Timcast IRL - Leftists Push Trump SECRET LOVE Rumor, Letters DROP | Timcast IRL| Timcast IRL

Episode Date: August 22, 2026

SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) | @trashhouserecords (YT) Guest: Mason @OneHandPolitics (X)   Podcast available on all podcast platforms! For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail] Leftists Push Trump SECRET LOVE Rumor, Letters DROP | Timcast IRL

So these letters get released. At least we believe they're genuine, showing Trump's aide Natalie, very affectionately referring to her guardian and protector. And it's sparking a, I don't know how you describe it, but it's like it's not quite a scandal yet in terms of, you know, inappropriate relationship with the president. But these letters are pretty weird. So we'll talk about it. We'll break it down.

But this is the big story today. I'm assuming that if it involves the president, everyone wants to know about it. But this story's been bubbling up with Trump's aide who's, you know, in her 30s. She's a young, attractive woman and people are, I guess they're kind of insinuating there may be something inappropriate going on. Before I just dump it all in the intro, though, we'll save it for us to the show. And of course, new data coming out suggesting Democrats are on track to win the midterms. But with the rise of the DSA, there's questions about whether or not these polls will actually reflect a general election turnout. So we'll talk about that and everything else.

My friend, smash that like on all the good stuff on this amazing Friday. And joining us today to talk about this and everything else. We've got Mason from One Hand Politics. Tim, thanks for having me. It's good to be here. Who are you? You lived up to your promise. We invited to be at the show at Jubilee.

And I'm here. Absolutely. I appreciate that. Who are you? What do you do? Yeah, I do a live show on Twitch. It's One Hand Politics. My name's Mason.

I've done a lot of debates with different right-winger's and moderates. Self-described moderates. They got mad at that one, huh? There was no description of me that would have made anybody happy? Just Tim Pool. Isn't that what they ended up going with? Tim Poole versus 20 progressives now? It was A-B-tested.

It was, so when we were sending up the show, we went with three, and one of them was Tim Poole versus progressives, modest versus moderate versus progressives, and Tim Poole won, probably because my name recognition is bigger than the idea of like moderate or whatever. But yeah, you're the guy that I ran away from. You're the guy that rage quit. You know what? I saw you talk about it with Stephen Crowder. So I rescind the rage quit.

We'll call it like a rage sabbatical, right? You just, you had to leave. You had to get out of the moment. You came back eventually. So I think everyone was like having a problem with me saying rage quit. Like you just left entirely from the debate. Yeah. That wasn't the implication.

But to clear up the air, you just, you took a rage, a rage seminar, rage pause. A rage pause. I think it, uh, it's, it's like people want the story to be that I stormed off and never came back. And like, I just walked out. They want the story to be bigger than I walked away from you and then came back. Right. You wanted to end the, the moment right there.

Well, I mean, it's a mixed bag. We can talk about it because I talked about the crowder. I talked about it on my show. But it was more so like you pulled out a beanie to do a camera thing. I said, it's all you. Like, I'm out. Yeah, the thing is, like, everyone's accusing me of knowing that it was going to be you. But, like, there's only so many people who could be when it's a moderate.

Like, when they're selling it, like, one moderate versus 20 progressives, like, the idea isn't going to be like Ezra Klein or some liberals going to come in here that's like on the center left. Like, it's always going to be like someone who's self-described moderate. I mean, I think you even said to Stephen, you liked the idea of being called a moderate, even if you don't fully identify as like dead in the center, just because it's like good for your brand and good for advertisement, right? Absolutely.

Like, that's why I go on a show like that, but it's not just about the branding of calling myself a moderate. It was that most of the liberals never watch my show and don't hear my opinions. So going on Jubilee, they're going to hear something from me that they don't expect. because if you only watch clips from progressives, you're only hearing conservative positions and you never hear liberal positions. But if I go into down both as much of liberals,

I think the best way to exemplify it is when dude at the end said, if we agree so much, why are you here? And it's like, the real answer is because we don't agree on everything, but we agree on some things. Yeah, I just, I don't know. I thought the prompts were interesting. Maybe we could get into it after we talked about the news and stuff. But it just, it seemed kind of like,

they weren't like super strong positions. and I think that was intentional of like the brand you're trying to go with with moderate was because it was kind of hard and difficult to argue with it. If your prompt is like the Constitution effectively doesn't exist or it's not operational, I forget the specific wording. The first one. But it's like we've always had like big disagreements on the interpretation of the Constitution. So I feel like with you saying like, well, liberals say that Trump is violating the Constitution

and conservatives don't believe that Democrat presidents follow the Constitution. We could say that about like so many eras of American history. I just feel like would the Constitution ever matter? So like when you have the DSA as one-third of the Democratic Party and they're saying we want a parliamentary system, no Senate, we're not talking about the Bill of Rights. We're talking literally about Article 1. Right. So you think that divide is equivalent with like abolitionists and pro-slavery people saying that the Constitution guarantees? It's saying that the Constitution guarantees.

Well, I'm reluctant to get into the full debate as the show is starting. Yeah. But I don't want to not answer and just say I think the issue is that I think, I think, this was your argument, which is a good argument, that there's always been disagreements on the interpretation of the Constitution. Yeah. My argument more so is that we have a growing faction that outright says there shouldn't be one at all, and they won't adhere to it. And so, like I said, the DSA is campaigning to eliminate Article 1 of the Constitution. Right. Well, part of, amendments is changing what the Constitution has. That's why we have 22 of them. Yes, but amending

Article 1 of the Constitution is substantially different from amending the Constitution to include a protection or a function of government. I have thoughts on the idea of an amendment. Let's get into it. It'll get very good. It's getting too good too well. Yeah, okay. We'll keep it under wraps. This violates the fourth amendment. And this is going to be a much better version of the conversation than the everyone pulls you out of the show.

Yeah, 100%. All right. Well, the boys are here. Rage bait might be a better word than rage sabbatical or quit. What's up, Phil? What's up, Phil? Ian's here. Oh, I have to make a correction last night.

I said RNA protease is what you used to repair RNA. Oh, no. It's actually RNA polymerase. Oh, my God. It's the polymerase. Just tossing your credibility right out the window. More misinformation. I know.

And then it's actually, it's a funny point because I wasn't here last Friday. And I guess Ian was talking about if a war broke out with China that the U.S. might put Chinese people in concentration camps or something. Yeah, we went on hard. I said that he was wrong. And then media matters rights, Timcast, IRL discusses putting Chinese people in concentration camps. And I'm like, I'm not even there.

Not at all. I don't think it's a good thing to do, but it happened with the Japanese during World War too and I could see it happening. Like that's kind of where their combo was about. And they're like, Ian Crosson, disgusted. There's a lot to get into. I'm having fun already. Let's talk about the news.

Let's jump to the story. We got this from CNN.com. My guardian and protector, Natalie Harp letters express her devotion to Trump. I got to be honest, devotion isn't the word that I would use. I'm not trying to. Really, with all my love. Yeah. As the bottom, that's not.

No, I'm saying more than that. Oh, more than that. Devotion is too light. Obsession. Yeah. With all my heart, not with all my love. Ricky Natalie is what they call her. Are they really calling that?

It's with all my heart, not with all my love. With all my heart. Are we going to, are we going to? Well, that's actually, that's probably worse. Yes, it does matter. It does matter. It does matter. It does matter.

Okay, okay. So I was going to say, yeah, I think devotion is too light. Yeah. So here, I'll read some of this. I just want to exemplify that these, there's two letters. And, well, let me just read it. Dear Mr. President, I'm sorry. I thought I was the only one.

left behind last night and no idea Margo's car was also pulled over and sent back to the airport. Since I was alone in the van outside customs at my passport, I panicked and should have just called Secret Service instead of you. I am, I also am sorry if I was an embarrassment walking the course in Scotland. The first day I was told there were no carts and people walked, which is why I walked. Okay. Keep in mind, she was running. Is it the actual report to keep up with the golf car? Wow. So she all's, I do think it's, I don't want to read the whole thing just because it's wordy and kind of like weird to do. Here's some stuff you've got to read in there, too. I think people should read this. I want things to always be right between us. I also know I've been distracted all week,

forgetting to eat throughout the days and even forgetting to sleep, and only catching a couple hours at a time. I haven't been myself dwelling on the past and the pain of losing my dad, and I started letting the remarks of what other people bothered me before get to me. I'm sorry, lost my focus. You are all that matters to me. I don't want to ever let you down. Thank you for being my guardian and protector in this life. That's what I wanted to use this card for. When you saw me at the cash register and once again did what you didn't have to do and gifted me with memento mementos oh i'm sorry i was thinking mentos mementos of this trip okay of a lifetime of a come i thought you was i thought it was literally buying her mince i will return a better person

and have to sign off for now as the cars are leaving with all my heart okay now hold on jeez sign off it sounds like an email that got printed but then it's hand signed and the signatures look the same so here's another one dear mr president now this is the note I wanted to write, but the apology needed to come first. What? I have learned so much about myself on this trip. I always knew coming home to my roots would be enlightening, but I had no idea how much for the first time and I don't know how long you forced me to unplug. We could be out on the course with no machines and even forget what time it was. Okay, she calls herself the, she says, I didn't have to be the human printer. I could take time

to enjoy good conversation. Still got all my work done by the end of the day. Let's see, I had no idea how rapidly I was approaching burnout and started to envy those whose only job seems to be to talk with you and look pretty. I want that job. So many times I was just trying to stay afloat with all that's coming for you. Okay, but I don't know, but going after all self-analysis, my conclusion, I need to reunite my past self with my current into a better version. You will make you proud? And please, when I fail, will you tell me? I'll never forget when you made that promise to me after losing my dad. And I know how happy he is right now that I did get to go to Scotland and Ireland. as he always wanted for me to modify a classic, I could not have parted with you to anyone less worthy.

And I will add, it is I who is unworthy. Jesus Christ. P.S., my hands looked worse in Scotland and Ireland because of the cold turns my old scars, purple still on the road to recovery. On the other note, she ends with all my heart. It doesn't sound sexual, but it does sound obsessive. Yeah, that's mania. It's literally a type of love.

Like, Eros is sexual love, but mania is obsessive love. It does sound like obsessive love. I think from her part, it could be like a psychosexual obsession, even if they're not, like, in a physical relationship. Like, I honestly, just from Donald Trump's demeanor and the way that he's presented himself, he doesn't really seem like he's really motivated by sex. He's talked about it a lot, especially before he went into, like, politics. But it's always seemed more of like a power and, like, status-oriented brag than it has been about, like, oh, yeah, I can't wait to, you know, like, I don't even know if sexual pleasure is like something that's, like, Donald Trump's. like top priority. Well, I actually agree because he's old, right? Yeah. So what you'll probably find is a lot of older guys, probably Trump, they want the testosterone masculine. I'm a strong

man. Yeah. They want the perception that women are flocking to him without actually. So as an 80-year-old man, you know, look, old people bang. You know, nobody wants to think about it, but they do, but it's just less frequent. And I think an 80-year-old guy is probably like, you know. Yeah, I mean, And regardless, I think the real story here is, again, like, she is the closest person to him at all times of the day, 35-year-old woman who's transcribing all of his thoughts and filtering information that gets to him. There's also reports that she is filtering, like, comments from world leaders to what he hears, which is kind of crazy. What if she's the shadow president? Everything happening is her, the tariffs, you know, war with Iran. It's her, and she's like, fire the missile. Is she translating messages from foreign.

dignitaries to Donald Trump. I don't think she's translated. She's the one that's giving it to him. Well, what do you think, Phil? I mean, so she had bone cancer. We were talking about this before the show. She had bone cancer, and she credits Trump's right to try efforts with saving her life. It does sound like she's kind of obsessive.

But, you know, I don't think that there's, the only question I have is about her security clearance stuff. So if she doesn't have a clearance or didn't have a clearance. Yeah, she chose not to go through that's weird. That's weird. That might that might cause some kind of problem. But otherwise, look, like you'd mentioned, you said something about elected and the president's like AIDS and stuff, they're not elected. He just selects them like that goes for all the presidents. But the point is, can't he appoint clearance like as the president? Yeah. Yeah. If I understand. Well, he can send a memo to her encouraging her, you have to go through with this. Interesting. And you's like if she, if he has to send like a memo for her to fill out a form.

It's just it's weird it's like go through those channels. Yeah, I mean I like I said, I think I agree that's a little that's a little odd But I don't like if he can not he can't actually give her a clearance but he can decide that the things that he's telling her that she hears are no longer top secret So can I can I just do the stupidest? Well she's she's listening just first of all for that she's listening to classified meeting She's 10 feet away without that security clearance. Yeah, is she still without that security clearance? What did she what did she what long? Did she not have one? I think she has it I don't know know what the update is now. Yeah, but the big issue that people are having is for the longest time she didn't. And as far as like the bone cancer thing, like she talked about that. I think she did it at the RNC back like in 2020 and for the reelection. But, um, that specific treatment that she got was already FDA approved. And that was reported by the new republic. She, let's see.

More of like a spin, not really like Trump's right to try. Well, she delayed completing the standard security clearance, the SF 86 form for more than a year while working at the White House with close access to the president. Concerns from the White House counsel's office, security officials and others led Trump to intervene. That's when he sent to the memo saying, please get it. She then completed the paperwork, underwent a background check, and has received clearance in recent months. There's no official date, I suppose, but I'm going to, let me just, let me just

throughout the conspiracy theory. Trump wrote those letters to himself to make it look like young women desperately love him. Yeah. So he can be like, well, you know, it would be off-brand. Yeah. It would be ungrossed. I am pretty great. I am pretty great. This kind of was like, what's the ethics of getting a young, hot secretary? And wait, wait, wait, sorry, sorry. It does kind of sound like a guy writing an obsessive woman character, you know what I mean? Yeah, right. Oh, I know. With all my love and all my. It's so stereotypical. But I think to your point, I mean, that's probably why this is a real thing. I think that Trump likes to surround himself with people who are inflating his ego like that. Yeah. I think it's, Trump, Trump. To Ian's question about what's the ethics of it, we've already just,

decided that that's fine. We decided it 35 years ago when Bill Clinton did his escapades with Monica Lewinsky. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What? When we impeached him? No, no, no, no, no. No. He was not impeached. He was not. He was not roll your eyes like it's some kind of made-up thing. Every single Republican that was pushing for it was talking about family values in the sanctity. It doesn't matter. The thing that he got impeached for was for lying. Yeah, yeah, yeah, under oath. But we've not, we've, I don't think anybody agrees on what happened Clinton. Nobody's been in, nobody has in, at any point been impeached for any kind of sexual, uh, right. What's the word I'm looking for? Oh, I'm not asking it's impropriate.

