Timcast IRL - Legacy Media In Full Freak Out Over Trump Putin Meeting, "Reached An Understanding" | Timcast IRL

Episode Date: August 16, 2025

SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwNTXWEjVd2qIHLcXxQWxA/join Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Carter @CarterBanks (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Alex Lains @realalexlains (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms!

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met in Alaska for two and a half hours today to discuss an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. Hillary Clinton says that if he's successful, that she herself will nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I hope that he is and I hope that she actually has to go through with it because I imagine that would be really tough for her. D.C. Attorney General is suing the Trump administration for what is looking like a very successful operation to help bring down crime in the D.C. area. So we'll talk about that. New York Times. Audio's coming through. Oh. What's up, everybody?

New York Times opinion page still hates America. They were talking about changing the, or getting rid of the Senate, expanding the court, and all of the things that they would like to do to make sure that they get into power and stay in power basically forever.

New Jersey is looking to charge parents for kids breaking the law, and the Marines are going to go on vacation in Latin America. So we're going to talk about that. But first, we want you guys head on over to Cass brew coffee and buy yourself some coffee. Ian's Graphene Dream is still one of the top sellers. Appalachian Nights is available.

We've got K-cups. We've got Phil's two weeks till Christmas, which is a gingerbread blend. It's really, really nice. So head on over to casprue.com and get yourself some coffee. You'll love it, I promise. It's the coffee that I drink, and I'm not just saying that. I look like legit. I do.

And then after that, head on over to Timcast.com and become a member. so that way you can join the Discord and join us in the after show. Give us a call. You can call in and talk to the panel, talk to the guests. Then when you do, after you do that, head on over to rumble.com and become a member there so you can watch the after show. You need to join Rumble to watch the after show and you need to join Timcast so you can call in. If you go into the Discord, that's where, obviously, like I said, that's where you join the Discord so you can call in. But also, there's a bunch of people in there.

There's like 20,000, 25,000 members or something like that. a bunch of like-minded individuals, there have been people that have gotten married because they met in the Discord. There's a bunch of podcasts that have started because they met in the Discord and talked about things that they agreed on and got started there.

So head on over to Timcast.com, become a member of our Discord. Head on over to rumble.com. Become a member so you can join the after show. But right now to talk about all of these things and so much more, tonight we have Alex Lanes, right? Yeah, you got it. Who are you?

And what do you do? Um, I am Alex Lanes. I am a part-time commentator and hopefully soon to be full-time musician. Um, and for the past five years, I've just been ranting on social media about everything from politics to culture, society, yada, yada, yada. And, um, yeah, that's pretty much it. Are you a multi-instrumentalist? Yeah, I play guitar and piano. There you go. I'm not the best at guitar, though, because I've got small hands. So I'm not very skilled yet.

That's all right. My band used to have a bass player that was a female about your size, and she played a full-sized bass with little hands, so I believe in you. It's absolutely possible. Great. I have faith in you. Carter's here tonight. What's up?

Yes. We have Alex Laines here, and very excited to be recording her tomorrow. We're going to do some music together. I'm the Timcast music producer and Trash House Records guy. And so, yeah, thanks for joining us tonight. I'm happy to be here, too. Hi, Carter. Everyone's happy that you're here. I'm happy too, Phil. Thanks.

Hi, Alex. Good to see you. And Sergio, so probably not going to say anything in this high. Could you hear him laughing? This beautiful, look at this guy. I'll see what's up. Hey, you guys. Good to see you again.

Thanks for having me, man. I appreciate that you're at least going to say hello to everyone, Serge. Everyone loves you. Looking smooth. You're one of the most popular. He told me that his microphone only goes to our ears and not. They're going to say his microphone only goes to 11. Spinal tap's coming out with a new movie.

Let's get into the show. All right then. So, the alternative press, Associated Press is reporting. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet for two and a half hours at Alaska Summit to discuss possible end to Russia-Ukraine war. Joint base Elmendorf-Ritchards in Alaska, President Donald Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin met for about two and a half hours on Friday at a summit in Alaska that started with a handshake, a smile, and a ride in the presidential limousine. And it also had an overflight by a B-2 bomber, two F-35s, and two F-22. So that's something that they left out, and that's worth mentioning. An unusually warm reception for a U.S. adversary responsible for launching the greatest land war in Europe since 1945.

They plan to hold a joint news conference after talking together with top advisors behind closed doors on efforts to end Russia's war in Ukraine. When they greeted each other, they gripped hands for an extended period of time on a red carpet rolled out, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Ritcherson and Anchorage. As they chatted Putin grinned and pointed skyward where B-2s and F-22 military aircraft designed to oppose Russia during the Cold War flew overhead. Reporters nearby yelled,

President Putin, will you stop killing civilians? That sounds like activists. Just want to point that out. And Russia's leader put his hands up to his ears as though to indicate he couldn't hear them. Trump and Putin then shared the U.S. presidential lima known as the beast for a short ride to their meeting site, with Putin offering a broad smile as the vehicle rolled

pass the cameras. So we've got a possible scoop, or not, well, not scoop, we've got a possible, there's a possibility that Brett Baer or Sean Hannity will be talking to Donald Trump on Air Force One and we'll get updates to you guys as soon as we get them. If they do, if they actually do, do an interview on Air Force One, we'll cut to that for a few minutes when it happens, probably around 9 o'clock because that's when Hannity shows run. But this isn't a historic meeting because it's the first time that Putin's ever been to Alaska. And it's, I think it's the first time that the U.S. has met with Putin in since – 10 years at least. 10 years, something like that.

So – rather earlier. So, yeah. So it's possible that there will be some kind of peace development. But I don't think most people went in expecting an actual resolution. And I certainly don't think anyone expects Putin to withdraw from the – areas that he's taken from Ukraine, and that includes the Donbass. There are people out there that think there's not going to be, or there is no reason to have any kind of peace unless Putin promises to pull back, not just from the Donbass and the areas that he's taken since 2022, but also

if he has to leave the Crimea, the Crimea area and stuff, which I don't think that that's, I don't think that's even remotely possible. But I'm curious to know your thoughts. I'm very happy that this is happening. In general, I was kind of crying out for this a couple of weeks ago that we got to end this war somehow. And I think Putin's been pretty clear, although the American media seems to have obfuscated his demands that he wants all the land east of the Dombas River. He's looking for a geographical border. It's probably the most stabilizing thing he can do. Because if you, you guys talk about this through the week, if you draw arbitrary borders with just a straight line across a flat area, there's inevitably going to be conflict because it's an easy place to attack. When it's a river or a mountain, it's much easier just to, that's my border. I think that's dependent on the people involved. It is too because the northern U.S. borders with Canada. Yeah, I thought of that. That's exactly what I was going to say. I don't, I don't expect there to be a significant conflict between the United States and Canada. I don't expect it either, but it's not along a geographical border. I guess neither one of us attacked the other one never has happened to this point. What are you talking about? The Canaanians and the Americans

never went to war. I guess it was technically the British, but there was fighting the war of 1812. You know, the jury is out on that border, but I thought about that too, that that arbitrary border between can in the United States. It's not a defensible border. But anyway, the Dombas River is. So if Putin takes everything east of the Dombas, which they already have control of, and then they create a land bridge down

into Crimea so that they have warm water sea access and they can improve their GDP by 30% because now they can trade into the Mediterranean. I think that's the whole purpose and the point. I'm all about it, man. I'm all about just making an alliance. So is it your sense that it's just an economic plan? Yes, 100%. He's doing

for Russia's economics. That actually is contrary to what he said to Tucker Carlson, though. What do you say? When he was talking to Tucker Carlson, he was bringing up the history of Ukraine and how to the Russians, Ukraine is part of Russia because the Kiev and Russe, I guess, were the original Russians and they were from Kiev and they went to Moscow and there's a long history between these two countries. Now, I'm not incredibly well read on the Russian Ukrainian history, but I know

Ukraine and Russia have got, you know, very, very deep history. Russia actually came from Ukraine. So it's my sense that whereas I don't, I'm not disputing the argument you're making about the economic benefit to him, but I do think that this is more than just an economic play. Yeah. I think this is a more surface level opinion, but it's just nice to see a president who's not a house plant, basically,

get together with a world leader and assert dominance. I feel like if this was Biden meeting with Putin, he probably would have agreed with everything that Putin wanted in exchange for like an ice cream cone. So it's just nice to see Trump be able to come together. I think it's very monumental. So I'm curious to see what was decided. Yeah, we're going to jump to this right here.

This is Putin departs Alaska after historic summit, right? What is it from earlier? No, this is just part of it. I just brought you to saying, I brought up to the area they've basically taken all of the level of them. They've taken all of the area that they said they were going to take as far as like they want that they wanted. People have argued because they have the lithium, the coal, the offshore gas, all that stuff. They've currently occupied the areas that are, like, rich in this rare mineral earth. And I just bring this up.

Are these the areas that the United States was looking to make the deals with Ukraine about, like, the rare earth minerals and stuff like that? I understand, this map right here, from what I understand, this is what I saw as well. earlier. This is from an article from Fox News from two days ago, I think. But this map right here also shows all the areas they've taken, including north here, but this being the highly wealthy, like,

oil regions, mineral-rich areas. I just wanted to bring that up. You got that map on screen? See that red, the red border along the left, I believe, is the river. That's the Donbass River. Sure. All the way up. Yeah, I mean, that's... Stop it on a river. That's the way to do it. I mean, that's... Should have done that in 89 when they split it up. Sorry, Phil. Well, that's the point.

that we were making earlier, like, I don't see Putin giving any of this back. Right, because I'm looking, it seems like Ukraine was actually part of Russia. I knew this, but in 1991 was when they declared their independence after the Soviet Union. That was the Soviet Union falling apart. And then the oligarchs came in and kind of split it apart. As far as I can tell, I think they intentionally took that area away from the Russian part of the split up because they didn't want to give the hegeminated Russia. They didn't want it to just become another Soviet Union right away.

It's like too much economic power if we get. a Mediterranean access. There is, like there is a distinction between Ukrainians and Russians, right? The language is not the same. There is an actual Ukrainian language. There's, they are different people. Russians think that the Ukrainians are Russian, whereas Ukrainians are more like we're Ukrainians. And so the Ukrainians feel like they would be subjugated. The Russians feel like they would be bringing the Ukrainians back into the Russian fold. I mean, this is, again, this is something that goes back hundreds of years. I don't know. I'm not not at all claiming to be some kind of expert on this, but I know that it's a very, that it's a very deep history these two countries

have. And all of the times that there's been invasions of Russia, the two major times, which would be Napoleon and Hitler, they went right through Ukraine. Yeah, we're talking, before the show was talking with, about this. And it was, the Germans had three armies when they went east into Russia, the northern army, the center army in the south. The army south group had very little problem going through Ukraine. That was the easiest the Germans had was in the south because it's so flat. You know, in the north, they're up there. At least it was very, very messed up in money. What time period? Because I mean, they were like in the middle of a full out controlled famine by Stalin at the time. So they probably didn't have much trouble going through Ukraine.

The Holomir? The Holomir. Yeah. Yeah, they starved out there. I don't think the Holodomier was during World War II. No, it was like that five, part of that five year plan of getting socialism into the countryside. But to your, but to the point of of the Ukrainians feeling like there's a distinction between the Russians, right? The Russians are like, well, they're part of Russia. But according to the Ukrainians, the Soviets, the Russians starve them. Right. I was thinking that like the part of Russia that they don't want that. No, that they good recent memory for Ukraine. Yeah, the Ukrainians don't want it at all. I mean, there's there's a reason why there's so many Nazis in the Ukraine or in Ukraine is because according to Ukraine, the Nazi,

kicked the Russians out. Yeah, Soviets at the time. Well, I think, yeah, I think they were... They might have been in Soviet Russians. Now, that's not, that's not really, that's not intended to be a defense of the Nazis, but the reason that there are so many, that they have a positive view of the Nazis

as opposed to the communists is because the communists did the whole of them more. You know, they killed millions of Ukrainians, and the Nazis kicked them out. And I don't know, again, I don't, I'm not the most in. I don't have the most deep knowledge of this, but the Nazis were actually

less brutal to the Ukraine. That's kind of what I have read as well, but I only know as much as I've read. Yeah. So, Soviet central planning was nasty. And you see it in China right now. It's disgusting. I mean, I don't like it. I don't think anybody in Russia wants. Well, I would imagine most sane

critical thinkers don't want another instance of centralized planning because that's where the hold of mirror comes from. When you have a central government that can decide that 80,000 people aren't going to get fed tonight, you've got a real problem. Those 80,000 people should be governing themselves. I know you want to work together with your federal government and stuff, but local government. So, you know, I don't think those Russians are, I don't think they don't want it.

