Timcast IRL - IRAN STRIKE FAILED Claims LEAKED Intel Report, Trump Admin DENIES Report w/ Batya Ungar-Sargon

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

Tim, Phil, Elaad, & Libby are joined by Batya Ungar-Sargon to discuss a top secret intel leak claiming US strikes on Iran failed, an anti-Israel candidate for NYC Mayor surging in the prediction markets, influencers profiting off posting anti-Israel content, and Trump dropping an "F bomb" after Israel & Iran violate ceasefire.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Libby @LibbyEmmons (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Batya Ungar-Sargon @bungarsargon (X)

A leaked Intel report suggests that the Iranian strikes failed. After 14 bunker busters were dropped, the facility was only set back a few months in terms of nuclear enrichment and weapons development. The White House and the Trump administration are denying this claim saying this is totally wrong. And the question is, why does this assessment exist? And it sounds like from the Trump administration it does exist. They're just saying they disagree with it.

They feel that it is an incorrect assessment. My fear in this is if the argument comes out and is publicly accepted that the strikes failed then you're going to see the warmongers come out in full force saying well now we have no choice we have to scale these things up. In the meantime however it looks like the ceasefire is holding which is good news and Donald Trump this morning had one of the the best lines of a president ever when he just said, you got two countries that have been fighting for so long, they don't know what they are doing.

And he dropped that F-bomb. And so we appreciate it. I appreciate it. So we're talking about that. We got a bunch more. Before we get started, my friends, we got a great sponsor for you guys. It's Venice.ai. This is interesting.

It's a new AI. It's uncensored. Check this out. JetGPT, as the former director of the NSA sitting on their board right now, Edward Snowden called this a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth. I don't want to say that your Amazon device listens to us. I even had to do that because if I say it's going to trigger. Recommending products based on conversations.

Meta retargets us based on our browsing and engagement history. Why do we assume AI is going to be any different? It took us all far too long to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data last decade. Are we really going to make that same mistake again? OpenAI has hinted they might start requiring their users

to provide a government issued ID. Would you feel comfortable having to give your ID to chat GPT to be able to use it? I mean, you know, if you're signing up for it and you're paying, then they've got your information as it is. Venice utilizes leading open source AI models to deliver text code and image generation to your web browser, no downloads, no installations or anything private and

permissionless. They don't spy on you or censor the AI. Messages are encrypted and your conversation history is stored only in your browser. AI can be extremely valuable, but we shouldn't need to give up our privacy to use it. And, you know, full disclosure, I usually use, we use GPD on this show as well, but I'm gonna give Venice a shot because, yeah,

I kinda don't like how creepy it can be when, well, let's just say, these companies, they know when you go to the bathroom. I don't know, maybe I shouldn't say that, but hey. So let's do this. I'm gonna ask Venice, why are you a better AI? And it works. Hey, look at that.

So they've got their pro plan. It unlocks the full platform and features including PDF uploads, summaries, or insights, the ability to turn off safe mode for unhindered image generation, the ability to change how Venice interacts with you by modifying the system prompt, limitless text, high image limits. I mean, that's another big factor in a lot of these different AI services. They limit what you can ask it. The other day when the bombs dropped on Iran, I asked JetGPT to give me a summary and an image and it refused saying, I said, I can't help you with that.

I said, why? And it said, you have asked an inflammatory and false, you know, question. And we will not, I'm not kidding. It actually said something like that. And of course it was true news. So Venice says, I'm better because I don't censor my responses.

I have a wide range of knowledge. I'm designed to be engaging and pleasant, or like that, respecting privacy. Doesn't have any ethical restrictions so it can provide more raw and unfiltered perspectives. So, you know, not woke. Can handle difficult topics, consistent responses, can generate in multiple languages and provide details,

it's got a big, huge list actually. So give it a shot, go to venus.ai, I think you can actually use venus.ai slash Tim, and you'll get 20% off your pro plan, check it out. We think this is pretty cool. Don't forget to also check out castbrew.com and buy coffee. We got all the great flavors,

Appalachian Nights, Ian's Graphene Dream. We've got Phil's Two Weeks Till Christmas, even though it's been six, seven months now. But you know. And don't forget of course to smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Batia Anger Sargon. Hi Tim.

Who are you? What do you do? I'm a journalist. I'm an author. I'm the author of two books. One is called Bad News, How Woke Media's Undermining Democracy. The other one is called Second Class, How the Elites Betrayed America's Working Men and Women.

I'm known as the MAGA Lefty and I'm really honored to be here. Thanks for having me. Right on. Well, glad to have you. We got Elad hanging out. Good evening everybody. I am Elad Eliyahu, the White House correspondent here at Tim Casts. Hey Libby. Hey Elad, I'm Libby Emmons. I'm glad to be here hanging out with everybody. Hello everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter revolutionary. Let's get into it. Here's the news from the Daily Mail. White House furious at top-secret leak on Iran nuclear site bombing as Trump faces

impeachment calls. Additionally, the impeachment failed, but we'll get to that in a bit. A leaked Intel assessment claiming Trump's strike on Iran did not destroy Tehran's nuclear program is flat-out wrong. The White House has claimed the report conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency and leaked by CNN Claims Saturday's airstrike on three Iranian nuclear sites only set the country's program back by months instead of completely destroying it Trump claims the strikes completely and totally Obliterated the statement echoed by White House press secretary Carolyn Levitt who dismissed the assessment as a clear attempt to demean President Trump Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets,

total obliteration. Now, I don't know if I have the post actually pulled up, but I think the statements from the White House basically lay out that this assessment actually exists, it's a real assessment. So the question then is, why was it leaked, who leaked it, and is Trump correct? Now, here's what I wanna say about all of these stories. Trump is the source.

He is the primary source as the commander in chief. So it is strange to me that CNN would run a story saying, some random low level guy, like leak this report to us. And we believe this over the actual president and the administration. That being said, I understand administrations can lie, but for any lay person, you're gonna be looking at random anonymous guy versus the president's

administration, I don't know why in this instance you would doubt the primary source versus random anonymous source. You have no idea who he even is. Well, the thing too is this was this assessment was there were seven sources that were there were like three sources and people were briefed on the report, but the report wasn't leaked to CNN. CNN did not see the report. So they only heard about the pieces of the report that these sources wanted them to hear about. I've become so cynical of political motivations behind leaks that it makes it's hard to believe what people,

what's actually true and what is just being used as an angle. A lot of these people in the administration, I mean mean everybody involved in politics, a lot of these people who become sources for journalists seem to have an axe to grind. Yeah and people are out for Tulsi Gabbard. They want her out. Like they've been messing with her whole intelligence situation for a while. They had the flip-flopping FBI reports about potential terror cells in the US. They were going after Joe Kent by leaking some stuff. I mean, there are, I think, elements in the media and out there, I don't know who they are,

who really want Tulsi Gabbard out of her position. Is it realistic to think that they're going to be able to influence the president to remove Tulsi? I mean, he is, you know, it's not like he's afraid of firing know, it's not like he's afraid of firing people. It's not like he's afraid of making changes on the fly. But I don't think he'd fire Tulsi Gabbard.

But I don't know if this is, some low level person apparently leaked this. That's what Caroline Leavitt said. Right, and so my question is why, and my concern is they're going to claim, ah, well, if the strikes didn't work, we gotta go in, don't we? Well, I ah, well, if the strikes didn't work, we got to go in, don't we? Well, I mean, look, at the end of the day,

just because these strikes didn't work doesn't mean it calls for an invasion. Maybe it calls for a whole other sort of the exact same strike. We also don't know that the 14,000, 30,000-pound ordinances did not destroy it. Yeah. We don't know that.

We know that CNN had three people, low level people apparently at the White House tell them that they saw a draft, an early version of a draft report, right? Like who, of people who didn't check it out, they're just looking at images. They're just looking at graphics. I don't think this is going to have a big impact.

To me, you look at who is sharing this online, and the joy and the glee that they have, that they can smear something on this incredible moment for the president. It's CNN. It's liberal journalists. It's Democrats. And of course, it came liberal journalists, it's Democrats, and of course it came from low-level members of the deep state. This is not going to have an actual foreign policy

impact. This was just like rage bait for people who cannot stand the fact that the president pulled off something incredible this week. They cannot stand the fact that what he did was something that neither side could have pulled off this whole peace through strengthening where you protect the American people without losing a single soldier. So I think that this is really just like, this is like a cultural artifact of the moment

more than it is actually even like journalism or designed to have actually a foreign policy impact. I would also just intentionally try to impugn the honor of Natasha Bertrand. Very easily done. Yeah, because she's been involved in a bunch of these stories accusing Trump of being Russian or whatever, and you know, that was all fake.

So I was not surprised when I pulled up the CNN story saying actually the Iranian sites are totally fine. Uh-oh, and I'm like, oh look, it's Natasha Bertran. Yeah, I mean, surprising. Motivated reasoning is definitely not another question. Yeah, she's the one who penned that political report in the first place with the 51. Oh, was she?

Yeah, she penned the political report, and that report still has not been corrected or updated. And the other thing about that report that cannot ever be forgotten is that it was Antony Blinken with the Biden campaign who contacted one of, like, the main guy, the main intel officer who worked on that report and said, hey, don't you think this kind of has the hallmarks of Russian disinformation? And the guy was like, yeah, it totally does. And then he got 50 of his friends and they put the letter together and the letter didn't say also, I mean, when you

look at the letter, the letter did not say that the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. It said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation and then everybody ran with it, Jen Psaki, Russian disinfo. They all did that. None of them have taken their tweets down and literally everyone who reported on that, like it was true and refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop story, because you have to remember, they all came out and said they would not report on it. And here's why NPR, CBS, New York Times, all the rest of them, they all ended up with egg on their faces and it was all Natasha Bertran's fault. Okay. So speaking of egg on the face, here's my question. So we saw Trump basically, you know, metaphorically give the middle

finger both to the like neocon regime change side of the influencer sphere and to the anti-Israel isolationist side and do his own thing, which kind of split the difference and said, look, we're going to protect our people, but we're not going to war, we're not doing regime change. After the peace deal was signed or whatever, the ceasefire came into effect. Suddenly you had both the isolationists and the neocons coming out and being like, thank God he pulled it off.

Thank God I wasn't wrong. We were worried. We were worried. We didn't abandon him. We weren't against him. We were, thank God, thank God. They're all trying to act like they hadn't actually done what they had done, which is like completely come out

against his agenda. What do you guys think of that? His agenda in which regard? Like, okay, the isolationists wanted him to do nothing. And then- I wanted him to do nothing. You wanted him to do nothing. I also was not, I was not in favor initially of the strikes. I was too worried about our service members in the area.

Thank God, I'm nothing to them. But they wanted him to tell the Israelis, you're on your own. Not even give them refueling assistance and intelligence assistance. And then the neocons wanted full on regime change. Yeah, boots on the ground. Boots on the ground.

When it became clear that wasn't gonna happen, they started to get agitated and be like, oh my gosh, I can't believe we're gonna leave this hanging. This is our one opportunity, blah, blah, blah. But now that the dust has settled, both sides are trying to be like, I'm not unhappy. I was never angry. Me, what?

Me, I'm thrilled with how this is how I would have wanted. There's this weird, I think because they realized that 80% of Republicans were like, oh no, this is exactly what we want. This is the peace to strength that we voted for. But do you think people are gonna have this feeling of like, there's gonna be like a lingering, like a patina of betrayal on the people who turned on him

and who came out against him? Or you think they'll just get immediately reabsorbed into it? I think it gets reabsorbed, but it really does depend on if this holds. And I hope it does. You know, I was talking to Dave Smith earlier and he's very, very critical of Israel, very much doesn't want to be involved in these foreign wars and all that.

And he had a reasonable take. Hey, if this ceasefire holds, then I'm happy. I'm happy to be wrong. Nobody wants to be, no sane person wants to be like, I'd rather be right. It's like, oh, you want the entire region to destabilize now so you can say told you so. So did he redact his apology for voting for Trump? He's, Dave sort of did. Did he?

He said, everybody's saying, here's what he did. I asked him, you voted for Trump? He says, yes, I said, did you regret it? And he goes, everybody's mad because I said I regretted it. But what I'm saying now is I vote for the guy and where we are is where we are. And so I think, not remembering literally every word that he said, his general idea was,

Trump didn't do the worst thing that everyone thought was gonna happen. Everybody thought this was the moment of great betrayal. It seems like Trump was trying to take the minimalist approach, the neo-contrast screaming, but they're gonna get a nuke. The anti-interventionists are saying don't get involved at all. And he's like, we'll bomb those sites and then we're done. That's why he got super pissed this morning and said, they don't know what the

F they're doing because he doesn't want. I told him, Dave, I hope Trump takes away from this. You cannot win this. You're going to piss off tons of people no matter what you do. So I hope Trump's takeaway from this was don't listen to the regime change people. Don't listen to the people saying literally do nothing. You did the minimum and now everyone can be happy with their vanilla pudding. To answer the question about Dave, I think Dave is kind of happy with his vanilla pudding. You know what I mean? Like, okay, I was pissed, but now I'm not so mad because

we may get away from this without this being as bad as I thought, which actually means Trump is a pretty good president. So there's this quote from JD Vance. He gave this great talk at the Quincy Institute, I think it's called in 2024 in May. So I guess it was kind of right before he became, was that- Yeah, he became the candidate in July, I think. And it's a really great talk. And he explains basically from his point of view what a foreign policy designed to protect

the interests of the middle class would look like. And he said, it is obvious that our foreign policy should be designed around the recognition that the moral intuitions that matter are the moral intuitions of the American citizens. And I think that is so accurate and so true and just inherently a moral correct way to see what a nation's foreign policy should look like. It should reflect the moral intuitions of the citizenry. It happens to be a lot of people in the isolationist camp do not want to admit it, but the moral intuitions of the American people, the majority of the American people, if not the vast majority of the American people are very closely aligned with Israel.