I'm just asking it's unethical, you know? Like, is it ethical for an 80 year old man to have a 35 year old super sexy secretary that was obsessed with him? It was ethical when JFK was banging Maryland in row or we decided that it was ethical, that it was acceptable. Maybe if you're deciding, if you're saying, or Abraham Lincoln with a gay lover. What? Or Abraham Lincoln with the gay lover. I mean, maybe. I don't know anything about that. I have heard. But, but like, look, this is something that the American people have largely decided, look, this is something that doesn't make a big, big difference to us. I completely disagree. I think that a large part of why that was so normalized was because

things weren't as transparent, like, without the internet or without constant press. I mean, FDR, the people didn't even know he was in a wheelchair because the press kept that silent. Yeah. I think now, like probably since George W. Bush, everything's trying to be out in the open. And every news or trying to get. Just because it's being out in the open or trying to be put out in the open and people on opposing sides will use it against the people that are running. So the Republicans would do it to Democrats. Democrats would do it to Republicans. Just because it's out in the open doesn't mean that the American people actually care.

Donald Trump did the whole grab him by that. I'm not going to say it because we're on the share. And the American people elected him twice. Generally the American people, generally the American people don't really care. At least they don't care enough to say we're not going to allow. Yeah, Ian, Ian, he's what you need to do. Okay, I need you to gain some weight, right? You got to get a Trump haircut.

You've got to learn to arch your neck forward a little bit and stick your chest out and go like this when you talk. Oh, it hurts. She's single, bro. Well, so you got to do, you see how she's looking at that man? Yeah, with fervent eyes. You need to mold yourself into that symbol of masculinity. Yep. And then you got to, you know.

I hire a girl that's 45 years younger than me. No, and then you ask her to date. What are you talking about? Caroline Levitt is that Caroline wasn't. offered the secret plane that Donald Trump left, but Natalie was... Natalie was shuttles. I don't actually know if I believe that story that they went another plane. Because when they landed, the rapport, I think Politico said, there was, they don't

understand how he would have gotten back onto Air Force One. So that story may have been a misdirection for some reason. You know, I want us to say with... Real quick, sorry. When they landed in the UK, they stayed, they waited for like 25 minutes and then Trump deplaneed, same as everybody else. And so the first first. report was that Trump switched plans to know what happened. Then the report came out recently that he

snuck into the catering cart. But the reports about his landing in the UK said there was no catering cart. So how did he make it back to Air Force One? Unless- In those completely fabricated story. Well, I'm not saying I know for sure, but I'm questioning, was there an ulterior motive with lying to the press? And one of the theories is that the story was fake intended to see who was leaking information to the press. So, right, they go to some people on the plane and then say, hey, Trump snuck off the plane is not actually here. The catering car took him away. Wasn't the press on the plane? Right. Somebody went and whispered and said Trump's actually not here because they weren't supposed to know. Then when the report came out. But why would there be confusion about a member of the press

leaking something when their job is? It's not the member of the press leaking. It's someone from Trump's staff telling the press things they shouldn't. Oh, oh, I see. So if, so how did the press find out? So here's the theory. I'm not saying it's true. But if the president sneaks off of Air Force one because of a security risk risk to his life, no one should know. that, right? That should be like top secret presidents being shuffled away. How did the press find out? A lot of people on the left are saying, isn't it weird that Carolyn Levitt left right after after she found out she was left on the decoy plane? And my response was not that she got mad and quit, but could she have been the one to have told the press about the secret plan? And that's

why she's no longer there? Like a quiet resignation. Well, she's like, right afterwards, she's like, I'm leaving me with my family. And then when they land in the UK, I think it was Politico that reported no catering cart would have transported Trump back to the plane. Trump just deplained and they don't know how he got back on the plane. So why should I assume that story is actually true in the first place? Interesting. I don't know. I don't know. You know, it's all speculation to make me, to be honest with in the absence of evidence, the simple solution is Karen Levin had a baby and she wants to be out. I had the same ideas with Tulsi Gabbard. I thought it seemed more than just she was leaving to be with her husband. It felt like her disagreements was Trump about the Iran war, put

forced her out of the administration and that they don't want to say that. Well, she leaked information to Congress that completely disrupted the narrative of why we went to Iran in the first place. She said in her congressional testimony, we did not have adequate evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, which was the large part of why Trump said we need to go in there. And he still says that to this day. So there was absolutely a conflict there, which is why, yeah, I don't know if she left or if she was told to leave by the Trump better. Yeah, it's not true. I think, I think, so I've, I've, I've spoken. some people, like, look, we know people who work in the Beltway and who work in these spaces

from super close, literally in the administration to outside from consulting groups. And the rumors that I've heard as of recent is that she was forced out. Yeah. And it was just convenient. But here's the other thing, too, I was told back in February and everybody watched those, heard me say it a million times, but for Mason, I heard that she was going to resign months ago because they're trying to splinter the Trump base to create a spoiler for the Democrats, basically moderate Democrats who don't like woke but hate Trump. That's why you're seeing Tucker flip. They want to create a space where moderates will be like, I'm going to vote for whatever this is. So you take the anti, like the left moderate or anti-Trump elements in the Trump campaign and create a spoiler campaign

with Joe Kent, Marjor, Taylor Green, Thomas Massey, and Tulsi Gabbard. I was told that she was going to resign. I talked about it. I was told by people close to her and her family. She would never resign. And then like two months after I talked about it, she resigned. And so now Tucker's launching his third party. So I don't know that I believe the rumors now that she was forced out. I still feel like they're all working together and it's just political manipulation. To say that moderates are going to be voting for Tucker Carlson is so wild. I feel like the only people that would go to him is. The Lincoln Project?

The what? The Lincoln Project? They would not vote for Tucker Carlson. There are a ton of neocons who went never Trump or and voted for Democrats. I would absolutely vote for like Thomas. Tucker still works as like an apparatus of the Republican Party. insofar as he's still glazing J.D. Vance preparing for that 2028 run, even though J.D. Vance has been complicit with all of the actions of the Trump admin. I mean, he went on Joe Rogan and gave

this vague sense of criticism. But even then, he's like, hey, I support the president. I'm not going to go against my own administration. And it's just funny to me that Tucker's like, Donald Trump has betrayed our base. He's betrayed the movement. But I like J.D. I don't know if J.D. would have done the same thing. It's like, okay, dude. But so think about what that does, though, in a 2028 run with J.D. Vance. the people who don't like Trump are not going to listen to people who support Trump the same ways they were if someone who's criticizing him. But Tucker's going to endorse JD. Of course.

But this is the point. When there were tons of conservatives that left the Republican Party because of Trump specifically, but they didn't change all of their values. They just said Trump is an existential threat. So I will vote for a Democrat. Democrat if it means stopping Trump. Tucker Carlson then comes out and says Trump is bad. These people then go, hey, Tucker's got some sense in him.

then when J.D. Vance comes in and he sounds vanilla pudding, he might pull in a decent amount of those people back. Look, even if it's 5%, that's enough to disrupt the Democrats to, let's put it this way. If they can spoiler 5%, J.D. Vance can win with substantially less votes. J.D. is going to be forever attached to the actions of the admin that he's in. What about Rubio? I think that Rubio would do better, but I think that everything that's been shown is them

gearing towards J.D. being the guy. Because Marco Rubio, let's say he runs in a primary against JD. He loses. He's completely fucked. He has no career left after that, at least running for president again. If he wins and he beats out JD, you're going to have people that are pissed off that they didn't go with the plan because JD's supposed to be the next guy. I don't think it's advantageous for Marco. Calcio currently has vans at 44 to Rubio's 20.

I think Rubio could keep his ambitions to run for president and probably be successful at being the nominee in 32. You want to what's weird? I just don't think that's going to happen in 20 years. You know what's really weird? You know what Marco Rubio's name means? What does it mean? Marco is a reference to Mars, the god of war. And Rubio means red-haired.

His name literally means like... Ginger, war? It's like the red planet. It's the red-haired god of war. It's like... Holy shit. You know what Donald Trump means? Donald means world ruler

and Trump means the Herald sound, like the trumpet's sound. Trump's name literally means the herald of the world ruler. Do you know what J.D. Vance means. What does it mean? Vance means Dweller of the marsh. it means swamp creature Like his people's names

That's hilarious What does Jay stand for James I think James But his first name's not His name is not real Jimmy D It was like John David Yeah

What is Oh it is? James is I think James is Jacob So you guys aren't pretty Well no no hold on Trump was Donald Trump was born Donald Trump

Was dad James Eddie Vance was not born You know John David He changed it from Fred Drump To his dad To Fred Trump Let's uh Let me let me let me on

Yeah his name used to be Drump J.D. Vance's names was James Donald Bowman. Then it got changed to James David Hamill. Now it's James David Vance. The dude's like the biggest chameleon ever. His name was Donald. Yeah, right. And then he was anti-Trump. Yeah, he was never jump. He merely anti-Trump. Trump's Hitler. And then Peter Thiel like groomed him into being the candidate that he is today. I mean, because the point was, this is how you win. You, you, when it's, it's redirecting the energy. You don't face the energy head on and try stop it, you take it and you try and guide it in direction you want it to go, and that's what they're doing.

Yeah, Tom. I don't know. I think Trump just messed up not getting someone like Doug Bergam. I think Doug would have been. Bergamania. You got Bergamania. Michael Knowles is big on Bergam. Tom Cruise had a, if Thomas Cruz's the other question, though.

What are the Democrats have? AOC is the frontrunner now. Yeah, I don't know. I think she's going to run for Senate. She's been like, for sure, posting a lot that's like getting that engagement. And she had the, like, famous, woke one was crazy, which is she's trying to, to distance herself from 2020 a bit. I don't know.

I honestly think John Ossif's going to pull a... Is he up there? He's third right now, but here's the issue. He's been saying, I'm not going to run. I'm not going to run. But the dude is charismatic. He's from the South. He's been moderate in his running, but he's trying to project more progressive,

at least for the anti-establishment energy. I think that he'd be a killer. Rating them all on charisma? AOC. AOC... She has good charisma, but... She's the most charismatic. Democrat.

End of school. She's been gaining a lot of weight, though. She looks unhealthy. Yeah, I saw that. That's not charisma. That's more beauty, which is like... No, she's Latina. She's going for the big booty Latina vote.

Is that what you're saying? Charisma is more of a personal fervor. No, no, no. AOC has it. Yeah. Gavin Newsome. I'm so miserable these days. He's going to fizzle out.

He's Ron DeSantis. I agree. I completely agree. Assoff has more than Newsome and makes a lot more sense, but he has VP energy. AOC has X factor. I don't see it with Assoff. I don't think yet. I think that there's a lot of skepticism on her ability to win over people.

But what I will say is her like stunts going down to Georgia and like Trump County and helping them that are pissed off at the data centers that are literally polluting their water. That's signaling that she is trying to do that like crossing the bridge. But I don't think that she's going to be the person that like everyone's gearing for for 2020. I think she has a lot of energy though. John Ossoff is his height is weirdly debated. It's some sources say 5-9, some say 5-11. 5-11 maybe gets you there. What's J-D?

He's like 5-11? No, no, J-D. is like 6-something. And Marco Rubio is short. Is that right? Yes. He's pretty short. Yep. J.D. Vance is 6-2.

Little Marco. Yeah, Vance has it in the pocket. And this is important. This is why Kamala Harris requested a smaller podium when debating Trump. This is true. Because the person. Perception. Yep.

people, because when they do the close-ups, when they do the wide, it's hard to figure out size necessarily the way they angle the cameras. But if they're next to each other, you can see the podium is smaller, but they don't do that. They do close-ups, which makes her look proportional, and it makes them both look proportionally the same. It's genetic, man. Like, he's our war commander, our military commander, commander-in-chief of the military. You need a dude that's tall that can sit on top of a horse behind the troops and see over their heads. Literally, that's where this stuff comes from. So you want a tall, strong guy that can maneuver on horseback. I mean, we're kind of past that, but it's still ingrained in our genetics.

So we look for these tall men. So you want someone who looks like that. Yeah, like George Washington was super tall and it helped him in combat. Deep, deep voices and height. Claudia Shinebar. Totally. From a distance if they yell, because they have a loud booming voice. This is the challenge that AOC will have any woman running against a man is there's like, and I always say this because feminists get mad at me, but this is literally the feminist position. People inherently will be sexist towards a female candidate and just choose a man based on. I think that's such like the neoliberal interpretation and why I disagree with a lot of Democrats saying Kamala lost because of that, like America's too racist and sexist to vote for a woman candidate. I think that it's absolutely on the issues.

I think it's on the policy. And her running a campaign that wasn't really geared towards any vision. And honestly, capitulated a lot to the right. She tried to like almost run to the right of Donald Trump when it comes to things like military strength, having the most lethal military in the world. She kept saying she's going to be the strong woman that make sure that the global or the global. order stays in line. I don't think that that's successful. And that's the reason why she lost was she didn't have that vision that people actually saw in a campaign. I think the female factor plays a role in the turnout because we're talking about lowest common denominator, but I would agree with you.

There was, did you see that mock debate they did where they had a man play Hillary and a woman play Trump? No, I didn't see that. It was a university study out of New York and they had a mock debate, word for word, exactly the same. And a man did Hillary and a woman did Trump and the woman won the debate. The people who were in the study, it was like they did a bunch of these debates and then serve it everybody. They said that the Hillary character, whether male or female, was smarmy and condescending and off-putting. And the Trump figure, be it male or female, was like righteous indignation and frustration with the system. So they had like a stout woman in a right dress saying, no, you did this and it was wrong and we are sick of it. And people felt that. They resonated with it,

even though it was a woman. That's like the president of, uh, of, uh, of, uh, uh, uh, uh, Italy. What's her name Georgie Maloney? She's a badass. Sure it's a woman, I don't care. Remember Berlusconi? Huh? Remember Berlusconi? Uh-uh. Burlesconi? Yes, Italy. I've heard that word before. And like, never heard that really? What does it mean? It was a person? The guy. No.

And he has like, he was notorious for having like beautiful women all around him and like Was he the president, Italian? Whatever the leader of Italy is. I don't know, Prime Minister or president or whatever, but it was like mafioso, you know, machismo. No, no, I wasn't familiar. Yeah, look it up. Yeah, I think if AOC was going to be the one, we'd start to see a lot more, I guess, in the next couple months, probably after the midterms. And I think they'll have a better tell.

Come on. Berlusconi. It looks like Tony Soprano. I mean, this is a long time ago, so I can't, I can't tell you, but. I was 11 years old. When you have Silvio Berlusconi prostitution trial, you know? Damn. Accused and convicted of paying a 17-year-old Moroccan.

That's crazy. Prime Minister. for sexual services. That's the role as prime minister. I wanted to say about the girl from the earlier story before we kind of moved away from it, Natalie, that I think I got a lot of empathy for this girl because if she, Trump's kind of seems to be serving as her father figure in her life, like strong male patronal figure and like she lost her father. So I don't, I don't think it's weird how she's acting. It's just it's questionable if you should even put young women in that position is more. It's just weird that you're using your employment.

your boss as that father figure role. And like clearly I'm not like I think that she she needs a lot of therapy, obviously, because she has a lot of trauma in her life. But I just, I don't think it's helpful for the situation for that type of workplace, that your boss, the person that your livelihood is dependent on, you're also viewing as this father figure with all of your heart.

I know. It's, it's a, it's a, it's like a dangerous part of the job itself. Because if her obsession for him as a father figure outweighs her duty to do the job, that could become a real problem.

