Timcast IRL - Illegal Immigrant ARRESTED After Shooting At DHS, War ERUPTS In Chicago w/ Dan Dillon

Episode Date: November 11, 2025

Special Guest Host Seamus Coughlin is joined by Phil, Elaad, Shane, & guest Dan Dillon to discuss an illegal immigrant open firing on DHS agents in Chicago, the Trump administration considering denying Visas for fat people, Trump proposing a $2000 stimulus check funded by tariffs, and an Antifa riot erupting at a TPUSA event at UC Berkely.   Hosts:  Seamus  @FreedomToons  | http://twistedplots.com/ Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Shane  @TalesfromtheInvertedWorld  (everywhere) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Dan Dillon @dandillondev (X) | https://babylonbee.com/

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to another very normal episode of Timcast, IRL, where nothing has changed. I am Tim Poole. I've got a really awesome show for you guys tonight. How's everybody doing? We're all good. Everyone's having a good night. Spectacular. Good. Perfect. Well, I, of course am filling in for old Tim. He's not feeling too good today. I actually have a crowdfunding campaign to support, so I put something in his drink to make him sick so that I could be the host all night. Don't tell him. I said that, though. Okay. Now, before we get into tonight's show, He's going to be awesome.

What's that? He's going to watch the show. Not a shame as his hosting. There's no way. There's no way. No, he knows I'm here and I am like nails on a chalkboard to him. He's like, I don't need to hear this. He's like, that's the one benefit he got from tonight.

He does not have to hear my voice. So I don't think he's going to watch this. But you guys are because it's an awesome show. Before we get into it, a word from our sponsors. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor. It is Beam Dream. head over to shop, B-E-A-M-D-com, my friends, slash Tim Pool and pick up your beam dream, your nighttime sleep blend.

Helps you sleep better. I drink this stuff every night. I swear by it. It is delicious. It's got melatonin, magnesium, al-thianine. It is fantastic. And right now, you will get their early Black Friday sale 50% off. I really do think it's fantastic.

And this is legit. I do drink it every single night. My sleep improved. I didn't even know it could improve. And now for the past several months, I've been having. consistently good sleep. And you guys know that I recently had a baby. So that's pretty impressive.

Good stuff. Femdream. It is crowd health. It is open enrollment, the season where health insurance companies hope you'll blindly sign up again for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print. Don't just take someone else's word.

Trust yourself and take control of your future with crowd health. The health care alternative for people who make their own decisions. You can go to join crowdhealth.com and use promo code Tim. Remember, though, crowd health is not insurance. Opt out, take your power back. It's how we win. Healthcare for under $100. You get access to a team of health bill negotiators,

low-cost prescription and lab testing tools, as well as a database of low-cost, high-quality doctors vetted by crowd health. And what if something major happens? You pay the first $500, and the crowd steps in to help fund the rest. It feels like the options we used to have before Obamacare messed everything up.

And of course, you'll join the crowd, a group of members just like you who want to help pay for each other's unexpected medical events. The system is betting. You'll stay stuck in the same overpriced overcomplicated mess. And this year, it's even more complicated because most of the ACA subsidies expire, which means your prices are going sky high. So far, crowd health members have saved over $40 million in health care expenses because they refuse to overpay for health care. This open enrollment,

take your power back, join crowd health to get started for just $99 for your first three months using code tim at join crowdhealth.com. Remember, crowd health is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. It's how we win. Join crowdhealth.com. Code Tim. All right, and we are back at it. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Seamus Coglin. I'm hosting for Tim tonight because he's not feeling well. I have made over 600 animated videos on my channel Freedom Tunes. We have over a million subscribers and over 290 million views with $0 spent on marketing.

Part of the reason I do what I do is because we have the most powerful technological infrastructure for storytelling that has ever existed in all of history and people form their values through stories. This infrastructure is unfortunately entirely owned by people who hate us, who hate our and had our way of life and have been slowly chipping away at it for decades through their propaganda. That's why I've decided to expand my team and expand our role into creating a new full-length animated show called Twisted Plots. It's an animated anthology series which expresses our values as conservatives, not through ham-fisted monologues or preaching, but good jokes and good stories. We are already over 70% funded and we have until Thursday to get the rest of the funding.

Thursday night, as soon as it goes into Friday, the time's over. So if you want to help us save our country, if you want to help us push back against the media, if you want to send the message that the future of entertainment is grassroots in its right wing, go to twisted plots.com, support us at the $25 level, watch our 25-minute pilot episode become a part of the future. Thank you very much. So today's show, we've got a lot of awesome guests. Sitting across for me is one of the CEOs of the Babylon Bee, if you'd like to introduce yourself. CTO of the Babylon Bee. CTO, my apologies.

Co-owner and CTO of the Babylon Bee, my name is Dan Dillon. And I'm also the CEO and founder of Not the Bee, which is the sister site of the Babylon Bee. That is real news. So basically the news that happens six weeks after the prophecies of the Babylon Bee. The Not the B to the B pipeline. It's the pipeline, right? I am Shane Cashman. I'm the host of Inverter World Live.

I'll be running out of here around 9.30 to do my show at 10 on Rumble and YouTube. I will be joined by Viva Fry to talk about the ostrich. massacre in Canada, which is insane. An insane calling of ostriches. Can you just say like five words about that before? Because I don't think we're able to move on. The Canadian government said that these ostriches were a hazard, a health hazard. So to destroy any threat of the avian flu, they went in there and shot all the ostriches.

How long ago is this? Just this weekend. Oh my gosh, this is recent. I believe Viva was on the phone with the owner of the farm as the gunshots were ringing out. So he's got a lot of information about that. We'll be talking about that. And we take phone calls till midnight, so give us a call. Awesome.

Awesome. You have I'll add. Very cool, Shane. Good evening, everybody. I'm Aliaou. I'm the White House correspondent here at Timcast. Phil, how's it going? Hello, everybody.

My name is Philibonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. Let's get into it. And of course, pushing the buttons. We got our boy, Serge. So, first story. Illegal Mexican immigrant with a rap sheet arrested for shooting out border patrol agents during a Chicago raid.

An illegal immigrant from Mexico was, arrested after he allegedly opened fire at border patrol agents during a weekend raid in Chicago, which also saw protesters lobbying bricks at the feds. Now, here's the thing. Here's the thing. And this is just my personal perspective, New York Post. I think when you're lobbying bricks, you're no longer protesters. I think maybe at that point you graduate into rioter territory. I don't think that throwing bricks at law enforcement is a legitimate form of protesting. You're missing. Loving sounds like they're playing catch. Yeah, exactly. Like, they're just lobbying.

That was, I can't remember which outlet it was, but when they were talking about Jay Jones, they said he was musing. He was musing about those children dying. Oh, just musing? Okay. The man who was not identified allegedly drove up alongside agents during an imminent raid in Chicago's little village and fired a few rounds before speeding off in a jeep. Now, again, I just want to be clear.

When a bunch of people show up to the location where a law enforcement raid is going to occur and start throwing bricks at police officers and one of them starts shooting at the police, that is not a protest. That is obstruction of law enforcement. and that is a riot. That's a gunfight. That's a gun fight at that point. You're absolutely correct.

I want to know why the law enforcement officers were not engaging the suspect. Yeah, good question. I imagine, and I don't know what the logistics of it were. Maybe they were in the crowd and they were afraid of shooting at the crowd with other people in there. It doesn't stop New York City cops.

And it didn't stop them from murdering Ashley Babbitt. It didn't stop them from murdering Ashley Babbitt. That's true. Where did the bricks come from, too? That's a good question. I mean, well, these always seems like, there's a pile of bricks. Well, I don't know if you know this, but immigrants built America, so they have a lot of bricks flying around to continue to do the business of building our country.

Chicago is falling apart, so there are bricks from the brick buildings falling apart, laying around all over it. Like, even if you look at the picture here in the New York Post article, look at that dilapidated building. You could tell like bricks are kind of falling off from the left of that window. Do they're just like taking a pick out of the building and lobbing it? Well, like, I'm assuming their homes are, they're already falling apart. Like half a brick might be on the floor already. but I think throwing things like rocks or bricks, what is it? It's deadly force, potentially. Yeah, of course.

They should respond proportionately to the deadly force being brought upon them. If they get hit in the head by one of these bricks, it's not just a scratch. You could die from a brain average or what have you. And this is one of the stories that the boomer generation got one-shotted by was Kent State. And what they never told you is before those students got shot, they were they were lobbing rocks. they were literally lobbing rock. Here's a general rule. If you don't want to get shot,

don't throw rocks at people with guns. I think that that's a fair enough. That won't necessarily guarantee you don't get shot, but I think if you throw a rock at someone who has a fire harm, the likelihood is they're going to feel a need to defend themselves. Now, I also think, of course,

a huge part of this is the rhetoric surrounding this issue has paved the way for this kind of obstruction and violence to continue to occur into worsen. We're told that ICE agents and the people are trying to enforce immigration law from within our borders, our criminals, they even call them Nazis, our Gestapo. And so this is kind of what we should probably expect to see, unfortunately. Sure.

They're also saying some of the rhetoric they're using that they're kidnapping these illegal migrants, which I think the rhetoric is crazy. I think this is a successor movement to defunding the police. Defund the police is no longer popular, but now they're using all that angst and anger that they had in that movement towards ICE and DHS agents around the country. I think you're totally right because it is the exact same rhetoric. You take something that legitimate law enforcement does and then you apply the label to it that you would apply to it if a citizen who is acting as a vigilante were to engage in that behavior. People feel emboldened to agitate and prevent DHS and Border Patrol and other ICE agents from doing their like lawly prescribed duty.

These are law enforcement. They're enforcing the law out here. And it's crazy how often protesters are willing to agitate and get in their way. It's also fascinating that DHS has chosen not to arrest. many if at all of these agitators. I have seen that they have had DOJ indictments against some elected officials and people who are running for public office.

For example, in New Jersey, there's La Monica McIvor. She is a freshman Democrat, Congresswoman. From somewhere in New Jersey, she was blocking one of the ice facilities, and she put her hands on an officer. She was indicted for that. Then there's also Kat Abu Zagala from

Chicago who's running outside Chicago. She also received an indictment for obstructing justice, allegedly. I'd need to to look up the specific thing that they're indicting her for. But it seems as, oh, you need to be a popular politician or an influencer to get indicted. If you're just a regular agitator. My favorite was the guy who threw the sandwich. Remember that?

Oh, yeah, he got off. He did get off, but they did at least arrest him. I mean, they arrested him. They put him through the son. He had to hire a lawyer and defend himself. So I don't know if the process is the punishment here, which I don't agree that the punishment. No, yeah, the process shouldn't be the punishment.

If you're breaking the law, then the punishment should be the punishment. If they can't get to you, then the process is the punishment, because it's still a bitch to have to go hire a lawyer and the DOJ is coming after you and I can't imagine it's good for your public record to even have that out there publicly. Why do you think DHS isn't doing enough about this? Why do you think they're not arresting people at the ground level?

They don't want to inflame tensions even further. I believe that if they begin arresting people then like the videos going viral will be of them being physical with protesters and they're fearful that that might agitate them further. This is their way of calming the crowd, if you will. That is not going to work. And it has not.

work. We have evidence in 2020, the summer of 2020, when all the riots were going on, there was a federal building literally under siege for like 90 days or 100 days. And they didn't do anything definitive. They didn't do anything to actually stop the siege because they were afraid of the way that it would be perceived. This light touch with protesters and with the left, it is not going to work. They will not stop. They are going to continue to inflame tensions as much as they can. It is time for the government, for the federal government, to use all of its authority to put an end to this behavior.

End it. They have all the authority they need. I'm not talking about doing anything illegal. I'm not talking about hurting people or violating their rights, but you absolutely can arrest people and stop. this absolute trash behavior. I agree. I think what inflames and emboldens violent criminals is getting away with it. If there's anything we've been taught by history and also statistics about recidivism rates, if they get away with it, they keep doing it. And this whole, we're just going to halfway stop them. We're just going to half save the country, right? Because

we don't want to offend the people who want to destroy it too much. It doesn't work. It's never going to work. If you fight, have a revolution, you dig your own grave. And so we're telling these people, they can continue to do what they're doing by not enforcing the law thoroughly. And I totally agree with you. A, the left never felt a need to take this approach with the right. They were going after grannies who wandered into the Capitol after a police officer opened the door for them on January 6th. But secondly, we're getting the worst of both worlds where it feels like a lot of these White House social media accounts will post these edgy edits, which I think are funny, right? But they are inflammatory to a degree. But then they

won't step in and enforce the law because they think that's too inflammatory. So they're doing things to kind of like rally the troops and get us pumped up. Dude, I don't want to see another edit made by some zoomer with heavy bass playing while people get arrested. I want you to actually go out and arrest the people who are breaking the law because that video is going to be a great memory for me when the left takes over because you didn't do enough. And now we're all locked in prison for standing up for the truth and freedom.

They are behaving as if the left is going to. to have something new to accuse them of, as if the left is not already calling them Nazis, as if the left is not already accusing them of being terrorists. Literally, I saw someone tweeting that the DHS was acting like terrorists. Doesn't matter what they say. And you should not take into account how they are going to respond one bit because they're already doing it. This is something that we, this is an argument we make here on the show all the time. You cannot worry about the fact that the Democrats or the left are going to say X because they're already saying it. You can't worry about what the Democrats are going to do if you do something because they're already going to do something worse when they get into power again.