This is another, I'm done. No, it's a huge tangent we could go down. Yeah. Yeah, that's. Yeah. So let's, we're going to jump to this actually. Let's see, where is it, where Hillary Clinton decided. There we go.

Hillary Clinton, from the post-millennial, Hillary Clinton would nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize if he ends Ukraine-Russia war without Ukraine having to seed terror. If Donald Trump negotiates an end to Putin's war on Ukraine Without Ukraine having to see territory I'll nominate him for Nobel Peace Prize myself He gets under her skin so bad Oh yeah I mean He is in her head rent free

24-7 all the time Did they know each other back in the day? Oh yeah Like well yeah, they knew each other well She went to his wedding Really? Is she? Oh yeah I don't know that Yeah they were friendly

Because Donald Trump before Donald Trump got into politics Donald Trump would donate money to everybody because he wanted to be friends with everybody and he also wanted to be able to get in touch with the people. Everyone loved him back then. He would just say he invited the Clintons to him and Melania's wedding and Hillary Clinton said, oh yeah, of course we went. He's a ton of fun.

Everybody that meets Donald Trump and talks to him unless they go in intending to hate him and they're rude and they are looking to start a fight with him, everybody comes away and they're just like all right the guy's nice he's great he's funny you know he's just bill mar said i think he went into his meeting thinking he was going to hate him too he's he's a charismatic guy look and for the most part to be honest with you when you meet people that are that well known in politics and that well known just overall they do have a really amazing amount of charisma i remember when i met um what's his name the guy that runs the blaze

a glenbeck i met glen beck and now was like okay I understand why this dude is like the big guy at, what's it called? He's just very charismatic. When he talks to you, you feel like he's going to remember you next time. You're the only person and you hear people talk about Bill Clinton like that all the time. When they would meet Bill Clinton. Obama, too. Obama, yeah.

When you meet these guys, they have the ability to make you feel like you're the only person in the room and to remember small things about you if you've met them, if they've met you twice. That's something that politicians in Western countries, countries particularly have that's part of why they end up in positions of of you know high positions in in government and it's it'll be the same thing with people that are you know senators a lot of time you probably don't see it as much with all congress people because there's so many congress people but you know real that we were talking last night about um the people in texas and whether or not the democrats that are looking to make hay about what's going on in texas if they can get arrested

Like, are they going to be able to actually capitalize on that? And do they have the political talent to really make something of it? Because, of course, they want to get arrested. Of course, they want to get picked up and get on, you know, make social media posts about it, get on TV and stuff. But only certain people, the really politically talented, could take that opportunity and turn it into something that gets them not only, or gets them from not only being a state representative, but gets them onto the national stage and gives them influence

nationally and it's not easy to, like you can't fake. If you don't do it the right way, you could just get arrested and that could be the end of your career. Well, I mean, you've got a mugshot. Now you have a record and you're not going anywhere. Yeah, I mean, even if it's not the end of the career, it's like you won't be able to capitalize on it. It's really being able to take the attention that you're getting from that and turn it

into something tangible. And that's what the really politically talented people can do. And, and, you know, that's why someone like Donald Trump, I mean, he was a massive star beforehand, but the reason he was a massive star is because he's got that very deep political talent that's really, you know, it's part of his personality. He's got the ability to just charm people's pants off. So that's why Hillary Clinton wanted to go to his wedding. But anyways, from the post-melodial, in a podcast appearance on Friday, Hillary Clinton said that she would nominate President Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize if he brings an end to the war between

Russia and Ukraine without Ukraine having to cede any territory to its eastern neighbor. Clinton told the raging moderate podcast, I understand from everything I've read, he very much would like to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war where Putin is the aggressor, invading a neighbor country, trying to change the borders, if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, had to in a way validate Putin's version of greater Russia, but instead could really stand up to Putin, something we haven't seen, but maybe this is the opportunity to make it clear that there must be a ceasefire. There will be no exchange of territory

and that over a period of time, Putin should actually withdraw from the territory he seized in order to demonstrate his good faith efforts. Let us say not to threaten European security. If we could pull that off, if President Trump were the architect of that, I'd nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Now, I think that she's alluding to also Crimea. I don't imagine that she would, I can't imagine her actually nominating him I would love. She just wants to see him fail. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you were saying

she's got it in for him and look she thought that she was going to walk into the office of the president without a problem. She thought up till probably 10 p.m. on November 6th, 2016, she thought that was going to happen. So

when it turns out that it wasn't, I can understand where her deep, deep hatred of the man comes. from. But that doesn't change the fact that she really hates him and she doesn't want to see anything good happen for him. So I would love to see her have to make this, you know, throw his name into the, into the hat. Haven't they already seeded land though? Yeah. Well, in Crimea, yeah, they seeded Crimea. I just feel like it's a non-starter though. Like, can she not? That's why she's saying it. She doesn't want to do it. Right. Yeah. It's a zero percent

chance of happening. Well, it's never zero. You know, there's always a chance that alien monkeys are going to fall down out of the sky, but they already own the territory. I mean, they de facto control it, own it, whatever you want to call it, they control it. Asking them to leave their own territory? I mean, once you control land and it's yours, it's yours. Not only asking, someone who really wants him to get a peace deal, like, why would I leave my land? It's mine. And not only that, like, it's

really, it's Russian speakers in Crimea now. Like, one of the things that, the arguments that Putin made about when he moved into Crimea, it was like, look, these are Russian people. These are Russians, they speak Russian, they're Russian people, they've actually had votes. Now, some people, the argument that the people in, like, NATO and in Europe say is like, they're like, well, you know, Putin actually started moving Russian speakers in there and put the people in there so that, and, and skewed the votes so that way he could, he could justify taking it. Now, I don't know the truth of that. I don't know if it was actually something that Putin planned. You heard stories, I don't know if you remember, but back in, in.

2013 or 14 you heard little green men was a phrase that you heard a lot there were dudes that were in military garb but they didn't have any any identifying patches they had no insignia they were basically paramilitaries carrying out paramilitary operations but they weren't aligned with anyone so there was rumors of russia planning this and so it could be that was the case but it doesn't change the fact that it's been part of russia now for over a decade and i think that when the u.s went to Crimea for the, or actually when the whole world went to Crimea for the Olympics, I think that kind of sealed the deal. If they, if the, if the international community really didn't want to acknowledge that Crimea was part of Russia, they would have stayed away from the Olympics.

They have all boycotted and said, we're not going. You stole this, this, this, this land from the Ukraine. So we're not going to, to validate it by going to the Olympics. But that ship has sailed, right? Like the U.S. and every, all of the, the whole international community went to Crimea. They held the Olympics there. They validated it. So I can't imagine any way that anyone could possibly think Crimea

would be going back to Russia. And I don't think that Russia is going to give up the Donbass either. I think they're trying to do this just to like tarnish the record that Donald has so far. Like they're just trying to make it so that all the victories he's had recently are just going to seem like nothing. Because he was unable to save Ukraine. He wasn't

unable to get all the way back to Ukraine so they can say, okay, well he didn't end the war in Congo. He didn't end the war between Thailand and Cambodia. It's like, oh, they're just trying to use it to besmirch his name. Of course, they're going to set this crazy goal pie in the sky that anyone can reach. Yep. He wants classic. I looked up. I was like, what are Putin's demands? Because I asked this question a couple weeks ago, no one really knew. I think that's by design from our media, because they're not that extreme. And his demands, there's like he has six. Two of them in particular are that he wants the land, obviously, east of the Dombas and the

Crimea, the freeways, but he wants guarantee on paper that they're not going to put Ukraine and NATO and Ukraine's not going to seek NATO. They want Ukraine to be a neutral territory. It's neither controlled by the right or the left, you know, whatever you want to call it, the east or the west. Do you believe that, though? Because the counter argument of that is if Putin takes the, or if Putin is allowed to stay in the Donbass and the Russians take that, that land, then it's a, it becomes a staging area for Putin to actually build up troops have built military bases and then later on take more of Ukraine because there are the argument that that people that are very anti-Russia have is they're saying look he's going to

eventually take all of Ukraine he may not take it all right away he probably thought he could but if he could have taken Ukraine when he first invaded taken gone all the way to Kiev and taking the whole country he would have now there are people that'll make the argument oh and then he's going to go for Poland then he's going to go for you know I don't believe that at all. Yeah. I don't think that he wants that smoke on us. I don't think that he wants to go after Poland. There could be an argument that he wants to take or there is an argument that he wants to take back the former Soviet states. Yeah, I think that's kind of what like you were saying with this Tucker interview way back. He just, I think it seemed like he came away wanting to

just have what he originally had back in the day. But remember, some of those states are now part of NATO. Yeah. So I don't think that he's willing to take on NATO, especially seeing how badly, honestly, I mean, all things considered, how badly he's performed in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a heavily armed country. It took a lot of NATO sending weapons and military assets and money to Ukraine for them to stop him. And I think that people expected more out of, or people anticipated more out of Russia's military capability. now he could activate more troops and I don't think that

that it's something that or it's a situation where Russia is totally, you know, a paper tiger but if you look at the situation, Russia's not going to take on NATO. Russia doesn't want to fight the United States. You know, the only thing Russia has is nuclear weapons, right? They do have

nukes, but when it comes to conventional war, they don't want to fight the U.S. because the U.S. would stop a mudhole in them well not after that uh introduction into the meeting in that that meeting that they had well i mean you know like look the united states if they wanted to it's likely they could fly b2 bombers right over moscow and they would never know right it's it's likely that that moscow would have no way to stop them you know um it's something it's not something i want to test no we don't want that I don't want to test it, but the idea that Russia is going to take on NATO so that way they can get Poland, I think that's far-fetched.

And I think that that's just an argument to get people afraid. But it is likely that they would use the Donbass as a staging area to take more of Ukraine in five, ten years. Well, that likely, I don't know, potentially, yes, for sure. It'd be like if you have a neighbor and you're like, well, why would I improve my neighbor's quality of life? It's just going to make him more able to destroy me later. You're like, well, my neighbor's not going to destroy me. So maybe if you, if he owned your house. What's that?

Unless he wants owned your house. Unless he wants my territory. Yeah. I just with my river and then control under the dombas. So it's really a state of mind. Do you trust it or not? Are you willing to empower your neighbor with the threat, the potential threat that they're going to use that power to destroy you later?

I don't know. You know, this is the human conundrum through all space time. And that's, we have civil society where you empower your neighbor. and then we have military society where you make sure that you're the strongest of all, whether that means you've got to knock them down a peg or lift yourself up. It's irrelevant in the military almost, not totally, but you know, you still have, you still got to be careful about doing excess damage. Anyway, civil society, trust.

If we really want to make peace, then we're going to have to trust. Because, I mean, I'm also like a common sense. There's no other way. They own the territory. What are you going to do? Unless we did a counter invasion and lost hundreds of thousands of, then We're the attackers going into the defense of entrenchments, and it's like, I don't... We don't want that.

No, I'd rather be allies and buy cheaper. Protesters apparently want that, but... What's that? The protesters apparently want that, but common sense people don't want that. People that are like, just take it back. I'm like, have you been to a front line of a military in a trench in the wool with the artillery going off? You only see the movies. And you don't get the artillery doesn't...

You're here, a building get demolished next to you, like the vibration in your gut that will change you forever, just from that. For these dudes that are in there for months at a time. You know, fortunately, we've kind of evolved the way from... trench warfare now we've got drone warfare No they haven't evolved away from trench from trench warfare at all. Shelling people in trenches There is still, that's the majority of what's going on in Iran's in Ukraine right now.

