Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1035 Trump WON Libertarian Convention, Leftist Nominee Sparks EXODUS To GOP w/Gavin Wax

Episode Date: May 29, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, Phil, & Serge are joined by Gavin Wax to discuss the Libertarian party selecting a far left candidate for 2024 election, Robert De Niro holding a pro-Biden press conference outside the Trump trial, Trump's secret service meeting with local jail officials in NY in case Trump gets jailed, and the DNC to hold a virtual nomination for Joe Biden. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win.

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Last night, we aired the Donald Trump interview. Although the show was mostly Kash Patel, I thought that was actually really interesting. Kash is absolutely fantastic.

And we were supposed to get half an hour with the president, but unfortunately, he was running behind. He's a very busy man, and we respect that they gave us any time at all. It was absolutely tremendous. Now, this interview we did happened just before Donald Trump spoke to the Libertarian National Convention, where the media says that he was booed and the Trump supporters say he was cheered. Well, the truth is, it was both. And the Trump campaign knew exactly what was going to happen because they were all talking about it beforehand. But he got booed quite a bit. He got cheered in some circumstances. And in the end,

it is Donald Trump who has ended up winning the Libertarian National Convention, not the nomination. No, that went to Chase Oliver, who is considered to be a leftist Antifa Antifa supporting open borders candidate. But many of the most prominent libertarians, high profile individuals are now all basically saying Trump 2024 because they're not going to vote for, well, a far left Antifa supporting open borders candidate. So in the end, while Donald Trump didn't even file the paperwork to get the nomination for the Libertarian Party, it's looking like there's going to be a bunch of defectors from the Libertarian Party. And some speculation, we'll see that the LP will get the lowest turnout it's gotten in recent history.

You know, they had Gary Johnson eight years ago and they got three point three point some odd percent of the vote total, which is their best ever. Now, Trump said you can get three percent and be losers or vote for him. It looks like they're going to be voting for him. So we'll talk about that. Plus, Robert De Niro outside the Trump trial getting heckled and accidentally agreeing with the heckler who said that these J6 cops lied under oath and then storming off while screaming at people. And there's a new report out from Politico. Democrats are beyond panic mode. They are freaking out, Politico says, because they don't think Joe Biden can win at this point. He's not even on the ballot in Ohio. So the DNC is going to hold a virtual convention.

That's right. A digital convention to nominate Joe Biden and then have their, I don't know, Potemkin convention later on. The whole thing is an absolute mess. So we're going to get into that. But before we do, my friends, head over to Casperoo.com. Guess what? Ian's Graphene Dream low acidity coffee blend is now available with a large stock. We got 5,684 bags ready for you guys to buy.

And, you know, we're going to do a competition soon. Ian versus Alex Stein. See who can sell more coffee. We'll see if they're interested and they can pull it off. But this is a long, we've been working on this one for like five, six months now. Ian's Graphene Dream, casperoo.com. Support the show. We sponsor ourselves, our own coffee. We are working on our coffee shop in Martinsburg, West Virginia. It's Graphene Dream. Casperoo.com. Support the show. We sponsor ourselves, our own coffee.

We are working on our coffee shop in Martinsburg, West Virginia. It's going to be a lot of fun. Ian's Coffee now available. Pick it up, but also head over to TimCast.com. Click Join Us. Become a member to support our work directly, and you'll get access to our uncensored member call-in show coming up at 10 p.m. tonight.

You don't want to miss it. As a member, you can submit questions and then call in and talk to us and our guest. As a member, you will also get access to our Discord server where you can hang out with like-minded individuals. There are pre-shows. There's after-after shows. It's a lot of fun. Everybody's doing cool stuff.

And that's actually where you will submit your questions if you want to call in and talk to us. So smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with all of your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Gavin Wax. It's great to be back. I think it's my third or fourth time and got to figure out how to talk in the mic. Who are you?

What do you do? Gavin Wax, president of the New York Young Republican Club, author of The Emerging Populist Majority. I have a column at Town Hall, Newsmax, and The Daily Caller. And it's great to be here. Right on. Phil's hanging out. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte.

I am the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I am an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. How you doing, Hannah Clare? I'm good. It's fun to be back in the studio. I'm glad Gavin's here tonight. I'm Hannah Clare Brimlow. I'm a writer for SCNR.com. That's Scanner News. Follow all of their work at TimCastNews. Hi, Serge.

Hello, Hannah Clare. How are you doing? You are, Tim. All right. We'll jump to this story here from the post-millennial. Libertarians select gay, Antifa-loving, Trump-hating vaccine mandates supporting open borders

enthusiasts as their presidential candidate. Oliver, who describes himself as armed and gay, has a history of taking radically left-wing positions. And now, this is the official nominee.

