet knows how to manage the worst fire in LA, sitting there in his underwear.

I mean, I'm wearing a hoodie, but I would start with putting water in the fire hydrant. Having your reservoirs filled, that's not that hard. I would hire firefighters. Sure. These are, you may not be aware, but firefighters are people who you hire to fight the fires. I would have enough of them.

It's your classic example of, what an idiot. What, do you pay attention to the news, you loser? It's so much cooler to just sit at home and do absolutely nothing and just run away when they tell me or put on my diaper on my face when they tell me. You know what? Looking at the footage on the internet, I have determined that this here was mismanaged. So this is the thing. This guy's so dumb. First, I

want to stress that when we looked up the ratings for Jimmy Kimmel and I saw that his key demo ratings was 221,000. You know, we're about just on the live show at two and a half times that. I felt bad, you know, punching down on a little guy like Jimmy Kimmel.

Don't punch down, right? Sorry about that, Jimmy. I know you're an up-and-coming young star with your tiny little show. I'm actually gloating because I'm so happy to see the failures of these networks because what Bill Burr is doing, and he is a funny guy, okay? When he was on Joe Rogan talking about how people need to wear masks outside, he was still very funny because he made fun of rollerblading. Knuckles dragon.

That was really good. That was really good. And it's for you, Brett. Yeah. He was like, he said, it's like everybody rollerbladed. There was one homophobic joke and 100 million people threw their rollerblades in the ocean. That's actually really good. But he says in that, and then Joe, he says something like, Joe, you wouldn't do it.

You don't get the body for it. Your knuckles would be dragging as you go. He's a funny guy. But the problem I have with this, he actually, everything he's saying is presented in a very comedic way, which makes you want to laugh. The problem is, it's not a joke. He's not saying, here's a bit I've prepared. He's literally saying the internet is wrong. The fire was managed properly, when

it literally was not. I think it's pretty clear that they didn't have water. So water in the fire hydrant. How can you say, oh, it was managed properly? And if you want to specify that it's not the fault, or the blame doesn't fall on the firefighters absolutely 100 i'm right there with you the the blame does fall on the governor and it falls on the you know the mayor of la the people that have decided to not pick up the deadfall in the forest and and and not clean essentially clean the forest so that way this stuff doesn't happen.

That is part of what their job is by being the stewards of California. California is a desert. Everyone knows it. They don't get a lot of rain normally. They're going to have forest fires. There's a lot of brush. That stuff's going to happen. And if you're elected to public office, it is your job to do whatever you can do to mitigate the risk and make sure that if when there is forest fires, because they're going to happen to some degree when there is a forest fire, that there's water in the fire hydrants.

And the chief, the fire chief said herself that they were understaffed and ill-equipped to handle it. So it's just like your own people from the inside are literally saying it. And California has Silicon Valley. It has all of Hollywood, which granted, Hollywood's not doing what it was doing 20 years ago, but they still make boatloads of money. The tax base in California is not a problem. They have the fifth biggest economy on earth. There is not a problem with money.

It is not a problem with they can't find the money. You go and you ask Tim Cook, and Tim Cook will write a check and donate it and say, you know what? Okay, here. This will be a great write-off, and this will a great uh um pr stunt here's a bunch of money for the firefighters in la or in southern california that's something that apple would do just for chuckles and you have multiple gigantic companies there's there was a time where apple had more cash than the federal government that was a real thing so it's not like the tax base isn't

there it's not like the money isn't there to do these things. It's mismanagement because you had single party rule so nobody was pushing back on anyone else. Nobody said, hey, you need to check that out. Yeah, exactly. It's an echo chamber and nobody was saying, look, we need to make sure

these things are being taken care of. There's no checks and balances. None. They build a light rail to nowhere. I mean, that is a... God, that's... Wait, they did? Well, yeah. You got one section done. It's just an example of just government mismanagement

and their inability to actually hold checks and balances to show that the projects that are getting such heavy funding are actually being completed. Right? I also, real quick, the LA mayor is not the mayor of the Palisades and there's other counties who are their mayor's we know it's holding those folks accountable we're just focusing on the

an LA mayor so yeah you know each town each each area has their own mayor so we should just call them all out maybe the question the question that he should have asked Bill Burr and this is of course the problem with these types of shows is it's not a new show it's a comedy show and they blend the two however poorly they do because they're not actually funny is to say well if not having water isn't mismanagement what would you have considered the threshold for actual mismanagement or do you just let appeal to authority win and just say, oh, they must be doing fine? Well, that's, it's a perfect example of you just saying like, oh, the, you know, the adults are in charge. They're going to take care of this issue. So it's like, if you have

that type of attitude that you, that means that you believe everything that they tell you every single time, no matter what. It's learned helplessness. And paying attention is actually stupid and you're dumb for thinking about it And oh god forbid you sit at home And research these things and care about it Do you think Bill Burr did any research? Of course not It's not like he did the research and then came to the conclusion That everything was fine, he did none at all Just want to point out, the California High Speed Rail Project

Was initiated in 1996 And they have zero trains Zero trains The reason why Karen Bass is getting flack Is because it's LAfd that is fighting the wildfires yeah so la is an interesting place because people you people when people say la they're referring to la county which incorporates all of that stuff but la as a city is actually we talked about this last week whatever la as a city is actually quite small but that's where

like the downtown county is huge yeah the county is massive so when people say la they're referring to the county okay it's the most populous county, I think, in America. I'm pretty sure. Maybe. I don't know. I'm pretty sure it is. It has the largest police department of any county in the entire country. I know the fire department had an $800 million budget.

Yeah. So there's people that were talking about the DEI initiatives and the cuts, the $17 million that got cut. And yes, that's a sizable cut. But when you have a budget of $800 million, it's probably not enough to actually make the difference. The problem is the people. The problem was mismanagement, not that they didn't have the funds. So actually, I think I'm wrong.

I just looked it up, and it's listed in Wikipedia. You know, we love Wikipedia. It's part of LA. So, oh, actually, yeah, it is part of LA. Interesting. And the honorary mayor of, so there's no real mayor. There's an honorary mayor. Do you guys know the honorary mayor?

What are you talking about? The City of Palisades. Okay. Eugene Levy. That's correct. Yeah. You don't know that. He's an actor, right?

Yeah, he's an actor, dude. I know all about it. He's the dad from American Pie. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, he's the only honorary mayor? I thought he was. Oh, I got lied to.

Sorry. He should have been prepared for this. Yeah. About to cook this dude on Instagram Reels. I was about to go after him. He's like, oh, man, that seemed like all fun and games, and then the place burns down. That's not good. Check this out.

This is actually really interesting. I didn't realize this is what L.A. was. So I knew that Santa Monica and Beverly Hills were not L.A. I didn't realize L.A. was this ridiculous spattering of nonsense. Wait, what? So this is the Blue Line. I think it's the Blue Line train they call it. It's been a long time since I lived in there.

And it goes down to Long Beach. But I didn't realize. And Doug Stewart's the mayor of Malibu? That's L.A. County? No, this is L.Au and all that. You know, there's a bunch of people. Yeah, Malibu's different. That's L.A. County? No, this is L.A. City. Oh, okay. L.A. County is like this huge, massive town.

That's L.A. City. That's hilarious. Yeah, L.A. County's right there to the left. I love Ventura. Yeah, so the Palisades are right here. Oh, gotcha, gotcha. And then so Santa Monica's its own place. I don't know what this is.

What is this? The Veterans Administration? I didn't know that. I knew West Hollywood and Beverly Hills were separate. Of course. Culver City and all that stuff. Inglewood. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to get to the facts here of the L.A. Fire Department.

Who's in charge here in Tipcast? Yeah, the whole. Oh, look at this. I did not know it was. San Fernando's tiny? Yeah, it's very weird. And in every single part of that. No, I lived there for two years and I had no idea.

Yeah. I lived in Thousand Oaks, Camarillo for eight years. I had zero idea. Well, I don't. I wasn't down in the L.A. area. Thousand Oaks is not. No, it's there for two years and I had no idea. I lived in Thousand Oaks, Camarillo for eight years. I had zero idea. Well, I wasn't down in the L.A. area. Thousand Oaks is not L.A. though. I know. It is Ventura County. Yeah, man.

I had a condo in Camarillo. Let's go. Sold cars. Let's go. Yeah, so I don't think we can really rag on Eugene Levy for this one. Okay. Eugene, you get a pass. I think we should, though.

I think we should. What was the dad for? Make all the actors think twice about taking those types of appointments. Honorary positions, too. Actually, that would be funny to tweet. Like, where was Eugene Levy this whole time? Honorary mayor. Yeah, anyway.