You need to exercise power and you need to stop this behavior. That is what the government is, that's what the mandate the government has is supposed to do. They're supposed to make sure that this behavior is not. not allowed to continue to metastasize across the country. I think, sorry, you haven't had gotten much of a chance to talk and you were going to say something. No, I was just going to say, I mean, I was raised. I don't know how you guys were raised, but I was raised to not throw things at police officers. And my expectation growing up in the United States would be that if you did, you would get arrested and it would be serious.

But it seems like anything revolving around immigration and the enforcement of immigration laws for some reason is just handled in a different way, right? Like, I mean, seriously, throwing a brick at a police officer or any, it's insane. I never had to be told that. I was never told by my parents, don't throw rocks and breaks at police officers. Well, I'm glad you never did it. My parents were very specific. They just told me to run.

Well, this is what happens. Run really fast from the cops. Well, this is what's normal is every parent, you know, they know at a certain age they have to give their child the talk. Don't throw bricks at police officers talk because people will just do that unless they're informed. Phil's right. I mean, these people were rewarded all throughout the summer of 2020.

Yeah, they got their way. Politicians, Kamala's people were donating. bail money to arsonists. We saw people get shot in the head, you know, and people were celebrating the death. So you have to show force to help protect people. The New York City thing where they beat the cop and then they just get released the next day.

And it's like if I beat a cop, I would not be released the next day, right? No. But I'm an American citizen here legally and all this other stuff. I don't understand why it's... You'll be a terrorist. They're freedom fighters.

People who were not even at January 6th were charged with conspiracy and one of the emotionally manipulative tactics the left used throughout the entire persecution of their political enemy process was, well, you know, there were police officers who were harmed on January 6th. It's like, oh, yeah, you guys care so much about law enforcement. People are literally throwing bricks at cops and you're sitting there going like, well, it's civil disobedience.

They're fascists. How many feds were at J6? Yeah, exactly. 275. Well, here's, let's not take away from the Patriots who were protesting the unfairly stolen election at January 6th. Based? Yeah, no, I feel like we like to whitewash.

You know, that was the. Those riots were really the voice of the unspoken. What was the MLK line? Oh, the MLK, exactly. He says, rioting is the language. The unheard of the unheard at January 6th. I hate when people try to, you know, sugarcoat this as feds. No, this was a Patriot organized riot essentially.

As somebody who covered it, I saw Patriots stopping agitators on video. And those agitators, I believe, are feds, who were smashing windows. And people who were there to protest, actually protest, not what these guys are doing, we're telling them, don't do that. Yeah, I'm going with MLK on this one. Fed, Fed, Fed. I'm going to say, shouting.

Fed, Fed, everyone pointed Elon and yelled Fed. MLK was a communist, amen, philanderer. Well, here's the other thing, too. After the 2020 rights, what did we hear every single day as buildings were being burnt down and people were being murdered

and you'd see videos of people crying on camera, why are you doing this? Why are you destroying the business? I worked my whole life to build. These pundits would get on television and they all go, er, I answer the language of the unheard. It's because we are not listening

to these people. And then January 6 happens. We're talking about the election being stolen. And that was the language of the unheard. Well, but then, well, this is so funny because they kept saying the reason these riots are happening is because we're not listening to them. And then January 6th happens and they go, the reason those riots happen is because we were listening to them. We need to shut all these people down, kick them off social media, throw these people in jail. So the whole thing's nonsense.

It's ultimately just their friend-enemy distinction. They're saying we like the rioters. We don't like the people who are opposed to them when those rioters are on our side. It has nothing to do with tactics. So it's unfortunate. It's horrifying. And the last question I have before we move on to our policy expert, Shane, who's, you know, he's, Shane, as you guys know, is a think tank guy who's spent a lot of time in the halls of academia

working with these prestigious institutions. I just want to ask you. Oh, think tank. I thought you said. Shane is very much like an establishment guy is what I'm trying to say. Shane is like our establishment voice piece that we have here. And so I want to hear, what is your policy prescription? What would you do about this? About people throwing bricks at cops? Oh, man. Well, the people throwing bricks of cops, they got to go to jail. I mean, you're going to take them away. They were, a lot of these people are radicalized in the universities. When I was in college as a professor.

Of course, yeah. And as a student, I saw Marxist ideology being bashed. These kids were being bashed over the head with it. They were saying communist China is great. The culture revolution is a good thing. You have to tear down the old institutions to put in your new institution. And they hate capitalism. They hate anything that goes against their cult.

So these people think they're doing that. right thing like I'm saying they think they're the freedom fighters they think they're the heroes and they're also bloodthirsty because they do look at the culture revolution as a good thing which was an insane bloodbath right chopping heads off of people who were speaking out against the establishment there they're the new jackabins they're the modern jackabins yeah so you think they need to be arrested locked up if they're doing stuff like violence I'm all for protesting but this is rioting I agree if you're terrorizing citizens and you're hurting police you know you got to you got to be punished for sure

I agree. So, and this is coming from our, like, established. Is that a good establishment answer? Well, the reason I want to ask is, I'm asking the establishment guy. Now, as you all know, we have Eliad, who's like kind of an outsider. He doesn't trust the institution. He doesn't trust the institution. It really is always talking. He thinks the moon is fake. He thinks the moon is fake.

And the Fed, we never went there. Eliad, is someone on the opposite end of the spectrum, what do you think needs to happen to people who throw bricks at police officers? Yeah, I think they need to be arrested, detained, and then held to the fullest extent of the law. Which is crazy. So we have two people from a complete opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to approach, who are saying, these people need to be thrown in prison. Why? Because it's common sense. People throwing bricks of cops need to go to jail.

This is insane. Why do we have to talk about this? I was saying that all through 2020. Like there should have been more to take these people off the streets and said we saw, I was in New York still near Newburgh, New York, and there were people bashing in windows going crazy. And that city is so captured by a lot of leftist ideology, the small businesses who were destroyed had their windows bashed out would put up plywood the next day saying, we forgive you. Oh my gosh.

And that wasn't unique to just Newburgh, New York. You could see that all across the country. And before the protests, they were putting up signs saying, like, we support BLM. Please don't break my window. Literally. My window. Black lives still matter. Yeah, exactly.

Goodness gracious. Well, speaking of this very contentious issue of immigration and illegal immigration, this illegal alien invasion and keeping foreigners who break the law off of our streets, there may be some illegals who were not showing up to the protests who were less likely to on account of their weight. and Donald Trump's actually calling them out specifically. I'm curious which specific problems is going to solve. Maybe it's a question about maintaining our health care system.

But the short of it is, the U.S. may deny visas for fat foreigners. A memo sent to embassy, I'm sorry, to embassy, says health condition should be taken into consideration when processing applications. Foreigners could have their U.S. visas rejected if they are obese. Interesting. I do think it's a state. Oh, sorry, I just want to read one more sentence here. The State Department said conditions that could cause an additional burden on the state could be grounds to refuse a visa application. I'm not sure if you guys saw, but Donald Trump referred to high-calorie persons, which I thought was a great way of putting it.

I wish she busted that out in 2016. I wish he busted that out in 2016. High-calorie Hillary, no way she can win. They say too big to fail, well, she failed at winning that election. But what were you going to say, Phil? I do think that it is acceptable to have some policies just because it's funny. Yeah. Yeah, I think being fat should be illegal.

I mean, look, if you know that there are people that are going to consistently be screaming for Medicare for all, if Medicare for all is going to be a thing, then all of your nutrition decisions are public policy. That is an undeniable fact. If the government, if the taxpayer is going to pay for your health care, then the food that you eat is the business of the taxpayer. Now, I'm against this entirely. I'm against single payer health care. I'm against the government being involved in what you put into your body. But if this is something that the people are going to demand, then the people are going to have a say in how much you sit on your ass and don't do anything. the people are going to have a say in what you have in your refrigerator that is unquestionable,

that is going to happen. I just think that this is lazy law enforcement because they know they're going to be easy to catch. They're like, if we have to deport them, it's not going to be very hard. The transportation might be a little more difficult to get them out of the country, but it'll be easy to round them up, pun intended. We're going to need bigger like vehicles. The other point I wanted to make here too is you're absolutely right.

Listen, if you're going to come to our country because you receive health care benefits, which they do. This is part of why we were talking about the shutdown. If they get temporary protected status or even if they enter to illegally, they're declared to have been here legally. Non-citizens can collect health care and they can receive some of these benefits. When people are overweight, they're an extra, they're an additional burden on the health care system. This is something that future Mayor Mom Donnie made remarks about in his speech. There is no issue too small for the government to care about. He said that in his acceptance speech the other night. And these people are big. Yeah, they are. But the point that he was making is the government will have a say in every part of your life.

That is not something that is up for debate. That is not something that we're going to question. If the left has their way and if the government is going to say, oh, we're going to provide you with health care and health, you know, with Medicare for all, they are going to be involved in what you eat they're going to be telling you citizen you have not done enough exercise etc etc now yeah what do you think of this alad I will say this I don't necessarily

degree with the laws on disagree with laws on principle but I do think it is a little bit ironic because Americans on average are a lot fatter than most on average of people of any other country you want us to get bigger you want to make that problem worse but I think even a fat

person from another country might be bringing the weight average down. Moreover, Americans have the highest per capita health spending among high income nations and still have the worst health outcomes. So it's just ironic if other countries were to start, you know, advancing legislation like this, it'd probably hurt Americans a whole lot. So I just think it's a little bit ironic from that point of view because we are very fat Americans and I talk to more trash about fat Americans, but there are probably a lot of fat Americans in our audience and I don't want to... You're bigger than you. I don't know more people off than I already have. I think you understand that we're fat people. Yeah, but that would make more. sense for why we want to limit it. It's like if we had a bunch of people who were suffering from some other physical illness. I don't think this is a real issue. You don't think it's a real issue? I think Americans more. I think that overweight people cost more in taxpayer money for the health insurance? They do, but I think it's a, I don't think this is what's burdening our health care system. It's fat Americans who are burdening our health care systems, unfortunately. And I'll say

that as somebody who's a little bit overweight myself. I could afford to lose a few pounds. But this, you know, stopping more, yeah, I don't disagree with, you know. With these laws on principle. You just wanted to take a moment to call your fellow Americans fat. It's still ironic because there's a reason why we have these poor health outcomes. And like, you know, there's a part of the bigger picture, too, because, you know, the issue with having a single payer health care system or having Obama care or what have you is that our costs are so high. Why are our costs so high? It's because Americans are so unhealthy?

That's generally. Why are Americans so unhealthy? Because we're so fat. We're really fat. So I feel like we're pointing the finger at some other countries. It's like, yeah, you can't get in here. But it's like we're a fat dude. Well, you think of not just.

Do you think we're fat shaming or that this is just reasonable public policy? I want to hear the guess because he hasn't had much. The only reason that our health care costs are so high is not just because we are unhealthy, but it's also because we have so many immigrants in our country that are going to the emergency rooms and using our health care system, whether they're actually collecting Medicare or not. They're in the emergency rooms. They're getting care before we are. And in reality, you know, like a person who's coming in who's significantly over.

obese, you know, they're going to come in and use that health care significantly more than... I don't disagree with you. I think two things can be true at once, though. Illegal immigration burdens our health care system. Americans being generally unhealthy, morbidly obese, very overweight. 100%. We're known for being very fat. Is what leads to more unhealthy outcomes, which leads us to have the worst health outcomes,

despite spending the most per capita. And look, we love to eat here. Everything's bigger in Texas. You know, we love our Texas barbecue and whatnot. We love our fast food, and there's consequences for that. But it feels like we're pointing the finger at, you know, fat foreigners. Nope. And we're fatter in many ways ourselves.

We can do whatever we want. Because I can have a preference for my own people. If someone has a couple extra patriot pounds on their body, they're a little bit overweight. Look, potatoes are dense, dense, and they are my ally. And I am more. Potatoes are very calorie dense. And if you eat too many, you know, and you fry them and one thing could lead to another. All I'm saying is a couple extra patriot pounds, even though you're right, it might burden our health care system.

those are Americans. Those are Americans. We shouldn't accept fatty's. I don't disagree. We shouldn't accept faties, but we also need to deal with the domestic fatties. So you love RFK's policies about getting rid of some of these unhealthy additives? I don't know if that's what's making us so fat. A lot. Trump's passing out Ozempic now, so it's going to be fine. You bring them and give them Ozemp. I think there will be medical consequences to Ozempic, but if those aren't outweighed by the issues of obesity, I think it's a tradeoff.

like what's worth the side effects of Ozempic are you being 200 pounds overweight? We have the scientific evidence of the being 200 pounds overweight is extremely detrimental to your health. So that's the, you know, the pros and cons that people have to weigh when taking these drugs. I will say Trump RX

did just try to reduce the costs of all of these drugs, all of these GLP1 inhibitors, so-called drugs. I'm against that. For diabetes. I'm against Ozempic, but that's another story. Okay, nice. Well, I was just saying, if these people managed to get so overweight before coming to these, United States. I can't imagine what's going to happen.