But as most of you know, Donald Trump spoke to the Libertarian Convention and called on them to nominate him. Despite the fact that he didn't even file the paperwork to get nominated, I don't think they ever had any real intention of doing so. I wonder what their real goal was with the with appearing there, I guess. But in the end, let me show you the results. Many people are saying that Donald Trump is the effective winner with the nomination of Chase Oliver, who is pro Antifa, who is far leftist. They call him a communist. They say he's for open borders. They call him a left communist or I'm sorry, a left libertarian, which basically is the like libertarian,

communist, whatever that means, or what is a libertarian socialist, meaning he agrees with all of these cultural issues, ultimately wants these things, but approaches it from no government perspective. The corporations can stomp all over you, but not not not the government, not the government. First, we're going to jump over to who do we got here? We got Dave Smith, who says, ironically, Chase winning is the best outcome for Trump this weekend, much better than a standing ovation at his speech. We then have Austin Peterson, who posted a picture of Lois Griffin from Family Guy staring at a pill bottle, which reads Trump 2024 and Ron Paul libertarians over Lois Griffin. It's a great meme.

And then we have what do we have here? Austin Peterson again saying I'm a Vivek Ramaswamy Republican. And then, of course, Clint Russell. He's been on the show several times and he ran for the vice presidential slot. That's how they do it for the libertarians. He said, I just want to make this very clear. Chase Oliver does not represent most libertarians and very few of us will be supporting him come November. I, for one, will not be. You know, I tweeted after this, our secret plan to get Clint to vote for Trump is is working perfectly. And he said he

said something to the effect of like, God damn it, you know. So here we go. And we have this top libertarian endorses Trump after party nominates, quote, gay race communist for president. He said in this tweet yesterday, I held up a sign calling Donald Trump supporter socialists. Tonight, the Libertarian Party nominated a gay race communist for president. With those choices, I'm standing with Donald Trump. So I'll just show you a quick little bit about this guy. They show he's got a tweet here saying, don't unify with Trump supporting Antifa, New Hampshire. He's got what is this one is this is supporting Antifa backstop cop city calling himself Antifa saying you don't have to be pro communist to be Antifa, which he apparently aligns with.

He's got ending cash bail. you don't have to be pro communist but you're just helping them yeah he supports drag queens uh story i was for kids and uh children going to drag events he supports transgender medical treatments for children not surgery though but just the drugs he's uh he's pro vaccine mandate he is uh he's pro-vaccine mandate. He is, he's pro-open borders. Here's a post where he's saying he's open for open borders. So this basically, long story short, he's basically the antithesis of the Ron Paul Libertarians and the Mises Caucus. So basically, the majority of the, I'm sorry, the Libertarian Party, which has controlling

voting powers, probably going to vote for Donald Trump. And this could actually siphon votes away from Joe Biden showing. I mean, this is your alternative. If you're a progressive, you're not voting for Joe Biden. This guy is also very anti-war. And I can respect a lot of his positions. But he's very much said he will end the genocide in Gaza, in Palestine. So you're likely going to get many progressives voting for him and not Joe Biden,

helping Donald Trump, and then Mises caucus, Ron Paul libertarians defecting and voting for Donald Trump. If I understand correctly, he was pro ACA as well. Pro Obamacare? Yeah, Obamacare, yeah. So currently, a lot of his positions don't align with where he was like a year or two ago. And so everyone's just calling him a flip-flop flopper because I think he claims to oppose it now. But I want to give you guys this.

This one's important. Chase Oliver tweeted, give me autonomy and property rights. Someone said, give me convenience or give me death. He says, give me autonomy and property rights. A business can decide to require workers to be vaccinated or limit customers to those with a vaccine. But no, government shouldn't shouldn't make those decisions. This will hurt already struggling small businesses. Central planning sucks. OK, saying that businesses can mandate vaccines is a pro vaccine mandate position.

What we're getting from a lot of these libertarian types, I'm not sure if Hannah Cox is a she says he's a rabid capitalist, but she says this is not a pro vaccine mandate stance. He explicitly says he's against government mandates. His position is that a business can determine who they want on their property, whether that be a vaccine requirement or other criteria is a pro property rights and pro capitalism stance. It's actually the correct position, except his positions are also the unabated monopolistic capitalist system, which would allow corporations. And I think this is actually part of his platform. A single monopoly would would be unabated by the government.