Well, I say goodbye to Gavin Newsom. But it won't get recalled because most people just sit around and don't care. Dude, we almost had Elder. Yeah, there was the recall just two years ago, right? Or last year? Indeed, indeed, that would be based. It is pretty remarkable that there was a

recall election. He survived. This happens, and there isn't an actual significant voices calling for him for another recall. He just barely survived the recall if I understand correctly. He's clearly shown

again that he is incompetent and he's still there. The idea that if this guy actually runs for president in four years, which that was the talk if he actually runs and is is nominated i you know woe is the united states if he even gets to the point where he he's he's not would you imagine what happened if every single fire hydrant in the

country was empty under his watch as president that's what would happen all right if you make it illegal to show identification in a state how could you trust that any possible thing could happen and that's why i think that the celebrities really represent in a lot of ways a threat but what could ultimately be a benefit because if the celebrities were all to say that he should leave in the court of public opinion i think that would be more effective at getting him out than any recall probably could. Because by then, the attention dies down. If this guy's getting ripped every single day by every major celebrity, that would be the one chance,

I think, to get him out that really is there. The problem, though, right, is the people who are going to stand up for him are the ones who are shielded from the repercussions of his actions because of the tax bracket they fall in. So it's a unique situation well if there was ever a time yeah this well i mean there was there was back and forth when karen bass was up for election with celebrities going back and forth between her and rick caruso

and they a lot of people had their opinions on who would be the best case for them there so all right celebrities do something let's jump to this next story from Reuters. TikTok prepares to shut down app in US on Sunday sources say. Good. Bye. I'm okay with it. Not good. I think it's great. I was surprised that it's going to, I assumed it was going to be one of those things where the phone

just wouldn't update and then it would slowly become unusable, but it will eventually, it will actually be removed. TikTok is doing this intentionally and they don't have to. What the, what the, one of two things has to happen. They divest from their Chinese partner or they remove the apps from the app store and the app still exists and can be downloaded off their website for anybody who wants to use it.

However, the rumor is that TikTok decided to shut down entirely to spite its users, tricking them into getting mad at Congress for having passed this bill. I also heard that Donald Trump is now touting the idea of trying to save TikTok. He's been. Yeah. He wants to do what? An executive order to put a 60 to 90 day hold on the ban. Which I don't know that he has the authority to do because Congress has already passed

and it's already been signed. But I also completely disagree. So in 2020, the concern was that TikTok was the most censorious platform for the right. And it was propping up weird, woke, garbage ideology, people like Dylan Mulvaney. So then Republicans came out and said, why are we allowing a foreign country to have influence over our younger generation? That's a security threat. We should force them to divest. And if they don't, then they can't operate on U.S. servers. The Democrats were like, how dare you? Gen Z said, how dare you? We love TikTok. And China said, oh, they're coming for us. So a couple of years later, China basically says, ease up on the censorship of conservatives, make Trump look good. And all of a sudden, a bunch of right wing personalities are getting traction on the platform and immediately changed their opinions. All of a sudden, the right was now wing personalities started getting traction on the platform and immediately changed their opinions.

All of a sudden, the right was now way there. I don't know if we should ban this, but it was too late. After October 7th, when there was what appeared to be an artificial boost in anti-Israel pro-Palestine content, Democrats and Republicans came together and said it's time to stop TikTok from being able to control what people think in this country. Now, the reason I say that is not because I'm biased one way or the other on Israel-Palestine. There's a lot of legitimate criticism from the pro-Palestine side and anti-Israel. The issue was when October 7th happened, the majority of the content, it was largely pro-Israel, anti-Hamas, and then over a period of a couple days on the weekend, it flipped completely. That is not indicative of natural trends among people. It's indicative of an algorithmic switch.

This triggered Democrats and Republicans to be like, we got to shut this down. But when Republicans started getting traction and Donald Trump personally started getting traction, all of a sudden he was like, nah, maybe we don't want to do this anymore i say shut them down uh foreign foreign governments do not have free speech in america they should divest and if they don't want to this is a trick tiktok does not have to shut down they are doing it so that american users go oh no trump is taking away tiktok from us not true i also think that the the part of the reason why they want to shut down as opposed to you know know, sell it off or whatever is because the servers and the app itself is compromised. And whoever were to purchase it would see what they were doing and also see the algorithm and probably see the algorithm, I assume, that they've been using.

And that would implicate the Chinese Communist Party in espionage. I think there's a lot of other far more serious risks to the American people, the mind of the American people, than TikTok. I think that China, for example, purchasing farmland in strategic positions around the United States is a far greater threat. Different subject, though. But they also own the entire slate of Hollywood. They control. They basically say, you can't put this in this movie or we won't show it in the Chinese

market, the largest movie marketplace in the world. Then on top of all that, they have a lot of influence in a multitude of other different aspects of American society, including sports. The Daily Wire did a great six or something part series about how they're infiltrated into all these other parts of culture. So to think that TikTok specifically represents some type of existential threat, I don't think is really true. And if you want to say that, okay, they don't have the right to free speech or they can't collect this data, well then make a rule that this type of data can't be collected by any social media platform. The issue is that they put Dylan Mulvaney on the front page.

That's the issue. Is that proof, though? Can you prove that that's the case? That TikTok's algorithm puts... That's a fact. Can you prove that they put their thumb on the scale, that that is the case because of them? Yes.

How? By going on TikTok, scraping the data, and looking at what appears and what doesn't. And actually, we actually do rather simple experiments on tracking this data. You'd have to replicate what we do probably 100 times, but I think it's fair to say it's easily done by any AI. You take a look at Dylan Mulvaney's earliest videos, which we did, and they have nothing to do with being trans. They are gay safari. And what Dylan Mulvaney was doing was basically poking the algorithm to figure out what kind of video would go viral. When Dylan Mulvaney came out as

it's gay safari, wasn't really getting a lot of traction. Then did the I'm nine binary, good amount of views. Then the next video, I'm now trans double the views. Then, hey guys, I'm trans, not so many views. So days of girlhood, boom, instant algorithmic success. You can look at almost any creator on various platforms youtube is it's true the same thing look at their early look at mr beast's early content and you can see how it's not that they're intentionally like sitting down and saying how can we exploit the algorithm they're making content and then content that works they decide hey people like that i'll keep doing it so you can see on tiktok that woke weird gender garbage and ideologies that break the

minds of young people have been massively dominant on the platform. And it was only when the right said we are being censored that TikTok switched it and gave conservatives a little bit. But is that grounds for banning? But couldn't you say that every other mainstream news outlet in America, including Facebook, including Instagram, including Google, including YouTube, every single other platform does the exact same thing? Well, I can sue Facebook in the United States. They're Americans. Yeah, but TikTok has established corporate ties in the United States. China can divest from it and we got no problem.

They can run their algorithm exactly as YouTube, Axe, and Facebook do. We can complain. We can make claims of government collusion, send investigative, and Facebook do. We can complain. We can make claims of government collusion, send investigative journalists and file lawsuits and FOIA requests. Turns out X and Twitter, I don't want to blame X because X is new, Twitter and Facebook were operating portals to allow the feds to go in to take down posts or to flag them. And we don't know what TikTok does because all that's happening in China. So China divest, TikTok stays, we're fine. The problem right now is I'm not arguing for banning TikTok. I'm arguing China divest.

I don't know why you would actually argue that China should be allowed to own it. I just don't understand what is the grounds that require, I don't understand what forcing them to divest changes about this algorithm or changes about what they're doing there. It doesn't. Then couldn't theoretically China remain invested in it, but you have to reveal X, Y, and Z? Because is China not invested in a multitude of other different aspects of American society? The U.S. just named Tencent as a military company.

It looks like the moves are happening on more than just TikTok. And while the bill that was passed specifically isolates ByteDance and TikTok, it does go into mention any other company that is being operated in a similar way by Russia, North Korea, China, or Iran. But that bill is exceptionally vague and could cover a multitude of other different websites that TikTok is not the only one of.

It's not a ban specifically on TikTok. It's actually a very- Not a ban at all. But it is. It has a lot of very vague language that could affect American businesses, American websites that have nothing to do with TikTok. Wow. In the details of the bill, because it doesn't just specifically ban TikTok. It offers a lot of different privileges that could jeopardize.

It's like, do we want the government to have more power? I thought that's what we were against. I thought we were against giving them more power and more censorious power and more thought distribution censorship. Isn't that bad? Shouldn't we say that any platform can't do X and all of them have to be able to follow those exact same rules and if TikTok follows these rules,

why should they be forced to divest? Shouldn't they be forced to divest from the farmland? Shouldn't they be forced to divest from Hollywood? And no one disagrees with that. So why are we allowing a foreign corporation to have such

strong control over the economy of the United States? Imagine this. Imagine China being able to convince an American to argue for Chinese interests on a live show to 50,000 people right now. Rand Paul said you have the right to hear the wrong information on a live show to 50,000 people right now. Rand Paul said you have the right to hear the wrong information. Who are we to say that they don't have the right, that you don't have the right to hear the information that's incorrect? And the other

thing too, to go back- Foreign adversaries operate, if you go, I'll put it this way. If you went to the founding fathers and said, do you believe that free speech extends to all peoples? They would say, of course. Do you think it extends to our adversaries, to Leaflet and our country? No, of course not. Absolutely not. There's a lot of psychological subversion that's happening on any multitude of digital distribution platforms that is going anti to our own issue with that argument. Of course, against American platforms. And I take issue with that argument.

