Timcast IRL - Stock Market BLOODBATH After China Places 34% Tariff On US, Trump HOLDS FIRM w/ Evita Duffy-Alfonso

Episode Date: April 5, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Brett are joined by Evita Duffy-Alfonso to discuss $6 Trillion being wiped out from the US Stock Market after Trump's tariffs, China retaliating & hitting the US with a 34% tax on all imports, Trump supporting blocking congress proxy voting, and Trump delaying the TikTok ban again. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Brett ⁨@PopCultureCrisis⁩ (YouTube) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Evita Duffy-Alfonso @evitaduffy_1 (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Six trillion dollars wiped out in the stock market. They're calling it a bloodbath. And I ain't crying about it. I'm not. I mean, it's not like it's a good thing. But if you also look at the actual Dow charts going back this year or the past couple of years, it's not the apocalypse. It is bad. We're going to navigate this and we'll see what's going on. I am I am I'm going to say this. I am no fan of the people on the right who are just like this is no big deal.

And Donald Trump knows what he's doing. Guys, chill, chill, chill. People are going to freak out. People don't know what's going on. We're going to freak out. And we're going to say this. We are hoping things improve. But let's acknowledge this is not a good thing. But then you get the liberals screaming and bashing their face on the wall, acting like the apocalypse is happening. It's like, guys, this is like a six month correction. And we knew a correction was coming. So the question is now, what will Trump do? And we want good leadership. So let's make sure we're being critical where critical needs to be applied. We're not going to just defend literally everything, even when it's bad. But we'll see. So again, you know, I want to see how the tariffs play out. But I do think

this is going to have a negative impact. The question is, will I have a long term positive impact? We're talking about that. Plus, we had a bunch of other crazy stories. Trump fired someone who works in a federal agency and a judge a month later just fired the person Trump hired, rehired back the other person and reversed a month of decisions. This is a judicial coup. So we're talking about that. Plus, Gavin Newsom, I guess it's kind of weird because I don't a seditious conspiracy. Gavin Newsom saying he's instructed the state of California to negotiate its own trade agreements, which is violating the Constitution and breaking away from the union. It's weird because you can't do that.

But OK, before we get started, my friends head over to gas brew dot com and pick up some gas brew coffee. We've got two weeks till Christmas, despite the fact it's been four months since Christmas. It doesn't matter. Phil is still dressed like Santa Claus. I look great. And it's gingerbread coffee. He does. He't matter. Phil is still dressed like Santa Claus. I look great. And it's gingerbread coffee. He does. He looks fantastic.

And we also have a bunch of others. We got Appalachian Nights. Ian's Graphene Dream is in stock. Rise with Roberto Jr. You guys pick up Casper Coffee. It is the best coffee. Everyone agrees. At least that's what I've been told.

And also join our Discord server. Guys, don't just be a passive observer of the news. You got to be active. We got to activate you. The Republicans just be a passive observer of the news. You got to be active. We got to activate you. The Republicans just lost a Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin because Donald Trump's base, they don't turn out for special elections. They show up in November. They vote.

They don't show up for midterms. If you guys do not become active participants and make sure that this is part of your life, the midterms are going to come by and Trump ain't going to do too well. And then if he doesn't win, he gets impeached. And we don't want that to happen because Trump needs four years, not two. It's razor thin margins already. One way you can be involved, not the only way, is to go to TimCast.com, click join us, get in that Discord server. If you sign up for 10 bucks a month, there's a wait period for the higher tier access, but you'll still get access to the general chats and all that stuff. After six months, you get a free upgrade or you can upgrade instantly for 25 bucks a month. We do

this to keep out the weirdo antifa types. When you're a member of the discord, there's fitness chat rooms, there's gaming chat rooms, they have gaming servers, 20,000 plus individuals, you're going to hang out with all of them. And more importantly, May 3rd, we are launching the culture war live, where you as members will join the debate table and actually debate with us and, you know, on the show live in front of I think Culture Wars currently getting like 400,000 views per episode. Not to mention the clips also do another couple hundred thousand. So over a million per episode. That can be you on the show, man. We want to make sure y'all are active and involved. So we're going to be bringing the audience into the debate. Consider a mix of Jubilee

meets Kill Tony. It's going to be a lot of fun. I'm really excited for it. Don't forget to smash that like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Evita Duffy Alfonso. Alfonso, yeah. I almost got it wrong. Thank you for having me. Oh, yeah. Who are you? What do you do? Well, I have a podcast. I used to work for Dan Bongino. Now he's the deputy FBI director. So I work for Paula Bongino, and I'm part of this Rumble lineup. I'm the morning show, 9 a.m. Eastern time. Then it goes to Vince Collingier, Stephen Crowder, and then Tim.

That's right. Yeah. Yeah, and this is crazy. You and I both, as part of the Rumble lineup, have some of the biggest live streams in the country right now. It's incredible. I mean, I've been doing this for, like, less than a year, and it's huge. I mean, it's like, I mean, streams in the country right now it's incredible i mean i've been doing this for like less than a year and it's huge i mean it's like i mean how what are you doing right now what numbers are you pulling so i so it varies but it's averaging probably like 50,000 concurrent viewers but we've done uh 80 yeah some odd amazing yeah i think you've done way

massive my my max is i've done i've done 50 but now it's probably around 40, which is just, I mean, it's unbelievable. The audience is incredible, and the Rumble Morning lineup has basically created 11 of the top 15. The reason I'm doing that is because I could just say the top 10 is all Rumble live streams. That's pretty wild. So, yeah, it's crazy stuff, and it's rad. But thanks for joining us. We had a lot to talk about. It should be fun. We got Brett hanging out. Guys, yeah, it's crazy stuff. And it's rad. But thanks for joining us. We had a lot to talk about. It should be fun.

Yeah. We got Brett hanging out. Guys, what's going on? Brett, normally Pop Culture Crisis is Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. Eastern. Let's talk politics. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains.

I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Let's go. Here's the big news from The Independent. Oh, boy, you'll love it. They say stock market closes week in bloodbath as Trump's tariffs cause historic two day drop and wipe out six trillion dollars. I love this so much because the first thing I'm going to say is there are a lot of people on the right that are saying things like you don't you know, don't worry. These are luxuries. We can we can make it through. The country is more important. And it's like, guys, come on. This is – I get it. I get it.

But it doesn't sound honest. I'm just saying. It doesn't sound honest. The left is apoplectic. They're screaming this is the worst thing in the world. But like these are the people that hate the stock market in the first place and rag on investments. And love to tax you. Yeah, and they call for wealth taxes.

I'm like, you don't actually care about this. To be honest with you, the fact that it's negative headlines for Trump, they love it. I'm watching a lot of the Democrat left-leaning pundits, the partisans and stuff, and they're saying, oh, this is so bad. It's so terrible. But they're tweeting every 15 minutes. This is the best day of their – this is the best week of their life because leading up to this, Donald Trump had been doing things that the American people wanted. He'd had great, great polling and the Democrats had been in disarray. So this is literally what James Carville was saying about a month ago, saying, wait for the Republicans to mess up.

You know, just keep your powder dry. Hold on. And this will this the Republicans will will mess up. And then you can jump because they have nothing to actually offer. The whole Democrat establishment is going through a restructuring there. They're in a civil war deciding whether they want to be woke or they want to be, you know, try to bring back blue dog Democrats. So this is the best thing that they've had this year. How old are you? Twenty five. Twenty five. Do you care about stock portfolios?

Listen, I don't have any money in the stock market. I'm so sorry. I just don't. And this is the thing about these tariffs is as a young person, I'm looking at it long term. You're saying it's going to bring industry back to America. I'm like, this is great. Like this is more opportunity long term for me. It sucks me if you're an older person. You know, you have your savings, you know, but. Well, that's what it was, it was a bunch of um boomers saying like oh my gosh look at the stock market and all the millennials are like what stock market yeah i just want to own a home millennials gen z are like this is foreign to them like they don't have money

in the stock market this is exactly unless it's unless it's amc or uh game stop yeah yeah the mean stocks this is again i mentioned this the other day um that was one of the things that the guy from uh the all-in podcast was saying he's like this for young people for the the you know gen z and stuff they don't have assets they don't own things and they're you know really kind of struggling right now so these kind of uh events or whatever you want to call it it doesn't affect most americans only only a small not small but only a certain percentage of americans have money in the stock market and sure if you're if you're living on a fixed income then it matters but young people who are trump's biggest supporters right now they kind of don't care if i understand correctly it's like the meme that says like me being five years old in 2008

rather than buying a house yeah yeah when the when the market crashed last time you know i i grew up in a walmart town you guys know like a walmart town is like it's just like these little tiny towns where it's the only thing that's there is walmart and i i you kind of like learn about like the economics of that and it's you think you're you're buying into your community but that money just goes straight up to these multinational you know corporations all the products are made in china yep we know instinctively young people that the system's broken. So if there's going to be a little bit of heartache now

and there's going to be a long-term payoff, I just think it's a no-brainer for somebody who's under 30. Yeah, I feel like all of these millennial liberals who are on X right now screaming the market, oh, Trump's ruining everything. I'm like, you guys don't have portfolios. Shut up. Also, they do this every time, right? Whenever there's any type of bump in the stock market, when it's good, it doesn't matter. When

it's bad, they use it as some type of evidence of something that they don't care about to begin with. And I think you're right more than anything is that they don't have the left right now doesn't have a platform. They don't have any front runners to run in 2028. They're basically going off what they've been going off since 2016, which is just what can we do to show you that Trump is bad rather than coming up like right now would be a great time for a really, really solid middle of the road candidate to come out for them. Somebody who can speak well, somebody who can. I know it sounds like a fair.

That's a good one. I know. I know. But I'm saying that doing something like that right now would be a fantastic idea, but they don't have anyone like that. And there's too much internal friction within the party for letting somebody that moderate come out as a forerunner anyways. It wouldn't work. Yeah, I've seen a lot of personalities that – it's interesting. There's financial pro-Trump personalities losing their minds.

So there were a lot of these like fin bros who were not pro-Trump until like a couple years ago. Now they're all on board with Trump and they're screaming like, my portfolio, Trump, what have you done? And I'm just laughing. I'm like, yeah, well, dude, come on. But like the reality is a lot of these guys are buying right now. They know that it's going to go down. It's going to go back up, especially if Trump is using this as a negotiating tactic or whatever he's doing, it's going to go down. It's going to go back up, especially if Trump is using this as a negotiating tactic or whatever he's doing. It's going to return. And then but I'm seeing a lot of like these diehard Trump people who are saying things like who cares about 401k? I don't care about this. And I'm like, the only critique I have is that when people were claiming that when Trump got in, it was going to be to the moon and are now claiming it doesn't matter at all. I'm like, you don't sound honest.

People you're like, this is bad for trying to win more people over. I have no problem saying to a regular American who's going like, hey, I got a retirement account. And I'm saying like, well, yeah, this is not good. The market should not dip like this. We wiped a year off of the Dow Jones. So I know a lot of people are upset, especially people who bought in six months ago. They're losing. And so what you want to say is, here's what we're hoping is going to happen. I'm skeptical on the global blanket tariffs, but I lean towards being in favor of tariffs in general. So I'm, you know, I'm willing to see where this goes. And I'm also an adult who can recognize that if Trump makes mistakes, we're going to own up to that because that's the reality of it. The people that are rightly upset are the people that are on fixed incomes,

older people that rely on the stock market for their monthly – pay their bills and stuff like that. And those people disproportionately are the massive voting bloc because older people are the ones that are reliable voters. So this really could – if it doesn't get straightened out before, if we do, say we do go into a recession that's, that's, you know, that drags into next year or longer, this could really have a bad effect on the midterms. And that means that Trump is likely to get, you know, have to fight with more impeachment stuff because that's, that's something that the Democrats are definitely going to do. If, if they take the house, they're going to our you know draw up articles of impeachment and then it'll be just the same things that we we dealt with the first you know over the first trump administration and that would be horrible for the country because that means nothing gets

fixed nothing gets done and anything that anything any good stuff that may have happened because of doge gets washed away and i you won't even talk about it. I can give you guys the easiest poll ever done on this issue and tell you outright, no one cares about the market. And what I mean by no one is obviously there are going to be people in media and influence who do. But there's actually only one poll that really matters. And it's how many people are going to watch this show right now now i'm not saying literally everybody in the world watches the show i'm saying we can actually track at having done this show now going on five years we're entering year five

i know when we lead we choose a lead story for the night we're trying to figure out what is the most impactful story what matters most to people I know when we do stock market stories, nobody clicks on them. And so when the media comes out and they're like, this is the apocalypse, I'll tell you guys this. When we're leading off with the stock market went down on TimCast IRL, it means nothing else happened. Because I know that the average person does not care. Don't get me wrong, there are people who care,

and they're allowed to care because people have retirement funds and all that stuff. But I'm telling you, if Donald Trump drove a Tesla around a racetrack today, that would get way more views from the average person, way more of concern to them than whether or not the stock market moved. I understand it's going to have effect on pensions, but the average person's not going to see that. And so especially now, as millennials and Gen Z are becoming the dominant force as the audience in media, because older folks are moving on, they're watching less, they're getting pharmaceutical ads on Fox News instead. We are going to be able to see how much this stuff really matters to them. And I got to be honest, Trump probably knows this move isn't going to matter as much because he's targeting the younger generation.