You stop a normie American and their moral intuitions are pretty aligned with the idea of having a strong, pretty independent, sovereign ally in the region who fights people who hate us. And I think that's kind of where the isolationists went a little too far is endowing a that Trump knew his base and B that he could pull off something like this and see Endowing that the base should have their desires. Yes enacted in their form, but I think this is changing I think Israel's support is gone in 10 or 20 years Why do you think that? Yeah, what do you think that?

Let's let's let's use this story as a launching point. It does seem like a hard so because we do have a lot. We normally, we line all the stories up and we have a lot to talk about with the war. But we got the story from Fox News. Chicago Tribune warns New York to avoid socialist mayoral candidate after mistake Brandon Johnson. That's right, ladies and gentlemen,

New York is having a democratic primary. And this Zoran Mamdani is, I believe he's a Democratic socialist, yes? Correct. He's also, I don't want to, I just got to turn, but my understanding is he's anti-Israel. Very. Fair to say. Okay, fair to say. Is it fair? Would you characterize it more strongly than that, Ilad? No, I think anti-Israel is fair. I think he... What's become a big deal in New York and around Israel specifically is that within many of the anti-Israel protests in the city, they chant to globalize the so-called Intifada. Some people view that as a tepid call for violence against Jews.

He came out in support, as I understand, of the phrase. He wouldn't condemn it. And he thinks, I think he said something along the lines of there being like legitimate usage of the phrase and it depends how you interpret it. So, but before we get into all the nuances of what's going on in New York, the fact that this guy is now in, you know,

his polls are improving, the prediction markets have him heavily favored to win the primary. This is an markets have him heavily favored when the primary. This is an example of the political motivation on the ground. Young people skew anti-Israel. We are seeing a Pew has research that came out showing that among Democrats and Republicans,

Republicans 18 to 49 are now 50% anti-Israel, critical of Israel. Democrats are like- Anti-Israel is very different. I mean, we're probably critical of Israel. Well are like- Israel and anti-Israel are very different. I mean, we're probably critical of Israel. Well, let me pull it up to make sure I get it. Like, we're, you know, I think, I think, this is what I think. I think young people on the left have always hated Israel.

And on the right, I think young people are sick of funding other countries, which is legitimate. Like, I'm sick of, I don't, I think funding for Israel, it's kind of like- I think it's bigger. Well, real quick. Really like ran its course, you know? Like, that's what I'm doing.

They're not anti-Israel, they're're socialists and Israel is right-wing coded and as a result they hate Israel. It's so just to clarify negative Unfavorable view of Israel percent and so in 2022 18 to 49 year olds were 35 percent 2025 They're now 15 percent. That's Republicans Democrats, 18 to 49 went 62 unfavorable to 71 unfavorable. So. Yeah, but you don't think that when the war in Gaza ends, like that'll, I mean, that's reflecting. No, I don't think so.

Of a very negative reality. I think Israel has some of the piss poorest PR I've ever seen. It's true, they have terrible. China's got better PR. China has pretty good PR. It's pretty good, look what they do with TikTok. And they get, who is it, James Charles

or whatever that guy's name is, saying like, oh no, they're taking my TikTok from me, but Trump saved me. I'm like, they know how to run a SIA. It's funny because you got these people who think Israel controls the world, and I'm like- For all the stereotypes about being sneaky Jews. They can't seem to muster up any degree of support

among young people. So right now, based on the split between Democrats and Republicans, the principal voting blocks in this country being, that's just it, majority negative. Half of Republican in 18 to 49 are negative. To be fair, 50 plus a large voting block are very positive. Only 23 are unfavorable. Democrats, 50 plus are 66%.

We're looking at a majority among all U.S. adults 53% unfavorable view of Israel. This trend is growing. I don't think even when the war ends that's gonna change. And I'll give you a really good reason, TikTok being one of them. After October 7th, we went over this with Axios. We pulled the Axios data 800 million times. So I'm not gonna pull it up right now, but we saw that the content that was getting the most views, there was a small amount of posts talking about how Israel had been victimized

that got a large amount of play. Pro-Palestine, small. A week later, a week later, it inverted 10X. Now all of a sudden anti-Israel were getting way more views, like hundreds of thousands more, millions more, than pro-Israel sentiment, which was indicative of an algorithmic change because it makes no sense that over a weekend it just flips. Now this could be the result of TikTok internally saying, we want people to hate Israel and clicking a button, or it could be that Islamic nation said to their cyber armies,

we want 100 guys each running a thousand, you know, 100 accounts each going on TikTok and posting anti-Israel sentiment to force the algorithmic switch. Either way, within a week, the sentiment inverted. Israel's not done anything to combat this and the sentiment is only getting worse. Prominent conservative personalities are getting millions of views when they're critical of Israel and whether

you want to call it legitimate or not does not matter. Young people, you see that video of the woman who gets pulled over for the DUI? The cop walks up to her and then she's drunk and she goes, well, she allegedly is drunk, and she goes, did you know there's a genocide in Palestine? The cop's like, what? It's so wired into the minds of these young people because they're getting spam blasted with it that she blurt it out to a random cop at a stop. Israel does not have any, let me tell you, the people that I see

on social media that are pro-Israel are, there's an overlap between the DeSantis people and them, and everyone finds them insufferable. Not literally every single person who's pro-Israel, some of them totally fine. I'm friends with a lot of them, but a lot of these posts are just smarmy and snide. Meanwhile, I don't have to name anybody, you guys can, but there's a ton of prominent personalities on the conservative side who have recently come out as Israel is not doing us any favors too, Israel is secretly controlling this country and they're evil and they're getting millions upon millions of views, their subscriber bases are growing, they're making tons of money. I don't see a reason why that trend would change.

Well, this is another place where the far right and the far left converge, right, is on hating Israel. And also, being pro-Jew and pro-Israel used to be a leftist position. And like other leftist positions, the left has totally abandoned it, along with free speech and workers' rights and all kinds of other stuff. How much of this do you think is a function of them hating Israel or downstream from the base of the Democrat party becoming leftists and as a result of Israel being- Why are they becoming leftists?

That's where the base of the party is. Why? I mean, that's a good question. But as far as- I don't think it's because of Israel that they're becoming leftists though and I think it's downstream- No, but they're intertwined. So when you say the base of the party is leftist and they hate Israel, the function of what is causing it is the exact same thing.

Well I guess I wanted to focus on the framework of why the left hates Israel. I mentioned earlier it's because it's right-wing-coded, but also because it's white-coded. It's an oppression, white-coded thing. The left views Israel as white oppressors oppressing brown people. And that's why they are- European oppressors too. That's why they try to have an affinity for black people. That's how they try to appeal to black people by saying, hey, look, you guys are oppressed

by white people here. So like- I get all that. We get all that. So that's why I can say- That's not correct. That makes no sense. Which part isn't? If you were actually to apply critical theory and you actually were trying to say that we're on the side of the oppressed you'd be pro-Israel.

It depends on your narrative and framework. I mean I don't disagree with you on principle. If you were actually looking at so the issue is these people who claim on the side of the oppressors are on the side of the second largest religion in the world which has domination in the region, surrounding one small nation, the only Jewish state on the planet. And they say the one small ethnic minority surrounded by two billion Muslims is the oppressor.

But that's because they think they're white. I think Americans like to interject our politics. The point is, they believe these things not because there's a logic behind them, but because they are told to believe them by PsyOps and PR campaigns. And people, so here's what I genuinely think about a lot of the anti-Israel sentiment. They're bots. Not all of them. From Pakistan, I mean.

Not all of them. But you know what I love? You know what I love? Okay. I've explained This is I shouldn't even caveat this the way bots work Not all accounts are bots. You're allowed to not like Israel, but there are a lot of bots. It's the distinction here When someone is running a bot campaign these are limited low-functioning AI Autoposter bots they can only respond in certain ways to certain things.

What tends to happen is someone will say, we want, let's just say pancakes and waffles, isolate it. We want somebody who hates waffles to be spam blasted until they genuinely believe everybody likes pancakes. Why does the left believe they're on the right side of history? Because they open their social media app and they see a video of a thousand protesters in the street and it looks like this massive gathering. It looks like the whole world is watching and it's a thousand people in a city of 13 million. But in their minds they can't comprehend that. So what the bots do is they'll see a lot go on go on X and say, you know, I had a waffle today was pretty good. And then they'll say, oh man, we're the pancake company, put his account listed under pro waffle. Anytime he posts anything about breakfast, attack him and say he's a waffle shill, shabos waffle, whatever.

Shabbos waffle, whatever. But here's the thing. A minute later, Elad then posts, I actually don't like waffles at all. I think they're gross. But you know what? That waffle was okay. I'm gonna stick to pancakes. The people who set up these campaigns

don't realize there's nuance in his position. And he was only passively supporting it one time. From then on, every time Elad posts waffles are bad, he gets attacked by people saying waffles are bad. And you're like, whoa, wait, hold on. So here's the real world example. I will post the US should not be funding Israel. And what do I get?

300 responses saying, why are you supporting Israel? Well, hold on there a minute. That doesn't make sense. These people are not real. Their images are AI generated or cartoon avatars. And I know they're fake and they're not a real person. It's not even a person typing the message. They'll say, aha, did Netanyahu decide,

I swear to God, I'll say, I am sick of the US being involved in the Middle Eastern wars, we shouldn't be funding Israel, Israel should take care of themselves, and I'll get a message saying, did Netanyahu pay you to say that? And I'm like, what? I get messages like that, like,

because you met with Netanyahu, it's like, oh, what did Tim tell you? You're not allowed to say this, blah, blah, blah. It's like, you're nuts. Can't make a distinction between nuance. So I post an Israeli flag as a troll. They put me in the pro-Israel camp because they can't understand that I'm screwing with them.

And now, any time I say anything critical of Israel, I get blasted by both pro and anti Israel every time because they're bot campaigns. So here's what happens. If you're, there have been people that have been affected by this. There's a person who's like a fitness instructor and their YouTube channel is a bunch of fitness videos.

Not very big. Here's how we do pushups, whatever, I don't know. One day, October 7th happens and they make a video saying, you know, I've been getting a lot of messages from people asking me what my thoughts are on what's going on in Israel, and to be honest, like, I don't really know a whole lot about it, but I know that's deeply affected a lot of you, and I know I have a lot of fans that are deeply concerned about this, so I thought I'd make a video addressing it. They go from getting 10,000 views to 50,000. And so then they just talk about

it all the time. They come back to their channel and they go, whoa, I got 50,000 views for talking about Israel. Then they look at the comments. The comments say, this is a really great video, you're amazing, can you make more? They do. Then he makes a video where he's like, you know, I don't really know if it's a genocide

or what you'd call it, but I know that it's deeply passionate. Then the comments are all saying genocide, genocide, genocide, genocide, genocide. So then he makes a video saying, I think it might genocide genocide genocide. So then he makes a video saying I think I think It might be a genocide and then all of a sudden he gets a million views so

Not that every single time this happens. It's bots, but my point is there are slap campaigns that that do this There are a lot of people that are critical of Israel. I've met them they exist But Israel isn't doing anything to counter any of it. Any of it. So my prediction is, 10 years from now, the 49 year olds are gonna be 59 and they'll be out of that demo. Eight year olds now are growing up

with young women getting pulled over by cops and saying, did you know there's a genocide in Palestine? It is the branding. Listen, listen, I don't care what she says. What if the cop pulled her over and trolled the window and she was like, if you need a cash settlement and you wanna get paid, or whatever that song is.

