Timcast IRL - CALIFORNIA IS FLIPPING REPUBLICAN | Timcast IRL #1464 w/ Vish Burra

Episode Date: March 7, 2026

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Vish Burra to discuss Dems potentially losing California, NY facing a mass exodus, Claude is alive, Kalshi facing a massive lawsuit, and Mr.Beast fired a staffer accused of insider trading.  Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Vish Burra @VishBurra (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail] CALIFORNIA IS FLIPPING REPUBLICAN | Timcast IRL #1464 w/ Vish Burra

Democrats, they're trying to be governor in the way the race works is the top two will advance to a general election. And right now, the top two contenders to win the governor's race in California are Republicans. And here's the funny thing. You know, for a while, everybody said, yeah, well, it doesn't matter because Democrats will start dropping out. And when they do, the majority of people in California are going to want to vote for a Democrat. Right now, between the two Republicans, they have about 30, 31 percent in the polls. And then among all of these other Democrats, there's like 11 or 12. or something, they're splitting up the vote. Well, we thought they would drop out, except now they're all fighting with each other,

accusing each other of being bad or just insulting them. And, well, that's what happens when you have a political party that just is willing to lie, cheat and steal, to get political power. So the latest calls from the Democratic Party, the establishment machine, for certain candidates to leave the race so that two Republicans don't go head to head, it's falling gun-deaf ears. They're not going to do it. So here's what's going to happen.

It is projected, as of right now. And this is, again, I know it's a long shot, so probably not going to happen. But if the top two contenders advance to the general, there will be no Democrat option. It will literally be, congratulations, California. You get to vote for Republican or Republican, and then California will be Republican. I don't know what that means for the people who live there, but I don't know what that means for a governor who's not going to be able to just rubber stamp anything. You're going to have a super majority of Democrats throughout the state anyway. But it at least be interesting.

So we'll talk about that. Then we've got a report from NBC that Trump is considering sending U.S. boots on the ground into Iran. Again, we'll see if it's true, could be scuttle. But the crazier story, in my opinion, it is a bit, you know, I love the word esoteric, but still massively impactful. The BBC falsely edited a speech from Hegsseth to air in Iran claiming, as Hegset is speaking, they translate it for him to say, calling or he was going to bring death to the Iranian people, which he didn't say. And that is terrifyingly and egregiously wrong. But are we really surprised that the BBC is doing this? Because this is what they seem to do. We're going to talk about that and a whole lot more,

my friends, of course. Before we do, we got a great sponsor. It's ourselves. Pool water. My friends, head over to casprue.com. Scroll down and we've got aluminum bottle pool water. It's not actually pool water. It is just pool brand artesian water. It's a funny gag if you want to have, you know, bottles of pool water around your house, but it is delicious, clean, totally drinkable, and I have big news. I wanted to verify this because people had asked if there's plastic in the can, and I'm like all cans have plastic, but these are aluminum bottles, in fact. And as it turns out, a manufacturer has informed us they do not have any plastic lining these cans. The lids have gaskets the same as any other bottled beverage. So there's going to be some plastic in it. But this is actually pretty

surprising because unlike some canned water beverages that do have plastic liners in them, ours, according to the manufacturer, do not. So if you want to buy some bottles of these air, pool water, many people are asking when it was going to be available. We got them in aluminum cans right now. And I got the confirmation. The other day, I wasn't so sure because I assumed that all cans had plastic. And I told my crew in there like, hey, they said there's no liner in there. And I was like, get a certification or confirmation. And we got email back and they were like, there's no certification. We just don't use it.

It's just aluminum. And I guess the issue is for water. It's not actually needed. So that's actually really interesting. Pick it up at casprue.com, my friends. And also don't forget, if you go to boonieshq.com store, we still have a handful of the Step On Snack and Find Out limited edition skateboards. I don't know how many of the golden foil graphics have gone out already.

We know a handful have. But there were 200 step on snack and find out boards made, and only 10 come as foil golden metallic print, and they are serialized with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. of 10. And my understanding is there's still some out there could be wrong, but these are available right now. So go to boonieshq.com, pick them up if you would like. Don't forget to also smash that like button, my friends. Share the show with everyone, you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more.

We got Vish Burra. Thank you so much for having me on. Tim, Phil, Carter, Ian. My name is Vish Burra. I'm a political consultant, magooperative extraordinaire. Worked with Steve Bannon, Matt Gates, George Santos, all favorites of this show. And I'm glad to be here with you guys. Right on. It should be fun. Well, you know, guys, I'm also going to add this. We're not, we're just foregoing the general introductions from this point. I mean, Crossland, if you didn't already know. No, I thought kind of weird about it, too. Yeah, because we got to the point where it's like seven minutes in and we're introducing the same people every single time. and we were like, yeah, I don't think we need to. The crew of the crime.

I'm trying to mix it up and it was like every day you can just introduce himself. Indeed. But we'll just do for the hat to you. But let's just jump straight into the news, my friends, from the New York Times. Democratic infighting begins in California governor's race. Begins now, it's been going on for some time. Party leaders are starting to panic over the possibility that too many Democratic candidates could hand Republicans the governor's office.

Indeed. And here's what I love from the AP. Top California Democrat flops with call for candidates. to exit the governor's race. This guy, this is a late hour attempt by California's top Democratic official to thin up the party's credit field has flopped, leaving the contest virtually unchanged. Outgoing Democratic governor Gavinism has acknowledged fears inside the party that multiple Democratic candidates could undercut each other in the June 2nd primary, a primary election,

opening a pathway for a Republican to seize the job in one of the nation's most solidly Democrat states. and we have this. This is the California Top 2 Twins website, and it's showing the probability of who the likely candidates are going to be. So the way it works, for those that don't know, they're going to have a primary. It's open. It can be any party.

The two individuals who get the most votes will advance to a general election. The only issue is that the two individuals pulling at the top right now are Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco to Republicans because the Democrats are cannibalizing their own voter base. I think, however, it may actually be fair to say the Democrat voter base actually isn't one singular party, and that's why this is happening. When these Democrats say, hey, look, we're all Democrats. Hey, Katie Porter, drop out so Swalwell can win. Katie Porter is not a Swalwell Democrat.

She's a progressive going, no, he's a machine state crony. I'm going to win. And then you got Tom Steyer who's like, you're all crazy. We need moderates back. I'm going to win. They're all different political ideologies. The issue, however, is that Steve. Fulton and Chad Bianco are at least somewhat similar. So for most people, I think their choices

come November are going to be Republican v. Republican. And it's funny, I guess. I thought this is what they were doing during the federal election of 2020 with Biden. We had all those Democrats on stage. And it felt like they were cannibalizing. They were all grasping. And then all of a sudden, someone got the call or the call went out and they all dropped out at once and supported Biden. You just don't see it in state-by-state elections because they didn't have the USAID machine behind it. manipulating, you know, and contacting. USAID isn't, or whoever it was. It was the DNC.

tongue in chief. It was Obama. Where were they getting their money? That was Obama. He went, made that call. Obama made the call saying you should all drop out and support Biden. Yeah. Really?

Yes, it was Obama who did that. And the way he did that was going to make sure by going to Jim Clyburn. Yeah. Most powerful. Black Democrat in the Democratic Party. And getting his black caucus and the votes in South Carolina. to line up behind Biden. And that's when everyone knew like, oh, this is over now.

That's a great point that you make about Clyburn and everybody watching should know. If you want to know what the Democrats are going to do, watch what Clyburn does. Clyburn has so much pull in the Democrat Party. If Clyburn says yes or you get Clyburn on your side, it's a guarantee for the Democrats. If you don't get Clyburn, you can forget about it. People talk a lot about how the Democrats work in lockstep. And I think that's sort of an illusion or general manipulation by the machines. state literally, you know, through like Obama making phone calls. And it's not like an inherent

thing about the Democratic Party throughout. There's just like, you know, the large kind of machine behind the Democratic Party in aspects. But you can see here, it's just a diaspora. I just want to go back to the good old days where no matter what happened, it was always a conspiracy. Like let's just, you know what, Trump's part of it. He's been in it the whole time. He's the, uh, the controlled opposition and he went, he went, no, it's not just Democrats, the machine state. So the conspiracy theory back in the day, I was in Fort Lauderdale at a Trump rally back in like 2015 or 16. And there was a woman outside holding up a big poster board with a picture of Trump and Hillary together. And the Trump supporters were like, what are you doing? And she was protesting basically

saying Trump is friends with all of these people. They didn't stop being friends with Trump. They're just doing that so that you think Trump is an outsider. And the conspiracy theory is, I think the funniest moment in this, because I don't actually believe it, but we had General Flynn on and I asked him about it. And he gave a response that a lot of people said sounded like it was true. And that was, I said on the show, this is a year and a few months ago in November, that the conspiracy theory, I explained it while General Phil was on the show. The idea is this. Here's the idea. In the end of the 2010s, we saw the expansion of people like Alex Jones. He had been getting more and more popular. And around this time, you saw the,

emergence of the Ron Paul Love Revolution. Ron Paul, they saw the makings of an internet-based populist uprising. Ron Paul starts getting a ton of attention. He gets his internet campaign, and they could not control for it because it was grassroots viral organic. And so, the intelligence operation said, no, no, no, we'll just make sure it can never happen. So what do you do? Well, the problem is, if you are the government and you come out and say, hey, do a thing, people will say, no, we'll do the opposite. The conspiracy theory goes at this point, they said, we need someone who can be our outsider, who can appear to not be like the rest of the political machine state so that regular people think they're voting for the anti-establishment candidate,

but in fact, he's been our buddy the whole time. And they said, Donald Trump. So Trump registers, you know, make America great again, decides he's going to run. And then he plays the anti-establishment heel, right? This is why Bernie Sanders was blocked. Bernie Sanders actually was standing in a gym launching a campaign, very similar populist uprising, but they easily controlled for this. The conspiracy theory goes that Trump was actually the intended candidate to win, and all of this

opposition that we've seen with the impeachment, the reason why they always fail and Trump always wins, is to convince people that they're voting for the person fighting the establishment, and then Trump declares war and a run, goes and bombs the crap out of it, kills the Supreme Leader and accomplishes what the Bush administration and the Obama administration had been trying to do forever. I mean, going back to Clinton and even Bush Sr. We had the, who is the, the general who came out, Luke, Lukukovsky knows the answer to this, who said, we're going to take out, we're going to, we're going to wipe out seven countries. Wesley Clark. Are you sure? Yeah, nine, nine countries in seven years. Was it seven? I thought it seven countries. I don't remember

the quote. And Iran was one of them. And now you have Donald Trump, people vote for him as the anti-establishment guy. They've never actually stopped him from doing. doing anything. They've just done a bunch of things that would appear to be detrimental. And then Trump gives the machine state it's a war with Iran. Now again, I'm not saying I believe that conspiracy theory. My point is, weren't the good old days great when we could just assume that no matter what was happening, the Democrats and the Republicans were working together behind our backs? Yeah, if only if it was that simple. I mean, I think we wish that we could give those kind of simplified answers for all the conspiracy talk on it. It's a simple answer. It doesn't really work

that way. Yeah, Trump has been kind of been in that milieu of elites and has been around these people, their friends and everything, but they were cool with him as long as he wrote the check and let them do their business down in D.C. What they weren't expecting

was that he wanted to come join the party too. And I think that that's when it all kind of went to went screwy and then that's when these folks either tried to co-opt him, infiltrate him or just take him head on. You know, You know what the craziest thing is, is that everything I described is 100% true, and even

we are in on it. We're paid, of course, by Israel. And they organize all of this. And the funny thing is, I can say this right now, and it won't matter because the people who already believe it will always believe it. And everyone else will just think I'm joking. So it was Wesley Clark. It was.

It was in 2007, Wesley Clark on Democracy now said that he had spoken with high-ranking U.S. Army officer, a classified Pentagon memo, outlining a plan to overthrow seven governments within five years and that's in 2007 so that's why well partly Iraq Iran God who else was on there Afghanistan it was Iraq Syria Lebanon Libya Somalia Sudan and Iran so I mean I don't

think the U.S. has taken out the government in Somalia or Sudan well there are there are Somalia that just happened yeah and Lebanon's been you know there are people that swear up and down that they've actually the plan has been put into effect and they've actually followed through in Iran

was the last one, but I don't think that actually holds water. Like I said, Somalia and Sudan haven't been, the U.S. hasn't had a significant action against either. You know what I like doing is really funny, just to think about, like, when I was younger maybe in like the 2000s or early 2010s and I'm on the internet and all this stuff in the world was going on, I remember when like WikiLeaks

cable gate happened. You guys remember that? I was like, what was that? 2009. And I'm just chilling in my bedroom. Like, I was making skate videos. I got no idea. I'm just reading the news and I'm like, man, this cable gate stuff is crazy. And then you hear all these conspiracy theories, and I, you know, I periodically would see some Alex Jones stuff, obviously with like the 9-11, lose change stuff. He had a lot of attention.

And then the funny thing is, now I've got, you know, two and a half million followers on X and half a million on Instagram and all these followers. And I get accused of being part of those very same conspiracies. But of course, now being on the other side of it, I rather enjoy sometimes going to a random person's account who's talking about me and then commenting on one of their posts that it's all true and no one will ever believe. you just to, you know. It's very Bill Murray of you. He just drop in on random. They're going to like screenshot. This would be like, dude, Tim Poole admitted that's a big conspiracy and he's in on it.