I'm pretty sure it's his position. And that would mean that if there's one or let's say there's four insurance companies and the insurance companies all decide anyone who's insured by them has to have mandates. Then every business has to have mandates. And then you, the workers and everyone in society has to have mandates. And the important thing to understand is the vaccine mandates were not government. When the max, when the lockdowns and the mandates happen, it was private businesses deciding it's what they wanted. And that is, my friends, the Libertarian Party's pro-vaccine mandate candidate. So anyway, rant over. But now you understand who this guy is and why this is

going to be a big boost for Donald Trump and why he has effectively won the Libertarian Party nomination. I mean, the best part of the speech, Trump's speech at the Libertarian Convention to me was when he said, Libertarians, at their own convention, Libertarians, nominate me for president or give me your votes. And it's like the left wing part of that party was like, absolutely, we will give you our votes. I mean, it's it is surprising to me. And again, I'm more exposed to the Mises caucus and everything that that they would elect this person. I saw someone saying like, oh, well, you know, our voting process took forever. He was elected really late at night. Some delegates had to go. But it really

seems like Donald Trump came out on top and got what he wanted here. I mean, I feel standing next to me. I couldn't have laughed harder when Trump suddenly said libertarians nominate me for president. It seems like they are helping him in their campaign for victory, even if they didn't actually nominate him. Well, it was a brilliant move because most libertarians are not actually card carrying members of the Libertarian Party. I mean, they've had a purge over the years of right-leaning, paleo-libertarian, Ron Paul types. They've self-purged them. So really, when President Trump is speaking at their convention,

he's addressing millions of other libertarian-minded people who may not come out and vote. Certainly, if they do come out and vote, maybe they're not traditional Republican or conservative or Democrat voters. So he's winning over far more people than are actually Libertarian party members. And listen, I can understand this Chase guy. He's going to give the argument, oh, well, you know, a monopoly wouldn't exist without, you know, government involvement. He's going to give these extremely, you know, nuanced arguments and the philosophy of it and everything being equal in this kind of equilibrium world that doesn't actually exist. But that's the problem with these libertarians. They don't live in reality. So they're going to make these arguments, these lofty arguments about government

involvement, the role of the state, et cetera, et cetera. But they're not actually looking at the reality on the ground. They're not actually looking at real people's problems, what's actually happening. Chase is hung up on like libertarian ideology, right? Like, cause the fundamental point that he's making is it's fine if it's not the government because the government has the monopoly on violence that's that's libertarianism 101 when libertarianism 101 like this is probably a similar argument to what dave smith would make right and i'm i agree with dave smith on on most things um but i don't think that i don't think that america's ready or is is America is in a libertarian mood nowadays. So maybe that might be his position, but I don't know that he should be focusing on it.

I don't think that the libertarians that are going to vote for Donald Trump, or that would have voted for Dave Dave Smith, like they would have stayed had they selected a better candidate. So the fact that people are going to leave the Libertarian Party is because of who the Libertarians selected. They weren't going to have, if Dave Smith had decided to run, there still would probably have been a majority of the left-leaning Libertarians that would have voted for him, though there are some that would have said that he's beyond the pale. But still, the idea that it's a big thing from the libertarians because, or for the libertarians, they're just going to vote for Trump.

The right-leaning ones are all going to vote for Trump. So it does end up with Trump being the guy that makes out. Maybe that was a secret plan all along. I don't think there was any insight. I don't think it was a secret plan. I'm kidding. Oh, well, okay. I'm saying that the idea that,

look, if Dave smith won he'd pull votes from trump he'd pull a lot of the more right-leaning sound borders we love america people but who want to see an alternative to the two-party system who want to see wars ended and don't believe trump is the guy a lot of these libertarians it's actually really fascinating me when i'm talking to these guys the at the convention like you really trust trust Donald Trump will do the things he says? And I was like, yes. He's transactional. He's a transactional politician.

And they don't get that. It's like old school politicking. I will give you something in exchange for your vote. And people are, like, aghast at it. It's like, oh, I'll throw a libertarian on the cabinet. And they're like, oh, I can't believe he'll say that. That's so, you know, crass. Yeah.