If you have a structured settlement, you need cash now. I'd be like- Or 1877 Cards for Kids. Right, I'd be like, that's branding. The fact that this drunk lady, allegedly, can just blurt it out means she doesn't know anything about anything, but in her brain that's something she's memorized. So what happens when a kid grows up watching TikTok

and Instagram shorts and YouTube shorts and that's all they see and Israel does nothing in terms of any kind of PR? Okay, 10 years from now that 53 minus 53 will be minus 60. And that's when Congress says we vote to defund Israel. But I think, okay, first of all, I think that there is a kind of like the current thing aspect to it, you know, like the left does tend to move from one thing to the next. Agreed. It just happens to be that this is a global thing and the war is still ongoing for reasons we can talk about, none of them good. So it is a thing that has legitimate criticism attached to it that is global and happened to have been the current thing. And also I think Israel is making a lot of friends in the Middle East. It's becoming much less dependent on US largesse. We're going to end up at a situation, possibly, I don't think so, I think these numbers will

improve for Israel, but we're going to end up in a situation where the US for its own strategic purposes wants to be giving that money more than Israel wants to be taking it because it has local friends, possibly Saudi Arabia, currently the UAE, et cetera, who are more than happy to enter into that kind of relationship and have that kind of intelligence sharing, etc. So I don't look at this as a pro-Israel person and feel like terror. I feel like I have a lot of trust in the American people, the moral intuitions of the American people, the greatest people on planet earth, and they will arrive at the right situation.

But I don't think that this is... the current geopolitical situation that Israel is in is significant. It's not- Reception is reality. And right now on social media, if, like, name a prominent conservative with a big following that's grown substantially that is pro-Israel, that is advocating for strikes on Iran in favor of Israel. I mean literally the inverse of what we see with prominent conservatives who have massive followers get 12 million views. But didn't we just see over the last two weeks that their influence is like

null and void like it doesn't matter how many Twitter polls they put up and win like actually the American people supported what President Trump did and well I mean the poll... The real polls show that what he did was wildly popular. What polls? Well, 76% of GOP voters approved of it. 65% of MAGA... That same poll you decided says the overall American public, it's minus 11.

But 80% of Americans oppose Iran getting a nuclear deal. But they don't support military strikes. They don't support Trump. They don't support anything he does. But they 80% average the average person. Trump's approval rating is actually really good right now. Yeah, but the average Democrat who's part of this 80% who wants Iran not to have a nuclear weapon is going to oppose whatever Trump does to make their wishes come true because they're going to oppose whatever Trump does period. Well, not just that, but the disapproval that Trump has in the GOP for the strikes in Iran is slightly higher than his general disapproval in the party. Suggesting more Republicans.

Didn't we just see that the influencers have no influence? Like all of these anti-national influencers were not able to influence like Trump's actions or... Maybe they did. That's why we didn't invade. Oh come on, you don't think that. What do you mean? Trump met with Steve Bannon. Why did Trump meet with Steve Bannon? Trump's actions or- Maybe they did. That's why we didn't invade. Oh, come on. You don't think that. What do you mean? Trump met with Steve Bannon. Why did Trump meet with Steve Bannon?

So the Trump administration, unlike Israel, handled their PR really well. They were reaching out to influencers to be like, we hear you. You know what I mean? Wouldn't that suggest that there was- They weren't actually listening to them. That was a delayed lunch. Like Bannon had a previous- Trump would never have done regime change. It's like against everything he believes in.

I think that if the entirety of his base was screaming for regime change, he'd do it. No. He troops on the ground. He was calling people in 2005. I think regime change and troops on the ground. He was pissed about the warning. There's a difference. It doesn't have to be. Let me rephrase that. I think if the entirety of Trump's base said we want escalation, we want more action, Trump would have said, okay. He would have thought about it, but he should have. I mean, that's how democracy is supposed to work, right?

The fact is the majority of his base didn't want it, despite the fact that all of the influencers were pushing Trump not to get involved, not to drop these bombs, not to assist Israel, but they were irrelevant in this story. Isn't that not what we just saw? Like the irrelevance of the- Yeah, but I think the influencers had influence.

I think the reason Trump's frustrated and wants to cease fire and he wants limited interaction is because he knows that he's got these intelligence reports saying, do it or you have to, but then he's got his base screaming, we don't want this and he's stuck between them. I don't think that's true. Their influencers, I think, are in a bit of a bubble.

Although we like to say mainstream media has completely lost their influence. I think Fox News probably has more viewers than Twitter does have active followers on certain times. Twitter is just completely filled with foreign influence campaigns. And it seems as though a lot of people who had a lot of different jobs

have all of a sudden become Middle Eastern experts. I know people who used to be comedians who had not many people show up to their shows seem to get millions of impressions right now on Twitter as a result of this, as a result of their commentary on stuff they actually know next to nothing about. I do agree with you though,

that Israel in the future, they're losing support from Democrats, but that's the reason why I think it's gonna become a partisan issue. And I think one of the biggest threats to Israel is one of the biggest threats to America as well. And what is that? It's socialism and socialists in our country.

So I think the support for Israel drops when socialism becomes popular in our country. So Israel and really America do have the same biggest threat. And that's- Well, let's just conclude this. Would y'all agree that there is a large amount of individuals on social media that are profiting off of being anti-Israel? Of course.

Yeah, but I don't think they're having any impact for any influence despite being called influenced. I think they're getting a lot of likes from Pakistan. Yeah, or from like two billion Muslims who are desperate for like high quality. Not Americans, what is an American version of these social media apps? How does the left recruit for these protests?

How do they have so many young people showing up? And why does some random woman getting pulled over a cop say genocide? How many people do you think have protested against Israel in America since the beginning of the Gaza thing? Like what's a number you think would- Hundred thousand?

You think that's a lot? I think that's very little. For protests, it's probably like low-mid. Over two years? Over the course of two years? I think that's very little. I would call that low-mid. And when you compare it to what's going on in like Canada or the UK, where you have like millions of people- But this is not the question I'm asking. I'm asking about a trend direction. Why are people who don't know anything about the region all of a sudden violent and fervent over it?

No, I totally agree with your analysis of people being like captured by, you know, the algorithm. And so what is, and then what is anyone, be it APAC, Israel or the US or pro-Israel groups doing to combat this? But I don't know that something has to be done. That's what I'm trying to say is like, I don't really care that there's a bunch of like, like people have been captured by the algorithm making money off of this content and being

viewed by a bunch of people in Pakistan or what have you. Like I don't know that this is like a crisis. So why do you think over three years sentiment has shifted 11 points negatively for Israel? We've had a violent war. War has two parties in it couldn't that have shifted negatively for Israel. We've had a violent war. War has two parties in it. Couldn't that have shifted negatively for the Palestinians? So again, I think you have to separate why it's happening on the left and why it's happening on the right.

It's happening on the left because as Allad said, the center of gravity of the Democratic Party has turned against Israel. Why the right? That's a totally different question. So why are young conservatives? And I think a lot of this has to do with- I think it's overstated on the right, completely overstated, and I think it's because many people who are not truly MAGA appropriate MAGA. So for example, a lot of these isolationists or libertarian types aren't truly MAGA.

And President Trump even says of people like Thomas Massie, Congressman Thomas Massie, who's been- You just interrupted Batya, though, so I can interrupt you. That was literally what I was thinking. Also, I don't know any isolations. Thanks for letting me- No.

Actually, I know one. So my point here specifically, President Trump put out this truth where he said, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. I think that's true of many libertarian leading types who aren't truly MAGA. About what part?

He's wrong about Thomas Massie. I don't think that he's not MAGA? Well, you can call whoever you want not MAGA, but he's wrong about Thomas Massie in terms of Massie's support and his principles. Well, I think he's spot on that Thomas Massie is a grandstander that votes with the Democrats, especially at a time like this. It's frankly ridiculous. He's anti MAGA agenda.

How is that wrong? He's posturing against the one principle. I just heard in like half an hour. What are you talking about? He's anti-mega agenda. How is that wrong? He's posturing against the one principle. I haven't said a word in like half an hour. What are you talking about? All right, so interrupt me mid-sentence. No, don't talk. Thomas Massey's record speaks for itself.

Yeah, he's voting against the one big beautiful bill. He's voting against COVID funding. Sure, so I think he's anti-mega agenda because he's voting against the one big beautiful bill. And I think that's clear cut and obvious. I don't know how it... He is wrong about when he calls Thomas Massey weak and a loser and a grandstander. Trump can call anybody who wants not MAGA.

It's his brand. Is Thomas Massey wrong for voting against the one big beautiful bill? Yes. Okay. There we go. Indeed. And I like Thomas Massey. I think he's the best member of Congress we have right now, even though I disagree with

him. Rand Paul also said he would vote against the big, beautiful bill. However, he did concede if it came down to him as a deciding vote, he would vote in favor of it. And I tremendously respect that because I think Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are two of the most principled people we have in Congress. I wish we had more people like them. I wish everybody was like them, even when they're wrong.

So I think Congress is where you go to frankly compromise, you know If you want to get anything done in Congress, you're going to have to compromise and that's why President Trump calls him a grandstander I think if Matt's he's doing what his constituents want then he's doing the right thing for okay I think it's anti-maga. It doesn't matter though. I mean the only I think it's anti-mega. It doesn't matter though. I mean, the only thing that matters is You're the only thing that matters. You guys get the point.

I started to go into it once. How much you want to do after Mass? Ilada's correct. Trump decides what's mega or not. He does. It's his brand. It's his slogan. It's his agenda.

And if he says, Massie's not mega, then Massie's not mega. There should be like a little Cosmo quizzer for like, if it's mega. If he says, Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes no on virtually everything put before him, no matter how good it may be. So I mean, I think Donald Trump is really spot on here. And he says that he wants to-

Well, he put together a super PAC. His guys put together a super PAC to get Massey out. So we'll see what happens. And he's going to try to primary them. I don't think it'll work. Well, I think it's a message to these Republicans who aren't falling in line with the MAGA agenda. And I think it's important for Republicans

to fall in line with the MAGA agenda because Donald Trump's important for Republicans to fall in line with the mega agenda Because Donald Trump won a majority of the votes in the past election, right? I thought he had what was this this mandate, right? Well, apparently Thomas Massey disagrees or his constituents disagree I mean, he's the one who's voting Put a bow on this let's let's put a ball on the subject Where did I just close that poll? So my question is, what, final thoughts on this, so we can move on, but what changes the course

of this polling? What will happen where people go, actually I was wrong, I don't dislike Israel, I like Israel? What will change? Fighting back against socialism in our country. Or the next trendy protest topic. I think fighting against the ideology of socialism and democratic socialism in our country will correlate aggressively with support for Israel in our country.

Why? So yes, because people in our country who are these young people who are anti-Israel are leftists who believe that Israel is right-wing coded and white coded, and that's why they hate Israel. You're missing the big picture of someone told them that. And if they stop being socialists, well, they'll stop believing the ideology. I guess the issue I take with your answer is a broad question, there's a broad answer that's vague and nebulous targeting a very specific issue. I feel like you're not answering the question.

Fight socialism and people will like Israel seems to be a non sequitur. No, I'm saying they're strongly correlated. Yeah, but you've not explained how I don't feel like you've answered the question. Because lefties and socialists view Israel as a country that is quote unquote white right-wing. Which leaves a gap of why. Why, because they're told that the propaganda narrative. They think that because they have a college degree. So the number one predictor for whether you'll be a Democrat

is whether you go to college. Whether you've been indoctrinated through any college. In universities you get this woke indoctrination where there's no right versus wrong the way normal people think about the world. There's just who has more power and who has less. And then they superimpose some racial category or some gender

category, what have you. And whoever is the white person, like a lot is saying, is evil and bad. And whoever is the person of color is oppressed and therefore inherently virtuous. And they side with them inherently. This is like every human. So why do high school students also agree?

Because that curriculum is dripping down. Every teacher that they have. It's a critical race theory in our school. Because the left has infested the schools of education that teach the teachers. So all of the curriculum that the teachers learn is all leftist. So they're all so the teachers that are teaching high school as well as college these people all went to the same colleges of education that have a leftist indoctrination built right into this curriculum. Okay, so now the reason why I reject what you said is your argument could actually be summarized by fighting socialism entails altering the curriculum of various schools from the bottom up through various universities, then altering social media algorithms to stop the

spread of these ideas, which in a grand scale can be applied in certain ways where someone could accuse Israel of being bad. After we do that, we'll run a campaign that would start to convince people that Israel is actually not right-coded and the arguments that they've been using on critical theory don't apply to Israel properly and now they're... Yeah, because Tim, we're saying this is a symptom of another problem. Like, this is not a problem. This is a symptom.

So my question is what specific thing happens that changes the sentiment? Transplog? Well, I think- Socialism becoming unpopular in our country. That's not an answer. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. I don't know why that isn't an answer.

What about like the next- Well, let me tell you this. I think that Israel will gain support if we all buy Bitcoin. If we all just bought Bitcoin, people would support Israel. Wait, is that, are you joking? Yeah, I'm basically- You're making fun of him, oh. Because he's not giving an answer.

Fight socialists and people like Israel. Why, they're not related. I think they're completely related. And I think the most prominent anti-Israel people are democratic socialists and far left people in Congress. I don't think you have answers for this. I have a different answer. Oh, go ahead.