If he wants his movement to succeed, here's the wild thing that people do not consider, which is surprising. Obviously, consultants do and politicians to a certain extent do. But you're 25. That means when Trump descended the escalator, you were 10 years or 15 years old. 15, yeah. So you probably weren't paying attention at all. I was because my dad was in politics. But most of my friends know nobody was paying attention. Exactly. And now and now here you are voting. Yeah. And your friends are voting. And so four years from now, what Trump is looking at is who's 17 years old right now?

What what what future are they looking at? I want them to vote for me. Not just 17-year-olds, but it's also about not when you are legally allowed to vote, but when you become an active voter. So we know that younger 18 to 29 tends not to vote. So Trump might be looking at 27-year-olds and saying, what's bugging them? Because they're going to be 30 in the next election cycle. And I want their votes for our party or whatever that might be. Stock drop off. I got to tell you, no, like you mentioned, nobody under 30 gives it. Well, yeah, the people who are talking about it on X are having like academic debates about the efficacy of tariffs all over the world, as opposed to the fact that they've been tariffing the United States for years. And it's like that's not a conversation that the average

everyday person is having. That's the type of thing that happens when you're on political X and that's all you think about. This is what's really cool about what Trump has done with the Republican Party in general. It's like the party lines don't mean anything anymore, especially if you're young. Like I was I saw an X there was I didn't even know because I was I was a newborn when it happened. But in 1989, there were these protests in Seattle about against the World Trade Organization. They're bringing in China. And and I mean, it's incredible just to see like, oh, now Republicans and Donald Trump are going to be the ones to take the lead on on protectionism in this country and actually, you know, promoting

American industry and then against the foreign wars, too, because the the the economic side of this is totally linked to the same globalist ideology that got us involved in Iraq and Afghanistan and meddling in Syria. And young people are just not here for it. Like they don't they don't want that anymore. And it's not a right and left issue. Like it's really become populism versus globalism. Yeah.

I mean, that's something that we've talked about a lot on on this program. The the the way that the parties have shifted, the way that the the liberals or the progressives, whatever you want to call them, the Democrats, have become the party of the very, very poor, the people that are dependent on the government, and the very, very rich. And the MAGA movement really is made up of the working class, which used to be what you would think of as Democrats. And they were people that were working people that would go to the Democrats. The rich were, it used to be the rich were the people that would be supporting the Republicans. They were, you know, backroom deals and all that. People have not grown up with that binary. Like, like, this is what Republicans mean.

This is Democrats. We've I grew up in the Trump years. Like, it's just the playing field is totally different. The unions are very, very happy for two reasons. On the surface, we assume the unions are happy because for like the auto workers, for instance, this means that we've protected auto factories and the unions are happy because they need those jobs. There's another reason why the unions are very happy. This is going to force the creation of union jobs. So the guys running these big fat cat unions right now, they're going. So Trump does all these tariffs. You are going to see even if it isn't as successful as Trump hopes it is, you're going to see people trying to hire in the United States because they're going to need to start manufacturing some of these resources here.

Yeah, those people got to join our union. Far be it for me to say positive things about a union. You know, but it is true. The unions are really happy because, again, it's the working class people that are really getting the crap end of the stick. So let's jump to the story from the AP. China slaps a 34 percent tax on all U.S. imports in retaliation for Trump's tariffs. OK, so this is they're saying this is one of the reasons why the stock took a major drop today. And my attitude on this is just, wow, OK, thanks, China. Thank you for helping us. You know, for our goal is to sever this imbalance and problem that we've had with

Chinese made goods in this country for 40 years. China going, oh, yeah, we're going to make trade even harder. I'm like, thank you. Trump can't take all the brunt of this, can he? The biggest threat that China poses with this kind of context is is about intellectual property rights. So China can do a real fast turnaround of any any product that gets sold there, whether they be iPhones or or software or whatever. They can reverse engineer it and make a new, you know, make a mod, a version of their own. And what's possible is China going and saying, well, we're not going to deal with the United States. But they buy products, and then they reverse engineer them and sell them for cents on the dollar to other countries. So they don't even, it doesn't matter what we do to China.

They're just like, oh, we'll sell, we'll take these products that normally people would buy from the U.S. and we'll reverse engineer them, and we'll sell them from out of China to other countries at 10 cents on the dollar. This is why a lot of the major tech world has stopped having their main offices where they actually have intellectual property in China. My dad is part of this as well. They removed them because they kept getting their offices literally invaded with the police. They said, everyone give me all your USBs, all your phones, all your laptops, all your stuff. We need this information now. It's part of the Chinese government. It's due to CCP interests. They would literally just take it.

It's within their legal right to do so. And that's why they stopped having their factories there. Or not their factories, their idea centers there. Now all they have is just basic factories where they send it and just do the products, et cetera, they've already thought of because they can't risk losing the IP. Part of the justification for trading with China is we were like, well, it might not be really fair for us, but they'll embrace liberal democracy and they'll become more like us because we have this free market.

And did that happen? Like, no, like they're just it just empowered the CCP regime, which is horrific. So it's like so this didn't work. We're done with with trading with China when it's not fair for our our our industry. It's actual fascism dressed up like communism. Does your do you think that the younger generation looks at this, at least maybe for the ones that are paying attention politically, look at something like this as short as short term pain for long term gains? Because one of the things that seems to be prevalent whenever an election cycle comes around is things get incrementally worse. Every election cycle, nothing really changes.

Maybe the gas fluctuates a little bit up and down. But in general, we become more dependent on other nations. Our job market shrinks. We, you know, wages do not go up with the rate of inflation at the time and that it's been a slow crawl to a slow death for the country. Do does the younger generation see this and think of this as a way out or are they just not paying attention? I don't know how exactly. I mean, it's hard to say how much they're paying attention to this issue like right now. But what I will say about young people is they want to burn the system down. Like that's like and it's going to be right wing populism or it's going to be left wing populism.

Right now we're taking a chance on right wing populism. Like that's why Gen Z men swung 30 points to the political right in the last four years. And actually there were studies that found that it didn't matter the demographic. It was men, women, black, brown, white, all of them are more right wing than millennials. So obviously, they're taking a chance with right wing populism and like the MAGA right. But if it doesn't play out well for us in the next few years, like I could totally see it going to full on like Bernie bro AOC. That's that's the I think that that's the biggest gamble that Donald Trump right now is taking is if this doesn't work out well for the country. We're in trouble. There's a serious chance that the left

gets significantly more influential. Yes. I don't think it'll be AOC though. Why is that? Her brand is sour. Her brand is, there's a current flavor of leftist populist right now. So there's a reason why these young guys went towards right-wing populism. They may seek out left-wing populism or some type of it. But AOC is – let's just be nice. Her brand is not good for attracting these people back to the left. There's going to be some, there would have to be a young, new face in populism that would be somewhat more, let me put it this way, AOC's bounced around too much because the left is incoherent. And so that's going to make it very easy to attack, insult, and it's unattractive. If a new, young face comes in with left-wing populism from a rational standpoint where the individual's background is logical, they might actually be able to attract some people from the right.

And there would have to be – look, there's a tinge of race-based elements to everyone from the squad that precludes that working. Like it worked for Bernie because a lot of people of all walks of life seemed to resonate with his message. But even then, the left told him it's too white. It's too male. I don't know. The problem with the young, the Gen Z Democrats is that they're insufferable. I'm not saying it to be mean. Harry Sisson rise to power.

The reason why he won't is because he's smarmy. And so that other guy from Florida, the other guy is horrible, too. He's now has like a role david hogg that guy that he's the worst too so what what the left would need is imagine a young rfk jr i mean like 22 yeah rfk is fit and he tries to be reasonable but he is progressive like he he called it indigenous people's day i questioned him about this and uh but he is progressive. He called it Indigenous People's Day. I questioned him about this. But he's willing to work with Trump because there are certain things he wants to get done in health. I commend him. If the left actually got a young guy who spoke slowly and calmly and didn't make

smarmy face all the time, they would do a lot better. But Dean Withers, Harry Sisson, and whoever that other guy is, they always have this very smug look on their face, and that's attractive to a very certain subset of individuals, which is why young men do not go anywhere near this. Look, there's a reason why the hero's journey is so popular in movies. Young guys want to be the reluctant hero thrust into adventure, not the smarmy rich kid. I'll put it this way.

What was the prince in Game of Thrones that everyone hated? Joffrey. Joffrey. There you go. He was in Batman Begins. Let me just tell you. Harry Sisson is Joffrey. Yeah.

You know, if I can make an example. Yeah. People look at him and they're like, you know what I mean? The left would need someone who's more valiant. They don't have that. Well, here's what I'll say about it. They got a himbo and they got a Joffrey. My husband and I talk about, like, why you don't see any young male podcasters all the time.

Like, you'll see somebody like your age or even older. And it's because young men don't want to take advice from other men who haven't done anything in their lives. Yeah. Like, I'm going to listen to you. And, like, this Harry Sisson guy, it's like, what has he done other than like copy and paste DNC talking points? So they have to find somebody who's had some life experience, who maybe has picked up a weight. And and then, you know, the Sasan Piker guy is like one person, but but he's he's the internal friction within the party also makes this very, very difficult. Like Trump was able to steamroll the Republican Party and take over. They don't have anyone that's going to be able to fight the Nancy Pelosi's. You know, there's a reason why the members of the squad fought with the establishment for years. Let me just give a an honorable mention to the Krasensteins. They actually work out like I'm

going to give them that one, man. When it comes to health and fitness stuff, they're they're they're they're aligned with the right on on a lot of these basic things. Like, you'll see a conservative say, get to the gym and work out, and they'll be like, yes, let's go. And I'm like, I appreciate that. I think they're liars. Like, I think they're grifters. But we can agree on that. But they're not young, charismatic.

But it is good to fit. Why isn't there like, look, there's got to be some sociopathic CEO type who doesn't care about politics, who wants to rip Democrats off because he thinks they're dumb. Where is the sociopath on the left to exploit them and take over? You mean the left doesn't be older by definition? Like David Hogg weighs 100 pounds soaking wet. Come on. But the thing is, the left, the left has abandoned males and masculinity by becoming the party of grievance, right? The party of women that are upset with men, racial grievance, grievance when it comes to class and stuff like that. By becoming the party of grievance, they literally turn off any man, any males that are like i can do something if you have any sense of of of of

self-confidence you're not going to be attracted to the democrats because they're going to tell you you can't do anything and if you can you've done something that has hurt someone else to do it it's it's you've somehow taken advantage of someone. The economic argument is if you make money, you are doing it at someone else's expense. Then the other side of the Democrats are all racial arguments. And if you're if you're a man, you're you're toxic masculinity. There is nothing appealing about the Democrat Party. That's what I think the issue is probably at right now. The Democratic Party is largely female or it's heavily female influenced.

70 percent of millennial millennial women are Democrats. College educated college educated women. That's the whole. Right. So it is. So the issue that is, if you are a guy who is rational, reasonable with leftist talking points, you can't. Half of your half your talking points must adhere to cultural norms of liberal women, which are going to push away any young man. So I think it's an impossibility.

And even if they find one, they're going to tell him to sit down and shut up and the other people are talking. That's why Joe Rogan got pushed out. That's why they say they're like, oh, we got to find a Joe Rogan for the left. And everyone knows, well, you had him. Wait, someone chatted, David Hogg gained weight. That's a good one. There's a cultural element to this too like obviously manufacturing jobs like millions of them have left in the last 20 years and yes they're saying masculinity is toxic but my husband was watching i didn't watch it on the plane but he did this like new gladiator

movie and i guess like in the first few scenes the the like man and his like wife, the wife died in battle. It was like what what woman in like the Roman Empire is going to war? And like then in the Star Wars movies, right, they're all like these women who are. Don't get me started. Leading the leading the leading the whole operation. It's like this is not. And women don't want this either. Like women don't want to be in charge and charging into battle.

Like it's just absurd. And obviously, so there's like a cultural backlash from men as well. That's just, and then Trump, you know, declares Warren woke. And of course they're going to just seize onto that. And Trump's a masculine guy. I mean, what guy in American history has taken a bullet and then got up and like thrown his fist in the air and said, fight like Democrats can't compete with that. Well, I think, I think we have to repeal the 19th amendment until women serve in the draft. So, uh, I actually agree with that. Well, I think I think we have to repeal the 19th Amendment until women serve in

the draft. So I actually agree with that. Right. So here's the I'll tell you, one of the biggest problems we have as a society is that we've created a special provision for women. They are allowed to vote for the half the population to go die. And so long as that is true, I mean, look, imagine if we said in this country, if you make more than $100,000 per year, you are exempt from going to war. Like poor people would be like, no, no, no, no. What? It's like, yeah, we're going to draft all of you, but I make enough money to where I'm exempt from it. That's kind of how it was. And it's unacceptable, right?