Yeah. But I think Donald Trump likes that, which is more of a, I think the biggest part of the story is why does Donald Trump need these sycophants around him more so than a... For the same reason, he needs his name and gigantic gold letters on buildings all over the world. Yeah. It's a go. And the bid is like when he was a little kid and he walked into, like his dad's in the study reading the paper, and he's a little boy and he goes, Daddy, look, I solved the puzzle. And he goes, oh, it's in here again. And then the maid comes and carries him away. I don't know why Trump would have a British or North Atlantic accent like that, but you know, it's just a joke. It's making noise. It's making noise again.

I'm sure it was, but here's the thing, you know, if you know Trump, you know how to get what you want. And this is what I don't understand about Democrats is all they do is butter them up. You butt, you butter. What we saw with Zoram-Mandani, like, John's supposed to be literally the antithesis of MAGA and Donald Trump is enamored by him every time that they're together. Because he says nice things about him. Well, I don't know. Zoron doesn't really like say nice things.

He's definitely cordial. mean to him. I don't think he'd even does that, really, because he called him a fascist to his face. But I think what Donald Trump likes is winners. I think he likes winners more than anything. And so on defeating a previous governor in a race where he had 1% literally

eight months before the election, I think Donald Trump sees like, okay, I respect a winner like that. You're popular. More than ideology. And I think that it's indicative. Yeah, well, yeah, Kim Jong-un. A great leader, love President Xi. He, like, he glorifies all of these people who

supposed to be like his adversaries. And I think it's because he likes power. He piss a lot of people off by being nice to zone. Right. He butters them up because if you get, he'll, he subverts to. He'll say he likes you and then backstab you. Like he's happy to do that shit. Yeah.

I mean, he's criticized Ron just not to his face. Yeah. This is, I bring this up because I wonder if what Natalie is doing is actually just advancing her career. She knows that when she says to Trump, I love you with all my heart and you're the great, or not, I love you. But with all my heart, you're such a good person.

You're everything. And, you know, I'll do anything for you. She knows he's going to be like, give her a promotion, give her a race. 100%. And how sad is it that professional development is tied to undined devotion? It's crazy. Well, I will say it's, I'm glad that it's out in the open. It's better than sexual favors.

Yeah, but no, but I'm like, do you know that's not going on? Like, for sure. But, but my point is this, like, this probably is much more common than people realize. Yeah. In general. Of course, yeah. People being like, you know. Like buttering up your boss.

I mean, I know, that's why I collected bargaining. bargaining is really important. With companies, I used to be a worker, and then I realized, oh, if I befriend the owner, I can get on the show. I come at the top of the chain company. And they'll have me come. They'll be like, can you manage? Can you do this?

Can you do this? Maybe she was just feeling over. Hey, hold on. The entire, like, media establishment and DC establishment was basically kissing Barack Obama's for eight years. Chris, what's his name? Chris Matthews's got a thrill running up his leg. this kind of like buttering up the guy in charge.

Of course. Whether or not we find it unseemly, it's still perfectly normal. I would love to find a single letter that says, with all my heart, I'm so sorry that I let you down. You are the most important thing that matters to me to Barack Obama. I'd like to find a single letter. I would not be. I mean, like, like I said, we already talked about like she probably is a little bit, like going a little overboard. But the idea of buttering up the boss or kissing someone's ass.

That's... But hold on, hold on. I got to say, I bet Obama's got more of those letters than Trump does. Not from people within his closest circle. I don't. I agree. I would love to bring that up. Because this is a unique case, which is why it's getting so much.

I don't believe that. No, no, wait, wait, wait. I agree. I think Trump's the kind of guy where people close to him are butt sniffing and giving these letters. But I think for Obama, he probably got more of those letters from people just outside the periphery. Obama was a celebrity and he was... The media buttered him up.

Everybody loved it. So for different reasons, I'm willing to bet that a bunch of people wrote letters to Obama where they're like, you're the best. I mean, he's still a strong influence in the Democratic Party, but it's nowhere near the same level of, again, the cultish status that Donald Trump has built on the right. Your career is dependent on how much Donald Trump views you as being loyal. Yeah, but not anymore. And Bondi, Chrissy Noem. Colsey Gabbard. Gone.

I don't think it. That's what I'm saying. I don't think it's because he didn't view them as loyal enough. Well, it's crazy because I feel like Chrissy Noem never said any critical. is this. Again, I don't think it's significantly different. Was it $200 million on that horse ad or whatever? Because she was incompetent.

I don't think it's significantly different than Barack Obama. I think I think that this particular case, like I said, I think that she's got a little, she's got the whole father figure thing, her dad died. So this case is a little bit, is a little bit different. But overall, people behaving like sycophants is not some kind of strange new thing. Obama was way more than Trump ever. But Obama. In terms of, in terms of public fervor and love,

Trump has a approval rating, sure. No, no, no, no, no. Control of the party, no. Well, control of the party. Absolutely not. I agree with Mason. Trump's got more commanding control of who runs the endorsements he get. His endorsements almost always win, but not always.

And he just fucking won, and he has every scandal in the book. But, but I think as it goes to general population, Obama had way more sycophantic love from the populace than Trump does. That might be true, but Obama, as far as I know, didn't hire 28-year-old hot blonde shit. to be his assistance and stuff. So he didn't get it on the inside. Let's let's do this. In publicly, so Trump's got, I think the estimate they give is a there's a 40% base of the Republican party that we would call the Trump cult. They don't break from Trump no matter what. They'll, they'll, they can 40. I feel like 33. It could, it might be. But it's like a third to maybe, I don't know. Let's just say 40. What's is it right now? Like 32? But no, no, no, no,

not approval rating in general. I'm saying of Republican voters, there's the estimate. is about 40% don't care what Trump does. They love Trump no matter what. Trump can like start a I feel like there's more than that. No, man. Wasn't there just like the poll that was like a hundred percent of maga voters love Trump? No, no, no, no. But hold on, hold on. No, that's this is the number. I'm not talking about whether you would support Trump, I'm saying the cult. That is, Trump says no new wars. And Republicans and moderates who voted for Trump go, yay, we're voting for him. Then the Iran war starts. And you get a fraction that break away and say this is a mistake. It's going to cause us problems.

But there's this diehard mega cult that says, no, we're in favor of it now. Trump is right the whole time, no matter what. And they invert their position because Trump is their position. My point is- I'm kind of like what you guys were saying, though? About what? On Timcast? I feel like I saw something where there was like this theory that the Iran war was meant to

like strangle China and like U.S. adversaries. Is that true? Or is that position changed? No, that's absolutely my position. But how is that support of? Well, isn't that saying that like there's a strategic reason why we need to do this to like hurt our adversary? Well, you're interpreting need. Yeah, trying to understand what's going on is not the same. See, this is a problem with the internet, right? I have a video where I literally said,

this is a failure. I'm sorry, it just is, and Trump's not going to tell you the truth about it. I understand what they're trying to do. If you look at the bigger picture, but a lot of people who don't pay attention, you're going to scream Israel did it. But when you look at every single move Trump has made, it even predates Trump, all of this is lining up the Gulf of America, even the renaming of it, for oil exports to originate from the Gulf, from the port of Houston. That's why you've got Panama, Venezuela, Cuba. That's why you've got the attempts at the Northwest Passage, and China's oil imports are being cut off. None of that is to say it's good.

We did it. In fact, I literally called it a failure. Trump is now draining the SPR to levels we've not seen since 1982 to try and stabilize gas prices because our economy is screwed up. But for some reason, literally starting a video with Trump is failing, and it's a, and he's going to lie about this, people go, I guess Tim supports the war now. And I'm like, like, what the world do we live in? It just, in a way, American military dominance. I didn't use to, I used to say war bad, stop. But now I'm like, well, what's the alternative here?

Chinese military dominance? Because it's going to be somebody militarily dominating the planet. It just seems like that interpretation is a part of the Trump, like, post hoc justification for it's not because they're lying about it. And they won't tell you this. And they're telling you it's because of nuclear weapons, which is a lie, because they bombed them last year over nuclear weapons. So it's not, the Trump's official line is nuclear weapons, and that's not correct. It's legacy. I think Donald Trump wants to be the president that actually went into Iran and took them down and stopped the regime. We stopped it in Venezuela. We'll stop it in Iran. I'm going to be the president that establishes dominance. That's a component. Don't get me wrong. But let's start

from the beginning. It's not going to be economic strangling China. Americans are the ones that are also going to take the front, which you agree with if you think that the war is a failure. What's happening is Everyone's losing 20%, but because we're so far ahead, our loss is still going to keep us above everyone else. They're taking political suicide in the midterms. Yes. In potentially in 2028. They're hurting everyone. So look at it this way. Okay, okay, okay. Let's look at this way. Let's say you've got a half take a gas.

China's got a quarter take of gas and you both have to go 100 miles. Trump's like, I'm going to burn half tank. China's getting hurt, but it's not going to cripple them economically. It's cut their oil by 44% and they've implemented control. and emergency energy releases. They've switched their taxi fleets from gas to electric already. Yeah, this is pretty the entire global economy. So let's start from the beginning.

This is important because people can't seem to understand. Let me phrase it like this. Not only was I in some of these countries at the start of these conflicts, but I've been tracking this since I was a teenager and involved in the protests around Afghanistan in the Iraq War every day of my life reading the news about what was going on. So let's go back as far, not even as far as I can go, but we can. go and you know this is this is for all the people who might watch this who don't know what's going on and assume that understanding the conflict is support for it it is not first the cutter turkey pipeline my

favorite story the u.s went to syria and said we want to build a natural gas pipeline from the persian gulf through iraq syria turkey into europe to offset the gas prime gas monopoly this is a fact Bashar al-Assad said no we are allied with russia who has a naval basin tartuz we are not going to allow you to build a gas pipeline that would offset our allies control of energy in Europe. Then Syria, Russia and Iran said let's tap the same natural gas field, build it through Syria, and strengthen Russia's gas monopoly. Now, this is where there's a gap because I don't want to make insinuations, but surprisingly within a year, the United States declares that Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist state, and we enter the conflict on the side of the rebel fighters.

It's like 2013-ish. So this is around 2011, actually, the start of the, it's the Arab Spring into the Syrian civil war. And the United States says, we're going to side with the rebels, which ultimately all of them form an Islamist nightmare, which is ISIS, and they end up with weapons that were delivered by the Obama administration. The speculation, because again, I'm trying to be nice, is that the U.S. needed to remove Bashar al-Assad so we could build a gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey because, again, Russia controlled 20% of natural gas into Europe, and Europe was starting to favor Russian interests because they needed the energy. Fast forward to Now we're getting into 2014, 2016.

Ukraine was split between joining, staying in the Russian Trade Federation, or joining the European Union. Russia says if you join the European Union, European goods are going to flood the Russian market, so we're going to cut you off. Pick one. Unfortunately for Russia, Ukraine, Ukrainians were like, we'd rather be in the EU, will be wealthy. If Ukraine joins the EU, Russia's control or access to the Black Sea would be at risk because Crimea, their only warm water port is Ukraine. So what does Russia do? They annex Crimea, fearing that Ukraine would fall to the European Union.

Also, this would compromise Burisma. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, gas prom. Burisma is the next component, which is how they control the price of gas in Europe. Russia's principle, their principal export is energy. They need for our economy. We then get the Nord Stream pipelines from Russia into Germany. One of them blows up, Nord Stream 2. Germany has accused Ukrainians of bombing the undersea pipeline that was delivering Russian gas to Germany. There's speculation that CIA frogmen were involved in this. If it is true that Ukrainians bombed our allies pipeline in NATO, that would trigger Article 5, and the U.S. would be forced to enter the war against Ukraine.

That's insane. Germany has issued an arrest warrant for the Ukrainian who they accuse of doing this. The U.S., I presume, would be on the side of Germany, but for some reason it stayed out of it. Now we get the Ukrainian conflict, Burisma. Joe Biden has his son on the board of Burisma Energy Company. Why? When we couldn't get the cutter-turkey pipeline into Europe, the United States shifted its resources to control of Ukraine. If we can get political dominance in Ukraine, we can stifle the gas prom monopoly through Burisma and other energy sources if Ukraine joins the EU. Hence now, Russia is invading sealing this land bridge to give them access to Crimea, which is the home of their Black Sea fleet.

The Curzon Bridge was bombed, so that's not a safe means of access for Russia. and they're not going to spend a billion dollars putting up a new base, you know, in Russian territory in the Black Sea and give away their naval port. So now we have this war. Currently now, we have a problem with Israel bombing Syria, Turkey moving in in Syria, when Bashar al-Assad has been forced to flee. And the U.S. interest is in getting the Syrian government to allow us to secure these pipelines. That brings us to everything we've seen in the beginning of the Trump administration. He renames the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which seems silly. he takes Venezuela. He's pacified the Caribbean by bombing these vessels, and he's surrounded Cuba,

cutting them off from all energy, isolating their government, forcing a destabilization. He renegotiated the Panama deal, and he's currently trying to gain access to Greenland, which would give us military access to the Northwest Passage. Then it brings us to Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, 20% of the world's oil. I do not believe Trump is trying to take out nuclear weapons. I believe the intention is, as Trump just posted, new U.S. territory, is to create permanent control of 20% of global oil exports. Trump wants to dominate the world. Everything he's done has centered oil exporting through Houston and the Gulf of America.

And now he's shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is isolated Bricks nations. India, China, particularly. He did shut down the Strait of Hormuz. He started the war. Then the Strait got shut down. And I believe that is the intended condition. It was intentional. I think the Israelis started the war and he joined.

And I think the Israelis wanted to destroy the nuclear program. But Trump was like, well, now there's a war. we're here, we might as well control the oil. You don't think? Israel, Israel wants to obliterate Iran, period, because Iran funds the Al-Qasan brigades, Hamas, as well as the Houthi rebels in Yemen. So Israel is basically saying these guys are the ones making the war against us. We're going to destroy them. We want regime change. The United States also wants regime change in Iran. That's why we got Iraq in Afghanistan, which is a pincers strike on the Iranians. But Iran is a giant mountain. It's not easy to just take it. And the U.S. is struggling.

a failure is because the only two options left are further escalation, which are taking over the islands in an attempt to do a siege onto the mainland, which is going to fail, unless we're really willing to obliterate most of the Iranian civilians. They won't put... Well, let's define failure. Or it's going to be just a complete surrender and give the Iranians exactly what they want, which is a restoration fund, which is giving them the reparations that they're asking for, allowing them to continue to control the straight.

And we've gone from 150 or so ships that were going through Hormuz to, like, what, 10 now? I think it's the way to stop. And I believe that's on purpose. I read that. Trump, see, see, this is what I disagree with it? Because your argument would be Trump accidentally destroyed the U.S. economy. No, I think that Trump knew that there were going to be risks, but he was willing to take it because he feels this invincible, I'm the it man.

I am the guy that's going to tackle Iran. 20 years of U.S. foreign policy. Well, the last presidential administrations leading all the way back to Ronald Reagan, wanted Iran to fall. They wanted control. But they were worried of what that would do to the government. global economy, which is exactly what we're starting to see right now. Agreed.

