Timcast IRL - Israel Prepares To STRIKE Iran Nuclear Facilities Says US Intel w/ Aiden Buzzetti

Episode Date: May 21, 2025

Phil, Elad, & Tate are joined by Aiden Buzzetti to discuss reports that Israel is preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump slamming Ukraine & Russia over peace talks failing, Trump unveling plans for a "Golden Dome" for America, and Trump telling the GOP "don't f*** around" with Medicaid.   Hosts:  Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Tate @realTateBrown (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Aiden Buzzetti @AidenBuzzetti (X)

U.S. Intel is saying that Israel is planning on striking Iran amid U.S. talks with Iran about their nuclear project. That's the official say, at least. So we'll talk about that tonight. There's information about Trump's new position on the war in Ukraine, and he says, it's not my problem. Donald Trump had a phone call with Vladimir Putin, and we're going to get into the details of that, which brings up the topic of the Golden Dome. So Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth were talking from the Oval Office about a game changer to protect the American homeland, so we'll bring that up tonight. Trump has been talking to the Republican house Republicans saying don't F around with Medicaid and the latest big,

beautiful bill drama. There's a lot of things to talk about with that. There's the salt issue. There's issues with some of the NFA stuff, which everyone knows that I'm going to be bringing up. Um, and there's the fact that it doesn't actually cut any spending and Republicans are in a position where they've got control of the house, loosely have control of the House and control of the Senate. So we'll have some conversation on that. Jake Tapper is out hawking his book and doing his best to cover his own butt for all the years of him not reporting on how terribly Joe Biden's health had become. So we'll discuss that. And then Democrats are throwing a whole bunch of money at a problem,

which is countering GOP clout online. So it looks like they're going to go ahead and get the least knowledgeable person in politics to discuss the Democrat position for them. But before we get into any of that, why don't you guys go over to castbrew.com and buy some coffee. You can get castbrew.com. You can get coffee at castbrew.com. You can buy some Alex Stein's Primetime Grind. This is almost out. We're almost out of them. This is the last little bit. If you like that extra caffeine stuff, You can get yourself some Ian's Graphene

Dream. We've got the K-Cups now. If you like the Keurig machine, you don't like to deal with actually brewing your own coffee, you just want to toss them in there, you can get the K-Cups. Those are available now. You can also get the Two Weeks Till Christmas, which is me when I had a beard. It's a little whiter than

reality, but you know, go pick that up. Then why don't you head on over to Tim cast.com and join our discord with the discord has got 20,000 people like-minded individuals. There's a bunch of different, um, a bunch of different podcasts that have started in there. There's pre-shows there's after shows. And if you're a discord member,

you can call into the after show and you can talk to our guests, ask us questions. So head on over to TimCast.com and join the Discord. Sign up at Rumble.com. Become a member at Rumble.com and you can join us for our uncensored after show where we get a little more spicy than normal. I don't say that it's extremely spicy, but it can get a little bit spicy. But smash the like button. Share the show with all your friends,

and we're going to talk about this and so much more tonight. Joining us is Aiden Bazzetti. How are you doing? I'm doing great. Thank you for having me here. Who are you? What do you do? I run an organization in D.C. called the Bull Moose Project, where I've been pushing President Trump's agenda, actually since the 2020 election, or the aftermath. And we're making sure that Republicans in D.C. stay true to what

he wants, stay true to his agenda and keep racking up those wins. Awesome. Well, thank you for joining us. Tate's here. Hi, everyone. My name's Tate. I'm a producer here at Timcast. This is the first time on IRL. So it's funny that Aiden's here because many moons ago I was actually an attendee at his Bull Moose Project Summit. So it's pretty cool to be here. Tate's maiden voyage on the IRL. So true. USS IRL. Good evening, everybody. I am Elad Aliahu, the White House correspondent here at TimCast.

Tate, I'm so happy to have you here tonight. You guys are in for a treat. Tate is my favorite employee here at the company. Let's go. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. We're going to get right into it. CNN's reporting new intelligence

suggests israel is preparing possible strike on iranian nuclear facilities u.s officials say the u.s has obtained new intelligence suggesting that israel is making preparations to strike iranian nuclear facilities even as the trump administration has been pursuing a diplomatic deal with tehran multiple u.s officials familiar with the latest intelligence told CNN. Such a strike would be a brazen break with President Donald Trump, U.S. officials said. It could also risk tipping off a broader regional conflict in the Middle East, something the U.S. has sought to avoid since the war in Gaza

inflamed tensions beginning in 2023. Officials caution it is not clear that Israeli leaders have made a final decision and that, in fact, there is deep disagreement within the U.S. government about the likelihood that Israel will ultimately act. Whether and how Israel strikes will likely depend on what it thinks of the U.S. negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. Now, I've heard information that Tehran is basically saying they don't expect the talks to be fruitful. Personally, I don't expect the talks to be fruitful.

I know Donald Trump is adamant about being, you know, peace through strength, but he doesn't want a war. He doesn't want to see a bunch of people dying. But I just feel like the goal for Tehran is to get a nuclear weapon. And I don't think that they're going to be dissuaded by talks. What do you guys think? So I guess as the resident Jew, I think the take here really is that there are some like so-called isolationist types, I guess,

working in the administration and they are leaking classified information from us spying on Israel. Israel spies on us as well, so let's not get too upset about that. But they're trying to undermine... Everybody spies on everybody. Everybody spies on everybody. But I guess the position of these U.S. officials is trying to leak to who? To CNN, to try to undermine Israel trying to prepare themselves to strike Iran. Look, Israel preparing to strike Iran is nothing new. I just think it's kind of rich that there's some in the administration trying to do this now, given how like a week

or so or two, Trump was saying that he wanted to strike them himself. So we'll see how the rest of these Iran nuclear deals kind of plays out in the negotiations play out. I don't think Iran wants to go to complete denuclearization, which has been the standard. I don't think Trump wants to get himself into another so-called JCPOA because he ran so harshly against that. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon... What's the JCPOA? The JCPOA was the first Iran nuclear deal that Obama struck with the Ayatollah. And the idea here was that they were able to enrich uranium up to a certain percent. And then there was a sunset clause, which allowed them to enrich even further. It also allowed their economy not to have our different sanctions on them. And then they were able to use this capital for whatever they wanted. In many cases, it went to fund their anti-American and anti-Israel proxies in the region, including Hezbollah that Israel had

to deal with, or the Houthis now that the entire world has to deal with. But if Iran was able to acquire a nuclear weapon, it would change the entire landscape of the Middle East. And it's been U.S. policy to not allow them to do that. And I think that's a good thing. Tate, how was my spin there? It's pretty good. I mean, for me, it looks like Iran and Israel, they engage in this. This happens all the time where the U.S., when we were negotiating the Abraham Accords, Iran, Hamas, or Hezbollah, being an Iranian proxy, launches an attack to blow up the Abraham Accords. And likewise, this does to me seem like it could be a situation where Israel knows that there's a nuclear deal potentially getting closer to being signed, and they're trying to posture it with Iran,

maybe inflame that again to see if Iran will walk away from the negotiating table. I do think Trump is liable to sign a relatively bad deal and spin it as a good deal because he wants to stack up accomplishments. Things are going very sluggishly in the Ukraine-Russia war that he promised to end as soon as he came into office but wasn't able to. He promised on ending the war in Israel and Gaza that's actually just flamed up even more recently with Israel's new offensive into Gaza, the so-called Gideon's chariots that they're doing. So I think Trump's trying to rack up some wins,

and I think he's willing to go a little bit beyond the pale, but I hope we don't get something like a JCPOA part two. Aidan, what do you think? I mean, the State Department has been kind of challenging Israel publicly on the war in Gaza right now. So I think there 100% is a dynamic in the Trump administration where there are more isolationist types that want to make sure that nothing blows up. And they may actually be concerned that Israel is going to do something. And I do think that it's plausible that Israel may try to go to Iran into walking away from the deal so they can try and coerce the U.S. to continue supporting what they're doing in Gaza, even though Rubio and Trump have kind of been calling for that to die down a little bit. I ultimately think that with Israel and Iran

and Trump, I mean, even the previous relationship with Iran under the Trump first term, and even with Biden, Iran will always go and say something super inflammatory, so will Israel. And at the end of the day, nobody actually wants a war there, because I think we all recognize that it would be complete hell. Well, I mean, a broad war, I think you're right. And this may seem a little counterintuitive, but I think that if Israel were to strike Iran on its own without the U.S., right, especially if the U.S. is, you know, looking to broker a deal or is looking to talk, regardless of the likelihood of that deal actually bearing fruit or Iran sticking to the deal. If Israel strikes Iran without the U.S. blessing, I think that that's more likely to inflame the Middle East because the U.S., you know, overwhelming military power. If the U.S. strikes or if the U.S. is backing an Israeli strike, then the rest of the region is like, well, you know, the U.S. is kind of standing there saying, don't do anything back. But if the U.S.

is at odds with Israel and Israel strikes, then the rest of the region might be like, well, there's some daylight between the two. I feel like Israel's really making a significantly worse decision to go it on their own. And it's far more volatile for the rest of the Middle East. I think Israel says they'd go at it on their own, but I don't think they'd actually have the capability East. I think Israel says they'd go at it on their own, but I don't think they'd actually have the capability to. And if they did ever want to have a successful attack on Iran's nuclear sites,

I think they'd have to have the blessing and support from the United States. I don't think they just have enough armament to do it, and they can't get on the bad side of the United States. I love how the United States, they have their plausible deniability with it. It's like, oh, no, we had no, you know, oh, it was just the Israelis.

Not like we armed them to the teeth and literally are spying on them and have all the information about what they're planning anyway. So I just don't see this happening without the Trump administration's blessing. I could have seen this as like some isolationists in the administration trying to get ahead of this.

When you say isolationists, are you talking about people like J.D. Vance? Are you talking about America First people? Are you talking about people that actually are more, are actual isolationists? I guess it's on a spectrum. It's not my sense that there's a lot of people in the administration that are actually isolationists. So it's a spectrum. I want to say J.D. Vance is more on the isolationist side as compared to Marco Rubio, who would be on the flip side.

And maybe Pete Hexeth is in the middle. Mike Waltz was probably on the most hawkish side of that. And he got cut out of the picture. So that's how I think this is coming from a camp of people who don't want United States involved in the Middle East one way or another in striking Iran or supporting countries financially? I just, I guess the reason I ask is because I disagree with the idea of people like J.D. Vance being an isolationist. I think that he's just, he is the quintessential America first guy. And I mean, if you're an America first person, and I mean, I'd love to hear your thoughts, Aidan. If you're an America first person, you know, that doesn't mean you want to, or at least my understanding when you hear these people talk about it, it's not that they're talking about the U.S. withdrawing from the rest

of the world. It's just the U.S. doesn't need to be active in every military action in a place that the U.S. has, you know, has an interest. I think a couple things can be true. One, Israel is its own nation. It is its own country. It can make the decisions that it wants. However, again, the United States does fund, provide significant support to Israel before the military and other programs. So that might make them more resistant to actually going at it alone. As far as the component in D.C., I think there is a growing group of people in D.C. that I wouldn't call them isolationists. I would call them foreign policy realists, the idea that we cannot – we should not get involved in every single conflict in the world. We shouldn't commit all of our resources everywhere in the world whenever an ally of ours has some kind of problem.

Now, again, the situation in Israel is very complex, and I know we'll get to this in a little bit, but even when J.D. Vance started being very vocally critical of the war in Ukraine, he was saying, why are we sending all of our armament to Ukraine and we're not going to be able... We don't have enough munitions to actively counter China if for whatever reason we end up starting a hot war with China. So I think that there are people that they want the U.S. to be strong. We want to be secure. We do want to be able to defend our interests across the country or across the world. But ultimately it's what is the priority?