Anybody would look at that and say that's not fair, right? Rich people would pay to have someone go in their kid's stead. What we have now is, and what we've had for 100 years, women got the right to vote without civic responsibility. That means they can vote for men to die in fires, to die in first responders. They can vote for men to go to foreign wars. That means overwhelmingly what we're seeing now at the Democratic Party, which is largely female, heavily female influenced, voting for war because they're the ones who don't have to fight it. There's zero risk for them to do it. Tim, I don't know what you're talking about because Hillary Clinton told me that women were the ones most affected when men die in war. It's true. Yeah, because they lose their brothers and their husbands and their fathers.

How offensive. I say you can't vote unless you sign up for selective service. This was the problem with me, too. Women want to be considered a protective class, but then they don't want to act like they are. They don't want to be protected. So they're like, we want to go. I'm going to have sex and have a free-for-all like we're in the 70s. But then they also want to have you ask five times when you're hooking up if this is actually consensual it's called schrodinger's feminism you can't have it

both ways like either we're a protected class which i think we should be or we're not and this is like the tension in policy and in culture constantly between men and women is it would it be your sense that that is that the the you know the the go get them girl the boss bitch thing kind of thing isn't that a minority of women and do you get the sense that that that is becoming less common well i mean there's definitely like a trad girl revolt happening right now like the most popular female influencers are all girls who like homeschool their children and live off the grid it's a it's a whole thing and the left has actually come out and said, this is really dangerous and regressive

and we have to put an end to it. So there's an attraction, I think, that, and this is the other thing about, I was saying Gen Z's turning right wing and traditional, they have an attraction to traditional gender norms that's very disturbing to millennial women. But it makes sense when we've hit rock bottom. It's like, I just, I don't wanna be a boss babe

and like have my hormones jacked up because I'm working a work schedule for a man. Because there was still like this lie that you were going to be ultra successful to millennials at that time. Or this lie that you can have it all. Like you can, I can be a mother and I can, I can give everything to my kids and I can also have like the big, you know, professional job. And the reality is you have to make sacrifices

in life. Like you can't have it all. Like you can't have everything. Let's let's let's jump to the story from Politico. Yeah. Speaker Johnson says Trump backs me on proxy voting for new parents. Speaker Mike Johnson said Friday that President Trump backs him in his effort to block proxy voting for new parents. A day after the president scrambled Johnson's plans and endorsed a move to allow it. Johnson thanked Trump in the ex post for a recent phone call in which he attributed Trump as saying, Mike, you have my proxy on my proxy on proxy voting. Johnson is in a serious bind of the matter with the House floor effectively frozen until he could secure an agreement. Trump added a new wrinkle Thursday by telling reporters he didn't see what was so controversial

about Florida Rep Anna Paulina Luna's push to allow new parents to vote by proxy. GOP leaders hope Trump's blessing of Johnson's push to allow new parents to vote by proxy. GOP leaders hope Trump's blessing of Johnson's position will persuade Luna to back off her plans. I'm going to say this. Anna Paulina Luna, I'm a big fan and you should resign. I like MAGA. I like Anna Paulina Luna. She's done a tremendously great job. She's exposed a lot and I respect a lot of it. If you can't do your job, you should resign. And you are not unique to this and nor is any other member of Congress. You there is a short window in which you are in Congress. You don't need to have your child rearing overlap with it. The idea that you would want or any Democrat would want special privileges specifically for a class of people, is DEI, Marxist communist garbage. We do not give special privileges to people based on their class. We do not do that. So if you want to have a kid,

you decide when you want to have a kid. If you don't want to have a kid, then go to Congress. The reason why this is the there's only 13 members of Congress who have ever had a child while serving, only 13 in this country who have ever had a child while serving only 13 in this country, in the history of this country, because even the women who serve, they're older, and they're not having kids anymore. So I reject this. I think it opens the door to pure corruption. It destroys the fabric of what is already a garbage institution. Congress is miserably failing. So I'm deeply offended by the story but as you were just pointing out in the previous segment there are sacrifices people have to make you

can't have it all uh i agree and i'm curious what you think about this one yeah well it's not just women it's men too so when my viewers probably don't know but my dad was in congress um he was elected in 2010 and my little sister who she's five now she was born with down syndrome and she had two holes in her heart. And my dad knew that he needed to come home and be with our family at that time because there was nine kids at that point. She had to have this really risky surgery. And he didn't demand that we have this special privilege that he get to vote from home because he need to be with my mom. Well, my little sister was in the NICU and having this surgery.

He resigned from office. He said, I can't do this anymore. Somebody else is going to have to take my place. And that's the expectation when you're in Congress is you have to show up and you have to vote in person. I mean, there's serious security concerns if you don't have people voting in person. And also I'll say,

Congress is like wildly accommodating for a parent. Like you can, first of all, there's daycare, but second of all, you can bring your child on the house floor as that Pedersen woman is continually proving because she's bringing her baby on the house floor. While claiming that she's scared to do it because of germs. Yeah.

It's ridiculous. It's not anti-woman, too. It's such a silly line. So, I mean, there's... Mark from Rasmussen was here two nights ago. Rasmussen. Rasmussen. He corrected us. My apology. Rasmussen was here two nights ago. Rasmussen. Rasmussen. He corrected us.

My apology. Rasmussen was here. And he pointed out that there are only 10 legislative days in the whole month of April. You know when the votes are. It is not a problem to get a sitter, someone to watch your child when you only have to work 10 days out of a month. It's the definition of political theater, and it's really annoying. It's really ridiculous. People don't know this, but there's actually a little room off the side of the house floor

that's just for women, and it's actually partly for staffers and members of Congress to breastfeed their children. Like, what place of work offers that? Like, you can bring your kid, and there's a special place to breastfeed, and there's also provided daycare. I just don't know. This couldn't be more accommodating. That lady's going to start filibustering next.

It's going to be awful. With the baby. She's going to hold the baby up to the microphone. This is a little off topic, but I did some research to try and find out what Cory Booker was actually filibustering. Turns out, nothing. Nothing. It was just like, check it out,

I'm going to go talk for 25 hours because the last guy, the guy that had the record, was an actual racist. I think it was Byrne. He had nothing to do. They just want to look like they're doing something because their voters are so angry right now.

Yeah. I also love... There was no point. It was just, I'm going to get up there and talk and hate on Donald Trump and make the record. I love how I reportedly had 175 million likes on TikTok. And I'm like, oh, that's real. Anyways.

That story more than most with the lady in office with the baby is probably the most frustrating to me because it's the definition of political theater. These are not serious people. It just so happens that there's very serious consequences to electing them. That's not what we should be doing right now. There's an agenda. We're trying to get things done and we're wasting our time on this non-issue. So what is the...

Hold on. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You know, we need special provisions for sending new mothers into combat. So when we send women into combat and they have babies with them... Give the babies flak jackets, right?

The babies need jackets. The babies are going to need their own gear, little backpacks, sidearms, a small one the baby can hold because their hands are very tiny. But the point, the joke I'm making is like, where does this end? Listen, as a recent father, and I know to all the parents out there, the amount of work

a mother does for one new child is beyond a full-time job. It is more than a full-time job, right? The baby cries every two hours, has to be fed. And you're waking up. There's no time off. You know, my wife is doing a tremendous job and you're waking up. There's no there's no time off. You know, my wife is is doing a tremendous job and she's very tired and I can't feed the baby. I'm a guy like I can complain on the Internet and bring money home. So there's food for the for my wife. And she's doing the work to

breastfeed the baby. And this is the thing the baby needs. And I'm just thinking, like, what where does this end if we're saying like women with babies who are nursing and trying to raise those babies can work at any job actively wanting special provisions for that I'm not saying women shouldn't have jobs there are certain things women can do

while they are raising children Allison's still doing some work it's just the work she can do remote from a laptop she can still do but there are some jobs you can't do a female firefighter is not going to keep working as a firefighter

when she's with a newborn baby. A female in the military is going to have to take time off. That's why we have maternity leave. If we're going to give special provisions for this, where does it end? And at what point do we say, no, no, no, listen. Go home and raise your kid. It's a very important thing. It's more important than this.

All right? Someone can have a special election in your district. Right? Well, I think it was Steve Scalise when he got shot. He he was out for a long time. Like there was a really special reason for him to say, oh, I need to be able to vote remotely or whatever. Like if you have brain cancer, if you if you have a health emergency, you don't get an exception. I don't know why we're doing this for for women with children diane feinstein was like a hundred years old in a corpse yeah like going and that's what i think it's going to be used for like that's the real theory right now is like it'll be used so that these people who should not be in office like are elderly and on their deathbed are able to still vote from the

hospital or from their home or someone else will vote and claim it was them that the reason why i am so opposed to remote voting or proxy voting is for one, remote voting leads to proxy voting and proxy voting. We don't know who's actually voting. So if they say, you know, Brett, you can vote in my stead. And Brett claims, you know, Tim actually voted to ban skateboards in the park. Only rollerbladers now. Like, of course, I would never do that.

It'd be the other way around. But Brett's lying and voting for me. What if they ended up doing something where they're voting about in-person voting for the election? And ironically enough, you're voting with a proxy to vote for in-person elections. Well, it's already hypocritical because Trump sent out that memorandum when he first got in office saying, if you're a federal worker, you have to come in person now. And all these Republicans applauded it. And now they're like, oh, yeah, we're going to advocate to vote from home. It's like, well, all these other federal workers got fired when they refused to do that. Well, they also vote to give themselves raises.

And that's a problem. I'll address this one directly from the tax fetishist super chat. It's saying I slipped and said Allison's working remotely. No, I said she was working remotely. Literally the moment this whole story came up, she's doing the portion of her job that can be done remotely, which is why I said it's fine that women work when they have kids. But you need to vote in person. You are in Congress. You are not handling sales emails from your couch with your child, which you can do. What Ana Paulina wants is a special privilege for for a branch of our government to be able to not show up to the Capitol. That is unacceptable. As a part of voting, there is debates there. We expect as Americans, Congress to show up and say, whoa,

whoa, you can't pass that. That bill would do this bad thing. But we know it's all fake. So as much as Congress has already been eroded, no, no remote voting. Now, if Rep. Luna or any other female member of Congress wants to answer emails from home, nobody's got a problem with that. That was never in contention. You were always allowed to do that. The question is, should you be allowed to do the core function of your job? And in fact, I would argue not do 80 percent of it, which includes debating, negotiating to get these bills signed. Should you be able to forego that and then just check your email and click vote on national legislation? I say no. Imagine if we said,

you're a female firefighter. You can fight the fires from home. You can't. There are some jobs that have to be done in person. Now, by all means, if you're an administrator for a fire department, meaning you handle intake and outtake invoices or output invoices, I don't care. Nobody ever had an issue with that. I do not care. If someone works here and they have a kid and they take maternity leave, we're like, go ahead and do it. When you're able to work, you can work. And we'll even let you work remote on some things, even though we largely do not do remote work here because we understand special circumstance. Special circumstances, what you can do, you can do from home. But could you imagine

if we were like, we hired someone to be a camera operator and they said, can I do camera operating at home? I'd be like, no, it requires in-person camera operating. But I'm having a kid. I'm like, well, then quit. Yeah. I mean, it's also optics wise. It's horrible, given the fact that we talk. Basically, parents here in America are told, figure it out.

You have kids. You have to figure it out for yourself. And then Congress says we want special treatment. And that's just another way in which the average everyday person feels disconnected from the people that represent them. Yeah, man, I'm just, you know, half of like, I got to be honest, part of me is just like, oh, Rep. Luna wants to burn Congress down. Like, well, it's already garbage as it is, so what do we really expect from these people? Yeah. I mean, look, there's a Republican majority, and what are we really getting done right now? This is the problem.

Right here is why I have such little faith in Congress as it is, and most people don't. Yeah. So the one thing I can say is, well, at the very least, Trump will just start doing whatever he wants because a dysfunctional Congress can't do anything about it. Republicans always find a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Text that goes on to say, read the whole super chat, Tim. I wasn't talking about voting. I was talking about you and Phil calling us remote workers, losers and lazy just a couple months ago. You are literally flipping what you said a couple months ago.

It's a straight lie. Wrong. You're a liar and you're wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Let's talk about remote work. People who work remote don't contribute to the culture of the company. Young people who work remote are less likely to get promotions, less likely to get raises.

Work culture is the development of the project and the products. Do you guys know the legend of Flamin' Hot Cheetos? No. It was, as the story goes, and it's an urban legend. Maybe it's not true. The guy who created them? Yeah, the story is that the company said,

we want everyone's ideas. No idea is a bad idea. And a guy who was like a janitor used to take the extra Cheeto puffs with no cheese on them and he would put like lime salt and chili powder on it, which is like a Mexican snack.