Trump said he put a libertarian in the cabinet. He said he's going to commute Ross Ulbricht's sentence. And I get these people saying, you really think he'll commute Ross Ulbricht's sentence? And I was like, what's his cost? No one cares. There's no cost. There's zero cost. And the thing is, like, the big thing that is on the American people's mind right now is the economy and consequently because of that

immigration is a big contributor to the reasons that they they think of the economy with Chase's position as open borders he's not making any friends at all so I mean I don't see and also there's another thing the the LGBT the pro-LGBT stance that's really alienating a lot of people there are a lot of women that look at the LGBT stuff and they say, this is totally different than I thought because of all the women being excluded, like the women exclusive places that are no longer exclusively women. And I think that that's one of the biggest things that isn't really being talked about a lot. I think there's a lot of people that feel it, but nobody's really talking about it

because they're afraid they're going to offend someone so i i think that it's easy to say the economy and that is probably it's probably some people are using that as as uh in place of the of the border but it's hard to talk about the lgbt stuff and say you're against trans women being in women's spaces, you know. Gallup has, for the single most important issue among voters in their latest polling, 27% say immigration. The economy in general nets only 17%. Economic problems are 36% and non-economic problems are 74%. I don't think those numbers matter.

Let's talk about the single most important issue. The economy in general, it ain't it. And that's surprising because normally we say it's the economy, stupid. Immigration, 27% and government poor leadership, 18%. But let's take a look at that beautiful immigration number. People are wondering why it is there are illegal immigrants in tents under their bridges in their cities. We drove into D.C. for this.

It's remarkable what you're seeing. They're wondering why this stuff is happening, why there is this mass influx of people, why private jets are being chartered. And the Libertarian Party says, got an idea. Let's pick the open borders guy. And now he claims he's not for open borders. But then they basically called him out on stage. He says he's for an Ellis Island style approach where people can walk up to a port of entry and say, I'm here for this. And they can rubber stamp him and send him on their way. Which is so funny because we had that Ellis Island style approach and we didn't have a welfare state, which is usually the sensible libertarian argument against open borders to say, oh, I would want that.

But we need to get rid of welfare and the big government and all this other stuff first. He's not even saying that. He's just saying open the borders, keeping everything as is. It just goes to show it's not a serious political or electoral position. It's just pandering to this sort of, you know, who can be more, you know, philosophically sound in their positions on libertarianism rather than actually provide a platform for like for people that have libertarian minded goals and are actually looking to effectuate it in some capacity, which he wouldn't be doing. President Trump offered a transactional approach that he would advance some issues that libertarians would hold dear, and some of them are turning away from it. Some of them will embrace it, hopefully. I think the Mises

caucus, to whatever extent they can, should just become a caucus in the Republican Party at this point. They were. I mean, the Liberty caucus with Rand and Ron, I mean, those guys are all Mises guys, you know, through and through. Thomas Massey. Add this whole voting block and all of its supporters to those ranks and then try and influence the GOP with more bolstering of the Liberty Caucus. They've had tons of success on that at the local level. They've elected a lot of these, you know, Ron Paul style Liberty candidates across the country. I mean, I remember I was a Ron Paul guy, you know, going back to 2014.

And I know a lot of people that grew up in that movement. They've moved away from the LP and the Lahlbergs and the left-leaning Libertarians. That's really what they are. They've become a joke. And, you know, they act like because they have their political party that it makes them serious political operators, that they're thinking electorally, they're thinking strategically.

They're actually the worst of them all. No, they do not act like that or think that at all. They really don't. The left-leaning ones, they're there to throw a wrench in the works of government. I remember some of them always took themselves seriously. There's certainly a faction there that takes themselves a little seriously. Not the ones that are getting naked on stage.

Well, those guys are another story. Or the famous moment in 2016 where the guy said no to having a driver's license. That video is going viral like crazy. The thing is, there is a thing about libertarians that they always engage in purity contests. Right. And it boils down to who is the most anarchist anarchist at the end of the day. And you can't make you can't work in Washington and be working against Washington. It's really, really, really hard to get this through to people that the way that you get any kind of legislation, even legislation that abolishes things,

you still have to work with people. If you want to cut funding, you have to find people to work with. So just to be like, oh, well, we're going to be anti-government and anti-Washington, as much as I love the idea, like the only option is burn it down

the only option is to behave in a way that makes you unfit for government because if you're fit for government and you're working to try to get and do things with government then you're just a cato libertarian and they call you a republican yeah it seems like the libertarian party had to decide basically on like what its objectives were and the party itself is always divided which i find fascinating right like the open borders issues for Libertarian predates Trump. It's been around for a long time. But with this particular election cycle, they had this moment where they could say, are we going to try and get some wins, a foot in the door and try to really steer and influence conservative policy or just generally policy in America? Or do we believe that we are opposed to

the Republican candidates so fundamentally that we don't want to have any kind of allegiance with it? And it seems like they are electing to distance themselves, Trump, and therefore further divide the party, which seems like it would impede progress for their aims in the future. Well, let them let them all vote Trump. I'm satisfied with it. But let's jump to this. This breaking news we've got from this morning. So Robert De Niro shows up in New York for a press conference. See, the Biden campaign wanted to make sure everyone realized that this trial in New York has nothing to do with him at all. So he held a press conference outside of a local criminal trial, which has nothing to do with him at all. Sure. So this actually got really, really fascinating as Robert De Niro got tricked, I guess, into

saying the J6 cops lied under oath. It's kind of annoying because a car alarm is going off. You've been warned, but I'm going to play the clip for you now. These guys are the true heroes. They stood and put their lives on the line for these low lives, for Trump. They lied under oath. They lied under oath. Who lied under oath? What are you telling me? Those two traitors behind me.