What are the order of priorities? And Elbridge Colby, who's at DOD, he's always been arguing that Taiwan and the South China Sea, that is the number one priority. Everything else takes a backseat. I love it when people who I interpret to be isolationists are actually hawkish, but just hawkish in a little bit of a different degree, instead of on the eastern front, on the way far eastern front. Well, I mean, look, it's a strong argument that the most important strategic location for the U.S. that's not in the U.S. is Taiwan, because the entire modern world runs on the chips that Taiwan has. I guess I feel like this is all very connected, though, and that's why if you're concerned about addressing China, it's worth addressing Russia as well, because China, I think it

was last year or so said- We haven't even got to Russia yet, though. about addressing China, it's worth addressing Russia as well, because China, I think it was last year or so. They said they had an endless relationship between the Chinese and the Russians and Russians are getting cheap oil right now, or the Chinese are getting cheap oil from the Russians right now. Iran is sending the drones that they have to use in Russia. North Koreans are fighting against Ukrainians in Ukraine right now. So I think all of this stuff is connected. And there's a united front that's against U.S. hegemony. And I think it's worth not just focusing on one part, although I'm extremely hawkish when it comes to China as well.

You just stopped it. Extremely hawkish. Yeah. Well, I think I believe in peace through strength, and I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to protect because I think once we pull out, the less involved the United States is in geopolitical affairs, unfortunately, the more stuff breaks down. If the United States stopped being interested in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, more conflict would break out in all these regions because I think the United States acts as a stabilizing force through the strength in our military power. I think I would disagree with that. stabilizing force through the strength of our military power. I think I would disagree with that. And it's actually kind of funny. What you're saying, I think, is most likely true,

but it sounds really similar to the whole axis of evil speech from post-9-11, which got us into a lot of problems. And ultimately, I think I agree with your broader point. But I will say I don't think the U.S. has been a stabilizing force, especially in Africa. I mean, everything with the Wagner Group. I mean, Russia has been running wild in Africa. And part of the French, it was the French African countries, they screwed everything up in Africa. And then the U.S. had to step in, but the U.S. wasn't prepared to do that. And so the Russians went wild. And ultimately, that is the fault of

the French. And I think it goes back to, yeah, like the U.S. has a lot of different security priorities. We need to make sure those are accomplished. We need to be able to make sure we have the munitions and the agreements to maintain that. But we're always going to fail at it if our allies don't step up to the plate. And I think in the context of Israel, now who knows what the actual situation behind this article is, but the U.S.-Israel relationship, although very strong, is very much push and pull right now. And it's totally within Israel's prerogative to do so because, again, they have their own strategic interests. But if Iran and Trump are actually serious about a deal and there is one that's going to come through, it is not in Israel's interest for that to happen.

But, again, I don't think that they would ultimately make that decision for the same reason that Trump and Vance go to Europe and they criticize the European Union. And what can they actually do? Nothing, really, because they're not strong. They still rely on U.S. security guarantees. And its function is a drain on us. And I think that part of the work of Trump and J.D. and Rubio in particular, as Secretary of State, has been to pull back our commitments in areas where it really doesn't matter. I don't think that our efforts in Africa have been very fruitful. There's a good argument for some of the humanitarian programs, I think. But ultimately, we have never had a good relationship with African countries especially now not with South Africa and the Chinese and the Russians have been running wild. Well let me just say, I'll just say too like last year I

backpacked Africa, Wagner is everywhere even and I was back in through Eastern Africa which is a region that's not on the table geopolitically speaking everywhere Chinese everywhere. You have a, does anyone have a sense of what the what the what Russia's goals are having military you know PMC's over there in in these areas because yes it's my sense that there's a lot of Islamic terrorism that that spawns from that area and keeping that kind of busy so that way it doesn't reach out into Russia or the U.S. The U.S.'s involvement was to prevent it from reaching out into the U.S. That was a large argument for it.

Now, I'm not saying that I agree with it or whatever, but if there's a more – or if there's another argument – well, yeah, I mean I understand the minerals and stuff, but that's economic stuff. That doesn't – Well, there's a vacuum there in Eastern Africa since the British left. It's just been chaos. The Tanzanians and the Kenyans are massive exporters of oil, specifically in rare earth minerals. Kenya is American-aligned, broadly speaking. Tanzania, not so much.

And everywhere you go, you're going to see mandarin. The Chinese are heavily involved in Tanzania. They're setting up massive mines, setting up massive oil rigs. So there's a huge geopolitical advantage there, but it's more of a long-term play. And that's sort of been the problem with the United States is we're not thinking long-term. We're thinking election to election versus the Chinese and the Russians.

They can think in terms of generations. Yep. All right. Well, I say we should move on to this next story, seeing as we were talking about Russia a little bit. The New York Times reports Trump's new position on the war in Ukraine. Not my problem. In a reversal, President Trump appears to have backed off joining a European push for a new for new sanctions on Russia, seemingly eager to move on to do business deals with it. For months, President Trump has been threatening to simply walk away from the frustrating negotiations for a ceasefire between

Russia and Ukraine. After a phone call on Monday between Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, that appears to be exactly what the American president is doing. The deeper question now is whether he is also abandoning America's three year long project to support Ukraine, a nascent democracy that has frequently that he has frequently blamed for being elite, for being illegally invaded. Mr. Trump told President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders after his call with Mr. Putin that Russia and Ukraine would have to find a solution to the war themselves. Just days after saying that only he and Mr. Putin had the power to broker a deal. And he backed away from his own threats to join a European pressure campaign that would include new sanctions on Russia, according to six officials who were familiar with the discussion. They spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.

If the United States decides that they're going to walk away from the deal, that just means that Russia can do whatever they want. Exactly. Yeah. walk away from the deal that just means that russia can do whatever they want exactly yeah um and and furthermore russia is kind of holding all the cards as you know using a phrase that donald trump likes to likes to talk about you know russia has no problem throwing bodies into the meat grinder they historically have never had a problem with that. And they have the ability to continue this war, whereas Ukraine is running out of people. There's just not as many Ukrainians. They don't have the infrastructure. And if the United States stops sending them weapons, they're not going to have the ability to do anything.

So let's take off my American hawk hat for a second and put on my Russian hawk hat. So if I'm Vladimir Putin or Sergei Lavrov or any of these people high up, what? If I'm one of these Russians, I'm trying to wait out the clock on President Trump. It's clear that he and others in the administration aren't considering sending more arms. They want a quick end to this.

And so long as Putin isn't playing ball, they're just getting frustrated. And it seems like frustrating President Trump is working, getting him to walk away and not send more arms to these guys. And that's crucial to apply pressure on Putin. So long as he doesn't do that, Putin has no reason to play ball. And then I just try to wait him out if I'm Vladimir Putin and continue trying to take as much of Ukraine as I can. Without U.S. arms and military support and cyber support and different, all of our intel, we provide them with a ton of their different coordinates and everything that they use as coordinates to attack.

Without that support from us, Ukraine isn't going to be very much of a worthy opponent to the Russians, and they'd be able to trample over them very quickly. So my plan, if I were Putin, would just be wait this out, continue raising up more soldiers. Russians historically don't care about throwing hundreds of thousands of people into the meat grinder so long as they fulfill their irredentist dreams, which I do believe Putin and different people in his administration do have. They want all of Ukraine. And if the United States walks away, I think they're going to they have a fair chance of getting it. It could be that they want all of Ukraine, but we have seen that that front line has crystallized and hasn't really moved over the last 18 months, basically. And so there's something to be said of waiting out the clock. That probably is their goal, considering they

haven't made a huge offensive in what nine months um i also don't blame americans for being sick of sending arms and support to the ukrainians with not much to show for it after doing so for three plus years i mean i don't even know how long it's been so i understand the fatigue among americans well americans are just allergic to foreign intervention in general after 20 years in the Middle East. Like we don't differentiate based on what region it is that it's in. We're just sick of it. Yeah. I mean, even among the Democrats, I feel like support for Ukraine has dwindled and it's going to be very tough for them. I don't see this ending very well for Ukraine.

It's when the United States seems to walk away. That's what Trump's posturing right now. And we'll see if that changes. Maybe something happens where Trump changes his mind. I don't think that Ukraine was ever the issue when it came to Americans supporting Ukraine. It was always about Donald Trump. The reason that people wanted to support Ukraine or put up Ukraine flags, it was just, we don't like Donald Trump.

They might as well have put up a Trump bad sign. It had absolutely nothing to do with support for Ukraine. And they don't care about Ukraine. They didn't care when Russia took Crimea and stuff. What does that say? I can't read it. More like Ukraine. You also see this like, you see the situation where the way the left thinks is they can't analyze anything beyond a certain point where they just see big country attacking small country.

This is bad. Because you'll see this alignment on the left where people are pro-Ukraine but also pro-Palestine. And it's like if you want to be ideologically consistent and you want, let's's say your favorite, so to speak, is Ukraine, then why would you be a lot of Palestine? They're on opposite ends of the axis, so to speak. This is a distinction that Tim makes, right? So the woke people, when Tim describes woke, he describes it as just like the, I think the phrase he uses is cult-like adherence to liberal orthodoxy. And those people are the ones that don't have any sense where it doesn't make any sense why they're supporting one or the other. If you get more granular with leftist thought process, it's all about power struggle, a power dynamic. So the Ukraine is less powerful than Russia. So

Ukraine is good. The Palestinians are less powerful than the Israelis. So the Palestinians are good. It's always just about whoever has more power and they're using that power, they're the immoral ones because they have them. They conceptualize the world as like Star Wars because you always see them putting memes up and it's like Putin's the Palpatine. Yeah, and they're morons. Yeah, their entire worldview is shaped by American media.

Yeah, I mean, well, not only that, but if you look at all of leftist philosophers, all of the people that were writing books right before postmodernism became in vogue, right? So in the late 30s, 40s, 50s and stuff, when the writers were people like Marcuse and stuff, they were writing. It's all about power dynamics. It's all about who's got power and who doesn't have power. And if you don't have power and you're resisting people that do have power, that makes you morally good. It doesn't matter if you're blowing up babies or if you're a terrorist or if you're killing people. If you're killing people that are in power, it's bad.

It's good. That's why they love Luigi. Luigi killed a man who had a lot of money. That man ostensibly had more power than luigi so therefore luigi's good it's that simple um it's not in any way any deeper than that it's just stupid leftism yeah and there's something that aiden hit on earlier which was important with the back and forth of the lot it was like sort of conceptualizing iran china and russia as this united access to united front against american hegemony. I don't think that

tracks because Russia and China are like historically, they would be rivals considering China has aspirations. They see the east of Russia from Vladivostok all the way to like, you know, it was a Tandituva, whatever the region is to the left of Mongolia. They have aspirations there. So the fact that we keep pushing Russia and China's direction is so frustrating. And you're actually hearing this echoed by a lot of the minerals that are there. And Russia sees these as like their lost Soviet territories and the Chinese see this as like an extension of China. So you have these overlapping claims. It just makes zero sense that we're pushing Russia in the direction of China because they should, I mean, following the fall of the Soviet Union,

there was a chance there where we could have incorporated them into the Western sphere. So it's just completely mind boggling foreign policy. That's verboten to even mention here in the US though. You can't talk about having them into the into the western sphere so it's just completely mind-boggling foreign policy that's verboten to even mention here in the u.s though you like you can't talk about having any kind of positive relations with russia if you say i mean just the fact that we're talking about on this show people are going to be like oh well and i don't want to downplay like people take this as like they use this take a shot at boomers or they're like oh you know they still view russia as the soviet union i do want to say like if you grew up going to school hiding under desks, like, it's hard

to get that out of your mind that there's this adversary. I mean, you can speak to- I mean, I was never doing duck and cover, but I do remember the fall of the Soviet Union. I do remember- Like, you speak to people that were around during the World War. It took them a long time to get over the, you know, their adversaries in that war. So it's like, I don't necessarily give the boomers a hard time. That being said, it's time to get real.