And then his family were all eating it and he was like, oh, look, we should make these. And then he made a response to the CEO. And people were like, don't send that out. Are you kidding? He didn't want to hear from a janitor. And then he submitted it. And then they were like, this is a really great idea.

It's their number one product now. And he got a promotion. Some say it's a fake story and it's all just an urban legend. I made a movie about it a couple of years ago. The point is, when you are working at a place, even if you you're a janitor when you're hanging out at the lunch table your ideas contribute to the culture and the environment that is one of the most important things my point is people you know you know i was saying i was like i'm gonna i'm gonna say it now because we're never actually going to do it but i was saying uh i was talking to cody and i was like you don't

think we'll do we'll send out a company it, but I was talking to Cody, and I was like, you know what I think we'll do? We'll send out a company-wide email asking who wants to work remotely, and everyone who says yes is fired. If you don't want to be here, you should not be here. End of story. So anybody who's like, I should work from home, goodbye. I just want to do – Now, as for TexVet, who says it's hypocrisy, I've literally said since the start of this company, we give unlimited sick time and unlimited parental leave for men and women. Unlimited, unlimited. And so that means if you have a baby and you're a guy. Have fun. Go take care of your kid. Let me know when you're available.

We will find someone to fill your position in it as a as a temporary holdover. In the meantime, if at some point there are some things you can do, feel free to do them. So if you want to work remote, you can. That is not go and work remote

whenever you want. That is, your child takes priority and I recognize the importance of family. So we will give you a special benefit for the things that can be done.

Not bring your kid into work when, you know, actually, I take that back. We do largely allow people to come bring their kids periodically as long as it's not disruptive. But if there's a thing you have to do in person, you can't do remote. That's not happening. It's not happening. So Congress is a special provision. It's a special class. You are not opening up our legal system to remote voting and proxy voting because you decided to have a family right now. I reject that. Resign. If we had someone here who, and again, I stress, my company is different. But if somebody was a camera operator, at a certain point, we're going

to ask them, hey, you've been gone for a certain amount of time and we gave you that benefit. So I would say this. They can't operate the camera, right? We have a camera operator, has a kid, a guy. He has a kid. I want to be there for my wife and my kid. So I'm going to take off two months. I say, go for it. We'll find someone to fill in for you. Come back when you can.

At a certain point, we're going to ask him, are you coming back or not? Because if you're not, maybe, you know, this isn't right for you. But the point is, there's no position where he's going to be simultaneously doing parental leave and then coming in and filming and doing his job. He cannot film from home. So it just does not happen. You cannot vote from home. We are not going to create a special provision for you to do so. It is not a job that can be done from home. That being said, I have tremendous disdain for people who work remote. I'll just be completely honest with you guys. And it's not intentionally disrespectful. But let me just say, as a person who runs a business and who works 16 plus hours every single day, the people who are like, I don't want to be here, I'm like, then please quit because we don't want you here if you don't want to be here.

That's just it. And also you're saying it's a specific part of her job that requires her to physically be there. Like you said, all the other aspects of it could probably be done from home or at least in the office. I'll put it this way very simply. Remote work is a bad thing. If you are having a child or you are sick, there is a special, okay, we're gonna let you work from home.

If the job can't be done from home, we will not create a special provision so that you can do it from home. Such as if you are a professional skateboarder and we're supposed to be filming you skateboarding, you're like, I'm going to film at home. I'm like, film what? Do you have a big park? Do we have the camera crew there? We don't have anything there. What are you going to do? We can't do that. We're not going to go build a ramp at your house and film

there. So no, you can't do it. More importantly than anything else is the type of work matters. Congress is a sacred constitutional institution. It is outlined in Article 1 of the Constitution, the job that they do. And because people have decided to simultaneously have family and do a public service job, they want special provisions that will erode the structure of our government more than it's already been eroded. I say no you know one of the other things that congress does most of the time or spends most of their time doing is raising money and i don't imagine that they can do that nearly as effectively uh remotely as they do you know by going and and shaking hands with people and and doing functions and going to dinners and or having dinners or whatever uh you know they'll always show up there's money that can be made but a little vote and suddenly somebody else has to go do it for me. You know, this might be controversial, but my dad, when he was in office, I mean, he had the 7th District of Wisconsin, which is the biggest with the biggest one in the state. And he had to drive a ton to campaign and to raise money. And then you were in D.C. every other week. Right. My mom, who is a working woman, who is who is like a superstar, would not have done that job with the little children that she has.

Like there there is something to be said about evaluating your situation in life as a young mother and saying this job is not for me because this is one of the most demanding jobs you can have being a member of Congress. But a lot of it is that due to modern feminism and the way people have been raised, they don't believe in the idea that just because there's barriers in front of them that they should be told to quit they should be told i should be accommodated because i want to do this job this is the thing like life is sacrifice like there are just there are just things you decisions you have to make in their heart and you can't always have the world this is a lie that we've been told also this lie that you should always be happy and and content and like i think so many times we're just chasing dopamine hits. They would phrase what you're talking about as oppression. Your inability to accommodate me for these things is some form of oppression because

you don't like women. Can I just say, Tim, that what you said about giving time off unlimited for people who have children is such a beautiful thing. And you will not have that. Not to derail this conversation, but like Walmart and Amazon are not going to tell their workers that you can have unlimited time off when you have a baby. Like it's,

it's very corporate. And this is what's lost when we say we're going to just become consumers and there's going to be no industry here in America. It's that people work for these giant international multinational corporations that don't view them as people. And our government doesn't view us as people either. It's all about GDP growth over individuals and how are people actually doing. And that's like the question of like America first, too.

Like, what does America first even mean? And I think it means how are people, real people in this country doing? Are they thriving or are they struggling? Well, what those corporations, which you're talking about, the ones who wouldn't give you unlimited time off? No, but they'll fly you to another state to have an abortion. That's right. Yeah. Because it's cheaper. Yeah.

Yeah. That's sick. Yeah, that is messed up. You know what I would say? I think that even among conservatives, there's a lot of economic leftism that people don't seem to realize. And that is it's rooted in people want for themselves. And that's understandable. So I was explaining I did I did I did a segment on this the other day. If someone comes to me and says, I want X amount of money for a thing, right? What you need to understand is what you're saying is, okay, you want me to go into my wallet and take my money and hand it to you so you can do this thing. And they're like, right.

It's like, okay, why should I give you money to do what that thing is? I know it might sound rudimentary and kind of vague and like, what do you mean? This is basically how work is. And it may be surprising to a lot of people. A lot of people don't understand this. Most people, and this includes a lot of conservatives, not all, they act as though companies have infinite money. They don't question whether or not the work they do produces anything. Is it bringing money into the company? Why are you getting paid? So you see this quite a bit, even at conservative media outlets. People get paid exorbitant amounts of money, even though the company doesn't make money. It does tend to be a leftist thing,

but conservatives do this too because people who don't run businesses don't get it. Now, I do think on the right, you're going to find more entrepreneurs, more small business owners, and you're going to find people who've done more proprietorships so they really understand this I can't pay you if what you do doesn't make money the left is offended by that idea there is actually a viral meme I think it was a reddit post that's it's shared frequently by the left where they say capitalism means you must make more money for your boss and your boss will pay you. Otherwise, capitalism doesn't work. And they go, oh, they're so shocked and offended by this.

You mean that when I'm working at a coffee shop, I'm going to make $100 in the hour and he's only going to pay me $20? That's wrong. And then the business owner tries explaining to them, we got to pay for the coffee. We got to pay for the electricity. We have to pay the repairman. We have to pay the heat and the gas. We have to pay the permitting fees.

So that money you're making ain't going in my pocket. But these people don't understand that. They literally think businesses have infinite money and should just pay that stuff out. Part of me thinks that they intentionally misunderstand it or say they don't understand it just because they don't think that it's fair they're like well you know you have all of these things and it's so easy to open a business and it's so easy to become successful in business which is obviously totally not true but that's the implication is it's your

your existence is super easy and you have all of this, they don't pay any attention to what actually got you there and how much time you had to work and how long you reported to get to that position. They just see they're almost in a constant state of now. And they never want to understand the idea that they're not the ones taking the risk if the company fails. And that's a huge part of it. There's a difference between like what we're talking about with bringing industry back to America and can families afford to buy a home and to send their kids to college and that kind of thing. And then there's people who I would describe them as like unhumans. Like the it's like a moral it's like a moral code of theirs to want to write inequities all the time to the point where it's like like greed and they will do anything and everything to i guess destroy all these systemic

barriers or whatever what do they want to call it i mean you see it throughout history like communist china the spanish civil war like what happened in cuba there's there's something that's very nefarious about just assuming that somebody has something you don't have that you can justify doing anything to take what they have because it must have been stolen from you and that's not always the case well that's one of the reasons why that i think that the right needs to be careful if populist if right-wing populism doesn't work is that sentiment is exactly what they will fall into on the left especially if they find a charismatic leader to rally around like you can complain all you want about the behavior of the the luigi mangions of the world but there's a reason why that sentiment is growing

and to ignore it is at your own peril yeah that's that would be a significant uh significant issue for the for the u.s to face because that could be the kind of thing that you know lead you down a your whole society into the into the trash compactor let's jump to this next story from cnbc trump extends the tiktok deadline for the second time. Extended the deadline requiring China-based ByteDance to sell the U.S. TikTok operations, making the second time he's done this. He announced the extension on his Truth Social platform, saying the TikTok deal requires more work to ensure all necessary approvals are signed. Trump said he is signing an executive order to keep TikTok up and running for an additional 75 days. Now, the deal was supposed to go through, but after the tariffs, China says, nope. So it's likely there won't be a deal.

Trump is wrong on this. TikTok should be banned. And Trump doesn't understand the platform. He's likely being lobbied by individuals who have financial interest in this. And he doesn't understand how damaging TikTok is for this country. That being said, if it doesn't get sold off to U.S. interests, I'm totally fine with it. I did see that there was TikTok dances to fight tariffs. So maybe that's the problem here. Thank God.S. interests, I'm totally fine with it. I did see that there was TikTok dances to fight tariffs. So maybe that's the problem here.

Thank God. Yeah. Thank goodness. I'm relieved. Do you have TikTok? Do you? I have a TikTok. Well, I have been censored.

We talked about this before the show started, that I've been censored on TikTok, that it's obviously not a free speech platform. But I guess my question to you guys is, do you view the role of the government to decide what information is appropriate for people to consume uh yes you do yeah like i don't think that i think the government should arrest people who give porn to kids right but i i would say i would say like there's there's information and there's pornography like there's like because i think the one of the main critiques of of tiktok frankly was that there was all this pro-Palestine content on TikTok. And members of Congress actually cited that as a reason why it should be banned. And to me, that's not a good reason.

Sure. That's not my reason. Do you think that the book Genderqueer should be given to children? I don't know. I'm not familiar with the book, but I assume no. It's the book that Amazon listed at 18+, but it was put in school curriculums. It is from a genderqueer individual who explains how she has a sexual fetish where she fantasizes about being a man and she engages in – they actually have graphic depictions of the activities she's engaging in with other women, and they gave that to children. So this is a book explaining the life experiences of this person and the graphic sexual nature with images and explanations of what those things are. If a teacher gives it to a child, should they be arrested? Or maybe not arrested, but like, should there be a governmental

enforced penalty for giving that information to a child? I don't know about governmental. I mean, I would say like a school board could say this, this person needs to be fired or something. But but what if a guy like walked up to a playground and had the book to a kid to try showing the pictures to him? Yeah, I mean, that seems really inappropriate. But what if what if he goes on TikTok and DMs them the pictures? I think that that you're you're getting like trapped in this like pornography question. And I don't think that the reason why people want to censor TikTok has anything to do with whether the content on TikTok is explicit. It's more informational.

And so, for instance, there's the pro-Palestine argument. But just in general, the problem with TikTok is that the U.S. government has real control over American companies because they don't have the same rights as, say, like a like a news organization does a constitutional and like carved out right to say and do what they want. So the big tech companies are very beholden to our government. When you can't control a tech company because it's not American, that's a threat to our government who wants to control the information we consume. And so you might say, well, I think it's appropriate for the government to control

that. And we might like the way that the government controls information under Donald Trump. But I didn't like it under Biden. I mean, Biden was censoring right wing content left and right and directly censoring it via the just the White House, but also these left wing NGOs that were staffed with former intelligence officials. So who does China want to win in the United States? Who would they prefer have power? I mean, probably Joeiden because indeed and tiktok is heavily promoting democrats biden and the bureaucratic state and their and their interests i just don't think it i think it sets a precedent that's really negative that like we that the that the government has a role in controlling information we have a first amendment that says when was the first

amendment ever enforced what do you mean swearing was illegal in the up until on TV until the 2000s. Blasphemy was illegal until probably the 70s. Swearing in public was illegal in the 70s. The founding fathers found blasphemy to be a punishable crime by government. So the First Amendment was never actually enforced the way that people today are claiming it was. It was always an issue of the moral majority dictated. And that's still true to this day. We don't have a moral majority. I mean, like what this is not like if you look at what the Biden administration was interested in doing back in the day, it was like back in the day, like a few years ago, they were they were pushing this kind of content on children by like promoting it in the school

system and going after parents who would say that they dare to object to DEI in the classroom. So I just don't I think that we don't have a moral country anymore. And I would, I would prefer that parents take up that mantle and say, you know what, son, you're not going to download Tik TOK. Like I,

and I, I'm fully in support of parents saying you're not allowed to have social media because of, because of, for that reason. So I just don't want the government doing it. Are the Democrats stopping their effort? Stopping what effort?