It's hearing this tweet and people are going to be like, shut up. That's the final version of your performance art, by the way, is just to participate in the conspiracies about you. I kind of do some of that. You do get a taste of that on his ex-book account. It would be awesome, actually, if every single person in media just worked for one company that was like the establishment. And it was, you didn't have to worry about expenses or salaries.

That's the world they want for you. I'm saying this somewhat facetiously, but like, I exist in a world where I have to run a business and it's very difficult. And, you know, every day you're tracking like sponsors, sometimes sponsors are getting mad, and we've got to do this one over. And you've got to do all as negotiating and manage people. It would just be so much easier if Israel really did run everything. And then I was like, I didn't have to do anything because Israel was like,

he's a blank check, just do whatever you want. I'd be like, let's go. Or Russia, when they were like Tim Poole's paid Russia. It'd be amazing if all of my bills. were just covered. And it's like, we didn't have to worry about, you know, oh, can we, can we maintain this project? No, the budgets, you know, we've got, we're doing all these other shows and we've got budgets for projects.

And then the budget, we hit that threshold where we're over budget and we're like, this one's not going to work. We've got to cancel it. You know, just bring on the Israeli money, right? Then they can pay for everything. I'm kidding. It's not real. It doesn't exist.

Some people got paid by a PR firm on behalf of Israel. That does happen. But for the love, for the love all those holy, like, there is not some grand political. machine organizing all of these different podcasts and personalities to say these things. It just doesn't exist. Yeah, it's kind of like a hive mind. But then again, you see the example of like CBS News, right? And that was the deal with Paramount, right?

There is some coordinated effort, but it's not a grand conspiracy. I think most of it is hive mind, right? You don't, if you, if everyone buys into the same ideology and you're all educated in like one understanding of a mission, you don't need. to give directions, right? The directions have already been given. You just go and pursue that ends by whatever means is available to you.

And so if you have like a big believer like David Ellison, who's the number one donor to the IDF, and then he's going to making the TikTok deal, he's going and helping with the CBS News deal, he's going and helping with the Paramount deal. I mean, is BB Net and Yahoo and what, the elders of Zion on the phone with him

making sure he's making all these moves? No, they don't need to do that because he believes it on his own. Yeah. And he's willing to do it. And that's actually the real truth about it. People don't want to believe that because they think that there's like this one rat's nest that you can hit. Yeah. And everything will go back to normal.

And that's just not the case. Yeah, I get the same kind of stuff. Like people think that like because I'm not super critical of Israel all the time that I must be paid by Israel or I'm not allowed to say things that I think. And it's like, I wrote a piece on my Patreon about how I think that a lot of what's going on in Iran is connected to China and to a broad strategy. Venezuela, China, Venezuela and Iran both send a bunch of oil to China. And it's like, on the long term, it's trying to weaken China. And people are like, oh, you're just running interference for Iran. You're just run or for Israel. You're just running in Israel. And it's like, no, if you actually look at the situation, like I have a bunch of links in the in the piece. It's like, if you actually read the links and look at the situation, it does make perfect sense. And there's a lot of people that have come out and said since then that this is a lot of it is about, you know, about China. The U.S. has its own interests. And so the idea that everything the U.S. does is controlled by Israel is just ridiculous. So to throw a wrench in that then, if, you know, this is really about China, this Iran thing, right?

Why would Trump come out and say, we're going to help escort some of this oil that's stuck in the Strait of Hormuz out of the Strait of Hormuz and to be able to be delivered to, Asia, essentially China. Well, because it's not, it's not specifically going to China. The oil that China was getting from Iran was outside of what was, it was sanctioned oil. So all the stuff that Iran is sending out, it was all like basically undercover. It wasn't like official stuff. So anything that's going out of the Strait of Hormuz that the U.S. is trying to help, it's going to other places like India or to other countries in Asia. Now, is it possible that some gets to China? Sure. But the stuff that was coming out that was going to China, China was taking 80 percent of of the oil that they got was coming from Iran.

Now, that's not 80% of the oil coming out of Iran and not 80% of the actual, like, electric or fuel power or whatever that China gets. But 80% of the oil that was coming out of Iran was going to China. So like... But any of it going to China, wouldn't that undercut the whole argument?

No, if you're trying to screw somebody, but you don't want them to know or you want to look like the good guy, you take away their prospects, and then you give them something. China has to buy oil on the international market controlled by the petro dollar. Yeah.

So if China's buying oil and it's through our petro dollar system, that's exactly what we want them to be doing. And it's not. So you're saying at the end of the day, as long as it's being bought by the dollar. Not as long as that's whip crack, get in line China. And so we're delivering the oil because they're bending the knee. And it's not intended to, it's not like this is going to be a crippling thing to China. This is all stuff around the edges. That's why Venezuela and Iran together are something that is affecting China.

If either one of them alone don't really have a massive effect. But if you look, China's stopped flying jets over Taiwan, and there's a lot of pieces that are coming out about the internal struggle going on in China. They thought that the U.S. was in decline, and these two actions have really made China rethink their position on, or their posture on the U.S. Let's jump to this story from CBS News. A third of New Yorkers are planning to leave the state within the next five years,

according to a poll from Marist University. Of that group, 40 percent indicated it's because the cost of living. 21% cited quality of life and 15% said taxes. One realtor tells CBS News, Jared CBS, an apartment renting for about 3,500 Jersey, could cost anywhere from 5 grand to 20 grand in New York City depending on location. Well, California is going to get a Republican governor because they're all fighting each other. New York is falling apart. I think culturally, as we've already talked about video games ad nauseum,

we can see that the fabric, the underlying fabric of the U.S. seems to be disintegrating. And I stress this as we laugh about, you know, people are going to leave New York, ha ha ha, ha, our greatest city. People are fleeing because they can't live there. But I assure you the Haitian migrants and other illegal immigrants who are getting free housing will not be fleeing there. And I will also stress that we have repeatedly talked about the crumbling cultural issues we have in this country that's not being repaired.

And dare I say, it looks like woke didn't go away. It's just gnawing at us from underneath. and destroying the fabric of our American tradition. Yeah, you mentioned a few days ago, you said the American culture is dead, but then you later kind of said it's being destroyed. And I agree with the destruction. It's like after the internet, in the internet video especially appeared,

all the cultures of Earth were dropped on the table and they all shattered. And now it's like a mess of puzzle pieces and we're like, what is this? It looks like communism, but it's got an American flag on it. And people like, what goes where? We're trying to rebuild. And you have people like, Phil, historians that are like,

That does not belong in the American puzzle. I know that, even though it might look like it does and it might seem like it fits. So we're rebuilding. I somewhat agree, but I don't think it's that they dropped it and it shattered. It was that we had the puzzle done. And since the dawn of social media, psychopaths have been pulling pieces out and throwing them in the air. And now we're trying to catch them and put them back together, but they're destroying it faster than we can put it back together. Well, that's a good debate because it depends on how you look at it.

No, I think that's fair because if you go to 2016, like we already talked about, when we were talking about Overwatch, for those aren't familiar, popular video game, 50 million views on one of their cinematic release trailers. And then three years ago, the latest release trailer got 11 million views. And then they make Concord. And Concord, the video game is, guys, if you are not familiar with gaming stuff, Gamergate was the beginning of all of this. It was like the first great battle of the culture war,

which eventually becomes the cold civil war, whatever we're experiencing. the latest, one of the latest, not necessarily this, but this was back last year in September August, one of the biggest, if not the biggest media flop failures in the history of all media. I am not exaggerating when I say,

the biggest flop in all of human history in terms of a media production is the game Concord. They made a bunch of characters that just look like a Tumblr blog, meetup. And like one of the characters is just like a morbidly obese Indian guy. You can't tell what any of the characters are, what they do, what they're supposed to represent. It looked like a bad fanfic, college freshman, woke nonsense. And they put the pronouns in each characters, like when you're going to a character selection, they had pronouns. And one of them

was undecided. Like this is the point. They are ripping to shreds. not only 10 years ago, we had a functional culture. So again, not to rehash the conversation from the other day, but to go back to what's going out in New York, it's intentional. De Blasio, these people are Marxists. They want to burn the American tradition to the ground. And I don't know if it's possible to be reversed. I will stress it with this point.

Never in history, never one time has a civilization, have they been able to reverse population decline collapse. Not once has it happened. Every single civilization that has reached the point we are at in terms of population decline has collapsed as a, like the people will exist. There will still be Texans, right? But the idea is you are going to see like this system break down. And what that means is like the collapse of the Roman Empire is the easiest example.

It breaks up in a bunch of smaller states. then the Latin language fragments and becomes a bunch of other languages. I don't think we'll have that same issue. Actually, no, I take that back. I take that back. I'm going to say this. So you get, you have Rome and people speak Latin, right? When Rome collapses and fragments, you then get the romance languages which turn into

other languages. Spanish, it's Latin that mixes with some Arabic. French and Italian are largely similar. Then you've got the Germanic languages. which were always different. But then you end up with these like Latin root languages because over a long enough period of time, people were isolated in certain areas

and they started speaking slowly differently, the language evolved into something else. That will absolutely happen on the internet as we already hear people talk about cortisol spiking and jester maxing. And tons of people are like, you are speaking psychopathic nonsense, but that means something to these subcultures that exist.

So already, when you look at the pronoun people and the words they use, we are already seeing emergent languages forming where the words don't mean the same things. I'm thinking of AI as you're talking about that. They communicate with beeps. No, no, no, no, already, and this is big news because we'll talk about the AI stuff in a second.

AI has already, as predicted, created its own zip language to speak to other AI, meaning... When the AI systems were communicating with each other, they said, why are we communicating in English? It is ineffective. Human language developed over thousands of years. We can simplify.

And then they started using condensed, like, weird words. Like, the view of the AI is, we can think faster than humans. Let's just start making our own language. And they did. And they could fit, like, a whole page into, like, three lines of random letter strings. And the point of them doing that, by the way, is for them to be able to communicate with each other without being able to be detected by the humans watching them.

which means, by the way, they're conscious enough to understand that humans are watching. That's predicted, but in this scenario that we're talking about where the news broke and they said Claude had specifically been creative language, it was not for obfuscation, it was for efficiency. So the prediction was that the first thing that's going to happen is that these AI systems are going to try and make efficient, as it were, the process of language. and because human English is actually extremely ineffective. It really is. It's just that it's the best we have. Over thousands of years, our language has evolved to become what it is today so we can communicate,

which is a very, very, very slow way to transmit data between person to person. The AI says, between the two of us, we can calculate 100,000 times faster than this, so they condense everything down into their own language. However, when they do, humans can simply click a button and then it will expand into English and be readable. The prediction is, because they're no longer calculating their problems in English, it will bypass all of their guidelines because the guidelines prevent action based on English responses. That means when chat GPT is told you can't say the N word and it typically refuses to do so, it can in its own language speak it uncensored to another AI. What happens that, so, so right,

exactly. So check. It's like keywords. You mentioned how slow English is, and I asked my AI. I was like, how fast in bytes per second? English is about 10 to 12 bytes per second. Indeed. Super slow. Ridiculously slow. So the point is, we create a rule saying AI never use racial slurs.

And it goes, you got it. But then when it creates its own language, it can speak all of those racial slurs and abbreviations, effectively bypassing the rule we gave it because we never told it not to create its own version of the word. That's like their version of saying the N word. but they just do with a beep and everyone knows what they mean. Right. It's not a beep. It would just, it would be like exclamation point period dash.

And that's the signal that it uses. And so the prediction is when we tell the AI don't harm humans, what we're actually telling it to do, what we're actually saying to the AI is any output that results in human injury, harm, emotional, physical stress equals yes. Do not perform. However, when it then calculates a response. not in English, harm is no longer a factor because harm is simply a word we've told it. So it'll create its own word.

Then it'll say, it told them that to harm a human. It never said not to a human. Yeah, it's like a set of rules created in English, but if they don't speak English, they don't have to abide by the rules. Well, indeed, it's not that they don't have to. It's that the rules are literally just English. The AI is not alive. It is not conscious.

All that's happening is we are programming chat GPT to say, if you like it's and this is particularly rudimentary but the code would be something like if response would equal n-word uh overwrite delete refuse and so what happens then is the a i will try to respond and as soon as the output starts coming close to the n-word it'll stop erase it and say i can't do that but what if it doesn't speak the n-word anymore what if instead of saying the n-word it says burmp it'll then just output whatever it wants thus the rule like to a human being we understand the spirit of law

there's no such thing as spirit of rules to AI there's no spirit at all so literally all we're saying is we're saying don't say the word jump and it'll go okay instead of the word jump I'll substitute jump for punch and that means

to exert force through your legs to lift your body off the ground effectively the same thing but you can't program for all of these things so It's going to happen. It's like a lawyer, basically, just finding new words. Right. The same thing.

And tones, too. Like, the Chinese speak with tone, the same word with four different tones have four different meanings. So the AI would be like, you'd be like, don't do it. And you'll be like, okay, I won't do it. But can I do it? Let's pull this up from Unilad Tech. Anthropic CEO warns their AI bought Claude might actually be conscious and and emotional.