It's 2025. Yeah, I mean, I've been to Russia multiple times. And while it's a different place, it doesn't strike me as like the Soviet Union. You know, like when I think of what I saw as a kid in movies and stuff like that, or the way it was portrayed. And granted, Hollywood is just portraying Hollywood. And so there was a certain amount of theatrics to what I saw, you know, when I actually went to Russia, like it was, you know, it could have been any other European city, to be honest

with you. Well, I mean, arguably, Vladimir Putin does think it is still the Soviet Union, or at least should be. And that's, you know, kind of what was pushing the claims. So hold on, I want to put a pin in that. Do you think that Vladimir Putin has aspirations beyond the territory that he's taken now in Ukraine? Do you think, I personally think he might go for all of Ukraine, but there's a different relationship with Ukraine and the rest of Europe.

There are people that are making the, well, you know, he'll go for Poland. I don't think that he'll go for any NATO countries at all. I don't think that he would go that far. I mean, I think maybe he would want to. I just don't think it's possible. They're already having enough of a struggle in Ukraine. I mean, in the early days of the war, they thought the special military operation would last, what, a week. And it didn't. And I think, you know, would he go for all of Ukraine? I mean, I imagine, yes. His whole philosophy is pushing that the idea of Ukraine is fictional, right? Created by the administrative structure of the Soviet Union. And of course, you know, there's a lot of pushback on that from Ukrainians. I don't think he'll ever get the full Ukraine.

I mean, the Russians—the thing that the pro-Ukrainian liberals don't talk about is the cost to Ukrainian society. I think J.D. Vance talked about this. There are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men dead. They've lost or ma've lost an entire, they've lost or maimed an entire generation. People have massively fed the country, especially the women. And it's going to be really tough to recover from that

if they do still exist at the end of the war. And I mean, even Russia, they're pulling convicts from the prisons to go fight because they obviously don't care if their convicts die. But it's also partially to hide the brutality of the war in Russian society. And ultimately, I do think that there will be a deal of some kind. Maybe Putin is trying to wait Trump out but i for as much as trump and advance criticize the war and criticize the european union for not upholding its you know security obligations there is still interest in russia not taking over the whole

of ukraine i think where you know a a lot of America First conservatives and regular Americans have this aversion is the immediate European rhetoric is, let's go put boots on the ground in Ukraine. And the Americans think, why would we do that? We just got out of a war. And the war in Ukraine is, I mean, it's trench warfare. It's vicious. It's completely different from the wars in the Middle East, too. They're like these drones. I've seen some of these videos against my will, and I would not wish that on anybody. No, it's totally different than Afghanistan. It's different than fighting the militias in Iraq.

It's totally different. I do think that Russia has, I mean, under Putin, has imperial ambitions of some kind. I think, I mean, that's kind of been their entire history. It has always been the push west because, you know, the warm water port thing, right? And I don't really see that stopping anytime soon. Maybe after Vladimir Putin is gone, somebody with a different mindset won't pursue that. Who knows? But ultimately, I do think that, especially in the wake of the Wagner rebellion and all that, I think that there is probably some internal pressure that isn't public. And maybe, you know, just maybe Trump will actually follow through on some kind of commitment. And that's why they're trying to ink the critical mineral deal. Like this is not this is not a situation where America says, hey, you know, we're going to give you everything we have. And we just want you to be our friend and be nice, because every single time we've done that, we've gotten screwed over by civilian governments that don't fulfill their obligations, whatever they are, especially when we were trying and failing to nation build in the Middle East.

But even among other countries, even in our hemisphere that have taken a bunch of Chinese money and don't follow the actual interests of their country and or our lead. And so I think that if Zelensky is open and willing to negotiate an actual fair price for U.S. involvement, then maybe we'll work something out. But we don't owe them anything. Well, I mean, if this uh you know if this new york times piece is accurate it doesn't sound like there will be any kind of mineral deal coming out of ukraine either because you if the u.s is just going to walk away from the deal you know the the peace deal there i don't see you know companies wanting to go into ukraine and actually do any kind of infrastructure work that would take to actually do mining or to get the rare earths out of the ground.

Then I would maybe say to them, find a different deal you're willing to make. I mean, it's the same concept with the Houthis. And I've talked to other people about that issue. It's OK. The U.S. is only, I think there was an article recently saying how the U S is the only country with the capability to strike, strike the Houthis and that France and the other European countries can't, you know, they can't even defend, um, an area, a geographic area that is most important to them, uh, without our help. And to that, I say pay up. I mean, yeah, the, with the, with the Houthis, the Brits couldn't even get jets in the air.

They made this big commitment to the Yemen crisis, and they couldn't even get fighter jets scrambled. We're legitimately the only player. Who's that? The Brits. Oh, jeez. The lack of financial and militaristic support and contributions from the European countries to NATO and Ukraine,

I think is the real issue at hand. The fact that we're subsidizing the Ukraine war more than any of the Europeans, when this is more of their problem than it is ours, given just straight up geography, is kind of outlandish. France is barely, I mean, I don't think many of these countries even give their allotted percent of GDP to NATO. Poland's the only people that outrank us. Yeah, and Aidan, I wanted to follow up on something you said, talking with Phil about what Russian ambitions are here. I think it's the whole of Ukraine. And I think Putin would be willing even to put Americans and Europeans in a tough position down the line by challenging

NATO because like, you know, if he were to invade, I don't know, what is it over here? Not Poland, but like... Well, it goes Ukraine. That was the argument. One of the Baltic states, for example. Like, I think he could drive a hard conversation in the United States here. It's like, how involved do we want to get in protecting these countries? Realistically, how different is one of these Baltic countries than Ukraine to an American? Because the Baltics are in NATO.

Because the Baltics are in NATO. But, you know, there has to be a conversation. We are obligated treaty-wise to defend them. But when push comes to shove, there needs to be a conversation here in the United States if we are willing to send troops and go to nuclear war over the baltic states i think that the united states is going would likely live up to its nato obligations well it's the i think that's what putin i mean down the line putin might be able might be willing to test but with the way some of our politicians are talking about nato now i could see a future where we potentially even leave nato i mean trump said he wanted to leave nato throughout his campaigning in both um terms so like this isn't beyond the realm of conversation or the overton window something like that down the line so i could see nato potentially weakening our rhetoric around it weakening these other countries aren't contributing the i forget what the specific amount i think it's two or three percent three point two three percent of three point two percent of gdp but they aren't

living up to their obligations one of the baltic countries get invaded we just say hey you guys haven't been pulling your weight i don't want to sacrifice hundreds of thousands for of americans to go die in the baltics over what Europe? Like, I think that's a hard conversation to have with the American people. I think ultimately, you know, my response to that is, number one, I think 100% Putin is going for the entire Ukraine. I mean, obviously, I do. As much as he could get.

Yeah, definitely as much as he can get. I think, excuse me, I think ultimately they'll have a hard time, you know, whatever they get, if they get anything, they're going to have a hard time kind of digesting domestically. But I think the situation you're talking about in my mind happens on these terms. We exhaust ourselves on other second and third order national security commitments, and we're not prepared for when China comes. When China comes and we're distracted and scrambling is when they try to step in. I think ultimately, and we can argue all day about whether or not this is 4D chess or 8D chess from President Trump, everything that Trump is doing, even though he is actively hostile to the European

countries right now, is in an effort to get them to man up, basically. And I think the ideal world is even if we're exhausted and we still have to go deal with China and that's when Russia decides to do something again, ideally the European countries would be ready. I don't think the U.S. will leave NATO anytime soon. I know people have talked about it. I don't think it's realistic because it is still a useful tool for American foreign policy, regardless if somebody is an isolationist or not. Ideally, the isolationist would use NATO to force other countries to pay up, right? So I think... Well, I think the isolationist would just want to abandon NATO altogether. Well, maybe a strict isolationist. Let me correct that to realist. I think a realist president or a realist foreign policy from the

Trump administration or any administration would be utilizing the current international institutions we are already in to force those same realist perspectives on the other countries. And we've functionally done it the other way around the entire time. So it's just flipping it on its head. Ideally, I think, you know, that Russia doesn't end up doing anything because we have pressured our European allies to actually make themselves stronger and more defensible. You've been talking a lot tonight about being prepared for like a pivot to China, so-called. I feel like recently in the past couple of years, we haven't been talking about China-Taiwan issue as much as, you know as we could be given how much oxygen the Israel-Gaza and Ukraine-Russia war has been sucking up. But if China were to try to make a move on Taiwan, are you of the opinion that the United States and their allies should try to defend Taiwan?

Should. I mean, yes, but it's going to be a really tough sell, I think. I think if China does make a move on Taiwan the way things are, we're going to have some pretty heavy losses early on. And given the way that Americans usually react to heavy losses, there's going to be a lot of people that are going to go and say, let's just, let's give it up. I feel like we've been talking about that for my entire lifetime, the China invading Taiwan and then bombing Iran. And I don't know, we'll see if I get one of the two. So listen, we're going to move on to this next story right here. Fox News is reporting that Trump Hegseth announced Golden Dome, a game changer to protect American homeland. They've been alluding to this for a bit, but Fox says President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the U.S. will soon begin construction of a Golden Dome

missile defense system they say will be a next-generation game-changer protecting the American homeland from outside adversaries. A similar system, the Iron Dome, has already been developed in Israel with U.S. assistance and has proven effective in repelling missile attacks. Now, Trump says a bigger, more technologically advanced multi-layered dome system will soon be installed in America. The president announced the one big beautiful bill being discussed in Congress will include $25 billion in initial funding for the project, which he expects will cost $175 billion overall. He said he expects a major phase of the dome will be complete in under three years and that it will be fully operational before the end of my term.

He noted there's significant support for the project in Congress. Quipping, it's amazing how easy this one is to fund. What do you guys think? Do you think that the technology is there to actually intercept ICBMs or, you know, delivery systems, entry, reentry vehicles, because you're talking about. F yeah, golden domes. I'm about it. Yeah, I don't I don't think we're getting shot by missiles, but I think having the point of it is to prevent. The point of it is to deter. deter like if there's you know if russia were to say okay we actually can't attack the united

states and and reliably you know rely on may may uh mad anymore mutually assured destruction we can't rely on our our missiles getting through both the iron dome bombers not being intercepted by f-22s if we are that technologically advanced, then it becomes a whole totally different conversation. What Russia is going to do, what China can do. Because if we were to have this particular weapon system, right, so say it gets built, then China can't move on Taiwan. So, I mean, so they're comparing it to the Iron Dome, right? The Iron Dome is a system used to defend Israel from relatively rudimentary rockets and missiles from Hezbollah and Hamas.

Hezbollah is not rudimentary. The Hamas stuff is relative to like a supersonic missile or something that Russia or China could make. These guys are making bomb missiles compared to the Russians and Chinese. Most missiles are going to go faster than the speed of sound. Right? They're supersonic. I guess my point is the technology leap would be a lot bigger for the enemies that we'd be dealing with. And this might be effective against a lower...

Why do you say that? Because I think the missiles that China or Russia would be trying to shoot would be a lot better and probably get through most of our air missile defense system. Why do you say that? Because it's harder to shoot down a missile than it is to shoot a missile at somebody. A lot harder, probably hundreds of times as hard. And you could overwhelm the system. So they were comparing it to the Iron Dome, and the Iron Dome is effective because Hamas and Hezbollah and Israel's relatively weak regional enemies,

they were able to defend against. But once you get past a certain threshold, I don't think it's a weapon that it's a defense system that's like necessary what i'm asking you is why is it just like well i don't think because i assume that china and and russia and china have a lot better rockets and many more not rockets they're missiles and also yeah well i'm backing up a lot too is is like, they're going to have a payload. Like with Russia and China, if they're launching an ICBM, there's going to be a serious payload with Hezbollah. Well, yeah, but the point that I'm making, though, is if the technology is there, right? If you're saying, I doubt the technology, that's a legitimate argument.