Their effort to give kids access to adult content and trans issues. So your argument is the right should not engage in the conflict at all while the left actively indoctrinates children? No, I mean, I just don't think that this is like an issue that we should be engaging in. Like, I think in freedom of information in the digital public square is important and whether it's... The right should say we shouldn't engage in this kind of behavior while the left actively does. But the left

is like, do you mean because the left is censoring information? Is that what you're trying to say? The left actively censors the right while spreading leftist Marxist ideas to right-wing families and their kids and enforcing laws against them. Should the right do the same to protect those children and stop the left from doing it? Yeah, I mean, I understand the point you're making that like we're just leaving ourselves vulnerable to like like the left controlling information.

I just don't believe in banning TikTok. I just don't think. What was it? Was your initial. Remember when we had the discussion? I don't remember the guest name. You guys had this long debate about this. It was about the way that

the government can't actually sue TikTok because they're not a U.S. We can't do anything. I thought that was the bigger point that you were making that was less cultural. That's why if TikTok is sold to a U.S. company, I don't care. Then it's fine. And if they engage in what we see with Facebook and Axe and all that stuff, the issue is that when Facebook and Twitter and YouTube were engaging in these practices, Rumble got launched specifically to counteract those things in the United States. And that was a collective communal moral action to counter what we were seeing in that space.

At the same time, we voted for Donald Trump and filed lawsuits in various states using the power of the judicial branch to crush the Marxists. And we won. We had the Alex Berenson lawsuit where he exposed the Biden administration was was violating the Constitution. Tremendous. Tick we can do nothing. So TikTok is actively sending to minor children, adult content and mind destroying, like mind altering content. We have no means to track how or why they're doing it. And we have no means of controlling and stopping it from happening. Instagram isn't doing that. Instagram certainly is. But under meta, Mark Zuckerberg just met with Trump begging Donald Trump to lay off and election. And the Republicans sent in an alternate slate of electors, not a fraudulent one. The left is lying about that. In it, I explained the official certified electors were sent in and Donald Trump sent in his own electors. A fact checking company

got my Facebook demonetized and we lost all revenue from it because Zuckerberg gave leftist institutions sponsored by the Poynter Institute the decision making power to crush conservatives and anybody who dare oppose the liberal economic order and their institutions. We vote for Donald Trump. We vote for Republicans. And now Zuckerberg has dropped to the floor on his knees begging for forgiveness. He's doing his podcast circuit saying, you know, I was so wrong. Please, please spare me. And we laugh now. We four years ago, we won the same thing. And that's why Trump has to win. So my argument is if Trump goes your route and says, I'm not going to do anything four years from now, they'll come back with a vengeance and

they'll get us all banned. If Donald Trump says we are going to erase their twisted, sick ideologies the same way they tried to do to us, then so be it. Let's talk about why they feel beholden to the federal government, whether it's Joe Biden or whether it's Donald Trump. They don't have the same protections that journalists have. There's no carve out in the Constitution for them. So there's any ideological alignment with them? Say that again? You don't think that they're like, say, for instance, Google, right?

Yeah. There's a lot of people that work at Google and it's it's my understanding that most of the most of the culture at google is ideologically aligned with the democrats you look at the the donations from companies like google and stuff and it tends to be 95 democrat donations you don't think there's an ideological alignment there with democrats yeah of course of course there is but i and google started as a darpa grant too. A lot of these companies were created to influence the masses from our intelligence officials. I think what we need is freedom for these companies to have constitutional rights not to be, I think, beholden to the state because it just is going to change every four years. Like we might like the way that that Donald Trump controls information right now. But in four years, it could be different. And somebody else is in charge who also tries to control information in a really negative

way for us. I just think that we need to have these tech companies just on their own, like like a free market of tech companies where they can just do it like there's there's and there's really there's probably some antitrust that has to happen in Silicon Valley. But it's so. So the system right now is Democrats don't agree with you. They will destroy us as soon as they take back the reins. If they do. If we do nothing in this space, if Donald Trump said, no, no, Facebook, keep banning conservatives.

He would lose the midterms in two seconds. Democrats would get back in power and then they would tidal wave and crush every single person. There is no reality. There's no mathematical equation where we as either libertarian, post-liberal, liberal, disaffected, liberal, conservative or otherwise who have sided with Trump survive unless we actively use the powers of government to protect our moral worldview and stop the people from destroying us. Generally, I agree with that. So that means if we sit back and say we're not going to engage in this way and we're going to allow the Chinese Communist Party to push Dylan Mulvaney on children, Trump will lose in 2028. The Democrats will come back and they will have you banned and

me banned and probably a lot of people in jail this so i was where you are probably 10 years ago and this is liberalism not in the derogatory american semantic sense this is classical liberalism no no we can't do this because powers could be exploited in you so we're going to stay on on principle and and not engage well the bad bad news is I realized over the past several years, they're not stopping. They're not stopping. TikTok is not stopping. Conservatives have started. OK, so you've got a guy who's a conservative guy or is not really a conservative, but he's along with the right who has got a stake in TikTok and he's hired lobbyists, people like Kellyanne Conway. All of a sudden, Trump flips 180. TikTok is overwhelmingly woke and pushing trans and far left allow our children to be washed over by this,

then conservatives lose completely. If TikTok is sold off to an American company and we then have the ability to file lawsuits against them, get access to their data through legal means and constitutional means, then we can shut them down as they're trying to push these things, just like we're seeing with Facebook dropping their censorship program. We've not completely won. We are in an active cultural, a culture war. So what we had in the 2010s with Gamergate into the expanded culture war was famously Carl Benjamin, the the original classical liberal of the Internet saying, I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. And then every step of the way, they used every opportunity to destroy him and get him banned, despite the fact he kept protecting them. And then at a certain point, he was like, well,

I certainly can't do that anymore. They banned me every time I did. The only opportunity I have is to defend myself. So this idea that we are going to let TikTok operate under the Chinese Communist Party because, look, there's not even a reality where this is this TikTok is free from influence right now. It's the Chinese Communist Party telling TikTok to destroy the American younger generation. So you have your pick of let China destroy us, let Democrats destroy us and sit here and do nothing or fight back. So why do you think Democrats wanted to ban TikTok? This is a bipartisan issue and Joe Biden wanted to do it too. Democrats and Republicans wanted to ban TikTok because TikTok allows people to be anti-Israel. That's your answer? That's a fact. This is an

established fact. After October 7th, pro-Israel. Do you think that's a good reason? For banning it? Yeah. It's a reason, but my reason is not related to Israel. My reason is related to they are trying to completely destroy this country and young people. But you got so many people who have Israel shoved up their ass that they're saying TikTok should be allowed because the one issue I care about, which is probably half bots, by the way, is saying that we should allow the Chinese Communist Party to tell our kids to cut their balls off. I just don't believe in outsourcing online morality to the government. Then maybe TikTok should be the Chinese government's okay though, right?

But I think it's bad. So here's, here's an example of why I don't like TikTok being banned. I had, there was a video that Lila Rose posted that was banned on, well, it wasn't banned. It had a fact check and then a little like sensor on it on Instagram. And I went on TikTok, I found the same video and it was allowed. And I'm not saying that TikTok is great for free speech, but some content that's not allowed on Instagram is allowed on TikTok and vice versa. I would rather have more tech companies with lots of information where we can find, where we can sometimes find something on TikTok that I can't find on Snapchat and find on Snapchat that I can't find on Facebook,

then say, I'm going to outsource all of online morality to the government so they can decide what everybody's allowed to see and think and hear. And I especially don't believe in that because I know that in four years we can get another Joe Biden. And I don't want that. And that will happen if we stand this course. I think what he's saying is it's not just about morality, but about accountability, that if Lila Rose wanted to file suit over the fact that her video is being unfairly censored in some way that there's a legal recourse on instagram to do so because of meta but to do that if it was somehow banned on tiktok there would be no legal recourse

what's that that's currently the case i'm thinking more long term like i don't just want to like control information online because i want to win in four years. I just, I want there to be just lots of information. Everybody's allowed to access anything on the internet. And I think that there's a line for obviously child pornography. Can you explain to me, you were saying that you want to extend the same legal protections that we give journalists to tech companies? Yeah, like I think that they have, there's their like, for instance, section what is 30? Yes. I was already saying like the idea because they're already playing fast and

loose with what it means to be a platform and what it means to be a publisher. So their their protection for being a publisher can go away. Drop of a hat. And and and a Trump admin or a Biden admin, if they don't like what a tech company is doing, can threaten to take that away from tech companies. So I think they need more protection to say you're a platform. You are allowed to be free speech and we want you to be free speech instead of there being just a situation where they are beholden to the whims of whatever political ideology is in the executive. So this is liberalism. And I used to consider myself liberal. I don't. I would say either post-liberal or something else. You know, Michael Malice was

telling me that post-liberal is often associated with fascism. And I was like, I don't know what that means, nor do I care about what people would insinuate that. Liberalism is the ideology of live and let live. We shouldn't exert these powers because these powers can be used against us. And that's what gives birth to post-liberalism. The idea that at a certain point, your enemies crush you because you keep letting them do it. So there's no reality in which Donald Trump allows Democrats to continue their course of action and we survive this. It's just not reality. The idea that we're going to say we should not use the powers granted by the government to stop Democrats from giving children this leftist queer ideology stuff in schools, we absolutely should. The Christians, Christian liberals in this country are the reason why we are in this place right now.

That is, this country was founded on Christian moral traditions with classical liberal politics. So you ended up with the 1950s of 99% of this country Christian. And whenever a problem arose, the Christians said, just let them do it and we'll mind our own business. And where's that gotten us? Mass immigration, escalating crime, a weakened economy, the outsourcing or manufacturing base, leftist indoctrination for four generations. Now we have grade schools giving children graphic imagery. And not even that, we have racist imagery and things like this. It is absolutely within the purview of any moral society to say you can't do that. Now, what I often hear from people is, but the First Amendment,

except the First Amendment was never enforced. And given the opportunity, the Democrats have already stated they believe that hate speech is not free speech and is not protected. So if we sit here and just say, let them do and say whatever they want and we'll mind our own business, it's the continued erosion of our moral tradition. Tim, I totally agree with using the powers that be and trying to create a moral society. And I think we were founded as a Christian nation. The reason that I take a pause with this TikTok thing is because of what you said, that the reason that they wanted to get rid of the platform is because there was pro-Palestine, anti-Israel content on there. So I look at the reasoning here and I'm like, are we getting rid of TikTok because we want

to promote morality and we want to allow there to be free speech for conservatives and the digital public? So we're like, I just don't buy that because you already stated the reason that we were getting rid of TikTok was because of the pro-Palestine content on the app. The reason why Republicans wanted to ban TikTok in the first place was because TikTok favors the Democratic Party and leftist ideology. The Democrats changed their mind after October 7th when TikTok, it appears, artificially inflated pro-Palestine content, not naturally. I just think I think it's just like the uniparty, like like the intelligence officials want to be

able to control what information we see and they can't control what's on TikTok. Obviously, this is what you want for our government to be able to control the information we have for allegedly good reasons. And I just know where this started. And it wasn't because the Biden admin wants to promote morality. We know that that's it started for I don't know, they they wanted there to not be any pro-Palestine content thriving on the app or I don't know, but it's, it's just not a good, it's not a good, it didn't, it didn't start from a good reason. So I have a lot of, I have a lot of trouble buying that this is going to be really wonderful. Do you, do you, but, but, but again, like when it comes to adults giving trans and queer ideological pamphlets to children, you're okay with that? No. Well, then how do you stop it?

Yeah. I mean, I think you have to stop it, but like, I guess I don't, I want there to be digital freedom in the digital public square. So can Jeffrey Marsh send messages to children on Twitter, X, Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok telling them, run away from your parents, be queer, go on these websites and look at this materials. Should that be allowed? I look at the content moderation and I know that I was censored by it during the Biden admin. I had articles that were de-boosted. I asked you a question about Jeffrey March. That I what that I don't.

OK, let's just we'll keep it just in generals and generality. Should an adult gay man be allowed to send sexually suggestive materials to a child? No. Who stops him? The FBI. Perhaps. Now, when TikTok is pushing these materials to children, who stops them? Nobody.