Boots get all wet and you get trench foot trench warfare. That's why they don't, that's why the lines haven't moved because trench warfare is brutal and that's exactly what's going on. They go underground. Yes of course there are there are drones now but

and it does change the battlefield but trench warfare is still the combat method of the day. It's impressive that, I mean, I'm still thinking in World War I and two terms that the Russians actually were able to take that much territory thinking, but I guess we have modern airplanes and things that can take out the back lines. Not only that, Russia has far more military capability than Ukraine. And, you know, Ukraine doesn't have a significant air force. And Russia was probably preparing to do this for a while.

I mean, I'm sure they were. They put up the, you know, they started massing military assets on the, on the border. And no one thought that Russia was actually, or a lot of people were like Russia's not going to go in. Russia wouldn't, they wouldn't go into Ukraine. There's no way they would. But when Biden was like, surge the border, Putin was like, oh, he's talking to me. It's time for my invasion. Can you just walk a military exercise into someone else's country and have it not be an attack, too?

Because that was like originally what he was saying. Like, that's kind of weird. in the Crimea, they marched in. Well, no. No. Just were they? I forgot exactly where. I think he,

22 and they actually made the start of the invasion. He expected that they were going to be like, we welcome you as heroes and liberators. And then they opened the doors and there was, I think that's what he wanted. He was trying to create that narrative with people. I know, he, like I said, he was, he was looking to take the whole country. He was trying to get to Kiev. Did he say that? There was, well, there was an actual attack that was, or there was a convoy of, of military vehicles that were, you know, made a run for Kiev.

They were looking to take Kiev. They were looking to take the whole country because he does want to take the country, like, overall. And that's part of why the argument against allowing them to stay in the areas that they've taken is a strong argument. It's part of why it's such a compelling argument because it is likely that he will just try to take another bite once things cool off. And like if they neutralize Ukraine and it truly becomes a neutral territory, what would that be? What would that? What do you mean neutralize? Like they want it to be neutral, like Spain.

neutral in World War II, you know? That's what. No allegiance. Putin wants Ukraine to be a neutral territory as part of his demands, meaning it's not beholden to NATO. I think it just means no NATO, yeah. Yeah. Or Russian influence.

But like, how do you guarantee that's actually happening? Because there's still going to be massive influence underneath the surface if they say, okay. Yeah. I mean, as long as, well, because of the location, Ukraine is going to have either influence by the east, by Western countries, or influenced by Russia. like that's just kind of the way that it's going to be

and the reason Russia doesn't want NATO in Ukraine is because you know Russia Putin wants to take more of the country they like any deal that's going to make him happy or is he just going to personally I think that

what he'll do or what he might do and I'm not I'm not I can't predict what the guy's going to do I'm not nearly educated enough to do that but what he might do is just say okay I'll make a deal for this area here

and let us stay here and then we'll stop fighting there will be a ceasefire and then it'll be a couple years and then he'll try again that's what he did with Crimea he took Crimea and then a couple years then you know whatever eight nine years later

when the situation was favorable when we had a president that wouldn't fight back that he looked at as weak a house plant a house plant like you said earlier exactly when Joe Biden was the president when he thought that he could get away with it he's like all right well now's the time and he went in

who the president is does matter and what the president says does matter there's a lot of people that blame the united states for russia taking crimea and you can actually go back to when baroque obama met with medvedev and said tell vladimir that i've got this is i think in 2012 tell vladimir that i've got i will have much more flexibility after my election and what Vladimir and what Vladimir Putin and what Medvedev heard was you can you can invade and take Crimea after my election so that way I don't have to worry about the political repercussions I won't fight you we won't have significant problems or you won't see significant resistance from the US and NATO if you go in after I'm reelected just don't make this problem for me before my

election now that was naivete on on president obama's you know part he thought that oh everybody wants the same thing and all everybody can just get along and be happy and he'll understand that i'm just saying you know don't do this now and and we'll talk about it more later whatever but what putin heard was don't go in until after i get reelected and that's exactly what happened so that was you know that was some people would say that that was the president of the United States giving Vladimir Putin the Green Lake to do it and consequently you did so it it does matter who the president is and it does matter how you deal with people like Putin because it is true that you know Putin is a you know is a

warmonger he does kill people that criticize him like he he shot a missile at the the run leader of the Wagner group and blew his helicopter out of the sky because he thought there was a coup against or going to be a coup against him that's how things are done in Russia so the idea that things in Russia are done the same way that they're done in the United States is a gross misunderstanding of how things are done

or of the reality of the situation so I was thinking about Putin you know naive Bucheli they just in El Salvador they just repealed presidential term limits so now he can be president for life Bucheli can really yeah they did that a couple weeks ago I don't know if you guys have reported on it it's it's pretty stark news to be honest

yay hero Buckelly but now he's the dictator um so the thing no no no he's not a dictator because he just because he can be elected right doesn't mean he will be reelected just because he's president doesn't mean he's influencing the elections but he can doesn't mean he is um so well why anyway that what's that why do you think that he's i mean he's got an approval rate of something like 80% because he's cleaned up the country and made it safer people i i mean he if he gets reelected it will be a legitimate it will likely be a legitimate reelection. Exactly. And I think they like him and they will. And the

problem is, I think he looks around Buceli and he's like, all right, no one is going to be able do this like me. If I give this control over to the next president, he's going to fuck this up. All these things are going to fall apart. Everything I've worked for is going to fail. I think Putin has that same mindset. After he left office in like 2003 or four or something.

Well, he went to, he was the prime minister. Yeah, he was done. And then all of a sudden, it was like he couldn't go. He was the prime minister. He didn't he wasn't done. He just made he just went into a different. And he made his number two guy the number one and then they switch position but i got this feeling that that it was like he's a he doesn't want to let go because he thinks the next guy's gonna screw it all up and until he sees someone competent that he believes can do it better than him whereas good he's gonna like

he's just gripping and gripping and i it's my sense that it's more he's uh he's looking to retain power than actually worried about who the successor would be because like he'll get slaughtered as soon as he's that power and that's a possibility for sure i think that he i think that he just wants to stay in power. I think he's going to stay in, he's a dictator and he's going to stay in power until he dies. Also interesting, my mom just texted me and said Russia took Crimea on Clinton and Obama watch. Yeah. I mean, Obama was the president. Yes. Like just, you know, like we said, Obama kind of gave, some would argue that Obama gave him the green light. So we're going to jump to this story here, bring it back to the United States. Uh, from for Washington, from NBC

Washington, DC police chief remains in charge after federal hostile takeover attempt, AG says. D.C.'s chief of police remains the chief of police. The district attorney's general said after a court hearing on what he called a hostile takeover attempt by the federal government, he called the judge's decision a very important win for home rule. Less than 12 hours after the Trump administration seemingly replaced Washington D.C.'s police chief with a federal officer. The district was in federal court on Friday to try to block the move. Attorney General Brian Schwab filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming President Donald Trump far exceeded the authority granted him in D.C.'s

Home Rule Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution. I don't know that that's correct about the Constitution, at least, because the Constitution does lay out that the district area is not an actual state. It's not, it's an area that is actually controlled by the feds, if I understand correctly. So don't quote me on. I could be wrong. I think you're right, but I don't know. The federal judge overseeing, the lawsuit said the law doesn't allow the federal government to name a new police chief, but the city can't completely keep them out either. U.S. District Judge Anne Reyes asked the two sides to hammer out a compromise but promised to issue a court order temporary blocking the

administration from naming a new chief if they couldn't agree. I'm encouraged by the judge's remarks in the federal government making the changes that were suggested and the judge's willingness to rule if that's not satisfactory. Mayor Muriel Bowser said after the hearing, how DC enforces federal immigration laws in response to homeless people are key issues. DC and federal officials are expected to keep talking over the weekend about the general orders that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole rescinded. Now, how they deal with homeless people is something that legitimately is for DC to decide on its own, but they do have to deal with homeless people.

But when it comes to things like immigration, that's ICE. it's always ice it's always homeland security and and immigration and customs enforcement there's no there's no gray area about that the the localities when they're sanctuary cities all that means is our local police forces aren't going to help the federal officers but that doesn't mean that the federal officers don't have jurisdiction over federal over immigration and customs and stuff so when they're dealing with illegal immigrants, it's always ISIS, you know, it's always ISIS jurisdiction. So I don't know that there's, that there's an argument to be had about that. Well, the gray area I would argue about it. I think that, because it's like, this is a thing about

being a human. You're told law and order are the most, are very important, law and order uphold the law. But then it's like you watch what happened with the Nazis persecuting the Jews and like people hiding Jewish people in their homes and lying and protecting them overtly. And they were the good guys in the story from where the way I heard the story were the people that violated the law and that we're like no we're doing what we believe is right for our people for our neighbors you're some federal cop get out of my house you believe that it's compared that hiding jews from the Nazis is comparable to hiding illegal immigrants from ice technically yeah comparable not not the same at all not the same at all and different levels of course the immigration thing is way way less

abhorrent than persecuting a religion, religious people or a culture in your society. Much, much worse. But the motions behind it of, like, I'm protecting my neighbors from the federal people that are in here from D.C. Like, that's a real. And we've been encouraged as Americans to do that. When the king comes and tries to take your land, you're like, get out of my land. This is our country now.

We govern this, us. What? This is what we told the British to kick rocks when they tried to come in. in and, you know, find our terrorists and arrest our terrorists, George Washington and John Adams, these guys. So this is just the thing. You've seen both sides of the mind working at once. I think that it's a significant, when you're talking about illegal immigrants versus, you know, an actual rebellion of Englishmen against Englishmen, I think it's a different thing. And I also think that it's a very different thing when you're talking about Jews being hidden by Germans from

the Nazis. What the reason, the thing is, it's, is law and order isn't always good. Sometimes law and order is evil. And if you have evil law and order to deport people? I don't. I mean, I don't think so. And what, what, I'm not, I'm trying to find, I think some people do think it's evil. So they're, they're going through this moral thing of like, I need to protect my neighbors from the, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Just face out of ignorance. If you think Trump is, like, the law. And like, what did you say? If you think Trump is Hitler. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, everybody's Hitler. That's the thing. That's the Because, yeah, when the Nazis took over, the law became determined by the objectively bad guys.

And so to break the law was good in that situation. So I guess if you think Trump is like that, is Germany, you know, after the beerhole push and all that stuff with Hitler in power, then you think breaking this law is good. Which is, I think, is devoid of, you know, reason to do that because the media is. been pushing that on people too, like saying Trump is Hitler and things like that. Right. So there's this and then you get the woman crying as the baby's being taken out of her hands, we're in a picture. Oh,

look at baby crying. It's all propaganda. It's out of not knowing to and ignorance and not paying attention. Right, right. No, no, I know, yeah. Yeah, oh, 100%. I'm just saying like for some of them they might actually just be genuinely

stupid might i mean the moral dilemma is just it's concurrent it's going to have come up again in the future i don't i don't see it as a moral dilemma because i think that it's immoral to allow people to stay here if they're illegal right the other thing is it is a problem for the existing people if if only because of the stuff that we talk about with the census right if you're going to count all of the people not the citizens but all of the people the people and then

that's how the apportionment of representation in the federal government is is is calculated that all of the illegals that are here are diluting the political power of the citizens right this is a little this is this is this is a few degrees removed and it takes being able to think of downstream consequences to actually really to to understand how this matters but it's not moral to take the power of the voting power away from the existing population, the citizens, the people that have lived here their whole lives, and dilute that power by counting people that are not citizens. That's an immoral act too. So I understand there is a care argument. Well, we need to care for these people. They're here. We want to be care. We want to be compassionate and we want

to see these people live productive lives and it's mean to deport them and it's mean to have ice pick them up and it's mean to make it hard for them to live here and we want to be nice but that does not that does not mean that it's moral to allow them to stay here it's immoral to allow them to stay here because they came here and broke the law and and people that try to come here legally that have been waiting that have spent money It's immoral and does them a disservice. It's immoral to them. It's moral to get the people that are here trying to, that have broken the law to get here

and that are violating the law by being here. It's actually the moral action to round those people up and send them back home or make it difficult for them to live here so that way they leave of their own volition. I think that it's a group of both positive and negative morals. It's immoral and moral. There's a lot of different morality happening at once. So it would be like if you yell at your kid to stop doing something. Is that moral or immoral?