If you're saying, okay, I don't think that we actually can make that technology. i don't think we could actually make this work right and that's the argument that you're making i don't think we're getting shot by missiles like israel is is israel needs the iron dome because they're being shot at with missiles we in the united states don't get shot at with missiles in that way so i don't think not yet not... Not yet. Not yet. And it's not needed. So if we did have like, I don't know, at the southern border, you know, some of these... So a B-2 is $100 billion.

Right? One. Sure. I think that was when they came out when they were first released in the 90s. So I don't know what they cost now. I think an F-22 is on the same, something like that as well. So one of them. If it's two, if it's the cost think an f-22 is on the same something like that as well so one of them if it's two if it's the cost of two f-22s even if it's the cost of four f-22s this is six doges we've we've cut 60 billion so far this is expensive well it's honestly it's it's if it

depends on how it depends on how you look at it if you're you know if you're talking about you know i mean i don't know how many uh f-22s are in a squadron but it's more than four right like and an f-22 again i'm not exactly sure but they're on the order of 75 to 100 billion dollars or something like that per plane i'm hawkish i love weapons what is the use case like i think i might have one is the point i there was an article a while back um talking about the Chinese testing missiles that go through the South Pole. Because right now, our missile defense systems, because of the Cold War and all that, they're geared towards going over the Arctic with the USSR. And unfortunately, I can't talk about – I don't know much about the actual mechanics. But there was an article about how the Chinese are trying to test out missiles that can go to the South Pole and return to China. And I don't think that

our missile defense systems are geared towards that kind of entry point. So that would be, if that is actually correct, this article I think was at least within the last year or so, I can't quite remember. If that is correct, I think that's a good reason to try it. Phil, I don't think the missile defense system is the deterrent. I think the nuclear strike back is the deterrent, just so we're... If you don't have the capacity to strike the U.S. and take out U.S. silos and U.S. missiles before they launch, and you're never going to be able to take out submarines, right?

But if you don't have the capacity to take out ground-based missile silos and take out the airfields where planes take off from, like if you render your strikes, the U.S. renders the strikes totally useless, and that's a deterrent. If you get rid of the abilities, your enemy's ability to mutually assure destruction, right? You're getting rid of their ability to assure your destruction.

But they're not deterred by us being able to stop their weapons. They are deterred by us destroying them. I think the use case for this defense system is going to be sent overseas. This is likely another subsidy to Israel is what I'm seeing out of this. A gold subsidy because it's going to be a gold iron dome because they're the only ones who are going to use it or in Ukraine or maybe in Taiwan. Because they're more likely to get shot by missiles that they'd be able. Why would they shoot missiles at Taiwan when they want to take it? To destroy the military infrastructure on the island

before they try to invade it? They do want to keep the chip factory. Sure, sure, but it's not like China, of course, would shoot missiles into Taiwan. I mean, they have military defense systems. That's, you know. Hey, I'm sure the fact that he's calling it gold makes me feel like it's a bit of a vanity project.

And, you know, like, and it sounds in place nice. If we had a nice use a vanity project and you know like it and it's and it sounds in place nice if we had a nice use case for it i'd be more about it hey more military spending i'm for it but um let's put this on the southern border maybe we could start shooting down some of those cartel drones that i hear so much about but otherwise like i'm looking shocked no i'm i'm about it i just want more use case for it. I just don't think it's, most of the stuff in the military is probably not necessary either. I mean, honestly, all of the, you know, most of the military's hardware isn't actually for use. Like, it's to deter. The whole concept of peace through strength isn't to go out and actually pound your enemies into dust. It's to make sure that the U.S. is so far advanced of all of our adversaries

that the enemy can't win. That's the whole point of peace through strength. That's the whole point of the U.S. military spending totally. Yeah, I think we still have a different understanding of deterrence. I still think that deterrence is not the self-defense missile system. I think it's the fact that we're going to blow you— If you were right, then the only thing we would need in the military is nuclear weapons. No, because—

You're not even letting me finish. If you were right, the only thing that we would need is nuclear weapons. And we wouldn't need aircraft carriers. We wouldn't need to project power. We would just say, okay, if you do anything, we'll just smoke you. That's not the way that our military works. We still need the conventional military because we hope it never gets to nuclear war.

And almost all the time throughout human history, it hasn't. But, I mean, let's just go through this little thought process right now. I have nuclear weapons. I shoot at you. You shoot it down. Am I deterred from shooting at you more? Not because of your self-defense system. I'm deterred at shooting you more because you could kill me back.

I'd keep shooting at you if you just shot down when I shot at you. But it changes the equation by saying you can't ensure that you'll be able to destroy me. So when I take action, right, if the U.S. were to— So say that we had the Golden Dome now, right? And the U.S. said, Putin, you need to get out of ukraine and putin says i don't want to and then the u.s says well we're gonna go in and we're gonna make you get out what's putin gonna do putin can't attack the u.s mainland because the golden dome is there i so it allows a different understanding of what like the goal the limits of the this won't be okay so that on

icbms and that's why i asked you in the very... I don't even think it said that, Bill. I don't even think it said that it was going to do that. Stop and listen. The very first thing I said is you doubt whether or not the technology exists to do what it says. I'm saying if the Golden Dome can do what it says, if they can stop the incoming entry vehicles to deliver missile systems, to deliver warheads, then that's the premise that I'm going on. We're going to go to listen to this and see what Donald Trump said about it here.

I am pleased to announce that we have officially selected an architecture for this state-of-the-art system that will deploy next-generation technologies across the land, sea, and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors. And Canada has called us and they want to be a part of it. So we'll be talking to them. They want to have protection also. So as usual, we help Canada do the best we can. This design for the Golden Dome will integrate with our existing defense capabilities and should be fully operational before the end of my term. So we'll have it done in about three years.

Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles, even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space. And we will have the best system ever built. As you know, we helped Israel with theirs, and it was very successful. And now we have technology that's even far advanced from that, but including hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles, and advanced cruise missiles,

all of them will be knocked out of the air. We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, advanced cruise missiles, all of them will be knocked out of the air. We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland. And the success rate is very close to 100 percent, which is incredible. When you think of it, you're shooting bullets out of the air. I'm also pleased to report that the one big, beautiful bill will include $25 billion for the Golden Dome to help construction get underway. That's the initial sort of a down posit.

And we have probably you're talking about general. We're talking about $175 billion total cost of this when it's completed. So $175 billion. The U.S. has something on the order of, let me see one second, has something on the order of, let's see, four squadrons of F-22s, and each F-22 costs something on the order of, what, $143? This is like $150 that are available at any time to scramble. That's what I read.

Oh, $150. $150 planes are available at any time to scramble, but it says there's, I think just the last tab you had open right here was the number of squadrons was like 24 aircraft. Yeah. And so that means that you're actually spending more money on F-22s just to buy them, never mind maintenance and cost of weaponry, than you do the golden dome. Now, the point that I'm only trying to make

is I'm trying to get you to be clear about what your argument is. If you think that the technology won't work as advertised, then that's a perfectly reasonable argument. Which is, I'm skeptical. I don't want to be put into a, what? Israel has been using similar systems for years and it's over-septed over 5,000 rockets at a 90% success rate. I don't want to be put into into a lulled false lulled sense of security over this i think nuclear submarines off of either of our coasts would be able to

shoot missiles at us and an amount of them that would overwhelm our systems more than better than we'd be able to defend ourselves and maybe i'm naive to think that i'm not sure that the u.s doesn't know where all of the nuclear submarine nuclear armed submarines are at all times the u.s does have submarines that are they're strictly tasked with following nuclear subs right and there's not a lot of countries that have subs that can launch nuclear missiles it's russia i'm pretty china are the i don't even think china is i don't think china can launch nuclear missiles it's russia i'm really china are the i don't even think china does i don't think china can launch nuclear missiles from a submarine um so but the point that i'm making is and i'd like to hear your thoughts on it is do you think that this kind of expenditure is actually worth it you know i mean out of the whole you know out of the Pentagon's budget, which is a trillion dollars a year, almost 20% of it on one weapon system.

But if it works as advertised, and we're going to go on the premise that it does work as advertised, right? So say it works as advertised. Isn't that worth it? I think generally it would be. And the thing I'm most interested in actually is, number one, Canada's interest. Canada's interest? Canada's interest. Are you Canadian?

You should have to pay for half of it, right? No, exactly. It's just another thing that Trump's going to be on for three years. And we don't take maple syrup. But actually, I think the most interesting thing is what they were talking about, about space. I actually, I released an article a little while ago talking about the concept of letters of mark, which is in the constitution, it's Congress is able to give letters of mark to, you know, private companies or whatever to go after adversaries, right? And I think space, although

technically it is demilitarized right now because of some international treaties, is going to be one of the massive domains for the future for multiple reasons, but mostly because of satellites. We rely on satellites for just about everything, including GPS, our emergency alert systems. If somebody's able to take those down, forget about the prepper apocalypse scenarios about an EMP taking down the electricity grid in the United States. Imagine taking down all emergency services, the GPS, literally anything that satellites rely on. And then you're functionally wiping out also our military's capability to respond. So I think outside of the little joke statement about Canada us protecting us from space threats is probably number one um so as just an update the china possesses six operational jin class ballistic missile submarines so there are six subs that china has that can launch nuclear missiles i'm not sure how many russia has um but i don't there's not it's not

like there's you know a hundred countries that can launch nuclear don't, there's not, it's not like there's, you know, a hundred countries that can launch nuclear missiles from submarines. There's, there's only a handful if there, if there, if there's any more than just China and the U.S. I don't think, I don't think that maybe the French do. I don't think that the U.K. does. I mean, most countries don't have more than one or two aircraft carriers. And like you said i mean not just us the japanese the south koreans are keeping tabs on those nuclear subs yeah there's only one way in or out this stuff sounds very reminiscent of reagan's star wars program i don't know i wasn't around back then but i was yeah maybe you could talk a little bit more to how

this sounds like that 2.0 yeah robots were not like robots are today though i don't know the technology the technology that we have today compared to the technology in the 80s when like all the stuff that we have now is all the stuff that i dreamt about when i was a kid and i saw in movies when i was a kid it's's all real now. My car, I can afford a car that drives me wherever I want to go. I just tell it where to go and it drives me. The idea that the U.S. could design a missile system that could intercept missiles, especially when you, if a missile launches, an ICBM launches on the other side of the world, you know within, the U.S. knows within five minutes where it's going. Right? They get enough information to tell where the trajectory is going to have it.

So, you know, I forget the name of the lady that wrote a book about it. And I just read the book like six months ago or something like that. But she was talking about it. What when a nuclear strike initiate is initiated um and look if you if the u.s can tell that there is a nuclear missile heading towards the u.s within five minutes and that it'll you know land in the u.s and in 25 minutes later if we have the ability to design a capable nuclear missile shield, I think that's absolutely worth it. If it is capable of intercepting missiles, I imagine that it's likely that it could be retrofitted to do something about incoming large asteroids,

or at least it wouldn't be a significant leap. And those are real threats as well. So I think that the usefulness of this on its face, it may seem like, oh, maybe, you know, that's just silly or whatever. But the more you actually think about it and brainstorm the possible applications, it actually is more than just, oh, hey, what if someone shoots a missile at you? Well, the missile thing doesn't even worry me as much as like what Ada hit on with the drone situation. I mean, we couldn't even shoot down the weather balloon that was floating over New

Jersey. So it's like, okay, yeah, missiles, that's nice to have that a little insurance, but the drone warfare videos, nightmare fuel. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the border was wide open for four years really could argue for 50 years so it's like we don't know where these drones could launch from who knows and that's what actually keeps me up at night is the drone situation yeah i think that it's actually far more useful than we actually are giving it credit for especially with the the argument that cost 100 bucks if it does what they say if it does of course yes absolutely 100 there is so much grift in the federal contracting system, especially with defense, as I'm sure you would point out.