We can't do anything about it. And they're doing it every day, nonstop. Dylan Mulvaney has 13 million followers and is advocating that children remove their genitals with by search by surgical intervention. If this was and this does happen on American social media platforms. Now, what ends up happening is when the Democrats were in power and were actively censoring anyone who opposed them. We voted. We filed lawsuits. We got access to the information. There was public backlash. Bud Light lost 30 percent of their stock.

Target is still in freefall. Their stock is I don't know what their stock is or if they're public, but Target's announced that their revenue is collapsing because of this. TikTok is completely insulated. There is no negative repercussion for everything that they're doing in telling children to surgically remove their testicles. So my view is the ban, which has actually forced TikTok to sell to a U.S. company so that we have remedies, is a good thing. Now, the Democrats only got on board because TikTok appears to have artificially inflated pro-Palestine content. That's when the U.S. is like, whoa, TikTok's actively trying to subvert our foreign policy. Not that I'm a fan of America's foreign policy.

I think it's awful. But that shocked Democrats and they got a bunch of calls from their donors. And then they were like, looks like we're gonna have to ban this one now. The Democrats didn't want to do it because TikTok promotes their ideology, because their ideology is destructive to America. Republicans wanted it banned because of the like. I use Dylan Mulvaney as the example because Dylan Mulvaney has 13 million followers and Riley Gaines has 600,000. Clearly, what they do is called a pressure system manipulation. So when you mentioned Lila Rose

getting a video on TikTok, they'll make sure that conservatives get just enough views to where they feel like the platform works for them. But they'll always make sure Democrats are two to one. So conservatives feel satisfied because on Instagram, I'm banned. But on TikTok, I'm not. And then you turn the page and Dylan Mulvaney's got seven times more followers than Riley Gaines. So the message is completely inverted. And the pressure on young people is cut off your balls, be woke, do bad things, burn the country down. That is an

influence. There's no accountability to stop. We can't do anything about it. Now, I get it. TikTok does have servers and does operate in the United States. There are some remedies to that, but we need to know what they're doing, how they're doing it. And I think having them sell to us company is a good idea. Well, the Biden administration was obviously really involved in content moderation. They were sued and it went to the Supreme Court. Do you think that if it was the Trump administration who was doing it instead and for values and ideas that we like, that it's OK? So the what Trump the Trump administration does is nowhere near what the Biden administration was doing. And so I'm pretty OK with it. Where's the line? Like you keep bringing up like like like child pornography and and, you know, influence. Like where is the line for you?

Right. The line is I, as an individual, can file a lawsuit against Facebook. I file a lawsuit against TikTok. It stops at the border. And then we have no idea what China's doing, where they stored the data, what their algorithm says, and why they're going after these kids.

I just worry about like, if the only information that we get is approved by our government, then we're like, like, like South Korea, like North Korea, I'm sorry, or China, where they aren't allowed to have apps that are American, they aren't allowed to even have phones that are from American companies, because the government wants to so intensely moderate the content that they're allowed to see the thoughts that they're allowed to have. I just don't like, you know, saying the government's going to decide

what information I think you're conflating accountability through lawsuits with Donald Trump issuing an edict on what people can and can't say. But it is. But it's not just about lawsuits because it is about the content. Right. You said it was it was because of of them purposely inflating content that is radical leftist and Dylan Mulvaney. So it's also about the kind of of of content that's being promoted on TikTok. So, yeah, I don't know. I just I like we it's it's so some parents in Illinois called the police and a teacher who gave the kids a book called This Book is Gay. I think the police should arrest that teacher. Yes. Yeah, I just I just want to be I just want to be able to have information like read things from France and read things from Britain and or be able to see content and videos from China and know what's happening and I don't want the only

information I get to be pre-approved by the United States government I would I would take issue with the idea that you get to see um legitimate content from China China's really really strict about what they allow out and and so I don't think that anything that americans see from china or at least the vast majority of it is is tightly controlled and as for the idea of the u.s controlling the information that we have i don't think that banning tiktok is controlling the information that's available to people in the u.s the the application tiktok the the app itself is an algorithm you know it's algorithmically sending information or sending videos to people. That doesn't mean that you can't find similar

information about, say, for instance, just because of the context here with TikTok, you can find out, you can find plenty of critical stories about Israel and about the Gaza, the war in Gaza or whatever. You can find those in multiple places. The information itself isn't being limited by the government. It's just the algorithms that TikTok uses. And I think that TikTok itself has been weaponized by the CCP, by the Chinese. I guess I wouldn't deny that. So that's my, that's my, that's my, that would be my concern.

It's like the information you're you keep talking about you keep mentioning i want there to be able to be information so i don't think the u.s has has a a significant uh censorship regime or significant enough censorship regime to say okay we have we're in the dark about what's going on in israel and gaza i think that's it's pretty well one important thing thing is the argument that they're spying on us is a lie. It is true that TikTok collects our data and we don't know what they're doing with it. And it is true that there's an argument where a 17 year old kid today on TikTok who signs up, all of his information will be held by the CCP. And then 10 years from now,

when he's working in industry, they're going to have all his private information and be able to access everything. That's true. That is nowhere close to the reason why the U.S. wants to ban TikTok. They do not care about that. That is the PR reason they gave, because the real issue is that after October 7th, the data showed that content that discussed the Israel-Palestine conflict tended to favor Israel. Over the course of a single weekend, it completely inverted and pro-Palestine content skyrocketed, despite the fact the amount of posts didn't change, indicating that this was an algorithmic prioritization by the Chinese Communist Party, by the owners of TikTok, to intentionally put anti-Israel content in front of people. That is an artificial manipulation. We should not allow, for whatever reason, be it Israel or otherwise, China to dictate what our young people think and hear. That being said, the anti-Israel people absolutely loved that TikTok did that. And so

they went full bore in, we must protect TikTok. Anyone who's being honest on the issue is going to tell you the Democrats only changed their tune because of Israel. However, having the Chinese Communist Party able to dictate what our young people see is the death of this country. So what do you think happens with this, with Trump kicking the can down the road 75 days? Well, China doesn't want to sell it anymore. Yeah. China said that because of the tariffs. Yeah, the deal's off. Yeah. So Trump kicks the can down the road and he arguably can't do that. Yeah. So it'll be interesting to see if anyone really wants to take this up with the Supreme Court. Considering that prominent conservatives did 180s without explanation, like Charlie Kirk

and Donald Trump, I imagine that there's not going to be any significant effort to go after TikTok. I just didn't see the same fanfare around this topic this time around that I did. Maybe it's just because it was election season when it was going on. But my algorithm, like my X feed was all about this topic when the election was going on. This time it's like nobody seems to be talking. Because it actually went dark. Like TikTok actually was like gone on people.

That was fake. They faked it. It was fake, but you couldn't access it for a time so people got freaked out TikTok faked that whole thing yeah so uh TikTok claimed they got shut down when they didn't which was a manipulation tech technique on young people to get uh who was who's that make that guy makeup our uh influencer Jeffrey Star Charles something oh James. He made a video saying, oh my God, I can't believe, thank you, Donald Trump. I can't believe it. This, this is the problem I have with Tik TOK. They did not get taken down. They faked it. And then they came

back a day later saying Trump brought it back, which he did not do. Yeah. So all of these young people are being influenced by the CCP to do and think what they want to think. And I'm like, that's that's the death of this country. Now, maybe the argument is Donald Trump's conversation with TikTok is. They are going to make sure that young people are fed some kind of anti-establishment narrative, and that's what he thinks. Honestly, I don't think so. I think what we see is as an ultra wealthy individual who has a financial interest in TikTok, who has hired lobbyists, and now Trump's inner circle is telling him, no, no, keep this. There's there's not been as much as an ultra wealthy individual who has a financial interest in TikTok, who has hired lobbyists. And now Trump's inner circle is telling him, no, no, keep this. There's there's not been as much as I

like Charlie Kirk and respect him tremendously. He's never given a reason why he did a 180 overnight. Just one day he was like, ban TikTok. And I say he was like, TikTok's great. I'm so happy that Trump saved it. Trump hasn't explained either. He's just simply like, no, we like TikTok now. Yeah. He's like young people use it. So now we like it. I mean, is that part of it? Is part of it because, like you said, that he's planning elections five, ten years out, and he's trying to get the vote of the next generation, and he sees that young people like the app, so therefore he changes his mind on it. Data's bad. The app is like, it's like two-to-one liberal to conservative. And what young people are being fed is overwhelmingly leftist talking

points and leftist ideology. And I don't care for the I don't think the U.S. should be funding Israel, but overwhelmingly anti U.S. foreign policy. So Trump is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. So there's there's good. That's going to come to a head at some point. But but the reality is this is really simple. T tiktok divests from china then we're done that's all the bill does they don't got to be banned they just got to divest yeah but what's the problem why won't they divest remember for like one week they had like every kid on the internet saying like oh uh osama bin laden wasn't such a bad guy remember that when there was it was a viral trend where they were reading the bin Laden letter. Yeah. And they didn't know or understand what it was actually about.

So this is this is the issue that ultimately freaks out the uniparty establishment. They're like, but I'll tell you this. I would rather have Joe Biden trying to lie to me where I can file lawsuits against him and take it to the courts or then vote for Donald Trump than the CCP in control of youth media messaging to this country. It's bad enough that Facebook was sending all of this far left stuff to kids. But we ultimately won that battle. Or I should say we've won the battlefield. The conflict is still ongoing. But Donald Trump recently had Mark Zuckerberg in the Oval Office and Zuckerberg's begging Trump to drop the antitrust suits. Zuckerberg, Facebook, I think it was yesterday, officially ended their fact checking program. Elon Musk bought X and shut down the

weird woke garbage. TikTok has taken a major foothold in this country among the younger generation, and we have no means of rectifying that other than actually we passed a bill in the House, in the Senate. The president signed it. It's upheld by the Supreme Court. Done. TikTok is banned unless they they sell. The only thing Trump can do is instruct the federal the executive branch not to enforce the law, which is what he's doing. However, I'm really curious as to why Google servers and Apple servers restored TikTok, because after the initial stay by executive order from Trump, they didn't do it. The obvious reason being they're still liable for all those fines,

which I think is like it's like one hundred billion dollars per day or some some ridiculous number. They're just hoping Trump doesn't actually enforce it against them so long as he's president. I'm also wondering how the insurance companies are allowing them to do this because the liability doesn't leave. Their insurance companies are allowing them to do this because the liability doesn't leave. Their insurance companies are also extremely confident it will never be enforced. So I suppose the issue is if Trump says I won't enforce it, they're confident that if any Democrat ends up winning, the Democrats certainly won't enforce it either. So the liability is zero to disobey a federal law that was passed. But there is actually one simple argument, one simple question on the whole on the whole issue. What grounds do we currently have as a nation to accept that our legislative

branch in both houses passed a law, the executive branch signed it, and the judicial branch at the highest court upheld it, and it's not being enforced? That's because of Donald Trump. But what is what is the what is the mechanism by which we accept that? We shouldn't it's it's unconstitutional he should be enforcing the law i agree i don't i don't know i don't know what the the method it's like daca i mean yeah i don't i don't know what what the method would be to to you know make him but i mean look the congress has decided just like you said it went through the entire government and he's just like nah so right should have banned it that's a better argument to me than like should we shouldn't be

it's like well it passed and so it passed he signed it con the scotus looked at it and you know that is scotus said yes done to me that's a much better argument. Like, it doesn't really matter what we think about it because it was upheld. Yeah. Yeah. I think Donald Trump right now. Here's the other issue, too, which is surprising why Trump is not enforcing this. Donald Trump is going after all of the college students who are anti-Israel. So he's pulling student visas.

There was that. What was her name? Romesa. Yeah was that uh what was her name romesa she was what was actually here illegally she was here illegally no she had a student visa so one of them was here actually illegally and like had overstayed her visa and she was she was deported i don't think that was is it romesa i bet it might have been a different girl was this was was romesa or whatever her name is, the girl who was arrested on the street? Romesa. If I understand correctly, they're all activists on some level, right? Yeah. And so the unifying factor for these students is that they're all

anti-Israel. And like Mahmoud Khalil, for instance, they accused of fraud for not disclosing what he had. What did he have, like a security clearance in Syria or something? Or Britain, Britain, British security clearance. Is he being charged with that? Nope. They cited the INA section. I think it might have been 237 saying that he's a threat to U.S. national security. So that's why he's at his visa revoked. And that's why he's being deported. And it was funny because we had a liberal lawyer on the culture war. And I asked him, is it within the interests? Is it within U.S. national security and foreign policy interest to support israel and he was like yes and i'm like i'm not saying you agree with it but you you you agree the government views supporting israel as within their national security interest yes and i said

would protesting israel be a create a risk to that interest that the U.S. has in Israel? He said, yes. I said, OK. By that logic, the INA says the secretary of state can pull this guy's visa and deport him. And he was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. No, no, no. I'm like, that's why they're deporting him. Yeah.