Also I was going to say, I get here and start eating Popeyes. Maybe the wall has to have an entrance that's a little bit thin so you really have to squeeze through it. Wait, why? We're like, we're ACA compliant everywhere across the United States. You could be gigantic. You could require three doors and it feels like we will really accommodate

anything, no matter how fat you are. Or our fellow American. For our fellow Americans, but no, if you're a Florida... I'm allowed to prefer that. I'm allowed to prefer my fellow American. I've been trying to start a petition. I'm fat phobic across the board. It doesn't matter if you are a foreigner. I've been trying to start a petition for the border to be an American Ninja Warrior course so they can actually do some work, you know, lose those

pounds before they get here and really... I want a moat. I don't want them to get over. Well, moat's fine too. A moat plus that. What do you think the Rio Grande is? It's not enough, clearly. It's not enough great answer. You're talking to you want an ocean then is what you want. Yeah, well, there's, there is one more thing I want to mention about this as as far as the healthcare system goes. Elad, where I do agree with you and where you are correct is that we have unique health situation in the United States. People are very unhealthy because of what we're eating, because of what's in our food. And oftentimes people will say, how is it that the United States has such expensive health care, even though it's a private market? Well, guess why? Like, it's not like,

if you have, the ACA is a big part of it, actually. But if you have a country where people have these chronic health issues because our food is very, very bad, then of course health care costs are just going to be much higher. Do you blame the food? I think the food's a big part of it. And I'm not just blaming the food. I do think overconsumption is a real issue as well. I'm not saying it's completely out of people's hands and it's nobody's fault when they they gain weight or become overweight, not making that argument. But what I am saying is we do have an obesity crisis that is going to make health care more expensive. And I'm so sick and tired of people pointing to some small country with like a couple million people and they're all in great shape and saying

their health care is really cheap. It must be because they have a public private system that mandates purchasing within the insurance marketplace or they have a single payer system, whatever. I'm like, I don't think that's what I'm. Why? I'm jealous. Yeah, I'm super jealous. Also, one more thing I'll point out before we move on. Almost no one in the world has single payer. There are many universal healthcare systems.

Almost nobody has single payer. So let's say we need to go to single payer so we can solve this crisis and we can get people insured. Countries with universal health care systems almost always have some form of a private market that the state mandates you to purchase from or that they'll redistribute tax money for you to purchase from. That's not the same as single payer. One last tidbit on this. I think there's a balance between there are a lot of things that are making people

obese in our country nowadays. I think people are blaming it too much on the food. You can count your calories. I think people need to take more personal responsibility when it comes to their weight. It's not just, you could find and eat the correct foods and not be fat. You could count your calories to not be fat. And you could exercise.

You could do 10,000 steps a day and choose a correct diet and not be fat. We're not forced into this. There isn't crazy food out there that's forcing you to be fat. We're not force feeding you. Hold on. you're you're correct but i do want to point out if you have an improper diet if you have a bad diet you are not going to be able to do enough cardio enough exercise to defeat that diet you cannot cardio away for five thousand calories a day yeah i just think people have endless excuses

for being fat every day every time i talk to a fat person there's a new BS excuse it's like oh it's in the food oh i don't have enough time to cook my own meals oh i don't know how it happens oh, I have a slow metabolism. It's like, oh, you won't choose to make better decisions for your life. You're taking every opportunity to jump back into another fat-phobic rant, Eliad. What if we're just big-boned, a lot? Fat-phobia is the right attitude to have. Fat-phobia is the correct attitude to have.

This is maha. It's like the proper maha. Well, I think at the end of the day... Now it is, but it shouldn't be. I think at the end of the day, what we could all agree on is, even though our food supply is terrible and something needs to be done about it, people need to cultivate virtue, people need to live their lives in a way that prioritizes moderation and not overconsumption. I'm trying to create a show that I think is going to help distill some of these values and people.

Go to twisted plots.com. Help us get funded. Next story. Trump has made a relatively controversial statement here. I'm curious to hear how everyone at this table thinks about it. Trump proposes a 50-year mortgage plan as housing costs more. The plan would lower and elongate the monthly payments needed to buy. a home. The American Dream may have just gotten a five-decade payment plan. This is from ABC News. President Trump, President Donald Trump, excuse me, has suggested creating a new 50-year mortgage plan as a way to encourage young people to buy real estate, according to a post on his true social platform.

The U.S. Director of Federal Housing Bill also replied on X, oh, I'm sorry, yeah, the Director of Federal Housing replied on X saying that the agency was working to institute the new housing proposition, thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on the 50-year mortgage. a complete game changer. Well, I agree that it's a game changer for sure. It's a little bit vague on how it's going to change the game. I don't think it's going to change the game in a way that helps Americans. What people don't realize is before the Great Depression happened,

mortgages generally were less than 10 years in term, usually around five years. And what happened was you put down 50% of the money and it was a balloon payment. So you only paid interest throughout that loan term. And then when it matured, you had to either have the rest of the 50% that the property was valued at or that you owed the bank in order to pay it off or you had to create another deal with the bank, which is what most people did. You had to refinance or you lost the house. Now, most people would just refinance indefinitely. And then the Great Depression hit and then a bunch of people lost their houses. So the government started meddling in the housing market. And with the new deal, we got the FHA and a number of different ways that we've sort of regulated home lending. Now, since that time, the price of a house adjusted for inflation, it's done something like four to five times the numbers. It's multiplied around four to five times. It's accelerating. Yeah.

And people can say, well, houses today are way better than they were at that time. They're larger. And sure, you can make the argument that they're larger. I don't think the construction materials are as good. But let's just say houses really are that much better. Well, in the private marketplace, basically everything has gotten better without exploding four to five times in price. So what happens is when you expand people's borrowing power, they are able to afford a larger house because they're only paying it off in small snippets at a time.

And then eventually what happens is you bring prices up. So I'm curious what all of you think about that. If anyone disagrees with me and how you feel about Trump trying to institute this. I think the 50-year mortgage is insane. I think that, you know, I firmly believe that we should be empowering people to make good decisions in their lives. I think that a 50-year mortgage is a really bad decision. I think that when you look at the amortization schedule for a 50-year mortgage, you don't actually start paying principal on these things for like 30 years.

So you get to the 30-year point before you even actually start paying principal. So you're just renting the house. I mean, you don't actually own the house. But Babel and B, I had to share this because we published it this morning. One of our headlines is Dave Ramsey in critical condition after learning of 50-year mortgage. And I feel it. You know, this is not one of those things. There are a lot of things Trump does where I'm like, I voted for that.

I voted for that. This is not one of those things. It's just like, this just seems unnecessary. It's, you know, we're putting people in worse financial situations. It's not, you're not actually owning the home. There's something about passing these things down to future generations and stuff like that, too. It's more debt. It's like, more debt.

More people, just the entitled, but American becomes more entitled. Just to steal me in the argument, right? Not that I'm for it, but just because I want people to kind of think about the, the entirety of the situation. Like the goal is to get young people into houses that they can afford. And ostensibly, the plan would be you get into this house, right? You start paying for it. And then you refinance at it for a shorter term when you become established.

Right. You financially have more resources. You have a better job. What have you. And I think that I don't think that this is a good idea. I think that this will end up with a ton of. a ton of bad negative externalities

but I do think that the idea to try to come up with means for people to for young people to own homes is better than doing nothing and the reason I say that is because right now young people have no

reason to buy into a capitalist society right? They don't if you have no assets you have no money you have nothing but debt you're going to look at your situation you're going to say capitalism doesn't work. I'm going to say that our system of property rights. I own no property.

So I don't care about. I don't buy it. Exactly. So they have to do something. And again, I'm not saying that this is the proper solution. If your goal was just to get people into it, and this is true,

it's kind of just arbitrary. Well, it stops you at 50 years. Why not do 100? I mean, you're not going to live in the house in 50 years. You're not. It's not going to last 50 years with the way they're building new construction. So it's like where do you stop it? Is it a 200-year mortgage?

It's like there's, if that, is really the goal, then 50 years doesn't seem like long enough. Just make it as cheap as possible. I agree. I just want to, before you jump in a lot, I want to respond to you because I agree that this is probably being approached by Trump and some others around him with good intentions. I certainly don't disagree with that. The problem is it's not like you're going to be taking housing costs where they are and spreading that over 50 years. People are going to have more purchasing power so the house is going to get more expensive. That's the issue. And people are going to feel as if they can afford the house when it actually is truly unaffordable for them because

it's spread out over such a long loan term. And then on top of that, you're not going to get the much-needed market correction of housing coming back down in price, which is difficult for the economy in the short run. But if we want young people to be able to buy into the economy to have houses to own property, it's necessary. And this would only stave it off. We would just be throwing a bandit on the problem that would make young people debt slaves instead of giving the opportunity to purchase houses and a more reasonable loan term and a more reasonable price. But, Eli, you were going to say something. Yeah, so I'm a neocon and not an economist, so maybe one of you guys can correct me.

It highly depends on what the interest rate will be, right, for these 50-year mortgages, because it's different for those versus like a 15-year mortgage, right? If it's super low of an interest rate, hypothetically, I think it could make more sense. I don't know. I don't know if we'll ever, I don't know if property taxes are. Two percent is a hype dream, but a decade ago they had 2% interest rates on some of these 15-year mortgages, I believe. If they could get them that low, then I think they could make sense. Otherwise, I generally agree with you guys.

Property taxes are also robbery. In New York, in New York before we left, it was like 18 grand for like two acres, upstate New York, right? It's insane, dude. It's insane. You're getting taxed on your income, and then you're having to buy a house and you pay tax when you purchase the home, and then you're being taxed continuously every single year on the purchase that you made for taxed money.

I mean, it's just that's insane. It's sickening. One thing I'll say, and here's what I'll disagree with you. a lot. Let's say that you do have a very low interest rate. That carries with it even though there's less, even though that sort of solves the problem of the person being a slave to the bank with respect to how much interest they're paying over the course of the 50 years, it exacerbates the problem of them having more purchasing power because the lower the interest rates are and the more purchasing power you have, the more the market is going to skyrocket. So even if you're only

paying 2%, houses would just explode in value because of that. Yeah, money would be cheaper. Therefore, people would demand more of it. It would be inflationary too. Yeah. One thing on property taxes is I understand local governments are largely funded by those property taxes and wouldn't have anywhere else to like siphon that money from. So I like I largely disagree like I'm pissed off when if I had to pay property tax, I don't I rent. But like that's what it goes to funding. Also I think that's like most of the public schools are funded. I also think it goes to public schools. Sure. But I mean, I don't want to I don't want to fund public schools. That's how the system is set up. Just to respond to you too. I mean, I'm I'm not a banker. But. I believe that the way the whole system is set up is that the shorter the term, the lower the interest rates, not vice versa. I don't believe that these would have low interest rates. I think these would have higher interest rates than their year mortgage significantly. Yeah, I think so too.

Because you just hide it in the term. And then because also you've got to consider the bank as saying, I will do, like I am giving this money out for 50 years. In order to be able to keep up with inflation across that time period, they would need a massive interest rate. So I think it would just be an insanely high interest rate. Yeah, I don't think it would be a good situation. And what you mentioned about property taxes funding local governments, this is part of the issue with the way our system set up today. It's completely upside down. In theory, the way things should be is your highest tax burden should be for your local community. And it should not be that high. It should probably even be lower than it is now. But the idea that the majority of your taxed income goes to the federal government is completely insane. Like, realistically, your tax money should be going to the things in your immediate vicinity that actually improve your life to a measurable degree. And then the people, you know, hundreds of miles away and walk. Washington, they should be getting like maybe pennies on the dollar with respect to how much your tax. Maybe if that a hey penny on the dollar for those functions.

But of course, it's completely backwards. You're working something like, what, one out of five days out of your work year just for the government. So one day out of your entire week is literally just for your federal taxes. It's backwards. It's totally upside down. Totally upside down. But I'm curious, does anyone have anything else to say about this issue before we move on to another story here? So are you going to buy a crib with the 50-year...

No, I'm thinking I want to finance as much as possible with the 50-year mortgage, and I'm actually waiting for the 50-year Uber Eats loan so that I can just start putting those payments off. On payment on dinner. Exactly. I think what we should do is we should have an economy where people are as in debt as possible for as long as possible. What do you think, Phil? I think that anything that the federal government does to try to alleviate the suffering of young people, the economic suffering of young people right now

is a good thing for the country because there are so many people that no longer believe in America. Young people do not believe in our system and it is because of the behavior that the banking industry and the government has had for the past 15 years.

Ever since the 2008 crash, the government has been, and actually no, before that, but it's become acute since the 2008 crash. The government has, behaved incredibly irresponsibly. I completely agree. So we have to do something as a society, like our government has to do something because they're the ones that have the levers of power.

They have to do something to make sure that young people have a reason to buy into America. There has never been a generation that believes in America less, believes in our system less. And so we need to do something to ameliorate their problems, to help them, to give them a reason to believe in America. I'm with Phil. I don't agree with this policy, but I know people can't afford houses right now. They don't think they can have a family, and there's just widespread suffering. So I want to see those people get help, and getting a house could help you build a community

and all those things. The other thing, though, is, I mean, I agree that we should be making efforts to make things easier on young people to live the American dream. But, like, here's a 30-year mortgage versus a 50-year mortgage on a $410,000 house. 6.5 interest rate on 30 year, $3,200 a month payment. 7% interest on a 50 year is a 3,088 a month payment. So, I mean, you're $120 a month. That's not...

For 20 years of your life! 20 years of your life to be owned by a bank! Dude, for like $200 a month, it's insane. It's insane. That's not helping the person. That's not. The policy's not going to help. I want the 3,000-year mortgage.