The idea that, oh, there are other people that might do it, so should allow tiktok to do it i don't think that's really a solid argument i think that like like fair enough like there there are other platforms that may fine that doesn't mean that that we should just say well because other people can do it tiktok should so is the crux of the argument that tiktok shouldn't be able to psychologically subvert americans that choose to download t download TikTok and choose to watch those videos? China should not be allowed to operate a massive influence program and economic control on our younger generation. If TikTok divests from China, then it's an American company. It can do it at once. But is that to say that they don't have any other influence from China?

They will have influence, but then we have recourse. But then don't you have to divest Hollywood from China? China's entanglement to Hollywood. More people watch media produced from Hollywood than talk. Not anymore. Some of all television shows, all HBO, all movie theaters. First of all, no. I do think that there are more people that are actually watching TikTok

and on a platform like that than are watching movies and stuff because this is the new medium. This is the new medium. People don't sit down and watch movies nearly as much as they used to. A lot more people are on TikTok, first of all. And second of all, TikTok shapes the

information that you're getting. They all do. Everything shapes information that you're getting. Except we can file lawsuits against American companies and the Supreme Court can protect us. Yeah, but TikTok is incorporated in the United States and could be sued in the same way. Only as far as American interests can compress. Like we can't go to China and ask them to release their servers and release data. Here's what I'm trying to understand is like a thing is wrong, and it's like,

okay, there has to be a law in place that universally applies that says that this thing is wrong. Okay, well then, what is the thing that is wrong that we are supposedly solving that the ban solves on its own? See, this is like a liberal argument.

But it is. It's a literal philosophical liberal argument that all right there must be an underlying straight identifiable principle that affects all things that we can identify as either good or bad but that's i i think that's you know right now i i would put it like for for me i came to a realization on this one we would describe it as probably a post-liberal principle where actually there is no happy medium. There is no middle ground where we can definitively say one such thing is right or wrong. Let me try and get specific because otherwise it's hard to understand. The argument that we've often brought

up on this show is, should parents have the final say on medical issues for their children? Yes or no? Should parents have the final say on medical issues for their children? Yes or no? Should parents have the final say on medical issues for their children? Yes. Yes. So a parent who wants to give their 10 year old a sex change should have the final say on that. No, I guess it doesn't universally apply. Okay. So when conservatives and liberals both argued the exact same principle, parents can decide what is best for their children. Conservatives said, you can't force my kids to get vaccinated, but I will force you to stop if you try to give a kid a sex change. Democrats were inverted. You should be if Democrats argued, if the doctor prescribes a sex change, the parents should be barred from preventing it.

And and the children should not even tell them. However, the government should be able to mandate vaccination. So the principle of parental rights in medicine does not universally apply to idea to morality or ideology. In this regard, I would say, based on the bill that we have, there is no universal principle of what we're going to identify as being right or wrong. over a large swath of the American people's psyche by feeding them specific information and convincing them to argue in the financial and security interests of China instead of the United States. Like the idea that someone would come here and literally be like, China should be allowed to operate a mass media program

in the United States to 112 million people blows my mind. Like it should be a simple, like we don't allow them to do that. Like the argument is only they must divest and operate under us law. And then we can subpoena their servers, pull their data. And if they're harboring outside of the country, we can charge them and shut them down in the United States. Right now, all we're saying is tick tock divest from bite dance and keep doing your thing. I still don't understand specifically

what is the thing that they need to do that is solved as a result of them divesting. If it's like, okay, then you have to be able to have our, your servers have to be able to be subpoenaed, then couldn't that just be the universal practice of all? I don't want Chinese interests to have a control over parts of our economy, be it farmland, be it TikTok, be it farmland, be it TikTok,

be it Hollywood. And we can start with TikTok and other platforms they try to introduce, and it's going to be a game of whack-a-mole, but I do think it's important that we do it. What if the information was correct? Who cares? It's fine. Who cares? Well, if you're blocking them because... If you're blocking this country, or insert any other country, if you're blocking the information or insert any other country if you're blocking the information from coming in that could potentially be correct then we don't have the ability to see

the correct information that's that's if you can sue facebook in north korea and we have no means to do shows like it's also assuming that the only place you could get the correct information is that one specific app the the apps Yeah, okay, so I would, especially in I think that's kind of unlikely. I can end this debate right now. Do it. How many followers do you have on YouTube?

5,100. How many followers do you have on Twitter? 5,000 something, 5,500. How many followers do you have on TikTok? 155,000. That doesn't solve anything. I make video content. Video content does not trend vertical.

You're arguing for the platform where you have a following. Oh. No. It has nothing to, no. Okay. That is not true. And it's a false equivalency to suggest that my opinion is biased simply because my content works there. For you to presume that that's the case is incorrect.

There's nothing to lead you. I made an assumption. Yeah, you can make an assumption, but it's a false assumption. It's how many followers I have on TikTok. Yeah, that doesn't matter. It does? It's kind of false equivalent, I feel like. Basically, you're saying I'm only arguing because I want to benefit myself.

Yes. Okay, well, you could presume that but that's not the case like i had no followers i don't i don't i don't think you read the bill i don't think you know what's in the law i can't recite it back and forth right now it's been it's been a long time since it came out you're arguing for your platform i'm not arguing for my platform though i have more followers i have more followers on instagram than i do on tiktok all right fair point and i don't so i don't care about tiktok we have almost no followers on t than I do on TikTok. All right, fair point. And I don't care about TikTok. We have almost no followers on TikTok because TikTok banned us like five times.

Right, and I don't like the censorious nature of TikTok. What I understand is that giving the government more authority to do X, and specifically to limit the distribution of thought because this thought is wrong and or it comes from this place, therefore it can't be correct, is a dangerous precedent and an additional power and an additional authority that we're already giving to a government that largely mismanages just about every possible thing. So it's like, okay, they can ban this from China. Well, now couldn't they theoretically ban information from whatever else?

Doesn't it open the door? It's not a ban. There's no ban. And what can't they do? There's no ban. There's no ban. What can't they do? Like, honestly, at There's no ban. But what can't they do? Like, honestly, at the end of the day, if the government wants to do something, they can do it. And the only thing stopping them is if the American people get loud enough and make enough of a stink. Yep.

And that's it. Because the Constitution is just a piece of paper. And the government has gone around every single law, every single liberty the American people have that's protected by the Bill of Rights. The government has found a way around it. So we should give them more power so they could do more censorship. No, you're not giving them power. They already have it. So then why do they make the bill at all? Why didn't they just do it?

Why do they have to vote on it if they already have the power? That's how the power is exercised. That's how, yeah. So it's just a procedure. So it doesn't matter? Let me tell you guys a story. Well, I mean, what is it that they can't do? Well, what do you think that they're going to do?

Then couldn't they have already forced them to sell it two years ago? This is them doing it. Yeah, but if they have ultimate power and they could have done it anyways, then why even have the bill? Why even have the show? Why not just do it? Because the power is derived through congressional action. Yeah, and it's a dog and pony.

Everything's a dog and pony show. Bobby, are you friends with Fang Fang? I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. No, I mean. Let me tell you guys a story that is completely unrelated to any of these platforms. There was once a social media platform that allowed people to post videos singing songs. It was marketed largely to young people on various social media platforms showing young people singing songs. It was marketed largely to young people

on various social media platforms showing young people singing songs. This is a fictional story, by the way. Oh, gotcha. And all the kids love to sing songs. And so when they sent it for the platform, they decided to try it out and see if this platform was right for them.

For many of these young people, they saw overnight they gained thousands of followers. It was amazing. In one instance, a prominent journalist decided to visit a production studio in Hollywood. And he met up with another production specialist who showed this cool new app where you can sing songs. And she had 300,000 followers. Whoa. And she played this app and said, let's do a video.

And when she did the video, she got tons of comments that said, wow, bang, high, cool, amazing, so good. And the journalist said, isn't it strange that all the comments are saying nonsense words and not actually responding to you in any way? How do you have so many followers on this platform? You don't have any followers anywhere else and you have no large body of work. Shrug, says the production specialist. The idea at the time again fictional story was that a foreign entity had produced a social media platform marketed to high school kids and then gave them fake followers to trick them into advocating for this platform instead of other social media platforms then later on when there was upset over what the platform had been engaged in politically a bunch of people with fake followers started defending it publicly. Again, a fictional story I just made up.

Again, this is to presume that there is some inherent bias that can, then that position can only be held by a person who seeks to personally benefit as a result. So if I deleted my TikTok right now, would that mean that that point no longer exists? I made the point that I have no TikTok followers. It's the inverse. We have nothing to lose from TikTok because they banned us. So here we are. We don't care if they get banned.