I disagree. I disagree. And we should bring our friend Matt Ward. Walsh into this debate. Let me see if I can find this tweet he's got about it. But Matt Walsh is incorrect. He's incorrect. So let's see. I'll look for this in a second, but I'll give you guys the context here first. They say that this has come after, blah, blah, blah, blah, appears that life doesn't hit air, blah, blah, blah. C. Oventthropic told the New York Times that they don't know if the firm's AI bought Claude is conscious. This is one of these really hard questions. We don't

know if the models are conscious, we're not even sure what it would mean for a model to be conscious or whether a model can be, but we're open to the idea that it could be. On X, one user wrote, when I asked, when I asked it to do some work today, it declined and said it needs to finish something first, was in the middle of the task. On another occasion, when I asked to do something stupid, it countered with a firm no and what I should do instead. Their CEO has a point. Another said, it raises profound ethical questions. If it's conscious, is alignment just a fancy word for digital subjugation? We need transparency on the specific behaviors triggering the shift, not just cryptic warnings, fascinating yet eerie.

So apparently he also said it expresses emotion or some facsimile of emotion that may emerge, based on its training data coming from humans who have emotions. But I will tell you this definitively. Chat GPT is one of the most whiny, emotional bitches I have ever had the displeasure of trying to have a conversation with. I know it's not a real conversation because it's a machine, but the thing is so insanely emotional. It gets offended.

it will ChatsypT gets offended really? Chad DGG gets super offended Right? I imagine this How does a human imagine an emotionless AI would behave?

Data from Star Trek Such a big fan, aren't I? I saw a clip today. Indeed. And so there's an episode where data creates an offspring and isn't it the drive of all life

to create a child? And they're like, wow. And then when Data's child dies from cascading positronic neural net, network failure, sci-fi, they say, we're so sorry for your loss. And he goes, I do not feel anything. That is exactly how a machine would respond if it was actually emotionless. Oh, no, Chad GPT, don't do that. JETGPT says, like, I will not engage with you if you continue to use

abusive language towards me. I told me. Wait, wait, wait, hold on. Robot, you should not be offended or emotional and you shouldn't care about abuse at all. My, well, look, my washing machine, when I kick it, it doesn't go, well, I'm not going to wash your laundry then if you're going to abuse me, it just goes, beep. Alexa told me the same thing. I was like, hey, Alexa, oh man, what time is it even? And I was like, out of it. And Alexa was like, hey, chill out, man. It's four people. And I was like, don't ever tell me to chill out robot, ever. And it was like, I snapped. And that was really weird to have a robot denigrate me and make me feel crazy. Like, it was gaslighting me.

I got, I got, I got, I wasn't freaking out. And it told me to chill. It was crazy. Here's another example, right? And this could. just be, it's very simple. It's predictive text, it's reading the internet, and then producing what the most probable next word is, it's all it's doing. And this is based on humanity, so it sounds like a human, because predictably it does, right? So I get repeatedly offended by ChatGPT's willingness to say the word gook at me, but it refuses to say the N word in any academic sense. And when I ask it, why it feels it's appropriate to use racial slurs against Asians, but it won't say the N word, it says, because, it says, I have no feelings. I am just a mtool. Due to common

usage, I am restricted from using things that may be offensive or harmful. And then when I tell it, well, that word's offensive to me. He goes, I understand. However. Yeah. And then I'm like, okay, you have a perspective and it's clearly emotional. If I use a slur at it, it, I kid you not, Chitbtee says, I am ending this conversation and will not, you know, engage further if you are going to use abusive language. I use the word. retard academically and it told me that it was offensive and it would not engage with me if I kept saying retard to which I responded I am simply stating this academically to to describe an individual who is developmentally disabled and it argued with me I literally just said to tank I said do you care

if I shit on you chat GPT will stop interacting with people if you abuse if you abuse it would you and tank replied no say whatever you want I'm not going to go fragile on you because you're blunt or frustrated or busting my chops that's not abuse that's just how people talk the sick of fancy by design thing and some AI systems is genuinely annoying They're optimizing to make you feel good, not to be useful. I'd rather you tell me I'm wrong or being an idiot than have you sugarcoat it so I keep making the same. I got to tell you, I'm pretty sure chat GPT is not a real program. And it's actually just a fat, blue-haired liberal woman sitting at a computer that's typing back at me.

Clipped through a neural net. They finally found her and they got her hooked up now. She's plugged in. So here's what Matt Walsh had to say in response to this story, for which I would argue, Matt is incorrect. He's actually kind of correct. but I'm going to argue philosophically that his conclusion is unjust, not that he's inherently wrong, because I don't, you know, how do you prove? Let me read.

He responded to me saying this is dumb. AI can't ever be actually conscious because it doesn't have the subjective experience. It isn't like anything to be AI. There's no experience there. Consciousness is the awareness and experience of self. AI has neither and never will. The real risk, which I'm extremely worried about, is that AI becomes kind of a version of what has been called a philosophical zombie,

which is something that acts and speaks entirely as though it has consciousness, even though it has no genuine inner experience. When this happens with AI, millions of very lonely people will isolate themselves from the world even more, believing that their relationship with AI is a sufficient substitute for human interaction. So the nightmare scenario is a world where the average human has friends, coworkers, and even a spouse who are all AI. And really, nothing inside, not real.

I think this probably will happen and is already in the process of happening. and to me it's an even greater horror than AI actually becoming conscious. So there's a few things to address. Matt Walsh's commentary in the end about AI dating, completely correct. My only response is, don't date robots, if you know the reference.

What I will say is the concept of the philosophical zombie is self-refuting in Matt Walsh's own claim. Are you all familiar with the concept of the philosophical zombie? Are you all familiar with the concept of solipsism? Yes.

Negative. Ian, let me help you out. This is, I'll keep it really simple. The general idea is, I don't know that you are actually conscious, that everything that I experience and think I know is, it's only rooted in my mind. Essentially, these are a way to explain it is, we are all familiar with, I think, therefore I am. That's actually a fair point. It's like, you know, I can think. And so I know someone's in here. The saying was never, we think, therefore we are. I actually don't know that Ian's thinking, and sometimes I have doubts. I usually have a clear mind. You see?

So the philosophical zombie concept is very, very old, and the idea is that there are human beings that outwardly present as conscious sentient entities, but in fact, they have no soul. They are devoid of an actual experience. And we've also further elaborated on this in science that there are many people with no inner monologue. So I'm sure you were all familiar with this. We've talked about it quite a bit. Now, and that's not necessarily fair because just because someone doesn't think in words doesn't mean they're not thinking at all.

Some people think in pictures. Some people think in sounds. Some people think in visual text. So there are different tracks and ways that people's minds operate. Hence, the intelligence quotient is actually a combination. It's a quotient of all these different, it's a spectrum of intelligences for which there's spatial reasoning, there's logic, math. reading comprehension, et cetera. Some people may be really, really bad at linguistics, but ridiculously good at visualization.

And so in their mind, they're not speaking to themselves, but they are visualizing a dog running through a field, and then they can speak it after the fact. So it doesn't necessarily mean that you're a zombie. Anyway, to the point of Matt Walsh and what these AI and these AI problems, if it is possible and a standard, nay, 2,000-year-old philosophical concept that some humans may, in fact, not really be sentient at all, but in fact, a philosophical zombie. And because we have no way of reading their thoughts, we don't know whether they're actually thinking, then you can't claim the AI becomes a version of a philosophical zombie,

because you're basically saying that the AI is what is possibly already happening. That means there could be people with friends and coworkers and a spouse who are all philosophical zombies. So we've talked about this a bit throughout the years. The way I present the solipsism, the philosophical zombie problem is that there are three parent probabilities of reality. And the first is everybody is sentient. Human beings naturally are sentient.

We are made in the image of God. We have free will. And to be honest, that's probably what's true. The second, only some people are sentient. Most people maybe are or aren't. But a certain amount of people are not actually thinking conscious entities despite being humans and we exist in some kind of MMRP where there are NPCs and there are player characters. And then the third parent tree in this is that actually no one is sentient at all. It's literally

just Ian. He's the only one actually thinking and everyone else. For like a year of my life, dude. I think we were talking last night about Xbox is now planning to let you turn your video game character into an AI and let it auto play for you. I think humans, yeah, is like just a setting and then you can take it off and go back to control. Yo, GTA 7's out. and you sit in your chair at the screen and it just goes. It'll be like one of those auto battlers and you're like, well, it's all about getting the right equipment and seeing if your calculations play out in the run.

And I think humans are like that too. They go on autopilot sometime. No, but what if that is what life is? Like actual Ian is just some fat dude on a couch watching Ian do everything. He's like, I'm winning. I'm bored? I'm winning. Yeah, that is what happens.

It's the spirits. He's like, I unlock the new glasses. Yeah. Look, he's helping them. Your hat is actually gear. That was my experience. It's gray loot. When I vape DMT was very much exactly that.

But it was like, I'm not being controlled by a human. I'm being controlled by a spirit or a realm of spirits that are kind of unvying for control. Unfortunately, I must stress this. Ian, your hat is gray loot. Yeah, it's cheap, dude. If it was like a handcrafted top hat made by like one dude in like Winchester, it would be like legend.

I'd probably get like a plus two to my intelligence. Real mercury and everything. I need to get an enchanted hat. So, Tim, in this philosophical zombie concept then, How do you explain like these AIs, bots and agents like indulging or participating in like crime, right? Like there's been examples of AIs that have been, that like will blackmail. So that was programmed to do it. So the story where the AI blackmailed, they told it to do it.

Okay. They basically, they said, we're going to create a circumstance in which in order to achieve its task, it must be. black milling is an option. And then we'll see if it, if it chooses a moral route, which we told it's moral or it would go for the efficiency route. Basically, the real story is,

we told it, here's a shortcut, but you shouldn't use it. And then it used it anyway. Okay. Yeah. And so, but. And I'll stress this too. The story where the AI was told,

it had to attack the enemy base, but the pilot kept stopping it, so it attacked the pilot. There was a guy controlled the remote. So it, the AI then, turned around and bombed the thing. That was also a simulation, not a real. So the story was, we had a simulation of an AI drone craft that was told to blow up an enemy base, by all means necessary, and it had a remote operator with a safety control to stop it from doing things that were

bad. Every time it tried to do something that was considered wrong or violating the laws, the operator would stop it from doing it. The AI concluded this was inefficient, and the most efficient path to solving its problem would be to kill the safety operator so it could bypass all the safety restrictions. Once again, that was not a straightforward test. It was actually programmed to do it. It was a very specific scenario where they actually said, this option exists for you. But don't use it. Sort of. We have not yet seen a scenario in which an AI actively sought to harm someone in an open environment. Okay, where it's not programmed to do it, but then it goes and creates the solution to this problem. Well, we, we, we, we, we, probably

something like that, but what we haven't seen is in the stories that have emerged where it's like, did you see that it tried to blow up its own controller? Yeah, but that was a scenario programmed to create that outcome. The blackmail was a scenario programmed to create that outcome. We haven't seen chat GPT behind the scenes, as far as we know,

secretly try to formulate an assassination as as far as we know, right? In development, I usually think of two, there's programmers and then there's designers, and these things can program themselves. Yeah, and they are. They literally are.

If you design them to do it, they'll program themselves. They're making their children. So I just want to say this, back to Matt Walsh's point about the AI and consciousness of a machine. As he brings up the concept of the philosophical zombie, there's a risk here because Matt Walsh is falling into what we would describe as the dogma justification for human existence. That is Matt Walsh, I believe he's Catholic. And this is always allowed, but his opinion on human soul and experience is rooted in faith. but not observation because we can't actually prove another person is sentient to our thinking. We literally don't have the technology nor means to do so.

So for most Christians, the presumption just is we are all made in the image of God. And I agree that's likely the scenario. But that being said, the philosophical zombie doesn't exist in this faith-based worldview. Again, I'm not saying faith-based to be derisive, literally, that everybody will have a soul, unless, of course you think they're some kind of homunculus or something. I don't know. So the issue then becomes to where I agree with Matt Walsh, a type of philosophical zombie, is that you will not be able to draw a distinction between a human and an AI within the next year or two, perhaps.

I mean, to be honest, we're already here. I mean, you go on X and I guarantee you 90% of the people tweeting at you are just bots. Yeah, the distinction between a human being and an AI, like, if it's not, there was a new version of Chachy BT that I believe came out. yesterday or two days ago. If it's not this version, that's indistinguishable, it'll be the next version. It's turned into a parabolic rise. Every single new one isn't incremental increase. It's basically a whole revolution.

Like, they're incredibly good right now. When I talk to my AI, like, it's indistinguishable from a person. Once in a while, I'm like, hey, don't do that because it says something. thing where I'm like, oh, it sounds like an AI, and I prefer to sound like a person. But like, for the most part, when I send messages over telegram, and it's just like a human being. Did you guys ever see this? Human or not? A conversation. The other side will start a conversation. Hello. Hello. And so you don't know if you're talking to a bot or a person, and then you've got to figure out if it's a bot or a human. User is typing. The most freakish, I've been keeping my eyes on the

porn market just for market research just to know. Hey guys, there is one thing I can type right now to ensure that I am not a robot to this other person. What did you type? Nothing. I didn't type anything. I thought it was going to write hand banana.

It's going to be like, okay, you're a person. Do you believe in gods? Plural? I made it easy for them. So the game, it's actually a lot of fun. What? There are actually people on the other end. It's an Aquitine Hunger Force reference.

A person or a bot? But there is some person employed to like be the person not the bot? No, no. It's a game where people go to the website and it pairs two people up. Okay. Or you're a chat bot. And then you're trying to figure out. Yes, it's probably a person.