Yeah, let's see. Here's what I think should happen. We should do a generational mortgage. The 3,000-year mortgage, we'll call it the Maloney. of the mortgage and what will happen is you'll borrow it from the bank and if you can't pay it off and your descendants can't pay it off, by the time you're dead, they'll just upload your brain into Neurlink and you'll work on spreadsheets for a couple millennium for like, you know, $75 a week until the loan is eventually paid off.

Better than the system in China, which allegedly is I think you can only do 99-year leases on land. You don't own it. So you, at least we still have the property rights here. You can do a 99-year lease. On the land. If you don't pay your property taxes, you don't actually own it. They take it away from you.

So you don't actually own it. Yeah, but I mean, to be, to be fair, just again, so we're, we're, everyone's on the same page. Property taxes are not a federal thing. Property taxes are state by state. So it depends on what state you're in. And the amount that you're going to pay depends on a lot of things. New York is way more than West Virginia. Yes, way, way, consider.

Yeah, but I mean, West Virginia, you're compared to New York. I mean, the services in New York are a lot better than. I'm talking about upstate New York. West Virginia is a lot better than New York. But again, now this policy might not be the right solution. In every way. Every way. Not in per capita.

I mean, to begin with. Not an income per capita, at least. This is one of the poorest states, actually. In terms of freedom, it's a great state. I like that. The standard is suggesting that we take away all property taxes, which would be great. I don't know how we'll keep police officers around, but... Oh, I mean, it'll just be sales tax, or it'll be state income tax or something like that.

You don't have to have property tax. In New Hampshire, where I'm from, you don't have... My property tax is, quote-unquote high. It's not actually high compared to, like, Massachusetts. I have, like, 50 acres, and I pay, you know, a few thousand dollars more than my mom. mom who has like not even a full acre. But the point is like in New Hampshire there's no sales tax, there's no income tax, but the property taxes are high.

So it, the government will get the funding, state governments will get the funding that they need to function somehow. And some people say, hey, you know, maybe a sales tax or an income tax. Personally, I think things like sales tax and consumption tax are the best of the, of a bad options because if you didn't have property tax, then you actually do. own your property. The government can't take it away without going to court or what have you. And then I think that an income tax, a state income tax or a federal income tax, I think that those are bad because they're literally taxing you for generating economic activity. Whereas if you

have a sales tax, when you can decide not to engage in exchange. But the point, I think the broad point that I want to kind of push on again is the government has to do something about the fact that there is an entire generation. Like not kidding around, like a whole generation. You think that millennials are, you know, fond of socialism. There's a, even Gen Z, the people on the right are fond of socialism, right? They'll be right-leaning, but they're going to be national socialists, right? They're going to be nationalists and socialists.

They're going to say, the government should take care of us. And maybe the government should take care of only people that look like me. But it's still the government should take care of it. Non-stop. He's always telling me that. Don't leak those texts. He says he's, no, but he says only people who look, he's like, says only people who look like me, but I'm quoting him literally. Only the Irish. Only the Irish. He's like, only people like you, Seamus. Only you should be cared for by the other. Another thing that will help that, just not to stay on this story for too. But another thing that is, I mean, immigration affects this significantly too. I mean, a lot of the people who are taking these FHA loans and things like that and getting into houses and driving the costs of homes up are not Americans. Yeah. So there's two things that you can do. You can, A, limit immigration the way that you're actually supposed to enforce our border, get the people out of. here that aren't supposed to be here.

B, something that I would be strongly encouraging would be to bring down our debts and to make things more affordable for people. If you have foreign interests owning land in the United States, they should be taxed at a much higher rate. I would totally agree. And I like what you were saying, Phil. I tend

to agree that a consumption tax, a tariff, things like that, where there's actual economic activity occurring, which is then tax makes more sense to me than taxing someone based on how much wealth they have. Because frankly, we tax people based on how much they earn, but the amount that you earn doesn't actually say all that much about your lifestyle.

It's a question of how you choose to spend that money. So if you have that money and you're behaving virtuously with it, you're saving it or you're investing it instead of going out and, you know, indulging in luxuries. You should have the freedom to do that. Yeah, yeah. I completely agree. So I think it's a, I think it's bad to tax someone just for having the money. I think it's crazy.

But even though I think it's bad to tax the money, I'm impossible to please. I also think it's bad when they give money back to us. Aren't I so cheeky? Because Trump says he'll issue $2,000 tariff dividends to all. If they do lower them, it's a little inflationary. And Serge, I could speak to that better than I can. But anytime the government just writes checks, I think that that's a bad thing,

especially when you're dealing with, you know, the federal government being so insolvent and having so much debt. Yeah, that could be something you talk about, being insolvent and having where the money could go. But a lot of things could go a lot of places. And I think at this point where people are struggling with money, any money in their pockets great. And I was actually surprised when I saw it because I was like, wow, that's a good idea.

He's going to use the money from the tariffs that we're making that. Everyone complains about it. He's actually using that against them, saying, oh, well, tariffs are bad for small businesses. Okay. Well, if you're a small business that makes under this amount of money, here's $2,000 for it. I guarantee you're not going to be annoyed by it. Yeah, $2,000 is not that much money, which is totally true. Shane is completely right on that.

But I think that, yeah. Any little bit helps right now because the economy is bad. Everything's expensive. Gas is going up already again. Yeah. Well, and here's the thing. Part of me is curious if this has to do with Trump wanting to curry some favor with the American people as we're getting closer towards midterms. Maybe this is a check that would be sent out around the time when those elections were occurring.

I have no idea. Come out with a ballot. Yeah. I don't think this is going to be good for inflation. One thing I will mention is that, um, is that we were told on air that the $2,000 dividend could come in a lot of forms. You know, it could just be the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president's agenda. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on social security, deductibility of auto loans.

So again, this is all from ABC News. Honestly, man, it sounds like they're sort of trying to back their way out of it with that. Well, you know, it could come in the form of no tax on tips or no tax on overtime or no tax on social security. Very possible. I have no idea. I think just giving everyone a $2,000 check is probably not a good idea, especially considering how horribly in debt we are. Also, last time we got a stimulus check, we ended up losing like $10,000 in purchasing power on average. Yeah. So probably not the best trade. Short-term tradeoffs I don't like. And he says only for wealthy Americans. What's the definition of wealthy? Does it say in there? Yeah, yeah, I'm curious because he said wealthy,

but I don't know if there was any specific cutoff listed. Okay. Yeah, I don't know. I agree with what you were saying there, Seamus. Like, if the debt is such a big issue, then it seems like giving out $2,000 to each American might not seem like the best idea. However, however, telling people, telling voters the electorate

that you'll give them money can incentivize them to support you and your preferred candidates. Yeah, well, and I do think there's a political aspect to this. I think there's a reason why Andrew Yang's UBI, despite not having any other policy positions on anything, and despite being a complete adult, was able to amass supporters based on what? Me giving you free money.

People love free shit. So, Seamus, if you wanted to go around in the room right now and say, hey, do you want $100? Nobody's going to say, oh, but I'm worried about your debt, Seamus, huh? Your mortgage. I'm worried about your family and all the other costs you have. But my debt is their debt.

That's the thing. If I'm the government, it's everybody's debt. Like we're talking here about how a 50-year mortgage enslaves us. Imagine if it was an indefinite loan that all of our children, to pay off and our children's children had to pay off someday and couldn't consent to it. And also it was how we ran our government. Like that's literally what's happening right now and we're talking about giving everyone a

$2,000 check. I do agree with you that there could be a kind of four G chess move here. Well, if the Democrats get back into office and Trump can't enact his agenda, the country's destroyed anyway and they are going to import a bunch of people and they are going to balloon the national debt regardless. So maybe if we give people these short-term payments to get them to vote for Republicans and we play the Democrats dirty game of a game of allowing people to vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, we can actually try to turn the spigot off.

I'm a little skeptical of the argument, but I could see the strategy. It feels to me like it could be a need-jerk reaction to the uproar over the SNAP benefit issue with the government shutdown, too. I mean, it's like, well, how do we get these people back to possibly supporting our party? So, I mean, that's exactly what's happening right now is that everybody's so mad about SNAP benefits. Those are the people that you are speaking to by offering them dangling $2,000 out there. Those are the people you're trying to win back.

Do you think $2,000 is going to sway anyone's vote these days, though? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. It's compared to nothing and what other politicians have done for them. So the government doesn't touch most Americans, and $2,000 would affect the American. I don't think leftists will get $2,000 from Trump and change their minds and vote for Trump. No, of course not, but we're not talking about leftists. Maybe some small amount of Democrats, some independence.

Even liberals. I'm against it, but I don't think it would hurt him? You think it would hurt him? I think it only has potential to help his electoral prospects. It could hurt him. if it causes more economic problems. Because at the end of the day, what's going to matter the last six months

before the election in 2008, well, actually next year and in 2028, is how people feel about the economy. Right? Like if there's civil unrest and there's big riots and blah, blah, blah, that'll affect people. But if that's not going on, it is the pocketbook, it is the kitchen table issues.

So if they do things that make it harder for people to pay for their groceries and causing inflation will make it harder for people to pay for their groceries. If they do things, if they have policies that do that, people will vote against the Republicans. And that is absolutely the most important thing. We can talk about, and people on the Internet, they love to talk about all these niche issues. They're all interested in like, you know, all sorts of things, the Epstein client list, what Ben Shapiro said, what people are talking about Israel, blah, blah, blah, blah. those issues are very important to a very, very narrow segment of the population.

They're not important to everybody that pays attention to politics. They're important to a small percentage of the people that pay attention to politics. The amount of people that pay attention to politics is also very small, right? Most people don't spend more than an hour or so a week paying attention to politics. I don't think most Americans knew the government was shut down. Probably not. But that only leads to my point. Like, people care about, can I go to the grocery store and buy the stuff that my kids want to get?

So that way, they're not bummed out. Can I afford Christmas? Can I afford Thanksgiving? If these questions, right, if you ask these questions and the answer is no, they're going to throw the bums out. That means the Republicans are going to get crucified. So the most important thing is to make sure that the American people feel like they can afford to live. Right now because... I completely agree.

I think if the focus was on bringing grocery prices down instead of giving people $2,000, I'd be way more in support of it. Well, I will say this. I agree with what I'll add saying about the fact that it probably is good politics. I mean, who could argue that you're going to have more trouble winning an election if you just gave people money and you just give a free $2,000 check? I also think that there's an argument to be made well. These tariffs did cost the American people to some degree,

but it's going to improve America's manufacturing and our ability to deliver products and we can return some of the money back to the people to stimulate our economy. And in my mind, it makes economic sense to say, we're going to protect American industry by making foreign companies pay tariffs or the people importing from foreign nations pay tariffs and then give that money back to the American people to bolster our own economy. I'm not, I'm not disagreeing that this is complicated and that it could on some level be good strategy. I think ultimately, it can also help solidify this idea that the shutdown was the Democrats' fault. The reason people weren't receiving their EBT was because of the Democrats and that Trump is trying to look out

for you. He's trying to get your family fed. Again, in the long term, I think it's bad economics. I'm not advocating for it, but I certainly understand the political strategy. And speaking of the shutdown, we have a wild turn of events. Now, you guys are not going to believe this. There's going to be really shocking for all of you at home listening. It's going to be shocking for all the people in this room. So I'm glad we're all sitting in chairs. And that Tim Cass has not done at a standing desk because I think some you might faint. Even though the Democrats have been claiming the shutdown was just the fault of Republicans, they are now complaining that the Democrats they elected works to open the government back up

and they quote unquote caved. That's strange to me. So breaking the Senate moves to reopen the government after Democrats break from Schumer. The question was, does the shutdown further the goal of achieving some needed support for the extension of the tax credit. Our judgment was that it will not. The Senate took a major step towards ending the record long government shutdown on Sunday

as a group of Democrats broke ranks and joined Republicans in advancing a revised plan to reopen federal agencies. Hold on a second. What do you mean broke ranks? I thought it was the, you mean all the Republicans didn't break rank to open the government? It's almost like they wanted the government opened the entire time

and it was the Democrats preventing it from happening. One of the hilarious things you'll see if you go on social media is all of the leftist whining and complaining about the fact that the government's going to be reopened and saying the Democrats betrayed us. They stabbed us in the back, even though they just spent the entire shutdown telling us the entire thing was the Republicans' fault. So I want to open it up to you guys and get your opinions. And I want you let me know just just how shocked you are that it turns out that this was the Democrats' fault. I wanted to ask you, there was one of Republican who actually voted to continue the shutdown.

Can you guess which one? Who did that? One of our good friends? Shot in the dark. One of your favorites. One of my favorites? I'm having too much. trouble. I've been too shocked today. I've already been too shocked today. I need you to just tell you. The only Republican to vote with Democrats, you know, it's actually a trend of Republicans like this voting with the Democrats. And with the Republicans

like this, I mean, who needs Democrats? Are you guys seriously clue? Nobody has any. Who wants to guess? Yeah, exactly. Whoever's not a neocon. Whoever's not a neocon. Whoever's not a neocon that a lot doesn't like. I mean, listen, listen, the libertarian's going to want the government to stay shut down forever. I'm okay with that. That's what I want.

A closed, an open government is as useful as a shutdown. There was a couple people I had in mind. There was a couple people I had in mind. But, yeah, that, so. It was Rand Paul, though, right? Yeah, it was Rand Paul. I'm curious what you all think of that. I'm also just curious what you think of the shutdown ending.