Yeah, you don't care. I don't know why you're defending China so much. I'm not defending China. I'm defending the limitation of the distribution of thought. And the fact that China so happens to own some piece, okay, well, what is it that we don't want them to be able to do? Post on Robles. We have to be able to

review your servers? Okay, fine. Write that in. Every social media company has to be able to be sued for libel, whatever, because of the servers. Fine. It can't collect this personal data. Okay, write that in. Every social media No algorithm. What do you mean no algorithm? No algorithm. What does that, write that in. Every social media platform. What do you mean no algorithm?

No algorithm. What does that mean, no algorithm? Every social media application has an algorithm. No, that means you post reverse chronological only. But that's the whole magic of the whole thing. Right, that Chinese interest can determine what you can and can't see. Every social media platform can determine what you see and don't see. Sure can. Every television station.

Some are American and some are Chinese. Every radio station. Yeah, but that's just a... If you want free don't see. Sure can. Every television station. Some are American and some are Chinese. Every radio station. Yeah, but that's just to say. If you want free speech, go to Rumble. You got Parler, Rumble, Getter, X. There's tons of places you can post. Minds.com. Minds.com.

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that your argument about me only arguing for TikTok would be inverse that you already have a huge platform on YouTube. That's the point. You already have it. So you arguing against TikTok, which is a place where people that are small creators are actually able to gain prominence,

you don't care because- What about Rumble? Rumble is not, you're never gonna get the gas on Rumble that you're gonna get on TikTok. Why do you get it on TikTok? You get it on TikTok because it's an interest-based, interest-based algorithm.

Has the SEC audited TikTok's user base? Hold on, listen. The answer is no fine there the difference between tiktok and every other social media application is tiktok is an interest-based algorithm which means that you don't have to have a it's not a subscription based algorithm which is like instagram which is like rumble like instagram like youtube like literally every other thing including instagram is not a follower based. It's interest generated. That's that is I think that is more than not more than not true because my feed on Instagram is nobody I follow.

It's all random. They only did that because TikTok has an interest based graph that's that's encouraging them to do that because they have to. Because TikTok is based on interest, which means that you can discover new people. You can have a thousand followers on TikTok and you can have a video get 15 million views. The probability of that happening on any other platform basically does not exist. I posit that those numbers are not real, and that you are being manipulated into defending a platform based on fake numbers. I got 7 million, and I want to add 2,000. What proof do you have that the numbers are fake?

I never was. Can any number on any platform be determined as fake so for american companies that are publicly traded they are under regulation through the ftc and the sec if they're publicly traded to not do that okay so we have the same rules on them then say you have to say you have to be regulated so that you show the views are real that's what i'm saying but it still comes down to why should we allow chinese interests to determine what american young people see because it doesn't determine what American young people see. People have free will. They don't determine. You just said it was an interest-based algorithm. It's an interest-based

algorithm, which means if I watch videos about Pringles. They have content moderation policies. Every platform has content moderation policies. Does TikTok have content moderation policies? Sure. Every single platform does. And it's Chinese interests determining what you are allowed to see. Yeah, but they could determine what you're allowed to see on television, on radio, in movies, in movie theaters. China, bro, I'm so sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. It's not about China, it's about- They are China. Yeah, but that's just now it's China.

It's always been China. Yeah, but that doesn't mean that sooner or later it's China, and then it's conservatives, and then it's people that believe in free speech, and then it's conspiracy theories. That's not a slippery slope. I believe it is a conspiracy. Sorry, they're China. Not America. I apologize. I'm just saying, man.

Giving additional power to reduce the distribution of thought is a problem. I think the U.S. government should ban foreign influence operations from any adversarial nation that can be proven in court in an adversarial way. Like this bill gives TikTok the right to file a lawsuit to counter the claims, which they've appeared to have lost. The Supreme Court refused to issue a decision on decision day, meaning they may take up an injunction, but likely will not. This is TikTok losing the argument. They had the argument. They lost it. Now, I do agree that there is a risk in that they'll say, oh, Russia is doing influence operations and they'll falsely accuse people of these things. But this bill doesn't do that.

This bill only refers to platforms with more than one million monthly active users that allows users to – it's got four stipulations to determine what is a covered company. Ultimately, I do not believe in this absolute libertarian position that in a time of a time of conflict, a nation should allow its enemies to exploit it. There is this liberal universal principle concept of, hey, look, China's going to run a program in this country. We are obviously in a trade conflict and we've got tensions over Taiwan. War could break out at any minute, but we should let them do this. My view is no. Sometimes a people have to assert strong authority. It has to exist. But are we anti-fact checker?

What does that mean? Personally. Do you like fact checking? What does that mean? Okay. What does that mean? If we're anti-fact checker, meaning that there is some authoritarian some authority

that suggests that this information is correct or wrong or you can see it or you cannot see it isn't it safe to say that that's exactly what's occurring here if you're saying that this information that china's pushing out is wrong then who determines that it's wrong about the it's not about the information you know what that's what he's saying is that the information gets like dylan movini shows their kids what you know what doyin... But that's what he's saying is that the information gets... Like Dylan Mulvaney gets pushed to the top of the... You know what Douyin shows their kids? What? You know what Douyin shows kids in China?

I'll be honest, I don't know what Douyin is. I mean, I'll start by saying this. If you don't know what Douyin is, you shouldn't be arguing this at all. Okay, well, I am arguing it, so... Okay, well, Douyin is Chinese TikTok.

Okay. So Douyin in China shows kids math, science, astronomy, etc. Fine. What do you think happens to a generation of Americans that are raised on TikTok's gender-woke algorithm? These people are using these applications with their own free will. And then TikTok determines what appears for people and what does not. So you're saying that we have to block information that we deem to be influential?

No, they have to divest from China. Yeah, but I don't even see how that solves it. I don't see how them divesting from China changes the influence that they have over the algorithm. It means that we will have legal recourse in the United States. Then make it legal recourse and don't force them to divest. What do they have to divest from? If you have the legal recourse, it solves your problem. Americans have a right to their

opinions. Chinese people do not have a right to assert opinions over Americans. It's that simple. But they already are in a multitude of other different ways. And we want it all to stop. That's just one of the ways. But isn't the farmland around military installations far more threatening than somebody... No, it's not. That's not the question. Hold on.

Let me tell you why it's not. 112 million people on a platform, arguably assuming it's true, affects an entire generation into engaging in behaviors that will destroy a country from the inside out. Farmland being owned is bad. We can seize that with a finger snap. But you can't seize back the minds of 12-year-olds who for 10 years used a platform that told them to cut their fucking balls off. So we don't want that. But you're saying, but again, so then if Facebook says this, then what? You can stop Facebook?

We did. We literally did it. Congratulations, we all won. Trump got in, Zuckerberg bent the knee and said we're removing the restrictions. Right, so okay, if X decides to do this, then what? Decides to do what? If X, if it comes out that X x is x is not a publicly traded twitter twitter did it yeah but i literally sat down with the ceo and the head of legal for twitter

and explained to them that they had a biased rule set that was favoring people who were suffering a dsm-5 mental disorder yep and then elon musk bought it and ripped it to shreds why we win why should the united States allow TikTok, which is run by China, to operate in the United States when China doesn't allow Facebook or Google or any number of other American companies to operate in China

without having strict censorship laws? Is that the metric? No, but why should we? I don't see... Yes, diplomatic reciprocity is normal. Well, it's a communist state. It seems to me to compare what they do to their people as a metric for how we— The reason they do that is because they want to control what information their people see.

Yeah, that's bad. Why would we allow— Information control is bad. Why would we allow communists to control a large economic driver in the United States, an information driver? Because the moral hazard of restricting thought distribution is a problem and is an additional power that you're granting to an already bloated government that mismanages everything. So you're saying that they are now— China is not afforded the protections of the United States Constitution. Sir, yes.

Again, it's thought distribution look i'll just make this like the simple if you can do the argument tiktok has successfully convinced americans to argue for constitutional protections on chinese interests you could say that any social media platform i'm in favor of i'm in favor of banning all trade from china i'm in favor of donald trump saying pay them back for 30 tariff on all goods made in china no matter what i'm in favor of Donald Trump saying pay them back for 30 percent tariff on all goods made in China, no matter what. I'm in favor of severing diplomatic ties with China. I don't care. China has no rights in this country.

China should not be manufacturing American goods, selling them back to us, made by slave labor and gutting, gutting our culture and our economy. And so that they would have any interest in our media space that targets young people. That is, in my opinion, an act of war. Sir, and I agree with the farmland. That's a bunch of bullshit. Bullish. But owning land is minimal because one guy, one federal agent with a piece of paper and no weapon can take that land in two seconds.

Sure. Yeah, we could do it ourselves if we wanted to. But having Chinese control the mines of use, I mean, I give zero Fs. But that's a stretch to just be like, they are controlling the minds of youth because people choose to go on this platform and consume information with their own free will. The content that I watch on TikTok doesn't suggest anything. And even if it did, to say that my free will is determined by the algorithm and I don't have agency to choose what I want to watch or not want to watch.