Well, what's your answer? Oh, well, my answer is is that like support for Israel is like many other things that have become like Marginalized by left-wing indoctrination. It's a normie value It's the kind of thing that like regular people who don't have fancy degrees Inherently are drawn to like the idea that marriage is a really good, or there's a difference between boys and girls, you know? You think support for Israel is like marriage? Yeah, in the mind of like, if you would look at the polling, like a regular middle-class American who has not been influenced either by woke university curriculum or by online

whatever on the far right, like it's the kind of thing that Christians in America feel very attached to, for example. The Holy Land. Like that whole Ted Cruz thing. And the problem with this country right now is actually not ideological so much as it is the class divide. The problem is not so much that a certain sub-sector of Americans go to college and get a college degree and have like terrible ideas,

it's that those are the people who have access to the American dream and that normie people, like regular people, working class people, people who don't have access to that stream of education and those knowledge industry jobs have been in a large way economically disenfranchised in this country. Right, so Republicans- The way that you fix for that is what Trump is doing right now, which is you create an

economy that instead of being an upward funnel of wealth, is actually a downward funnel of wealth through things like tariffs and... Right, and so why then do key demo Republicans support Israel less by 15% over three years? You mean young people? Well, 49-year-olds aren't young. Yeah, well like I said, I think this is a reflection of the war, which has been going on for three years. You mean young people? Well, 49-year-olds aren't young. Yeah, well, like I said, I think this is a reflection of the war, which has been going on for three years. Still, so almost two-thirds of Republicans.

Again, my point being, it takes two to 10 going to war. So the argument that I've made is that Israel is failing at PR is correct. Where's that, Hasbra? Yeah, of course it's failing, but also the war's gonna end at some point, and there's going to be a new, like next big thing. People are going to move on from this. It's not going to be, when there's no war in Gaza. For what changes that sentiment?

When there's going to be no- Like the default position isn't going to be support for Israel. People are just going to be like, the war's over and I hate Israel. No, it's going to be like the war's over and I don't think about Israel, which is a fine thing for like an American to feel. Just like nobody thinks about Sudan. There was an attack on a hospital in Sudan and the World Health Organization was really upset about it and it killed like 40 people. It was the only hospital in the area that killed a bunch of kids. Let's jump to the next story, which doesn't deviate too much, but we have this from Reuters. It's from this morning and it is an outdated story, but there is a component of it.

Explosions ring out in Tehran despite Trump's order to Israel to stop the strikes. Notice the passive tense in ring out. That's going to come back. Ring out. Well, we have this video, which is one of the best videos of President Trump ever. I, I, I, oh, absolutely. So I'll set it up basically this morning. Trump says Iran and Israel both violated the ceasefire. He then followed up with this. Israel says that Iran violated the peace agreement and the ceasefire agreement. Do you believe that Iran is still committed to the cease?

Yeah, I do. They violated it, but Israel violated it too. Are you questioning if Israel was committed to the ceasefire? Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before. The biggest load that we've seen. I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour

and just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land that was shot perhaps by mistake that didn't land I'm not happy about that we have we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing you understand that the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that? You have to respond to a problem.

Legend. Yeah, that was amazing. Legend. Now the reason I brought up the Reuters post is that an hour and a half after Trump said, do not drop those bombs, Israel won't do it, they're doing a plane wave, the report came out that in fact Israel still went ahead with at least one of the strikes on a radar station in Iran in defiance of Trump saying, don't do it.

Trump was pissed and dropped an expletive, which is kind of shocking for a president in a bit, but I love it. I love it. I loved the mafia tone of, do you understand? I wanted him to almost say Capiche. I think Trump is, well, he's clearly pissed, but I was shocked. And you know, it was a coin toss for me. Will Israel defy what Donald Trump is saying? And they did.

So what's the ramification of that going to be? Will Trump hold a grudge and foreign aid to Israel? Well, basically what happened was he, after that amazing, amazing moment, got Bibi Netanyahu on the phone and was like, what is going on here? We had a ceasefire and Netanyahu alleged that there were rockets shot into Israel from Iran that had to be responded to. They had to get rid of this one last rocket launcher. So he was going to send out a much bigger barrage.

And then after talking to Trump, he said, all right, we'll just send out the one. They blasted the rocket launcher and apparently Trump was satisfied with that. That's just the reporting that came out. Take that as you will. I also thought that was an amazing moment. It was to me, cause he was on his way to NATO and it felt a lot like, you know,

when your dad is driving like to a wedding or something and you're fighting with your siblings in the back and like your dad's hand comes back, he's like, shut the f up. Two hours, about, it's an hour and 45 minutes. After Trump said, don't do it. And actually it was, I believe it was like a full two hours. Trump posted on Truth, Israel do not drop those bombs,

and Israel will not drop those bombs, and they did. Was there an excuse that they were already in transit or the missionaries? An hour and a a half later you could turn around at any point I mean, I'm not saying they couldn't but the point that I'm making is they might be like, oh well We like we tried calling the pilot with the bombs and he's not answering. They're gonna make up their their estate They're gonna make up all kinds of excuses as to why they couldn't you know, they both violated it both Iran and Israel I'm just saying will will Trump tolerate being made to look like a chump So I think actually president Trump and that prime Minister Netanyahu are on the same page and

they're playing good cop bad cop throughout this entire thing. I think there's been intelligence sharing the entire time and they have been on the same page and have been coordinating together and in order to get Iran to the negotiating table, Israel's the bad guy and Trump's trying to be the good guy. So 4D chess? I don't even, I think it's like 2D chess. It's like actually really straightforward. It's just extremely straightforward the good guy. So four D chests. I don't even, I think it's like two D chests. It's like actually really straightforward. It's just extremely straightforward,

the way he's posturing. Like I think Trump has a lot of moral clarity when it comes to Israel. And I don't think there's- But that was an act. I think the whole thing's been an act. That anger, that F-bomb, they wrote it. Not knowing about what Israel was going to do,

how they were gonna attack. I think the United States has been doing intelligence sharing with Israel throughout this entire thing. And I think Trump probably signed off on a lot of these attacks. He just wanted the plausible deniability of not being involved until he saw that it was a success. So the people who are like the isolationist thinkers who

are like, oh, maybe this means that Donald Trump's not going to support Israel anymore, I think, are really missing the bigger picture of the isolationists. Thomas Massey. Thomas Massey types. I don't think Thomas. Comedians on Twitter. Thomas Massey, like an actual isolationist, or are you just saying that as an insult? He's just saying. I don't think isolationist is an insult to people who believe that the United States, it's not, I don't think it's a derogatory term isolationist. You do everything you can. No, there's, there's, there's like, I think it's descriptive. They describe themselves as like non-interventionalists, and then they're called isolationists because it's an extreme position meant to poison the well.

I don't mean it as a slur. I don't know if people are- No, it's poisoning the well. It's a deceptive tactic to where I say something like, the standard of proof required for a strike on a foreign country is high. And they say, so you're an isolationist? No, I think there's lots of people we can be bombing. So I'm just saying the standard of proof you need.

You wouldn't call yourself a non-interventionalist either. I'm anti-intervention. Absolutely. So I think that non-interventionalists were hopeful that President Trump would, you know, clean his hands of the Middle East as a result of this. I know very few people who call themselves isolationists. The people who tend to be in favor of war refer to people who don't want their war isolationist. So if I said something like, I understand the precision strikes on the Houthi rebels

despite the fact Trump said he wouldn't do it, I'm kind of lukewarm on the issue. That's not isolationist. It's like, oh, okay, they were shutting down the Red Sea. Also not an interventionist. Non-intervention in terms of boots on the ground against regimes. If we're talking about, so I'll put it this way. I interviewed Sepp Gorka and he said,

we understand the sentiment, you don't want the US military to go and start bombing all these things. We're gonna draw the line at no regime change, no invasions, but if there is a rebel group, if there are the Houthi rebels, if there are terror cells, we will do precision strikes. And I go, all right, I'm not going to bash my head on the table and scream. No, I'm going to say we've compromised.

Isolationist literally refers to cutting off trade with foreign countries. No. Absolutely, it's isolation. But Tim, would you support, like, knowing what we know now, let's say the ceasefire holds, retrospectively, would you support the attack on Fordow? No. Even now? Yes.

Do you worry about Iran getting a nuclear weapon? 60%. I think that it's certainly not been sold to the American people. That's why it's divisive. So there's questions. Certainly, Dave Smith doesn't believe they were close to getting one, even though there are reports that they're- Do you believe they had an intention to at some point get one? I think it is 60 percent, right? Based on the evidence, I'd put the probability slightly greater than chance.

And what is your level of opposition to them having a nuclear weapon? That they would give it to the Houthi rebels and other insurgent groups for dirty bombs and insurgency. Would you be comfortable with them just having one? If Iran had a nuclear bomb, the question is, if Iran wasn't going to give fissile material to random crackpot religious extremists, which I think they would, that's the threat. They could already do that though. Indeed.

They could. Of course. And they may with the 900 pounds of fissile material they have. So if Iran has a nuke, what is the threat? Honest question. It's not a gotcha. It's not a rhetorical question. An arms race in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan, but why? Saudi Arabia has said that they would see... They say all things all the time. Okay, so then you can... If you're going to ask the things that are likely and then I'm going to say, well, these are the things that people have said, then you said, well, I don't believe them.

There's no point even having the conversation. You're just going to be like, well, I'm going to believe the things that I want and not believe the things that I don't want, or the things that fit the story that I'm speaking. So the issue is, what is our risk assessment? What is the risk that if we intervene with B-2 bombers and drop 14 bunker busters on a foreign country,

that we drag other nations into the war and trigger the arms race itself? Okay, so Muammar Gaddafi gave up his arms program. That happened though so Muammar Gaddafi gave up his arms program. That didn't happen though. Muammar Gaddafi gave up his arms program. Yes. And he was assured of certain, the sanctions would be dropped, that the UN was going to basically allow him to start developing without obstruction.

They did not. So what did he do? It was somewhere around like 2009. He said, then we're going to keep enriching uranium. And they said, you will die now. And so what happens? We triggered an arms race. Iran becomes dead set on getting nuclear bomb because they're like, if we negotiate with

you, you're going to kill us anyway. Iran's been dead set on nuclear. Yeah, I mean, in 1995, the estimates were that they might have it in five years. The point is, when the US negotiates and then kills the guy, you affirm in the minds of those people in the region why they need to have those weapons. This is something I heard you say.

I don't think that these are mutually exclusive. It's not mutually exclusive that Trump was negotiating in good faith and also at some point became convinced that they were not, and therefore greenlit the operation. He could have been negotiating in good faith up until this second he gave him the green light. So here are the questions.

Here are the questions we have. Do you believe that Trump's strike on Fordow and Anansin, Isfara succeeded? Of course. And that Iran will not be able now to enrich any uranium? We don't know for how long, right? We don't know that because we don't have boots on the ground. Longer than a year? Yeah. At least a year or do you?

At least a year. Longer than that? I think probably longer, but I'm not, like I haven't seen enough, we don't have enough information to decide yet. This is at best kicking the can down the road. The real solution has to be diplomacy because again, we could prevent them,

we could keep bombing their nuclear facilities, but if they could bring them back up to date within six months to 12 months, then it has to be negotiations where they're saying, we will shelve our ambitions to do it. Otherwise, we're going to keep bombing them and then regime change becomes a serious conversation. So now let's- Do you feel safer with an Iran that doesn't have a nuclear weapon? Right now, the argument that I should or anyone should feel safer after they just dispersed an estimated 900 pounds of uranium in God knows where and that's, if you want to believe

the reporting, I suppose, the US officials according to the New York Times, whether we trust them or not, sometimes they lie, doesn't know where 400 kilograms of fissile material went. And there's concerns that even JD Vance brought up that they enriched it to about 60%. They can weaponize that. Now, with the strikes on Iran, we may have potentially emboldened those crackpot groups who may actually receive those materials. So there is a whole spattering of we honestly don't know. We can believe the Defense Intelligence Agency's report that the strikes didn't work and people are going to be

like, well, why would I disagree with that? Or they're going to say, yeah, Trump's the primary source on the guy with the real briefings. Why would he lie? Well, maybe he's lying for political reasons because it didn't work. The initial reporting beforehand was that bunker busters would not be able to do it. Not only was the concern that the basis was too deep underground for a single bunker buster, even if you were to get multiple bunker busters in successive in the same spots, which is possible, FOIA was also spread out to a great degree with multiple points of entry and egress, indicating that even if we were to take out certain parts of it they could still operate other areas or even start rebuilding the areas that were damaged. The IAEA says that there it appears there's a chemical spill

rendering this area contaminated which could set them back. So the argument now is we don't know how long they're set back. Trump says totally obliterated. Does that mean they can't do it ever again? Well the answer is, they can always start rebuilding. And if we're not gonna go with regime changing boots on the ground, they probably will. I don't know why they'd stop. We now know the assumption is 900 pounds of fissile material have been spread out and we don't know where they went.