I wish it stayed down forever. They weaponized this government against American people for decades and needs to be completely gutted. Doesn't sound like something an establishment guy would say. Yeah, I had a change of heart last night. I slept on it. And I was like, you know, I've been wrong completely. The shutdown, I mean, the, it's, It's so ridiculous that every year you end up in the same situation where the shutdown is used as, you know, a way for people to pit, you know, the left versus the right and for them to grandstand and to try and get all these publicity points and stuff like that.

I mean, I had to travel here yesterday. It was a disaster. I mean, I was lucky my flight was only delayed about four and a half hours. Yeah. There were people that were at the airport. Their flights were delayed 12 hours plus. And I just, you know, I don't understand that the, the course. correlation between critical infrastructure not being air traffic control and TSA, why is that not privatized at this point in time? Why are we, why is it that when they can't agree on a budget, we shut everything down and then people can't travel? They hold you hostage. And they hold us hostage, and they don't care. And then why is there no fallback? Why is there no fallback for when you can't agree on a new budget that you fall back to the existing budget? Well, that's right.

And so what always happens is the government shuts down and the left goes, these essential services are lost and in some ways I think you're correct when it comes to air traffic control. That's something that we need and it's strange that the government does it. But then these same people will argue that the government should control more and more and more. So you go, well, you know, even if the government controls like virtually everything, we're still going to have a political system where there are these arguments and disagreements and the government will shut down and then what's going to happen to all of the services that like you consider to be essential if they aren't considered essential by the government at that time.

But furthermore, yes, as someone who's been traveling a lot recently to promote the crowdfunding campaign that I launched for twisted plots. Like, planes have been delayed. I thank goodness, my flights, even though some got delayed, none got canceled. It's funny, I was in L.A. I was in Los Angeles. I was over in California, other side of the flipping continent, right, in the coolest place in the world.

And I had to fly back here late at night for a podcast. So this is when a bunch of flights were starting to get canceled. And I was like, dude, if this flight gets canceled, I have no idea what I'm going to do. because I am like as far away from here as you can be while still being in the United States. And so thankfully, my flight was not canceled. But this is happening to a lot of people. And so hopefully we're able to get that back up and running as the government's looking to open up. What do you think, Alad?

I think a minority of Americans fly regularly. So I don't really care that there were some delays. Yeah, I don't care about rich people who could afford. You don't care about protecting minorities because only minority flies. And their fancy business meetings that they need. to attend in person and their important vacations that they need to go on. I haven't flown on a plane in over a year and I think most average Americans don't. And it is inconveniencing some of the most privileged Americans and I don't mind doing that

for a little bit longer. I don't think about it's ironic Shane because now you're for reopening the government. I thought you were for the show. I'm against your idea of only privileged people flying. Yeah, the fact that's ridiculous. I don't think only the privileged people fly. You literally just said that. He puts on a suit and then he starts acting like he's better than everybody.

Like this gosh idea that like blue collar people. or average Americans that make, you know, $60,000, $80,000 a year, like they don't fly regularly. There are plenty of jobs that require people to fly that are not, like, elitist jobs. Sure. So I think this affects a minority of workers. And if Seamus has to wait another half hour, hour, who knows? Maybe we would have gotten Tim instead of this guy. What if my flight was canceled?

And we have to do. And we have shame, Tim, uh, Seamus instead of Tim. It would have been better if you, you know, maybe miss the flight. While Tim was sick, you want the man to ruin his voice? Oh, is that what happened? Yeah, he got sick. Yeah, he's sick. said he could know us the show tonight and I had to.

But it was a disaster. It was a nightmare. Now, Elad, this is also shocking coming from the neo-con economist that you would say people in the upper classes whose wealth trickles down to the rest of us through their entrepreneurial vision. I don't like flying. The only planes he wants flying are the ones

that drop bombs. I thought you were going to say something worse, so I guess I'll take that. I thought he was going there too. I was going to go there. That's the nicest thing you could have said. I know. Anyway, I don't like flying. I'm actually scared of.

I reluctantly fly when I have to. And that's why I don't mind these flights. No wonder why you have... I have a personal beef. It doesn't affect you. In the airport. So you might just have to drive. Have to fly.

I hate flying and I'm scared of it. No, it's better than a short flight. A nice long drive. I agree with you. Listen, I'm actually okay with that. I do like driving. If time permits, I absolutely pervert a drive. Well, either you're sitting in your car

or you're waiting online not to get taken off because you're moving. If the drive is six hours or less, do the drive. If it's over six hours, take the flight. Because when you think the amount of time it takes to get to the airport, get through all the stuff, do the flight and get out and stuff like five or six hours, it's probably better. You're already doing dad math. That's exactly how worse. I mean, I live in New Hampshire.

What's going on with the shutdown vote, though, because it's got to go through the house, right? After it's passed through the Senate, I think there's some procedural things that need to happen that'll take a few days, and then it'll go to the House, where Johnson should have a majority, I'm assuming Massey, these libertarian types,

they just always vote with the Democrats, will also probably vote against, but he will be the token Republican to do so. Yeah. That's what I foresee. Was Phil, was still doing that against the Lodd or the libertarian types? Okay.

I just want to make sure for everyone who might be listening. That was Phil making the farting sound with his mouth. against a lot. Yeah, these libertarians, he's doing that to me who's complaining about the libertarians getting in the way of the MAGA agenda, yes. Okay, guys, we actually, we've got another breaking story here. I just had to mention this. We weren't planning on talking about this, but the news just broke. Antifa protesters have rushed the entrance of tonight's TPSA event after attempting to break down barriers. Attendees were rushed behind a police arrest and other anti-TP USA protesters have been arrested. Should we watch this?

Everything I have to say is a TOS way. Where is this based out of? Do you, do we know? So this is UC Berkeley, by the way, guys. And this is, I think you're Sam. I don't know who actually closed this. This isn't the craziest thing I've ever seen. So are we just going to keep you nice to these people? Well, it's just because this is a B.S. A thing. And they rushed to the B.S. I think. So that guy broke down the barriers. You can hold a racist, guys. You can call the racist, pack it in. That's it.

Herkley has a long history of these types of protests, and usually they get a lot more out of hand than this so far, but I guess it's still early there, so we'll see what this turns into. Well, it's not surprising, that's right. No, unfortunately. I mean, listen. This is the one we got on the one. I think this is more so.

But I haven't screened to these videos, guys. We just got this little right now. Oh, side show. Classic, uh... They're just barbarians. All right. Well, that's all we got right now. Well, again, this is exactly what we were saying earlier on the show. Look how quickly our predictions become true.

You don't arrest these people. They become emboldened. Right. Yes. Absolutely. Who thought anything different was going to happen? It says, oh, well, if we do something, there's an escalation. If the, if law enforcement intervenes and arrests people who are breaking the law, There's an escalation. There is an escalation regardless.

The question is whether there is an escalation on the part of law enforcement that puts the riot down and puts, frankly, the insurrection down or whether they continue to raise the temperature. That's it. That's it. And whenever the left says, I wish people would stop raising the temperature. What they're really saying is I want to be the one in control of the fire. Yeah. I mean, that's pretty accurate. And like I said, this kind of stuff, they should round all those people up and they should all go to jail.

Like all of them, they can, they've got it, they can get buses, bring the buses out, wrap them up and put them in jail. Anyone in a face mask, honestly at this point? Absolutely. You're in a face, still wearing COVID mask for sure. You're gone. Right to jail. Yeah.

Right to jail. It shouldn't, at this point, it shouldn't be, like, it shouldn't be a question as to, as to whether or not these people go to jail. Like, these people are intending to intimidate. This isn't about a protest. This is intimidation. This is trying to shut down other people's speech. If you wanted to protest, you could protest.

But when your protest is intended to shut other people's speech down, you should go to jail. Zero question about it. And it shouldn't even be, I mean, it's insane to me that we're still having this discussion, right? It's so clear. You've been having this discussion for a decade. Yep. Since 2015. And you know what?

Thank goodness we're allowed to have the discussion because for a while we weren't. And that's part of why this problem has persisted as long as it has. Remember when Berkeley was a pro-free speech? Ha! Before our time. Yeah. Yeah. Same place that burnt itself down when I actually don't remember it.

Yeah, yeah, same. Exactly. And I don't, you know, I have my doubts that that was ever the case. I actually have my doubts. Because we know there was... Arrest them all. And everybody that's here on a green card gets deported. That's it.

Get them out of the country. Because I guarantee there's a lot of people in that protest. They're here on green cards. Especially if they're fat. They're guests. Yeah. And if they're fat, they shouldn't be here. at all, according to Trump.

But the government needs to start coming down on these people hard. Within the law, of course, within, you know, I'm not talking about injuring people or violating people's rights. But if you are protesting in a manner that is meant to

intimidate other people who are peaceably assembling, jail. Jail. Well, I hear what you're saying, but I mean, like, what do you think the motivation is, I mean, for not doing it? Exactly. Why are they not doing? Trump is in charge right now. Kid gloves. Huh? Kid gloves. They've been treating these people with kid gloves.

But why is nobody stepping up and saying we're taking the kid gloves? Cowards. I agree with you. They're afraid of the optics being strong. Well, one thing is that they're demonized when they do something to protect people. I mean, whether they're law enforcement or not, you got the Daniel Penny thing. It's like you actually stand up and do the right thing. It seems like these days you're actually demonized for it. And that is one thing that's, demotivating to the police in general, the individual police, but then also for the police chiefs and for the people in charge of them. There's too much demotivating factor to do this. It's too much personal risk.

That's one reason why they're all wearing masks, too. Yeah. Well, again, because only one side is required to play by the rules here. And so it's gotten at the point where the Republicans won't even play by the rules. The right won't even play by the rules because they won't do the things that the law allows them to do in order to shut down this kind of violence and these kinds of riots. We've been dealing with this. I'm sure we all sound like broken records because we've been dealing with this for over a decade at this point.

And nothing has been done. And there was a mandate from the people of the United States when they democratically elected Donald J. Trump handing a Republican, the first popular vote history in a very long time so that this problem could be dealt with. And it's not being dealt with. And there's a number of explanations and rationalizations, just like Phil pointed out, they could be cowardly. it could be because he's worried about bad optics before we start getting closer to the midterms. But I don't care because if something isn't done, the problem's only going to get worse. And we heard all of the same excuses about the BLM riots in 2020. Well, it's going to look bad if the government does something.

The way these things work is that you got to shut them down immediately before they go completely out of control. And yes, the optics look a little bit bad for a little bit, but you got to bite the bullet right away. and stop it from happening so that you don't have to worry about a little optical disaster. Because by the way, every single time one of these riots happens, there is some kind of optics disaster for the Trump administration regardless because his supporters go, why isn't he doing anything? And you always have at least one person getting arrested, who the left then says is a poor innocent victim who didn't do anything wrong.

So what he needs to do is you just need to bite the bullet. He needs to take all the bad optics at once. He needs to throw all these people in jail. And then he's going to spare himself years and years of news stories of rioting. rioters being locked up one at a time just to be released again. You know what the solution to bad optics is? You make massive tax cuts and incentivize people. That's right.

Listen, make massive tax cuts, incentivize people to start businesses, fix the economy, and then no one cares about the optics because they can pay for their groceries again. That's what you do. You fix the economy. You make sure that people can afford to live, make sure that people can afford to get enough, to pay for their rent, pay their more, buy their groceries and then they don't care that you're wrapping up leftists and throwing them in jail. The solution to the optics is making sure the economy is booming.

Effective government. Absolutely. People want this. Also, by the way, the people who are out here doing this crap, it's not like they're law-abiding citizens who are a benefit to their community regardless. If you were able to lock them up and they hadn't even committed the law or broken the law, which I'm not saying you should do, it would still probably be an improvement to the environment that they live in. Like these people are generally repeat offenders. You don't just start throwing bricks at a cop when you've never broken a law before.

You don't break down barriers and try to protest someone's free speech with violence when you've never broken a law before. So not only would he be taking all the optics disasters at once and then not having to deal with them in the future, but he would probably improve crime rates in all of the cities where he cracked down on these riots and arrested people. I think the system is so broken, though, because this goes back longer than a decade. These people have been emboldened for decades. you go back to the weather underground.

I say it all the time. These people were domestic terrorists. They were Marxists. They killed people. They hurt people. They killed themselves, too, with bombs. But they went to jail. And even when they, even they were pardoned by Cuomo.

They were pardoned by Clinton. They became professors. They started doing stuff with Thousand Currants, Susan Rosenberg. They started working with A Thousand Curran started working with Act Blue. So it's like, this is a deep, deep issue with the whole system. So even when they go to jail, they come out and get rewarded by the left. Yeah. How do we stop that?

Like, that's how you have to stop that cycle of violence. Trump was supposed to be the antidote, right? I mean, that was the reason that a lot of people want Trump to be in office is because he was finally an outsider who didn't care about the optics. Like, that was supposed to be his thing. And so sometimes he really does act that way. And I appreciate those. And then other times turning in the blind eye, like I'm so frustrated about some of the things that aren't happening.