Well, one parent might argue it's the moral thing to do because now they're not going to do the thing anymore. Whereas the other parent's going to argue, it's immoral because now the kid's traumatized for being screened. What's the kid trying to do? Because if one kid's punching his brother... Is he running to the street?

So the conversation gets more nuanced. What are these people trying to do here? Like, just their presence is diluting the voting base. That's a problem, a big immoral problem to allow. I agree with that. Now grabbing them in the middle of the night, dragging them out by their hair and sending them to a Salvadorian prison,

also immoral, my opinion. So hold on. So how's it happening? So you're dragging them out by their hair. You're coloring the conversation here. I'm just adding nuance to... That's not adding nuance. That's coloring... It's an instance of a possible immoral way to deal with an immoral situation. The point is you're trying to make the action

of rounding the people up that are here illegally. You're trying to make the action of doing it a violent, aggressive, malice, malicious action and it's not malicious. The ICE agents that are going to get people that are here illegally, they're not doing it out of malice.

There is not a situation where they're like let's go hurt them. It's not about hurting them. So grabbing them by their hair and yanking them out of bed, that is adding malice to the action. That is you coloring what the what's going on. So that way people

feel bad for the people that are here legally and feel like the people in forcing the law are the bad guys. Less about grabbing them by the hair, more about taking them without their stuff, leaving their stuff behind. Like, that they don't, ICE doesn't have a, I mean, they might have to go get their stuff eventually and send it.

That's why they should leave of their own volition. I agree with that. I do agree with that. That's a nice way to kind of create a moralistic solution because there are lots of ways to solve this immoral problem in an even more immoral way. So we've got to be careful about, about introducing rounding people up

at gunpoint, having them stripped down, and like, you know, marching them naked through the street, whatever. Like, you jump down naked through the street. You just can't do it. And if they're doing that to, like, illegal gang members and I'm okay with it. But are they actually doing that? I haven't seen. Well, it just, I keep thinking about Sin Frontera, the documentary that 6-7 Kevin just made about, like,

how these people get here in the first place and how horrifying it is on their way here. And some don't make it. and most of them get assaulted in all terrible kinds of ways. And it kind of sends a message like, hey, we're not incentivizing you to continue to do it that way. Because if you did it that way, you're going back. It is a tough moral thing to think about because I don't like hurting, you know. If you make it difficult to live here and you make there be significant repercussions for coming here illegally,

that is to deter people from coming. The point is you have to have negative consequences for coming here illegally. It can't just be, oh, they were picked up, they got processed, sent back, and then they decided they just want to come back, and they snuck through again. You have to make negative consequences for coming here. You can't come back ever. You'll never be an American citizen if you get picked up. You should, and I've talked about this multiple times in the show,

you shouldn't be able to rent a place to live and if the people that are if the people if there's someone that owns property that's renting to an illegal they should face significant fines jail time and possibly loss of their property same thing with people giving jobs to illegals if you employ an illegal you should face jail time significant legal repercussions possibly loss of property because right now they're not afraid of the law so they're not listening to the law you have to make them afraid. And it should be something there's, you know, the Democrats say this all the time, and they're actually right about this. They're always like, oh, you know, well, the people that hire them never get in trouble. You're right. They should. They should lose their property. They should lose their

businesses. If you, it should be too scary to hire illegals. And illegals should have a hard time finding a job. And illegals should have a hard time finding a place to live. And that way, they'll say, it's not worth coming to America. Because I, there's no benefit for me anymore. I can't, no one can find a place to rent to, you know, I can't find a place to rent to me. I can't find a job. No one will hire me because if they do the, you know, if the, if the place gets rated by ice, then they might lose their business. And remittances to other countries, tax that at 90%. You want to send money to a, send money back home?

You can only send five percent of what you've made. And all that money goes to the federal government. So they can't send their money back. So they stuff their. Well, how would that one work? That's a tax remittance. I'm not sure exactly the method, but they can do it, whether it be wiring money. It's possible that people would do things like buy crypto and get around it that way.

But again, to buy crypto, there's a lot of crypto companies where you have to, you know, KYC rules. And it's all tracked on a network too. Eventually, that stuff's coming back. You know, all your crypto trades are public. And it should be difficult to come to the United States and take advantage of basically loose liberal immigration laws. And if you do that, then you do that, then you don't.

don't have a situation where people are getting ripped out of their homes by their hair and traips through the streets naked at night. You know, it just doesn't happen because they're like, F this, I'm going home. You know, I can't get a job here. It's not worth coming to the United States. Is it happening? It's worth it if you do it the legal way. Yes.

My dad did it. Sure. My dad came from Africa. Serge did it. Oh. And it took him, it took him like 10 years and thousands of dollars. not saying it's easy it's not easy to become an American citizen but if you think it's worth it then do it but don't do it the illegal way because just like you said it undermines the people

that come here and they do it the legal way the people that wait years upon years upon years and spend hundreds and hundreds and thousands of dollars it's a slap in the face to everybody and then it's also a slap in the face to the actual American citizens and it disrupts our safety, our resources, it's just like, yes, it's, I can see the point in like morally and morally, but I don't think it's immoral to take lawbreakers out and put them back where they came. And it's also, it's the same thing, too, with like how people like to blame ICE for, you know, taking parents and their children and, like, putting them back. And it's like, why don't you blame the parents for putting their children in that situation

in the first place? Yeah. How do you think they got there? Probably through the cartel. They risked their own child's life to come here the illegal way when they could have done it the right way. What was your dad's experience like? Did you talk about it much explicitly? No, I was young. So he came to America before I was born because he met my mom here.

He was actually born in Mozambique, fled during the communist regime. My va-va got a job with the U.S. Embassy. and him and his brother, my uncle, they came to America separate times, but they both came the green card. And then he met my mom and he wanted to become an American citizen. And again, it took him like 10 years. Did they get married and then he got his citizenship? Yeah, they got, yeah, he got his citizenship when I was in like fourth grade.

And then so they move here, did they get a green card up on entry? I mean, this is basic questions. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I believe so. I believe that's what he had. And then he went through the process of getting a citizenship. But he was never here. There was never a point where he was here illegally.

Like he was always making sure that his card and whatnot, you know, never expired and everything. And it's tough and it's hard and you're going to spend a lot of money. And I don't think the system is perfect. I do think that there needs to be some sort of reform. I'm not saying it needs to be like easier in the sense. but just, you know, I was talking, I can't remember saying, but I was talking about it out there and it's like, the system isn't perfect, but still it doesn't mean

that it gives you a right to come here illegally when hundreds of thousands of people are coming here and doing it the legal way and they're waiting. I've heard that some of the people that are the most upset with the illegal immigration are the legal immigrants. Yeah, my dad is pissed, rightfully so. I would be so. Rightfully so.

What a violation of some. He has a, I'm telling all his secrets. He has a bald eagle tattoo on his shoulder, and that says an American citizen or whatever. And he's like, I want to laser it off. Oh, hold the line. He's like, no, he loves America. He loves America. He doesn't want to see it turn into the country he fled from.

In a way, people that come here legally obviously love this country. To put yourself through 10 years of agony, not agony, but. He has his own business, his own construction business. He made a great life for himself and his family. It's possible. It's hard work. But like if you really want to be here, it's possible. You can't take the easy way out.

I guess maybe what immigration. Some people say like put a total freeze on immigration for the moment, whatever that would look like. I don't know. There's people waiting. Yeah. And then what, like digitize the process so that it happens faster? You said that needs from reform? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, it does suck to wait. years to get citizenship, especially when it's most likely, of course, the ones that are doing it the legal way are the ones that really love this country and believe in the American dream and want to make a life for themselves and they know that they can do it. And America is, you know, they think America is the greatest country in the world. And it sucks that they have to be the ones to go through this long process of spending a bunch of money and waiting a bunch of years to do it. I don't know. I don't know what the reform should be.

but I you know it's not easy so I want them to know English yeah well I mean my dad my dad knows English so that's good he knew it before yeah yeah well because my my Volvo worked at the U.S. Embassy in Portugal so um that's your grandfather my no it's funny it's Volvo is technically grandfather in Portuguese but uh when I was younger that's all I really knew how to say was of Vava, so. So is your dad? No, it's my grandmother. Oh. Yeah, so my dad's mom. Yeah. She worked at the embassy. Oh, okay. Yeah.

So they were Americanized. I could go on and on, man. Yeah, I know. Well, maybe you guys can have him here. He'll talk all about it, all his story and everything. It's not a bad idea. Did you come from South Africa to America and then get your citizenship? What was

your process? Yeah, it's roughly the same as that. You just sat in a waiting line for Yeah, so in the IRS lines for like 10 hours It was crazy Over and over again In California back when Democrats didn't want me in this country Oh Democrats used to hate coming to the country

Because we would like out of the tax base You know I mean we were more people that were They didn't like they weren't like super cool with immigrants Remember Obama was like the deporter in chief Everyone forgets that Oh but we suddenly need open borders No dude Since when since when

Was it like it's worth It's worth noting like The difficulty Of becoming a citizen is a feature it's not a buck like you should have to work hard to become an american and one of the reasons is because the people that will put the effort in actually care about the ideals this country was founded on people that will go will come to the united states and go through all of the stuff pay all the money you know show up for their their hearings that they have to do do all the

things that you're supposed to do to come here legally, those people care about being Americans. They care about being Americans more than most Americans that are born here because they see the value in it. They know what it's like to not be an American. One of the things that, like, we talk about, you know, I think that you shouldn't be allowed to come to the United States if you don't believe in the values the United States has. So if you're a communist, you shouldn't be like it should be perfect. To visit or to move? here, you mean? Either. Let me up, right, either. I don't care. I mean, it should be a privilege to come to the United

States. So, yeah, if you're a communist and you're only coming because you want to visit, like, I don't see any reason to grant you a visa. I mean, if you're looking to escape your communist country and you want to become a citizen, you're looking to defect or what, you know, I don't even know if there are countries where you can defect from anymore. But if you're looking to escape a common country and you want to come to the United States and you hold our values in high esteem. like then okay you got an argument you know then then maybe we can we can figure something out but there's no reason to be like oh yeah you're you're you're from a communist country so it's

fine that you come here to they're like i just want to learn about democracy what's the problem i don't care the internet works that's what google's for yeah exactly like you don't want to immerse myself in the culture no no no no no publicist no no northeast as i we don't need it like the point is like it should be a privilege to come to the united states because the United States is the greatest country in the world, in my opinion. It should be a privilege to come here. It should be hard to become a citizen and it should take significant effort. So that way, we don't just have people that are like, well, I'm going to get there and I'm going to get a job. And then I'm going to act like all the people in California that

were protesting ICE, that were like waving Mexican flags and saying, you know, we hate America. Well, you live here. Okay, then go back. Get out. If you don't love America. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Absolutely. We have, like, if you're an American and you're born here and you're an American citizen and you want to, if you hate America, we can't do nothing about it. You're an American citizen. It's just like, if you have like a crappy relative, they're your relative.

Deal with it. You can't do anything about it. But if you have a crappy neighbor, you don't have to let that crappy neighbor come into your house and tell you how crappy your house is. You don't have to allow it. You can just be like, get out of here then. You know, something I also is sort of a, A through line is, I feel, I believe, and I hope that in the future, when people move to a state, they don't get voting rights until they live there for three years. I'd love it. For something. I'd love this. Five years? Some amount of time, a long time. Now you're a resident. You've been here. You know the land. You know the people. Three years, at least five years. So I think extending that to immigrants also would be fine, especially in those that are here illegally, shouldn't be counted on a census. First of all, it makes absolutely no sense. It's completely logical.