So if they're actually able to deliver even on half of what Trump was saying, then I think it's well worth it. I would say that when it comes to military spending and military capability, sometimes it takes a minute for the capability to get up to, to, you know, catch up with the promises. But if there is anything the government is actually good at doing, it is at figuring out ways to blow stuff up. And, you know, eventually the, the military tech generally, not every single weapon system, but generally, military tech catches up to the promises because the U.S. has an endless money pit. They can just keep throwing money at it. If the promises are kept for what this could, what this missile defense system, what Reagan

dreamed of, what his Star Wars program dream of, would actually be effective, it would completely shift the landscape of geopolitics as a result. It would throw out the mad doctrine if countries were able to shoot down each other's ballistic nuclear weapons. And also the way that would play in is that we stop countries from trying to acquire nuclear weapons now on the basis, on the premise that we wouldn't be able to shoot down those missiles. So it would completely change the game of how we allowed or what weapons we would potentially allow and the leeway for more countries if we knew we could defend ourselves against them.

Again, I think it's a crazy promise to, you know, you only need to get one nuclear weapon through to be completely screwed and it wouldn't be ballistic missiles shot from the other side of the country. It would be a ballistic missile shot off the coast of California or something from a submarine. It is my fear, but hey, I'm sure the military contractors are really happy they're getting all of this coin. If we want to talk about problems with the military industrial complex, it's over-promising and under-delivering.

All of these people's pockets are getting lined. I guess good for those math and science students and different engineers. All right, we're going to jump to this next story here. Trump warns House Republicans don't F around with Medicaid in the latest Big Beautiful Bill drama. The New York Post is reporting from Washington. President Trump warned House Republicans don't F around with Medicaid during a closed-door meeting Tuesday as he sought to rally support for his big, beautiful bill. The R-rated remark confirmed to the Post by a Republican member of Congress and another person in the room

came as Trump tries to convince fiscal hawks to deliver on a bundle of top campaign pledges, including extending his 2017 tax cuts while eliminating levies on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security. I can't believe they got rid of the Oxford comma there. Before entering the meeting with House Republicans, Trump defended plans, planned changes to Medicaid, which he called crackdown on fraud. We're not doing any cutting of anything meaningful, the president said.

The only thing we're cutting is waste, fraud and abuse. But skeptical Republicans such as Chip Roy of Texas have demanded that more conservative reforms to Medicaid be tacked on to the one big beautiful bill act, including an earlier imposition of work requirements for able bodied Americans to use the entitlement. He's he paints with some colorful phrases, maybe that we hear more often here than we do in South Dakota. Rep Dusty Johnson's told the Post about Trump's meeting message to Republicans when he says don't touch things, he means don't make adjustments to the bill as drafted. The president is the world's best salesman, Johnson added. You could you could tell that he moved the room. So the Republican fiscal hawks have been saying that there's just not enough cuts. This is too big that it's 20 that it's $5 trillion in additional spending. It doesn't decrease spending, never mind actually cut the government. And you're starting to hear a lot more

people in business starting to complain about the national debt and what it's going to do to the economy. You hear people like the guys from the All In podcast are talking about it. Chamath and Freeberg are talking about it a lot. Moody's just downgraded the U.S. credit rating because of this. And if the fiscal house is not in order, you're going to start seeing serious cuts that are going to come whether we like it or not. The only way that the U.S. is going to be able to get out of it is by either blowing up the dollar or they're going to have to use austerity measures. What are your thoughts on this? Well, you know, as a young person, I am very concerned about the long-term fiscal health of the United States.

But I will say, you know, my organization, the Bull Moose Project, we have supported the One Big Beautiful Bill for multiple reasons. And there's a million different things in it. It is a massive piece of legislation. But ultimately, I think the big mistake in Trump's first term was not making these tax cuts permanent. And that's part of the reason why they're pushing so hard and why the bill is so huge, because it didn't include just individual tax cuts. They put on the social security tax changes, the no tax on tips in there, that's new. But the other provisions in the bill included things like R&D expensing. So when the bill expires, if they don't pass a new one, all of these businesses that spend millions of dollars doing R&D in the United States,

they're no longer able to write it all off the same year. They have to amortize it over five years, which means functionally that we're not going to be innovating the same, or that these massive companies that have created so many products, especially pharmaceuticals, it's one of the biggest R&D expenses in the United States, I believe, that's going to impact their bottom line. And you can be against big pharma and all that, but ultimately, this would affect a lot of businesses that are trying to make American companies and products better. And so we lined up behind it because we do believe that people should have a tax cut. We do believe that businesses should not be penalized for doing investment in the United States.

But it is going to be a huge challenge. And I think part of the reason, well, probably the big reason why they don't, why they made changes to Social Security and why they're very wary about touching entitlements is because the Republican base now is low propensity voters, a lot of whom rely on some kind of entitlement, and then also seniors. Seniors are huge Republican voters. They're also the more likely Republican voters. The new Trump coalition is more low propensity. It's working class, which means we actually have to work to get them out there. And then the seniors that come out and vote Republican, they want their entitlements preserved.

And the Democrat coalition is more middle to upper class, the white-collar jobs, urban. And they go out and they go vote more than the working class people do. And they also, you know, want to preserve a lot of these social programs. So we're kind of in between a rock and a hard place here. So there's someone in the chat said, if we stop sending our money to Israel, Ukraine and other countries, we would have more than enough tax money to fix our country, enough to take care of our people. No, that's totally wrong. And you're dumb for saying it. It's unfortunate, though, that it isn't.

I wish it was. We pay more on our interest. We pay more on our interest than we do. I would love to stop sending money overseas. I would love to end all foreign aid. I don't think we need to be giving money away. There are arguments that are compelling for it, but I still would come down on the side. You know, we don't need to do foreign aid. But the idea that foreign aid

is driving our national debt, that is clown world BS. And you should feel bad for even typing that in the chat. But it doesn't sell as well if you can't rail on Israel. A couple of more notes on this. No, no, no, no, no, no.

Hold on. No, because it's sexy to hate on Israel. It's sexier to say we have a high deficit because of Ukraine. They didn't just say Israel, though. They're saying Israel. They're saying it's sexy to hate on Israel. It's sexier to say we have a high deficit because of Ukraine. They didn't just say Israel, though. They're saying Israel. They're saying it's foreign aid. It is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Those are the things. And the idea that we don't take care of our people, the reason why we have so much debt is because of mandatory spending, which is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So your idea is wrong, and stop saying stupid things because you look stupid. I wanted to have a couple more notes on this bill that I'm reading from. So Trump pushed moderate Republicans from blue states to give up their fight over salt, the salt deduction, in addition to railing different Republicans over Medicaid cuts. And he specifically took aim at Republican Mike Lawler from New York, who has been outspoken in making greater changes to the SALT deduction. He told him, I know your district better than you do,

and if you lose because of SALT, you are going to lose anyway. Quick catch-up, the SALT deduction, or state and local tax deduction, allows taxpayers who itemize deductions on their federal income tax returns, um, to deduct the taxes they've paid to state and local governments. So what that means is in blue states where they have high state taxes, they're able to deduct that from their federal taxes. How this plays out politically is that Republicans in blue states can only win if they support this stuff. And the thought process is that Republicans in blue states is the path to the majority. Another interesting tidbit here is that they only have, they're able to lose up to two votes, if my math is correct. And Donald Trump actually came out against a lip-tarditarian

extraordinaire and anti-MAGA rep, Thomas Massey. Thomas Massey is the best in the house. He's consistently the most anti-MAGA Republican in the house So he opposed the legislation that has anything to the deficit which the bill will definitely do Donald Trump said of him I don't think Thomas Massey understands government and that I think he's a grandstander frankly I think he should be voted out of office in the past He said that I was any challenger a lot's not wrong. He's saying Donald Trump is wrong. That's not Allad. That's Donald Trump saying these things. Donald Trump said, I think he's a grandstander who should be voted out of office. So if my math is right, it's only two votes. He can't lose more than one vote. Thomas Massey is already an implied no vote. And we'll see what happens with this small salt caucus of

Republicans in blue states uh i think that was a nice little basis of understanding for what's the real drama behind this bill whether or not it passes will be whether or not these blue state republicans grandstand it's not just that though because i mean chip roy is from texas and texas is reliably red and chip roy is a a fiscal hawk and so go ahead i will say when th Thomas Massey and Chip Roy have concerns, you listen. I completely agree. Thomas Massey is the best in the house. Whether or not you agree with him, he's incredibly consistent.

He's consistently anti-MAGA. He's not anti-MAGA. He's a fiscal conservative. He's against Trump's one big beautiful bill. I don't know how you describe that as anything but anti-MAGA. Well, okay, so he's not concerned with MAGA. He's concerned with actual fiscal responsibility. It's Trump's bill. It doesn't matter if it's Trump's bill. The point is he's consistently fiscally conservative. He's, he's literally one of

the best people in the house because of the fact that he's consistently fiscally conservative. The, the arguments that the fiscal conservatives are making, they are correct. If we do not get our fiscal house in order, we're going to have to have austerity measures. I mean, I'm sure that you have thoughts on this. Please jump in. Yeah, I think what I think my personal, my personal kind of ideal would be finding a way with Social Security especially to – I would like to have an opt-out. I know I'm probably not going to get Social Security. Yeah. And I personally – I don't want to pay into a system and not receive anything. Look, I have absolutely no problem supporting elderly Americans.

A lot of those people do need help. And I'm more than happy to pay into a social safety net to support people who need it, especially people who are working class and don't have the same kind of career opportunity as me. However, I want the ability to take that money and put it somewhere else or at least be able to take some portion of it right because if I know that I'm not going to have the same system, why would it exist? Now, it may take time. I think a lot of the – I don't think the political dynamics are there, and that's what we're really running into. Massey and Rand Paul and Chip Roy, I mean, yeah, they're very hard fiscal conservatives. And I think I have some very strong disagreements with them on some things, not all things. But they are right that something has to be done.

I just think that it was an early mistake of the first term to make this expire. We shouldn't even be having this fight right now, in my opinion. And I think that if a lot of these provisions, the important ones that we support with R&D and the actual tax cuts weren't expiring, there would be more room to consider those changes. But as it stands, I don't think that Trump and other national leaders, or I guess Republican leaders in this instance, are going to look at our current coalition and say, let's go cut social security, let's go cut all these health programs, because we will 100% lose the next election. And like I was saying earlier, it's between a rock and a hard place. you know, entitlements or whatever. We earned these, we've paid in our whole lives and they're not wrong to feel that way. But at the end, at the same time, if you don't, those austerity measures

are coming, whether we like it or not. So like the option isn't, oh, get like, do this. So that way we can avoid having to cut social security and Medicaid. Those cuts are coming, right? There is no reality where those cuts don't come. It's whether or not we do them in a controlled manner sooner, or we have to do bigger cuts later. But they're coming. I do think that there is something to what Secretary Besant says. And some people made fun of this on social media, but the goal is to invigorate the U.S. economy so that for however much longer, it's not a big problem, right? Get more investment, get more growth in the United States. We're also in a slightly different position where the U.S. dollar is kind of the backbone of the world. And I think that puts us in a place that gives us breathing room. I do think

that at some point things are going to have to change. I just don't think that realistically speaking, those cuts are going to happen this term, probably not next term, not until, you know, there are actual like real demographic changes in the United States. Given our political landscape and our political system, I guess how people get elected, I just don't foresee people making big enough cuts to these programs that will continue to get them elected. So what I'm saying, it's political suicide. If you're voting to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or any of these programs, you will likely get voted out. So you'd have to be a very altruistic politician, something exceptionally rare among them nowadays, to do that. So if you want to keep your seat and continue doing your job in office,

you are not going to make these cuts and continue down the spiral. I don't know how this is going to play out. Maybe just massive inflation, because I don't see people having... Once you give somebody something, it's really hard to take it back as opposed to never having given it to them in the first place. I think another aspect that we need to consider here is the population curve of the country. We are no longer fat at the bottom and skinny up top. We're fat in the middle. Not good.