So it is interesting. Donald Trump is in two worlds on this one. He's defending TikTok despite the principal reason being Israel. That's why Republicans and Democrats got on board while at the same time going after anybody who's critical of Israel who's here on a visa and having their visas revoked and deported.

I hate the fact that they're using the criticism of Israel as a reason to get these people out of here because they're all leftists that hate the West in general and I think that should be plenty of reason. You hate the West? You want to see the destruction should be plenty of reason. You hate the West. You want to see the destruction of the United States.

You shouldn't get a green card. You shouldn't be welcome in our country. I don't care what you think about Israel. GTFO, man. I think first and foremost, we should have gotten rid of the people who protested in 2020 and were like toppling down statues of the founding fathers, like attacks on this country. And then we can go to attacks on Israel. And the other thing that bothers me about, well, I actually agree that there's a lot in federal law that says you can be taken out of this country if you're not a citizen, more than people really realize. The problem is that the Trump admin has, like, essentially said,

we're not going to give this, like, millions in research funding to these institutions if they don't adopt, like, this certain definition of anti-Semitism. And that impacts the citizen students who are on campus and that's what bothers me most like i don't really care necessarily what happens to these students who are not actually american citizens who are here you know as a privilege studying in this country working in this country there are students who are now citizens being impacted by these admin-imposed anti-Semitism hate speech rules. Yeah, I mean, look, if people don't understand that Donald Trump, it's the IHRA's non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism. Was it adopted by Trump first, in his first term?

You can't say, like one of them, like... Quoting the Bible. The Bible, yes, St. Paul says that the Jews killed Jesus. That's not that's against the rules now. And that's a biblical quote, unfortunately, fortunately, you know, it's protecting. There should be no hate speech laws. There should be no no rules about what you're allowed to say, especially on a college campus. Yeah. When it comes to that kind of stuff.

But if you are here on a green card or some kind of visa like that, and you are anti-American, beat it, man. Get out. Get them out. Send them back. Send them home. If you are here looking to advance causes that want to destroy the United States

or the West's way of life, send them home. They're guests. They are not entitled to be here. Beat it. Yeah, I agree. But I believe Trump is currently pushing this through again, isn't he? I don't know.

The IHRA rule? Well, he's trying to mandate that the schools adopt it. I don't know exactly. I don't know for sure if Columbia did adopt it. They might have agreed to it. Is that under threat of removing funding? Yeah.

So they said, well, we want you to restore our funding, so we will adopt these rules. But yeah, they're pretty expansive to what you can and can't say. And my fear really is I do like hatred of Jews is real. And to have these these rules that like you can't say these things specifically about Jews, I think is actually going to increase anti-Semitism. Like people are going to get angry about it. Absolutely. And it will have the opposite effect of what we want. It gives it adds credibility to the idea that you can't criticize the Jews. You can't say the Jews control the government and the media.

That's like in this this IHRA guideline. And this forces the idea that the Jews must control the government if they're making this against the rules. So it has like the complete opposite effect. theory domain like they ignore the fact that there are like massive podcasts that are super critical of israel or super critical of uh you know that are that are you know to use the phrase you know blatantly anti-semitic like there are tons of places where you can say all that stuff all you want but as soon as there's one one issue where they're suppressed or there's there's censorship then it's like see look you can't say this stuff, even though you've been saying it for forever on multiple platforms. I mean, America's been fantastic at

creating new enemies for themselves for dozens and dozens of years, right, with every war that we've gotten involved in, and you bomb some local village and a bunch of people who are not enemy, what they declare enemy combatants die, and they create a whole new generation of people that hate America. I mean yeah they're that's true but i think that like

i'm not super against like we mentioned someone mentioned uh afghanistan earlier and and whereas afghanistan was a poorly was poorly executed post finding bin laden like i'm i'm not the guy that's like oh we should have never gone to afghanistan it's like no that's it's fine that we went to afghanistan once we got bin laden we should have left and that would have been you know that would have wrapped up the whole essentially the the initial reason for going in um but staying there for 10 years after that that or 12 years that's weird yeah numerous enemies to this country at a time when you shouldn't have been there yeah so but you know it's it's uh it's a problem that that there are people in congress that are saying you know you shouldn't be allowed to say this we have to have anti-semitism laws and those same people have like you know israeli

flags in their office and it's like look man i get it you got a decent decent amount of your constituents are jewish but that's not helping the image that you're putting out there for regular Americans that don't have any ties to Israel. And there are way more people in the U.S. that don't have any ties to Israel than actually do. And then you hear that stuff and people are like, he's not beating those fascist claims when stuff like this happens, because, you know, the left will declare him a fascist and they have been doing that for 15 years now. It's been that long. And these types of things don't help. No, not at all. So but.

And those anti-Semitism rules are not just imposed on the universities, but I think like state legislatures have imposed similar definitions of anti-Semitism. And then it was introduced into federal law and it actually passed the House and it may go to the Senate. I don't know if that's on the agenda, but that was like last year. This was called fake news, but I just want to show you guys, I have pulled up the Holocaust Remembrance website, which says it's their definition of anti-Semitism, which I believe Trump does want universities to adopt. One of them says, using symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel to characterize Israel or Israelis. Specifically, they say claiming Jews killed Jesus to characterize Israel or Israelis, whatever that means, because they also say that you can't blame Jews for what Israel does, so I don't know how that makes sense. But Matthew 27, or not even—okay, yeah, okay, is it 27? Whatever.

That is the part of the Bible, probably one of the most famous parts, where Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere. He said, I am innocent of this man's blood. It is your responsibility. And the people answered, his blood is on us and our children. That's in the Bible. I mean— So the point is, if you are someone who believes that, the Bible tells you

that when given the choice between a murderer and Jesus, they said, release Barabbas the murderer. Pilate, flabbergasted, says then his blood is not on my hands, it's on yours, and they agreed with him. So, I suppose that's anti-Semitic then? I mean, look,

I guess they want them to blame the Romans, even though Pilot was like, no, man. Blame the Romans. The Italians, man. It was the Italians. College campus is a place for just radical, free, open inquiry. You should be able to debate everything and talk about everything. And that's what a college campus is for, to seek the truth and to learn. And you can't be having restrictions on adults having

conversation yeah for him again for americans a government imposed i guess it's not imposed but like a government essentially enforced at the risk of losing funding uh hate speech codes it's just wildly appropriate i i would agree if we lived in a morally cohesive society full of a bunch of people who existed within the christian tradition, but we don't. And so what you end up with is Antifa bashing people over that with bike locks while the rest of us beg for free speech. Well, and I wouldn't I wouldn't classify that as free speech like that's obviously just violence. Of course. But that's a response to your free speech if they don't like what you say. It's called the heckler's veto. So we don't get free speech because the left is allowed to be

violent. The Biden administration allowed them to be violent. To be completely honest, even in the Trump administration, they did little to stop it. He didn't do anything to stop it when the riots were going on. He offered the National Guard and they said no. But I'm not even talking about George Floyd riots. I'm talking about the Berkeley riots.

When the liberals were beating the crap like Ann Coulter. Milo came in 2017. right and and coulter and uh uh we had our events in uh was it pitman new jersey shut down by the far left they threatened to burn down a theater well there's no federal support from the trump administration i guess it's just like when you when you talk about like a campus should be a place for free speech and the free exchange of ideas and learning all this stuff and just the last 10 years has taught me that college campuses don't generally actually believe in that these days. And there's an insane amount, not necessarily of censorship, but strong pushback and threats.

I'd argue they never did. And I was talking to... I'm just more my examples that I can think of in the last... So I was talking to Cody and he was asking me why it was that people have gone so insane on Tesla vehicles and they're smashing them up. And I was like, look, 30 years ago, if a guy walked in a town square with like a Nazi flag and full like white supremacist gear, what do you think is going to happen to him? And he's like, oh, someone's going to clock him. It's like, right. That's 30 years ago because we had a morally cohesive society for the most part back then.

We all basically agreed on what was and what should be. Today, it's 50-50. If that. Not even 50-50. It's bifurcated and then decentralized within those two factions. So the people who are attacking Teslas imagine it the same way as, you know, it's 30 years ago and they see a Tesla and in their brain they think neo-Nazi white supremacist. Not most of them, but the people on the ground who are morons do. That they live in the CNN, MSNBC world. So we never existed in a society where free speech was tolerated in the way that people are arguing today if you went back to the universities in the 50s yeah you're not going to get free speech you'd get your ass kicked if you were if like the civil rights movement was notoriously violent and so uh there's that famous photo of the people dumping the the milkshakes on i think it was on

the black people trying to eat food at a restaurant or whatever and they were like you can't do that you're not allowed to do that and there were people who advocated for that. And there's cops, you know, releasing the dogs and the fire hoses. So this free speech didn't exist. The moral majority always enforced against, enforced the speech laws against those that were deemed outside of the Overton window to a large degree. Certain ideas people didn't care about. What's happened now is there is no Overton window. There's two. You have the conservative worldview, which is accepting of certain ideas and liberal worldview. And then you have the over the past 10 years,

the Overton window was largely controlled by the left, by the establishment, Democrat forces, liberals, etc. So that meant that Twitter at the time would ban you from misgendering somebody, despite the fact that conservatives view of misgendering was an inversion of what the liberals view was to a conservative. If you call a man a woman, you're misgendering them to liberals. It's whatever they want. We're starting to see the right now gain its own Overton window institutionalized power. That actually means the Hollywood institutions, the big box stores and all of these things have lost a substantial amount of power. The right has built up things like Rumble, for instance, or Elon bought X. And now there are two distinct Overton windows. If you are on the left and you step out of line

with gender ideology, you're outside the Overton window. You're gone. Jimmy Dore, for instance, he's an he's an economic leftist and we talk about him quite a bit he's a great example shout out to jimmy door because we love him he's a socialist he's for universal health care but he's anti-establishment he calls out the war machine he calls it the democrats he's consistent he knows what he believes we know some of the truth the left has excised him from their overton window he's outside of it on the right you have something similar if you are for some of the things the left has, or if it turns out like, you know, transgender IVF surrogacy, you can be excised. But the right has a substantially wider Overton window and more tolerance to it. But they are now distinct.

Considering we call Donald Trump's victory the podcast presidency, it shows that the decentralized media powers has become its own Overton window. So now nobody knows what is acceptable. To put it simply, if you go back 40 years, you go outside the Overton window, you're getting cracked over the skull. There was no reality where you could go to a university and advocate for things outside the Overton window and get away with it. What changed was that the left shifted the Overton window dramatically through big tech and media. So when Ann Coulter and Milo showed up, the left freaked out and attacked them as if it was any other time.

Now the right has resisted, emerged with its own force. And now the question is, which side will use the powers bestowed upon them to win and claim the cultural mountaintop. We'll see, I guess. Let's go to your chats. Even though we're pretty late, but it's okay. It's Friday. We're chilling. We'll grab some rumble rants.

What do we got? Melinda says, Tim, they did turn out. You should have Seth on a culture war episode uh who's that i don't know skyline says this is the time to buy stocks and retirement funds while big firms who don't believe in mega panic sell any american can buy funds using vanguard etc and apps indeed you can happy garan says i have a problem my sister got some chickens, but she's also a diehard communist. I need guidance on how to proceed with this. Tell them there.

No, you just say our chickens. Yeah. Go, go over and go to her house. Start taking her eggs. Don't you like, what are you doing?

Say, what do you mean? They're our eggs, our eggs, Conrad, your chickens. What do you mean? Name them?

Like have a chicken named Stalin, a chicken named Lennon. It'll be great. Yeah. I was just going to say, do you really? Name them. Have a chicken named Stalin, a chicken named Lenin. It'll be great. Yeah. I was just going to say. Do you really want to go with that? Khrushchev. Who else do we got?

You can do a Mao one. Gorbachev. All right. What do we got? Bot says, just turned 24. My 401k just went from 43k to 41k. The destructionist elites lost 10% of their powers over me today. I look at it as a plus

eight i look at as net a plus eight i have 10 to 40 years to cash my 401k if you if you are 24 years old and you're you have a you know 40 000 in a 401k or 41 that's good okay uh i will say full disclosure i lost 111 000 this year from january till today, the stocks that I have, they're down $111,000. A lot of money. But I'm not an idiot, so I'm not selling them. Crypto didn't take a hit. I noticed that Bitcoin didn't go down. No.

Grandpa's place is I retire at the end of the month. My investments are down over a million dollars. I still support Trump. It is better in the long run not just that your retirements uh are down over a million dollars but are they comparable to a year ago is the question so million bucks ain't no you know ain't nothing to scoff at especially if people are budgeting yeah i mean if you've got if you're down a million, you've got multiple millions, so you've got some time to build that nest egg back up. Greg Duvier says, Tim, tell Brett he will get a pay raise if he watches Star Trek The Next Generation.