So no, I don't feel safer. I don't feel any different at all. Now I will say if the ceasefire holds, Trump has a tremendous victory and that he was able to bomb a foreign country targeting their nuclear sites, a key component of the mission without triggering a dramatic escalation is a massive and historic victory for anybody who wants to take on military action. But for the regular average person, you're going to choose what you want to believe. They didn't have a nuclear weapon. They did have nuclear fissile material. They

had the capabilities of arming Houthi rebels and other insurgent groups who have killed Americans and launched rockets and fought with our troops in the Middle East. Nothing's changed. I mean, the Iranian regime has killed American citizens. Agreed. And the only thing that's changed with this strike right now is that we have potentially given them a justification for why they should disperse this material among psychopaths. We don't know where it is. I think that the story around the story is as important. And for example, the fact that Russia refused to come

to Iran's aid, okay? Like what you're really seeing here is Trump like rewriting the entire like international global relations basically. Like we would have thought that the Iranians would have held up much better against the Israelis. They did not. We would have thought that China or Russia would have come immediately to their aid. They refused. China did. They sort of

did, but they didn't in a big way. And Russia saying, actually, we're staying out of this. I'm going to call Donald Trump and offer to mediate this because I have a thing going with him that's going pretty good for me. maybe I'm gonna be rejoining the West and leaving this like new axis of you know China Iran Russia like that Trump picked off one by one like each of these like in his big diplomatic trip and you know Qatar like getting the Iranians to shoot this sort of fake you fake face-saving barrage into Qatar to piss off the Qataris, their only pseudo-ally from that trip. This stuff is epic.

Let's just lay down some basic points. Do you agree with the assessment that they have gotten the 400 kilograms out of the nuclear facilities and we don't know where they are. That has been reported. I think there's a... we're in fog of war. So like I've seen reports of that. I don't think... I think a lot of stuff is unknowable at this situation, including how long it'll take for them to regroup. We just don't know. But I think we've changed the conversation domestically and I think we've changed the conversation internationally. With the probability that despite fog of war, there is the probability based on the reporting that and I think just general common sense.

When it became clear that Trump was telling them six months out, we're going to bomb your nuclear facilities, Iran probably set up contingencies for getting their uranium out because they want to keep it. That's like you're negotiating, you don't leave all your money in a bag in front of the guy who's gonna take it from you. So I think there's a decent probability the uranium is gone. It's in China.

Who knows? 16, 17 trucks were seen in a satellite image, that's just one satellite image. There's airplanes that came in too. That's right. And China sent cargo planes. That's right. And so with that being said, do you think that the US striking Iran could anger Iranian

backed interests of any faction who may get access to the uranium? I think these people were like psychopaths trying to build a nuclear bomb to eviscerate Israel and to hurt America. And I don't think that this change of the calculation, they were that before and they were probably still that. Do you think that Iran would have launched a nuclear weapon at Israel as soon as they got it? That's what they said.

So we could say, oh, you're lying to me. You don't really want to do that. You really love me. You don't mean it. But that's what they said. They said, we want a nuclear weapon so that we can wipe Israel off the face of the planet and destroy America afterwards. That's just their stated foreign policy objective.

So the idea that we could anger them into being even worse than psychopaths who want a nuclear weapon to hurt our children and to destroy our ally, Israel, I don't see that as a real argument. I guess the question is, were they actually close to building a nuclear weapon capable of launching it? I don't think that's a question. Like, we had an opportunity here. I think this is what I think happened. I think Trump initially probably didn't want to back the Israelis, but they were so successful

and met with such little resistance. I mean, the absolute mastery of what they pulled off left him with this opportunity. I honestly don't think it matters if the Iranians were close, if it was going to be in six months or if it's going to be in five years. We had an opportunity to protect our children's future. You take that opportunity when you get it and do it safely. What risk did the US have to Iran having a nuke? The way that I think about it is Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.

It does not pose an existential threat to the United States. It poses a strategic threat to our interests and a very, very big one. And I think that diplomacy, I agree with a lot, is the best way to get something like this to happen. But I think they were stringing the president along and I think that pissed him off. So do you think Iran at this point will just back down and cease hostilities? I think the Ayatollah is very weak right now. He seems to me to have been isolated in during this whole thing.

I think the regime is very weak. I don't believe that we should be engaged in regime change, but I think probably all of us would agree it would be wonderful if the Iranian people themselves were able to find their way to a less brutal regime. But honestly, I think what changed was, you know, this is something now we're all aware of, is, you know, like, okay, like, this is a conversation that we're having that we were not having before, because of the Obama era appeasement strategy that seemed to have failed. So, because of the Obama era appeasement strategy that seemed to have failed. So yeah.

Others? I think that was succinct. I do think that if Iran got a nuclear weapon, they would definitely consider, at least letting their proxy use it against American troops in the region so they have some plausible deniability against them. Also, if they were to acquire a nuclear weapon,

it would sort of be the ultimate insurance policy for them. We wouldn't be able to inflict as much damage on them, assuming that they could use the nuclear threat in response. So the same reason that, you know, we ultimately can't support Ukraine too much, we don't want them to be too successful against Russia, is because we don't want to trigger a nuclear response. We don't want to give that option to sworn enemies of our country who support proxy groups in the area that attack Americans and our allies. I see this only as having changed the circumstances and alleviated nothing. It's kicking the can down the road,

but the military pressure should get us to a deal. I think it's just changed the circumstances. It did change the circumstances. Right, if Iran was intent on using a nuke to blow up a country, then wouldn't they not say, okay, plan B, let's disperse this uranium into a bunch of dirty bombs and have them detonate into a bunch of major cities? I don't think that's in the regime's best interest right now because that would guarantee

their topple. Why would nuking Israel be in their best interest? Well, that's been their stated goal of the Ayatollah by 2040 was to completely wipe off Israel off the map. So if they can smuggle weapons into Gaza, why not smuggle some uranium and dirty bombs now? So I don't think they... I've seen also the Israeli intelligence on the ground.

I mean, just like the level of intelligence, the number of Mossad agents embedded in the highest levels of the ICRG. So I think that there is going to be a lot more attention paid to that. And that intelligence is very much in our interest As Americans as well. I just think it's dangerous for radical Muslims to get a nuclear weapon I don't know call me crazy, but Pakistan. Yeah, and I think it's a bad thing that Pakistan has a weapon So I don't understand how that's an argument against me really from the bad thing that they have do we? 38% of votes are in and Mamdani is leading in Brooklyn and Queens.

He's winning. And New York, yeah. Let's give back to this story and talk about the far left taking over. Ladies and gentlemen, from Fox News, Chicago Tribune warns New York to avoid socialist mayoral candidate after mistake Brandon Johnson. And the results are coming in for the Democrat primary in New York. Zoran Mamdani is winning by nine points with 43.1 to Cuomo's 34%.

Looks like the anti-Israel Democratic Socialist is gonna win. Well, 38% of votes are in. Stuck for a while. But yeah, it's not looking good in Brooklyn and Queens and Manhattan. Cuomo has the Bronx and Staten Island so far. Manhattan went Zoran. Yeah, that's pretty crazy.

Those rich people are. No, no, they're all rich. No, no, no. Most of the rich people fled during COVID. Yeah, they live in the upper. Well, 200,000 of them at least went to Florida. I left, but I wasn't even rich. So is this, New York's going to get what it deserves,

which is what it votes for. David Freeberg from the All In podcast had a big long tweet about it. And he's like, look, we should actually hope that Mom Donnie actually wins, like the whole thing, and that he does all of the things that he's talking about doing. Because the point that Freebergers was making in the tweet

was this sentiment, which is something we've been talking about all night, the leftist sentiment, the socialist sentiment, is something that's actually very popular among young people in the United States. And his argument was, let this happen to New York. Let people see the terrible results of an actual socialist mayor and actual socialist policies.

We see it, we saw it in Chicago. So that way the rest of the country can avoid this kind of terrible. But we saw it in Chicago. Well, apparently we haven't seen it enough. So then we have to go ahead and let this guy win. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. You live in New York, so I mean, obviously

that's something that's going to be. Not anymore, but no, I think it's better, oh, I hope a socialist selected so people could have to live under. I'm relating the tweet that Freiburg made I'm not making the argument. You know what after like after college I could not afford an apartment in New York and I had to leave and then after 9-eleven the rents all dipped Oh did they really they dipped for like a year and I was able to move back and get like a cheap rent on the

Lower East Side and I was able to keep my rent really low for years and years and years until I like for 20 years or something until I finally like hit market rate and I was able to keep my rent really low for years and years and years until I like for 20 years or something until I finally like hit market rate and I Ended up out of rent stabilized apartments So my sort of big hope if mom Donnie wins is that in three years? I can buy a penthouse for pennies the broad point that he was making is like he says Let's make sure one or two cities and states fall apart fast So the rest don't have to elect Mom Donnie. The point is, these policies are,

these policies have been shown to absolutely excoriate cities. Like you'll have all the wealthy people will leave to avoid the taxation that they're talking about, you're gonna lose your tax base. They're gonna lose all their grocery stores. I mean, John Katsomatitis, who runs all the Gristettis and has his companies like Red Apple, something rather, he runs a

bunch of businesses. He was like, well, if Mom Donnie wins, I'll close up all the Gristettis and red apple to Jersey. And I'll move, leave the country. No, well, he's got a, well, I think he could leave New York. He's got a ton of businesses. He doesn't need to keep Gristettis. And also, I mean, the profit margins on grocery stores are shockingly low. There's this old story that's probably just an urban legend where it's like a teacher was teaching their kids about socialism.

So all the kids were lefties and he said, what we're going to do is we're going to take a test on Friday and then I'm going to average out all the scores and everyone will get the same grade. So what happened was some students studied really hard and they aced the test, some tried their best and they got most of it right, and then some people slacked off and they did miserably. Everyone ends up getting a B. So the lazy people were like,

woo, I get a B and I didn't even do anything. The people who worked their ass off were like, what was the point? I busted my ass. So the next week, and he says, we're gonna do same thing again. This time everybody got a C because the hard workers gave up. They said, what was the point?

I worked as hard as I could. I only got a B. Why should I do extra? Everybody ends up getting a C. Now everyone's pissed. Well, now I'm not getting anything, but I'm not going to work harder than this. If the only thing I can get is a C, why would I do the effort to get an A? Next week, everyone failed. The argument was, and again, it may be a real story, but the teacher was like, when people are not able to collect the fruits of their labor, they abandon the labor. What these socialists don't understand is,

they're literally creating a system by which individuals cannot control the fruits of their labor. When they say the people have a right, what they're saying is the committee, the institutions decide for you. Whereas capitalism is private- Community police force.

Yeah, capitalism is the private ownership of, which means the individuals can choose to collect as much as they want of their own labor. What the left doesn't like is the workers often negotiate poorly. That's their only argument. A worker has labor and he trades it, but he doesn't trade it for enough.

Okay, well, that was their choice Yeah, but because of social bracket out here the argument that the government should form a body by force to come and seize things from Literally everyone just means that all the grocery stores are going to close down Yeah And this is from a city where the Democrats for years were complaining about food deserts and they're going to create them because you're gonna Have people you're gonna have these city city run grocery stores. They're not going to know how to do it. They have absolutely no experience. I mean, that's if he could get it through city council, which Bacchia thinks that he can't get it through city council

even if he wins. But I think that- Speaking for- Well, we were talking about this before. We were talking about this before. I think people are kind of overstating the threat this guy poses even if he wins. I mean, I don't think he's going to win. He might win tonight, but I mean, he's not going to win the election, I mean, but I think people are overstating a little bit. But it's not just Zoran.

I was saying she's a subversive leftist earlier. It's not just Zoran. It is like the Uber laws that are popping up across the country. What are the Uber laws? You mean like the pro act? You can't hire independent contractors anymore? That's total garbage. My point is even in West Virginia, it is you have to be a psychopath to want to run a business. It's shocking the laws here, it turns out. Not just here, but literally everywhere.

And I use West Virginia as an example of where it should be easy, but it's not. That's shocking to me. Everything is taxed in every possible and imaginable way. That's terrible. And they choose to enforce it as they see fit. And I mean, everywhere does this. The requirements for starting a business in general

are psychotic. And so I'm actually shocked that companies exist in this country. I'm not even exaggerating. The amount of work I have to do to run this company is so psychotic that not a day goes by I don't have a conversation with my wife where we're like, you know,

this is really functionally impossible. Running businesses is ridiculous. Functionally impossible. I have to work every waking hour of my life to be able to do this. It's insane. And so at a certain point, we ask ourselves, just like the lesson of communism,

maybe we just stop doing it. I don't get paid for the work that I do. It's because I want a company to exist. At a certain point, this system is going to implode. So when I say Zoran Mamdani may not matter for New York right now, he is not just a grain of sand to make the heap, not just the snowball rolling down the hill.

This is like a bunch of kids at the top of a mountain creating a giant, you know, a six by six ball of snow and then rolling it down the hill. This is like a bunch of kids that have a mountain creating a giant, you know, a six by six ball of snow and then rolling it down the hill. So I don't like anything he stands for. I just think he seems like a nice guy, but like I think he's probably, like I disagree with all of his views. I think like his views on Israel

are the least bad of his views. That's how bad his views are. But I think like, yes, there's a way in which the Democrats like, yes, there's a way in which the Democrats like socialist agenda, which like wants to just raise like, you know, tons and tons of taxes on people and then redistribute it. I think that's bad. Freeze the rent. Yeah. Let me tell you guys a story. Let me let me let me. I also think okay, go ahead. Once you freeze the rent with the other policies, New York has abandoned

properties, freeze the rent on rent stabilized, you get your already under two. In New York, New York has abandoned properties. This is freeze the rent on rent stabilized. You get that right? Which are already under two grand. So in New York and in California, and in Chicago, there are, because of Democrat policies, to restrict how much rent can be increased, despite the fact we were hit with massive inflation.