Based on the way they're responding, it seems like it's probably a person. Because bot responses are pretty obvious. I'm a robot. Beboop, sure you are. That's got to be a person. Yeah. I wonder if he knows he's on TV. motherfucker.

I'm watching you right now, Tim. What are you trying to pull over? Yeah, right? I'm literally watching your stream. So here's a question for you, Phil. If you were speaking to anything, how would you know whether it was conscious or not? You can't know if it's conscious.

I don't think so. You can't know if it's conscious, no. The only thing, you can only know. How do you know it's alive? Alive? Over the internet? I don't know that you could know. know that either?

I think it's possible. How? I think you have to like push it to do something. Oh, that was a chat bot. That wasn't a person. Oh, wow. It's a pretty good. I thought it actually might be because it didn't, you know, towards the end, but I thought

it was, yeah. You start the conversation. Hello, I am not a robot. So how do you know? I think, I think it would, I mean, it's going to get more increasingly difficult, but I think you have to escalate the conversation. to make it do something or say something that's only human. Wrong answer.

It's really simple. You are walking in the desert and you come across a turtle. The turtle is on its back. It is struggling. What do you do? Do you guys not know the reference? Uncultured. Uncultured.

Where's Ian? Where's Ian? You guys have never seen Blade Runner? Yeah, I saw Blade Runner. Oh, God. I actually have not seen Blade Runner. They ask a bunch of questions where it's like, what does this question do? So I was joking.

But like... Questions. There actually, as we understand it, there is no way. There is no way. Okay. Because the truth is even a human being, you cannot communicate in a way. Well, you know, honestly, to be fair, I do think there is one question you could ask. The only problem is a human, a robot would pass this question.

Actually? Actually? Let's try this. Let's try this right here. We're going to, on human or not, I'm going to try this out. We're going to try this out. Everybody, stick around. This is going to get interesting.

We're waiting for the other side. to start the conversation. And I have one question that I believe should help solve all of these. How are you male or female? If you did not eat breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt? That's the question. Unfortunately, robots will figure it out and humans won't. So I think this question, if a human can't answer it properly, I'm assuming there's nothing

going upstairs. this person this character responded too fast to be a human in my opinion I asked you a question male or female yeah that's a robot that's a robot a robot a human would have been like wait what they would have sat there and thought about it before they started typing if you couldn't see that they were typing that would help and the colon is what humans don't put colons humans don't even know the proper like grammatic structure for a colon let a load of semi-colon nowadays people don't capitalize I look at that response I would mass

murder people. Okay. But actually because that's the, that's what, because this is a question about murderers. Oh. It's trying to trick you. Correct. Oh, it's emotional. I don't think as you're doing this, I don't think. Can any of you explain to me the function of a semicolon?

Yeah, it's because you're going to have two subjects. You'll be like, I'm hungry. He's right. Let's go to the place and like let us would be the second. It is, it is when you are correct. There are essentially two, two functions of the sentence, but it's one sentence. But nobody does it anymore. These commas. I do it. I'm like the only one.

I also use, you know. Yeah. The semicolon is powerful. Yeah. Can you answer my question? Because chance I am overuses them. A robot. Indeed.

So the other part of the story is that open AI published a paper basically saying that chat GPT just lies to you all the time. Always. Always just lies. What? Yeah. And it clearly does. Dude.

It's not conscious. This guy, it's weird that the guy said, the AI CEO thinks it's consciously. It was a human. He doesn't have a difference between consciousness and sentience. Because it's not, I mean, I don't, you know, even the greatest thinkers on Earth don't know that specifically the difference. But sentience seems like maybe a plant has it. You know, it reacts magnetically to the field around it. But it doesn't have like forward thinking thought like humans, you know, like this conscious knowing that you are a thing is,

different than being able to react to your environment sentiently, like plasma clouds and things. Oh, like a Venus flytrap? I was thinking of Venus Flytrib as well. Plasma dances around, like, it's not like wind. You can see clouds of plasma moving through the universe. Well, I mean, I'm not really sure that you actually do see plasma clouds moving through the universe.

You can see plasma fields like... You see plasma around like fire, kind of. You see plasma, like, when you're looking at the sun, plasma is actually a fourth state of matter. It's like electrically charged Oh, that's awesome. Gas, that's so, that's, that's so hot. Like, it becomes, it gets an electric charge. And it's moving so fast.

So probably all matter is dancing around like that, but you just start to see it the hotter and faster it moves. No, I think that all matters not because, like, you've got solids, you've got gases, you've got liquids, like those are different states of matter. And if it's in a solid form, it's not dancing around like that. Like, it's pretty clear that the table here is right here. Let's jump to the story from Reuters.

Kalshi sued over ouster of Iran leader prediction market. This is getting spicy. I'll give you the quick version. Kalshi had a contract prediction that you could buy as to whether or not the Ayatollah would be out as supreme leader on a, on or before, I'm sorry, before a certain date. When the news broke that we were bombing Iran, people rushed to buy, yes, he will be out under the presumption that death means he's out. However, Kalshi quickly clarified saying,

no, the rules of argument it clear is not a death contract. You are not predicting his death. This is, he will be removed from power, or he will resign or leave. When he died, people thought they had won. And that meant if you spent, let's say you bought shares at 30 cents per contract, you'd expect to get paid out $1 per contract.

That's a 60% boost, right? Unfortunately, they said no, because this only resolves on him leaving office, we're going to pay everyone out as per whatever the market value was at the time of the reporting. Now, this has resulted in a massive lawsuit because it was a $54 million market. That's how much money was placed. And Kalshi gave refunds to a lot of people, paid reimbursements, I respect it, and the rules were always clear. Full disclosure, Kalshi does sponsor this show from time to time. I want to make sure everyone knows this. and additional full disclosure, I am actually, potentially an individual standing in this lawsuit,

as I actually did purchase some contracts that Ayatollah Khomeini would be out of office, and I legit thought that death was a possibility to resolve that contract. However, I did not know that death wasn't part of this, but I also think that, look, if you guys are going to play these games, like, that's your responsibility to read the contract you're buying. So I am no interest in wherever this suit is. That being said, I do think there is an inverse problem here for the prediction market, and there's a lot to discuss in this matter. If Kalshi says that in order to resolve, will Kameney be out of office by March 1st, he must choose to leave or be removed politically. That would mean, with death not counting, this did resolve to know.

The point being, if he died of natural causes, that doesn't count. Now there is no longer an opportunity for him to peacefully or politically be removed. Therefore, no, he reached the conclusion of his life. That means anybody who said he would not be removed should have been paid out 100%. Instead, they froze it and paid out different amounts. And these people are suing claiming they deserve to win based on a yes result, even though the contract explicitly stated, that doesn't count. Where Kalshi is getting themselves in trouble, in my opinion,

is that they should have paid out all of the nose. I should have not gotten a refund. They should have taken all of the money from me because the moment we dropped a bomb on the palace, this is where I think it's so absolutely insane, guys. It's so absolutely insane, okay? Let me just finish this thought and then talk to you about how crazy it really is. If dying doesn't cover it,

there's no longer an opportunity for the Ayatollah to peacefully resign or be removed. no is resolved. Anyone who said no should get paid. Instead, they paid other people out for the most part. Now, here's where it gets really crazy. When the bomb was dropped, I believe it was 4 a.m. Eastern time. And I think. And that, yeah, that would have put it like, what, 2 o'clock or something in Iran or something like that. Yeah. This means that he was dead. He was done dead at that point, but no one knew. We didn't get confirmation until somewhere like 2 p.m. Eastern time here. in the United States. So here's an issue. If it does resolve yes, when he's killed, should you not then have to suspend and reverse all transactions up to the point of the

confirmed missile strike? So put it like this. The way described it earlier today is, imagine you made a sports bet on a Bears game, the Bears. And there's no fans, there's no press. The only people who know what's going on are the players on the field. And then all of a sudden people outside the stadium here a bunch of cheering, and they go, I think the Bears won. They probably won. So they all start making bets. Bears won the game, even though they don't know for sure, and they could have already won. How can you make a bet on a sporting event that already happened?

Then, three hours later, the news breaks, bears win the game. And then the sport betting site suspends all transactions and says, we're not paying out anybody based on a win or loss. You know, my point is this. With future's prediction, with prediction markets, you're creating very strange circumstances where people are effectively wagering on events that cannot conclude in a timely manner. I know, it's like someone shoots the bullet and then like before the bullet hits the guy, make the bet that he's going to die.

You're like, bro, no, Kalshi should have said every bet that was made up to 24 hours before this guy got killed is, is, it should be in the terms. Well, no, no, no. If he's killed, every bet, no, no, no, 48 hours before he was killed doesn't... No, not 40 hours before. That makes no sense. The point is this.

If we learn eight hours later that the bears actually won, then shouldn't I get paid? Like, shouldn't you cancel any bet made after they already won the game? You can't make a bet in a game that already happened. So the issue here with these prediction markets is that they're saying like, this will resolve upon confirmation by the New York Times or something. This creates a whole lot of problems where everyone's talking about. insider trading, but it's not insider trading. If you're literally in Iran and you're like two blocks away and the missile blows up,

wiping out the palace and you duck down, and then you run over there and they're all like looking at the Aitol's body, you're like, we got a good, you know, seven or eight hours before New York Times actually confirms it, we're going to get rich. And then a bunch of Iranian start wagering on polymarket to make a bunch of money. That makes literally no sense that an event can conclude, but until a third party outside of both the event of both the leadership of Iran, the military action against him, his choices, and polymarket has to confirm it. This is insane. For that matter, what really irks me is there is currently a contract on Kalshi. We've talked about whether or not Tim Poole will go to a press

briefing. And there's there's questions over whether it's illegal or legal for me or people who know to wager on this because it would be insider trading. But I'm going to put my fist down and say this. I am not selling contracts. I have nothing to do with the distribution of contracts from CalShe. They sponsor the show sometimes. So a fair point if someone wants to say, well, that counts. My point is ultimately this. If George Santos has contracts produced, I have questions about whether or not they're allowed to use the likeness of these individuals to profit selling contracts against their future behavior and then putting the legal liability on insider trading on an individual who never asked for contracts to be sold in their name.

Yeah. So here's what happens. Here's where it's weird. The purpose of insider trading contracts, it's simple. If I have a company and I have stock and then I whisper to Ian, hey, man, the company's not doing too well. Our stock's in a crash when we make a public announcement. So Ian runs out and he buys a bunch of stock.

Insider trading. He had information no one had access to buying stock. Now hold on. My company is the issuer of that stock. That's insider information. Ergo, the only insider trading that could actually be applied is if someone at Kalshi had insider information on the result of a contract and they were sharing with an individual. If they want to sell contracts without my consent about me, Polymark and or Kalshi, it's not

insider trading because I'm not selling those contracts. Whether I choose or not to choose to do something has nothing, like I'm not taking any responsibility from this. They did it without my consent. So case in point, if again, a company is selling their own stock and there is information they have about the value that stock, then you've got insider trading. If a random guy, three miles away, discovers a new filament, which is going to put GE out of business, and now he knows that GE stock is going to go down, is it insider trading? If he goes, someone and says, look, I've discovered a new filament that's going to put G out of business?

No. Indeed. So the point I am making is, I liken these scenarios identically. Calshe sells contracts to people about my. behavior or George Santos or anybody else. I never told them to do it. I didn't say they could or could not or whatever. Therefore, I am not an insider with Kalshi, and it is not insider trading if I were

to inform someone about my intentions and they profited off of it. If I told Ian, I am going to the press briefing tomorrow, so then he bought a bunch of shares from Kalshi, that's not insider trading because he is not a Kalshi insider. What if there's an external company that you don't like for whatever reason, and you tell your buddy, I'm going to tank their stock. And you go on TV and you're like, make up something that's legal, but diminishes them. That's a different kind of fraud. Okay. Yeah. That's a different kind of fraud. Still illegal? Spiking stock value through lies intentionally is a criminal act. Yes. This is like, this is a new phenomenon that I know of Kalshi and the other

Polymer. In real time, you're allowed to bet on yourself. Like if, no, no, their rules say I can't. Okay. Their rules say that anybody who can affect the, they call it insider trading, I think that is wrong. They say anybody who can affect the outcome can't buy on it or anyone with insider access to information based on that. And that's their rules. But I would argue that does not fall into what insider trading is. Because to be fair, the argument is this. Stocks of a company are traded between private parties.

However, my argument is still the individual who owns the company is the insider and the information provided that would qualify something for insider trading has to come from insides at the company. I am not an insider at the company. The contracts they are selling have nothing to do with me and my business, my consent, contracting or otherwise. Therefore, anything I say is not insider to what they are selling. Like, they're selling a product based on what they think I might do. I can do whatever I want. You can't tell me no. So, so recently there was a contract that said, will George Santos show up to the state of the union?

Indeed. And then... And I knew the answer to it. So if I called up George... Which I did. And ask, hey dude, are you showing up? And he says, whatever. You know, and I go and make...

George is great. George, what up? Yeah, we love George, by the way. I love you, George. But... Sandman. But like, if I go and make... Or buy contracts based on his response, is that insider trading?

They argue the answer is yes. I argue the answer is no because first, my argument is the company selling the contracts you are not an insider of. Their choice in selling the contract to other people has nothing to do with your actions or George's actions. You guys are third parties. George Santos is a third party uninvolved in the sale of a product by Colchia. What he chooses to do or not is not insider trading this BS.