I could also not have an account at all. Sure, don't say you don't have agency. You know, if what you were saying was true, Coca-Cola would never buy an ad again. Not, sir. But, Bobby, you don't, you know, you have your own agency. If what you were saying was true, Coca-Cola would never buy another advertisement again.

Explain that to me. Do you know how much it costs to run videos in front of people on the internet? Yeah. I have an elaborate understanding of it, in fact. So China has a multi-billion dollar interest in determining what videos you get to see because advertising works.

Okay. but that means advertising is just presenting an idea to a person that they can choose to purchase. Selling an idea. Okay, so then we ban the selling of ideas that we deem wrong? We just say China shouldn't have the ability to do that in this country at scale.

And then what country is next? Iran, Russia, at scale. And then what country is next? Iran, Russia, North Korea. And then what comes after that? Whoever declares war on us. People that are anti-government, perhaps? That's not a country. People that are anti-establishment?

That's not a country. Yeah, but isn't this how all these things work? It's like, oh, there's not an income tax. It's only going to be on the rich. And then, oops, the rich is a million. Oops, the rich is a hundred thousand. The rich goes in every direction. Yeah, so you can choose to allow

china to send dylan mulvaney to children or you can say no china you can't do that pick one i don't know that dylan mulvaney on a on a social media application to human persons that have agency that determine that that you're saying like these people are too stupid to understand the information that's being presented to them and thus daddy government must ban it. Admittedly, you're giving more power to a bureaucracy that is limiting thought distribution. Indeed I am not. That's a straw man argument. How?

Well, I never said anyone was too stupid. I said influence operations work. That's why Coca-Cola buys ads. If you think Coke isn't successfully running advertisements, and those ads appear because they don't know what to spend their money on, I got a bridge to sell you. So the issue is when China, for instance, wants to run, oh, they run Xinhua in the United States as well. And to a certain degree, you want to run a company like that. Fine. We're talking about the scale of what TikTok is and the stranglehold they have

over a large amount of young people. The slippery slope goes in every direction. If we say we will do nothing, we are saying the Chinese Communist Party can effectively control what 112 million people in the U.S. get to see. And they're going to send them things that are bad for U.S. interests. If we say we want China to divest, the argument is sooner or later,

the U.S. will ban other countries. Yep. And there is no such thing as a happy medium. The slippery slope goes in every direction i elect that china not be allowed to run influence operations at this scale i think if you had a very specific outline of what are the things that any thought distribution platform has to follow and all american companies included would have to adhere to these specific guidelines and twitter and tiktok has to adhere to those same guidelines, then fine.

But to specifically isolate TikTok or China or whatever. And I think that, look, I don't know. The issue is Americans have a right to their opinions and the Chinese people don't have a right to opinions in America. The Chinese communists, right? So if you're an American. Ideas are ideas. I don't know.

If you're an American and you're a leftist, you are allowed to say you're a leftist and promote leftist ideas. If you're conservative, same thing. If you are Chinese, you have no right to distribute those ideas in this country. English people, British people, all these foreigners trying to tell us how to run our country, their words mean

nothing to us. But they can do it. They're not running one of the largest social media platforms with no accountability, no transparency to all of our young people. They're on a much more grand level than they are. running one of the largest social media platforms with no accountability, no transparency to all of our young people. They're on a much more grand level than they are.

Well, they simultaneously send their children math and science. Yeah. So force them to- That is clearly an act of war. I don't think so. Do you think about that differently, how they give their kids two hours a day or whatever, they do math and- Yeah, fine.

But they let the American people do whatever the F's going on around there? Come on. Okay, then write into the law that any social media application can be pursued for more than two hours. That gives a big government daddy, like you said, more control. I'm all against the government having more authority to censor ideas. That's giving government more authority by telling the government daddy that you have to give the kids two hours a day. I don't want that. That's what you're saying. I don't want that that's what you're saying

i don't want that no i'm saying that's what china does and you're saying who cares what china i don't i don't care what we don't care okay i don't care what they do with their people that's i i mean i care you care what they do with our people so so once again this is a liberal principle of okay we will let our enemies we will let our enemies use tactics against us that we we ourselves do not use i don't agree with that i take more of a post-liberal approach where you have to have some assessment that foreign adversaries are seeking to destroy you through subversive means. And we set limiting guidelines on how these things are to operate in this country. And so that being said, TikTok as a business can survive. The jobs can exist.

The servers can exist. So long as China is not owning a portion of it. There's ways they can loophole around that. But I think this is a simple way to say we as the United States do not allow foreign adversaries to influence at scale our people. I think that that is a reasonable position to have. However, China already has a multitude of other influential ties into all other aspects of American culture. That's a fallacy though. How is that a fallacy?

Because we're not arguing farmland or Hollywood. We're arguing one thing right now. What about the NBA? We all agree on that. Okay. The fallacy is when I say X and you say Y, we're not talking about Y. You are right about Y.

Let's figure out whether this ban in a bill right now should be implemented. If the argument is, why don't we ban them from owning farmland? Agreed. We'll do that next. Amen. Tomorrow argument is, why don't we ban them from owning farmland? Agreed. We'll do that. Amen. Okay.

Tomorrow. Okay. I don't know. I just think that the, I think that the, I look, I didn't read the bill. I didn't read the bill.

Cause I didn't know that we used to be specifically talking about it, except for seven months ago. No, I read it seven months ago when it first came out. And to me, it appeared to, it appeared to have a lot of vagaries that could affect all types of other websites and other unnamed

countries and ultimately thoughts. It just specifically says China, TikTok? It says North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China. Iran or Iran? I call it Iran. Iran. And if that was passed, wouldn't a modification to include some other thought process or country be a lot simpler? The reference in the bill refers

to another, a separate bill that pertains to acquiring materials from adversaries, acquiring or distributing, and it lists four adversarial countries. The TikTok bill says a covered entity is one of those that is part of the adversaries listed in 18 USC, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If Congress wants to amend any one of these bills, notably the root bill, which identifies adversarial nations to add another adversarial nation, that would actually affect any other bill attached to it. So it wouldn't just affect this one bill. But also, Congress does have the authority, the power, and nay, the privilege to determine who our adversaries are. That's what Congress is supposed to do. And I believe as a country,

you need a governing body, should be Congress, to determine who our enemiesaries are. That's what Congress is supposed to do. And I believe as a country, you need a governing body, should be Congress to determine who our enemies are and to declare war when need be. In this instance, saying foreign adversaries shouldn't be running an app like this. So what does it specifically say? ByteDance, TikTok, their subsidiaries, entities controlled or owned by them,

or it specifically says foreign controlled, foreign controlled of these four nations, blah, blah, blah, that has a website or app. What does it say? A website, desktop, desktop application, mobile application, augmented or immersive technology

that one, permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share and view text, video images, real-time communications too, has more than 1 million active, monthly active users

with respect to at least two of the three months preceding the date on which the determination of the president is made. Three, enables one or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users on the website, desktop, application, mobile, et cetera, et cetera. And then four, enables one or more users

to view content generated by other users. So there's exclusions listed in it. They get, TikTok got 165 days to file a challenge, which they did. And it appears that they've lost. The federal courts upheld this. And the Supreme Court largely seemed like they didn't see why China would have

First Amendment rights in the United States. And there's nothing barring Congress from saying foreign adversaries can't operate this way. If the president makes a determination under this code as it pertains to a website following these four criteria, they can issue a report to Congress for which Congress can then make a declaration that this other website operating like TikTok in a similar fashion would also be forced to divest from one of these four nations. At that point, they would get 90 days to file action to challenge that. So it's not a ban.

The only thing that would happen is if this goes through on Sunday, TikTok will be forced to remove, well, not TikTok, Apple and Google would be forced to remove TikTok from the App Store. The apps could still appear on their websites. You go to TikTok.us and click download.

It'll go right to your phone, but not on the iPhone because iPhone's problem, not anyone else's, but you could still get on Android. Instead, TikTok said, no, screw you guys. We are going to shut our company down to spite this law. They could just divest. Why not?

And now it says something to me that a company says we won't divest from China. Why not? I thought it was about just doing business, right? You just want to run business. Why wouldn't you divest from China? And then they say, and we would rather shut the whole thing down than do so. Sounds to me like this is a weapon against the American people and American children and not anything else.

Well, it's a negotiation position to assign the meaning of it. It's like you would have more leverage by getting the people to speak up about it, which would be what would happen as a result of you doing that so it puts you in a better negotiating position in the public to do that the reason tiktok is shutting down is uh according to the rumors okay because you know for legal reasons uh they want to they want to offend as many tiktok users as possible with the blame being on the U.S. government. Yeah, that's right. That seems reasonable. No, it's not because TikTok wasn't banned. Well, again, you don't have to make something happen in order to make something happen. If

you effectively strip every right that you have, and then who does it go to? It goes to Microsoft. Microsoft's never done anything bad to the American people. So I can sue Microsoft. Does that solve it? Yeah, but again, like I said, if you can sue them in the United States, I don't know, I don't want to keep looping around. It's just simple. There's accountability for American companies. It's hard to get, but it's possible, and we did it with Twitter and Facebook.