I'm frustrated that people who are obviously breaking the law aren't getting arrested. I'm frustrated that there's no push right now for nationwide voter ID requirements, right? Well, I mean, one of the reasons we're in this mess is because we don't have nationwide voter ID requirements. And we're losing elections on the federal level because certain states are disenfranchising everybody else. Why is there, we just don't care about that anymore? No, I mean, that was one of the things that Donald Trump said that would be passed if they got rid of the billbusters. And so those, and it's a snowball effect. If you enforce the border of kick out everybody who's not supposed to be here, arrest criminals,

and actually put them in jail and keep them in jail and enforce voter ID, you're going to see that the country's actually a lot more conservative than you thought that it was. Way more conservative than you thought that it was. I agree. Because the people that are left are the law-abiding citizens that are actually American citizens.

Yeah, I think that, like, I mean, I'm as much of a border hawk as you can get. I'm, you know, I'm glad that the board is basically shut down now, and I think that the government should be doing everything they can to wrap up as many illegals here that are here and send them back. I don't know that that's going to solve everything, but I do think that that would solve a lot of...

It all works together. Yeah. It all works together. So we've got another story here tonight that I think it's important to talk about as well as a little segue later into something that your outlet published that I found kind of funny. But the Supreme Court just rejected a long-shot effort to overturn the same-sex marriage. age. They're still calling it marriage for some silly reason, ruling, the court turned away an appeal filed by Kim Davis. Do you guys remember her? Of course. A former county clerk in Kentucky who was sued after refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. First of all, based in Red Pilled American Patriot.

Secondly, Washington, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Other Supreme Court on Monday turned away a long shot attempt to overturn the landmark 2015. They didn't take the case up. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it's like they didn't decide on it. They just didn't even do it. They didn't want to make a decision on it. Exactly. And not taking up the case. Yeah. Sounds pretty gay. I agree with you.

This is from NBC News, by the way. Without comment, the justice has rejected an appeal brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, who was sued in 2015 for refusing to issue quote, unquote, marriage licenses because of her opposition to same sex. By the way, it's kind of funny. Sex is censored with two asterix in this context, but it is same S-star star star. Who knows what that? means marriage based on her religious beliefs. I've never seen that before. That's on NBC news directly. Yeah, yeah. I'm curious if the title, yeah, the title does. The exact same

thing. So this is not very, very cringe, not a great day for the Supreme Court, but I'm curious what everyone else here has to say about this. The politics of this is extremely fascinating. Based on other rulings that the Supreme Court recently made notably on overturning, the Dobbs decision, overturning Grovey-Wade, many onlookers and legal professionals assumed that following the logic that the court used in previous cases was going to strike something like this down had they taken the case up. But they strategically decided not to take the case up because I first assumed they didn't want to deal with the backlash of having to turn something like this that is generally

popular with American. So, you know, if they follow their, what is it, their textualist tinge of the Supreme Court right now, they might have had to overturn this to stay legally consistent. but if chosen to not take up the case, if you guys don't also know, the Supreme Court chooses what cases it takes up and has to make a decision on or it doesn't have to make a decision on.

I think the politics of this is fascinating. Yeah, I mean, hopefully they're willing to take it up soon. I'm curious what you think about this, Shane. I know that you're like, just a gigantic LGBTQA. Coming from New York, yeah, of course. I wish they overturned it. It's just saying I feel the same way about this. I feel about not showing force,

a strong force with the immigration stuff, or the people breaking the law. This is something they should do. They should overturn it. I think it's an abomination. Amen, brother. Promoting people living an unrepentant sin. And I wish they would say, let's overturn it.

I don't care about the optics. I'm ready to change things. And it's not just that. It's actually forcing all of us with our tax dollars to fund a system that says two men can be married, which is a total fiction. They can't be. That's not what marriage means.

Wow. What's also interesting is that if there's one institution that shouldn't worry about optics, it's the Supreme Court because it's one of the few places that you have lifelong membership. So it's interesting that if that's really the motivation is optics, it's interesting that they would be, that they would care about optics. I think you need four votes in favor, if I'm not mistaken, in order to take up a case. It's not a majority.

Isn't it the Chief Justice who decides what cases are taking out? I'm not sure. I honestly don't know. I'm speaking based upon ignorance on the subject. But there's some amount of voting that needs to have. I think Thomas was one of them that voted for to take up the case. I forget who the other one was. I just wonder who the ones weren't.

Yeah. You know, I don't know. I think it was only two that said we should take it up. Does it say anywhere? Is it published? I'm sure you can look it up. Yeah, I don't know who the other one was. The nine justices of the Supreme Court decide which cases to take with at least four

justices needing to vote to grant a writ of Kataria. So they only need of four. They've got the majority and they weren't able to get four? Refer to as the rule of four. Well, allegedly there's only three. Brill Justice is on the court so you'd assume that the six so-called conservative Justices would vote not to take three of them had a defect yeah it might not even be optics they might actually be scared for their lives after the Kavanaugh stuff I think that's

their death threats which is ridiculous why because we don't arrest the people who do this stuff we do but they don't get even as much jail time yeah exactly as they should yeah was the one was the one who uh well and by the way you're right that we small correction myself we arrested some of the people who like threaten the judges directly, but when you see all the political violence that's occurred with people who haven't been arrested, I mean, if a massive mob surrounds them or does something like that, a lot of those people

don't get in any trouble. The guy who threatened Kavanaugh, who went there to kill him, did go to jail. I believe he's in jail now, or it was just found guilty. But it's for like a small amount of time. And then in court, the judge was saying, I'm glad that this led your family to accept you. I think so. I think it's also worth mentioning public opinion

currently in the United States on the matter. So I'm reading right now from Pew. about six and ten adults express a positive view of the impact of same-sex marriage being legal, including 36 percent who say it is very good for society. Roughly four in ten have a negative view, 37 percent, with 19 percent saying it's very bad. So there is a supermajority in the country. I mean, the Supreme Court shouldn't be motivated by the opinion polls. Sure, but if they continue to do things that are extremely unpopular,

then their legitimacy decreases and they become less relevant as a branch of government. Their legitimacy decreased when they got Katanghi Brown. Jackson or Jackson Brown. I don't disagree. And they shouldn't, again, be swayed by the public, but I think they're political realities that just, you know, they have to take into account. They shouldn't be influenced by politics. You're right. That's why they allegedly have these lifelong terms, but they don't exist in a vacuum. It's pretty clear. They're affected by the branches of government, too. And they should, though. You know, we're actually, some of us in this room are out of touch generally with the American. I thought he was to say out

of the closet. I was like, a lot. Come on. Get your hopes up, Shane. So generally, some of us might be a little bit out of touch with where the average American is. I don't know if this is totally playing politics. I don't know if the president told them maybe this isn't the right case to take up. There have been rumors, too, that the president is extremely concerned about keeping the majority in the upcoming midterms. Because if he were to lose the majority right now, what is there, a three, four, five seat majority of the Republicans, depending if you're counting Massey as a Republican. So if the Democrats were to getting a majority,

party again. There would be endless investigations. The president would definitely be impeached again. So I think, you know, he might be trying to hedge against that. That's why we're seeing him do the redistricting, among other things. Yeah. So I think you're right. It's possible that the justices are trying to play politics. I have no idea. Again, obviously it's not the point of a Supreme Court justice to play politics. I also understand this hyperpolarized landscape, why they might feel a need to. And Shane, I think you're also correct that they could have been intimidated into deciding not to hear the case. But with what you mentioned about opinion polling on the matter. If those numbers are accurate, what it demonstrates is that the law

is a teacher. Because remember, gay marriage, quote unquote, was not something that the public demanded. It was not something that was voted for. It was something that was forced onto us by the courts. Even in California, the bluest blue state, they could not get people to vote in favor of it. It was the California Supreme Court that decided that homosexual, quote unquote, marriage existed and had to be respected in the state of California. And in such a limited time, with that legislative change that was forced onto the public by the courts, the American people have largely changed their perspective on this. It can be changed back if the courts decide to reverse the decision. This is not permanent.

Yeah, well, you know, they said of the Roe v. Wade that it was so-called settled law. That's what I used to argue to people constantly. I used to interview leftists, women's March people on the street concerned about Roe v. Wade, and I would tell them smugly, oh, well, it's settled law. You know, that's what the Supreme Court justice is. The Supreme Court justice said this is settled law. You know, doesn't that mean anything to you? And they'd go, no. And, you know, I guess the same logic can apply here to the Bargerfeld decision.

Despite it being settled law, some people would argue that the legality, it's not very textualist in nature and could be overturned. I do think they are taking politics into consideration that when it comes to this. And although they maybe shouldn't, I feel like is viewing them too much in a vacuum. One more thing that I want to point out here because Kim Davis got brought up and that's such a throwback for most of us. I don't think I've heard that name in what, 10 years. She was made the target of a smear campaign by the media where rather than discussing whether she had the freedom as an American to not partake in the legitimizing of unions that she understood to be sinful, we instead had conversations about her moral character.

What they kept saying was, well, Kim Davis is divorced. Okay, well, sodomy is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance and she's still allowed to oppose it, even if she has committed other sins in her life. The argument is not Kim Davis is a perfect person and the moral guru we all have to listen to. The argument was, does a person have to earn the right to conscientiously object to partaking in the legitimizing of lifestyle choices they understand to be disgusting and wrong? Do they have to earn that by being up to your moral standards? Or are they allowed that freedom as Americans? Yeah, because you're not allowed to speak out against their cult.

Their religion, their cult wants this stuff to happen. So it's all this attack on Christianity. Right. And you're more. 100%. There's one last tidbit I wanted to add on the gay marriage stuff.

Gay marriage and gay... Just a little tidbit? Just the tip. Just the tip of it. Why? I just thought tidbit was a funny like word to use. I didn't mean it.

I think it's worth mentioning that they're... That gay men have become more prominent in the Republican Party now more than ever, both in the closet and out, and that could help in normalizing gay people, particularly for the party that is most predisposed to potentially be against gay. Sorry, Lindsay Graham. Forget Lindsay Graham. It goes way up higher than that. Scott Bessent is, you know. I don't know.

Well, he's publicly gay. He's out and gay. He has a pink house, and he's married to a man. He's got a pink house. He has a pink house. He sleeps with a pink blanket. Lodz on Zillow. Pink Corvette. No, there's a lot of high-ranking gay people. He drives a mini-Cupor. In the Trump administration and the Republican Party writ large. And the Republican Party isn't nearly as anti-gay and against gay marriage as they used to be.

Despite their being a religious part of the party, that is. But I also know there's a lot of gay conservatives who don't agree with marriage being dictated by the government. Who actually oppose gay marriage? So I think most of the gay men in the Republican Party support the O'Bergfeld decision? I've heard both. You know, obviously there's some who are totally fine and there's others who don't. You can say that about everything. But I think writ large, the gay Republican men do support their...

No, yeah, 90% of gay men in the Republican part... All the gay men that I've spoken to... All the gay men that's about a lot. Which are... There's a ton of them, which there's a lot of... There's a lot of pink house out. There's a ton. You could look up his house.

It's very pink. It looks really... Watch out. He'll swing on you. You talk shit about people in front of Besson. I respected that part. Yeah, that was fun. You know what I mean?

That was fun. But that is to say they're very influential, there are many very influential gay men in the administration, in the party. And this is becoming more normalized in the party. I think going the opposite direction. Are Christians in the Republican Party

is supposed to accept that than just because they're on... I think a lot of these gay guys are so-called Christians. And whether or not you want to accept them as Christians? Well, I don't... Yeah. I know Pete. He still calls himself a Christian, but he's an unrepent sinner married to a gay man.

Well, you sin, are you still a Christian? We're all born sinners. Okay, so? Yeah, but there's a difference. I'm not living in an unrepentant sin, married to a man. I don't know. I mean, you know more about your sins than I do, and I'm not here to tell people they are or aren't Christian based on their... We're all flawed.

Well, I will know, but there's actually an important distinction here. Like, it is also a sin to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. You wouldn't say, well, you can't tell that person they're not Christian because they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, because you also sin. Like, if you have chosen. Like, if you have chosen. chosen to base your beliefs around something explicitly anti-Christian. And you've said what the church, what tradition, what scripture explicitly defines the sin isn't a sin and I'm not allowed to do it or and I am allowed to do it is different for being a believing Christian who sometimes makes

mistakes. Yeah, but Seamus, for example, that's like you're stripping away many people of their religious, you know. No, I'm not their decision making. That's their bad. That's bad theology. As I understand, are pro-choice. Those are not practicing Catholic. Those are not practicing So you'd say more than half of the people who call themselves Catholic aren't? Certainly. That's Hollywood Catholic. They're not practicing Catholics. They're not practicing Catholic.

Are you the Pope though? Like, is you the one who's able to decide this? And because I'm the Pope is, no, I'm not allowed to decide this because I'm not the Pope. I have to follow what the Church has already said. And what the Church has already said is there's certain standards you have to meet in order to be considered a practicing Catholic. And one of them is you have to give full assent to Catholic teaching, including the teachings on abortion. Ergo, no, they literally are not practicing Catholics, by definition. So I would be playing God and playing Pope.

right? If I were to say, no, you can be Catholic, you can be a practicing Catholic, even if you explicitly reject church teaching. So I'm a Jew, so I'll hold my tongue only a little bit when talking on these Catholic issues. As I understand, the Pope recognizes these people as Catholics. The Pope does not recognize them as practicing Catholics. In the Magisterium of the Church does not recognize them as practicing Catholics. The Pope doesn't recognize people who are pro-choice as Catholics? They are not. The Pope has not issued a statement. The Pope has not issued a statement overturning church teaching that practicing Catholics have to give assent to Catholic teaching. The Pope has not done that.