And I'm taking this risk and it being a failure. It's not, it's, and you say it was a failure. Indeed. And I don't think the issue is that it's a risk. It's that Trump is not going to publicly say, we knew this would happen. Well, imagine if Trump, regardless of Trump did say that or not, like, it's going to be a failure amongst the American people, which is why there's such disapproval for this war. Which is why he needs a cassas belly, which is, oh, they have nuclear weapons.

But nobody believes that. I agree. That's why Trump is, what's it going to say? We shut down the straight of Hormuz to strangle the Bricks nation. It's better than a lie that nobody believes. Why wouldn't he just say, why wouldn't he just say you need American economic dominance? We don't want China to be able to continue to get. You think Trump would get, would you support Trump if he came out and said, who would support Trump if he said, we did this on purpose?

Republicans that want to see China crippled. Yeah, but moderates and Democrats, no, well, Democrats are out, but the moderates are going to be like, screw off. We don't want war. So you're saying the moderates approve of him saying that we're going to get rid of their nuclear weapons. I don't know I'm saying, most people. If you have two people and you have a choice of what you're going to try to sell them on, you sell them the lowest common denominator. The existential threat of Iranian nuclear weapons is understandable by someone who doesn't pay attention. But if you go to them and say, I just choked out 20% of the global oil supply causing a global economic crisis and I'm now draining the SPR to make up for that loss.

Why? I want to choke Bricks nations. They're going to say, go F yourself. This is your fault. And they're going to say, I'm going to vote for somebody else. So you go to them and lie and say, but they've got nuclear weapons. We have to stop them. And at least some of those people are going to go, well, I guess so. Way less than before the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, though, because so many people are keyed into the nine. Let me just say this.

Regardless, you can't exclude. Regardless what you're saying is the justification. You're agreeing that this is a strategic failure. As of this point, this has been a nightmare of a conflict. So the SPR being drained down to what, like 100? It's going to 170 million barrels? With the argument of you... Worse than Biden.

Seeding to that, are you saying that in the future this is going to end up being a net positive? That's a question of American... If we get oil in the goal of America. But again, that's like saying I'll put money down a baseball team to win

and then it's like, will I make money? Well, if they win. If Trump is able to... Let me simplify it. First, as I've said a million times, I'd never vote for this war. I won't support this war. But I hope the United States

wins in all respect to whatever the United States is doing. The simple way to explain this plan is Trump is trying to center global oil in the Gulf of America. And that's his obsession. That's why Panama, Greenland, all of these things line up. The idea is, I am going to, we're going to cause 70% damage to America and 80% damage to China. China gets half of its energy imports on the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. is an oil exporter.

This is Trump's plan. but you're never going to go, especially in a midterm year, and tell the American people, you want to know why you can't afford your gas right now or why eggs cost so much money or why the economy is in a downturn? I did that. They're going to be like, okay, I'm voting for somebody else. So he's going to come out and lie and say they've got nuclear weapons. We have to stop them. Yeah, I just think the American people already understand that it is Trump's fault, which is why his disapproval is so large right now. Agreed. But again, he's not going to come out and say, hey, my approval rating should go down. Right. He's going to lie to try and bolster

this military failure. I'm not like, I don't hate on him for lying because sometimes you're the commander-in-chief of military, your job is to subvert and lie to the applies. The problem is when you start lying to the domestic population because the rest of the world's watching, so you have to, otherwise. Or you say that Americans' financial status

does not even take, like, what do he say to the press? He was like, I don't even think about American's financial state when I'm making these decisions. I'm the president. Everyone has to deal with it. So here's the important understanding of why I would call this a failure. Draining the strategic petroleum reserve. to try and to try and keep gas down in the United States, that is when you are failing.

We have, our strategic petroleum reserve is not for gas prices. It is for when we are threatened, we are at war, and we need energy to fight back. For Trump to have started this war, and again, with pressure from Israel, no doubt, to now be at a point where we have to drain something like we're going for like 40% of the SPR to the point where they're saying it's going to damage the caverns.

Looking for the numbers. I don't know. Biden did this. Biden drained the SPR because, because our oil prices were screwed up, and this is not what it is for. Trump refilled it early on, but now we're draining it again to choke out the straight of Hormuz. If, however, Trump's gambit does work, which I'm not confident in, we will be in a down period

for some time. Perhaps in four or five years, the United States will see some benefit from this. The simple way that the media likes to say is short-term pain for long-term gain. My response is no Casasbelli, no war. We, the United States, do not start wars for the purpose of damaging other countries economically to improve our economic situation five years later. This is not what we voted for. It's not what our country should be doing to succeed.

And right now, it's pissing everybody off. And it's pissing me off because I can see it in the prices of everything we do. And if the president's going to come out and lie about what's really going on, I think that is also a big problem. That being said, I understand governments lie and those with power take power. there is a possibility that in the end, we get substantial economic damage from this, but we destroy bricks. And then we feel good about it 10 years later. Right now, people are suffering. The economy is bad. It is palpably bad. And I do not feel that there's a justifiable reason to be involved in this. There's two principal camps on the surface. Israel forced us to do it. And we had nuclear weapons. We had no choice. Both of which are half truths.

You have to look at the big picture of the past 20 years with the Cutter Turkey Pipeline and all the actions in the Gulf of America, especially with Venezuela. And it's all about, again, we're going to cause pain to the Americans today in hopes that in the next five, 10 years, we're energy dominant and China's not. Oh, man. And technology is advancing so rapidly. They'll be using non-petroleum-based energy fuel sources by then. That's the crazy point. I don't think so. You don't think that.

I think that. No, absolutely not. The Chinese are completely wrong in because what you don't understand is that petroleum is the means of controlling populations. If we allow anyone to develop fusion technology, they will get off the petro dollar. We will blow them up. I think weapons is the means to control domestic populations. The fuel will give you power to forge weapons, but it's a weapon. No, no.

Weapons are the last resort of conflict that are no guarantee. I think it's the main thing that you use to control people. No. If everybody needs gas and gas prices. When is the tipping point when we're done using non-renewable energy sources? I don't, I don't think at least. They're not renewable. No, they re-refer makes oil.

The liberal carbon constantly keeps making new oil. And in perpetuity. We're not going to run out. We continue to expand. We're not going to run out because they're also synthesizing it. The issue is the liberal economic order, the United States hegemonic system is predicated on the petro dollar. Ain't no way Trump or the military industrial complex gives that up.

Right, but the Chinese don't give a shit about that. Which is why. You want the alternate. Which is why if they get close to getting off. of that, war will start. Like if they start using hydrogen. And also most of your, most of China's military machine

still runs on oil. Like they do have, you know, some electric power drones or whatever, but all their ships and stuff, most of them are their diesel ships still. I think the future. Most of their tanks and stuff like that, they're all run on some kind of petroleum product.

The future of Warcraft just with technological innovation is going to be so much different. I think even in the next 15 to 20 years with the advent of AI and just cyber attacks. That's why I brought up like batteries and stuff because drones are going to run off batteries, right? And so drones are going to be a major part of, you know, the future of warfare. But still, you're talking about like if you're dealing with missiles, like sure there are solid rocket boosters and stuff. But if you're talking about anything that has an engine, it's all running off of, you know, it's all running off the.

The energy output of oil is better than everything. and you're not going to get a micro fusion reactor for a car. Well, hydrogen. Hydrogen is pretty lightweight. They've tried that, though. It's volatile and it's hard to produce and ship. And the underlying energy source for hydrogen is still oil. Petroleum is also very volatile.

Have you seen any significant infrastructure move towards hydrogen? No, the whole industry is suppressing it. Well, exactly. They're not going to do it. The Chinese government is out of this industry. This is a component of why Trump is like we're going to burn them to the ground. The United States, the military industrial complex, the West, Western powers are not going to let bricks run away with energy outside the petro dollar.

Talking about the future of warfare. The German Blitzkrieg was under, people didn't understand that you could drive tanks through a mountain three days straight because that had never existed before. The Blitz was on London, wasn't it? The Blitz Creek was through the Ardennes Forest in eastern France. The Germans came with tanks, and they took like amphetamines and stayed up for days, and they drove these tanks, which had never been seen through the woods. They'd up, coked up and drilling.

They conquered Paris in like two weeks. The Chinese could attack from straight above. Real quick. Wait, wait. The Blitz was a bombing campaign by Nazi Germany and Italy against the United Kingdom. Look at the Blitz. I think, Ian, you're talking about the book Blitz. No, no, Blitz is a Norman.

Blitz Creek is a generic term. Yeah, Germans use it means lightning warfare. Yeah, lightning warfare that these... The Blitz specifically was on the Ardennes Forest attack. It started off the war against France. Just to clarify, because the Blitz was against the bombing camp. They were a total peace, sneak attack. The Germans attacked France out of nowhere.

They blasted through the woods in undefended area because they thought it was impossible. We can never be attacked here. Yeah, the, was it the Maggino line? was the Maginolina was their expected attack defense area, but south of that was these dense mountain forests. And they're like, no one's coming through dense mountain forests. But the tanks could. So these drones can come from straight above. They can knock out our oil supply. They can knock out our big cities all at once. If our communication systems go out, who thinks they're going to win? Like, you can't win if you're, if you're, if you're, if you've just been. Did you know that the U.S. has something like 400 fake

nuclear silos? Good. You know why? Fakes to get sneak attack on the wrong spot. Exactly. It's crazy. Well, so the first, I think the most important I understand is two things. Biological warfare is a component of the future of warfare, but psychological. Actually, I just had a great conversation with the AI guy, and that's going to come out on Sunday at the Tim Pool Show. Check it out. But he mentioned that he had a really great point. He said, if you went back to the late 1800s, 1890, and ask someone to envision the future of warfare, what will the weapons look like?

Most people would get it wrong. But the smartest. Canons in the sky. Gigantic cannons, bigger than I've ever seen. However, at this time, they had a general understanding of atoms. It was very rudimentary. They just knew that they didn't know anything about it. And if somebody could theorize as to what it might look like, they may have gotten it right.

In fact, he said H.G. Wells wrote about atomic weapons that were heat rays. The interesting thing is, the Manhattan Project, a lot of conspiracy theorists think, nobody knew. It's not true. I got the Life magazines. We can read them. Everybody knew the U.S. was building a weapon. 300,000 people worked on it, but nobody knew what the weapon was. That's compartmentalization. There were theories that it was a nuclear bomb, an atomic bomb, potentially a heat ray.

Nobody knew for sure, but they knew a weapon was being made. A heat ray was one of these things. Now, what he said was one of the areas of science that we... A heat ray, like a laser? Like a laser? Like a laser? Yeah, like they didn't know. They didn't understand. Like in the public, they didn't know what atomic technology could do. And then we found out when we blew up Japan. He said, like psychology. Nuclear bombs kind of like neurology. These are the things that we know we're lacking. We don't understand exactly how the brain works.

And when AI starts to map the brain, we are going to have psychological weapons, literally the ability to program a thought through visual or like audio manipulation. So an example of this. Did you guys know that there is an LED device that is marketed to police that they point at you like a gun and it flashes lights that will make you vomit? called it dazzler. The dazzlers blind you. Oh, okay.

Gazzlers are high-powered lasers that they can flash you in the eyes and it, it shocks your eyes for about 30 seconds. But there's a device that can flicker LED. They have like sound devices that use two. They use the L-RAD devices. But specifically on psychology,

the strobe light somehow causes a nausea-it, it nauseates you. And then it makes it hard for you to function and some people vomit. It's called LED Incapacetato. Yes. And they've been marketing these for a long time. if AI starts mapping out

how the human brain works, they could theoretically make sounds that will elicit insane emotions, depression. Imagine you're out in a protest and they blast the depression beam. And then everyone just falls down crying uncontrollably

and they can't, they don't understand why. Things like that. Taking out an entire city by playing a sound from a blimp that makes all the soldiers just start crying and collapsing. Or on their own radios

or their own TVs or their phones start playing a music and everyone's like... I like the point about giant cannons. If you go back, because there's this really funny art of the year 2000 that was written in like 1908,

and firefighters had mechanical wings, and it showed them peddling and flapping wings while they flew above buildings, spraying them down. Because the understanding of technology was mechanical and steam powered. So when you start there and then make something better, it's something like a guy peddling wings.

whereas once you understood atomic nuclear energy or whatever, computing, then all of a sudden the door is open. I think it's like technology they call it miniaturization. It's like making smaller yet more effective pieces of things, weapons and like gene editing. My God, if they can go in there and snip your RNA code and replace it with like a sound or a chemical in your food or something or like a bug that's been released into the environment.

French Post. card. They're wearing wing backpacks and they're flying around to put fires out. They're still trying to make jet packs and stuff. Isn't it crazy? The ladder's gone. That's the only improvement. Yep. Like there's still a steam engine train but they're like firefighters will fly.

Like there's like a 50 foot hose. Yeah. This is kind of like I understand the near term desire to stifle Iran and control the petroleum but do they do they not think far ahead or is it just there's no other choice? Like if we don't take evasive action right now in

six years, the Chinese petroleum-based economy will dominate the AI space. They have the productions. They are poised to take Taiwan for chip production. You don't think that they're... Petroleum is not going to be a major factor when it comes to AI data centers. It's going to be nuclear,

possibly renewals. But honestly, I think that if Musk can get data centers into space, everyone's going to follow them because there's endless amounts of light. They can do radiated heating and stuff, get rid of the heat that way. If he can figure it out, a lot of companies are going to follow suit.

Check this out. LED incapacitator. A light emitting diode incapacitor weapon designed like a flashlight, extremely bright, rapid, well-focused series of differently colored random pulses. It can cause intercranial pressure,

headache, nausea, vomiting, disorientation, irritability, and visual impairment to the target. Yes, yep. I said incapacito because it was cutting off the R. Incapacetto. Incapacity. Italian version.

There's also, I lament, the discontinuation of the laser-induced plasma channel? Yeah, we got to make more of them to charge the sun at the very least. What? We got to send hydrogen into the sun so it doesn't keep it. We cannot nearly charge the sun with the energy. We've got to build a big one. The sun is our battery.

So a laser-induced plasma channel uses a high-powered infrared laser to superheat the air in a straight line, creating a path of least resistance for a high electrical charge. Effectively, it's a lightning gun. So the question is, that was asked, they were doing this at Picatinny. Air Force Base. How can I, it's like, look, I'm sitting right here and I want to electrocute that guy over there. What do I do? Well, the problem is the way electricity works is it goes, it's a positive negative charge. It's going to jump to the path. It's going to follow the path of least resistance to balance the charge. So if you have a high powered electrode, it's just going to hit the ground.

It's going to go straight to the ground. But if you fire an infrared laser first, then the supercharged pathway from that laser is the easiest path. The electricity just goes straight through it. So you, within a split second, like a millisecond, nanosecond, you infrared laser on, electrode on, and it blasts the target with a lightning bolt. Beez. Requires too much power to make it. Unwieldy, you can't transport it, and who cares? We'll blow you up with a bomb.

And if they're building it, they wouldn't tell us. Hazers. Oh, no, no, no. This was a discontinued weapon. That's how we know. And you can actually make little ones. Trust the government. What's it?