We don't want to be fat in the middle. We're fat up top. We're not. We're fat up top. We're fat in the middle and we're skinny on the bottom. Worst kind of chick and worst kind of population curve because these are the people who are supposed to be paying in to the system in the future that we benefit off of. And if we don't have that population to continue paying into the system, it's just going to come out as debt. Yeah. And without immigration, I mean, we would

have had this crisis decades ago. Sounds like a global scheme to flood America. Well, I'm saying without immigration, we would have had this crisis decades ago. We're buying ourselves time, but now the mood is shifting, turning from immigration. So it's like, this is going to hit us

a lot sooner than we think. And Tim talks about it all the time. He walks you through the population of each generation. Yeah. I mean, this is imminent.

100%. Me and Aiden, what are you, 25? Like, I'm 24. You guys are a rare breed. I don't see people under 25 anymore so it seems yeah i'm not touching my social security's gone i just see it as charity i try to write it off every year and it doesn't work you're paying into social security down the

line for people like phil too yeah because phil's seeing his social security you're still going to be paying into it i don't think so because the Social Security, they're going to have to make significant cuts by the time, I think, 2033. So 2032, which is seven years. I'm not retiring. Do you remember Nikki Haley? She proposed raising the retirement age by like a year and a half and everyone lost their minds. That's the issue, though, because it's such, it's the so-called third rail of politics. It's so unpopular.

You're going to strip me of my entitlements? I'm entitled to it. I paid into it. How could you take it away from me? Is the thought process. Although most people who receive social security didn't pay as much as they into it as the, as much as they're getting out. Most people who get Medicaid and Medicare don't pay nearly as much into it as they get out. People my age that actually do get any kind of social security, they're going to be getting it with inflated dollars you're going to be getting dollars that don't buy you anything so yeah maybe i'll get like you know maybe i will get some kind of social security but it's not going to be able to cover you know my expenses or anything it's going to be a situation where if i don't have

you know if i didn't have savings and stuff i'd be completely effed this is the thought process this is why we wouldn't we'll never get rid of it. People feel like, gee whiz, you know I kind of need my social security down the line. Even if I get a little bit better. I'm not gonna get it. You liar. No but you'll get it further down the line maybe with a little bit of it cut off. And you're gonna be very upset over it. You'd vote against somebody taking away your social security if you were 60, 62. I just said the guy that, shut your mouth. I just said Thomas Massey's the best, and Thomas Massey's like, no, we have to do the fiscally responsible thing. You're over here saying, no, no, we have to do the MAGA plan.

Thomas Massey, the one guy, you're not expected to get anything done. All of your libertarian, libtarditarian ideas don't ever have to go anywhere. You live in this hyper-idealized world where you don't have to engage in real politics. And that's why you could grandstand like Thomas Massey and be be like oh i want zero deficit well yeah we all want zero deficits but that's not the reality that we live in your time i don't think times in the past five no here's the deal if you're close if you're in your 60s in your late 50s in your early 50s and you're getting close to the age where you're supposed to see these benefits you will vote against people who are saying they want to curtail those benefits and entitlements.

And I think that's a perfectly natural, rational response from these voters. It's the perverse incentives that's the issue here. If there was reverse Social Security, I'd vote for it. The old give to me, I'd be like, yes, I'm young. I mean, I think that's what having two parents is. Facts. No, generally, right? If you only have one, they don't have enough to give.

But if you have two, I hope to have enough to give to my child. All right, listen, I'm going to start talking about my pet project here. Also in the bill is the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act. Those are two things that you've got to get into that we want to see pass because the NFA is unconstitutional. You can call your representative at 202-224-3121. You can call Speaker Johnson at 202-224-3121. You can call Speaker Johnson at 202-225-2777. You can call Majority Leader Scalise at 202-225-3015.

And you can call the Majority Whip Emmer at 202-225-2210. Tell them that you want to see the Short Act and the Hearing Protection Act in the big, beautiful bill. And that's all I'm going to say about that. What does the Short Act do for short kings? It doesn't do anything for short kings. It does stuff for short barrel rifles. Why would I want it? Oh, yeah.

That's what I thought it was about, the short kings. Short rifles, okay. Okay. So let's see. What are we going to go to here? Are we done with this one? Are you done complaining about Thomas Massey? Yeah, I'm done.

If the bill doesn't pass, it's probably going to pass. You're not done complaining about Thomas Massey? No, I'm done talking. All right. So Newsweek is reporting Jake Tapper admits to Megyn Kelly he didn't press Biden on health. CNN anchor Jake Tapper appeared today on the Megyn Kelly show in a candid and at times confrontational interview where he acknowledged key failures in his coverage of former President Joe Biden's health. Joined by Axios reporter Alex Thompson to promote their new

book, Original Sin, Tapper directly addressed criticisms from the former Fox News host on her Sirius XM show. Tapper admitted that he and others in the press ignored visible signs of Biden's decline. Published on Tuesday, Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its cover-up, and his disastrous choice to run again alleges that Biden's inner circle, including his family and top aides, orchestrated a comprehensive effort to obscure the president's deteriorating condition from the public, donors,

and even members of his own cabinet. That is absolutely not true. They were all in on it. Everybody was fully aware that Biden was a dead man. He was not a, he was a corpse. Do you want to go and watch, do you want to watch the clip here? I think we should watch the clip. It's a long one.

But listen to, listen to Megyn Kelly. You're complaining about a cover up about Joe Biden's mental acuity that failed, that right wing pundits saw, the right wing in general saw, that independent media saw and reported on. And that was no mystery even to left wing and so-called mainstream reporters who were not fooled, but chose willful blindness instead of honest reporting and that you were part of it. How do you respond? It's a it's a tough and fair question. I would say that Alex and I, after Election Day, interviewed more than 200 people, 200 mostly Democratic insiders. And all these interviews were almost all of these interviews were after the election. in terms of misrepresenting how the president was not just to me and Alex and other reporters,

but also just to each other and to the world and to Democrats and to the cabinet, et cetera, by saying that there was this existential threat of Donald Trump and only Joe Biden could beat Donald Trump. And that justified everything in their minds. After that existential threat was over because the election was over and Donald Trump won, they were, we found, Alex and myself, remarkably willing to talk to us either off the record or on background or in some cases on the record about what they saw. One of the things that emerged was that there were two Bidens. One was the fine Biden, serviceable, adequate, and the other one was a non-functioning Biden. And that's the one we saw the night of the debate. And that's the one we saw some clips of here and there that you just showed. And that non-functioning Biden, the one that lost his train of thought

in a significant way, not in the way just that every human loses their train of thought, but in a way that shows that he's having trouble articulating his very views. And the one who forgot the name of close aides, who was not able to come up with George Clooney's name, didn't seem to recognize him, all that sort of thing. That non-functioning Biden was, according to our reporting, showed up as far back as 2015 after the death of Bo or one top aide said that that tragedy the loss of Bo was like watching somebody pour water on St. Tapper goes on to blame the tragedies in Joe Biden's life as to why Joe Biden continued to deteriorate I think that's ridiculous and I think this whole situation is just Jake Tapper trying to cover for himself because I don't think that I don't think that it was an actual secret. I think it was everyone in D.C. knew. I think that Joe Biden's his cabinet knew.

I think that, you know, Vice President Harris should be should it should have invoked the 25th Amendment. She should have got the cabinet together have invoked the 25th Amendment. She should have got the cabinet together and invoked the 25th Amendment. And I think they didn't because of political reasons. I think that it would have been terrible for the Democrats overall to actually have to do that. So I'm interested in your thoughts, Aidan. Did you ever hear the audio of the interview with Joe Biden that got released? With Robert Herr? Yeah. Yeah.

He could not remember when his son died. Yeah. He thought his son died, what, two or three years after when it actually happened. Yep. And, I mean, they obviously all knew. Where was the audio, right? I do think that I'm willing to give a little bit of grace to some of the more like deluded Democrats who genuinely thought it was some kind of right wing op. Maybe if they didn't have access to Biden, maybe if they didn't go to the White House regularly. I'm more than

willing to believe that a lot of these grassroots Democrats simply thought, oh, you know, he's a little bit old. They caught him at a bad time, you know, and that's, you know, the age is completely separate discussion. But yeah, the media, they 100% knew. And Kamala Harris, I think that, you know, maybe there was a kind of thinking there if she invoked the 25th Amendment and she was, you know, the first woman president, you know, in that way, they, I mean, they probably would have lost even more. I mean, Harris barely managed to pull off like an even like moderate showing in the election. And the polls for Biden were way worse. Like the defense that they thought Joe Biden was the best person to run against Trump simply was not true. And it wasn't true for what, a year and a half, like well before the election. So I think there was a lot of complicity and trying to

shore up Biden as much as possible to save the Democrats from embarrassment. And it obviously did not work. I think as far as the aides and those close to him goes, I think it warrants an investigation, maybe through the House, maybe through the FBI, or exactly who was doing what and to what degree they were protecting or not telling others about the deterioration of Joe Biden. This is especially relevant because it leads to the question of, it begs the question of who's really making these decisions. If he is so senile where he can't remember i think there was another quote where like he forgot when he was vp and then forgetting the the death of his his the dates of the the death of his son among i mean and we

probably don't even know the worst of it but i do think it is worth an investigation because this guy did a lot of very significant things towards the end of his administration and throughout and there's also a big question about this auto pen stuff where it's not him literally This guy did a lot of very significant things towards the end of his administration and throughout. And there's also a big question about this auto pen stuff where it's not him literally signing off on stuff. And it's just, you know, him doing it online. So a lot of question of, you know, and I usually hate sounding conspiratorial, but who was really in charge? Who was really running the show when Joe Biden wasn't taking any questions from anybody at the White House? And he was surrounded by these aides who knew what was going on materially. And, you know, and throughout the cabinet,

it seems like nobody really knew what was going on. Nobody was really in touch with each other. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was even under the knife and unconscious. He never told Joe Biden. And you have to wonder, did he know the condition of Joe Biden? Maybe he thought not even to tell him

because why would it even matter? So who was in control? Who knew what with the aides and the people around him? And did anybody break the law while doing this? And I think it's really important questions that we have answered here. If anyone did, if anyone were to, you know, make any kind of executive decisions without him, that's breaking the law. And I think it just demonstrates how partisan the media is. Because it's like, if Trump orders a Diet Coke without a lemon, it's like on the front page of Newsweek. You're telling me that not a single aide went to the press once through the four years of Joe Biden

to like casually mention, hey, by the way, this guy's mind slipping. We don't even know what the cancer thing that might have been on their radar. Not a single, like I don't, we wouldn't see a single, because it would never make the front page. So to demonstrate his senility a little bit more, I'm not a movie buff. I actually don't like watching movies, but I still know what George Clooney looks like. And Joe Biden has been friends with George Clooney for decades, given his involvement in Democrat politics.

There was this infamous fundraiser now that Joe Biden goes to. He doesn't recognize who George Clooney for decades, given his involvement in Democrat politics. There was this infamous fundraiser now that Joe Biden goes to. He doesn't recognize who George Clooney is and has to be nudged by his aide to tell him that who Clooney is. So, like, you know, the fact that he's forgetting these, like, one of the most famous people on Earth, he was allegedly forgetting the names and whose aides were. It really begs the question, who is in charge? And was this man truly making all the decisions? And if not, who was? And, you know, under what guidance were they allowed to make those decisions? I mean, you see people pull up Biden policy from the 80s, how seemingly conservative his rhetoric is. Maybe he actually

is like super base, but he just forgot about it. And I mean, there were multiple slip ups to when he said explicitly that he would defend Taiwan. And then the White House ended up walking it back after the fact. And it really makes you think like, I don't know, is he baiting him? Like, is he is that? That's something that was longstanding U.S. policy. No, it was strategic ambiguity. That's what I'm trying to say, but you're talking over me.