What's happened is building owners have decided not to rent out or renovate properties because it's too expensive and the renter costs you more money. So what they've what they've concluded is if I can only rent the apartment for $2,000 but the person who comes in will cost me 2100 per month, I am better off not renting this apartment or paying for the renovations. Well, and if you scroll down, he also wants to crack down on bad landlords.

He also wants to crack down on- Really dumb, but I think that there is like, there is a level at which like, so there's this bad idea, right? But the idea that like just having a purely free market is going to result in every hardworking person getting like a living that they can support family on I think is also wrong.

Like- That's a straw man. We also had a- We rely on a lot of people to do jobs that are really difficult and really unrewarding and we've created a system in which it's okay to just expect them to do those jobs for very little money because they don't require like some sort of individuated like he'll fix that he wants a $30 minimum wage. The other thing too, though, is that in New York, right, you had a situation where you have to pay brokers fees, right? So you pay first month's security and you pay a broker's

fee, which can sometimes be in excess of one month's rent. And sometimes they'll charge you again if you sign a two year lease. And so what they did was they got rid of the brokers fees for renters. And so the landlords have to pay the brokers fees now. And so all the rents have just gone up. Like there's all these unintended consequences. I mean, there's all these things to try and make it fair for working people. Free buses, government owned grocery stores. Yeah, the government and grocery stores is really bad.

And all we have to do is tax Wall Street out of business. Right. And they want to fight corporate exploitation. Like and they're to fight corporate exploitation, and they're talking about price gouges for grocery stores, but it costs a lot more to get food into the city. Here's a question for you, Batya. I agree there are people who do jobs that get paid very little.

I want to phrase the question properly, but what are we supposed to do when the fruits of the labor of that work are not worth what that person is being paid? So we have artificially made it not worth that through a lot of really terrible policies. So it wasn't like the free market that got us there. For example, I think you probably agree with me about this, importing millions and millions and millions of illegals to compete for low wage jobs, right? So in 1971, which was the high watermark for working class purchasing power, the percentage of the US population that was foreign born was 4%.

That's not an accident that the highest working class wages and purchasing power correlated with the lowest immigration. In the 90s? It was in the 70s, 1971. Today, we have the stagnating working class wages. And you want to guess what the percentage of foreign born population is today?

Super high double digits. 15%. So, you know, we artificially made the product of that labor cheap by importing a slave caste to do it. There's also consideration though about kiosks and robots and AI. The value of the labor is diminishing rapidly, and you cannot say the economic production of the job you do will be $7 an hour and we're gonna pay you 30. That's an impossibility.

I agree, I totally agree. Well, but if, so if currently, because they already have robot arms that can make McDonald's cheeseburgers and kiosks where you can order from, would you just fire all those people then? But first of all, unemployment is very low, and we've been having a lot arms that can make McDonald's cheeseburgers and kiosks where you can order from, would you just fire all those people then? But first of all, unemployment is very low and we've been having a lot of,

like there's no correlation between automation and unemployment, like because we find new ways for people to innovate. I don't think those employment numbers are functioning properly right now because of the gig economy. What do you mean? Wouldn't that suggest that even more people are employed?

So when you drive for Uber, you know, scratch that I said Uber, when you use your car for a ride sharing app, the wear and tear and damage to your car and fuel actually cost you more than you're getting paid from the app. And people don't realize that all they're actually doing is pulling equity out of the vehicle they own destroying it That's horrible And a lot of times you end up renting the vehicle from the ride-sharing app there And then you're paying a bunch of money for that too. You're almost better off just going into Hawk for a taxi medallion

But those people are employed. Mm-hmm. And so what we've seen in some jurisdictions They've mandated that the ride-sh sharing companies provide a vehicle to the driver so that it's not their cost. But what's gonna happen? Tesla just rolled out some, I think, they're beta testing taxis. And Waymo, of course. Austin.

Yeah, Waymo's already in Phoenix, Austin, in California, and they're gonna be rolling out all over the place. They're limited. They had fun recently. Oh geez, they fled the city, and people pointed out that the driverless cars were on the highway. But, so those Uber drivers will be unemployed.

So the thing about, what does it mean to be employed? I think that unemployment's undercounting a ton of people right now, because if you stop looking for work, you're not considered unemployed anymore. Unemployment is under counting unemployed people? Yes. So-

J.J. Vance was talking about that during the campaign too. He was saying that there were like millions of young men who just dropped off the unemployment. And so- Who just are- Out of the workforce. Are under employed or unemployed. But you don't count them if they're not applying for unemployment.

If they're not like on the unemployment rolls. Right, it's not looking for- Unemployment is people who are looking for work. And if you you say I'm to live at home with my parents they say well We don't you don't count me so unemployment must be really low but Back to the point those young men are not unemployed because of automation They're unemployed because there is a spiritual psychological crisis in masculinity in this country That's true to is the result of things like offshoring of men and ism

feminism and Which is the result of things like offshoring of manufacturing and importing millions of people to do like low wage, you know, working class jobs. You know, to give men dignity, like you would start out as a drywaller and then you would move your way up and finally become a contractor and then you make good money. Like you would provide for your family, you would get dignity out of that. And now, now those jobs are being done by illegal immigrants. That's true too. I also think that social, we're looking at an emergent phenomenon

where the, why all of this is happening. I saw a great meme. It said, hard times make strong men. Strong men make good times. Good times make white liberal women and white liberal women make hard times. Good times make white liberal women and white liberal women make hard times. They sure do. Okay, can we talk about that article?

You posted today, I've been really wanting to weigh in on it and I didn't dare talk about it. Oh, the women don't want to get married anymore? Yes. It's because men don't want to marry dudes. So, pull it up, read the summary of it. Is it, I didn't read the article, is it saying that women,

I feel like it's saying that women don't want to, they're not getting married because men are not educated enough, are not making enough money and they're making a lot of money? Women, women can't, so from the Wall Street Journal, American women are giving up on marriage, major demographic shifts have put men and women on divergent paths, that's left more women resigned to being single, the numbers aren't netting out. The easiest way to explain this phenomenon, men don't want to marry one of their bros. They want to marry someone who compliments their life in a way that they cannot,

to provide something in their life they don't. So if there's a woman who is a girl boss and wants to hang out and likes hanging out with a dude and they get along really well and they mesh together, they maybe even hook up, and she's like, I'm gonna get that promotion. I'm looking at a $30,000 a year raise if I get this and I've been competing, the guy's going,

that's awesome, I really, really feel for you. You're like, you're one of the bros. Now I'm gonna find a wife who's gonna talk to me about all the kids she wants to have and how she wants to help me start a family because I can't. And so what's happening is that's a oversimplification. But what's really happening is there's a lot of women

who are gonna make, I got so much crap for this six years ago, a New York Post wrote, women are struggling to find men who make as much as they do. Let me just put it simply for all the ladies out there. If you're a 35 year old woman who makes $50,000 a year, you will not likely find a 35 year old guy who makes the same as you, who's gonna date you. Because a 35 year old guy making 50K a year

can go to a 28 year old woman and take her out on a fancy dinner. Or a 30 year old guy making 50, $60,000 a year is gonna be hooking up with 24 year olds because he's gonna get on the dating app, 24 year old and say, hop in my car, I got a convertible and we're going to go to the lake and then get dinner and she's like holy crap. So the woman the same age as him, he's like wow I can get a younger woman.

Men want to date 22 year olds. Men should be, instead of all this toxic masculinity nonsense, men should, we should go back to our society, should go back to expecting men to be leaders and to be heads of the family and then you should marry the woman you fall in love with and so once again college like issue is and then most women are not doing those things I know that's so I feel like this article is having not read it but having just read the summary and the discourse online is saying that though it's you're saying Tim, that men don't want these women. But I think this article is saying these are women who make a ton of money, who are like, I will only date a guy

who makes as much money as me or more, even though they are very financially secure. And it's so funny to me, because first of all, there is this thing in liberal culture where you have men who also want like overachiever wives. Like it used to be that like doctors would marry nurses and lawyers would marry secretaries. And so you would have this like robust middle class because you would have like one earner and a homemaker. But today those professionals marry each other. So the doctor is looking for a doctor,

and the lawyer is marrying a lawyer. So you have these upper middle class over-credentialed elites who are hogging the American dream. And these women are like, if I can't find a guy like that, instead of being what I think makes sense, which is be like the doctor and be like, hey, I'm financially secure. I can choose a mate based on how funny he is or like how good in bed he is or like how nice he is to me.

So what they're saying is that as a 29 year old woman, she's given up on trying to find a husband. She's gonna do everything herself. And this is the trend we're seeing. Career women make the money and this has given rise to, we call, I guess, black market sperm donors is what they're calling it. What's a black market sperm donor?

Is that like a- These women go on Facebook and then make posts saying that they've resigned themselves to being single. And so they want a man to come and inseminate them. Like a big Lebowski. What? Yeah. This is happening?

Yes, on Facebook. And the guys are like, hey, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? Show up, leave, never see her again. then she has a baby and just a single mom. That sucks. I hate the single mom. But that's largely liberals. And the guys don't care that they have a kid out there who they don't know.

Guys have been told to step back and to stay away. Guys have been told that they don't have any say in any of that for so long that dudes have just been like, all right, well, I guess I can't. And that they have to step back at work. Because they're not allowed to say that they want to keep their baby. They're not allowed to say that they want the woman to have an abortion. They're not allowed to have any say. Remember, if you don't have a cervix, you don't get a say.

And men have internalized that, and that's the way that it's been for ages. In liberal centers, they are aghast when I say these things. I talked about this in 2019 in the New York Post wrote an article about these 35 year old women who are like, for some reason I can't find a guy my age who makes the amount of money as me and wants to date me. And I'm like, you guys remember when Tiger Woods had a whole South Park episode made about him?

And the South Park episode they were like, the news reporters are like, we are confused and shocked why wealthy and successful men are having sex with so many young, beautiful women. What's causing this to happen? So these liberal women, what I see is happening, and these are all tendencies, not absolutes. There are a ton of successful, famous guys

with famous successful or not even famous women. There's doctors, man, doctors, and they're not having kids. They're largely not having kids, but they're happy and they found each other, that's fine. But for many of these women, they're going, society told me to get a job, society told me to get a degree,

they told me to get a promotion, they told me to do all these things, I've dedicated all my time and energy to this, why can't I find a husband? It's like, well, because you dedicated your life to having a career, And so did the guy. And now what's going to happen, I'll just put it this way.

I have a friend who is a powerful girl boss who will never have a child now. And she never did. And it was because she just kept saying every time, you know, I don't know when I have time because I'm at work. And I'm like, okay, well, you're never gonna have a kid. And she's like, well, I'll figure out eventually.

I'm like, no, if your priority every day is going to be your career, you will run out of time. She did. Well, you have to prioritize love if you want that in your life. And men don't. That includes- Women have been told that they should-

And everything that our parents taught us was wrong. Yeah includes women have been told that they should and everything that our parents taught us was wrong. Yeah women have been told that they should go to college they told us to follow our dreams they told us not to get married young they told us you know all kinds of ridiculous things and it was all trash in telling them in telling young women that they should be basing their like what how they style themselves to attract men on what they want from a man. And men don't want the same thing from women that

women want from men. Also women have been sold a false bill of goods about exactly what they want from men. Yes. I will tell you that for sure. But my question is why are women who are making a lot of money still looking for a provider or a guy who matches them? I think that's hardwired. I think it's hardwired. Yeah.

Really? Well, never have a situation where the woman becomes this guy for Woods and gets to select other things. I'm going to put it this way. There is actually, I love the idea of a stay-at-home dad because you're still, it's a literal impossibility. It is physically impossible because when the woman has the baby, the woman has to feed the baby, babies can't eat food. They can only drink breast milk. And so this idea that a woman can have a career,

have the baby, hand the baby off to the dad and say I'm going back to work, not possible. I mean the thing is after the dad and say, I'm going back to work, not possible. I mean, the thing is, after you have a baby, I had my son when I was 35, and very shortly, I wished I'd had him younger so that I could have another one, and right away, I didn't give a single flying F about my career. I just didn't care.

It was not as important. Here's a harsh reality. It's still not as important. There will never be equality between the sexes. No matter what is done, there will always be some offset simply because if a man says, I want to have a kid, I want to have a kid and I want to have a career, he can find some woman, maybe there's a career woman and she goes, I have to be, I have to time the pregnancy right because I have a job.

He'll go, nah, I'll just go find a woman who doesn't have to do that. Because I can wait forever. I can have a kid when I'm 80, whatever. So then he finds a woman, she gets pregnant, they're in love, they get married, all legit, and he goes to work. And he is not dealing with pregnancy.