Trust the government. They've definitely discontinued this project. Just like they discontinued MK Ultra. And making new. So what I will just say on the foreign policy thing is that, One of the, one of the most difficult things about this is that most people don't know anything about what's been going on internationally. Don't understand the cause and effect of the, and I'll put it like this, the Cutter Turkey

pipeline where I start is still 50 years late in the game. This is, it's reductive all the way to the bottom. You want to go back to the British oil in Iran, them trying to control the lawyers and this goes back to the show. This goes back to 79. Really? It goes back to 1920. I mean, back to the challenge, of course, is that I, I, a friend of my, this liberal guy just

sends me all this stuff all the time. time and every argument about the war with Iran, it's like it started today. And like, we went here because Israel did this. Like, well, there's a handful of questions. Why did Israel do it? Then there's a handful of questions. Why did Iran do it? There's a handful of questions. What were we trying to do with oil in the Gulf? Right. The questions go back much, much further today. This war did not start overnight. And the issues that people are citing, it's like looking at the tip of the Empire State Building and saying that's where the building starts. That's the foundation. I have on good information that you're an Israeli shill, actually.

Oh, that was my... Take all of your orders from BB himself. Oh, I'm sure. His name's Alex Jones. What's going on with that whole feud? When we talk about... I went on Jubilee, and my name was trending nonstop, and people want to put my name on X

to hit the trend and get more access. You think Alex Jones talked about you because of Jubilee? Absolutely, yeah. Really? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tons of people. What's his criticism of you that... It's...

I mean, there's no real one. Tim Poole is paid by the Russians and Israel. Alex Jones cites RT. I never do. Like they literally put Russian sources on their coverage. He's just literally, I'm going to post Tim's name as much as possible. It gets me traffic. I want to ask if you agree, because what happens is high profile show, huge audience.

Do you have a responsibility now? Because you have a lot of people listening to you, I wonder. Because we'll talk about this war and the horrors and the tactics. And like if I don't speak out against what I think the Israelis are doing, colonizing Gaza, which I have a lot of issues with, am I actively supporting it because I'm not speaking out against it? And I think that's at what's Alex

is like you're not going to stop it. You're just commenting that it's happening and you're not like denouncing it. And therefore you support it. Do you agree with that? I think that if you have a political show, you should be direct about what your political opinions are. But to what point?

Because someone's being too overt can get you killed. So what? So it's better to stay alive and change the system than it gets slaughtered because you were too dumb You know, by being quiet. By changing systems in the background. No. But what does that mean as a...

We're not in the background, Dian. ...that have free software built into the code, building sensors that can detect incoming weaponry that they don't know you have, like things like, you know, giving people the opportunity to grow their own food. We are not a data center. We're a megaphone. Well, we're a little bit of both. If we have a responsibility...

Yeah, maybe if you can, like, one more cloud game, that could change. Have you seen all the ones I made with, like, Fauci, vaccinating people? I just saw the one you were playing when I came in. Oh, no, no, I made one where you're Hassan and you electshoot your dog. I made one where you're at Netanyahu and you have to throw money at numbers of Congress. You elects your cue to dog. You elects you the dog. Yeah.

I made one, you play Netanyan, you got to bribe members of Congress by throwing money at them. I made one where you're Fauci and you got to vaccinate people. And then I made one that was a hybrid of all of them where you play Hassan's dog firing vaccines out of his ass at members of Congress. Like, I'm in some more, one more game. Rigging stuff. Anyway, Ian, Ian, the point is this. if we are to do our jobs to positively affect the world, it is speaking about all of it. There is no backroom here at Timcast.

We do not work in the administration. Well, that's what I'm confused on what your criticism is. You're saying that Tim should be more overt about his criticisms of Israel? No, I'm not saying should. I'm wondering that if you don't become overt about what your deep criticisms are, that you become then complicit in allowing it to happen. I think that if that's your goal as a show is to change the narrative or change conversations, or get people to think differently,

then yeah, you should be overt about that. But you're saying that he's not doing that. Well, I'm, I don't. Sometimes I keep things in because I don't want to become an easy target. He's projecting how he feels on a situation completely unrelated. Yeah, like, I think maybe that's Alex's criticism.

I'm trying to figure out of steel man, what he's concerned about. Hassan Piker, Destiny, and Alex Jones did not all decide to talk about it at the same time because they just discovered a criticism. No, I think you're right that you were in the news. That got a bunch of traffic. Dude, look how influential Jubilee is.

It is. It's massive. Also, it's been on my mind a lot about the banality of evil. It comes up from time and time about the good man that sit by and do nothing as evil occurs are part of complicit of the evil. And I understand that philosophy. It's not, okay, you're misunderstanding. The banality of evil is when you do nothing and you just go along with the evil. Right, right.

Yet when you are ideologically, look, we are overt on this show and actively involved in the culture war. There's no banality of anything here. Oh, man. Like, I don't know about screaming. about how horrible colonization and genocide is could actually help or change it. I don't know if it really can. Like the war machine is in motion.

What do you mean? Like being like, hey, Israeli settlers, are you really murdering young children to take their houses? I don't know, but are you? Like, let's, I wanna see it. And if you are, I don't think, like, I don't talk about that every day.

Like, even though I think it might be happening, and does that make me complicit in it? No. This is why, this is why these people are called conspiratards. Does Israel do bad things? Yes, they do a lot. Are they trying to take the West Bank? You bet.

And Trump got a lot of money to that end. Are there bad things happening with China and the U.Gar Muslims? Yes. Are there bad things happening in South Sudan with the U.S. involvement? Absolutely. Are we going to, which conflict do you want to ignore, Ian, to maximize your good? All. So the point is, everything outside of my bubble.

The point is, we on this show have talked about China. We've talked about Burma. We've talked about Kashmir. We've talked about Iran, Israel, God. Sudan, all of it. And you see, the issue is people who live in isolated worlds get mad at you if they aren't the center of your world. So if we only talk about Israel twice a month, that's not enough. And if we talk about the Uighur Muslims one time, it's why aren't you talking about Israel? At the same time, if we don't talk about the Uighur Muslims, we get messages of people,

if we talk about Israel too much, they say, who cares about Israel? Why aren't you talking about what China's doing? Taiwan's next. The Uighur Muslims are being raped and forced to have abortions. there is no winning with these people. And right now, there is money to be made on these social platforms to join whatever is getting the most clicks. And the reality is, Israel is a hot button issue for most of the world because there's a lot of countries that are Muslim. You are going to get a bigger viewership talking to the world about a conflict they care

about than what Americans are interested in. So let me just wrap it up by saying, to the point you're trying to make, Alex Jones, Hassan Piker and Destiny did not all decide just on Monday. They had criticisms of me. They always did. But why did they all make videos that one day? Could it be that on Sunday I was on Jubilee and my name was trending on social media? Yes.

Yeah, I think so. So you put my name, you're going to get clicks. And next week it'll go away. And they'll be talking about something else. I mean, do you think it's manufactured and artificial or do you think it's just because it's relevant in the news? Like talking about you as a moderate? All right. I think it's both. So for some people, it's, this is the trending story. I'm going to talk about it. And so I don't say that derisively, I think, if I am the news, then I am the news, right?

And that's just what we did right before this, right? We just talked about breaking news and what's relevant. Exactly. That's what you do on a news show. Completely agree. That's why I'm not, it's almost like you're labeling it as like adversarial, like these people are coming for me just because it makes the money. I'm not saying that all of these people are coming for me. I'm saying, if I'm the news, I'm the news. Gotcha. That's the point. People are going to talk about what It's trending. So people are like, how come all of a sudden people are just ragging on you on Twitter, Tim? And I'm like, because I'm trending.

Like, yeah, I mean, Alex's criticism is very, it's just interesting that you're like a show taking calls and taking orders from BB. I'm just like, where is he getting that from? He's making it out. Because I don't watch Info Wars or whatever it is now. See, Alex is doing the grift game. That's just it. And he's saying he wants to have a bare-knuckle boxing match. This is not real, right?

Destiny critiquing my performance on Jubilee, understood. Hassan, Hastan's, Destinies was good. Hassan's was just, ha ha, look at Tim walking off or whatever, which is like the intended condition of a Jubilee show, right? Destiny's was actually critiquing the conversation, which I can respect that. You don't got to agree with me. Alex is just trying to fight me because he knows there's not going to be a fight and he knows it's sensational.

He made a video where there's lightning striking behind him and he's like, I'm going to take you down. Oh, baby, makes me a word of fun. And then people like the entertainment. They like watching Alex rip his shirt off. That's just not real politics. So, I mean, I've never seen Alex as like a good contributor to the conversation. But I do think that, I mean, I saw it trending on Twitter when he's talking about you.

That's like the last thing I saw. And that's a thing, right? Alex's pile on is very interesting because I'm not entirely convinced it's just the trending thing. Because I don't believe that Tucker, Candice, Marjor Taylor Green, and Alex all just changed their opinions overnight. Well, I don't see that as real. they consistent? No. You don't think it's consistent for someone like Tucker to be like, I'm very isolationist

in my foreign policy, and now that Donald Trump has completely abandoned that, I'm going to be more critical? It wasn't, though. I mean, Trump. So when Tucker was on Fox News, he apologized for his earlier positions for being pro-war and, you know, back in the day. Yeah, he's a big Bush supporter, Iraq. Do you know Miriam Adelson is?

No. Yeah, wait. Sheldon Adelson was a Jewish guy, and he was a Jewish guy, and he was a Jewish guy. They're big supporters. They're big investors, right? He died. I believe he died. Miriam Adelson with the money.

It is estimated about $100 to $150 million allocated toward Trump, Trump victory in 2024 for support of Israel, rumored to be the annexation of the West Bank. Right. Tucker Carlson knew this and talked about it quite a bit. Now he's going, I can't believe this is happening. Had I known, I mean, I wouldn't have supported him. I apologize. Like, oh, come on, bro.

And then his brother literally says right after this, maybe Miriam Madison's money was for something. girls, because he knows exactly what he was doing. That is not sincere. And then Candace is just whatever the women of TikTok want. You know what I mean? Yeah, I mean, Tucker, it definitely is like, it seems like he's trying to capitulate to a subsection of the MAGA movement that are pissed off right now.

Oh, that's not Maga. Yeah, I think. Nick Fondez's his crowd was never MAGA. It's not, he's not just capitulating to Grypers. There's a lot of people that were in the MAGA camp that were like, I'm going to support this because anti-war. I'm not even a conservative, but he's more anti-war than Democrats. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, that was one of my biggest issues, is that Trump's first term, we didn't get any war. No new wars, in fact, we got the Abraham Accords. Now we get war with Iran prolonged with no end in sight, and he keeps claiming he's winning when he's not, and our prices are in the gutter. It's not good. How long till Cuba? And was it? How long till Cuba? Seven months.

Oh, not even. I mean, they're surrounding Cuba because Cuba's going to collapse. That's the point. And then they, like Venezuela, right? The issue right now, not to re-litigate what we later talked about, but draining the SPR is the greatest sign of oops. that's where it's like, uh-oh, the SPR is not for what they're doing. And so this is not good. Sooner or later, it's going to be a, yeah, just I'll leave it at that.

Point me. It was bad when Biden did it and it's bad. Biden did it and it was really bad. And Biden did it to stabilize prices. Now we have Trump doing it. It is bad. It is a sign of desperation. And draining the SPR below 300, this is a crazy story.

Yeah, it's not a good thing at all. And I think to your point, like as much as, you know, you try. to give analysis, there are going to be people that are going to say, well, if you're not telling me what I want to hear or telling me what I, you know, if you're not satisfying my emotional reaction to this, then you must support it. It happens all the time. My point ultimately is, I feel like most people are looking at the 70th floor of the Empire State Building and going, that's the foundation.

And I'm like, bro, there is so much more underneath that's going on. This is why I can't stand the Israel derangement people. It's like no other region in the world exists. No other conflict, no other financing, no other funding. We've given more to Ukraine in two years than we've given to Israel in 50. To be fair, they're consistent, right? They're like, nope, everything's Israel. And when you're that hyper-focused on one issue and blame essentially everything,

I mean, look, the people that are like, oh, I'm anti-Israel, a lot of times they blame all the woke stuff that's going on on Israel or on Jews and stuff, ignoring the fact that like the the French Revolution was motivated by the exact same things that are motivating the people today in the you know in the the woke

the revolution in the Soviet Union was motivated by the same thing that was going on in the French Revolution this is not just about Jews or Israel the way that they characterize it it's always the Jews I'm going to pull in this chat even though it's not a chat point because Slick makes a point it matters

because the country in question has unwavering support amongst the majority of those in D.C. And it's a result of bad theology gripping a large voting block. So agreed. However, Ukraine has more support, or at least did for the past several years. And Ukraine had its president come to our Congress where they waived Ukrainian flags. And they gave Ukraine more money in two years than we gave Israel in 50. I don't want to give Israel money. Their problems are their problems.

And I don't like the U.S. being dragging the wars because Israel's got issues with Iran. and they're fighting a war. Let's not be involved. However, if I'm going to triage this, I have to point out, if we keep up funding for Ukraine the way we do for Israel, we imagine, imagine how much money will have dumped into Ukraine if this war persists for a decade. God. It is insane. We are at 25X, the expenditure on Ukraine, with members of Congress waving their flag, with Americans putting Ukrainian flags in their bios. Now, I will say this. With the expansion of the Ukrainian war targeting Iran, Trump getting us involved in this war. I wouldn't vote for it. I don't want it. But we can't lose. That's just it. For all the problems we have, it's been this way for most of my life. When we got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, when I was a teenager, my position is the same. Bad leadership shouldn't be involved. They lied to us, but we have to get out cleanly and minimize the damage to the country. So the U.S. needs to succeed. Well, you're either escalation or we're going to surrender. And the purpose of surrender is if we back off, it's to minimize damage.

So if we're going to exit, it should be to minimize damage. And I would consider that at this point success. But the Iranians are a regime right now that has a million-man army that's willing to sacrifice everything for the current regime that Donald Trump wants to collapse. In what way do we surrender in a fashion where Iran doesn't get everything that they want? Well, agreed. My point is we have to look at what's on the table and minimize the damage as we get out. Like the point is it is going to be bad.

The only way that we... Wait, wait, wait. The phrase minimize the damage, like, even if it's... Even if there's a lot of damage, the phrase minimize the damage means do whatever is going to have the least amount. Not saying that there's not going to be damage,

not saying that this is a good idea, not saying anything. Like, just the phrase that Tim's using minimize the damage. There is absolutely a possible way to do it. It's just that it's not going to be good. Most minimal damage is going to be the Iranians get what they want.

That's really going to be... I think that's already... Now, what I will say is, yes, but we did kill 50 of their top leadership and really sure up. And the regime still hasn't collapsed. Agreed. You have like cutting off the head and the rest of it falls was just completely inaccurate with this. And it was funny because, uh, who was it, um, was it Eric Prince who warned about this a long time ago? He's like, it's a gambit. You, you're flipping a coin if you're going for Iran because you don't know. And these people are ideologically fervent.