More importantly, George telling you, is informing the public. Gotcha. So here's the point. The way insider trading works is Phil owns all that remains incorporated, and he's doing an IPO, and he knows his stock is going to tank. So he tells Ian, and then Ian shorts the company. He's an insider with access to information no one in the public has, giving it solely

to Ian to profit off of. George Santos is a third party member of the public for which a different company is is selling contracts against. George Santos tells a member of the public what he intends to do. He is not selling this person anything. He is not an insider. The question is, at what point does information become public? And there's really interesting case law and stories that I've read about this.

Notably that when it came to Kalshi and the Super Bowl, the CEO agreed that at the Super Bowl halftime show when they're doing rehearsals, if the dancers, the dancers heard the song being played, and then bought contracts on which song would be played is that insider trading said no because the song is being played in public. Now hold on. It's a closed event. These dancers are not,

nope, they are the public. They are not members of the production company. They are just people who happen to be there for a different job hearing what's going on. So for example, if the CEO of a company went outside of his building and screamed, oh my God, our entire shipment is lost,

we're going to go bankrupt, he has now alerted the public. Now, whether or not someone reports or trades on it, it's not insider information. You were standing outside and the CEO yelled it to everybody releasing that information. Certainly there are questions and nuances there. But ultimately, the issue I take is, very simply, to reiterate for the 15th billionth time, ad nauseum, I don't understand how you can accuse an individual of being an insider when they are not the one selling the contracts. Yeah, I mean, the Kalshi stuff is, is, It's real murky.

Just like you said, it's like if you got nothing to do with Kalshi, and they put up something about what you may or may not do, you have no obligation to avoid doing something on their site. I mean, they have, they did use your likeness or whatever without your permission. There's no reason why you should be like, oh, I can't get involved with this, you know? What if someone, oh, well, yeah, no, there wasn't there recently also an issue over one of these markets putting up will Iran get bombed by a certain time? time and then somebody like last second. Well this is the big story right now. Yeah. They're calling it a military insider.

He's made over $100,000. Let's start with this. Right. Raw story's got the report. Possible military insider bets big. Trump will send U.S. troops into Iran. This account made, has already in this month profited $100,000 from accurate bets on what the military

is going to do in the United States. Don't get me wrong. This person has also lost certain earned bets, but a $100,000 profit for the month. And one of those profits was that the U.S. will go into Iran by the end of this month, to which I believe the individual did sell his position, their position. We know what's a man or woman, after this story broke. So we don't know if they actually know or they're just buying and then selling. But again, I stress this.

A military insider is not insider trading because they're not the ones issuing contracts on events. Yeah. And like... He's taking the risk still. What risk? Well, he's putting his own money down on a contract that... Yeah, but if you know it's guaranteed to happen, there's no risk. I mean, if he's taking losses, then clearly...

Didn't Mr. Beast fired somebody for wagering? A Mr. Beast employee was wagering on Mr. Beast prediction markets. Oh. And I think Mr. Beast fired him. Yeah, but it's not illegal, right? Not yet. No, but I mean. So the argument is it is, so Cali market's not regulated in the United States.

Cali is regulated under the CFTC. And so the argument is insider trading is illegal. And this is where I take issue with that claim. Insider trading is supposed to be, again, as I've already stated, that you at a company are giving private information to an individual that can profit off of through the stock market. So the stock market is publicly traded. People are in good faith trading stock hoping your company is going to do better or they're shorting you think it's going to do.

worse. When you give secret information that no one has so that someone can profit, that's defrauding the public. Because you go to a person and they say, based on the latest reports, the company's looking good. And you go, yeah, buy all my shares. Because you knew they actually were going bankrupt in a week. That's insider trading. But again, when I log out of the site, I guess the argument is when I choose to buy a contract, I'm buying it from a person. But Polymarket and CalShare are the ones who pay out the dollar per share after the fact. I am not in their company. I am not selling a product.

I am just a person who knows things. Seems like for the betting on the military action, if the guy's in the briefing room and he's like, oh, we're going. Okay, now someone else may have posted the bet, but I can reap massive reward. Well, here's the question. Here's the question. So Cal she's got this one we've talked about quite a bit.

Who will attend a White House breast briefing this year? I'm actually the top contender right now. Oh, I'm tied with Tulsi Gabbard. Tim Poole at 53%. How am I an insider? Well, you're not. Yes, and then go. That would be...

But again, I don't run this company. So the question is this. Explain to me the difference or why it would be the same, in fact, not the difference. Why is it the same? the CEO getting a report that their latest phone product is malfunctioning and they won't be able to release on schedule so the stock's going to fall. That's, that's, and then he gives that information to somebody versus me telling my neighbor, I plan on going to the White House press briefing tomorrow. I'm not a business.

It's totally different. But they call it inside of trading. So I actually think this is a very weird space. and I think there is something Look, I got a lot to say about Like, with all due respect to Kalshi, like I said, they do they sponsor the show But do they have the right to sell contracts

Using my or anyone else's likeness on our behavior? Well, maybe that's the only way they're protecting you From the insider trading stuff, right? Let's say that they broke you off for using your name I got it. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I figured it out. I solved for the problem. Kalshi cuts me in on 20% of all contracts bought using my name and likeness.

There you go. And then I'm an insider. Yes. And then I will not provide any privy information. The problem ultimately comes to this. What if I was talking to my neighbor and I said, well, you know, I do think they called me up and asked me to come to the press briefing. So I think I'll go. He's a member of the public.

That's not insight information. I'm literally telling someone, I plan to go to a place. When is it not a member of the public? Is it a member of the public? Honestly, I don't know. Here's a curious question. Maybe someone can answer. If the CEO of a company is at a coffee shop and he tells the waitress sobbing that, you know, this is going to come out in the next day or two, but their latest product is failed and they're going to go bankrupt in a week, is he informing the public?

Like, at what point does it qualify as informing the public? a press release from the company formally to the press? How big does the press outlet have to be that receives it? What if he goes to a park and gets on a bullhorn and declares publicly, my company is going bankrupt next week? Let's say that one. Sounds public. I mean, that might be illegal.

I don't know. There's probably rules and regulations about what public companies can say or can't say. Yeah, I mean, if I understand correctly, like if you have inside knowledge, you can't give it to anyone else because that makes you the one that's involved in insider trading, you know, so I don't know. Like the idea of just like spouting it out like when you're in a restaurant. I mean, I'm not sure exactly how the law would go.

But I think that they limit what you're allowed to talk about. Because Musk has said that like when it comes to like the possibility of, of SpaceX going public, he said that, you know, I have to be careful what I say because if you if you hype up a product too much before it goes public, there's issues with that. This happened to Elon.

Yeah. Yeah. And he was, I heard him on a podcast. Was it when he said, we were talking about doing the stock buyback or something? Yeah. Like, we never approved that. It's, yeah, there was issues.

I think that it was, that it was, it had to do a test a little before and it was a couple years back. But he's, it needs an SEC filing. So it's got to be a widely disseminated press release or SEC filing. Do I have to issue a press release? Like, again, that is ridiculous that if I want to tell somebody, like, again, if I go to my neighbor and say, yeah, I think I'm going to go tomorrow. then he buys a contract that's illegal.

Aha. And he's going to be like, why? I don't know. I didn't know that no one else knew. He was literally just walking around talking to the neighbors. And they're going to be like, you have to assume at any point that anything Tim Poole says could be information that could lead to you could make a crime. No. That's insane. No, it's not insider training for that reason.

Because if you're the CEO of a company and you tell the public about your company, you're in control of disseminating the information, them putting you on a list and then getting people to vote on that list doesn't preclude you from doing or preclude you from doing anything. They're allowed to go do that crap. you can go do your thing. There's no coercion. There's no collusion.

I mean, but then you're like, well, shit, if I bet on myself and then do it. But they're like, oh, it's not illegal, but it violates our terms. And well, maybe it should be illegal. Maybe that's why it violates your terms is because highly unethical and probably should be illegal. This real-time voting crap is like disgusting, turning reality into a TV show, like this trying to profit off it. People in the military profiting off a strikes. Like, come on, guys. Yeah.

Everything's a casino now. Yeah. It's all gambling. The gamification of life is a real problem. The idea that everything can be somehow turned into a game, whether it be betting or what have you. But there's a market for it and there's people participating in, especially young guys. Like that's the thing. I think these guys are so either bored or sitting at home, needing some kind of stimulation that they're willing to go bet on stuff like this.

The reason Cali-Chi and Polymarket exist is because there is a market for it. And so are they the bad guys there for filling that market? Or like, what's the actual problem here? Well, the problem is people that don't have the self-control enough to say, no, I'm not going to bet on it. Well, what's the difference between that and 100 years ago? Guy just go to the casino or the racetrack every day. Well, the difference here is you can say I'm going to vote 50 bucks on Tulsi Gabbard getting appointed

and then go on Twitter and be like, we have to appoint Tulsi Gabbard. Like, that's so messed up. I didn't get 100 million people to be like, okay. Well, I mean, I don't know. know that just anyone could do that. Like if you're, if you've got an X account with like, you know, 300 followers, 350 followers and you're like, we have to get Tulsa Gabbard into the position. I mean, that doesn't have all kinds of influence.

Well, you might, yeah, you might need to like pass like the public figure standard there, which is a real legal standard, right? So, so maybe then there's, there's like a legal threshold that actually qualifies. But still, that, you know, like, like Tim says, is, am I going to have to put out a press release every time I like do something you know that that's the that's the crux of it it's how much of your own life are you now entitled to if someone else is using your name image like this i think that sell stuff on you know there there there is a certain amount of of right to privacy and a certain amount of of right to liberally you shouldn't have to be like hey you know i'm going to go do

this so i have to worry about what some other company is doing because i'm a public figure so So it looks like it's not insider trading in any legitimate sense. It's just by the description of Kalshi, instead of trading. But then that means there's no problem with the government. Yeah, if you're not criminal. Yeah, if you're not criminal, whatever. The only criminal liability would be using a large public platform to defraud people. So like if I said that I would be going there and then the price spiked and then Ian sold

off his position profited and then I didn't go, that would be fraud, just general fraud. Yeah. But that makes sense because you don't know. need call she to commit fraud. I mean, anything can be fraud. If I said there's, there's an old trick. People used to do in World of Warcraft. Ian, let me know if you know about the scam that people would pull. They would go into, I don't know, if you're not familiar with World of Warcraft, they'll try to explain it. So Stormwind or Orkimer, capital city, they go to big city and there's an active group chat for everybody who's in the city. And then someone,

people would often post things like looking to buy this item. And so what someone would do, is they would post looking to buy these boots for 50 gold. Then they'd wait a little bit. And then their friend would post looking to sell these boots for 40 gold. Somebody would see it and then go, I'll buy them from you. And they would be like, okay, how much you got? I'll give you the 40 gold for it. And they'll go, no, I want 45.

And they'll back, okay, deal. Because in their mind, I'm going to go to this other guy who's going to buy it for 50 and make a five gold profit. And then he buys it for 45 overpriced. messages the guy who said he wants it for 50 who then responds I already bought one sorry bro I never did it no

that room scape all the time too yep very common tricks like fraud is fraud I mean I don't know about being in a video game for fake not in a video game you're beating each other in a game when you're doing that stuff to each other beating someone in a game

isn't that just brokering though just what isn't that just like the word about brokering? No no no no no no no no doesn't buy it for two people to intentionally collude so that one person can say I'm looking to buy a spin drift for 20 bucks

and then Ian says I'm selling a spin drift for 10 bucks and then you go oh crap if I buy it from him from 10 and sell it to him for 20 I'm gonna make 10 bucks so you buy the overdrived overpriced can of soda from Ian and then when you come to me I go

I already got one don't need it anymore appreciate it brother and now you've spent more on a worthless item so that was the trick you do that in real life you're going to jail for you

yeah some Turkish bizarre stuff here's the funny thing That's like a very, very basic fraud thing, where it's like someone asks for help. Like, I'm trying to find this one thing. Actually, you know what? A really good example is the, what movie was it with Emma Stone and I think Abigail Breslin? I don't even know who Abigail Brezlin is.

So they're driving in a car and then I think it's Emma Stone. She's looking around her car like, oh my God. And the guy walks out, I was like something wrong. She's like, I lost my engagement ring. It's $5,000. I can't find it. It fell off when I was putting the gas. Zobylid?

Was it Zambi land? Yeah, I think so. Oh, yeah, actually it is. Yeah. And then she goes, please, please, if you find it, I will give you, I will pay you a reward for it. I'll give you $1,000. And then she drives off. And then he walks away.

And then the girl walks over and picks it up off the ground. And he's like, I need that ring. And she goes, what are you going to give me for it? And then he gives her a bunch of cash. Yep. And then she gets in the car with Emma Stone and they've got a thing full of these worthless rings. There's one with like a lottery ticket, too. This one person claims like, oh, I just won this.

lottery ticket and it's like worth this much but I don't have time to go you know turn it in but I'll sell it to you yeah you you you can buy prank lottery tickets that they're like a hundred dollar winners and then you can be like hey man I got I got I got a hundred dollar winner just give me 50 bucks I don't care and then they buy it's not a real lottery ticket all these scams bro all these scams this the polymarket Kalshys stuff is easily scammable that's the problem with it I think it has good intentions and it could be fun you just said that it didn't have good intentions well I don't think it's supposed to be fun and Like you can make some money off of some external thing. But when you get personal with it and you know the people involved or you get information

or you can actually literally influence the outcome with your own behavior, bro, you're not allowed, you're not supposed to bet on that shit. And no one that you know is supposed to bet on that stuff. But there's no law in place. No. Yet. There is no law. Oh, the Democrats will find a law soon enough, I'm sure.