That would probably take a constitutional amendment, though. Which one? It would take an amendment because right now, the way the census rules are written, it just says count the people. It doesn't say count the citizens. So if you live here, unless you're, unless you're, Indians not taxed. So it's possible that the Supreme Court would read it and would would say that there's a way to read it that says they're not talking about people that are here legally. but the letter of the law now it says they count the people not including Indians not taxed and then three four three fifths that has a totally different thing that's totally different

that was not a census thing weren't they counting bodies yes yes it is but that's not the same it's a different thing they're talking about slaves three slaves they are no longer slaves so no one is counted three and then that led to someone being like well what if we treat the people that are here illegally as three-fifths count towards the census until the bodies are sent back home. I don't imagine that the SCOTUS will find that. I mean, it's possible. Look, and this all, this is just me pontificating. It's not law. It's, you know, so what the SCOTUS would actually say is what would really matter. But it's my sense that the way that SCOTUS would rule is, well, it says in the Constitution, count the people. So you have to count the people. And I think that that's

part of why you should make it super hard for illegals to live here. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to force, you know, you can't punish businesses or punish renters for renting to illegals or for, you know, and you have to provide ID to rent in most places. You have to provide ID to get a job. So there are plenty of means to make it difficult for illegals to stay here. But I think that when it comes to the actual census, what you have to do is, get them to leave because I don't think that we're going to be able to say we don't count people

that are not citizens. I think that the way the Constitution is written, you'd have to actually have an amendment to fix that. On the voting thing too, I follow a girl on social media who she's from America, but her husband is from Scotland. So she actually ended up moving to Scotland. I'm assuming got a citizenship or card or something. I don't know. I don't know how it works. But she still has her citizenship for America. So she literally lives, she does not live in America anymore. She's been in Scotland for like over a year. She lives in Scotland. She voted in the 2024 election. She voted Kamala. But she's not even here to like experience the new president. So I just find that's so crazy that there are people that who don't even

live in America anymore and can still vote in the election and then not even like reap or so the benefits of it. Maybe if they're in the military at a military. Yeah, she's not in the military. She's literally a social media influencer. And she, it's her primary... Does she pay taxes in America? I don't, I don't know. I don't know how it works. Probably.

It literally her job is social media. It's like Instagram and YouTube and stuff. And her husband is Scottish. And she lives in Edinburgh, Scotland. And she literally, during the election, was posting. And, like, people were asking her, like, are you voting? I know you live in Scotland now. And she's like, yeah, I flew to America to vote.

At least she flew to do it in person. Yeah, but, like, still. I'd rather not. She's a major liberal. If you travel a lot and you have your primary residence in the U.S., but you're overseas 10 months out of the year, traveling. Yeah, but that's different. She literally lives full-time house, husband, dog in Scotland.

And then I wonder she has a full-time residence in the... Her parents. Oh. Yeah. The threads are being pulled. It's tough because, like, my sister was working full-time in Japan, and she still was able to vote because she was... going to come back i mean they were not going to be like oh you can stay here forever because they

don't let you do that i mean i still vote in new hampshire you know i've got a place down here but i spend enough time in new hampshire and and i have my primary residence in new hampshire so you know i i think that you are as long as you don't give up your citizenship yeah you you're you're you're going to say look i live i'm an american citizen i have a place in whatever state or whatever. So that's where I live. I'm not sure the details of it and what the legalities are for that location. Like I pay taxes here in West Virginia because I'm here so much. But when it comes to where I vote, I go back to New Hampshire to vote. It's about where your residence is, which is kind of nice that they, because they, I think what the, you know, the overmind

wants is to know where your body is and where your paperwork says your body is and make sure it's all the same so that you're not violating the system's tendrils. Well, the thing is, like, states want their tax money. You know, like, so West Virginia, because I'm here so much, they want to, they want to cut of my pay, right? Because I'm here doing the show and stuff like that.

So they want their tax money. There's no income tax in New Hampshire, so it's not a problem. You know, I pay my property tax, and New Hampshire's like, I don't care. You know, just like, whatever, you know, there's no income tax. There's no sales tax. Whereas down here, there is income tax, so I got to take care of that in

And if New Hampshire had income tax, would you be paying income tax in both states? Or do you pick the one? Wherever you spend most of your time is probably what it's got to be. So we're going to go ahead and jump to this next story. Let me see here. Where did it go? From the New York Times. The Democrats hate America and they continuously want to remind you that they hate our representative democracy.

So from the New York Times, abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, pack the course, court. Why the left can't win without a new constitution. After the great rebuke of 2024, many Democrats seem to think their party needs to become more moderate. But there's another theory potent on the American left that believes Donald Trump's election shows not just that American democracy is in danger, but that it doesn't really work at all. What the country needs isn't just a new policy agenda. It might need the kind of constitutional revolution from adding new states to packing the Supreme Court that some Democrats already flirted under Joe Biden.

That's the kind of argument that my guest today, Osida Nuwana, makes in this new book, The Right of the People, Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding. Nuwana is a contributing editor at the New Republic and the Democratic Institutions Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. So this is an hour-long podcast where Ross do that and this fellow who wrote this book get into why the Democrats actually don't want. want to protect democracy. They want to change our Democratic Republic so that they can retain power. All of the things that are proposed here would actually make it impossible or incredibly difficult for the Republicans to win at a national level, which there was a time, and this is probably back in 2013, 2014, 2015 leading up to Donald Trump, they, the Democrats

really did think that the Republicans were going to be a regional party from for as long as they could see the dead the Republicans were not going to have a national influence anymore and the Democrats had kind of just taken over everything and then when Donald Trump won they that's part of why the Democrats you know kind of freaked out about everything you know they really thought that they had control of everything they had control of of And they were going to forever have control of the White House and the Senate. Maybe they would lose the House of Representatives for a bit, but they would lose by, you know, maybe five or ten members and they would gain them back.

And they really thought they had essentially a permanent one-party rule. And that's exactly what they want. They want to change the way that our government is organized in order to make sure that Republicans don't win ever again. And they, you know, they outlined that right here. Now, this is not something that is actually surprising to anyone on the right, really. You kind of knew, if you pay attention to politics, you kind of understood that that was the situation, that Democrats don't really care about democracy when they say, when they would

say things like, you know, we're going to lose our democracy. Donald Trump is going to destroy our democracy, what they were talking about. about was their power base, their bureaucratic power base. And there are people that will make arguments. No, that's not what they meant. They don't mean that. They don't really think that the Republicans are evil, et cetera, et cetera. But there are more and more people that are coming out and saying the quiet part out loud and making arguments, hey, we need to make sure that Republicans can't. We need to do these things that will make sure that Republicans can't win. And these are terrible ideas. Adding states, I mean, D.C. constitutionally is not supposed to be a state,

right? They want to make Puerto Rico a state and they want to make D.C. estate. At the best, if they want to continue to have a constitutionally, you know, a constitutionally correct situation, they would have to give most of D.C. back to Maryland. And there would be, you know, just a very, very small portion of D.C., Capitol Hill, you know, just. the Capitol Hill where the White House is and probably where the Supreme Court is. Like they would have to make that right there just the small area, D.C. And the rest just give it back to Maryland. So that way you're not adding states.

You're not adding senators. But they do truly believe that it is perfectly legitimate to expand the court so that way they have more judicial power because they want to use an activist court. And they're floundering that they don't have. the ability to influence the court. But it is worth noting, like the Democrat, the three progressives on the court, they always vote the same way. There's three of the conservative justices that you're just like, I have no idea how

they're going to vote. They're not reliably conservative because they actually look at being a judge the way that a judge is supposed to be, right? They're supposed to judge the issue on the merits. You will never, ever get a judge. Genthe Brown Jackson to come down with a ruling that is anything other than exactly what is progressive orthodoxy. Always, always, always. You probably won't get so to my, you probably won't get Sotomayor to come down on anything other than progressive activism. And that's just the way that

the left behaves. So the Democrats aren't happy that they might get things their way because maybe Amy Connie Barrett or maybe John Roberts or whoever will come down on the side of the progressives. They want to make sure that they have enough people on the court to guarantee that they always have a progressive victory. And that's what the adding people or adding states is for. So that way they have two more or four more senators. They want to have two ostensibly Democrat senators from DC and then two Democrat senators from Puerto Rico. And that way they'll have. have what they believe will be a permanent, you know, permanent majority in the, in the Senate. They want to add the, they want to change the way the electoral college works.

So that way it's a direct election by popular vote because they believe that the states or the cities that are the, the concentration of population, they should be dictating to the of the country who the president would be. And those situations, those would all produce a Democrat out. Essentially, the argument is that those things will always produce an outcome that is favorable to Democrats. But they don't care about democracy. They care about power.

No, it's rules, rules for thee, not for me. They're the same people that have been fearmongering others that Trump wants to change the Constitution, right? It's like, I'm pretty sure I've heard that claim like countless times already that Trump's going to change the Constitution. or he's going to get rid of the constitution or he's going to rewrite the constitution and it's like they're accusing us of exactly what they're planning on doing it's right of the rules for radicals playbook yeah it's like number one also it sounds a lot like socialism because like all the people

that i had talked to on the left that want it it's because they think they'll be at the top like controlling it so if the democrats want that that because it's because they want to control everything, like Phil was saying with power. Dude, communism is so insidious, though. People, we can all do this. That rhetoric of all of us together. And it's so, like, someone looks around a room and says we all and makes eye contact with everybody. That's a bonding human, important thing for humanity, for families, it's important. But

for politics, it's so dangerous because as soon as we all get together and put that thing, I'm on top. Now I get to decide what happens. And I know it's all about all of us, but I got to take care of me first so that I can take care of you and who else is in my type and that's how it always has gone with these dumbass centralized authorities man but unless you know that ahead of time and you see it it's tough because it feels so good to say we're all in this together and it's empowering you're essentially what they're proposing is what the situation in california is right there's there's a one party rule in california there's no represent or very little representation at a state level

for any Republicans in California and you see it in the exodus of people from California. You know, after COVID, California lost, I mean, I don't know exactly how many but I want to say it's like half a million people, something like that.

So, and California's never lost people because California's, like the geography and the weather are just so attractive. Oh, it's a beautiful state. Gorgeous, gorgeous. It's wonderful. It's absolutely beautiful. like the only place that I think in the whole

United States that's actually more beautiful is probably Hawaii or at least that I think is nicer. I love Hawaii. Texas maybe. Texas, huh? Yeah, you know, I like Texas. Texas is flat, but I didn't see the state. Yeah. I liked I was going to be like, well, San Diego's pretty nice too, Phil, but I was like, oh, yeah, that's California. It is. I was thinking San Diego when you said

California. San Diego is probably my favorite part of California. It's so nice. I mean, the Los Angeles Valley, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, the Angels, that's what they said when they saw. I've never actually been to California. Really? Really? Yeah. I know. I want to go, but it like scares me. What part? I don't know.

Any part. I think that southern coast is the way. Big Sur down to San Diego. Yeah. I want to check out the national parks. Oceanside's great. Up north into the redwoods? Yeah. Yes. I've never been that far north, but I heard the Redwoods. It's such a, from things that I've seen, it's such a beautiful state, but it's just

the policies are absolutely her. horrendous and it just completely ruins it for me. And it's controlled by the metropolins. I wonder if California should be split in half and it'd be like a northern state and a southern state governed by Los Angeles and San Francisco because it's so big and so different. Is there like a conservative area in California? Orange County. Yeah. Orange County is very is fairly conservative. Okay. And there are other parts like once you get off of the coast like into the interior it's it's a lot of conservatives. But there's also not a lot of people. It's desert. Like once you get, when you get, you know, an hour and a half from the coast or so, two hours from the coast,

like, it's, it's pretty, it's pretty much like Texas. It's very, very hot all the time, or at least not all the time. They do have like a natural cool that rolls through at night. L.A. or just California in general from what I've, like, I heard they don't have a lot of air conditioning. You don't need it in Los Angeles. It's 95 in the sun and then you step into the shade it drops 20 degrees because the air is so dry. And it's 75 in the shade. It depends on where you are Because if you go up into the valley It's like 105 degrees

And I spent the whole summer out there When we were doing the madness record And it was, I mean, 110 in the valley It was crazy You didn't need AC in Los Angeles? I didn't need AC ever Windows were open 24-7 Oh well that's maybe it's a breeze

A constant breeze Okay If you're on the water I was just in the city in L.A And the breeze was enough The second story breeze If you're fortunate to live above the dark, the heavy metals of

the ground floor where all the brake dust is hovering, you know. Get about 18 feet up and then you start to be, it's pretty beautiful and fresh. Final answer, California. I mean, California is great weather wise. It is completely and totally

run by the Democrats and your politics, you know, your politics really do affect how your lifestyle is. Again, they lost at least half a million people after COVID, COVID. Massive amounts of, you know, many businesses left. Tesla left. Their, their, whatever, their headquarters was there. Joe Rogan left. I know there's... Isn't In and out leaving?