Excuse me? Those two traitors behind you. They lied under oath? That's right. What are you saying? They're traitors. They lied under oath. What do you say? They're they're traders. You got I don't know.

I don't even know how to deal with you. I love right away when he just agrees with the guy. He says they lied under oath. He goes, they lied under oath. Wait, wait, wait, what? They lied under oath. Like he accepts it right away and then realizes, wait, maybe he's talking about the cops that are with me for this Biden press conference. So Trump, of course, had his surrogates who were there.

But this is a local criminal affair. Why? Why is Biden's campaign holding a press conference outside of a criminal, a local criminal trial? Internal polling. They're getting desperate. They send in the big guns. I guess De Niro counts as the big guns. I mean, but Gavin, this is not a political trial.

Of course not. But when you're losing, when you're down in every battleground state, you're going to throw whatever you can at the wall and hope it sticks. I mean, what's so funny about De Niro, he's like the quintessential hippie boomer generation. His politics is so surface level. He doesn't understand what's going on. He doesn't understand his own talking points. They threw him out there to do the tough guy shtick.

He totally melted. He couldn't even handle one heckler. I mean, later, you'll probably have the clip. He gets kind of quasi-chased out of the area. Oh, he gets chased out. Yeah, he ran away. I mean, the whole thing was so pathetic. Great optics. I mean, you would think that the Trump team paid De Niro to do this stupid stunt. It was that bad. Yeah, it seemed really bad. It also is funny to me that this is sort of like the best they could do. Right.

They had no one else on. They had no one else on hand. There's no other celebrity in New York who wants to come cheer for Biden. There's no celebrity. Well, this is what I mean. Like, theoretically, Biden in years past when he has campaigned has had all these celebrity endorsements. In New York City, it tends to be where they live.

Right. But we couldn't pull anyone else. This was the best they could do. Well, he's deluded enough to think he knows what he's talking about. Like he went there, he was just literally reading off a script like a hostage. I mean, you see him there, couldn't even memorize his own lines. I mean, that's the one thing he's good for is memorizing lines. Couldn't even memorize them. And again, he had no idea. He couldn't answer basic follow-up questions about the officers behind him and their testimony under oath to Congress.

When they yelled, they lied under oath, and he's confused. He probably doesn't even watch the news at all. Correct. The things he's talking about, he heard from someone else who heard it from someone else. And then he got asked, hey, do you want to come out here? He's like, yeah, Trump, that's crazy. And now he's shocked to find that people are heckling him. And he says, Trump shouldn't be allowing him to do this, telling people to do this,

telling these people to come here. And I'm like, to what protest? He thought he was going to be welcomed with open arms. Like you could definitely tell his ego is expecting to go down to that courthouse and be like, you know, heralded as some kind of hero. And this, you know, this great political activist, the civil rights icon, because that's what they all want to do. That's that's his generation. They all think that they're the next civil rights icon. You know, he made it as an actor.

Now he's trying to make it in his next field. He's clearly failing at it. All of these Hollywood celebrities have abandoned Biden. Yeah. Right. I can't remember who was posting, but it might have been Jack Posobiec. But like The Rock, for instance, says, no, I'm out. We got another story we'll jump to in a second where it's what Dennis Quaid. Yeah. Just calmly says, no, you know, we're going to vote for Donald Trump. Right. I think the most important thing from this is that in their desperation, they've made it plainly clear that the Biden administration is in some way at the bare minimum involved in what is going on with Trump's trial. Now, we've got closing arguments that are they're currently ongoing. I guess it's going to be

delayed into tomorrow or something, I think. Is that what's happening? Yeah, they were doing summations all through today. I think they still have to do the judge's instructions, so they won't to do the judge's instructions. So they won't deliver it until probably tomorrow afternoon. And basically, it's as you'd expect. When the defense is giving their closing arguments, the prosecution keeps objecting and the judge keeps sustaining the objections.