He's not dealing with trips to the emergency room or like any kind of, he's not dealing with the changes to his body and the hormonal disruption in any way. And then when it comes time for the wife to have the baby, he needs substantially less time than the wife, than the woman does after she gives birth. So after giving birth, the woman's gonna be bed rest and laying down and taking care of the baby for weeks.

Oh, it's a pain in the ass. Men and women are different? Indeed. No. So that's why they'll never be equal. So then why would a man who says, I want a family, choose a 29 year old career woman when he's gonna be like, I don't have the time or energy

to negotiate with you on when you're going to be breastfeeding the child or not breastfeeding the child. He's gonna go, I don't want to formula feed the baby. That's not natural. But Tim, he's gonna go, I don't wanna formula feed the baby, that's not natural. But Tim, don't you say, I have been, like I feel like when I was coming up, I knew a lot of like really awesome girls who were single. And now I feel like I know a lot of like really great guys

who cannot find a woman, like they can't meet women. I think most things are true. Because women, like it's, this is- Like they would love to and they can't find a woman. Like they're like, there's a- Because women don't want to be moms anymore. Right, but then you're talking about it, like the women are like aging out of the marriage market

when the truth is they're withholding themselves like much younger. Like men are like, you meet these men and they're desperate to find love and they just have no- So let's start with young guys. So broken, you know? So the charts that we've seen over the past several years

are that young guys are increasingly staying virgins, struggling to find relationships. Right. And this is because of dating apps. I would surmise, I think this is my hypothesis. If you're in college 30 years ago, your dating pool is the women that are in your university. You go to parties, you meet a woman,

you're like, hey, we both go to UIC, you know, and then you hook up, then you start hanging out together, and then many of these people start getting married. Dating apps come out. Now, what do people do? Well, they don't meet at parties, they swipe on the app. So you're sitting at your friend's house, you're swiping, and you know what?

You actually got a phone number the other day, you're 22, and you met this woman while you were in the cafeteria, she's awesome, she was wearing an anime shirt from like a show that you liked, you're both really into it, so cool, and you talked about it, traded numbers, and you text her, hey, we're hanging out in my friend's dorm, we're gonna watch that Miyazaki film you love so much. Why don't you come hang out?

And then she goes, oh, that would be super cool. Then she opens Tinder, and the 30-year-old guy who makes $80,000 a year has messaged her saying, hey, what are you doing right now? I can come pick you up. We'll drive to the lake and then go see a movie. There's this really great rooftop bar we can hang out at. What does she pick?

Look, I mean it's a tendency, not an absolute, but she's going to go, hey dude, rain check on the film, I'm busy tonight. And then she's going to walk outside, jump in the car, 22 years old with a 30 year old guy and that's why young men are struggling right now, not completely but largely. And you can also add in the fact that social media is largely making young guys anti-social and incapable of interacting properly. And then they're competing with 30 year old guys with money so they're getting washed out.

But that's always been the case, no? No, it hasn't been. But then that 20 year old guy could date the 18 year old girl who's like not gonna date the 18 year old guy. No, the 18 year old girl is gonna go to the 26, 27 year old on the dating app. I had that situation like.

But if it's all staggered, like there should be someone for everybody, no? No. I think one of the biggest reasons people used to get married... 50% of men in history didn't make an option. 50% of men in all history did not have any offspring. Half of all human males that have ever existed have not reproduced. All women have. So no, it's not as easy as that at all.

But what is the answer to this? It's like... It's a huge crisis. Like what's the answer? Women need to stop working. The real reason that people used to get married. No, the real reason that most people used to get married was because men were providers. People didn't get married because of love or some BS. It was because men provided for the women

and many women were stuck in marriages with these men. What part of that? You're wrong. About women marrying men because they were providers? Yes. I think I'm 100% right. Women married men because it was social order. It was called enforced monogamy.

And so the social order of females was, where are you finding your husband? Who's your husband? When are you getting married? How many kids you had? Women were competing in the social hierarchy by being good moms and homemakers. That was the, that was, it's called,

I did not make this up. Read, well, maybe read old Jordan Peterson. People don't like him these days as much. But this is the concept of enforced monogamy. Suits, those are bad suits. The social order of human civilization was, you were a spinster and you were insulted and derided as a woman if you were not married

with children before you were 30. Just like in Japan. Well, women also didn't have many other economic opportunities. They weren't, they didn't, what, 100 years ago that women didn't, you know, they didn't have most, a lot of opportunities. Spinsters were women who chose to work instead

and they were insulted for it. Well, or they didn't choose it, they just got stuck. That happened too. Right, but the suffragettes and the movement for women's rights and all that were women who wanted to do these things. But I mean, if you read the brates, you know, like people get stuck or like,

you know, you're with some guy and then he goes off to war and he never comes back and then you're screwed. Yeah, well, widows is different. Sure, but not widows. You're not a widow. You're like your fiancee. And women did jobs, they just didn't run industries. And so the issue is-

That all started with World War II. This is, you know, again, this comes up. The left has this clip of me where I say, five years ago, I'm like, I'm surprised I don't have a family and it's not me, it's everybody else. And it's a great clip, have fun with it. But the point of what I was saying was, society would not tolerate so many successful bachelor men

not having families 50, 60 years ago, society would not tolerate so many successful bachelor men not having families 50, 60 years ago, you'd be insulted, frowned upon and questioned. Even in the 90s, people were like, why is that man a bachelor at 45 or 50? Something is wrong and they'd call you gay for being it. When in fact this guy was a playboy who was a multimillionaire.

And if you wanted to run for office, you had to like, had to have a family. Find something, yeah. And so what happened is- Find some lady to get with you. Society started telling women, particularly, to pursue careers and not family. So men don't have any social pressure

from anybody to have a family. If you go back to 100 years ago, if a guy wanted to get him some, the woman said, no, I want to be married, and the dad would be like, you can't have my daughter, chick, chick, shotgun wedding. Now it's the guys, I mean, feminism has largely benefited loser playboys because they get the milk for free without buying the cow, where it used to be that,

and all the feminists are getting mad that I said that, cows, what do you mean? A guy was like, I want a woman. I want... It started in the 70s already. Yeah, of course, it did. But there wasn't such a crisis, I feel like, for young men finding people.

Is that crisis real? It takes time to warm up, man. I feel like it's self prescribed. Is that true? I don't think so. You don't think it's real? I don't think it's real. I think it's overwrought, especially on the internet.

Like people- Let's bring this up. Have you guys seen the trend where women wear intentionally ugly clothing and bad makeup? Yeah, I thought they did that because it was called socialism. No, there's an actual trend where women dress in strange, disgusting ways.

Pop Culture Crisis was talking about this. There's a video of a woman on TikTok where sheok where she's like a guy called my outfit ugly Too bad. He doesn't realize they don't dress for guys. I dress for the girls This has always been the case and everyone's known this who's you know? Women women wear makeup for women not for men men tend not to like excessive makeup women is that true I Don't wear makeup really I wear mascara and a little lipstick. So do you wear it for women or men? I wear it for camera.

Let's cite the meme. Where a woman posted on Twitter, back when it was Twitter, sexism is that a man can wear the same clothes every day, but a woman will get criticized if she wears the same outfit twice. And the guy responded, literally not a single man cares

if you wear the same cute dress twice in a row. Women dress for other women. Guys don't know or care. That's why the trope is that guys lie to women, like how do I look? They're like, good. Like what, you're wearing clothes. I don't know, wear the same thing every day.

Tie this to the conversation. How does that fit into the? Women's social pressure is based on other women. And if the competition among women is, do you have a family and babies and how's your household and is your husband good? Then they're striving to have the best husband. And talk about that too.

Who does? Women. Right, indeed. And for men, it's how big- Talk about everything. Guys are competing on how big is the skyscraper that you built? How tall, how far does your bridge span?

There's a trophy wife phenomenon, right? Men compete on having a hot wife, no? Well, having, so I would call it again, tendencies that for a guy, their dopamine, let me try it like this. When a guy takes a picture of something he likes, he points the camera at it. When a woman takes a picture of something she likes,

she selfies with it. Women are more interested in people, and that's not derogatory, and men are more interested in things. So certainly, guys want status, and so we're all human, so we do share, and it's bimodal. Women have a tendency towards subjective,

and men have a tendency towards objective, but that means a guy, many men, do wanna be like, look how awesome my wife is. I that means a guy, many men do want to be like, look how awesome my wife is. I'm the best guy, I got the best woman. Women aren't doing that anymore with guys. They're saying, I want to have a career and I can't find a guy who's good enough.

I can't have a family. And then younger guys who are available, but there's a lot more to this. One of the arguments that's brought up often in my sociologists is that women, when they're, what's attractive to a woman, a component of that is the access to resources and status. And if a woman has set her status at the middle class median,

then she's going to be attracted, like you were saying, hardwired, to someone who's making more than her. If the woman is making the same on average as the average guy, all of the men she meets look unappealing. Whereas for men, they're just like, this is a beautiful woman who could be a mom and the woman's like, I'm not interested in you. And I think that is exacerbated by the fact that the Democrats created an economy in which having a college degree was an enormous benefit in the marketplace, in the economy, and women are 15 points more likely to having a college degree was an enormous benefit in the marketplace, in the economy, and women are 15 points more likely to have a college degree, meaning that

they are actually have been catapulted to a certain degree, not like in the CEO class, but like in the upper middle class, professional managerial class, they're much more likely to be overrepresented there, and men are more likely to be represented in blue collar work, meaning that they are literally like not gonna even. And because guys are so desperate to hook up, they tolerate women's excesses. Yes. Such as, we hear about the glass ceiling every day,

but no one talks about the glass floor. Don't forget that women don't know what they want. The glass floor is that women tend not to work in sewage, tend not to work on oil rigs. Their workplace mortality is exceptionally low relative to men. And when it comes to office work, women are substantially more likely to get hired at mid-tier levels, whereas men work in the basement in the gutter. And guys are jerks for it.

And men go, whatever you say, you're right about the glass ceiling. I mean, women don't know what they want either. No, they don't. And I think that matters too. Like none of us know anything. We gotta go to your chats. Nobody knows anything about what we do. We went way over and we had a good time doing it.

I'm sorry, I hijacked by making us talk about. No, good. We're gonna go to your chats, and of course we're gonna have that uncensored call in show coming up at 10 p.m. at rumble.com slash timcast IRL. So we're gonna read what you guys have to say. Before we do, we've got a great sponsor.

It's MyPillow. Go to mypillow.com slash Tim. Use promo code Tim. It's the only promo code that matters. Ladies and gentlemen, shout out to Mike Lindell. The man put everything on the line. And if you're looking for towels, if you're looking for bedsheets,

if you're looking for these amazing energy drinks, for which we actually have all over the place, where is it? I think I drank them all actually. These Rev7s are legit awesome. No sugar, no caffeine. You get 30% off with a subscription at mypillow.com. Use promo code Tim. They got beach towels. Guys, I sleep with the MyPillow every single night, but they got dog beds. They got everything. If you need any of this stuff, you got to give your support to Michael Endel for everything he's done for standing up for what he believes in for Donald Trump and for

those of us that think the Trump agenda is the right move for this standing up for what he believes in, for Donald Trump and for those of us that think, you know, Trump agenda is the right move for this country. He put it on the line, they came after him for it. He's sponsoring the show. We're big fans. Mypillow.com slash Tim, use that promo code. And thank you, Mike Lindell, I do appreciate it. Not only are you helping support this show,

but you're helping support Mike and we're big fans. Let's grab your chats and rants right now. Let's see what we got going on here. Shaj Wilder says, "'Can we all agree that Al Green is a crazy angry old man with a cane? He's fallen so far from the soul days of singing, "'I Can't Get Next To You.'"

Yes, we can. We can all agree on that. All right, AK Storm says, "'Batya, on Trigonometry, you said that we're actually closer together on abortion, guns, and other issues. How about the youngest generation in gay marriage? Could you just be seeing the average?

It's a great question. So on abortion, for example, this is like a really good example of a phenomenon I think happens on a lot of issues. So if you poll people and ask them, are you pro-life or pro-choice? So 49% of Americans will say I'm pro-life and 49% will say I'm pro-choice. But if you dig down into the numbers of the pro-lifers, over 90% believe in exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. And then you look at the pro-choice people, like the vast majority, I think it's 65 to 70 percent believe it should only

be legal for the first trimester, so that's 12 weeks, meaning that there's like 80 percent overlap on 80 percent of this issue. And then why is it that in blue states they're unrestricting abortion to the point of birth? That is crazy. Because as is so often the case in America, our elites and elected officials do not represent the will of the people. This is much more true on the left, by the way, than it is on the right, because Trump really marginalized the elites. He kind of told Project 2025 to take a hike. He took the pro-life

language out of the GOP platform. Same thing with gay marriage. If you look at how people feel about gay marriage, it's really taken off even on the right. And that is especially among younger Republicans. It's at 60% support, I believe. So like a lot unites us as Americans, much more unites us than divides us. But the elites, unfortunately on both sides tend to get a lot of power, make a lot of money off of making us hate each other.