In and out is leaving. They're, I think they're going to Nashville. Yeah. So look, I mean, I would love to see in and outs open up all across the country, but that's a total different story. But, but I mean, it's hard for businesses in California. They raised the minimum wage and what happened was exactly what people were saying was going to happen. Businesses would fire people. They would raise prices. You know, businesses would go out of business because they can't afford to pay people. I think it was like $20 or whatever the –

I don't know what the minimum wage was raised to, but they raised the minimum wage. And everyone that was against it was saying, don't do this. Don't raise the minimum wage. This is going to be bad. It's going to have all these negative downstream repercussions. And as soon as they raised it within a couple of years, everything that the people were saying was going to happen. has happened. Yeah. I got this feeling I went to L.A. during COVID, I think it was 2021. And it was like this feeling of pathetic pathos. I'm not like, I got that feeling a little bit in the entertainment

industry when I lived there because the people were so obsessed with getting picked being, let me be part of your cult. Let me be picked by you and be part of your group. And yes, I'll say what you tell me to say. And it was just kind of sickening to watch. But this, watching them on masks during COVID was the most grotesque, like bow down to authority. I remember just dirty. sand in skate parks so that way kids couldn't go outside and skate. That's just evil. They were arresting people

for being on the beach during COVID. Like no one's around and there are a handful of people on the beach and they were just wrapping them up. It was somewhere where someone that was like out in a boat or on a canoe or something, they went out on a boat and arrested the guy. But it might have been in Australia. I'm not sure. But I mean California, it was definitely, they were doing that in

California. There are people that talk about, I see the picture of the skate parks filled with sand. I see that picture frequently on Fennis Beach. Yeah, because people respond to Gavin Newsom with that picture regularly. He'll talk about freedom and all these things he because he wants to run for president

and people are just like, oh yeah, you really care about freedom. You locked everyone down and stuff. Yeah, how quickly he forgets. Yeah, they're going to have to surfers, but you can't catch me, so. All right, we're going to jump to this last story here from the U.S. Sun. Spare the rod. Parents face $2,000

fines or 90 days in jail if they're breaks the law in U.S. state from skipping school to muggings. Let's see. Some parents will face fines or jail time if their children break any laws ranging from drunkenness to felonies. The Gloucester Township Council in New Jersey has announced that any parent who fails to prevent their child from committing a crime will face up to 90 days in jail or fines totaling $2,000. The council has identified 28 crimes that could result in parents being fined or jailed. Some of these crimes include felonies, disorderly kind.

associating with thieves, gambling, and idly roaming the streets, among others. I associate with thieves. I mean roaming the streets? Harsher penalties will be assigned to parents of children who are repeat offenders. New consequences come one year after a massive brawl erupted at a community drone show in South Jersey. The crowd of the show grew to 500 people with kids and young adults making up the majority of the viewers. Multiple fights broke out throughout the show leading to the arrest of 11 people. of the 11 arrests nine involved teenagers the ages of the arrest were teens of the ages of the arrested teens were 13 to 17 with seven of the arrestees being boys and three being girls that's not a surprise all of the teens arrested were charged with disorderly conduct and then released to their homes during the fights three police officers were injured and sustained minor injuries the lawless groups of unsupervised juveniles and young people acting with total disregard for others ruined a great family

oriented event, which has taken place to raise funds for the Gloucester Township Scholarship Committee for over 40 years, Gloucester Township Police Chief David Harkins told the outlet at the time. This type of lawlessness in the violent riotous behavior will not be tolerated and will not define the great community of Gloucester Township. I think that this will likely not produce the results that they want because I don't, I think that a lot of these kids that, and this is just an assumption, I think a lot of the kids that end up behaving this way, being, you know, kind of out of sorts and getting in trouble and stuff. A lot of them don't have two parents. What are you going to do?

You're going to throw a single mom in jail for 90 days? Do the kids get any sort of repercussions or is it just to the parents? Because also I can't imagine, like, what about the kids that hate their parents? And then they'll purposely commit crimes to get their parents in jail. so like what are you going to do there it really seems like a bad I could see where maybe they thought this would be a good idea

because there is a lot of a lot of like juvenile crime in Jersey why can't they just charge the kids well because it doesn't seem because it's not working their kids the punishments harsh are on the kids

because they're kids the point the point being they're under 18 so they don't get charged as as an adult but like you can still I had plenty of friends that like went to jail at like 14 and 16

Oh my God That's funny of them I'll be associating with thieves but Check this out The crimes parents are held responsible for A felony high misdemeanor Misdemeanor or other offense Violation of any penal law or municipal ordinance

Any act or offense Which he or she could be prosecuted In the method partaking of the nature of a criminal action or proceeding being a disorderly person habitual vagrancy incorrigibility immorality knowingly associating with thieves or vicious or immoral people growing up in idleness or delinquency knowingly visiting gambling places or patronizing other places or establishments his or her admission to which constitutes a violation of law a felony high misdemeanor or other offenses violation of any penal law or

municipal ordinance. Are they repeating that? Yeah, it looks like they're, it looks like they're, it looks like they're just repeating them. I like, was that indecent exposure? A disorderly person. Begging, drunkenness, consumption of alcohol, alcoholic beverages on a public street, destruction of pagan equipment in public parks. I mean, growing up in idleness mean.

I'm tired. There's a few words that I wasn't sure. Like a period of time, like we've been washing you for 30 days and you've grown a whole month in idleness. You're just sitting on your butt, doing nothing. And so they're going to arrest your parents for it. taking your parents. We've been reading the biometrics of your 7-year-old and he hasn't been exercising

enough. A $2,000 fine. You failed the school wellness test. I mean, do you guys think that this would actually work? No. Or do you think that... Not a chance. I mean, the nature of humans, it's the pendulum swinging. These councilmen got so overwhelmed with emotion as that now they're like,

we just need to stop at all. Let's just do something extreme. Do you think that parents are too are not stern enough with their children nowadays? Yes. This is the result. I'd have to hang out with parents One-on-one more to answer that directly No, yeah, there's a lot of

Now it's like the, a lot of kids are going up Like with their own iPads and everything Gentle parenting And the gentle parenting It's like the kid can punch their mother in their face And the mother will be like Oh sweetie no please don't do that We don't hit

It's we and then the kid will slap her again No, no You have kids right? Yeah, I have a two and a half year old Who does hit me But he's also two and a half Is this particular to New Jersey? Like this kind of stuff?

No, no. I like to take a chance to go ahead and give New Jersey the grief, but I don't think that it is. No, no, no, it's not because there's also, when we were in, we lived in Virginia right after having River. And like there was one family that would come over, like we would, friends would get together and like they would barely associate with this toddler. Just stick an iPad in front of this toddler and just like not play with him. at all. And it's like, so the kids grow up in front of screens, and then they grow up with the gentle parenting. Oh, we don't hit. You know, we have to be nice. They have no actual structure. So I definitely think that parents have become easier on their kids. Now, I mean, I was,

I was like spanked as a child. I don't think it was necessarily fun. But I am a, maybe there needs to be like a balance, but today the gentle parenting is definitely taken over and kids aren't being disciplined thoroughly, I think. They're not like afraid of their parents. Yeah, that's crazy. I think the balance is that you want, you don't want to scare your children. Yeah, you don't want to scare them, but you still want to make sure that like they stay in line. In a way, you kind of want to present an essence of fear. Like you are the authority that will bring down the hammer and destroy everything you love if you wrong me I'm in the future that will be the government so keep and then um but also but not to hurt them to sort of to make them to make sure it's okay

for them to be afraid of what might happen if they wrong you but you don't want to harm them with beatings you know like a spanking so that they're afraid of never getting that sharp smack on their ass again and they never do it again good doing it till that you can feel their bones breaking that's not that's abuse yeah that doesn't make the kid not doing and then they usually end up being criminals so pain then you talk about like, what's an ethical level of pain to administer on a child, like to teach it with pain? Like, touch the whole thing

where if they touch a hot stove, they don't do it, don't do it. Until they do it once, they don't know why they're not supposed to do it. So, and kids give in to the internet, and they figure out all their emotions and pains with a video game, they go there and they say it to somebody in real life and they get their teeth knocked in, and they go, and they, so you got to kind of socialize off the screen.

Yes, yeah. Yeah, it's a big thing. So, you guys are generally the opinion around the table is that punishing parents will not help, but parents need to be more stern with their kids. Do you think that this would motivate parents to be more stern with their kids? Maybe. Yeah. I think maybe that's the general, like, idea is for families to get like, oh, they see these consequences of like if their children go out and do these things, these are the consequences for you. And maybe it gets like their family, like the families act together. But at the end of the day, I don't think it's the best. I thought the same thing you thought that if a kid is pissed off of their parents, they're just going to go commit some stupid crime and get the parents fined. Yeah. Like, you're a raging hormonal teenager, too.

So it's just like, there's just, there's so much going on. It's like, they're not going to think, they're going to think, oh, my parents are probably going to go to jail for a little. It's going to be fine. But it's like, no, that's a much bigger problem. So there's another thing that you might want to think about when it comes to this kind of stuff. most of the time, if parents, especially in places like New Jersey, if parents are too strict, then they run the risk of CPS coming and picking up their kids. If you allow your kid to go walk, you know, if the kid is too young, and that's an arbitrary phrase,

but if the kid is too young and he's allowed to walk to the corner store, there's a chance that the police will pick the kid up, bring him back to the house, and you'll get, you'll get, you'll get a visit from CPS. So how do you think that they would square that kind of system where if you're too stern, the government might come and take your kid from you. But if you're not stern enough and your kid gets two buck wild, they're going to go ahead and come and pick you up and throw you in jail. I mean, what does that do? How does that actually help parents to raise their kids in a way where those kids will become, you know, productive members of society? It's, it's really, it's hard enough for parents to know how to raise kids.

It puts a lot of pressure on parents, especially like first-time parents. Both of you guys, yeah, both of you guys have new ones. My children will never be out in the streets doing whatever it is that would put me in jail. I just wouldn't let that happen. How do you know? But how? It's not going to let it happen. Because they'd be- Because I'm going to chain them up in the basement.

They would fear me, like Ian said. I don't know. I don't know. I hope it never came to that. We would lose privileges. When the privileges are so good at home that it's worse to lose those than it is to go do the thing you want to do, that's where it was just so good at my house that losing that was just the most horrific. I didn't want to violate it because it was so good. You have to grow up in a loving home.

Yeah. Like love your children. Like spend time with your children. Engage in their activities and what they love. Like I feel like parents don't do that enough. What kind of stuff? you do with the kid. Well, no, just like anything. Like just, it's just like engaging with them and like, you know, figuring out what they love to do, what hobbies they love to do, and like

maybe go and taking them to those, to do those things. Like, I don't know. How old your kid do you say? Literally only two and a half. Okay. I thought it impressive with a parent when they learn the video game that their kid loves. Yeah. That is a big deal for a kid. If your parents can start talking to you in the language of the game and they know what the items are and everything. Yeah. I mean, just show that, like, you're paying attention to the things that they are interested in. Yeah, I mean, it's, I mean, I imagine that just paying attention to your kid and interacting with your kid is the thing that they're after, right? I know that there's, it doesn't matter so much what you're doing because kids don't, you know, everything's kind of an adventure to a kid, right? When you're two, three, four, five, like, they just want to do stuff with you because you're the most.

important person in their life you know yeah so I imagine the more time you spend with your kids and pay attention to them that's the important thing it's not what you're doing it's are you doing things with them yeah you know and include them don't just have them be like you know don't have them be just a you know watching you do things or whatever make sure that they're doing things with you even if you know that's why they make things like little kids fishing poles they're not going to pull in a three-pound bass with it. But the kids there doing the fishing with dad, even if he's not going to catch anything worth doing, he's there doing the fishing.