And then when the prosecution begins their arguments and the defense objects, the judge keeps, what's it called? Overruling it. Overruling, there you go. Overruling all of the defense's objections. So, yeah, nothing to see here, I guess. Just an average day in New York court. Gavin, since you're on the ground in New York, can you tell us sort of what the what the vibe is? Like, how do New Yorkers feel about this trial? Well, listen, we were just up

in the Bronx for President Trump's historic rally there. And I think there's a groundswell of support in some of the least likeliest places in the city and some of these outer borough communities, these working class communities. He's growing support. I mean, even among a more Manhattanite crowd. I mean, they're just not generating the sort of animosity that they did against Trump that you saw in 16 or 17 or 18. I mean, look down at the court, generally speaking, the Trump supporters outnumber any, you know, anti-Trump supporters. And when there are anti-Trump supporters there, they're usually affiliated with some, you know, Palestinian cause, which they're just as much anti-Biden as they are anti-Trump.

So, look, I think there's a groundswell of support building up. I think they locked him up effectively in New York for the last six weeks. He's been campaigning, doing stops, the bodega run, the firehouse, meeting with union workers. And people see this. They see it for what it is. They see it as a sham trial. There's no victim. It's not a sexy crime. I mean, if you're going to sell this, it has to be sexy. There's nothing sexy about these documents and accounting and all this ridiculous stuff. It's just a lame case being prosecuted in an incredibly incompetent way. And I think a lot of New Yorkers are waking up to it. I think he's going to have his best numbers out of New York. That's not to say that he's going to

win. That's not to say that he's going to have overwhelming support, but he's definitely moving the needle. And I think, look, I think it's very possible that he gets a hung jury here. I think there's possible there's one or two holdouts and throw this entire thing out the window, and that'd be the best possible outcome. But he's in a win-win situation because if they do try to throw him in jail, his numbers are going to skyrocket. If he gets a hung jury, his numbers are going to skyrocket. I don't think they're going to get, obviously, an acquittal, a straight acquittal, unfortunately, but everything beyond that still could be spun as a win. It's interesting because it really does seem to come down to Michael Cohen. And the prosecutors set him up. They were like, so you really like Donald Trump? And he's saying, yes,

I loved when he praised me, whatever else. And then we turn around and on cross, the defense points out, oh, you're actually stealing from him. And it's because apparently justification is you felt like you didn't get the bonus you deserved or whatever. All we learned from this is that President Trump is too nice of a guy. He's too forgiving. He's too nice. He was like taking this poor dunce under his wings. This Michael Cohen, this guy's a complete fool. He doesn't know what he's talking about or doing. And greedy, it seems like. Greedy. And President Trump was loyal to him and treated him well, apparently, despite the fact that he had very little to bring to the table. So I think that's probably been the biggest revealing moment of it all. But the whole case is a sham. The judge is so blatantly corrupt over the top. I mean, again, everything that President

Trump has been talking about for months is now being vindicated by the sloppiness and just the overt corruption of this trial. This is the system that he's trying to upend. When he talks about this system, this is it on full display in lower Manhattan. And I assume for some New Yorkers, it's frustrating, like even if they didn't like Trump, right, even if they're default Democrats, this is just your tax dollars being wasted. Right. Well, I think a lot of those default Democrats or even some of the politically minded Democrats, you're starting to see this on CNN and MSNBC, all the pundits and commentators. They're starting to admit either directly or indirectly that this is hurting them, that this is backfiring on them massively.

It didn't have the outcome that they were hoping. It's actually galvanized support for him. It's won him over new voters. And again, it's just proving him right in all of the accusations that he's been throwing against the system and the Democrat establishment and all our institutions, which are completely run to the core. Yeah, it makes sense to me. I think one of the interesting things about this trial is that every single trial that comes up against Trump, the media is initially like, this is the one they're going to get him. And, you know, right as this one hit summations today, there's media attention turning back to the one in Florida,

the mishandling of classified documents. And the media is mad because the judge wouldn't grant special... The gag order. The gag order, right. So it seems like there is this elusive, like, we're going to get him promised to sort of, you know, default Democrats who believe or have been fed this message that, of course, default Democrats who believe or have been fed this message that, of course, Trump did something wrong and eventually will get caught. Well, this was the weakest of all the cases. I mean, what they're effectively accusing him of originally was a misdemeanor, and they upped it to a felony by claiming some conspiracy to further the underlying crime. And that underlying crime is not even really a crime. It's never been tried