You can't make me, okay? Fight me. You can't make me. I won't watch any of it. I won't watch Star Trek. I won't watch The Next Generation. I won't watch Deep Space Nine. You can't make me.

Have you ever tried to get him to watch Star Trek? Well, actually, I don't watch Next Generation. I won't watch Deep Space Nine. You can't make me. Have you ever tried to get him to watch Star Trek? Well, actually, I don't know. It wasn't supposed to come up, but we were actually doing a – on Pop Culture Crisis, we decided as a company to do a Next Generation watch party all next week, live streaming our reaction. You can do it at the end of the month because I'm going to be out of town. So you can do it on those days. Brett, how long can your principles hold up? Forever.

Literally forever. What we'll do is we'll have a guy we'll have him stand next to the TV and for every episode you finish he will hand you a crisp $100 bill. That's pretty good.

$100 for 40... Your principles are out the window now. For 42 minutes? Okay, maybe. Well, actually what we'll do is we'll put real 20s in the Muddy Guns while you watch live on Pop Culture Crisis. That's a good idea.

I get to keep all the money that comes out of the Muddy Guns. That's good idea. Those money... What is a stack like that? Now, if you do that much, it jams. So like that, maybe. That many 20s is probably a couple grand. Hey, I'm coming around to this idea now.

Let's do this. All right. Andrea Viola says, as somebody in their late 50s, what I learned is that a diverse portfolio is the key. You cannot have all your assets in one place. Indeed, of the money I lost, I actually made a ton of money on my Bitcoin futures. Nice. Yeah, my Bitcoin futures through the roof. So,

you know, there's always that. I sold Bitcoin this year for the first time, so just doing the taxes on selling crypto, it makes you not want to ever sell it again. Yeah, I just don't do it. It's awful. Willis Manning says, Tim, you're getting it wrong that we don't care. I'm 27.

This is my opportunity to buy. I'm so excited about this. I've been doing 1K a month for six months and plan to keep going. Thanks for all you do. Based. Awesome. There you go. See, Trump is creating a buying opportunity for young people.

Sovereign Fish says, Tim's literal claim to fame was Occupy Wall Street and now he's saying that market crashes don't matter. Are you serious, LOL? How much do you want to bet old Tim Castarello is going to be covering the Wall Street crash

nonstop for six months straight? That is contradictory. Just because we don't think, first of all, it's not a crash. It was, I mean, they usually call these corrections. Yeah. Crash would have been way worse.

Yeah. It's a drop off. I mean, I don't know. But call it a crash, whatever, say whatever you want. I don't know. Just because we don't think it's the apocalypse for this country, considering it happens a bit, doesn't mean we won't cover it. It's unwinding a bubble in the stock market. I mean, this is something we talked about last night.

The stocks have been trading on average 26 times earnings, and that's a lot. And normally they're about 15, 16 times earnings. So there's too much money in the stock market because of all the printing that the government has done, and it's got to get unwound. Isn't it weird how the government took none of the blame for bailing the banks out in 2008? Like, everybody blamed the banks, and then nobody held the government accountable. Kind of in the same way

when they talk about how we need student loan debt forgiveness, but they never ask the colleges why they're charging as much as they are. Not only that, not only did the government never get held accountable for actually doing the bailouts, but they never got held accountable for the incentivizing bailouts, but they never got held accountable for the incentivizing of the process that actually caused all the problems.

They had the credit companies lowered requirements. Interest rates. No, not interest rates. The homebuyers. The interest rates were, no, they had the credit companies lower the requirements so they could get anyone, basically anyone at all, into a mortgage, whether you had a job or not. The idea the Bush administration had was if you own a home, it will make people responsible. And that is exactly opposite of reality.

You need to be responsible to own a home. There are certain people that never should own a home. They should rent their whole life just because they're not going to do the things necessary to keep that home in proper working order. And you're going to ruin their life and probably their credit by getting them into a home that they shouldn't have. They should be renting. There are certain people that just don't want to do the things necessary to own a home.

Y'all should listen to Mikey Taylor's podcast. He's a real estate guy and former pro skater. But now he does a bunch of finance stuff. And I am just I am I am shocked at how good his show is. It's amazing. So I've been I, of course, follow him because he became a Republican city councilman or something like that. I don't know. But he makes really great videos breaking down finance stuff. And he talked about why renting, you know, there's this idea that you should be an owner. You have to own. And then he actually did this video where he broke down the math of renting versus owning.

And why renting was actually better in certain circumstances depending on where you are in your life. And not to get caught up by all these people saying you have to own, you have to own. Like what circumstances would be better to rent? So he, I don't want to put words in his mouth so what i'll say is when when i was first starting my company when i was first making these youtube videos owning a house is expensive it's it these people think it's like you own the house and you rent it out and then you're done it's like okay the argument then is i think mikey points this out is then buy a house and rent it out and and then you rent and you live where you rent because the renter gets away with so much.

You don't got to pay to fix anything. You don't got to pay depending on there's certain utilities you tend not to have to pay. And your your your upfront costs are substantially lower. Your upfront risks are lower with a house. You're there. You sell there. So first of all, there's fees. If you're going to buy a house, you're going to be in that house for a long time, whether you rent it out or otherwise.

So the idea would be you should live somewhere you rent. If you're buying, you're renting it out, but you're not living there. But then let me put it this way. I rented a house and the fridge broke. So I had to pay to fix the fridge. My net income was zero. Then the air conditioning broke. I had to fix the air conditioning. My net income was zero. I was getting a couple hundred bucks a month renting, and I had to deal with all of these problems. So I said, I am selling this house. I don't want it. I only want to own what I live in and have some investment properties or something like this. So I would just say for young people, if you're trying to, if you don't know exactly where you're going to be, if you don't know exactly what you're going to do, owning isn't necessarily a solution to everything. People think you should and sometimes you shouldn't.

To put it simply, when you buy a house, you're going to pay a lot of fees. That's going to put you underwater instantly. Let's say you take out a $200,000 loan. Your costs for closing, it's like you're going to be spending more than the value of the house. That means you can't sell it. If you put a down payment down on a $200,000 house, let's say you save up 40 grand. Good luck, Gen Z. Holy crap, I don't even know how they're going to do that. Right. Let's say you did that. You're going to pay closing fees on that house and it's going to be probably like, what, 10 grand or something? Out of your pocket,

gone. If you then want to sell that house you ain't never getting that money back so you're underwater instantly you better live in that house or rent it out and then if you rent it out you're either going to be running a business while you're dealing with it or if you're going to start a family and you want to live in a house and you expect to be there for 10 years you're good bye for a lot of young people that are moving into a city renting makes way more sense there's this stigma where they're like don't rent you're getting ripped off by the landlord and it's like oh yeah then when you're a landlord you gotta deal with you know uh radon in the basement and then you've got to call an inspector then you pay for radon mitigation or the water breaks and there's a big stain in the ceiling you know

guys it's not so easy all the time before i I came here, I was working for an apartment complex for the management company. That was right when COVID happened, and people just weren't paying their rent. It was a hell of a time for a lot of people, and they don't understand the amount of paperwork, the amount of expenses and costs. And this was just a small building that was – this was a management company. But the building was owned by just a husband and a wife. So this was just an investment of theirs. And the amount of money that they had to sink into it just to keep it livable was insane. All right. I have one pulled up.

It's moved now. Let me see if I can find it. They'll do that. Now people are sending me messages on X about how I have to watch Star Trek. You can't make me. I'm not doing it. Keep those messages coming. He's not going to.

I'll read your messages before I'll watch the show. Why is there Star Trek better than Star Wars? Oh, Star Wars is awful. Awful? Even the older ones? I disagree. I like Star Wars, but he he's got a vendetta against watching

star trek no just because everybody the more people tell me to watch something the less i want to watch it that's what i was getting to he's uh he's put his foot down and he won't be there we go be bullied the christian conservative says tim conservatives don't want to ban TikTok because some worship Trump. So I'll tell you guys. What? I have had so many prominent people on the right come to me, DM me, and quietly tell me, thank you for calling out

TikTok. And I'm just like, why aren't you? Because they're all scared to do it. As soon as Trump turned around and said, we're going to save TikTok, all of these people magically were in favor of TikTok now I'm like oh spare me dude wait why because they're afraid of having an opinion different than Trump yep and they're sharing this fake meme

about Chinese owned farmland where they're like how come we're not talking about how China owns all this farmland which literally says the entire island of Hawaii is owned by China I'm like that meme is not real and two things can be bad at the same time. But I got a bunch of DMs from people and they were like, thank you for being consistent and calling this out. I don't understand why everybody's changing their opinions. And I'm like, I'm not. But isn't that most of what politics online has kind of devolved into is just constant whataboutism? It's a, I have a problem with this thing. It's like, well, why do you care about this

thing when this other bad thing is also going? It's like, there's time for that conversation too. Let's talk about this thing first. Indeed. I don't really care much for the, what about ism argument. If someone says like, you know, uh, Joe Biden did like, you're, you're mad about Trump doing a bad thing, but Joe Biden did bad thing. Like what about when Joe Biden did it? It's like, right. Because it proves their hypocrisy. Yeah. So they don't care about being hypocrites. When I was at the Federalist, this is how you know I'm not like a Trump sycophant, because I was against this ban during the Biden admin. And there was actually a conversation at my publication of whether we were going to run this piece or not. And my argument was just like, I am more afraid of our government than I am the

CCP, because at the time, the Biden admin was putting pro-lifers behind bars and they were investigating traditional Catholic communities and labeling them domestic terrorists, including parents. And that's kind of where I come at this issue. Like, I know what the intent was during the Biden admin. And I was more afraid of our own tech companies being controlled by our government, which I found to be extremely tyrannical and frankly set up to censor and harm conservatives. All that stuff will come back if a Democrat when a Democrat gets back into office. Sure. So. Yeah, so you do agree that if the Democrats are to win in 2027, Trump's going to be impeached. Trump's going to be like if the Democrats win the midterms, they'll impeach Trump. Sure. Of course. Of course. They won't convict him, though. If they if if a Democrat wins in twenty twenty eight and takes the presidency, they're going to start locking up pro-lifers. I mean, they yeah, I mean, sure. I agree with that. Probably.

I mean, they've done it. Trump pardoned them. What can we do to make sure the It depends on the kind of Democratic Party that they have. They could really, I hope, limit the craziness of their party because they know they're not going to win with as tyrannical and horrible as the Kamala Biden admin was. But who knows? What can we do to make sure they don't win? I think we're trending that way. I think even without just controlling the information in this country, I look at the way that Gen Z is swinging 30 points to political right. I look at the kind of content that Gen Z is attracted to when it comes to just like trad girls and the clean aesthetic. And there's this brand that it's amazing. It's like a like it was it used to be like a clubbing brand.

And they pretty little thing it was called. They've completely rebranded. Now they're selling trad clothes because that's what Gen Z girls want. Like, I don't think we need to get information. I think it's already heading that way. So then making sure that Gen Z gets out to vote is the route to victory. They need a candidate. They need somebody.

Like we said, the right doesn't come out for midterms because Trump isn't on the ballot. And that's proof that there is a lot of apathy unless it's about him. So they need to find a candidate, whether it's J.D. Vance or whoever, and they need to get going. There are people that will make the make the argument that the special election that just happened in Florida and in Wisconsin was evidence. But those are special elections are worse than, you know, the mid to the midterms. So and Wisconsin said, I mean, I'm from Wisconsin. Wisconsin is such a weird state. Like there are people who they voted for Tammy Baldwin and they voted for President Trump. Like and I my family is like a very purple'm from Wisconsin. Wisconsin is such a weird state. There are people who voted for Tammy Baldwin and they voted for President Trump. And my family is like a very purple family from Wisconsin.

And they'll flip like Obama and now we're voting for Trump. And this is just what that state's like. Indeed. All right. Well, we're going to start winding up. I'm trying to figure out who we should raid. Who should we raid? There's this Sather guy.

Who's streaming on a friday night uh jordan sather i don't know is he big we're gonna raid him okay all right everybody uh thanks so much for hanging out smash that like button share the show with everyone you know it's a beautiful friday night so it's time to go have fun you can follow me on x and instagram at timcast uh yeah become a member of our discord join rumble Evita, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, my Instagram and my ex-account is EvitaDuffy underscore one and I live stream on Rumble.

Rumble.com slash Evita at 9 a.m. Eastern time, five days a week. Guys, if you want to follow me, I am on Instagram and on Twix at Brett Dasvik on both of those platforms. But what you should do

is watch Pop Culture Crisis. We are live Monday through Friday, 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, which is noon Pacific. We will see you there. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I am Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. Our new record dropped on January 31st.

It's entitled Anti-Fragile. You can check it out on all the streaming platforms. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We will be back with clips throughout the weekend. So they're available here on all platforms. Thank you so much for hanging out. And we will be back Monday at 8 p.m. We'll see you then.