You know, and whatever the activity is, it doesn't matter what the activity is. It's just, you'd be like washing dishes. Yeah. They have those, like, stools that kids can stand up on. And it's just like, even if you're doing washing dishes or you're cooking or you're folding the laundry, it's like, especially for, like, you said, like a young toddler, they don't know any better. Like, they just want to be with you. Like, every time, like, my child will sit and play on the floor with toys, he's always involving me and I'm always playing

with him because he doesn't want to do it alone. It sounds simple. I was thinking the last week or two that a lot of rhetoric about have more kids that's been going on for years. Like, we need to populate growth. But I'm like, rather than ask, how many kids do I have? Ask, how many children am I parenting? Yeah. What? Because One, if it's your wife's kid from an old marriage, if you're the dad, you're the dad. That's your, that is your child. You're, you're, you're charged now. No, I can see it.

And if you're not there for the kid, what's the point? Yeah. You don't want to get too caught up in the, like, have eight children and then not be able to, like, fully dedicate time to all of those eight children individually. You know what I mean? It's just like, it's, I, my opinion is it'd be better to have one child and be able to, I'm not saying you need to only have one child, but like just one child and be able to put all of your energy and attention into that child than to have, you know, five, six, seven kids and struggle to give them that attention that they're going to want because they fight for the attention of their parents. I get the utilitarian argument of like if we were like in a tribe and there had been a nuclear holocaust and we had like 17 people, we had to repopulate, go have 800 kids you never see, whatever, do that if you need to.

to you. But I don't think that the system requires that right now. It doesn't seem to. No, I'm personally not on board with the whole have more kids than you can afford type thing. I'm not on board with that. It's crazy because, yeah, as a new father, I feel like my four-month-old is already teaching me that I must be giving all my attention all the time. And I couldn't imagine And having eight kids, because I don't know how to split that attention the small amount to have, yeah. It's a very selfless thing. Yeah.

We're going to jump to this last story here from the post-millennial. Trump to deploy 4,000 Marines around Latin American waters to combat cartels reports. The Trump administration will be deploying an additional 4,000 Marines from the U.S. military in the waters around Latin America in order to combat the drug cartels, according to a new report from CNN, citing two. two U.S. defense officials, the outlet reported that the move is part of a broader mission to ready military assets to target the drug cartels. A third person familiar with the plans told the outlet that the additional military assets are aimed at addressing threats to U.S.

national security from specially designated narco-terrorist organizations in the region. Including in the deployment is the GMA-A-Fibious Ready Group, ARG, and the 22nd Marine Expeditiary Unit, reporting to U.S. Southern Command. The effort is reprimed. has reportedly been underway for the past three weeks. A P.8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft, nuclear-powered submarine, multiple destroyers, and a guided missile cruiser are also being allocated to U.S. Southern Command as part of the effort. One of the officials told the outlet that the build-up of the military assets is meant to show the force of the U.S. military rather than the targeting of the cartels. However, having the military assets at the ready allows for more options if Trump orders military action to take place. An official from the Marines told the outlet that a Marine Expeditionary Unit stands ready to execute lawful orders and support the combatant commanders in the needs that are requested of them.

A memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegsseth earlier this year instructed the Pentagon to seal our borders, repel forms of invasion, including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities, and deport illegal aliens in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security. last week it was reported by the New York Times that Trump signed a directive for the Pentagon to start using military force against some drug cartels in drug cartels in Latin America what do you guys think? Do you think that the this is going to do you consider

this an escalation of the war on drugs or do you think this is more about securing the United States from foreign terrorist organizations? I think I the latter yeah yeah it's more of a defensive tactic with the amount of fentanyl that's been coming over the southern border reportedly from China, wherever it's coming from Canada,

China to Canada, back to China to Mexico, through the border. I don't know. But yeah, we got to tack that down. That's, I think... I mean, you talk about the war on fentanyl. That's a whole other thing, man. I'm open to starting a war on fentanyl if you want to talk about that. But, you know, forget about the other drugs for the moment.

Yeah. Or whatever else. They got more fentanyl, I think, is another fentanyl they're working on. It's also the people that they're bringing. Don't forget, like, these cartels bring lots of people across the border and have for a long time. They control. that border. Well, not anymore.

But they did. They did. Yeah, but not anymore. I saw them shooting a couple months ago. There's reports that the cartels were firing it across the border. Yeah. Now they got military on your coast, so that's what happens when you shoot in Americans. Yeah, I mean, so it's my assumption, and this is not based

on any kind of, you know, any kind of inside information. I don't have some kind of contact or anything. But this kind of show of force, it really, it's probably just an intimidation tactic. Yeah. It's to remind cartels what exactly they're going to be up against because look if you want i mean you can get on telegram channels and you can see what the cartels are doing how they're outfitted what they you know

how brutal they are you can see in in graphic detail the way they behave and they do look like malicious like they're they're not just dudes that are you know selling drugs or or guys running around with an AK anymore. Like, these guys are legitimately well equipped. They probably have anti-air assets, right? Like, they probably have things like stingers and stuff because you can get that stuff on the black market. So they have, you know, a lot of armored vehicles.

They're not like APCs. They're trucks that they've put armor onto. They're closer to, I guess, like an armored car that you would have, you know, transporting money in and stuff. But these vehicles are, you know, full of dudes with, serious hardware. They've all got belt-fed fully automatic machine guns. They've got 50-Cal rifles, semi-automatic rifles. They've got, you know, they're walking around with AKs and ARs or M-16s and stuff. The idea that these, that the cartels are what they were, you know, 30, 40 years

ago, that stuff is gone. These guys are, are as well equipped as any other terrorist organization that you would find in the Middle East or anything. But the United States has really gotten extremely proficient at disassembling terrorist organizations. We spent 20 years doing it in the Middle East. And whereas the cartels are brutal and they're violent and they do things trying to intimidate, I don't, it's my sense that the United States military is not going to be intimidated, right? And so the argument that I hear is, oh, well, the

cartels will come into the U.S. And I do think that there could be some attacks in the U.S. But I don't see the cartels having significant impact on the United States. And I don't think the United States would say, oh, we should stop going after the cartels because they've killed some Americans.

No, if you look at it, I mean, best allegory would be like what they just did to the Iranian government with that bunker buster. And then, like, I think you said, Phil, a few weeks ago, we're talking about it, that it's like they go in there, the CIA, and they kill the leadership of this terrorist seller with this government. And then the

next people come in. They're like, we're going to get those Americans for what they did to us. And then they go in and they kill all those guys. The CIA goes and they kill all the new guys. And then the next group comes in there like, all right, you know what? We're going to play ball with the Americans. And the thing is you're not, it's not so much the CIA. Like, you're talking about direct action military forces. Like, if the Navy's there, you know that

there, there are seals there. Right? There are definitely seals that would have the capacity to go into Mexico and attack assets on the ground. And I imagine they would use airplane. They bomb. They would do what they did to the Iranians to the cartels.

That's how they would start. I think that more than likely it would be more like the way that the U.S. took on ISIS because the U.S. had a lot of covert assets in Iraq that would go into Syria and take on ISIS and get into a lot of gunfights and kill a lot of ISIS. A lot of ISIS guys got killed by Delta. It was either the Israeli and the American. intelligence together before that attack on the Iranians. They

killed a bunch of people inside. They had dudes on the inside. I remember that kind of being part of it. I don't know exactly, but that was all Iran. I mean, that was all Israel doing. The only thing the U.S. did was use B-2s with bunker busters or B-1s and B-2s with bunker busters because the assets that the Iranians

had where they were doing the nuclear enrichment were too far underground. The Israelis didn't have anything that could get into those. Everything else was Iran. I mean, sorry. everything else was Israel, and the U.S. attacked the actual nuclear sites because the U.S. had the actual bombs that could get into them. That's it. So I really do think that the attack or the dealing with the cartels would be much closer to the way that we dealt with ISIS. Like ISIS was doing things like making passports. Like ISIS was a country. It was a very young, new country, but they were providing infrastructure to the inhabitants. They were making passports. They were making passports. Passports. They were doing state things. They were doing things that countries do. And so the U.S. had to deal with them in a very different way than just dropping bombs on them. And so they had people stationed and they had, they had Baggram Air Force Base in Baghdad. I'm sorry, not Baggram. I forget what the Air Force Base was or the the airport that the U.S. had taken. Outside of Baghdad? Yeah, in Baghdad. I forget what it's called. But either way, that's where the U.S. forces were.

And they had some places stationed in the desert so that they could get into Syria. But they had a lot of special forces that were doing the actual fighting of ISIS. And when Donald Trump came into office, that was one of the things that he wanted to do. He was like, we're going to go and smash ISIS. And he really let loose the special forces. And he let loose Delta. And they went in. And they killed a lot of ISIS and got them to the point where they were no longer technically a country.

And Assad was able to push them back. and then, you know, there was a civil war going on, but the U.S. really did disassemble ISIS, and I imagine that's probably the strategy that they have when it comes to the cartels. Now, whether or not the Mexican government wants the U.S. to do it, I don't think that that really matters.

No. You know, because everyone knows that if the U.S. goes just like the same exact thing that they did when they went and they got bin Laden, right? The strike to get bin Laden. They didn't let the Pax know, because if they'd have told the Pax, the Pax would have informed,

someone would have informed bin Laden. So they had to do it without the Pax. The Pakistani government. We said the PAC. Yeah, the Pax. The Pakistani government. They didn't tell the Pakistanis because if they had told the Pakistanis, someone in the government and the military would have gone and informed bin Laden.

So the same things goes on in Mexico. You can't go to President Shinebaum and say, oh, we're going to do this. Because Shinebomb is only there because the cartels allowed her to live. There were like 40 politicians in Mexico that got killed. in the past year or something like that. And they cut their heads off and hang them up on off bridges and stuff. So anyone that's a politician in Mexico, they're there with the approval of the cartels. It's a total narco state.

So the U.S. isn't going to sit there and be like, hey, we're going to work together to get the other. There's no peace deal with the cartel. No, they're going to go and they're going to start attacking the cartels and they're going to start taking those people out without the approval of the Mexican government. And the Mexican government's going to make a bunch of noise to the president. but, or to the U.S. government, but they're going to say, we can't trust you.

Yeah, Shinebom literally can't say, like, Shinebomb is the president of Mexico. She can't say that she wants to happen because we all know what will happen to her if she starts saying stuff like that. If she starts saying things like that, very bad things will happen to President Shinebaum. Okay, so Shinebom's controlled up.

Yeah, exactly. We use her as controlled opposition. That's good. Yeah, that's what I would think. You know, so, I mean, I think that this is the obvious course of action. Yeah, it seems obvious. It doesn't excite me. it doesn't make me happy

the thought of another military explosion death all this god whatever but at the same time it seems inevitable like if we don't militarize our southern border in some fact

like this is what even I'm talking about the water too I'm glad the Navy's there very very least is just to show of force if there's an attack on Taiwan from the Chinese our Pacific fleet needs to be ready

everything is in position you know I like it the Chinese Taiwan thing bothers me a lot it's been on my mind lately someone said oh they're going to take it I think it was Alex Jones was saying it. Well, I mean, there's, they look at Taiwan as part of China, so.

And if I was an alien looking down at Earth, I would have looked at it as part of China too. I'd be like, why is this part controlled by that guy? Give it to them. Let them have their part. But Taiwan's actually controlled. Taiwan's actually controlled by Taiwan. Anyways, we're going to go to super chats right now. So go ahead and smash the like button.

Share the show with all your friends. Go to rumble.com, become a member, and then head on over to Timcast.com and join the Discord so you can join us at the after show. We're not having an after show today because it's Friday, but we have the after show Monday through Thursday where you can call in, talk to our guests, talk to the panel, all that stuff. And also in the Discord, that's where the podcasts are created. That's where people find love. There's like three people that got married in the Discord. So head on over there and join the Discord, but we're going to read some of your super chats right now.