before. It's a novel legal theory. No one's ever been prosecuted under this. We're not exactly sure who the victim is. So they hit him with these 32 classy felony counts. I mean, the whole thing. 34. Thank you. It's insane. The whole thing is just a total joke. And I think, you know, no one thought it was going to come down to this. Everyone thought it was going to be the DC cases that were really going to get him. But now they're stuck with this. And again, it's withering away by the day. It seems like a lot of people are now saying hung jury. Well, the media's narrative is the whole time saying, oh, like even Fareed Zakaria saying they wouldn't have brought this against anybody else, saying that this it's looking really bad for the prosecution. And then today they're like, wow, the defense is doing really poorly in their closing arguments. It's not looking good for Trump now. And I'm like, why would any of that matter after everything we heard? Right. Unless they're trying to gear people up for the expectation

that Trump will lose this because you can't have this trial and say none of it makes sense. And then all of a sudden Trump goes to jail and people say, wow, if it didn't make sense, this is clearly a sham. But now you've got people coming out saying the evidence is overwhelming and the defense did a poor job on their closing arguments that way when it happens they've primed the narrative formation they're just they're just getting the the masses ready for whatever's to come and i'm sure it'll be unprecedented well here's the story from the post-millennial trump's secret service team meets with local jail officials ahead of nyc trial verdict report. Postmillennial reports.

President Donald Trump's Secret Service has reportedly detail met. Is that how you say it? With local jail officials ahead of the decision in the New York City trial to prepare if Trump has to go behind bars. The report comes as the judge overseeing the case has ruled that jurors do not have to agree on the crime that trump committed wow wow great jury instructions incredible good according to the report from cbs news trump secret service details met with local new york corrections officials in preparation for the possibility a new york corrections source told the outlet being the 45th president of the united states trump has the right to secret service protection for the rest of his life. Being put behind bars may complicate the situation

if that is the case. I hope they just have to clear out the jail. Nah, there's no way this happens. I mean, even if Trump is convicted, they'll put him on house arrest. They'll say, go stay in your house. You can't leave. And you'll wear an ankle bracelet.

Secret service can protect you there. It's cheaper, actually, for Secret Service. And then what does that do for them? Trump can't campaign. Well, that's technically what would normally happen in these type of white-collar crimes. You get probation. You know, obviously, if he commits a crime on probation,

he goes straight to jail. He's never had a prior conviction. He's older in age. But this judge, I mean, who knows? I mean, he's clearly, you know, has an ax to grind. He wants to throw him into Rikers, which is one of the most violent, disgusting prisons in the country. I mean, he's clearly, you know, has an ax to grind. He wants to throw him into Rikers, which is one of the most violent, disgusting prisons in the country. I mean, there's regularly videos that come out of Rikers with the prisoners, you know, just attacking correction officers,

you know, going absolutely on a rampage. I mean, this is not a well-run prison by any means. It's certainly not a prison that's undercrowded. I think it's overcrowded by the latest estimates I remember looking at. So this is a complete dump of a place that they could be sending the former president. And if they do truly send him there, I mean, it's for one reason and one reason only.

They're hoping something would physically happen to him while he's there. I can't understand the logistics of it, right? Like, it's obvious that this would be nearly impossible. I mean, unless Tim's right,

they're going to mask clear Rikers, which is bad for New York. You know, how would you have Trump incarcerated? Unless the intention is to risk him or to put him, they're going to mask clear Rikers, which is bad for New York. You know, how would you have Trump incarcerated? Unless the intention is to risk him or to put him, they'll be like, well, for your own protection, you have to be in solitary confinement. There's no justification. They've been trying to empty their prisons for a long time, and now they'll have no choice.

Our Secret Service says that we've got to clear everybody out. Bunch of new voters, right? Right in time for the election, too. They'll leave Rikers right to the polls. And it'll really help with the crime rates, the attacks in New York. It'll be a great idea. Most people that should be in Rikers are walking the streets every day. I mean, that's that's the joke of this whole thing. And I mean, everything we're talking about here is just a slap in the face to everyday New Yorkers who are dealing with these recurring situations of violent thugs who have rap sheets going back

years, who constantly walk on desk appearance tickets every time they get you know you know hit by one of the cops or arrested they just go through the paperwork they go through the machine they're in and out meanwhile you have the entire system trying to lock up a non-violent offender former president united states it's just absolutely sick for basically the media image of being able to say look there's a picture of trump you know this is what georgia was so intense about with the mug shots. They really thought that this was going to work, though. They really thought that they were going to have...