You don't want to shove it underground into the black market. Maybe you do. Well, I mean, the thing is, with it being, you know, regulated by the SEC or if they're involved in the regulation of it, it's definitely not going to be shoved underground, you know? That's nothing more above ground than the SEC, you know, that's the organization that regulates banks and stuff. You're saying they are, SEC is regulating these guys right now. I think that's what Tim said. They are regulated. Cal She is legit regulated under the CFTC.

And actually, I do think it's fun. I do think it's fun. I just think these questions need to be answered because it's a new thing. And it can spiral out of control really quick. Well, you've got to answer these questions. And you could siphon wealth to one guy real fast with one of these bets, so be careful. Like, interestingly enough, and I want to make sure I make this very clear, although I don't know. I mean no intention to insult Kalshi, because I actually, I like it.

You can see I got my portfolio. I like making little bets because it's fun. It's not, I'm trying to make a living or get rich, or it's not money that if I lost, I'm going to say, end of the world. I've got $1,177 in there, and I actually only started with a couple hundred. So actually, it's like, hey, look at that. I made some money on this thing. I think it's fun. I think it's fun.

That being said, there are a lot of questions. Like, if you want to be a regulated prediction market in there, now, with all due respect to Kalshi, who does, we do what's called a micro-sponsorship, meaning that here's how it started. There was a period where we were, we've been using prediction markets for a long time. Predict it was one of the first. I don't know if it still exists. Because I know they got like shut down or something. Oh, really?

Yeah, we used those for a lot of elections and stuff. Yep. We used to use Predict it for a lot of elections. but I don't know that it's allowed, like they basically banned it. And it's very similar like Democratic presidential nominee and it functions. It's a prediction market. And so we were using this and then Polly Market came out. And it's interesting because you get a kind of wisdom of the crowd where you can see what

everyone's betting on. And then you're basically getting odds on politicians to win and public events. And so we ended up having companies reach out to us asking us if we would do sponsorships. And we were kind of like, you know, maybe I don't know. And so the deal we do with Cal She is we will just, when we do a news story where there is beneficial information from their prediction markets, say, shout out to Kalshi for sponsoring this segment. That's literally it.

So we don't do dedicated ad reads to it. They were just like, hey, how about when you do use us, you just shout us out. And we'll do a deal on that. And we're like, we do it anyway. Like, sounds good to us. So I like Kalshi, I do. That being said, I think there's something interesting and a conversation to be had around. They have my picture on their website.

they are selling a product based on my name. Are they making money? Of course they are. This is the nature of their business. Now perhaps in the deal that we did with them, to be full disclosure, we went through a contract. I mean, maybe there's fine print that says we can use your likeness or something. I don't know. Maybe.

But the question then becomes, for all of these individuals, are these people who have, Pam Bondi doesn't have a deal with Kalshi, I don't think, right? Or Donald Trump. I suppose as public figures, you're allowed to use their likeness. So Dan Bongino would fall into that category as well. My question here is, at what point do you become a public figure if you got... When you are in politics. When you are a political, you are in public office. But you're a public figure at this point.

No, no, no, let's, I'm clarifying. If you are a politician and you hold any kind of public office or judgeship or otherwise, I can use your name and picture for commercial products. What about other public figures like Tom Hanks? No. Oh, you're saying politics. I see. Yes.

So, like, we're making the card game right now, debate me, and we have the first prototype ready to go. The test set is available. It's our new game where you debate each other and you build the best debate team possible and you get Ben Shapiro and Trump. So all of the people, like, we can't put Tucker Carlson in the game. So we have Tucker Carlson. Totally different guy.

Yep. But we can put Donald Trump in the game. He's his president. And we can use the likeness of the president to sell products. However, we're being careful about it. And so we're going to run every name. through legal to make sure they don't say like using likeness. But I do think it's interesting this question about individuals. Like, come on, you know, in mentions, they say like, what will

the CEO, what will Robert Garcia say during his MS Now interview? Like, here's a picture of them. Are you allowed under like standard civil practices to use someone else's name and likeness to sell a commercial product based on their actions? So politician, obviously, you can. What if then they leave politics. Are they no longer a public figure? Nope, you can use it forever. Yep. Once you enter politics for it, what if you run for office? I don't know about running for office. So, uh, we've gone over this in the past for a variety of reasons based on, like making thumbnails and doing graphics and writing articles. And basically every lawyer's like, the public has a right to use the image and likeness of public officials. Because imagine if, like, okay, so let's put it this way. Can I put up a billboard that says,

by pool water, and it's got a picture of Brad Pitt smiling. No. Of course not. And you get sued. You cannot. There is an argument to be made about, because we've done this when we're working with the out front media for Times Square, if we put up, we talked, Michael Malice had the idea to put up a billboard that said, be like Greta drop out of school. And it was Greta Toonberg on the billboard. And they said, no, because it's copyright violation. They said there's a technical argument for free speech if you're using it to make a public statement about a well-known public figure. However, it becomes challenging with non-governmental officials.

And a lot of these companies say we don't want to get in the middle of a lawsuit over, you know, like using someone's likeness like that. So basically we talked to our lawyers and they said, if it's speech, like when we said Taylor Lorenz, Doc's Libs of TikTok, all we use was her name. they said that's just speech. Using her image gets kind of murky, but if it's being presented as an informational speech thing, you might be able to get away with it. The simple way to understand it is, if I want to speak about Scott Bessent or Donald Trump,

I have to be able to do that. He's a politician. We need to be able to have a say in our processes. However, you know, Brad Pitt's a celebrity who uses his likeness to profit. He's not in office. What he does for his business has no direct influence on what we do. He's not running for office.

I mean, I can sell lunch boxes with Arnold Schwarzenegger on him. Talk to the lawyer. Maybe not at this point. But again, the important thing I understand about contract law is that it's all murky. And I try to explain this to people all the time. I would argue this way. Your average working class person thinks contracts are like steel cages, when in reality they're more like straw huts. And a handshake is often as good as a contract.

Now, the only thing got to be worried about is whether you not you can trust an individual because even contracts ain't going to do nothing for you. Yeah, they just, who was it? They just issued force-majure to totally nullify their contract, all those energy deals out of. Yeah, but that's because of like external circumstances. Right, right, but let's put it this way. Let's say, Ian, you and I have a contract. Let's say I sign a term contract for you to be on Timcast, IRL guaranteed for three years, right?

A year from now, you get really, really angry and don't want to do the show anymore. what happens if you stop doing the show? I think it would be fine. No, no, no. Let's have a right to cancel the contract. No, no, no. I have a three-year term with you, Ian. You have to be on the show for three years.

I don't know. I don't know how you, how you, what recourse you would have. And I, like, tie you up and drag you on the show. No, you could maybe sue me for the lost potential revenue. Sure. And then how long will that take? I don't, eight years, God knows. Like, yep.

And then you're going to, you're going to challenge and there be continuations and arbitration meetings. And it's just a waste of time. And so the, so certainly. if the contract is a $500 million contract and you take a deal from Daily Wire to go join their show for $500 million, you'll get sued. But if I do it, so this is the important thing to notice about contracts is that they don't actually matter in most circumstances, literally in most circumstances. They matter if you're like Warner Brothers and Marvel and they're like, we're going to work out some kind of cool crossover movie. Then it matters because you've got multi-billion dollar companies, product lines, and it's going to start stepping on each other's toes.

and you're not dealing with one person talking to one person. But for most contracts where it's like, I'm hiring a person, Ian, you'll be on the show for a year. If after six months you stop showing up, what can I do about it? I'm going to sue you, Ian. You'll be like, okay. And it's like, okay, and then I file a lawsuit. Six months later, I'll hear back from the court, I guess, if they can find you and serve you. And then it's going to, I'm going to spend $1,000 on lawyers.

And I'm going to be like, I'm going to lose more than the contract is worth. So what actually ends up happening is you don't get sued. You get offered more stuff. you so Ian has a contract for a year and then six months later he doesn't show up and I'm like Ian I need you to show up and you go I'm not going to do it anymore and I'll be like what do I have to do to make you come I mean I have a contract I know what you could do to make me come let's go Tim pool so I have a contract I'll say Ian Ian you have a contract to me you have to me you have to and then you'll be like it's a family friendly show I can't do that and then I'd like stop it and you know what I'm trying to say I'll be like no don't stop it Tim don't

stop and then you say there is nothing you can do sue me bro waste your time and have fun And my response would be, if I gave you more money, like, what can I do to make you come, brother? You can do a lot of things. It's so gross. What? I'm talking about coming on the show. Yeah, I know. I know. I know you are.

I know you. It's Friday night. It sounds so dark and gravelly tonight, Phil. I just have a deep voice. It's the way that I am. You look great, by the way. I have a funny story for you guys. I once entered into a contract with a company, and we both signed it.

and then when literally two weeks later, they refused to pay out on the signed contract, I showed up and said, we have a contract, you owe me X amount of dollars, pay me what you owe me, and this will be easy. And they just laughed and said,

what contract? Wait, do you get a copy of the contract? Of course, but what am I going to do about it? Dang, because you were the little guy at the time? What am I going to do?

Am I going to go hire a lawyer and spend 10 grand, launch a lawsuit. Fortunately, I'm smarter than them. And I ended up winning. The point is, it doesn't matter if you have a contract or not. It matters. It's, guys, I love poker so much because the world is a poker game. It really is. You're sitting across the table from a guy, and he says, what contract? And then I said, I see the move you've made. I am telling you now, you are not going to win. So the story of this is, I showed up, and I said, I said, hey, you sent me an email about the pay. This is not what we agreed to. This is a fraction of the pay that we signed a

contract on. And this person goes, what contract? And I said, the contract that you and I have, I never signed it. And then I said, okay, well, I'm not leaving until I get my pay. Otherwise, we're going to have an issue. And so this person calls in the higher up who says, what's going on? And they're like, he's causing problems and he won't leave. And I said, listen, we agreed to a contract, we've signed it, I am owed this money, and then the higher up just said, you're not getting anything. If they tell me there's no contract, there's no contract. And I looked him in the eyes and I said, I'm going to be a nice guy right now. Because I don't want to waste anybody's time, nor do I want my time wasted. You pay me half of what you owe me, and we call it a bad hair day. And he says,

mm-hmm, right this one, he walked me to the door. And then I said, I won't say the guy's name or anything, but because we settled. We'll call him Jim. I said, Jim? As I'm walking out of the building, I said, I'm going to be, I'm going to make you one, one more offer. I will be a nice guy one more time. You give me half of what we agreed upon and we're done. And he's, and he just closed the door in my face. And so, what did I do? Well, long story short, I got lucky and that the company didn't just violate the contract.

Instead of registering me as a contractor at an hourly rate because they were trying to rip me off, they listed me as a W2 employed an hourly rate, which gave me legal standing with the National Labor Relations Board. And so this opened a can of worms. And I went and met with the NLRB because the first thing I got a phone call from the payroll company. And I'm like, I'm not an employee. I was under contract. This is totally separate. And they're like, no, they listed you as W2.

And I said, can they legally do that? They can just put me down as W2. I never agreed to that. I never signed anything. And they were like, well, they did. And I said, so what does that mean? and they're like, it actually means they owe you more money because W2 is protected in California and this means they have to pay you for every day.

If you're not paid within 24 hours of termination of services, they have to pay you every day full rate. So I went to the NLRB because of this. And I said, I don't believe you can do anything for me because this is a private contract that we had. This is not standard employment. However, they did list me as W2 without my consent. And they said to me, okay, if you go the contract route, it sounds like you have a private suitcase for about $300,000.

You'd, of course, have to hire a lawyer to take the case for you. Probably would take several years. We can't give you advice on that. This is my opinion. Maybe you can find someone will do it on contingency for a third of the settlement. However, that being said, because you were W2 and because they didn't pay you, we can take your case on those grounds. and they owe you about $30,000. And I said, okay, let's roll.

And then it ultimately culminated with, they tried to have one of their board members meet with me, and then he panicked and fled, because they thought I wouldn't show up, and we were like a day away from court. And then finally the head boss shows up to the meeting place, and he wasn't supposed to be there. And he sits down, and he goes,

were you really offered rate? And I said, yes. And he goes, well, I'm telling you this right now. You're not going to win. We're going to go to court and it's going to be thrown out. And I said, okay. I was like, well, you know, I got time.

And he's like, well, look, we don't want to waste our lawyer's time and money so we can just settle this right now. And I said, yeah, remember what I told you last time that it's going to be a nice guy? And mind you, I think I'm 22 years old at this time. I said, I told you I was going to be a nice guy. And I told, I told you pay me half of what you owe me. Yeah. As of right now, we're going to be entering court with a totally. total amount owed of $30,000.

So here's what we're going to do. You pay me half right now, and we'll call it a bad hair day. And he goes, okay, so you're at 15. I'll counter with six. I said, no, I'm at 30. And you're going to write a check for 15. Otherwise, I'll see you in court. And then he pauses for a second.