Andrew says, R.E. Trump Putin interview. Putin finished off speaking English. this is a huge deal knowing Putin will only speak Russian for interviews those last words meant a lot i hope you're right i mean i don't know particularly how frequently Putin speaks english i don't know how well he knows english um but listen i would love to see trump be able to broker some kind of peace deal so that way we can stop sending weapons to ukraine or stop sending money to ukraine and ukraine can stand on its own feet but i do think that But this is probably just Putin making a peace deal for a short amount of time. So that way he can say, all right, we can rebuild the military some, build up our, you know, ranks and prepare to go back in.

I assume that he's thinking when there is a less volatile president, someone a little more easy to predict what they would do. But like I said, I mean, I hope that it actually does produce peace. even if it's not a long-term piece. Shane H. Wilder says the Texas House special session ended today. Cindy? Sindai. I'm not sure what you're talking about. The governor called for a second special session. Dem said they will come back if California redistricts in Dem's favor.

Newsom said he will. Well, I mean, look, this is all about figuring out how Democrats can retain power. This isn't about representing the people. It has nothing to do with democracy or making sure that, people's voices are heard. This is all about consolidating Democrat power as much as they can because they have been totally trounced and they're remarkably unpopular. You'd think that considering how unpopular the Democrats are, something like 30% approve of them, a 30% approve of rating, their brand has totally been dragged through the mud. You'd think that they would say

we need to come up with better policies as opposed to saying things like we need to figure out ways to grab power in, in a way that is not representing the people of the states. Like if they're unpopular, they shouldn't be thinking, hey, how can we grab onto power and hold onto it? They should be thinking, what are we going to do to offer the American people a platform that they will vote for? But they're not interested in representing the American people. they're interested in holding onto power. So hopefully, you know, they're not successful in their efforts. But this is what you can expect from the Democrats.

They don't have a popular platform. They can't speak to the American people. They're at, you know, record low approval ratings. And now instead of going and thinking, how do we fix this? They're thinking, how do we grab power and make sure that we can hold on to power? who cares what the people think who cares that the people don't like us who cares that the people don't want anything to do

with our platform it doesn't matter what our platform is the only thing that matters is we hold onto power I think it's because the the COVID response was such a floundering miss you know fumble of human society and now all those people that were complicit like Gavin Newsom they know that and the utter humiliation which is why they can't create

a resounding message and they're falling back on tricking people to vote for them No, that's not even tricking people to vote. They're trying to get around people voting. They're trying to make sure that they can retain power in, like, no matter what the people want. Is it that they're not giving a message, no coherent message out of that party that I've heard?

Is it, I mean, my best take is that what can you say other than I'm sorry that I screwed you over for four years during COVID? They'll never say that, though. Yeah, because as soon as you apologize, like blood in the water, all the sharks attack, and then they never get reelected because they were weak. Well, not only that, but the policy. that the progressives want, the far left wing of the party, are the unpopular policies. They're literally open borders.

Like, the closing the border has been super popular with the American people, but Democrats will swear up and down that it's horrible that the borders are closed. They want to have open borders. The Democrats want to have LGBT stuff taught in schools, even though the American people are generally not for that. The American people are not for having, you know, the boys in girls' sports, but they haven't really softened on that. They haven't moved away from that. They have doubled down on so many 80-20 issues on the 20 side as opposed to the 80-side, as opposed to rethinking what their platform should be.

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans have really done a job on what the Democrats used to be. They used to be the party of kind of the center, and they used to be the party of the working people and stuff, and they've abandoned them totally. Now they're the party of the super rich, and they're the party of the dependent class. Yeah, they used to be the rich people that were cool, and then they stopped being cool. During Obama, Obama went from being cool to not cool in like 2013 or 12, and he started to get really gray, too. I think the stress of being, you know, the killer in chief was getting to him. Well, presidents tend to go gray when they get into office. He seemed cool. Yeah, that's true, too.

I always say he was, I almost feel like sad, like the potential. Like, he's such a great speaker. He, like, carries himself really well. But, like, he's really just a terrible person with terrible policies. When he came in, he said his favorite president was Abe Lincoln. That was, I think he was planning to sacrifice himself to free us from whatever this global tyranny, this economic order had been. But then he learned, as he became co-opted by the system, when he left office, he said his favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt. So he completely let go of that whole Abraham Lincoln ethos while he was in office at some point.

So much wasted potential, honestly. Funkmaster General says, Ian, what happened to the live streams? The masses are clamoring for them to return. One more live streams. They can't get enough of you, Ian. Just a click button away, you know. I put a couple videos up on YouTube, check them out if you want to get a fix. Talking about God and spirits, actually, talking about spirits.

Why your thoughts affect reality because you're changing the shape of your neurons, which is altering your resonating field, which is then resonating, causing other people's neurons to change. Anyway, your thoughts are directly influencing other people's thoughts. And I thought about the spirits and how your thoughts are affecting. If they're within your resonation field, them, these high-frequency density things, and then they're changing, and then they're influencing.

So you can, like, think healthy thoughts, change the spirits with these healthy thoughts, and then the spirits will then make you other people think healthy thoughts. It's a wild ride. Let's see. Trump and the Rue actual says Trump and the Clintons

are still close friends same with the Obama's It's all theater Trump is one of them He is proving every day He's not on our side I'm not sure that I agree I think that the fact

That they were trying so hard To put him in jail It makes me think That maybe he's not actually one of them You may not like what he's been doing Or don't think that he's been doing enough And there's there's an argument To be had there

You're entitled to your opinion But the idea that he's the same as the people that are trying to throw him in jail? I don't know, man. Yeah, if you get in a swamp, people might think you're part of that swamp if they see you in there digging around and he's in there right now. Rue Actual came back and said, if he was on our side, there would already be over a million deportations. No, there wouldn't. The NFA, IRS, and the ATF would be gone. No, they wouldn't. He would be, he would tell judges to get effed and people would be in prison. You're wrong on all of that. Yeah, I kind of feel like he doesn't have that kind of power. We're kind of

overestimating what we can actually do. It's kind of amazing to me that he's able to have done what he's done so far. So the a million deportations, it takes time to actually process the people. I mean, I'm not even sure if you have enough time to grab, like a million's a lot, man. Like a million's a whole lot. The NFA, IRS, and the ATF would be gone. That takes Congress, not Donald Trump, right? Like all of those things were created by an act of Congress.

So it would require an act of Congress to make them go away. You're saying that you wish Donald Trump would just be a dictator. I don't think that that's a good thing for the country. I do think that he's doing things that could have the results that you're looking for, but there is a process. No one likes it. No one likes to see the way the sausage is made. That phrase means no one likes to see how things are actually done in D.C.

and it's hard to pass legislation for a reason because the federal government isn't supposed to be passing legislation so you've got a hundred years of garbage legislation that's been passed and a hundred years of bureaucracies that's been created maybe more one guy isn't going to get in there and in six months be like bam it's all set now unless that guy gets in there and literally takes over the whole government

with the military pointing guns at people like I understand where you're coming from that you want these results and a lot of those results I want to but to think that that was ever going to happen was an error in on your part because it was never going to be like that let's see

ski bird says my wife and I are continuing the tradition on the IRL while in labor with our third daughter cheers congratulations thank you for letting us know we appreciate that make babies right like making them is fun and having a family is cool make babies

so get married and make babies let's see Dan Hall 960 says countries do not have morals only interest yes that is 100% true you can have a population that wants

that wants policies that ascribe to the population's moral outlook but the countries themselves they don't have morals they only have interests. Smoky Mirror said, should EMP guns be legal as home defense weapons

or as drones and cyber warfare type things become commonplace? I mean, I don't know if they have EMP guns yet, right? Like that won't fry everything, you know? In your house, would it shut the lights off if you pulled the trigger? Or would it be like directed? Target practice with that?

Yeah. I mean, I personally, I think that if they did have them, I think that they're probably non-lethal to humans as EMP weapons, like people, that doesn't really affect people. So I can't imagine that being a problem for people owning them. I mean, the government likes to get involved and say, you know, you can't own this with a lot of things. So maybe they would stick their nose in. But yeah, I don't think that that would be a problem. Wyatt Claytonberg says, I watch culture war today, and I am an old fart and not with it.

Are young people's sexual relationships really that weird? If so, the West is doomed. Look, man, I think they probably are that weird. There's a lot of kids nowadays that have not ever had any alcohol. I think it's something like less than half of Gen Z has ever had any alcohol. Kids aren't smoking weed anymore. They're not going out and doing the things they used to do. So I think you're probably right.

They probably are that weird. I didn't get the reference of the show I didn't see that part of the show Tinder made things weird online dating sure made things strange Let's see Garret says D.C. is ruled by Congress

D.C. was allowed home rule in 73 D.C. Home rule can and will be removed D. D.C. has zero say in the matter. I mean, yes, that's true. They do. Let's see. Gary goes on to say, complaining. Yeah, I'm out. You guys need

fact checkers. Too much ignorance being dropped tonight. Meet before and talk about the topics and fact check yourselves. Okay. Gary, drop specifics, Tommy. What was wrong? Give the correction in the super chat. Be a team player, Gary. Joe Arnone says, thank God Ian is

back. The show is too boring without him. Welcome back, Ian. Arnold. Everybody loves you. Hi, Joe. Thank you. And then someone else says, Justin Green says, this idiotic crap like this, that makes me hate Ian. I love these, I love you so much. What was his name? Thank you, sir.

Who is he? Justin Green. Justin, thanks for the expression. I love, sometimes I'll literally in a chat, I'll be like, Ian is the best. Ian sucks. It'll be like, and I want a screenshot. I just be like, life on the internet, baby. Let's see, MRP 1775 says, Phil, last night you said the U.S. has been stable since 1945. Also argued government made a boo-boo with Fed in 1913.

Does former cut against ladder not defend Fed Wef boo with Capital 86? Apologies if misconstrued. I do think that it is probably, like you wouldn't have had the Cold War if it wasn't for the Federal Reserve. You wouldn't have had a lot of the bureaucracy. You wouldn't have had all the bureaucracy that we have without the Federal Reserve. I think that a significant portion of our actually probably all of our big, bloated government is because of the Federal Reserve. If it wasn't for the ability to print money, I don't think that the government would have

been able to have all of the bureaucracy. They wouldn't have been able to engage in all the adventurism and wars abroad and stuff. So it is possible that the U.S. wouldn't be able to do things like have the liberal economic order that has made the world a much better place after World War II. but without the Federal Reserve I mean but yeah so let's see one last one Pinochet's helicopter tour says Phil look into what the job is of the seventh special forces group

is also stop glazing the CIA no I'm not going to stop glazing the CIA even though I don't know how I am glazing the CIA a lot of times people are like if you don't criticize the things that I want you to criticize then that means that you're glazing them or you're a shill. It's like, I want to hear my opinions coming out of your mouth. And if I don't hear my opinions coming out of your mouth, that means you're a shill.

Sounds very liberal. I tell you what, there's a lot of people, a lot of people that get mad at you if you don't have their opinion, and that's a very leftist liberal. You know, if you want to hear your words in Phil's mouth, just super chat them. There you go. I mean, we'll read things that are critical as well as things that are positive. So, all right, smash the like button. Share the show with your friends.

Do you have any? Where can people find you on the internet? You can find me on X at Real Alex Lanes, that's L-A-I-N-S, and Instagram at Living Life Like Alex. Thanks for coming, Alex. Carter. Carter's in the house. I've been trying to find this link. It's to the song that me and Alex are going to do tomorrow is inspired by it.

It's from the Sin Frontera score that I did, and I'm like trying to give it to y'all, and I literally can't play it. Well, Carter's searching that. Go ahead. I'm Ian Crossland. You can find me at Ian Croson, which is my name, all over, pretty much all over the internet. So find me, hit me up. I'm happy to be here. Great to have you. I'll tweet it whenever I find it. Just follow me at Carter Banks. I'm tweeting momentarily.

I am Phil that remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check us out on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. And we will see you all back here Monday. There will be clips throughout the weekend. So keep that YouTube app open. And we'll see you on Monday. day.