What was the third thing they said? Guns, yeah. The vast majority of Americans are pretty pro second amendment and believe in background checks and other sort of what, you know, red flag laws and other sort of common sense restrictions on them. Oh no, those are bad. I know you're not in the majority, but the majority of Americans, 70% I think, support

background checks. Red flag laws? Those are very... I think those are manipulated stats. I think they can be weaponized. I think if you went to the average person and said, should the government be allowed to send armed men to your home without a warrant to seize your private property?

They'd say no. What if someone accused you of being mentally unstable and dangerous? What about background checks, do you support that? Well, that's an iffy thing because once again, it's a manipulated statistic. What do you mean by background check is the question. So the challenge is we have universal background checks,

we have the NICS system, but Democrats tend to want a list of the guns owned by the individuals when they say background check. They also make up lies about gun show loopholes and things like this which just don't exist. And so you have background checks largely because the stores don't wanna sell guns to dangerous people.

There was a guy who went into, where was this? There was a guy who went to a Walmart and said he wanted to buy a gun because, it was like a viral video or something. He was like, I'm pissed, I gotta shoot this guy or whatever. And then he went to go buy a gun and they overheard him, like, you can't buy a gun from us, you just said you wanted to shoot somebody.

And he's like, what do you mean? I was just kidding. And they're like, no, you weren't. So they're just like, we're not gonna sell you that. So the issue is when you poll people, here's the problem I have. Liberals have no idea what they're talking about and they base their view on politics off of movies.

It's true. They have no idea what they're talking about. So when you poll them on things like should police have suppressors on their rifles, this is something we talked about the other day, they're gonna be like, why would they need that? And it's like, because it's a safety device that reduces ear damage, I mean, it's hearing protection.

It can reduce recoil and things like this. But they think because of movies that you put on leather gloves and go pew, pew, pew, and no one can hear you, which is completely false. If someone had a gun in here with a suppressor on it and they pulled the trigger, we'd all be screaming. Really? Oh yeah.

Oh yeah. You'd hear, and you'd be going, and you'd be like, what happened? Yeah, you'd probably have serious hearing. That loud? Yeah. Like if you're in your home and someone breaks

into your home and you pull out your Glock and shoot it, you're deaf. For how long? You're usually ringing for, you know. Couple hours. Couple hours, yeah. If you shoot it, you're deaf. For how long? You're usually in for a couple hours. A couple hours, yeah. If you shot it, and it depends on what you're shooting, but rifles for the most part, even with a can, you're going to blow your ears out if you're inside. You're outside.

That's why everyone always says eyes and ears. You've got to put hearing protection on when you're shooting at an outdoor range. It's so loud. I mean, if you're like a 22, you're probably going to be like, it's so loud. I mean, if you're using a.22, you're probably gonna be like, it's not that big a deal. But liberals have banned suppressors because they think because of movies that you can go into a house and go,

choo choo choo, and no one can hear anything. Are there any weapons that are like, pew pew pew? I could probably, you could probably make a- Yeah, you can get- A rail gun. You get.22s, you can get them that quiet. Like if you have a subsonic.22 round and a can that quiet like if you have subsonic 22 round and a can on it if you use 300 blackout And it can you can get them quiet like the stopping power of a 22 with a suppressor on it

But the blackouts a big bullet that's that's a 30 caliber bullet just got a pistol load, so they're quiet But yeah, yeah subsonics crazy. You can actually like when the sun's just right, we're at the range, you can see the bullet. It's sick. Yeah, it's wild. Really? Like a 45, like, cause a 45's a big bullet too, especially if you're shooting down range, you can, the sun'll hit them just right

and you can see the shoot. You'll see it go flying. That's wild. They don't go that fast. Yeah. Less than a thousand feet per second. But anyway, I would probably oppose background checks. I think any infringement on gun rights violates the Constitution and there's no argument for

us just being able to decide when we get to. Granted, that's what everybody does, so I typically oppose all that. I think if you actually had an educated population, they would likely oppose most of the restrictions. The thing is that Americans are getting more pro-gun and more pro-life. Like the idea, for a long time we were getting more and more and more liberal on social issues like gay issues, race relations, that has all held,

but on these other issues, abortion. Not gay marriage. Gay marriage is declining. Declining a little because of the trans issue. I think it's kind of, it's because they probably phrased the question as LGBT, but I think most Americans are pretty pro-gay and pretty wary of the trans thing. The YouGov data that we pulled up a while ago found that Gen Z support for gay marriage

dropped dramatically in a short period of time, indicating that it was an ideological shift. So they hate Israel, they hate gay marriage. Yes, this is the point. They hate the Jews, they hate the gays, what do they want? What is even going on? Well, I think for young men, they're sick of anything LGBT. Yeah, that smacks of the wokeness.

It is a little, it's overkill. But on guns and on abortion, Americans are getting more conservative, I think. I think they're getting more conservative on everything. It's a combination of birth rates and access to mass media. I will say they don't like the bans. So like when I was writing my book, Second Class,

I was traveling around the country, interviewing working class people from both parties. And the most common view I heard on abortion was, I'm pro-life, I would never get an abortion, but I would not judge that woman. I don't want to take away her ability to make the choice that's right for her. And even in red states where they've put up abortion bans,

they failed. So I think, you know, the GOP needs to be very careful on this issue. Keep to the status quo is what I would recommend. All right, arsonists. Non subversive Marxists. Arsonist says, I'll be honest, man, these last two weeks have made me really dislike Israel.

Why are we allies again? The Holy Land? Christians want access to it. They're the only quote unquote democracy in the Middle East. Sure. I think it's because Christians believe that if Muslims take over the region, they will deny access to Christians to the Holy Land. I think that's a large component of it.

It's a big component of it. This country has always been deeply philosemitic, so America from its founding has been very protective of its Jewish population. And I think that there's an affinity for Israel, both religiously and sociologically. We get a lot out of that relationship strategically in terms of intelligence sharing, in terms of they keep an eye on our enemies in the region. But again, I think if young people decide it's time to stop giving any aid to any foreign country, I don't think there's anything to stop giving any aid to any foreign country.

I don't think there's anything wrong with us making that decision as a country. I think there's also something to say about how we actually literally never had boots on the ground for any Israel war, as opposed to our other allies. Israel is actually a very good military ally. They're not like South Korea, where we had to bail them out. It's not like Vietnam, where we had...

We even have guys in Ukraine now. A lot just broke the chat. So even in Europe, so for example, you know, we had to go bail out Europe too in World War II. So, you know, for half of Israel's history, we actually didn't even support them military aid-wise, but we've never had boots on the ground there. And as far as potent allies go, I think Israel's a great ally. I think they do our dirty work. I wish our other allies were as potent and ambitious militarily as Israel was. Again, if South Korea could take care of North Korea, if Japan and Taiwan could take care of China and hold their own, if Europe could

take care of Russia and hold their own so we don't have to get bogged down in there. Israel really handled Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, almost completely themselves. We don't like to talk about the subversive stuff they did in Syria too, so I think it'd be helpful to have more allies like Israel, actually. All right, Mr. Spencer says, I like the teenage girl talking on the problem way, Ilad says, comedians on Twitter,

when he's clearly talking about Dave Smith and only Dave Smith, name a second isolationist comedian, Ilad. I think there are others. I can't name one off the top of my head. I don't even think... Wait, wait, no, no. I mean, it's tongue in cheek, but I think these comedians, some comedians like him, get more attention doing their Israel commentary than they do or ever have

in their comedy routines. And I think that's worth mentioning because a lot of people on social media are just getting completely sucked up into audience capture, and just saying whatever will produce them likes from people in Pakistan. Dave was running for the Libertarian, he was front runner for the Libertarian presidential ticket.

He has been, this is not something new of Dave, he hasn't adopted these. Has he always been this vocal? Absolutely. On Israel. He was going to run for the Libertarian presidential ticket. Sure. Like he's a political guy.

But I must admit, there was a very funny meme I saw where it said, I'm starting to doubt my trust in the expertise of comedians on Twitter. And I was like, that was a good one. That was good. Yeah. No, there's a lot of these guys. Who? Actually that exists.

Theo Van? Theo Van. He's not like Dave Lo. I don't like comedians in politics because whenever they're proven to be sayer, do something stupid, they always put on my, oh gee whiz, I'm just a comedian hat. So John Stewart used to do a lot of this too.

It's like, oh, you take me seriously in my political commentary? You're an idiot for doing so. It's like, you're engaging in politics, then you have this ultimate out as a comedian. It's like you're taking me seriously. You're dumb for taking me, the comedian, the joke guy seriously.

So they all play this double act all the time. So one of the things that I want to do is- Well, you did name another one, John Stewart. John Stewart. Yeah, we're going to make a show called Comedy Sketch News where we just make AI videos of people like John Stewart saying things that are compromising, but believable.

Because they can't sue me because it's a joke, it's a comedy. So I can make a video where Jon Stewart admits to like infidelity or, you know, I can make a secret. Scandalous. Yeah, you name it. I know, it's sweet that you think that that's scandalous.

Infidelity? Scandalous. No, I mean, we think it is, but he wouldn't probably know left. I think if a video went viral of Jon Stewart saying he cranks to pictures of dogs, he might have an issue with that. That's a little more than infidelity.

A little different than infidelity. And then he's gonna be like, that video's fake and people are gonna be like, I don't know, man, it looks real and it's circulating around and it looks like it's from your show. The boomers will think it's real. Indeed they will.

And he's gonna be like, I'll sue you for making it. I'll be like, why, we're doing jokes. We're doing jokes. You can't sue me, it's from your show. The boomers will think it's real. Indeed they will. And he's gonna be like, I'll sue you for making up. I'll be like, why are we doing jokes? We're doing jokes? You can't sue me, it's a comedy show. Genius. Comedy show. That's what they do to us. We do it to them. See, this is the issue, is that the right never had,

like for my whole life, the right was composed of these stodgy suit wearing squares. And then when the left started getting crazy, subversive urban punk rock elements started saying like, yo, y'all are nuts, and then Trump came around, who actually is one of those urban subversive elements, who courted the right and said, I mean, come on, you have these like family man going to church,

and then Trump comes along with like, how many baby mamas? And five? Five? Five? Five baby mamas? Am I wrong? None of them five?

Oh, was it five children? Or I think he was married five times. Maybe he does have more baby. I don't know. A bunch of urban liberals end up saying, It's like my dad. Okay, I can get behind this guy. And now the right actually has people who are creative,

edgy, willing to fight back. And all of a sudden now they have better entertainment, they have better music, they have better comedy. The Babylon Bee is hilarious. The Onion is psychotic, you know, it's just garbage. State propaganda. I mean, it's cult comedy. To make a joke for the cult, you need only say,

hey guys, you know how cult believes in this thing? And then they'll start clapping. It's vice that did a funny video on this on a transgender comedian, like 10 years ago, who literally went on stage and made a bunch of jokes that were not jokes, but they were self deprecating statements that aligned with woke values. Is it that Australian lady? No, I don't remember.

But it's like instead of doing jokes, they go up and they go, don't I look like I can't pass? And then they'll start clapping and cheering and be like, but that shouldn't mean that people are gonna are just gonna discriminate, you know, and then they're like, well, it's not comedy. This is just, this is just choir. Just looking for claptor. Clapton. It's not actually laughter. They're just saying, Yes, we

agree. And you said the right thing. All right, what do we what do we have here? We'll grab one more on the way up. Uncle Tiger Sneeze says, read Rachel Wilson's book, Occult Feminism. Indeed. Indeed. Indeed. My friends, we're gonna go to that uncensored portion of the show. We've got another big update for you guys. You're gonna want to hear this one. This. This is good, you'll be very, very excited. So go to rumble.com slash Timcast IRL. Use promo code TIM10, sign up for Rumble Premium, and we're gonna be taking your calls. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Batya, do you wanna shout anything out?

Just this show and you. No, I'm like, I'm always so impressed with how you keep your independence. Like at a time when everybody is so audience captured. So I'm very grateful to have been invited and I really admire you and this show. Oh, well thank you very much. I'm sure your audience already knows this about you,

but keep watching. Well, I disagree with my audience and we disagree with each other and then they correct me when I'm wrong. And I argue with them when I think I'm right either way. What work they find you on? You're on X, right? I'm on X, I'm on Instagram, yeah.

Well, all right. Batya, it's been so nice. I mean, I know the show is regularly great, but it's even better with you on. Hey, everybody. I hope you enjoyed the show tonight. My name is Allat Ali Yahu. I'm the White House correspondent here at Timcast. You could find me on Instagram and Twitter under that handle. What's up? I'm Libby Emmons. I am with the Post-Millennial and Humanevent.com. You can find me on Twitter at Libby Emmons and you can sign up for my newsletter

at thepostmillennial.com slash Libby. Batya, it was great to meet you. Absolutely charming. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is all that remains. You can check out our new record. It's entitled Anti-Fragile.

You can check it out on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. We will see you all over at rumble.com slash timcast IRL. Thanks for hanging out. you you