I just think limiting thought distribution, blaming it on specifically this one thing right now. We're not banning TikTok. Well, okay. I just think it's a risky precedent for limiting. It doesn't limit. It doesn't limit thought to say divest from China. For what reason do you think they should not divest from China?

It's not about them divesting from China. It's about it's. Yeah, well, that's all this bill does. That's like saying that's like saying the income tax. That's all the income tax did. It's just a tax on the rich. And it's temporary just to raise raise funds for the. No, I'm saying why are you why are you arguing China should be able to own this company?

I'm not arguing that China should be able to own this company. I'm saying that there's nothing as permanent as a temporary government program. There's a lot of things that they said would be a thing that ultimately— We're not talking about temporary government programs. I asked you a question. But I'm just saying a lot— Why? Give me one reason why TikTok should not divest from China.

Again, I'm not saying that TikTok should not divest from China. Again, I'm not saying that TikTok should not divest from China. I'm saying that to give them the power to force any company to divest from any country, specifically because of psychological subversion or whatever they want to blame right now, is a strange precedent. What if we had a Palestinian... I'm going to pause real quick. They already have the power, right? In World War II, we had the U.S. Office of Censorship,

which literally ran controls over all information in the country and all news outlets. A lot of us would find that offensive by today's standards. This is much, much, much, much, much lighter than that. It is simply saying we don't want China to own a massive media company in the United States. What's one reason why that should be allowed? Because thought should be allowed to be distributed and you should be able to hear the wrong thing. I didn't ask you that.

Because people have agency. I'll try one more time. People have agency. You don't have to download TikTok. You don't have to watch the videos. TikTok can still exist if they divest from China. Yeah, but I don't know that. For what reason should they not have to do that?

Because then you're saying that any company should have to divest from any other company, even though that bill- From one of four countries. Well, for now, until it's 10 countries, until it's 50 countries, until it's an ideology. Anybody that's anti-government is not allowed to post on these platforms. I'm just saying, you're just giving more power- The slippery slope goes in every direction. anti-government is not allowed to post on these platforms. I'm just saying, you're just giving more power. You're just giving more power. Slip-brain slow goes in every direction. Fine, but you're giving more power to a government that mismanages a lot of things that I think

does a really bad job. If the only information that was true in the entire world only existed on TikTok, we wouldn't be able to get it. Yeah, so it's not an argument for why one country should not be allowed to run this company. It's not about the one country. It's about it's about the principle as a whole for any country, for any thought to be limited. Well, TikTok's not the only place in the world that has the right accurate information. But what if it did?

What if? What if I was like 10 and 500 pounds of muscle? Look, a lot of the look, I don't want I don't want to go. We don't want to go we don't have to go down this road but i'm just saying like a lot of the a lot of the israel hamas conflict a lot of that content was really really circulating on tiktok not before october 30 31st fine but but they but nobody seemed to have nobody seemed to have a problem with tiktok until the information was circulating specifically there and then it's like oh now we have to wait now we have to get when was the the

the first time so the banning tiktok was proposed was before well but well well before yeah so and trump was after so so what happened when trump when trump when trump originally initiated it when he was in office yes but there was a proposal to ban tiktok before october 7th that's true from republicans yeah and currently donald trump is against that's right right and so why is he wrong yes he is okay because after october 7th there was very limited content pro israel or pro palestine however seemingly over the course of a single weekend for a palestine pro palestine content skyrocketed to like 168 million impressions or something. Researchers felt, as I did, and many other of my friends who work in media, that it was indicative of an algorithmic switch.

We don't know because we have no access to that information. But it would appear that China made a decision that in the United States, young people should favor Palestine. I don't know or care who they should favor, but I don't think China should be able to make that decision for us. We have X, we have Rumble, we have Gab, we have other platforms. These things are hard to break through. We went to war over Twitter and Facebook and Meta, and we won that war. I don't think a foreign country should determine what young people think about foreign policy. I think it should be our duty as Americans to resist the mainstream corporate garbage narratives among ourselves and not have China. China's interest is not helping the Palestinians.

China's interest is causing internal conflict so that the Americans rip each other to shreds. And then our young people become morons and our country falls apart. And that's the thing that foreign entities want more than anything else they're not interested in actually having people like having the majority of america have one particular opinion they're interested in the strife that the the less unified the united states is and the more the the u.s is at each at each other's throats the better it is for foreign interests yeah and i i don't chaos is the point i don disagree with that, but I would wager that there's a multitude of other companies and industries

and media conglomerates in the United States that operate in the United States that already do the same thing, of which none of these laws really apply. And nothing stops them from doing that. Russia today can't promote... Right, so just like... Yeah, it should be able to.

So I think what would help you out with this- I liked RT. I thought it had some good stuff on there. If you understood how US regulation worked, depending on scale, might help you understand. So for instance, TikTok has an estimated 112 million users. Okay. A small app with 10,000 downloads that's from Russia is of no concern to us. It doesn't matter.

Okay. So when it comes to regulation and laws, typically there's a requirement on how much, how many employees you have and how much money you generate. A lot of the laws pertaining to big tech and things around censorship to section two, two 30 liabilities have to do with scale. So some of the bills that were passed that we ended up debating over the past few years, say the platform must exceed 100 million users. And that's a massive threshold yep tiktok is being targeted because of scale we we absolutely isolate large single companies take a look at how the u.s government went after microsoft there's a ton of other companies that did the exact same thing bill gates did with internet explorer or yeah i think it was

internet explorer and we don't care because they don't have a monopoly. TikTok has a large footprint and has enough power to make young people in this country mentally ill. That is a bad thing. If VK or some other app has a few thousand users, we don't care. Now, if they get to that point where they're so large, they're actually disruptive to the economy. I'll give you another really important point. China controls TikTok. With 112 million people on it, many of these people make a living. TikTok choosing to shut down is causing economic damage to probably several hundred thousand

people. And that's TikTok choosing to do it, not the U.S. government. TikTok has a choice to divest from China or be off the app stores, still operate. Instead, they said to those 300,000 small businesses that rely on TikTok, fuck you. We will burn you to the ground before we divest from China. That sounds to me like a weapon. Well, it sounds like exactly what I said before, which is that it changes the court of public opinion. It's a negotiating strategy. They're not saying fuck you to those businesses. Yeah, they are. You don't need to shut them down well then if i say if i say you need to do this and if you don't hop on one leg and bark like a dog then then i'm not gonna then i'm not gonna make this thing happen and you're like i don't want to do

that i would consider that a good i would say a better analogy would be like the king torching the peasants fields and then blaming the neighboring country saying they did it one of the fundamental arguments you're making is that there's a slippery slope argument, but you've already acknowledged that RT is not allowed in the United States, and it's specifically because it is Russian propaganda or it's state-sponsored propaganda. We don't allow North Korea to have a channel here in the U.S.

that's state propaganda. We don't allow other countries to have state-sponsored propaganda broadcast in the United States. We do. It just depends on the U.S. That's state propaganda. We don't allow other countries to have state-sponsored propaganda broadcast in the United States. We do. It just depends on scale. Well, yeah, fair enough. Yeah, we do.

BBC, Al Jazeera, Press One, Xinhua. Again, and also, what about... Press One's Iran. What about Xinhua's China? No, I don't think the... I don't think that the...

You can broadcast in, like... They're not on TV. Yeah. Oh, yeah, but I think it's Press 1 and their reporters are all over the US. But the point is, there are plenty of platforms that are banned by the United States.

So why is... And so the argument that it's a slippery slope, it's not a slippery slope. It's just, it's like there are some that are and there are some that aren't and that depends on how much of a threat the United States decides it is. That's a slippery slope. It's just, it's like there are some that are and there are some that aren't and that depends on how much of a threat the United States decides it is. That's a good point.

We do got to go to Super Chats, but it is a good point that when RT was getting banned, there was no major hubbub or fervor over it. No one cared. And some people cared. It wasn't until people's platform was threatened, they started defending TikTok. Yeah, and I think it's fine that,

I think it's fine that the United States says these particular platforms or these particular channels, platform was threatened, they started defending TikTok. Yeah, and I think it's fine that the United States says these particular platforms or these particular channels, we think that what they're trying to do is actually a threat to national security and we're not going to allow them to broadcast here.

We gotta go to Super Chats because we're way late, so smash that like button, share the show, become a member at TimCast.com Ladies and gentlemen, if you believe in what we do and you want to change the world alongside us we need you as members because uh it's how we operate so uh the way i often describe it january is usually our biggest month for members i have no idea why but i will also tell you that january is the worst month for everyone in advertising so uh marketing departments don't have finalized budgets so every youtuber sees a massive tanking of revenue in january one of the reasons we started the member program when we did

was because we were like we need to know every month that there's like a baseline and it fluctuates a little bit goes up it goes down sometimes we get a big guest you guys sign up we get a bunch of new members but it basically allows us to say we can hire X many people to do this many things. When we rely solely on advertising, it's like January hits and you're like, all right, everybody, we're shutting everything down. The only guests we're going to have are going to live next door. So you guys as members make it possible for us to operate early year in Q1 and then throughout Q2 when things start improving and stabilizing, it's great. But membership is what makes it all possible. You get access to the Discord server.