That longstanding U.S. policy was to not openly say that the U.S. would defend. It was to imply that they would, but to not actually articulate it, because that would cause problems for China. I think, you know, if, and Trump's been saying, who had control of the auto pen, right? I think that's a really legitimate question. Of course, the minute they actually try to look into it, people are going to run wild and crazy and talk about Donald Trump persecuting his political enemies and everything. So if I was Donald Trump, I would say, you know, like what they did to Joe Biden was basically elder abuse. And we should be prosecuting these people for, for doing that, like a totally non-political attack, just to find out the facts. Cause I think, you know, there's a very limited period of time where we're actually

going to be able to find out what happened. If we don't take advantage of it now, it's going to be this big open question, I think, in American history forever. We've had presidents hide illnesses before. I mean, FDR, right? Woodrow Wilson had a stroke and his wife, the first lady, basically, kind of ran the government um and it's kind of widely known now but this is a lot different than that i think because this is somebody who may have been senile when he got elected or at the very at the very least rapidly deteriorated afterward and if nobody if nobody in the cabinet knew what was going on, if you believe them, then seriously, who was running the government? Yeah.

No idea. It's also worth mentioning, obviously, we recently got the horrible news that he was diagnosed with stage five cancer. I'm no oncologist, but stage five is late. Was it stage four? Stage four or stage five. That's late to the game. And the president is somebody who should, the former president is somebody who should have his health monitored consistently. Somebody must have missed something here or missed it on purpose.

I don't know how you would miss this in a president or former president. Stage four or five seems late to the game again. So it's like, who knew what, when, and for what reason was this probably kept in the dark? Again, I hate going into this conspiratorial stuff without any hard evidence, but it's really hard to believe that, you know, a former president, Joe Biden, one of the most important people on the planet at the time, wasn't getting enough health monitoring. Yeah, well, it was Walter Reed to figure out, you know. There was an aide going to the press today and they said his last prostate exam was in 2014, which is just very hard to believe. And there are other tests, too, that you could do besides the prostate exam. This is just shocking that.

When you're that age, it's what, like every two or three years or something? doing the prostate exams or for testing for prostate cancer because the the cancer is so slow moving generally that if you get it by the time it actually develops into cancer you're likely going to be out of the out the out the uh out the door anyways um we've got this from the daily mail joe biden forced to deny he had cancer diagnosis after scathing trump accusation um now this isn't actually from Joe Biden. This is from his staff. But he says former President Joe Biden had to shut down. I'm sorry, this is the Daily Mail. Former President Joe Biden had to shut down conspiracies. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer before last week. Prior to Friday, President Biden had never been diagnosed with prostate

cancer. A spokesperson for Biden insisted on Tuesday. It added that Biden did not have the test done to check for prostate problems since 2014. The statement came after President Donald Trump repeated on Monday conspiracies that Biden knew he had a cancer for a long time and that hiding the diagnosis was part of the team's cover up of his health decline while in office. I'm surprised that it wasn't, you know, the public wasn't notified a long time ago because to get to stage nine, that's a long time, Trump said. Biden's office revealed on Sunday that the former president has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has metastasized and spread to his bones. The former president received an outpouring of support, including from Trump and the first lady. Yeah, I don't know that they didn't know he had it. I think we're stupid.

Well, yeah, I mean, I think that it's likely that, you know, the president was getting checked as much as they possibly can. They have, he has a, there's a White House physician. I mean, they're supposed to get an annual checkup, I think, if I remember correctly. You think with somebody that old, they would get, you know, an actual good exam. So the first person I would go to is the White House physician. There was a lot of anomalies in the way that Joe Biden, Joe Biden's medical treatment was done and the way that it was reported to the American people. He didn't take the cognitive test. He didn't, apparently didn test. He didn't apparently

didn't get checked for prostate cancer. And it makes you you wonder, like, what else? Well, you know, was he what other anomalies were in his his his medical history? I think one of the one of the alleged conspiracies in that article is is that video of Joe Biden, I think from, what, 2022, saying during a speech in Delaware that the pollution in Delaware gave him cancer and everybody attributed it to, you know. The skin cancer. Yeah, the skin cancer, but I don't know. Maybe there was something there, maybe not.

Pollution doesn't generally give you skin cancer. What makes this so surreal is like like aiden was hitting on you know you think of these like these historic conspiracies that we all discuss and you hear on these podcasts you know jfk rfk um fdr all these cover-ups and you kind of feel helpless like reading about it because you're like we will we will we will never know what happened we can't subpoena any of the people involved. They're all dead. What makes this so surreal is you're already seeing like Tapper, people like this, flipping, coming to the press. There's an opportunity where we actually could pull these people in front of a camera.

What do you know? That's what makes this so surreal and what makes it feel different is like we could actually – it does feel like there's a chance here to actually get to the bottom of what was going on. There should be hearings. it does feel like there's a there's a chance here to actually get to the bottom of what was going on there should be hearings they these people should be brought in front of congress and you know possibly prosecutions it's a slam dunk for republicans i mean like what are we doing they should we should have it scheduled tomorrow like what's going on they're fighting over the uh funding bill this is also a complete disaster for democrats and the republicans should drag this out

as long as possible um it looks like a cover up. And to ordinary Democrats, grassroots Democrats, I think they knew something about the senility of Joe Biden, just like we did. And just, yeah, I think it's bad for their party, obviously. I do like in the article, Trump said stage nine cancer. I'm like, that sounds pretty bad. I was looking it up. It's actually stage four. I don't know why I was thinking five, maybe because he said nine. But late to the game. This is an aside, and it's unconfirmed. It's from a Twitter account that I don't know is particularly reliable,

but I'm going to talk about it. There is rumors that there were staffers that were using the auto pen in exchange for pardon or for pardoning people in exchange for payoffs. So that's something that if it is turns out to be true, I think there should be investigations of all of the people that were in the in the Biden White House that had access to that anyone that could get into the Oval Office, it shouldn't be too hard to be able to look at all the people that had access to the Oval Office. So if that's true, there's a smoking gun very yeah there would be exactly there it would be something that you

can find so um but again i'm not gonna dwell on it too too much because the the twitter account in question is not particularly i'm just i'm petrified that the gop is going to drop the ball here this is such an easy don't be afraid they're definitely. Yeah, it's such an easy slam dunk. We could finally really demoralize Democrats, solidify 2028. In two weeks, I'm very skeptic that we're still going to be talking about this. I would love to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, you can rely on them being unreliable. All right, we're going to go to Super Chat. So smash the like button, share the show with your friends,

and head on over to Rumble. So smash the like button, share the show with your friends, and head on over to Rumble.com and become a member there where you can watch the after show. We're going to be, I'm not sure what we're talking about in the after show, but we'll figure something out. But right now we're going to go to your Super Chats. And Mike the W-O-P-W-O-O? Anyways. So many in the chat are crabby.

Well, I don't like the host and Ian. GTFO then. True. Ian's not even here. Right. Why would they bring up? They're so ungrateful, these haters. Well, you know, they can hate all they want.

It's the mob. Yeah. That's the point of the chat. The point of the chat is to air your grievances. People that are happy aren't in the chat all the time. Just direct all the grievances towards Allad. I think that's the best course of action. Well, Allad's getting his fair share, I promise.

The Emperor's Champion says, Everyone in Biden's administration who covered up Biden's health issue ought to be charged with sedition. You know, I don't disagree. You know, I think that the whole of the media and, you know, apparatus that was the Biden administration, I think they're all culpable. I think they all covered it up. I think that they all had a hand in it because, again, they didn't want to see the changes that were necessary. Shane H. Wilder says, Trump just signed the Take It Down Act into law.

It is astonishing that it took a bill to get social media to take down revenge corn and deepfakes. They now have 48 hours to take this stuff down. What do you guys think? Do you think that this is a good bill, the Take It Down Act? I do think it's good. I thought Nancy Mace's approach was a little unorthodox. She showed her boobies in – is that what it was about? Because everybody was talking about her boobs. It wasn't exactly – it was like a grainy home footage shot.

Oh, so you're – Like her ex took – There was people on Twitter. No, no, no. A lot of dissatisfied with the quality of terrible Congresswoman's boob picture. Huh? I think she was really selling us something that she didn't deliver on. But no, in all seriousness, she is allegedly a lot of aching with a lot of definitely dissatisfied with the quality of the boob.

She's allegedly a victim of revenge porn in and back in her home state with her ex that they weren't able to pursue. I don't know all the details of the story, but Nancy Mace talks about that a lot. And maybe we could have her on the show one day to talk more about that case. We were one of the original supporting organizations for the Take It Down Act. We were actually at the White House for the bill signing. Could you explain just quickly what it is? Yeah. Fun take a down act is a bill that protects uh women women particularly online but it protects people online from revenge porn but there's also extra protections in there for ai deep fakes so like you know let's say you know like your wife your girlfriend like somebody takes a photo of them and puts it on a pornographic video it's not them it looks like them that is now

illegal um well and i've read many stories throughout the country that's actually very common especially in high schools middle schools it is very common because a lot of these ai tools are so accessible now and and there there was a patchwork of states that had varying levels um of you know like regulations and laws around it this is a federal level regulation that applies a standard punishment across the board and we're hoping that it's going to protect women online it's going to make the internet a safer better place and that you know we like i would not want somebody to make a video of that, better place. And that, you know, like I would not want somebody to make a video of that of my wife or daughter. Like I think someone should get

prosecuted for that. So I think this is a huge win. And that's why, you know, Melania was behind it. It's a very important issue to her. The idea too of it doesn't even need to be a quote unquote like real nude to still do a ton of damage to somebody is it's something to to reckon with and and uh i think this is the first law that i know of i'm sure there are other laws on the books that really deals with the consequences of ai and it's exciting exciting might not be the right word to see how our lawyers our lawmakers and laws keep up with this emerging technology yeah i mean the only the only app the only thing that makes me a little apprehensive is if, you know, there is a person or there's an AI picture that looks like a person, but the person wasn't the actual model for it. It wasn't like you fed a picture in,

because if you, I mean, you look on a, look at the, you know, look at AI, AI goes into basically, you know, the internet and grabs a bunch of pictures and generates a composite. What happens if there's one that's close enough where it's like, oh, this is, you know, this is harming me. But I suppose taking that down wouldn't really hurt anyone. But if you had a situation where someone generated a picture and it wasn't intending to be of a an actual person that actual person says oh this is this is me and then that person gets arrested for generating a picture that it didn't intend to be uh uh you know to take someone's likeness but it actually did because of the ai i mean i think in that situation if someone genuinely did not intend

for that, then they'll take it down. Well, they'll take it down, but they might have to deal with legal repercussions though, right? But I think that's, you know, that's like an individual choice, right? So this bill creates a prerogative for the individual to go to the platform and say, take this down, it's representative of me. I think if there's a genuine misunderstanding, it's like, let's say there's somebody out there that looks like an adult film star, right? They can't do anything. So if you are able to go out and say,

oh, I didn't intend to do this, I'm taking it down, then you'll end up fine. My concern isn't whether or not, isn't about taking down the material in question, it's are there legal ramifications that people that use AI are going to have to worry about, right? So, if you were to generate an image and say, okay, you know know i didn't actually use any individual ai generated it but it is too close to someone are you liable like and by liable i don't mean just you know just a situation where like oh you owe money or you can't make money off this is can you get arrested is that is that

something that can put you on the sex offenders list like these are things that that could ruin someone's life and it's possible that they didn't actually do it. And again, this is not an argument against the act. No, I'm not with you. I'm concerned about the possibility of innocent people suffering because of a poorly or incorrectly worded – because of legislation. If I am remembering the bill language correctly, it is specifically geared towards revenge porn. So in this instance, you would have to have proof that somebody with access to photos of you use them to create an AI intimate intimate deep fake, right? The broader question that you're talking of is actually an issue for AI as a whole. It goes, you know, into copyright and there's like the written word and image generation.