This is, this is, this is the crazy. There's, there is no regime change in Iran. It's just not going to happen. You need decades to make some let that happen. It's just everyone loses in this scenario. It's been a complete strategic failure. Even the neocons are pissed off now. Like the MLU that was proposed is literally just the JCPOA light. Like it's everything that Barack Obama wrote in the Iran deal. They're pissed off. I talked to Will Chamberlain on Pierce Morgan. He's pissed off. He wants more escalation. The people who are anti-war is like, we need to stop this at all costs. We shouldn't even gone into this in the first place. It's just they've shot themselves in the foot in both angles. And again, I think I don't think it was a mistake. I think. I think.

that like Hegseth, these guys, they all knew that war meant the straight of Hormuz got shut down, and I think they like it. You're saying it was their intention, is what you're saying. I will say this. It is a mistake. They knew it would close the straight, and they're happy the straight closed. I do not believe the Iranians are the ones closing the straight. The U.S. has the blockaded.

It's a crazy admission that they're happy for the economic plight of Americans. I completely agree for their own political. And they're happy for their own political sense. First of all, it's not an admission. It's an accusation. Okay. This is what annoys me about politics is like, I say on the Jubilee show, they're, first of all, white supremacists are not a component of the Republican platform, but white supremacist

did vote for Trump, hoping that ICE would kill migrants. And then what do we get from liberals? They post Tim Poole admits. Admits, I'm accusing them. I am criticizing them. I am criticizing people in the coalition of lying the American people to engage in a war to cut off 20% of global oil, which is damaging to the U.S. economy, because they hate bricks. And it's part of a larger conflict.

I have a feeling that most of the top brass of the U.S. military did not want this and was like, please don't, please don't. Oh my God. No way. No way, dude. When Hitler invaded France, all of his military men were like, do not go into Europe. Do not fight Europe. You will lose.

We are winning. We're annexing the East. Do not. And Hitler was like, I have a bone to pick with France because I fought them in World War I. He was obsessed. Ian, the situation in Germany, what's 80 years ago, is not the same. is the situation. It's a situation where the military commander

had a different motive than all the military command. Yeah, but okay, so hold on a second, but you already said, I have a feeling. What evidence do you have to support? Well, it was an unwinnable conflict. No, no, no, no, no, but... Hold on, listen.

Phil, Hitler came to him in a dream. I'm accusing them, Phil. It's an accusation. You said I have a feeling. I'm asking... I have a feeling. Let me finish, dude.

You said you have a feeling. What evidence do you have? Because none of them have spoken up positively about it. They're all just doing their job with their heads down and the troops are suffering. No military commander is glad that their dudes are losing morale on an aircraft carrier. Yes, that is all very, very bad. The top levels, though, I'm pretty sure they're on board.

You think they want this? Yes. I don't think Trump wants us anymore. Not anymore, probably, because it hasn't gone by that you'd hoped. Again, the question is, is the bricks play the bigger play? With Ukraine bombing Iranian ships, is the bricks play the bigger play? And that's, and again, Ukraine bombing Iranian vessels and people that, are like, no, this is about Trump and Iran.

This is about everything. Oh, shit, that sounds like the beginning of a world war. If the Ukrainians are attacking the Iranians. You know that, right? Ukraine, Ukraine, which is separated by a land, by a massive body of land from the Caspian bombed the Iranian ships in the Caspian. Calling in the Allies now, I see. Ukraine was bombing because Iran was sending weapons to the Russians.

So Ukraine bombed Iranian ships. And Ukraine's work is basically operating under U.S. command. And they've got all this high-tech drone weaponry? The question ultimately is at what point does China enter the fold? If we take Cuba, they'll take Taiwan. They'll try. Well, actually, the U.S. just pulled our last carrier from the Pacific into the Indian Ocean because of the Strait of Hormuz. And now China could move on Taiwan and we're way too far away.

So again, this is a massive gambit, which the rate of success looks like it's going to be single digits of that. I know. So ultimately, back to the culture war point is, it is, this is why. So when I'm talking with Jubilee, right, they said, how do we, how do we label this? Tim Poole? And I said, honestly, I had no idea. If you call me a conservative, conservatives will get mad. If you call me liberals, liberals will get mad. Moderate liberals will get mad. Conservatives will say, okay. And so they said, well, A, B, tested. We'll put moderate. We'll put Tim Poole. And then Tim Poole ended up winning. And liberals still got mad. They said, there's no ways of moderate. And then what

happens is, I can be like, the war in Iran is bad. And then Alex Jones comes out, goes, Tim Poole wants the war, the war. The war, he endorses it. And then liberals go, Tim Poole admits it. And I'm like, I've been criticizing it from day one. Everybody is fake and they're all lying. It's all faking gay. It's like a logical warfare. It's just people getting clicks. They don't care.

They don't care about what's true or not. Like, I can literally be sitting down. It was really funny. Destiny had a really great take. I actually appreciated this one. He's like, when I, when, uh, I don't think it was you. I don't know if it was you was the other guy that, yeah, was the other guy. When I said white supremacists voted for Trump hoping that ICE would shoot migrants,

destiny busted out laughing being like, they have no responsibility. to this. They have no idea what to do when someone like Tim Poole says, yeah, white supremacists want to kill migrants because they don't understand they live in this political binary. And I'm like, I completely agree. Yeah, what did you get away from the Jubilee of that? It was interesting. I think that like when you say you're a moderate, is that like in the literal sense or in like Trump's going to win by like 49 state landslide sense? Like which one is. So what do you mean by is Trump? Like I'm just trying to understand like the language of Tim Cass. I know. Give me the context on the 49 state landslide.

Yeah, didn't you say like Donald Trump's going to win by a 49 state landslide? No. I could say is like an exaggeration. I never said that. Never? No. Interesting. See, this is the funny thing about the world you live in.

I'd love to see the. Sure. You want to know what I said? If Trump brought Andrew Yang as economic advisor and Tulsi Gabbard as national security advisor and then legalized pot and pardoned everybody for marijuana, he's going to win a 49 state landslide. And then the people you watch cut out the insane hypothetical of how to actually win the American people over like legalizing pot and then run a clip you see and you go, Tim thinks he's going to win. And then I said something like Moody's analytics put out a chart claiming Trump would win a 49

state landslide. Wow, that's crazy. And then they run those clips and you go, I can't believe Tim would say that. I just don't think that you believe that. And then I actually believe that Trump would win a 49th at a flight. Of course not. Right. But when you bring up something, you're like, wow, that's crazy. So if I'm, I'm, I'm, so it's 12 million people. You don't think people are going to walk away thinking that. No, I think liberals are liars for clicks. And then people like you don't look into it. So when you're asking questions, Tim, I don't. That's fine. But I'm making, but I'm making the same point. Okay. Do you know what Moody's analytics is? I don't know. Famous forecaster for presidential elections. They have extremely high accuracy rate. In 2019,

Moody's analytics forecasted that should certain conditions be met, Trump was looking at Reagan 49 state landslide territory. Gotcha. When Moody's analytics dropped that, every major news publication published it. and I picked the story up and said, here is what they are saying. And then what happens is liberals take it and they run with it. This is, I got the exact quote. You don't have the exact quote because there's like 78,000 of it. Well, this is the first one. You said Kamala Harris has been chosen, according to Chatshapet,

has been chosen to be vice presidential running mate for Joe Biden in the 2020 election cycle. And I'm sure most of you've already heard by now because the internet can't stop laughing. But the choice may be a gift to Donald Trump of a massive 49 state landslide. Now, you're probably saying, Tim, by what metric could you even possibly predict a Trump getting a 49 state landslide. It's actually a good point. There's no real hard data. What I'm actually talking about is the weird

ways in which history seems to be repeating itself. From what I could take, that wasn't a claim that there will be a 40%. And there's also another important point, that 49 state landslide is a meme. It doesn't actually mean 49 state landslide. It was a meme at the time among the right representing we're going to win. And so they kept posting like the retard Wojack and he would be putting a red state into a, like it's a map of America that's all red. And he's drooling and putting a red state in.

And then they're like 49th state landslide. A 49 state, yeah, landslide. Then later in 23, you said, Poole himself referred to the phrase differently, saying that 49 state landslide was a meme, meaning Trump wins handily, rather than a literal projection of exactly 49 states. Because it's a reference to Reagan.

Hyperbole. Okay, Ronald Reagan, we got a 40. For you being a moderate, though, like, what would you say are some like good attributes of the left? I just don't think I've seen that from you. And maybe I do live in a biased echo chamber, but I'd love to hear from you. It's like when you said that I admitted the war was bad, but we said it the entire time.

Like the whole whole political through line for me has always been anti-intervention. So let's go for this, right? Let me ask you a question. Do you think there should be a restriction on abortion? And I think it's literally any. Yeah, I think that when most people talk about like late-term abortion, they're referring to it as being like elective. Like a woman's going to go through eight months of pregnancy and then just all of a sudden decide, yeah, you know what? I don't want this kid, which typically is not the case.

That's not what we asked. When there is medical, like, necessity. But, like, just restriction in general. Like, any restrictions at any point? Well, that's why I'm saying. I think that it's a straw man to say that that's late. He's asking you, though. I'm not talking about late term.

I didn't bring that up. Well, I'm just, I'm prefacing. I'm prefacing what my answer is. I'm prefacing what my answer is. But you can just say sometimes there might be restrictions, yeah? I think that, but it's just like the restrictions, I think, like, create this weird paradox where women that do require it for medical necessity oftentimes have to jump through hoops. It's like the same thing when we've seen it in Texas, we've seen in Alabama where people have died because they need abortion and the doctors are scared to facilitate it because they could lose their medical license.

Yeah, but that's why I would say, I'd say no. No restrictions. Yeah. So do you think that if a woman wanted to get an elective late-term abortion, she should be allowed? I think that that is, it's just like a straw man. It doesn't happen. Hold on, hold on. It does happen.

It's a couple hundred per year. Is that, is that okay? I think that we need to empower doctors to be able to protect. women's health and safety. And so if I think that there could be some restrictions if it's proven that like it's an elective abortion, but I just don't know how you prove that. Is the, is the, argument you're making that because there's only a few hundred late term elective abortions per year, we don't want to put the restrictions on it because it could inhibit women who actually need medical intervention. Yeah, I just think the examples of like healthcare professionals that

end up becoming afraid to facilitate like protecting the health and well-being of the mother because they're afraid of losing their license, that's a greater net negative than like the... So if it were possible to say we will make sure there's no restrictions on medical intervention. Yeah, if we could add that in the legal language. Then we completely agree. I think that once the baby can live, there's no reason to kill it, right? If the woman's already pregnant and the baby is viable, then just deliver the baby and put it up for adoption. Put in a NICU, whatever it has to be.

The issue, so I consider myself what we call traditional pro-choice, and the reason is the modern left is, you know, Michelle Wolf going abortions, abortions, and like acting like it's something to celebrate when it's not. And then the issue is the ultimate question that the left never answers is, why should we make unrestricted abortion? So I think that my position is if woman goes to the doctor and there's something related to her medical health or physical health, that. that is causing problems to where the doctor needs to intervene, which will result in the loss of the baby and nobody's business. The idea that a woman should be able to use abortion as contraception is wrong. But I believe the answer is cultural. Ron Paul said at best, abortion should not be illegal. It should be unthinkable. And so the issue is not the exercise of law. The issue is exercise of culture. And I actually think written law doesn't really matter. It matters what a society

is willing to tolerate. Yeah. And I think that the best way to facilitate people excited to start families and give birth is creating the economic conditions that allow people to do that. Making sure that people have the wages to support a family, making sure that we have access to necessary goods. That is how you're going to build the necessary. I'm going to make a, I'm going to make a prediction. I think you're further right than I am. In what way? In the actual way, not the tribalistic way. So tribal, so when we define left and right, we're referring to political tribes, right? So when you say left, you're clearly referring to even the Lincoln Project, despite their old curmudgeon neocons.

I would not say the Lincoln Project's left. The Lincoln Project is squarely in the left, even though we don't consider them to be like far left, leftist. I'm talking about tribes. They are anti-Trump and they support the Democratic Party. They are tribal left. That is the tribal left. No, I'd say people like Joe Manchin and John Federman are right.

And you would say that they're part of the left coalition. Correct. Those are tribal right. We're not talking about economics or culture. We're talking about tribes. John Federman aligns with the right on most issues, although he votes with Democrats, who's in a weird position, Manchin as well. When they talk, they are, they're fairly middle, but they're leaning tribal right. So, for instance, I'm pro-progressive tax, right?

I'd imagine you want to tax the rich. Yeah. Do you think that we should have tariffs on goods? I'm not talking about Trump's tariffs on tariffs. No, well, I think that tariffs can be advantageous in certain sectors, but I think the universal tariffs like Trump... We want to talk about that. Incorrect. Do you think that the U.S. should have tariffs on goods?

goods in any capacity? Yeah, I think they can be helpful in some situation. So yes. Yeah. Do you think that we should put tariffs on like auto manufacturing to force these manufacturers back to the United States? I don't think that, I think we've crossed a line there, and a lot of that was the deregulation of Ronald Reagan that has moved a lot of these industries out of the U.S. So I think it would be really difficult to bring them back. But I think when you go to places like Detroit and you see just barren wastelands that used to be thriving communities and industries, it's really difficult to contend with, okay, how are you going to move this back into a thriving? So just very simply, there'd be a huge debate on the merits, the metrics and all that, but you would say no to auto tariffs.

I just think it depends on the implementation for sure. I'm not like anti-protectionist trade policy, but I am anti- So middle of the road on the tariff issue. Yeah. I'm to the left of you on that issue. I think that we should absolutely implement trade protectionism for the American worker. Well, I'm not like big into like we need global free trade for these types of injuries. I know. That's why I said you're to the right of me. Okay, sure. You're in the middle. That's fair, right? Yeah. Okay, I'm to the left of you on that issue. What about, like, migration? Do you think that we should allow illegal immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, we're going to call them, when they enter the country to work in the United States?

Well, it depends on what you're, well, yeah, if you just want yes or no answers, then yes. Yeah, I think that. That's the right wing position. That is the right economic position. It's not. That is the right economic position. It's not. Yes, it is. No, libertarians who want like a cheaper labor force and to increase the labor pool to make sure that corporations are able to pay people less, that is a right position. My position is by legalizing and giving these people amnesty or making sure that they're citizens and that they're actually able to collectively bargain and unionize within their workplace to advocate for stronger positions, it's not a right-wing position. It actually is. No, it's not.

Right economics for free trade and free movement is a right economic position. No, no. It factually and academically is. It's not an opinion statement. So Donald Trump's left on immigration? Yes. Okay. So I strongly recommend that you read about these things, right?