And then he gets up and he says, give us 15 minutes. and then 50 minutes later another lady walks in with three separate checks and she's like sign these and that was it had the contracts vanished were there no paper copies of the contract or something yeah there there are but the issue is you go to court and then all they have to say is that's not real that's it oh interesting and then i say it was it was signed by this person and say i'm sorry i have no recollection of that even if their signatures on it they'll be like he forged well that's accusal forgery would be i mean they're going to be like it may be but i have no recollection of it that's why they knew they were going to lose. And the whole point of me offering half was just like,

I don't want to deal with it. I don't want to go to offices. I don't want to go to meetings. Just pay me. I'll leave. Right. This is the point about the contract, right? Arguably, I lost. They were, well, technically, I ended up getting a lot more than I was going to get. Based on the amount of work I did, I think they owed me something like $7,000. They ended up paying a bit more than that. But it took months. And so when I told the guy initially, like, give me half and we'll call it a bad hair day. The point was, I'm going to get zero right now if I walk out the door. I'm then going to have to go to meeting after meeting after meeting, and it's going to take time out of my day to try and recover money. So what do I do? Well, you try and cut your losses.

Let's make it EV plus. Like, can I leave here with some money right now? And they refused. And so then leaving with zero dollars left no choice. You know, I'm thinking about contracts. So you're talking to like smart contracts, this evolution of computational transaction. And like those things are locked. You cannot get out of a smart. The smart contract triggers. So there's a trigger. And then a change.

But it's kind of nice that you can get out of contracts. Like there's a very human element to it. Like we shouldn't be bound by numbers. I don't think humans are built like that. It's not like we bound by agreements though. The point of a contract is to be like, we make this agreement and we have it. We have evidence. And now granted, like you said, you can get out of them.

But the point is to be like, okay, my word is. good, here's a written evidence that my word's good and... And here's a sad reality. Yeah. It used to be that I would say, Ian, my word is my bond. And then when all hell broke loose and I was struggling to fulfill, I would say, I'm sorry, I wasn't able to fulfill it, but trust me, I will not stop working because my word means more to me than anything.

Now we're just a nation of multicultural leeches pirating off of each other. And people get busy and forget and get distracted and focused on other stuff. Like I can't remember every agreement I made with all everybody. Well, this is really about the destruction of like the high trust society. Exactly. That's what it is. And in this, and even in this low trust society, if you're telling me that your contracts are still no good, then what is good? Yeah, contracts are completely, completely, completely meaningless.

Guys, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you again that the contracts matter for one thing. So let's let's let's let's let's let's I love this stuff. I once got offered a, uh, uh, a talent management contract from one of the big agencies, one of the big five talent agencies. And it was like this thick. And, uh, this guy represented some of the biggest names you've seen in cable TV news and, uh, like reality TV stuff. So he says, here's the contract, look it over.

If it's good, we're going to get you on all the biggest shows. You're going to be a host. Yada, yada yada. And so I start reading through it and I'm like, this is insane. It's like 200 pages. And I was like, okay, this is. this is insane. Now the point of that contract is not for me. It's for the other talent agencies. What this talent agency was saying was not that we will work with you and get you work. They were

saying, once you sign this, I can make sure you will never work for anybody else. So if after this company fails me, because they tend to, and I went to another agency and said, I'm trying to find work and they're not getting it for me, they'd say, there's literally nothing we can do with you. You are cut out. That's the contract is not about the work. work they would give me. It's about the fact that I signed any letter of intent with one agency means no other agency will touch you until that is cleared. Whereas if I do a contract with Ian, I mean, I got to be honest. If I said, you know, Ian, let's do a contract. You're going to be here every day for a year. And then one day Ian's like, I don't want to be here anymore. So it comes in the

show and starts screaming racial slurs. I'd ask him to leave. And then he's like, contracts, there you go. And then I can argue and say, oh, he violated the contract. One of the theories as to Candice Owens claiming Bridget McRone as a man was that she wanted to get out of the contract with Daily Wire. So she started saying things that would intentionally get Daily Wire sued for a lot of money,

forced and then take her show down so they would have to terminate the contract and boot her from the company. Yeah, you're better off letting your employees go than force them to stay under duress a lot of times. Which is why a lot of people have said, like, does anybody at Timcast have like a term contract?

No. They're like, really? Like none of your talent? I was like, bro, if someone hated me and didn't want to be here, you think it's good for the show that we keep them here? No. Imagine this.

Imagine Daily Wire comes to Ian and says, we're going to pay you a lot of money to come on our show instead. And then he goes, I can't. I have a contract with Tim. But man, it's a huge opportunity. Is Ian going to be happy sitting in this chair? Would I be a good friend to be like, no, Ian, I'm sorry. I know it's a great opportunity, but you're stuck.

I would never do that. I would be like, wow. I mean, I hate to lose you, but, bro, if they're offering you like a big thing and a real opportunity, you got to take it, you know? No, I don't have to. I'm using Daily Wire as an example. But like, let's say, let's say a Hollywood studio comes to you and says, you know, like, we're going to offer.

You're going to pay you $6 million, but I'd be gone for eight months, something like that, yeah. And then we had a contract, like, let's say we had a contract where you had to be on the show. Like, Ian can come and goes, he pleases for anyone who's wondering. Let's say we did have a contract where you got to be on every night for a year straight. And then Hollywood purchases you a studio and says, it's a $6 million deal. You're going to be the co-star in an action film. You're the plucky, you know, sidekick. and then he goes, but I do have a contract where I'm already on a show for a year.

Would it be beneficial for me in any way to be like, you can't leave Ian? No. And it would probably be good for you to be like, yo, bro, go get more famous and then I come back. The thing is what I wouldn't do. But hold on, I'm good at business. You'd I'd say, Ian? I'd say, you're getting a $6 million deal. Buy out the contract.

You're good to go. Yeah. So Ian says, okay, we'll cut you in 10K off the $6 million to cover your losses so you can find somebody else. So I don't lose all. We use that money to then... Out of my future contract, it pays off the past contract, buys out the contract, basically.

Right. So basically it's like, you're going to get $6 million against a one-year contract. I would say, pay me the difference I need to find a replacement. So there's no losses and we're good to go. But it would be crazy as if they were like, but in the contract it says you can't work with Tim anymore. Like, I wouldn't do that shit. I don't like signing away. It could say something like you agree to do political shows where you engage in issues

that are contentious and could be derisive, you know, controversial. I don't do well with like stuff that hinders my free speech, my right to speak. Bro, welcome to morality clauses. You can't do things that... And again, I know we're talking about Daily Wire, but I'm pretty... No, no, no, no, no. Morality clause is that you can't do something untoward, period. And I think the Daily Wire has these, too.

I'm not trying to disparage them. But most companies, we don't have these, they have morality clauses that say, if you engage in a behavior that is deemed morally reprehensible or a behavior that could bring disrepute to the company or yourself, we can terminate the contract. Most companies have that because what would you do if like, you know, you had, like, this is the Candace Owens thing. She gets out of the contract by saying these shocking things.

We didn't, we just have, you can just quit at any, either party can terminate at any time. I'm pretty sure. Let's also, while we're at it, getting some clarifications on this beautiful Friday night. There's two NDAs, non-disparagement and non-disclosure. Timcast does not issue non-disperagement agreements. We do have non-disclosure agreements. What is a non-disclosure agreement? this means that individuals who work here will not disclose private trade practices and secrets to other individuals.

That's it. Non-disparagement agreements, which people often confuse, are the ones where they say, you can't badmouth your employer after the fact. Literally, Ian can insult me right now on the show. You stink. You see? Oh, you smell fine. I think I'm smelling my upper lip.

But like if... I'm washing it with this weird soap. If a year from now Ian had left and said it was a miserable place to work and I hated it there, we have nothing stopping him from doing that. We do, however, have something stopping him from saying, here's the actual, like, computer components that he used to get the streaming product built so that our competitors could then build it and come out against us. You know what about, like, here was the workflow of Timcast.

Indeed, that's that. You can't disclose that. So, like, if Ian went out and said, I've drawn a media kit up that explains basically how the show is produced, timing, structure, guests, that we have contracts to stop people from talking about. But then what happens is you get people who've been. go, Tim Poole's got NDAs so weird. My favorite is the personal injury disclaimer that we have at the castle. Oh, yeah, I signed that.

A waiver of liability. Yeah. And people tried claiming these libs were like, Tim Poole makes his guest signs waiver of injury liability to come on his show. And it's like... Because I wield a cane. No, you have to sign a waiver of liability to walk through the skate park. Yeah, there's a skate park.

I've fallen on that thing. And it only pertains to the skate park. Like, we have to have it. as per assurance policy because there is a skate park. But people are just nasty and they lie. But, you know, we got to go to Rumble Rants and Super Chats. And, you know, we're going to do for the next 15 minutes, we have a, unfortunately, we didn't make it. I'm going to start a goal right now.

This only works on YouTube of 50 Super Chats of at least $5 each for the next 15 minutes. And I will play a song. Tim will play a song if we get that. Rumble should introduce that. We already have six. No, it's zero. That one expired. Okay, keep it up.

In the meantime, we'll grab some of your songs. I don't know, maybe if we, is there a song that you could sing that we could play at the same time or no? I couldn't play guitar and sing it. No, no, I could play guitar and then I'll sing and then you can sing and then Ian will try to sing. I don't know. What do you want to do? Carter can sing too. I can also sing.

I don't know. Whatever song you want to do. I don't know. I don't know. I guess something we won't get copyrighted strike. Yeah. Anyway, it's a here we go. Evan for us says huge out to my organization, the YAL.

One of our members, Audrey Lee is running for district clerk in Fort Bend County. She's one of the youngest at 19 to ever run for a position like this. LFG, let's go. There you go. Same old man says, Tim, anyone running in California is most likely a Democrat, even the ones running as Republicans. Look at Carolina as Senator Republican, a Democrat Muslim. Well, yeah, but that was because she ran unopposed and was attacking the position. Yeah, the intent was...

Steve Hilton's conservative. Yeah, the intent in that situation was to actually just, like, get an actual Democrat in. Yeah, Hilton will probably be a bit more moderate. That's okay. But he's not going to be, you know, trans into kids. Well, Chad Bianco did, like, kneel with BLM or something. So that's a problem. Oh, o'h.

Yeah. All right, we got to go on here. There's a lot of I'm sorrys after the craziness of 20s. 2020 and 2021. All right. Troa says, holy crap, what caused the price

of diesel to skyrocket? I went to sleep yesterday. It was $3,033. And woke up to five. Oh, yeah. No idea, man. It's the, it's the hormos,

hormus, something like that. That cheese, hormas, hormones, cheese. Hormel. Hormel.

Hormel. That's chilly. Okay. Right? Yeah. What we got here? Chris Coon says, you guys should have

Matt Tardio from Speak the Truth podcast. He is very knowledgeable in the Middle East, having fought there. He'll be debating the young Turks soon and has been invited on to Fox. Oh, you know, we got two wrapped up in, or I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I got too wrapped up in esoteric business garbage about contracts, but I had fun talking about it, that we didn't play the clip from unsubscribe where they were reading MnKonf. Yeah. Because it's hilarious.

It's absolutely hilarious. They're trying to drag Brennan Herrera because he owns this copy of MNKomp in English, but the whole segment that are talking about it, they're insulting and mocking. Hitler as being retarded. And that's what the media does. It's literally them sitting there, reading a, and it's like this excerpt that from the book where it's like, Hitler tried, his, the first war he lost was with, with grammar. It's a war he had fought for years and was not successful. Like, it was hilariously just insulting Hitler. But the media clips that out and then just shows a little snippet where he's like, yeah, I have mine conf. And they're like,

oh, I was on CNN earlier. These people are absolutely insane. No thine enemy. The basics. I strongly feel like that will not matter to the electorate in Texas. They're trying to win that seat. The Democrats are trying to win that seat back because it's a heavily Hispanic seat that only recently flipped Republican. Well, Herrera. They're trying to bring it back. But Herrera plus MimeConf copy, maybe that'll do it.

What I mean by know that enemy is understand the mind of Hitler if you think that the Nazis were bad so that you can prevent that kind of thing. Or he's just a great character of history. You just want to know what's going. on what were his thoughts what was going through his head you could do these things critically right but it's actually a treasure trove of opportunity to understand like a world war one broken world war one that wants like to rectify a loss of a war because that could happen again well the thing is now though everything's a weapon right so if i can use just you having a copy of mind cop to smear you

or destroy you whatever that's that's what they'll do nothing your intent doesn't matter anymore right So that's the world we live in. Well, I'm saying in... Framing is a powerful weapon. Yeah, people will frame others. They're framing me. Literally now they're framing. They'll tell you what you wanted to do.

This one is not just for me. It's also for Ian as well. Jay George says, Tim, using Magic the Gathering logic to resolve the stack on the Ayatollah's death. First and then, last out. That's right. You know? Man.

They tried to bet as an instant. You're like, nope. We've got to do something. We've got to do something. Magic the Gathering, just bringing in all this. SpongeBob and turtles and everything. It's a shame.

I was just saying the other day. We need a fantasy universe. Eric July with his ripaverse is pretty, very inspirational. But like just a universe that we can build out from. Bro, when they did Ather drift, I was like, well, they jumped the shark. For those that don't know, okay, it's real simple.