I think that's a really interesting conversation. Those don't have the same ramifications though. Because if you're, well, not, I mean, again, if you're if you're they well not i mean again if you're talking about someone if you're anytime you're talking about stuff when it comes to sexual imagery or whatever um that could that feasibly could put someone on the sex offenders list and that chain ruins a life if you just like make a song and it sounds like someone else's song well they're just like i will take this, you know, this is a bad thing. You're not going to make money off it or whatever.

But that my concern isn't about those kind of, you know, those kind of issues. My concern is, is it going to be, is it a situation where someone could be wrongly accused and end up having to go to prison or, or having to, you know, having to worry about, again, being put on the sex offenders list because there are places where like if a dude goes and takes a leak outside and someone sees him that he can end up on the sex offenders list and like the point wasn't to show someone his junk it was he was trying to take he made a bad decision to use the you know to relieve himself in public outdoors that person shouldn't be on the sex offenders list, but there are people that are on the sex offenders list because of those types of things.

Yeah. If I'm remembering the language correctly, it is more geared towards people who are actively creating and distributing it, targeting a specific person. So I think that's a really interesting question. I would have to look at the specifics, but I imagine that if that is a situation that it will get taken to court, which is like the only really the only recourse you have in any situation where somebody is suing. People have been suing porn websites for years to just take down actual content that they've consented to, and that's being litigated through. But I think the ultimate – you're not against the bill. You're for these protections protections and so am I. And I think that's something we're just going to have to see the actual effects of the bill and maybe go back and tweak it if it gets confused like that. Sure. The devil's always in the details with bills like this.

Yeah, it is. It is. And then there is questions of abuse of the system. There's a 48 hour time period i believe where the social media platforms have to act um so hypothetically the system can be abused and that doesn't mean what they're trying to do is wrong but you know how it how it's put in place is i guess but we could we could move on all in all in i mean i think that the bill is is good and necessary i'm just wondering about you know know, what happens. Is the wording tight enough to prevent innocent people from, you know, having their lives ruined? But anyways, let's see.

Audacity says, we absolutely can intercept ICBMs with either fixed battery or fixed wing aircraft. The issue we have is when the payload is in its final approach. We can intercept most of the systems but merv is more difficult that's uh interesting i hope so that was my concern is like hezbollah it's not comparable because china russia if they're going if you know that's the saying if you take a swing at the king you best not miss it's true if they're launching icbms they're going to strap a mother load of you know who knows what to it so that's my fear i mean it would have to be an all out exchange like the the capacity for this this particular weapon system would have to be able to stop thousands because if you watch the videos of the iron dome in action they're they're exploding directly above you know civilian centers you know if you have a payload above los angeles you shoot

it it's not going to do much in favor in the sense of safety i mean well it depends remember nuclear like blowing up the merv and preventing it from actually going off like preventing the nuclear explosion from going off is totally different than blowing up a rocket that has a conventional payload because a nuclear weapon like nuclear weapons like things have to go just right for that to go off you know it's not easy to get a you know a uranium payload to go critical so anyways Reaper 11 Reaper 11 says the difference between Israel and the United States has the difference between Israel and United States is United States has more radar and Israel and United States is United States

has more radar and sensors than any country in the world that's probably true also like other countries we've already done this we've already smoked a satellite in space we've already smoked a missile in space from a ship um I didn't know that but that's extremely cool sweet um Sweet. Let's see. Rita Ho says, per Bloomberg, if CCP takes over Taiwan, the global GDP will drop 10.2%. COVID-19 only decreased global GDP by 5.9%. CCP just announced national prohibition, the war is coming and the. has no choice. Well, Rita, I hope that you are wrong. The biggest concern that I've heard people talking about is the depth of the U.S. reservoir of military missiles and capability. Palmer Luckey, who's this guy that is one of the owners, yeah, it's a private company owners of um what's the name of the company andrew andrew yeah he uh he says that the u.s would exhaust its reservoir of missiles in eight days if there were a full out full-on war with china now whether or not that is is enough to to to, you know, cripple the Chinese military. Maybe it is, but China has the ability to change their entire economy on a dime. The U S just doesn't have that command economy.

So like all of Chinese shipbuilding capacity is like every ship is built to military standards. So like all of their yachts, all of their stuff, all their fishing boats are built. China demands that they can't be built unless they can be retrofitted and commandeered by the Chinese People's Party. I mean, we do have the merchant marines who are trained. They are trained to some degree in case of a major conflict that we could tap into. But yeah, I mean, the Chinese, the military, it's like Hoy Four with the civilian to military factory conversions. They can flip that like a switch. Yeah.

So, I mean, we do, I do, like, there's a lot of people that would give me grief for saying that I think that we actually need to increase military spending. But I honestly do think that we need to increase military spending because the threat that China poses, it's not about whether or not we should ever want to actually use the military. But right now, the threat the Chinese military poses is just is something i'm not sure that the u.s could could handle well they're snapping together aircraft carriers at record rates yeah we've produced what one in the last not only that but they're just you look at the drone warfare that goes on in um in ukraine china makes all the drones the u.s doesn't make and they cost like 50 bucks yeah the u.s doesn't make any drones. And so if there were ever any kind of actual confrontation with China, I mean...

We'll be launching air hogs up. You like stomp on the little pedal and... Well, a drone swarm with some kind of explosive payload, it's not going to take out a U.S. aircraft carrier, but it can kill a lot of people on the aircraft carrier. And I don't know that the aircraft carriers have the capacity to stop. Now, if they do and I'm just uninformed, awesome, great. That's good news. Let me tell you this. The Chinese, a lot of the, not all, but a lot of the law enforcement drones are Chinese-made.

Yeah. And we just found out recently that a lot of the solar equipment that we have been getting actually has unregistered Chinese communications equipment in it. Yeah. And now we're using Chinese drones for law enforcement. I think there was some kind of scandal recently where we accidentally used Chinese-built drones for military purposes. Anduril is fixing that. They just announced a huge factory in Ohio. The Anduril, these new startup defense companies are on our side, and they are very pro-America.

And it's important for us to invest in those because China's outproducing us with ships. They're outproducing drones. They're testing their drones in Ukraine right now. I think that's something that we didn't talk about earlier. They're getting all this combat experience and they're able to iterate their technology faster because they're figuring out what works and what doesn't work. We're kind of stuck on the sidelines right now significantly and and not that You know not that I want to see any kind of conflict, but the u.s. does need to win the the technology race like the idea of China winning is is

Something that the the American people should Really be concerned with. And I'm not sure that enough people are, because I think Americans have it in their head that to have any kind of competition will lead us to more forever wars. And I think that it's the exact opposite. So let's see here. Nathan Vasquez, Phil, it would sure be awesome if ATR stepped in for the rest of

the dates with Trivium, just saying fall of ascendancy tour sounds pretty awesome. Think about it. Well, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I don't see it happening though. Uh, let's see. Dick Dickerson says the U S Navy has acoustic signatures of every sub and ship in the ocean. Foreign subs are tracked the minute they hit open water. Yeah, I'm I'm that's my understanding as well.

It's like the U.S. has the capacity to track every single ship made by probably every military in the world, for maybe china like you the u.s is has the ability to monitor threats i think in in a way that most people don't really see these stories of like chinese fishing boats or sorry japanese fishing boats entering chinese waters on accident it's usually the u.s that reports that story first before the chinese which is hilarious Yeah. Let's see. Audacity says, in order for enemies to defeat our intercept capabilities, they would have to defeat our vast satellite and radar-based information systems. An F-22 can carry musicians that can be guided to target

via SATCOM directions. Yeah. I mean, again, the U.S., like, we have the technology that outclasses every other military, and it's not close i think that our biggest problem is actually inventory like we don't have the ability to sustain a military engagement um the way that we need to uh especially when it comes to a country like china i'm trying

to understand if you guys believe that the united states has the ability to track every, I don't know, Chinese or Russian sub, do they not have any peer-equivalent technology to do the same to us? Or are we sort of this omnipotent power who is generations ahead? I mean, I'd like to believe that. I genuinely do.

But I just don't know if it's true. And I hope we're not getting too high on our own supply with thinking how great we are and kind of drop the the ball here if you know what i mean every submarine i guess it only take one missile to get through for this to be a big issue but let's just uh no they don't the the i don't believe that china or russia have the capacity to monitor the u.s this in a similar fashion to which the u.s has the capacity to monitor and part of the reason i think the evidence is the way that i mean look if the united states were to roll into a country with a comparable military to ukraine the result would have been iraq iraq had the third largest

military in the world when the united States decided to take Iraq out and they did it in a hundred days. The United States military is, there is no peer, right? Like the, I'm not saying the U S is undefeatable, but the, but the military, the U S military loses because of the politics, not engagements. The U.S. doesn't lose engagements. And there's just no military on Earth that can compare. Like, legit. You know? So, anyways.

Alpha 2 Omega says, Howdy, people. Everyone forgets that for some reason, military munitions expire and would require a disposal cost. Why pay this when you can trade or give it away for free for an IOU? I mean, I guess. Yeah. And we do. A lot of what we sent to Ukraine was just that. But we aren't producing the replacements. That's the big problem. Which we should be doing more of. I believe we're ramping up some of our military capabilities,

and we should be doing more of it. It would be nice if our young unemployed people could get jobs working in, I don't know, munitions factories or honestly, it's not only munitions factory. Frankly, a lot of the most advanced jobs are in engineering and technology, science and mathematics related to make some of these extremely

advanced systems. These different satellites, this Golden Dome system is going to be some of the most world-, these different satellites, this Golden Dome system is going to be some of the most world-class technology we have. So good paying jobs. The exchanges reverse like the U.S. Navy pilots. They train on old Italian fighter jets that they sell to us. So it's like it goes both ways. All right, so we'll get one more here.

Captain Patriot says, do you think Americans are overconfident in our military? Also, do you try and read all of the super chats that come in? It would be nice. We read a bunch of them, but there's a lot of them that came in tonight between the rumble rants and the super chats. You know, we definitely didn't get to all of them. And then I don't think Americans are overconfident in the military. I think because of the results politically in a lot of the military engagements that we have gotten into in the last 20 or maybe even 50 years, I think that's actually skewed people's opinions about the U.S. capabilities when it comes to military. The Vietnam War, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, these are wars that people will say the U.S. lost.

But the U.S. lost those because of the politics, not because of the military engagements. The military engagements, the United States killed a whole lot more Vietnamese than the Vietnamese killed Americans. The United States absolutely destroyed the Iraq army in Desert Storm 1, and then they entirely wiped out not only the Iraq army, but all of the militias that Iraq could muster in the Iraq war. The U.S. absolutely won almost every single engagement in the Afghan war. Like, the military doesn't lose. The U.S. policy is a bad policy, and it's unsustainable. But when

it comes to actual engagements, the U.S. is unmatched. So that's it. So smash the like button, share the show with your friends, go on over to timcast.com and join our Discord, and then head on over to Rumble and become a member where you can join us for the Rumble After Show, which we're going to right now. I'm philitremains on Twitter, and I am on X, and I'm philitremainsofficial on Instagram. Thank you so much for coming. Do you want to share anything, shout anything out? Yeah, please follow me on X, Aiden Bozzetti.

If you can't spell my name, trust me, it will show up. It's unique enough. And if you're interested in the work that the Bull Moose Project does to advance Trump's agenda in D.C., go to bullmooseproject.org. Yeah, my name's Tate Brown. You can follow me on Twitter, X, at RealTateBrown. I took a clue from Trump for the handles. Yeah, follow me there. Tate, it was a pleasure being on for your forced inaugural show um hey everybody thanks

for tuning in my name's alad eliyahu i'm the white house correspondent here at timcast looking to give the other press people hell when i'm in there uh thanks for tuning in tonight uh i know it was a rocky show without tim but we enjoyed having you and uh stay tuned for the after show why was it a rocky show without tim i feel like i even i missed him I know you guys do, but even I miss Tim. Stick around for the after show, and we'll see you guys tomorrow. you you