So what does left and right mean? There's a few different qualifiers. There's a cultural scale, this is the economic scale, and there's a tribal scale. So typically when we're speaking publicly, they're all used interchangeably and often don't make sense. However, in most arguments, people are referring to the tribal nature. That's why you'll have Jimmy Dorr called right wing, despite the fact he's a socialist. And you'll have John Fetterman called left by some and right by others because the referring to the particular tribal stances they make. Economics on the left and right scale,

right refers to, on the far, on the far right of the economic scale, you have laissez-faire capitalism. On the far left, you have communism. So you're isolating for political ideology or culture. As you move closer to freedom of movement, you are on the right. As you move closer to trade protectionism, you are on the left, the public good and control of these systems. So economically, I am to the left of where you are on that issue, as are many Republicans. Republicans. This was Bernie Sanders' position in 2016. We cannot allow these people to come into work. In fact, the World Socialist website called him a nationalist capitalist for that position. They said a lot when Bernie said the socialists called Bernie a capitalist when he took the position of we should not let these people come in. They said he was trying to protect the American worker. But that's actually the left position. You have the cultural scale. And this is nebulous because culture change. changes. But the cultural scale inverts, depending on what period you're in, this is why they talk about the Southern strategy. This is why Democrats used to be the Klan, but now the Democrats

have more non-whites in Congress than Republicans do, even though Republicans had the first black members of Congress. Left and right on the cultural scale is amorphous and generational. So again, when we're isolating policies based on their appropriate scale, I think it's fair to say that you land to the right of me on some issues. I don't know why that's hard to believe. I'm not saying everything. No, but I just, I think it's funny to try to attribute like believing in people's ability for free movement or civil liberties when it comes to them being able to enter the country is a right-wing position. That absolutely is not. The right position is the nationalist idea that this country does not have ethnic hegemony

unless it has a particular culture that's maintained. That's a right cultural position. That is the hierarchy that is established by the nationalist worldview. So let's say that Donald Trump is left-wing on immigration is absolutely incorrect. And I think every Republican would laugh at you too to say Donald Trump's left. he's more left than most. So have you ever looked at the political compass? Yeah, but I think the political compass is even biased, mostly towards, like, libertarian left.

I largely agree with that. I think that libertarian right, like, isn't even, like, a real ideology. I think that... You what? The libertarian right isn't even, like, a real ideology. You're always going to maintain hierarchy, whether that's through the government,

tempering down on the right. I agree. I think libertarians are nuts. You think the libertarian right doesn't think of... No, no, no, no, he's disparaging them as wishful thinkers. So you're saying that they, that the right libertarians don't believe in any hierarchy? No, they do believe in hierarchy.

Okay. I'm not saying it's more of a corporate, like, actual capitalist hierarchy than it is with the government hierarchy. He's right. I can't stand the Lazy Fair capitalists where they're like, it's better this way, and then you get a monopoly that buys everything, and then you get the oil barons or the East India trading company. Well, they're just, they're not fine with government tyranny, but they're fine with corporate

tyranny. Exactly. You get unanswerable, like East India trading company killing 50,000 people for black pepper corn. Like, okay, you just, this idea of like, we'll be more free when we let one corporation buy everything is silly. And then you'll move upwards towards authoritarian when you have a government, I'm not saying literal authoritarian. I'm saying you are more authoritarian when the government comes in and breaks these corporations up, but that is anti-free trade. So you're basically saying, we're not going to let you buy whatever you want because you all buy people. You know what I mean? But that's why I think the political compass is, it's not like the best way to look at different political ideologies.

I think that looking at the left and right spectrum as like, how much do you want to preserve hierarchy is a better metric towards establishing what political ideology. Well, so, so, but hold on. Like with the far left, the various far left where you would like destroy all hierarchy would be like an anarchist world view. And I don't think that that's something. But the ultimate far left is communism. No, but I would disagree. I think that like the more that you try to dismantle hierarchy, you get. to like anarchy where you're dealing with like syndicates or like workers unions. If you want,

we're talking about like the furthest left. So this is this is actually, the furthest right you see is like totalitarian fascism. You're talking about a totally different scale, which is typically top to bottom. When we talk liberty decentralized to centralized authoritarian on the compass, that's why I bring it up. The scale that you're using is used by anarchists quite a bit where they say either the, they will choose whether they want to identify as left or right and then claim the other side. So what people, what right wing libertarians will do is they'll say the far right is freedom and anarchy, and the far left is totalitarian communist. And what the communist will do is that the far left is equality and distribution, and the far right is corporateist

monopolist. But those are personalized to a singular ideology. Let's just break it down and refer to the scales I'm talking about. Economic scale, where on the left, you could have authority or otherwise. No. On the left, libertarian communism is a real thing. The people, the right doesn't believe in. Libertarian and commune. Well, that's like that syndicalist worldview of like decentralized unions. It exists when you have a hippies on a farm and they share their watermelon and do the dishes together. There is no one in charge of the farm. They all just hang out in their friends. And then, you know, Ian's civil war Spain with workers unions syndicates. Until the, they got crushed. You know what I mean? Like, you know, like, you know,

but Ian's on a farm and he walks and he goes, dude, I grew some watermelon. You guys want to share it? Yeah, man. Then they eat it together. And then, bro, thanks for making the watermelon. I'll take care of the trash for you. That's, it works really well at small scale. On the right, it works really well at small scale as well. But then you get a monopoly, you get the East Enda Trading Company, and they kill people over Pepper. So if we're if- Coca-Cola death squads and-

Or banana death squads in, you know, Guatemala or whatever, banana death squads. This is crazy, right? The Banana Republic. So the point I'm making is, if we are talking about non-authoritarian, we're talking literally about laissez-faire capitalism to decentralized, you know, communal structures,

I would be to the left of you on some issues. But here's what I'm going to say. I think your issue with it largely is a tribal reaction. You don't want to emotionally accept that I'm to the left you on some things. Well, I'd be fine if you actually lived up to those left-wing positions. Like, how do I? How do I not? I think advocating for Donald Trump, who absolutely is not on those left ends of the spectrum.

Like, which ones? Like, he's not left-wing on immigration, which is a complete mischaracterization. Tribally, sure, but I'm not talking about tribe. I'm clearly on the right tribe. It's not even tribally. It's economic as well. Okay, come on. Establishing a, like a nationalist economy is not a left-wing position. Then I'm with Bernie on this one.

Something that is in what you said about being a democratic socialist is a more international view. But I think if you take global poverty, that's seriously. It leads you to conclusions that in the U.S. are considered out of political bounds. things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to the, up to a level of open borders, about sharply increasing. Open borders. That's a Coke brothers proposal. The idea, of course. I mean, that's a right-wing proposal.

Oh, my God. Bernie, let's go! It's right-wing in the sense that not giving them citizenship will be easier for corporations to exploit them. You trying to justify why open borders is some not thing. I'm going to go my boy, Bernie, on this one. And that's why I backed him in 2016. Right. You know what these people do?

But if you legalize them, it becomes a left wing. Well, keeping them illegal makes them a more easily exploitable workforce, where not only are they not able to collectively bargain, but at the same time, a lot of these corporations threaten ICE or they threaten deportation if they bring up things like wage theft or they bring up things like unpaid wages or unpaid benefits. That is a right wing position, which is further establishing a hierarchy where this is a vulnerable class that's easily expected. I think, you know, I'm going to go with my men burning on this one and just say, you know, you can say what you want. You think that more workers, you think that more workers in a

labor pool that build a larger union that can collectively bargain at a higher rate with their employers is a right-wing position? When they enter the country illegally, padding the workforce of that corporation, you said, do. It's not about them. It's about reforming the immigration system to make it easier to become a citizen in this country. Well, that's a different question from open borders. Well, that's, then that's like, that was my position. I'm for immigration. Then why would you somebody like Donald Trump. Well, there's a difference between someone coming to the country legally and someone going through a border illegally. Well, if someone goes through the legal mechanism and they're proposing to denaturalize those people, in what way is that promoting the legal process?

Who's proposing denaturalizing legal? Donald Trump ordered the DOJ to denaturalize up to 2,000 people a month. You can fact check me on that. For what? On things like green cards, on things like permanent residency. But for what justification? Because he thinks that certain people from certain countries don't add to the value of this country. So what is the, what law grants denaturalization?

What law? Yes, what law provides for denaturalization? Well, this was at the command of the executive. So it wasn't a piece of legislation that was written into Congress. It absolutely. It's the law. It's the INA. And it grants Marco Rubio the authority pending at his sole discretion to revoke visas.

And with justification, green cards, meaning for green card holders, they can cite justification. Green card holders have a right to adjudication. For naturalized citizens, if there is fraud found in the naturalization process, they can be denaturalized. That's the INA. And that gives Marco Rubio the power. Yeah, fraud, concealing criminal conduct, terrorism, national security concerns, which is pretty vague, but there are certain serious criminal offenses. The fraud and national security, I mean, you're critical of Israel too much, and now you're going to lose your citizenship. But that's not what happens. It's only 100 people per month, 100 to 200 people per month are being denaturalized.

Which is upwards of 2,000 people a year. year, yeah, 4,400 a year. What did I say a month? I meant year. Sorry about that. No, no, you said year. I was correcting you. Okay.

The dude who got his visa revoked for being anti-Israel, I have two things said about that. Nobody, I really think it's stupid. If there's like a student at a school who's anti-Israel, you're going to pull their visa. However. What's your thoughts on Mahou Khalil? That's what I'm talking about. Okay. Yeah, like, if he was at school and he was just like, you know, blogging and like writing papers.

Well, he participated in an encampment, which is what they said. Which is where you're getting into. the threshold of criminal activity and a question of national national interest. But participating in a protest. As not an American citizen yet get out. Why are we

letting foreign individuals protest our government in our country? He's a permanent resident. He's not a citizen. He's a foreign individual. He's still not a citizen. Do you make a distinction between people that are permanent residents and citizens? Do you think that criticizing the government should be allowed based on your paperwork? I just, yes, I do. Yes, I do. And listen, I don't have the same position as Tim, right?

I'm full on totally anybody that's here illegally out. Anybody here that's illegal, if you're here illegally, you need to go. But do you believe that there is a distinction between a person that is not a citizen and a person that is a citizen? Yeah, but I think that the constitutional rights should be granted to all persons, as it says in the law. What constitutional right? You're talking about the freedom of speech? I think that people that are here that are not citizens. It actually doesn't say that.

The Secretary of State, the State Department, has carte blanche to deport any guest that has paperwork at any time. And I'm perfectly fine with that. And, D.N.A. It actually, to clarify, I don't care about your moralizing. It does not say that. The Constitution doesn't grant the right of any person to speak. Well, it says of all persons, that's specifically the language that I was talking about. It doesn't.

It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or bridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for reaches of grievances. Sorry, the right of the people. Which is a reference to what? To the people. The people means the citizens of the country. Well, that could be an interpretation that you're taking.

You're taking a hard right stance on immigration. I'll go with the right of me. You think Bernie Sanders is the right wing? I think Bernie Sanders in this, again, is talking about the exploitability of undocumented workers. And do you think that even if you allow undocumented workers to come into the country, can they be exploited? Absolutely. Will they be exploited? Yeah. Even if, even if you provide protections. Do people in unions ever get exploited? If we have, people in unions ever get exploited?

Not at the same rate as people are individualized. I didn't ask what right. I said, do they get exploited? Yeah, of course. Are they being exploited today? Yeah. So you're going to let corporations exploit workers at a lower rate and that's still okay. That's still a straw man. And we'll call you moderate right way. Being in the union, being able to collectively organize with fellow workers, absolutely increases your ability to withstand exploitation. That's the difference. It doesn't mean that it's going to end it all right. Be coming into a union makes everything early.

What if the union votes have them deported? What do you mean? If the union votes to deport the workers that are now citizens in the union, that makes no sense. Like the unions that backed Trump. In 2024, a bunch of the unions backed Trump and they wanted these people removed. Well, first of all, backing a president that's trying to increase the ability for corporations to union.

is not in the same interests. And why did they support them? And if you're talking about the teamsters. And why did they support it? If you're talking about the teamsters that endorse Trump at the RNC in order to get favorability amongst a presidential administration that is going to determine how strong their union is able to be, that's a whole different thing than saying union support Trump in full book. I'm talking about the ones that did.

Which party do you think is more in favor of further unionization? Let's ask that. The Democrats. Okay. So I don't understand where, what the issue. You have an emotional. reaction to the statement that open borders is a right-wing proposal. I have a fact check here. You have absolutely no much of my reaction. I'm not pro-open borders. When did I say that?

I have a fact check for you guys regarding people's right to peaceably assemble. Yes, it does refer to non-citizens as well. The Supreme Court ruled Bridges v. Wixen that stand corrected. That non-citizens have the right for peaceable assembly. I mean... And I also agree that under the INA, the Secretary of State can remove them. For what exactly? What does it give them? Anything they want. Marco Rubio has unilateral authority to revoke permits under certain restrictions, green cards, and with fraud, citizenship. But not like you looked at me weird? Because you just said yes. Wait, wait.

No, no, no, no, no, for visas. Secretary of State. You looked at me strange. You're not a citizen. You're out. No, no, no, stop. That's what I asked. Visas.

Any reason. Green card, certain restrictions, citizenship with fraud. So if a guy is here on a tourist visa or a temporary work visa or an athlete visa, the Secretary of State can say, I don't care. I don't need a reason. You're gone. It's just wild to be a part of nonviolent expression against like a government action. And your response to that is going to be like, hell yeah, let's remove them from the roots they built here as a permanent resident. It's not wild. Well, no one said that. If your population, no one said that. Bill said that. Oh, sure. I mean, that's what I said. I don't agree with Phil. My argument was,

like, if he's anti-it, you're allowed to criticize Israel, you're allowed to come to this country, people who come to this country come from all sorts of countries with all sorts of disagreements in the United States. Organizing and being involved in big protests is where you're on the line of criminality. It's not criminal. That's what I just said. It's part of expression against a government action. So was anybody at those accountants arrested? Yeah, there were. So there's a line of criminality. But what are they arrested for? What's the severity of the crime? That's why I said it's the line. I'm not saying they're murdering people.

If he's speeding, then like a permanent resident can get their residency removed and get deported to a country who they might not have. The plurality of this country votes for immigration enforcement. That's democracy. And I may not completely agree on the threshold, but I'm not going to also go and protesting. I'm objecting to the action. I'm not saying that it's going to happen if a majority of people want it in the current system that we have. But we can all agree that there are some laws that we'd consider immoral. What if you were in charge of the country?

Most of the laws are immoral. Hypothetic, if you were in charge of the nation's security and you were at war with another country and you found a bunch of their citizens were here without, you know, they were citizens, but they were protesting and advocating for the other country to win and for your country to fall and for you to die? Like, what would you do as a commander of the military? Well, it depends on what the actions are. If they're threatening the security and safety of other people

that are living within the country, but by violent means and absolutely the government should come up. No, it's all by voice. They're sitting in groups and they're saying, we need the U.S. to fall, we need, and more people keep coming to their group. That's part of having freedom of speech. The group is growing and growing and growing. It's allowing people to say things that even the government does not agree with.

Yes. Correct. No, I disagree. Your job is the military commander of the security of the nation. You notice that now this group is growing and growing and growing and growing. And now you know maybe they're open carrying. Now you know they're growing even bigger and they're louder. Like at what point are you going to do anything?

To take the predictive measure of I'm going to stop crime before it happens is the exact justification for every authoritarian regime. But it's also not stopping crime before it happens can also lead to the downfall of your nation. Look at Neville Chamberlain. Again, you're saying that the justification is worth it for the government to do that. that predictive crime. It's never, I would say no. It's never yes or no. It's not one or the other.