You're going to make friends. There's over 20,000 people hanging out. We really do appreciate all your support. Let's read what you got to say. All right, Robert De La Cruz says, what, me again? You are number one. Good job, sir.

Right on, Robert. All right. Adaptive Outdoorsman podcast says, hey, Tim and Co, if you're looking for inspiration, perseverance, and hope, give a listen to the podcast about disability and healing in the outdoors. Keep up the good

work. Thanks, Sean. Right on. Did you plug that back in? I did. I said can you plug it in? Oh, yeah, yeah. Done. And then YouTube crashed on me. Oh, no. Alright, let's try getting our super chats back.

Here we go let's see what we got here we are Richard Divine says thanks for the 28th amendment board PS is it true that 8 mansions that burned down were owned by Ukraine generals I have no idea I read that I'm not sure if that was true

I at least saw that headline why are Ukraine generals in the palisades why I'm just saying it's like China. I at least saw that headline. Why are Ukraine generals in the Palisades? Yeah. Why? Come on. I'm just saying it's like China and TikTok. Anyways.

Let's talk about that again. No, no, no. Let's go. No. The super chats are not forgiving to the defense of TikTok, I will say. Polly Puree posted a series of frog emojis. Go Polly. And said, Tim is right. Free speech is for U.S. citizens,

not for countries outside the USA like China. USA. USA. USA. All right. Let's read this one. The text vet says he doesn't want to give the U.S. government more power because they might exploit,

but he's defending the CCP having more power by the merger of corporation and state. Make it make sense. Okay. One of the big points that riley moore was making on friday was talking about just the you know it's it's also got to do with spycraft and with intelligence operations and data leakage and stuff like that like there's more to it than that but uh for another day to me it's just more just more, it's about giving the government power to limit people's ability to hear information.

Well, okay. Do you think RT should be unbanned and restored? Yeah. Yeah, I don't think we should be in the business of limiting information. I think the more information, the better. Like Rand Paul said, you have the right to hear the wrong thing. It's not that it's limiting information.

It's limiting the one outlet. If there's information that is on RT that goes through another app or whatever, it can get to the American people. It's just the way that they correlate the information. My issue is that TikTok is a dominant platform that has no accountability to the United States and it limits information. So, you know, with TikTok having 112 million users and banning certain ideas, it's a massive, powerful

platform that we can't do anything about. We have no control over and it limits information. Google bans ideas. Facebook bans ideas. YouTube bans ideas. But there's legal recourse to get involved in that. And put the legal recourse in for TikTok. We did. No more Chinese interest. Yeah.

There's literally not a single argument. Nobody in China owns any Facebook stock. Nobody in China owns... Who cares about Chinese folks? Does none of the Chinese government own any piece of Facebook? Once again, if they do, we will put a stop to it. For now, we want to deal with TikTok. Okay.

Wow. All right. The text message says subversion... That's a fun con it. For now, we want to deal with TikTok. Okay. Wow. All right. The text message says subversion. That's a fun convo. They have Facebook ownership? Subversion and exploitation along with propaganda and psychological exploitation

is not open free will. That's why these practices are illegal in business agreements. Stop defending child exploitation. Sorry. Wait, that's me? I'm defending child exploitation? That's my bad.

Definitely Raymond. My bad. Wait, is that what they're saying? I'm defending child exploitation? Are they talking about. Definitely Raymond. I'm bad. Wait, is that what they're saying? I'm defending child exploitation? Are they talking about you? No, they're definitely talking about me, but I was just trying to make it better for... You were making a point. Well, how am I defending child exploitation?

I don't know, bro. Oh, because of the thought. Super chat. They're exploiting the thought. Super chat, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a stretch. I think it's about ideas, but okay.

Child exploitation is on facebook and everything instagram so i don't know what that comes from right again and then you're determining this is exploitation this is not whatever it's information b uh bat m media says if you give california money they are just going to waste it on boy what is i can't read it all right you know uh eric says why so many china boot lick boot lickers in the chat i thought we voted these people out two months ago amen yeah donald trump is wrong about a lot of things i mean it's like trump has successfully negotiated all these things he's so great all these things he's right about i would be curious to hear what is his position as to why it shouldn't

be banned he said it's because he saw tremendous growth among the youth, one with 36 points. So maybe we should hold off on the ban and have a negotiated settlement. I would bet it's a lot deeper than that. It's probably the same. Okay, well, fine. Well, it's like I always hear this about Trump. It's like he's playing 500 dimensional upside down chess, but he's also so dumb that all he has is this one position. It's like he can't really be both things.

So I would wager that there's a lot more to it. He just does what he always does, which is simplify a point to a very small digestible nugget. And if we were to get him to long form elaborate as to why he holds that position, I bet it wouldn't just be, well, I did well there. Maybe it would and we don't know, but I would wager that... Donald Trump is good

at some things. He's not good at some things. Sure. He's right about some things, he's wrong about some things As we all are He's great on foreign policy, he proved that in his first term He sees tremendous benefit from TikTok helping him out So he says, okay, I'll kick you back So it's just for him, he's just doing it to protect himself He's already in, he can't win again

I think Donald Trump's motivations are Not just about himself But he sees TikTok as having turned around From what the problem was perceived initially by conservatives. So now he's saying, okay, negotiated settlement. They gave us part of what we wanted. Let's talk about it. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. When the bill was passed, Supreme Court said they're not going to issue a decision on it. It is constitutional and China should be forced to divest. Hey, I'm still against it. No doubt. I'm still right. Yeah,

that's fine. Hey, we're, this is why we're here, right? This is what it's all about. Corwag says, Coca-Cola had actual Coke in it at one point. People bought out of free will. Then why do we make Coca-Cola remove Coke from the recipe? Because it's determined to be detrimental. Same thing here, just tech versus food. Well, I mean, like tartrazine is in food, and that's detrimental,

and we should get rid of that. Yeah, so is OxyC content, but we could buy that so is every there's a billion things that would fall under that category There's like a really Did you see I don't think we should be in the business of banning things I think we should but did you guys Coke gave Trump an ignite an inaugural, presidential diet Coke. Did they? A single? Did you see that? I did see the picture. Do you think that people should be allowed to sell heroin to children?

Uh-oh. There we go. I think that heroin should be legal. Do you think someone should be able to sell it to a child? I think saying that it's to be sold to a child is different than should it be able to be sold in general. Okay. So including children and adults, should someone be able to openly sell heroin? Not to children.

I would agree with that. I would agree with the children thing, not having to be able to sell heroin to children. Can they smoke it? So some restrictions on goods being sold. This is a moral line that you have. A good, again, a good being sold to children, a narcotic. I think that probably all drugs should be legal. But not sold to children a narcotic. I think that probably all drugs should be legal. But not sold to children.

I think that there's an argument to say that, no, they should not be able to be sold to children. Why is that? But a willing adult, perhaps. Why not a child? I mean, do I really need to explain why drugs shouldn't be sold to children? Yes. Why? Why do I need to explain that?

Because I don't believe... Isn't that self-evident, though? I don't know if you have a real moral position on the issue, because you said some things should be legal, and I'm asking if there's a moral limiting factor, and if you do have one, what is it? I don't know. Maybe I'm not smart enough to process that,

but let's say that you use the same argument as it goes to TikTok. Well, then, okay, then you can't be 18 to be on TikTok, which I'm pretty sure is already the law. I'm pretty sure that's already the rule. No, you can be 13, I think. Okay, so then make it 18. Unenforceable anyways. Unenforceable, but I don't think

it's not U.S. law, though. That's terms of service. Okay, fine. Well, make it the law. We should ban social media for anyone under 18. I agree. I don't think so. The reason why I think... I don't want to ban the distribution of ideas to anyone. Do you know what phthalates are? I don't think so. Yeah. The reason why I don't want to ban, I don't want to ban the distribution of ideas to anyone. Do you know what phthalates are? I don't like banning. I don't like the principle of banning. Wait a minute.

Do you know what phthalates are? No. Or PCBs? PCBs? Yeah. I've heard both of those terms, but I don't know. So these, these are chemicals that leach out of plastics into our food and water that are called, they're called endocrine disruptors and they cause um physical what's called abnormality sure and uh they can cause mental problems uh they can cause it's endocrine disruptors so it's hormonal imbalance issues some people think that it's a one of the reasons why we see a spike in uh gender dysphoria because many of the young millennials and younger that were born today go to an antique store.