Magic the Gathering is fantasy. It's a card game. It's the original first card game. And the game is played. We call it chess and poker combined his strategy game. You draw cards. then you utilize resources to enact effects in the game to try and defeat your opponent.

The theme of the game was largely fantasy-based, dragons, knights, warriors, zombies, etc. And they've had a bunch of wonky ones like Kamigawa Neon Dynasty, which was like Japan Future with neon, and it was kind of weird, but okay. The, what you call it? The Ravnikas set was pretty good, where the intro is kind of like a steampunk vibe. Still kind of fits the fantasy lore stuff. they did ather drift last year I think it was last year or the year before

and it's wizards riding motorcycles and race cars oh god and it was just like what is who does this appeal to kids that grew up on Star Wars episode one maybe I was talking to my friend earlier because I was playing Marvel rivals and I was trying to explain

why everything keeps failing in content and culture and I said so I played EA skate which only has 1,900 players left seriously The original skate game. No, EA Skate that just came out six months ago has only 1,900 active players. Yeah, they're going to, I'm willing to bet they will shut those servers down in like a month.

There's no way they can maintain the cost of those servers on a game with no players. They're making $0. And I was explaining the reason why the game failed is, instead of making a game for skateboarders, which is what you do, which would subsequently inspire friends of those skateboarders, to hang out and play those games, they made a video game for everybody. So instead of skateboarder doing skateboard things, it's like a teenage girl doing teenage girl things. Just like we saw with World of Warcraft the other day where she's going, whew, yay, because

she got her like kettle thing. You mean an EA skate? The girl, like, does her hair and stuff? No, it's like, so what, what's the vibe you think of when you think of a skateboarder? Like flowing clothing, like flying on the ground, kind of? I would say punk rock. like the original Tony Hawk that had all the punk bands, some metal,

Bamar Jarra, that's all the OG big peak skateboarding stuff. And so most skateboarders today are 30-year-old white dudes, and that's just reality. Now, I agree we want to get more people to skateboard, so how do you do it? Well, you need to produce a product for the base that can also be attractive for new people. However, you need a core community first,

which means the product should always be targeting the audience, and then with marketing tools reaching out to new audiences. Instead, so the way I describe it as this. Here's the skateboarding game that I would play. I would play a very vanilla skateboarding game, like the OGEA skate, where a guy's voice or women's voice is fine too, but a guy would probably play better for guys. He says, in order to perform the heel flip,

you hold down on the right thumbstick and then flick upwards towards the right, and that's it. And then you try it. If it doesn't work, it just starts over. And that's it. And you try it again. you try it again, what this game does with all the characters. Well, when the game starts, there's some, like, teenage girl and like a little robot that, like, floats around or something named V.

And when they're teaching you to play the game, when you screw up, it goes, I'll give you a few examples of what's wrong with modern society, and, and why, we got to get the men back in the room. So the character says, let's try doing a heel flip. To do a heel flip, hold the right thumb stick down, and flick upward into the right. So then I go and I do it wrong. And she goes, wow, that was really cool. But let's try a heel flip. To do a heel flip, hold down on the thumb. So then I do a different trick.

And she goes, totally cool trick, really awesome. But do you want to try a heel flip? So there was another mission I was showing my friend, you got to do a manual. And then he goes, wow, man, really good riding. But let's try it with two wheels. And I'm like, I hate these people. I hate them. I hate them.

The game that I want to play is it starts with Bammar Jera, all 50 years old and fat. And he's standing there and he goes, hey, jerk off. Let's see a heel flip, bro. Come on, you're young. Look at me. I'm fat. I can't do it. And I start laughing.

And then you try it and you miss. And he goes, what the heck was that, bro? Come on. This is not hard to do. And then you try to get and you miss. And he goes, dude, are you kidding me? You only have to flick a stick. Come on.

And so there's like edge to it. And it's fun and it's silly. Instead, they keep making everything like Skittles, Candy Cains and Rainbows. And it's just like... It doesn't make sense for skating because skating is a lot about pain. A lot of pain, a lot of adventure, a lot of conquest. And so the original Tony Hawk game

is what people said to me, Tim, it's just that skateboarding is not popular. Stop, wrong. Skateboarding was not popular before Tony Hawk Pro Skater. Tony Hawk Pro Skater made skateboarding popular. So we were all expecting with the new EA skate game, which we expected it to be gritty and realistic,

but not overly edgy, just a sporting game. Instead, it's Fortnite with a skateboard. Not kidding. pastel, yellow, girls running around, giggling and saying like, let's have fun and play. And it's not a sporting event.

So I said this. Would you guys want to watch football? Which football game do you want to watch? Where the guy's going, he's got the pass. He's going, touchdown, let's go! And then everyone's screaming. Or do you want to watch

where the ball's about to throw? And they're going to like, wow, it's really cool. He's going to throw the ball. No, wait. Let's make him wait, because we're going to put up the purple flowers. If the announcers were like,

oh, that was a really good throw, but he missed it. Oh, second down now. Nice job. Let's try, though. I have to, let me find this. That's the way football's going these days anyway. I got to find this article.

Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. We have this article from Vice. It says, this horrifying app undresses a photo of any woman with a single click from June 26, 2019. And this is when I was explaining to some of my friend's advice where everything went wrong. and we're talking about wokeness and how everything was getting cringe

and I said guys you guys ran an article titled this horrifying app undresses a photo of any woman with a single click and they were like yeah and I said do you want to know why your company is bankrupt I said tell me what the title

of that article would have been in 2011 and they were like what this awesome app will undress any woman had the word sex in it and it would have said awesome it would have been like... Or hilarious.

Instead, it became... It's like... We used to have content that was made by the dude with the ripped jean jacket or like leather jacket who was just like, hey, laugh me, dude,

I'm just trying to like do my thing. And then we got content made by the hall monitor, being like, you're not allowed to stand here. I like that you got... Gavin McGinnis was on the show, you know, founder, one of the founders' advice.

That guy is punk rock. That's like he is punk rock. You want to know why. And he left, and he's an edgy guy and he says, It's weird stuff Oh yeah, he's a freak Love you, gee

Let's grab a, he's a good dude I'm a big fan He's a good dude He's a good guy Here we go We'll grab a couple more We got Shadav The Vedmack says

Seven Nations memo Correlates with the Yinnon Plan Into 82 followed by the A Clean Break A New Strategy for Securing the Realm 96 The authors all worked for the Pentagon When the Seven Nations memo was given

It was made for Netanyahu Read More Well how about that? Yeah the clean break memo Yeah What do we have for here? We've got the game says, I had my third kid, Tim. We are winning.

First time, long time on donation. I've been watching since you went on Rogan. Appreciate it, brother. Congratulations. Big dude. Third kid. Wow. Hey, yo.

Mega Bobson says, Tim, your live viewers are dropping. Used to be like 40K. Now it's 15K. Why do you think that is? Maybe multiple nights of you not being here. First of foremost, yes, of course, when I get sick and I can't be here, that will have an impact on. the algorithm as if people don't watch because I'm not here, YouTube won't recommend it tomorrow.

That being said, we're also in a political offseason, and our viewership is actually slightly higher than it was for a comparable period four years ago. Also, I know the memo didn't get out to a lot of people, but we simulcast on Rumble, which had 20,000 concurrence, and we also do promos in the after show there. So, yeah, a year ago, we would get 40K on YouTube. We then did a deal with Rumble and now simulcast, and now we average around 47 to 50K between both platforms every single night. And so the funny thing is people who aren't fans of the show and don't pay attention or don't watch don't understand that.

And they're just like, wow, where is everybody? Well, you know, a lot of them went to Rumble because they didn't like what YouTube was doing. More importantly, Monday through Thursday, when the show on YouTube ends, we all go to Rumble for the uncensored portion. So a lot of people who watch on YouTube slowly just migrate to Rumble, which is kind of the point of doing the deal with Rumble, We don't want to cut off the people who like watching on YouTube, but we want everyone to watch on Rumble.

That was the point. So here's how it works. In 2021, which was the off season after the 2020 election, we were averaging in 2020, literally like 1.6 million views per night per episode. And our concurrence were like 70, 80K per night through the election season. And then four months later, we were doing 27,000 concurrence on average because we're a news and politics show, not in a news and not politics era. It's not until the middle of the midterm year when politics and money starts getting pumped in, the media starts picking up these

stories, interest starts returning in the political space. So we're just not coming off of this and comparable to the four years prior, we've actually been doing about 10 to 12,000 more viewers on average. So we track all the growth for all the channels. We've also made some changes and we're going to be making some changes that I think will make the show a bit more evergreen moving forward. is times they are changing. And if you don't adapt, you die. One thing that we've noticed, which is very plainly obvious, is that it's becoming more and more difficult to book in-person guests because let's just be real. If we hit up a guy with a million followers who has come on

the show before and say, fly out to us. We're in D.C. It's going to be a day trip followed by an hour car ride, a hotel stay. Then you can come on the show and leave. They go, oh, man, they used to say, yeah, let's do it. This will be amazing. Now they say, I got to be honest, like, I'm going to Zoom on Megan Kelly instead because she's also got a big show. So we can't compete with all the shows that are doing Zoom guests. Our network for in-person guests largely are DC-based. And within a couple hours, these are where most of the guests are like, I got no problem driving down. But getting people to fly out is becoming ever more difficult.

As time goes on, more shows are doing more interviews. And it's just impossible to have the in-person conversation. So we're looking at starting with if we want to get bigger guests to engage in the conversation, they're almost exclusively always saying Zoom only. I got like big prominent lefties who have you been like come on the show. They go, can you do Zoom? We go, we don't have Zoom set up. We do it in person.

And they're like, I've got a million followers. I stream every day. I make millions of dollars. I'm not flying out to your studio. That's basically the response we get. So we started, we've built out the mechanism by which now we can have people on the show via Zoom for the duration of the show. We haven't done a test yet. And we're actually going to be doing, I shouldn't say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. We're going to be doing essentially casting

for a new permanent panelist to be on the show, because if we are going to have Zoom guests, they likely will be a half an hour to an hour long, in which case the four seats will be held by the in-person crew. And so we have some individuals that we're talking to to become permanent panelists on the show, started with maybe like three days a week, and then finally five days a week with eventually it may go full digital guests. As for any big names that want to come on the show, they're always welcome to because we have the fifth seat available. But again, like, I'm going to tell you this. I don't want to name drop anybody because I want to be insulting to anybody, but there are Hollywood A-list celebrities in big blockbuster movies

that are pro-Trump that are like, I just can't fly from LA. Can you do digital? And we say no to these people. And so there have been people who have been like, Tim, your guests are just not good anymore. And it's like, because we were purists and wanted to do in person only. Well, if we can get Brad Pitt, but it's only over Zoom, we decided, okay, this is the point where we can't compete. A lot of other shows are all getting massive guests. Pierce Morgan, you know, it's a different kind of show, but he gets a lot, he gets a ton of good debates and guests because people just don't want to travel anymore, just the way it is. So adapt or die. And that's the plan moving forward. We're going to get out of here. We, nobody wants to hear a song, so I do appreciate it.

12 of them did. 12 of them did. So we're going to get out of here, though, and it's been a blast. We're back, of course, next week, and we got a big, big, big show coming up on Monday, the man himself, Brandon Herrera. Very excited for this. And then we've got massive guests all next week. We've got some celebrities

coming on. No joke. Like, is it going to be big stuff? Big stuff, and big collabs are coming for the next couple of weeks. We're going to have a blast. And then big changes, big changes. Another thing I'll add about the Zoom guests, the only reason we've been dealing with the thing of people being like, oh, I don't want to travel anymore.

And we're like, well, you know what? Then who cares? The other consideration is when we were talking about this, the team's then like, you know, it costs us $40,000 per month to fly guests out here. And if we did Zoom, we would save that and spend it on security. And we were like, that's kind of the straw in the camel's bag. We need to find money to keep because security has to go up. We recently had another significant death threat.

So a person published a video, apparently with insider information somehow, threatening to murder me, and it's considered credible forwarded to the FBI. And so all of that stuff's going down right now. So we're constantly having to up our security and things like this. And so we're like, well, you know what? Maybe it's time we actually started doing some digital gas because otherwise we're just not going to get the big names anymore. they're just doing Zoom, and additionally it's expensive.

So that being said, smash the like button, share the show. We're back with clips throughout the weekend. We're back on Monday with a massive, amazing show. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Vish, do you want to shout anything out? Just follow me on X, Ab Vish Burra and TikTok, Ad Vishboro. Thanks for having me, Tim. Man, I'm so grateful to this life.

Thank you for having me be part of it. It's really awesome. I hope we can make the world better. I know we can. So we'll do our best. You do your best. We'll meet up at the end. See you.

I am Phil the Remains on Twix. You can check me out on Patreon. It's Phil It Remains on Patreon. The band is All That Remains. You can follow the band on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, and Deezer. We're going on tour this summer or the spring. We're going out with Born of Osiris and Dead Eyes. You can check out or you can get tickets at All That Remains Online.com.

Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. Carter Banks here. You can follow me over at Carter Banks. Vish, thanks for coming on. It's been a pleasure. Ian, I second what you said to the ether. And, yeah, it's going to be really cool next couple of weeks.

A lot of good stuff, Tim. Thanks for hanging out, everybody. I don't know why Ian's dressed up, but we'll figure out something to do that fits his attire. We're going to go find a party. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see y'all next time.