Here's a thing. The British didn't intervene with the German war machine and because of that, the Germans invaded. Let me ask you some, let me ask some questions. Who's your favorite president?

Yeah, you're going to say FDR did the Japanese. I'm not, absolutely. I'm not talking about FDR. I'm asking you who your favorite president was. I don't know. I don't think that we should look at politicians as celebrities,

but I do think that like, as far as like the domestic agenda, I do like the policies of FDR. Okay. When it comes to rebuilding the working class Do you know who the most... You know who the most popular president in American history is? Probably George Washington early on.

Incorrect. Who is it? He's a top contender. Abraham Lincoln. Wait, I disagree with that. No way. When Americans are polled, Abraham Lincoln takes the top of the spot. Oh, now.

I thought you're saying at the time who was... No, no, no, no, no, no. I was like, no fucking way, we broke up the country. When they run polls, there's one guy who's won nearly every single time through the generations. And who removed habeas corpus and, yeah. And like, so did FDR. I mean, the things that he did. The internment camps.

Like at some point, just speaking, yeah, it's peaceful to a point, but you can rally a lot of subverterner danger with just peaceful. So we got it. We think the Japanese internment cancer were necessary? It's hard to tell because there was no control study. I don't know if there wouldn't think Japanese revolts inside of the country if they hadn't intern them. I think that. Tell me how you can reconcile that.

How me? Yeah, yeah. So they, I don't think they were necessary because in the 40s, right, we're, we're, we're when they were interning them, most of the people that came to the United States were pro-United States and wanted to become Americans. And they were very, very small in population.

The numbers were microscopic. And so I don't think the interment of Japanese, and we talked about this the other night because he had made some comment about interning Chinese people, the possibility of interning Chinese people which is like 3% of the population. So I don't think the Japanese internment was even defensible because when people came to the United States,

in that time frame, they wanted to become American. You saw people saying, no, we're not speaking the old language. We're going to learn English, et cetera, et cetera. So I don't think that it was defensive at all. We ought to grab some questions from the crew here, the Timcast Discord, and we went a little along, so I'll try and grab what I can. I have some questions after that. Just a couple before we leave.

SWC says, question for Mason, if the Constitution gives rights to all people inside the borders of the U.S., then what is to stop transient non-citizens for purchasing weapons, assembling militias, voting, or creating parallel systems of power. What separates an invasion from an other than legal mass migration? Well, there's a difference between identifying a threat that can happen within the country and having proper evidence to do that.

That's what probable cause is. And so showing that like you're organizing a militia that has clear intent to harm U.S. citizens, absolutely the government would have justification. So then people gathering and saying, look, we want to tear down the government or we want to do take, hold on, hold on, let me finish, saying that they want to tear down

the structures of the government. they want to do all these things that would basically change the government or or say start a revolution. That's not probable cause. That's not intent. People on a college campus saying we cannot continue to enable a genocide happening. I was specific in my question. I was specific in my question. People that are saying we're revolutionaries.

We want to tear down the government. We want to tear down the existing structures. Those are specific things. That's not probable cause. If you had the means in order to bring about like violence towards American citizens, that would be probable cost. There's like a billion guns in America. So what are you saying?

I think it's 650 million. Yeah. So there's definitely means to start a violent uprising. It's very, I mean, I'm, and I'm as pro two-A as it comes. But there's a difference between organized militia that's specifically designed to inflict violence versus those that are against government action. Absolutely. No, no, but that's not, again, you're changing it because I didn't say against government action. I said people that say we need to tear down the government.

We need to start a revolution. That's not being, I'm against this particular action. That's being being against the government against the United States. I think saying that, no, well, then I'd say that we're at a difference versus what we're interpreting a lot of these encampments. I'm specifically talking about the encampments. I don't think that deporting people for participating in protest against Israel's continuing a genocide is something that's worth removing citizenship. What about China? What about China?

What about China with what? Like the Falun Gong. Should we, you know, would you defend their right to protest China? I'm unfamiliar. Any group that's protesting any other country, are they allowed to be here? You know what I mean? Like, I'm not even talking about the U.S. government actions. I'm saying there's a group of people that are Chinese that hate China.

So they're protesting China in the United States. Did you take issue? No. Why would there be an issue with that? I'm asking you if there's a distinction you see in the morality of a genocide versus any other country. No. That's all the question was. Let's grab this because we don't have a lot of time.

Let's see. Let's say it's hard to read. Roton Nation says, Mason, if artificial wombs existed in mass, what argument would women have about abortion if they had the ability to transfer the embryo safely out harm? I ask because then everyone wins. Well, let me simplify this question as should women be allowed to get abortions if an artificial womb existed that could preserve the life of the embryo? I think that our preservation of life is something that's important.

And obviously abortion is always going to be a morality issue of where you, you know, you necessarily see life. I think that personal autonomy is something that we guarantee within our legal system, and we don't prioritize preservation of life over that bodily autonomy. So, like, in an instance where, like, if you were in a car crash that you cause because you drunk drive, you initially volunteered to put someone else's life at risk, and they require, like, a kidney transplant, you happen to be a match. No same person would say, yeah, the government should force you to donate a great kidney to that person. Now what if you... That's the same thing I'd view with pregnancy. Let's say it's when she's pregnant, 10 weeks pregnant. And she says, I don't want to be

pregnant. For whatever reason, it's none of your business. Yeah. And the doctor says, we can remove the embryo and put it into an artificial wound where it will survive. Yeah, I think that that's definitely going to be an interesting conversation when that technology exists because we're going to be on trap to be there. It does exist right now. They just, they just don't, it's not commercial for human use. It's, they've already proven it with animals. Like lambs and stuff. Yeah. So it exists. The question is, and the question needs to there's a way, yeah, if there was a way to, to do that safely for protecting the health, then yeah, I think that that could be a compromise.

I think that's the only answer. I mean, because then it's, okay, fine, you can terminate the pregnancy, but not the baby. And then the baby gets to live and the woman has her choice or whatever it may be, and no one's happy, but. Yeah, I just, I don't think that. Everyone's bummed out means you make the right choice. Does the woman have to pay for the gestation of the baby in the artificial womb, or do I have to pay for it as a taxpayer?

Oh, here we go. There's no answer. I don't want to pay for other people's artificial baby wounds. I got enough problems in my life. That's a good point. a good point. I got no answers. I would rather pay for the artificial baby wounds than pay for the abortion. I don't want to pay for any of it. All right. Well, guys, we only have a couple of minutes left and you wanted to ask some questions. Yeah, I just, I saw a lot of the Charlie Kirk portraits and

behind you. Autographed. I just, I had a question about, um, who is your, who's your source that said that he was stable? I, I don't want to, uh, let me put, let me, let me, you don't want to, you don't want to share who it is. My security company is friends with Charlie's security company. And so when all this stuff was going down, the people who work here were in constant conversation. Let me put it like this. I don't want to get anybody fired,

and I don't want to make anybody the center of attention. I got a phone call. I was calling everybody, and we were told by someone on Charlie's team that he was stable. And I said, can I report this? And they said, yes.

And I said, okay. And I wasn't sure. But I'll tell you the reality is the information that we were getting, was basically like he's not dead. And we were like, please God. And then the next thing we hear is they've got him in the hospital, he's stable. Or I don't know if he's at the hospital at that point.

They were like, he's stable. It was on the way. It was on the way. I think what we were told was that at the time, and this is what's really, really so offensive about so many people, man, I mean, first of all, celebrating his death. And then people like, I don't know if Hassan was doing this, but they're tweeting, like tweeting at me like, he was stable, he was stable. These people can go fuck themselves.

Charlie had just gotten shot, literally no one knew what happened. Within minutes, we're getting messages saying he's not dead. And I think what happens is the information we got relayed was not to say that he was in a hospital bed with his heart beating and they were transfusing blood and he was alive. It was that he's in transport to the hospital and he's not dead. That's what they meant by stable. And so now in hindsight, nobody asks what happened on that day and they take it and manipulate it to presume, I'm saying Charlie's laying in a hospital, they've got him on life support and he's okay. Yeah, I just ask because I think you were like the first person to say, not definitively,

but just something. You know what the sad reality is? Behind the scenes, we are being told he's alive and stable. And again, I think what they're conveying to us in the car is he's in the car and alive and he's not actively dying. Gotcha. But the reality is on the phone, the people crying

are like, I think he's going to die. And I'm fucked up, man. Reliving that. I get a phone call. Charlie got shot. And the only thing we wanted to believe was that he was not going to die. And then when I get a phone call

and they're like, damn, I don't think he's going to fucking live, bro. I think he's going to die. But they're telling us that he's alive and he's stable. And I tweeted that because I wanted to it to be fucking true. Man.

These fucking demons. Dude. We did that Jubilee episode. And I said there are white supremacists that voted for Trump hoping that ICE would kill migrants. And these motherfuckers wrote story saying Tim Poole says he wants ICE to kill migrants.

These are fucking demons. I don't want anybody shot. I don't want anyone to die. I don't want you or any liberal or any progressive to be hurt or kill. or beaten by cops, but mother, Jesus, these people and the things they say, dancing on stage with fake blood on their necks. We live with demons, man.

I just pulled up your tweet about it from Grock, and it says, source tells me Charlie is stable, please God. You didn't say he was stable. You said, source tells me, Charlie's stable. And then you followed up, I received a call from a trustworthy source who told me this. I want to believe and I'm hoping. Just pray. That was your response to it.

And I had 17 phone calls at that moment where I was like, bro, I had one dude who works in security. So I don't want to say too much, but... I only brought it up just because I don't think I ever heard the... Yeah, no disrespect to you. So I just wanted to ask since I had the opportunity. I also mentioned that, you know, Ben Shapiro said that he was getting updates from Charlie's security team. And that was true for us the same.

And Candace is a liar. And all these people lied. So I'll make sure this is very clear for everybody. My security team involves on the ground guards, the head of the company, secretaries. Charlie's security has very much the same. Charlie's security was not literally just four guys in a van. His security company probably has 100 plus employees. Our security company, they're all friends with each other.

So when we need security, our security guy calls them up and says who you got located in these locations. We've worked with Charlie's security, like not formally, but like when we go to TPSA events, we've had Charlie security working for us. We were at TPSA. Their security did security for us because that's security for the whole event. So when this is going down, the logistics, people are getting information relayed by the people on the ground, which is not everybody in the car, and they're talking with other security. It includes Ben's that includes ours. Why? Charlie just got

shot, and it's not even necessarily a professional courtesy. It's that they're friends. Like, the guy who runs our security company is friends of the guy who runs Charlie's security company. So he probably is on the phone calling them, be like, yo, what just happened? And they're like, this is what we know. Stay tuned. And then all of these conspiracy people are acting like, Charlie only had three security guards in the car calling Ben Shapiro. So I'll tell you this. I probably had like 17 phone calls. One security guy said before we knew anything,

I was driving with my wife and we got on the highway when Alex Stein called me and he said, Charlie's been shot. And I said, I'll call you back. What? And I hung up. And that was within like 30 seconds of it happening. I guess, you know, Alex was watching. We are on the highway.

We're heading to Winchester. And this is when. I start getting my phone starts blowing up. People who work here are friends with people who work for Charlie. Like we know all these people. We're at Amfest every year. Literally friends as in they were literally texting each other about clothes and food and shopping when this went down. As much as we were hearing positive things, I will tell you the secret that nobody said when I said, I'm hearing he's able source.

I hope it's true. I had heard 17 times he was dead. Not that he was like overtly dead. But I get one of the calls that's notable is a guy who does. security, firearms specialty firearms training, sniper stuff. Hey, Tim, ain't, ain't nobody surviving that shot? And I was like, bro, don't tell me this dude. And he's like, you're saying you said it just in hopes that it was true. When I was told no one's surviving that shot. It was not definitive. I'm just, I'm sorry. I was asking. When I got a call and, and I said, tell me what's going on.

He's like, brother, no one's surviving that. It wasn't a Charlie's dead. So I am not. going to tweet, Charlie can't survive. The official statement we got, hey, Charlie's, I think it was, I don't know what time it was, you have to check. And I may have, I may have waited to tweet it, but it was, he's stable. And again, 743 general mountain time, which is, no, that's not correct. Because I was, that was way, Charlie got shot at like three o'clock or something. Yeah, yeah, I remember just like four p.m. It would have been around four because I was live streaming at 4.30. Something like that. What it meant is that, that, that was, my understanding was they were saying he's on his way and he's not dying. Like they're holding his nag or whatever.

Like there was no super specifics. It was just like he's alive. So I don't know, man. And now, and now, uh, thanks for the context. Yeah, yeah, no restrict you. Like I was there. You know what I mean? It's just, uh, but you knew him well. I was just texting with him. Like I had just, like, not that day, but like, uh, like a week earlier, you know, we were texting. And I didn't know him super well. you know, I would call him a friend just in that, I put it like this, we weren't bar buddies, we didn't hang out, but if I publicly said, what don't think Charlie is my friend, he'd be offended. He'd be like, what? He's like, what are you talking on the phone? Like, what you mean? You know, I don't know, it is what it is. So, we just live with, the people are, people are nasty,

you know what I mean? We just is what we do. We do got to go, though. It was great having you. You definitely have you back because I think the conversation was fantastic. Yeah, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. And it's funny. I appreciate the team. Your team's been very accommodating. My flight got canceled like once and maybe twice last night. Oh, I appreciate it. Always. Always. I just want to stress like what you get on Jubilee versus when we actually have time to sit down, have real conversation. It's more fruitful. So follow me on next and Instagram. Do you want to shout anything out? Yeah. Check out Twitter, I guess, one-hand politics. If that's the camera I'm supposed to look at. Or Twitch. I stream like pretty frequently every week. So if you want to check me out there. Appreciate you all having me. Yeah, good time, man. I hope that the fact checking help, this was a blast, man. I'm sorry, Ian. did it say GMT?

Yeah. That's Greenwich Mean Time. Oh, those general mountains. Where the hell is my mind? Are there four times zones in the U.S. or three? Someone commented. They're like, does Ian think GMT means general mountains? Thanks. That's French Meantime.

That's British centric. That's with the center of the universe, zero, the prime meridian they call it. It's all British propaganda. Hey, follow me at Ian Crossland. Let's have this conversation again. I enjoy it. And I'll be back on the fact checking if I can, Phil Labonte. I am.

fill the remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon. It's patreon.com slash fill the remains. The band is all that remains. You can check out our music on Apple, music, Amazon, music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. Mason, thanks for coming out, man. It's been a pleasure. I hope to have you back. Great conversation, everyone. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, at Carter Banks official, everywhere else. Follow the record label on Trash House Records on YouTube. And yeah, that's it. I'm going to say one last thing as we wrap this up. just to simplify the point on Charlie, what makes me angry is that the tweet saying that he was stable,

and I'm praying and please God be true, was a tweet of hope that he could survive, despite the fact most of us believed he wouldn't, that is currently being weaponized by nasty people, maybe evil's a better way to describe it, to mock my pain on that day, and what hope we tried to preserve. So, I get it. It's the Internet. This is what the Internet does. There you go.

But I assume most of you watching already understood all of that anyway, but it feels good to say. Thank you all for watching, and we will see you all next time.