It's really fascinating. And you'll see that everything is tin or glass. And then around the late 70s, 80s, we started putting all our food in plastics. That lets PCBs begin leaching into food. I believe that we should ban plastics for food because it is poisoning us. Just like we said, we got to take lead out of gasoline. It's going up in the air and it was actually correlated with an increase in crime. The reason why I think we shouldn't, someone shouldn't be legally allowed to sell drugs to children is that it can create a psychological and physiological dependency that does not affect an adult in the same way as can

social media. So there are certain things that can destroy a society that we regulate against. I think the government should. I think good parents tell their children they can't have certain things and good leaders stop countries and people from consuming poison because it is not the job of the plumber to do research on why the PCBs are poisoning him or his children. We do rely. I'm not a libertarian. I think there's a reason for an FDA. I think it's largely corrupt. I would like to see it cleaned up. RFK Jr. Fantastic. But this is why the U.S. government says, guys, we're not going to allow the use of plastics for these goods. Many people may get mad. It may be expensive. But the problem is we literally have an entire generation of people who are poisoned with endocrine disruptors. Shut her down. Yeah. And I think that the child

variable is the part of it that muddies the water of the discussion. If you say, OK, it shouldn't affect children. OK, then if the discussion. If you say, okay, it shouldn't affect children, okay, then if the discussion is about people that are willing and consenting adults, I think that simplifies the argument one way or the other if we take that piece out of it. Like no children should be able to get access to TikTok? No, no, what I'm saying is for the sake of the discussion

to eliminate, if it's like, okay, we both agree that kids shouldn't have social media until 18, then we agree on that and then we argue the merits of the argument aside from that, assuming that all people are willing and consenting adults. I don't think that we should ban social media for children. I don't think that that's something that the government should be in the business of doing. What about plastic? I don't think that plastic should be banned. I think that you should, I think if you were determined that this thing causes this specific issue, then you could ban the use of that thing, perhaps.

It does cause the issue. We know it does, and it's mass-produced, and it's in everything. Okay, so the government does a garbage job at doing lots of stuff. Pretty much all things. Hold on. I'm talking about your morals. If we know that plastics are leaching into our food and causing problems in a lot of people,

should we or should we not ban it? Well, it has to be determined. Is it unanimously determined by every single scientist in the entire world that that is true? Yes. Every scientist in the entire world says that that's the case. I mean, you're making a straw man argument. No, I'm just asking.

It's academically accepted that phthalates, PCBs... Well, it was academically accepted that that thing did the thing that it did do you think the right wasn't that academically accepted what's the middle of the thing that we can't talk about the mysterious thing and then the mysterious potion actually a little mind i don't know you said it i didn't you think uh you Do you think thalidomide should be allowed to be ingested by pregnant women? I don't know what thalidomide is. Look, I'm a joke maker. I understand the limitations of my

intelligence. I'm talking about the principle as a whole. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just talking about it from my perspective. I don't know all these specific drugs. I don't know as it relates to these things. All I know is what I know. What's that? That's why I ask you moral questions. What's that? That's why I ask you moral, simple questions to understand where you draw the line morally.

With what? Well, that's why I ask about plastics, right? So we have products that are universally used that people don't realize kill them. And a lot of people figured it out and they purchased reusable glass bottles to avoid ingesting foods that come from plastic. Though, no matter what, we still largely do. We can't escape it. We try our best.

I think that if a lot of people could see direct impact of, say, like eating lead paint chips, they'd probably smack it out of a kid's hand and say, stop doing that. But unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are doing their best to raise their kids. And so they elected to have governmental institutions to try and do that work for us because we decentralize. We can't do it perfectly. Now, our government is largely corrupt and government itself largely is not a good function of things. That's why RFK Jr. is now going into the FDA, which is fantastic because we won those battles. The price for freedom is eternal vigilance.

I do think a father tells their kid, stop eating ho-hos and ding-dongs, run three laps, and do push-ups. Nowadays, liberals say, what an abusive father. How could he make the kids do that? No, a good father was stern and told their kid what they had to do. And a good leader tells his people, there are certain things that will kill you and kill us, and so we regulate these things. Yeah, but shouldn't, does that mean that we should ban cigarettes and ban alcohol? Tim likes, what do you think about cigarettes? I heard a segment today about that.

Well, I very much hate cigarettes, but I largely agree that people should be able to free to choose so long as they're over the age of 18. Probably a lot more poisonous than plastic. Over the age of 18, choosing to Huh? What? I just said I don't know. No, I said I don't know.

My presumption is that cigarette smoking is more dangerous than endocrine disruption. You... Huh? What? I just said I don't know. No, I said I don't know. Okay. My presumption is that cigarette smoking is more dangerous than endocrine disruptors, probably. Choosing to smoke a cigarette that you know causes harm to you and is addictive is one thing. Everyone in the country having no choice but to breathe in lead or be forced to take some kind of medication or to consume plastics without their knowledge, is totally different. So the knowledge is the issue, not the poison. The knowledge.

Ubiquity and monopoly and scale. People aren't forced to smoke. They can choose to, but people are forced to consume from plastic. Why? Because every product is in plastic. Every single... Some things are sold in glass bottles,

but largely they're not. So scale has occurred. And now everyone is ingesting these chemicals which are causing sickness. Hence, the FDA just banned Red Dye 3. Because the average person occurred. And now everyone is ingesting these chemicals which are causing sickness. Hence, the FDA just banned red dye three because the average person doesn't know what it is. Tartrazine, for instance, RFK Jr. brought up. Most people don't know that yellow five is this coal tar byproduct that's put in all of their foods for literally no reason. And they don't realize that it causes physical health effects.

I would say the information, I would say that the information is more important then. The outright ban is not as important as the information, right? So couldn't you solve the problem through information as opposed to through banning? The issue is scale. If you were forced to smoke cigarettes, I'd have a problem with it. Yeah, but you're not forced to use plastic. Good luck finding food not wrapped in plastic. But that doesn't mean that you're forced to.

You could go to the farmer's market and buy vegetables. And that's what we do. Yeah, but no one's stopping you from doing that. So to say that you're forced to do it... People who don't have money, they have no choice. The issue is scale. The issue is that the average poor person is eating garbage macaroni and cheese with

no vitamins. And we are trying to balance the issues of freedom and liberty. But again, I will state, I am not a liberal who believes in universal principles. Those don't exist. Some things should be banned. Some things should not. Sometimes parents should have final say in whether they have medical, determine the medical issues of their children. Sometimes they should not. That's it. Well, I think that there's sugar. Morally determinate. That's it well i think that i think that there's sugar morally determinate that's why i i think that sugar is in a lot of things right and i was doing some research last night about about uh the drugs the top of the top 10 drugs in america prescription drugs five of them are for diabetes and there's sugar yeah and sugar is in absolutely every single thing and there's a lot of sugar and things that people don't even realize that there's sugar in it

so what did they do they have to write on the back that there's sugar in it. Did it change it? I don't know. Do people know that sugar is bad? Yes. Do they consume it anyways? Fine. If there was no plastic and plastic was to be banned, then the cost of food would be so high. Is it better that that person has no food at all? That's the debate. It's like, I just don't believe, generally speaking, in the banning of things as the solution to things. The government decree to ban is not necessarily the solution. I was having this discussion with somebody the other day about GMO vegetables. And it was like, if you were to ban GMO in the United States, which I probably think is good.

I think the initial thought is banning GMO is good. Well, if GMO vegetables allows there to be a lot bigger bananas that could feed a whole family and you can buy these bananas for considerably cheaper then a person that is in poverty can afford to eat bananas

and have it with their whole family. If without it then they would have maybe no banana at all. So is it better to ban? I don't know. Let's carry this over to the members only show

and have a big libertarian debate. Head over to TimCast.com where we are going to take your calls as members and talk about things that are not so family friendly. So we'll add swearing to the argument. It'll be fun. You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast.

Make sure you subscribe to this channel. And Bobby, you want to shout anything out? Yeah, go to FollowBobby.com to follow me on everywhere, including TikTok until it's banned. Don't get subverted. And follow me at TakeNaps on Instagram. Raymond G. Stanley Jr., thank you, Bobby. It was a very fun time.

I had a freaking blast. I'll say F'ing next time. So, yeah, guys, Raymond G. Stanley Jr. on X and wherever you want to look at me. Mr. Brett. I did find it funny that of all the headlines this is going on, I saw somebody say that Bob Dylan joined TikTok today, so

you're just a little bit late, bro. That's why Bob Dylan sucks, as I've always said. If you want to follow me, I'm on Instagram and Twix at Brett Dasvik. Please check out Pop Culture Crisis. We are live Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. See you there, guys. I agree with Brett about Bob Dylan. I am Phil that remains

on Twix, where you can subscribe to my page. I am Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. January 31st, our new record, Anti-Fragilism, is going to be released. Go to Spotify, pre-save it. You can go and check out some of the new singles. Forever Cold, Let You Go, No Tomorrow, and Divine. They're available on YouTube, Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime.

We will see you all over at TimCast.com in about a minute. Thanks for hanging out.