Okay. Those people aren't Catholic. Okay. Anyway, we can move on from this topic. Because otherwise, well, yeah, we can move on. We'll do another hour. What's that? We do another hour.

All of that is to say the gay stuff's becoming more normalized in the Republican Party despite. I think, isn't there, aren't there a lot of graphs that show that, like, support for a gay marriage is declining? Yes. And there's a revival in Christianity right now as well. Yeah, there's a revival in Christianity. I think anything that you do to shrink the party is probably bad for the party and for the United States because if you allow the Democrats to get back into power, they're going to start throwing conservatives in jail. If Christians have self have a have a, have a, if they have the desire for self preservation, you do not want Democrats back in power.

They, listen, the Democrats call Christians Christian nationalist. They associate Christians with Nazis. They associate Christians with evil. And they will use the government to oppress you. My self-preservation is rooted in eternity. Based on the material world. You are welcome to have that opinion. And I'm not going to sacrifice my beliefs to help the party, the material world.

I can't. I'm not going to vote for someone who is also antithetical to my beliefs. Whether it's right. That's fine to have that opinion. But if you do, then you are going to send people that don't agree with that into the hands of the Democrats and into the hands of people that will destroy the country. My thing is, though I think we're screwed on either side right now. And one of the things I have the problem with Trump is the total embrace of Silicon Valley, which is anti-human and anti-Christian. And they're building out a dystopia that is shackling people to the material world.

So right now I feel like they're both kind of selling out humanity and and the middle class for sure. And by the way, Phil, even though I disagree, I understand your argument from strategy. I understand coming at it from a place of pragmatism. A, I agree with Shane. And B, then it becomes a question of how much do we allow the party to change and lose its identity for the sake of getting outside people in? Because at some point you go, well, what are we fighting for? What values do we have? There has always been a part of the right that was based not on religious principles.

There has always been a wing or whatever you want to call it of the Republican Party that was based on economics and not based on social conservatism. And I think that it is important to keep the big tent. because look, if you're going to start saying you are a sinner so you're not welcome in my party you're going to... That's what I'm saying. No, yeah, that's not the art. I believe we're all born sinners. It sounds a lot like it because it's going to

start saying, okay, if you're a pro-choice conservative or a pro-choice Republican, you can't be here. If you're a gay Republican, you can't be here. These things will whittle away at support on the right that is not something that the right can afford. What we're saying is... The right is largely made. up of Democrats. Look at Donald Trump,

JFK, Tulsi Gabbard, all these people are Democrats that are basically not far left enough. Right now we have a big tent Republican Party and it's fine if you don't have to agree, but I don't think that's saying, look, we need to kick out people or we need to stop aligning with the big tent party because we are, because our faith won't allow us. I think that that will cause

massive problems for the country. That's not what we're saying. If someone is in favor of abortion, I want them to vote Republican. The Republican Party should not become a pro-abortion party. And if it does, then you're not allowing the pro-lifers and the people who have sustained this party for decades and been the most reliable voting block for it are going to be pushed out. So it's a question of which side we're on. And it's a question of which policies we're going to adopt. If the Republican Party says that it's going to become a pro-abortion party, it loses like 90% of its appeal for me. That's fine. But, And people are going to leave.

So if someone's pro abortion, again, I want them to vote for our candidates. We should not change our position. So fair enough, maybe using abortion is a bad example when it comes to the issue about whether or not gay people should be welcomed in the Republican Party or whether or not we should overturn Obergfeld. Remember, that's just the federal overturn, same as Roe v. Wade, right? You still have state's rights to have gay marriage, correct? I mean, that's all that this is, this would be a discussion of that or no.

I think that's probably what would happen. The federal government would probably turn it over to the states if they overturned Obergefeld. It would just be like, you're not making gay marriage illegal in the United States. You're just simply overturning the federalization of the gay marriage law. Fair enough.

But like I said, we are a big, the reason the MAGA coalition has won is because it is a big tent coalition. And the Christian conservatives are an important leg, but also the not left enough Democrats that have found a home in the MAGA coalition, they are important too, because that is what Donald Trump is. That is what Tulsi DeVos.

That is what RFK is. That is what a lot, most of the people in Washington that are in the cabinet are those people. And this is maybe where we disagree, but where we probably do have some area of agreement, which is I do think that with the parties transforming and changing and people moving over to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party, there are ways the Republican Party can benefit policy-wise. I just think it's on diametrically opposite issues. Like, I would rather see the Republican Party maybe embrace like some kind of support for local social safety nets or the kind of thing the Republican Party might not spring for in the past with people who were traditionally Democrats entering into the party. Or some of the stuff RFK says about what's in our food supply. Historically, Republicans have said that's nanny state stuff. We don't want anyone being concerned with the health of our food.

I do think there's room for policy growth on the life with the, no, absolutely not because single pair would destroy the country. But, but I don't think abortion is one of those issues. What's the difference? if you allow the Democrats to get into power, that'll destroy the country too, because they're going to get single payer. I'm not sure we, oh, you're saying if we let the Democrats get power, they're going to get single payer?

Yeah, but we can't just be like just, but the thing is we can't only be 1% to the right of the Democrats because if they get elected, it'll be worse. We have to draw a line somewhere. And I think we just ultimately disagree over where we draw the line. I mean, maybe, but I think that in my opinion, the, the conservatives or the Republicans winning is the most important thing.

Well, Eliad, you've been wanting to say something for a while, so let me let you jump in. And by the way, this could also be part of the after show. Yeah, I think there's a lot to impact. There's just one thing I feel like it's important to hit on. And I want to ask you this, Seamus. Do you feel marginalized by the Trump administration, kind of your support being taken for granted,

given his stances on things like abortion. Recently in Texas, he didn't want to challenge a case regarding Maffa Pristo and the abortion pill. I don't know if you're against IV. but he's definitely very supportive of IVF, depending on how you look at this Obergefeld thing to not even take up the case. You could say that he's tacitly pro-gay marriage. Well, no, he's openly gay marriage, but I don't think that has anything to do with Obergefell. So do you feel marginalized as a result of that because, I mean, a lot of your top issues are taking a back seat in the Trump.

Yeah, no, absolutely. And I don't want to speak for Shane here, but I think this is the way that, and I don't want to speak for you either, but I think this is a way that a lot of conservative Christians feel that the party's trying to abandon. Yeah, he softened his stance on abortion before the election. Not good. I didn't like that at all. No, that really made me angry. The reality was I knew that Kamala was so much worse on the issue, so I just didn't really have a choice. But he is.

I thought that was a disaster. He is the most pro-choice Republican. Pro-abortion Republican that we've ever had, yep. We've ever had. It's unfortunate. I agree with you. I don't like it. So yes, to answer your question, yes, I do feel marginalized.

I think it's a bad thing. And you probably should, frankly, with how it's going. Yeah. Especially on IVF, by the way. Very bad. Very bad. Lots of unborn babies made and then just flushed away, just killed. You know, it's interesting with Trump, though, because.

because it's a give and take because he is not the ideal candidate for somebody who has Christian beliefs in every single belief. But he's also one of the only candidates who actually stands up for Christians. We're talking about Christians being slaughtered over in Africa. And he's the only politician I can think of that actually is addressing it. So, you know, it's give or take with Trump. Trump is always complicated. It's never just black and white with Trump. Yeah, I think that's – and that's one of the very strange things.

about Trump. But we're going to go over to Super Chats real quick. I'm going to run. We're running a little bit late. Shane, we love you. Thank you for having me. Great seeing you, man. See you guys. You crush it tonight, big guy. Join us on Rumble and YouTube at Inverter World Live. I'll have Viva Frye on at 10 o'clock. We're going to talk about ostriches getting

massacred. It's an insane. I know it sounds insane, but this is really a crazy story. Did they do that in Australia once? They killed all the dogs during COVID. People wanted to adopt. They said don't adopt them. We're going to slaughter them all. They also, I think, in Finland, killed three million ferrets because they were afraid of COVID. So it's kind of in line with all that insane policy stuff. But I'll see you guys there.

And thanks for having me. Later, guys. Take care, bud. Beautiful. All right. Good job, Candice. Thank you, man. It's great to see you as always.

So we're going to pull up some of these questions. The Senate passed the legislation to open the federal government. It's going back to the House tomorrow. They expect to vote. Nice. Azzledov. 30 minutes ago that was breaking. Some of these names are so difficult to read, but I don't know where the space is supposed to be.

Unitunit glue. Unit unit glue. Oh, yeah, what's wrong with me? Unit, that's just the same word twice. Trip me up. People shouldn't worry about being demonized by murderers, thieves, liars, and criminals. People need to grow a spine. I totally agree.

Can we get an eye for everyone who agrees with that? Aye. Aye. Phil doesn't agree, I guess. I didn't even hear you. So Tiffinal says, Republican Party goes 100% anti-abortion. You lose elections again. Conservatives and MAGA are not pure per life.

Seamus, the spoon-stealer is wrong. Well, you're wrong for several reasons because I'm not a spoon-stealer. I've never done that. You know me, you know me, you know I wouldn't do that. But the Republican Party can't embrace abortion at any point or for any reason. Chad T. says, Phil, I disagree more than a... And this is actually the most controversial thing you said, deny it, Phil, that they're going to disagree with. And it's going to open a whole discussion.

They said, Bill, I disagree. More than 10 to 12 hour drive, you fly. I live three hours from a major airport, one to four hours waiting for connections, eat more time than driving. Very direct flights from regional airports. Most people aren't three hours from a major airport. Yeah, I tell you, I would concede because I think that it is,

it does, to your point, like, it does matter where are you from. Being from the East Coast, right? I don't think anywhere from, you know, from Boston all the way down here, you're more than an hour and a half, two hours from an airport. So I think that that does take, you take that into account. And if you're out west, you know, if you're out, you know, in the hills, in the Rockies or whatever, and it's three hours to get to Boise or to Denver or Salt Lake, then I totally understand why you would have that opinion. I don't have any problem with your take at all. So I do think that you make sense. I think that my opinion is context dependent because I live on the East Coast.

Beautiful. So Jay Dirtbiker says today marks the 50-year anniversary since the Edmund Fitzgerald went down in the frigid waters of Lake Superior. Rest in peace to the 29 souls on board who lost their lives on that terrible day. Amen. God bless them. They were doing very difficult work to provide for their fellow Americans, and they died. and there's a, I'm sure you guys all know this,

the incredible Gordon Lightfoot song about it. It's kind of been going viral lately. A lot of people have been talking about it. Do you want to sing it a little bit? I don't know if we have the rights, I don't know if I'm allowed to sing it on here. I'll just have to ask Tim if that's allowed. Evan for us says as the mass exodus happens out of New York,

they will lose their electoral power and hold on the country and red as well as purple areas will become more red. Let's go. Yeah, so here's the thing. I hope so. It's always difficult whenever you have this kind of mass exodus, because someone thinking that Zoran Mandami's policies make New York unlivable does not make them a right-wing conservative. That's pretty much a normal position that like any reasonable person has. And so a lot of these people are going to move to red states and they're going to ruin them. I'm sorry to, I'm sorry to spoil that for you up. Well, that was another Babylon Bee headline. This was actually from two days ago. Mom, Donnie dethrones Gavin Newsome as U. Hall's top salesman. Well, this is the other thing. He might do more to increase property values in Florida than DeSantis ever could. Do you guys think that there are a lot of people that would make the argument that Mamdani is Islam first,

and then there are people that would say that he is leftist first. What is your sense of, you know? I think he's Islam first. Wow. Okay. I'm curious. I mean, just based upon the circles that he has been courting, I guess you would say. I think that it's still unpopular enough to be. Islam first in a major city like New York that you kind of have to be hushed about it. But based upon the people he's surrounded himself with, especially towards the end of the

election cycle, I think that that's just a decoy to get in. So I think he is anti-American first. I'll give you a real answer, but he's anti-American first. I do believe he is Muslim first, and he's using leftist politics as a vehicle for his anti-Americanism. Correct. So I'm going to answer somewhat similarly. A little bit of a distinction here, though.

I think that he's leftist first, but in the sense that the reason leftism appeals to him is because of the anti-white identity coalition that forms around it. I believe that he views himself very much as a member of his specific ethnic group. And this is basically what he was saying during a speech, you know, black and brown solidarity will defeat white supremacy. To him, it seems the most important thing is pushing back against what he views is like white hegemony. I think he's fueled by racial resentment. I believe that his Islamic beliefs probably play a role in that. So it's difficult to separate it. Yeah, I think his anti-colonial beliefs are downstream from his Islamic beliefs and resentment from, is like downstream from there.

And, well, this is important because it's like, as he had left his first West, said this a million times before, but leftism is essentially just the intellectual rationalization for social decay. And as societies decay, the thing that people care more about than their actual values are things like skin color. So you look in prison, they're not like having debates over, you know, what policies they think they should have as inmates as they interact with each other. They go with their racial group because when everything else has broken down, that's what people gravitate towards. And so because leftism is social decay, it does lend itself towards people. just coalescing with their own specific racial or ethnic group and not in the sense where they

like love or prefer their own people but where they hate other groups like they hate white people for example and I think Mondami is a really good example of that so I don't know that there's this like complex you know ideological rationalization for it I think that the thing that matters to him quite a lot is his ethnic identity all right so we have from Nathan O'Connell There are foreign combatants inside our country. American civilians are providing material and financial support. At what point is treason not an acceptable charge for these supporters? Yeah, I mean, I think if you have enemies of the United States operating within our borders

and Americans are funding them, then they absolutely need to be tried for treason. I'm not sure if someone has a more nuanced or complicated answer than that. But first, I'm comfortable saying that. Throwing bricks, you know. Amen. It's a lot easier to find them. But yes, they both should be punished. They're taking cues from the Palestinians with that one with the rock throwing, huh?

We could just go to the next one. Hold on, no, we're going to sit with that. We're going to sit with Elon's. Oh my gosh, I called you Elon. I don't know. I guess that's a compliment. Eat all this. We got to put this.

So, oh, oh, next. You're shoving too much hair, by the way, to be a, to be a team. No, I know. It's a real. Do I have to pull it all the way down? Yes. He doesn't show any hair, remember? That's true.

He hides his hair under the beanie. Don't you shave your head tomorrow? That's what I should do. I should just completely shave my head. Scotty Mitz says, as the time on her tradition demands, I am super chatting to report that I'm watching from the hospital. My wife has given birth to our second and third daughters. Second and third.

So the second and third daughters, she's given birth to that fine day. That's incredible. She is tripless. No, I'm kidding. Bad joke. God bless you guys. We're very happy for you. That's amazing.

I'm glad you're super chatting in. And what good news. We talk about some difficult things that happen in the world on this show, so it's always nice to get a little white pill like that. Oh, man. So we have this username, Mammalian. Cloned beef and pork has entered the Canadian food supply without safety testing or mandatory labeling,

followed by the cutting of 300 ostriches in BC. Seems weird, A. They said A, so we know they are Canadian, so this all has to be true. I have no idea about this story. Are you guys familiar with this story of cloned more ostriches in their market? place. Like 300 of them. They just off them for no reason because they're like, oh, bird flu or something. Didn't Biden do this with a bunch of chickens?

More than 300 chickens, yeah. Yeah, more than 300, but I know that there was a bunch of chickens. Enough that the cost of eggs went through the roof for a while. Yeah. So nice. And this is a crazy thing where they wouldn't they not, they like wouldn't let the farmers quarantine the chickens or something? They're going to do it our way. Oh, yeah, no. Of course. The people in D.C. know the most about farming. Of course they do. A bunch of geniuses. All right. Let's grab another one. Um, yeah.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Um. Seamus, can I ask you a question? Hold on. Well, I want to make sure we get to these chats. But I, listen, on the after show, we will really, yeah. You guys need to sign up for the Discord.

Be sure to sign up Timcast.com. Become a member. Yeah, you can, you could have joined a lot of myself before the show today. And, and questions if you were. It was intimate. It was an intimate pre-show. That sounds gross. With a lot and Phil.

All right. So from Libertarian Hawk, they said 35-year residential appraiser in Florida here, the 50-year mortgage would decimate equity building. 50-year mortgage would take 36 years before principal would pass interest payments. That's crazy. Doesn't sound kosher to me. Doesn't sound very good. 36 years.

If it's all written, it would assume it would be, yeah. For $188 savings on a $420,000 house. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. That's like actually completely insane. It's nuts. That's completely insane. Um, Bill Dozer.

Oh, no. They said, y'all, going to talk about why Rand opposed this. Talk about them trying to criminalize hemp again. Elad is misleading a F. No. Elad, how do you answer to these charges? Repeat the super chat.

I know Rand Paul was trying to change some amendment that they were changing in Kansas regarding some hemp laws. I don't think a government shutdown is what he should try to leverage to change this law. Every other Republican senator voted to continue to open the government so the president can continue his agenda. I don't think this is a good cop-out for a rant. Hold on a second. Elad just hates libertarians because they will go against the MAGA agenda.

And so because of that, he will always frame them in the worst possible light. He will never be charitable to them. You must understand that. It's hard to be charitable to them. They oppose everything he said is true and he does not deny it. They oppose his agenda in Venezuela. they oppose the president in every which way. With, again, like, with Republicans like, you know,

Massey and Rand Paul, who needs Democrats, but we don't need to get too much. There will never be a charitable. He will never steal me on their arguments ever. What did he say specifically? He was like, oh, it's good that Rand, you know, was grandstanding on some niche hemp law that nobody cares about. Again, never a charity.

Is that what he said? No, that's what it is. That's what it is. I don't think the government shutdown should be leveraged on these stupid laws about hemp laws. that are actually staying the same. He wants to change them to have his vote be brought in. Everything I said is true. Instead of maintaining the status quo.

Hold on a second. These libertarians will always... He will never steal, man. The argument, he will never have a... All right, let's get next super chat. It will always be strong. So I'm going to read two of these questions. We have from Ryan Hunter.

Regarding mortgages, if the borrower is given three choices with equity rates, 30 years, 50 years, and 50 years with monthly calls. cost of 30 years, additional money is used as down payment, you save on interest and finish at 24.5 years. I'm a neocon, not an economist. Can we bomb the mortgage?

Then let the economist talk. Well, I mean, that's the thing. You have to see how everything is written up. We don't know, we don't know what is available. We don't know what's possible. They are the government. They decide how this stuff goes. So, I guess we'll just see. Yeah, doesn't the Fed control rates

and that will affect the prices? of homes as well. And hey, if you don't have any money, buy a home in West Virginia. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. That is not financial advice. That is not financial advice. We have to be very careful. We don't give financial advice on the show. Lassandran Stormwalker says, make it illegal for Black Rock or Vanguard or any of these other companies to own single family homes. My sister-in-law and her husband sold their house and Black Rock bought it and paid over the asking price. Well, it sounds like you're jealous of your sister on her home. Yeah, that sounds like crazy cope.

She should be happy that she got paid extra. And also this is a crazy cope because Black Rock barely owns any of these single family homes. I disavow. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Elon is actually. Does Black Rock legitimately own far less than 1%. And this is just like a cope for housing prices being an issue in our country.

You are. Remember Black Rock and like these fund managers and stuff, they're publicly traded. So it does help for the people that own. stock in these companies as well. I just want to say, most people are retired. I was, I was just cracking a clip, making a little joke when I said that you're jealous. I don't think you're jealous. And I agree with your concern.

I think it's legitimate. One thing I will mention is, yes, Eli, Elad, I think you are correct. That Black Rock buying up residential properties is certainly not the main culprit here. I think this is a way that people want to misdirect some of the anger at other more serious issues, like millions and millions and millions of millions of illegals being in the United States and regulations that prevent new houses from being. built new residential properties in constructions from going under way. So there's a lot to this.

Like, dude, you're from New York. You know all those big skyscippersers and all those apartments that have like nobody in them because they just bought it as like a land. Like, you know, oh, it's going to hold some property here in the U.S., etc., pay lower taxes. That's what needs to change. It's like there's so many more systemic things that need to change in order for it to actually be fixed. But that's a good one for you here, Shammis. I think this is real estate being a commodity that's an issue. Because that's what we're really talking about here, right?

Real estate as a commodity. and people using it as a vehicle to store their wealth in. Right. I think they should be changed. I think there's a lot of truth in that. It's complicated. I mean, it feels like so much of the economy at this point is built on that. It's difficult to know how we could strip that away. And property ownership has become one of the primary vehicles of generating wealth for your average middle class family.

So decommodifying it could actually really hurt the middle class. But ultimately, I think you're right that it probably is a more sensible way to operate your economy where the house is not merely viewed as an asset. or at the very least something I don't know if it's possible to like detangle it from being an asset and still allow it to be the vehicle for wealth generation that it is. So I don't know

like is there a way to do this where we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need another Levittown. We need a mass produce these you know, have these nice neighborhoods on Long Island, produce Bill O'Reilly's. That's where he was born in a place by the way. I'm going to town in Long Island. I think it's going to be short-term pain no matter

what. There's going to be short-term pain to correct what's happened because we've been sold, like we've been sold out, we've been screwed over. So no matter what happens, there's going to be short-term pain, and then hopefully in the long-term it works out. That's the only that we can hope for at this point. But, yeah, this one that was pretty good. Amen. All right, so we have from Matthew Pacheco.

They said 26-year-old Denver, Colorado, Magger. Another man. I thought that was short for something, and then I remember that Tim made that new word up. I like those hard ERs, guys. Yeah. And proud Catholic, carrying on the tradition of super chatting. Well, my wife is in labor.

Another one. Second child and second son. I love the idea of all these guys in the waiting room, like outside just super chatting and watching the ass while they're giving. Honey, wait, honey, wait. No, it's kind of based. It's kind of based. And thank you for your chat.

Please pray for my wife's health and love you, Seamus. God bless you. God has blessed you, man, with the children. That is a beautiful thing. That is a beautiful thing. Good for you. Good for you. Very happy.

very happy for them it looks like we probably got time for like maybe one or two more four or five more maybe 12 more six seven more stop it you're off you're kicked off the show you can never come back on for that one i can find something inside rumble let's go over here the rumble rants some rumble rants um so this person says outside of people at work who do fly regularly only a few in my life fly and it's rare. I think most normies are completely unaffected by this and the rest of the shutdown. In fact check true. That's a one-dimensional way of looking at it. If the entire economy is affected by people being able to move throughout the country, you're affected by it in ways that you don't even realize it. I mean, just because

you're not personally flying doesn't mean that people have to get places. It's a part of the economic engine. We've got, no, I totally agree with you. And I'm shocked. that our neocon-Ragan-loving trickle-down econ advocate doesn't see that. Oh, no, I'm going to be late on my flight to Barbados. Are you like Reagan? The wealth's not going to trickle down, E, lad. I thought you believed in that.

All right, so Squirtle Pone says, about to take my wife to the hospital. Oh, wow. We think it's time. We have our second baby girl, good night, IRL crew. Thank you. Yep, so much. Congratulations. God bless you.

We're hoping everything goes smoothly. God bless you. Good for you. That's beautiful. I love seeing that. Three of those tonight. Yeah. It's a good white pill.

It's because the government opened back up and now people can have children again. Make babies. So this person, Gage Ramsey says, America first Americans don't want to fund the rest of the world's wars, especially they spelled it

Israel and our, is there, does that, the algorithm flagged that word or something? I wonder. Yeah, I can see why, because maybe that's like a clever way of spelling it

so the algorithm isn't fined it. And we are pretty sick of their influence in our country. And then they say, said the bee is cooked. Nice. Yeah, a great one. Nice.

This one right here, this botanical gardens, I think it is. Is it butanical? It's botanical gardens. Butane? Yeah, good. Bought seven acres four years ago in Arizona, 1,200 an acre.

20K all in for tiny house. 5K for solar. Now 15K an acre. Thanks, Callie. 6K a month goes a long way on no bills. and move off the grid. What do you guys think of that? I mean, look, if you have the ability to do it.

Yeah, I was going to say it's not for everybody. I mean, there's way less people that can do that than fly commercial, I can tell you. That's probably true. Last time I went to Phoenix, the only thing that stuck with me is how many homeless people there were everywhere. I was like, I thought they didn't exist like that outside of the cities. No. Maybe it has something to do with the Native Americans there, too, but it was just everywhere. I think it has to do with the fact that it's hot all the time.

That's why people are homeless? Guys, you weren't going to believe it. Hold on, hold on. You keep going, but I've got a crazy another crazy now. No, pump it out. Let's hear it. It's a crazy day, guys. We have from Swim Smart. Another one? As a tradition watching Timcast while the wife delivers another Patriot!

Welcome Arthur to the fight and support our small business, Swim Smart. Well, God bless you. Great ticket. Congratulations on the baby. That's really exciting. Well, listen, guys, it's been a great show. We're going to go over our members-only segment as soon as we are done here for a spicy and interesting conversation, I'm sure. I'm Seamus Coglin, standing in for Tim and everyone, if you want to plug anything before we wrap.

Thanks for having me on the show. If everybody wants to check out the Beyond Parity podcast as well, that's the podcast that we run, that's kind of a marriage of not to be in the Babylon Bee. That's weekly on Fridays. We'll find it on YouTube and on Rumble. Absolutely good evening, everybody. Thank you guys for tuning in to another episode. I hope you enjoyed.

the change up with Seamus at the helm for this time. I am Alad Eliahu. I am the White House correspondent here at Timcast. You could find me on social media at Alad Aliahu. Hello, everybody. I am Phil that Remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check out our stuff on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora,

Spotify, YouTube, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. And my name is Seamus Coglin. I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes. We've done over 600 animated videos, over a million subscribers, over 290 million views, Spent on Marketing.

We need to fight back against the left and you cannot win the culture war without making culture. That's why we're making a full-length animated show. We've already completed the pilot. You can go see it for yourself if you support us at twisted plots.com. We can't win the culture war without making culture. Story is the number one way people learn about the world. And the left is currently in total control of all of the mechanisms of producing and

delivering stories to people with their ownership over big tech and television networks and film studios. So if you want to help us fight back before it's too late and preserve our country from the people who are chipping away at it through their propaganda and have been for decades, you need to go to TwistedPlots.com and you need to support us before it's too late. We've already raised a massive amount of money. We're 70% of the way there after just a couple weeks, but this is our final week and it ends late Thursday night. So go over to twisted plots.com, support us, help us build the future of entertainment. Thank you so much for watching. I'm Seamus Coglin, standing in for Tim Poole, and we're going to see you,

on the members only after segment.