Honestly, they did because they wouldn't have started this because if they... Look at how bad things are panning out for them. They really did believe because especially when all this stuff started, there was a whole lot of emotion in it, too. Everybody thought they were like, I'm going to get Trump and it all happened right after they all started the investigations right after the the end of his term and stuff

they were really serious about it and now it's looking really really bad for them uh and and so i don't i don't see that how how they're how they even make this into something that i don't see the silver lining how do you how they how they fix it it's all bad news well that's why i think they started early on being like well possibly you could go to jail for contempt of court because we told you to stop violating the gag order like ultimately this is all about the imaging and they they like again with the georgia mugshots like there was someone on sort of left media in these in these campaigns thinking if we can just get a mugshot of donald trump then the american people will hate that guy it's the arrogance and it turned out that was the most hilarious thing.

He released merch for it. And people were like, actually, I feel like he's being abused by the system. And if they can abuse a former president who is a billionaire, they can definitely abuse me. And so I think it actually rallies support in his favor. I don't think a perp walk to Rikers Island would make people think Trump was bad. No, I think he'd win. Well, I think he'd win if they sent him to Rikers.

And again, it's their arrogance. It's their just complete disconnect with the actual political realities on the ground. They think continuously making him a martyr is only going to kill his political future. It's only strengthening it quantitatively with all the foals. I think now they get the point that it's terrible.

I think they're realizing how bad the results are. But the problem is that you have this machine of all these incompetent grifters. You got the Fannie Willis's of the world. You got the Tish James. They're all trying to be the next hero in the Democrat Party. They're all trying to be the next, you know, big name star. So they're not always thinking.

I think now they're just trying to save their necks. Now they're trying to shut it down. But in the beginning, it was like every, you know, crazy half-baked prosecutor was trying to come out and be like, I'm going to get them. I'm going to get them because they're trying to elevate themselves in the party ranks now it's falling apart they're probably trying to put the kibosh on it but i would agree with that definitely i i have a feeling that trump may find himself in some kind of incarceration i imagine the ankle bracelet is their preferred uh method so i mentioned that to a friend of mine who actually used to work in dc and she was talking about talking about, like she mentioned, oh, well, you know, it would be like Waco or there would be a situation like Ruby Ridge.

And I'm like, it wouldn't be like that. Wait, how? What? Yeah, she's like, because I was thinking that, you know, it would turn into violence. There would be protests, et cetera. And she was thinking that it would turn into something that would have like a group of people hold up. But the thing is, it wouldn't turn into, I don't think it would turn into that. Like people defending Trump from being incarcerated? I'm not 100% sure, but the point that I was making is like,

it'll be more like the Bundys, right? It'll be more like a standoff. It'll be people facing down the government more than the government. Like Secret Service versus the arresting authorities? Exactly. You would end up having a lot of people that refuse to go to work.

If you have too many protesters that get violent with the police, there would be police that wouldn't go. Not most of them, because I don't think that I think that's a that January 6th has proven that that that idea was a foul. It was a fantasy. But there would be people that would say, look, this is this is wrong because this is more clear to normies that it is a kind of a hit job on Trump, that it's illegitimate. So I don't think the idea that it would become, there'd be protests. And so I don't think that's far fetched. And I just don't think that it would be some kind of like small thing. It would be a big deal with a lot of significant repercussions, you know? The line you said about the normies, that's the key thing here.

That's what they miscalculated. This was red meat for their left-wing base. It was the cat ladies on the Upper West Side who think of President Trump like the next Hitler. Those are the people that they were appeasing with this move, and they turned off all the default Democrats, you used that term, or the normies who are now waking up and are saying, wait, this is wrong. I don't like President Trump maybe, but this is too far. And that's where they totally blew the political calculation. Why did they blow it? I mean, why is it just arrogance that allows them to do this or emotion? I think so. Yeah. Emotion, arrogance. I mean, you know, a lot of these people,

particularly these blue states or these blue districts like Fannie Wilson and Tish James, they never have any political competition. They run their little fiefdoms, whether it's their attorney general office, their governorship, whatever office they tend to hold in these blue, monopolistic, one-party towns, these Democrat machine politicians, they've never actually had to campaign. They've never actually had to persuade people of the righteousness of their policies or the success of their policies. They win because of the machine, particularly in New York, particularly in where Fannie Willis is in Georgia. And because of that, they become out of touch and they lose sight of political realities that still exist on the national level. And they're still operating under an environment

where people will react negatively to this. They're not all living in a 90% Democrat district where they win no matter what. They're operating in an area right now, many of these battleground states where, you know, a lot of these races are within the margin of error. And this is pushing people over or bringing new voters to the table that are so disgusted with it. Some weirds going on because Joe Biden's not on the ballot in Ohio. And I saw some weirds going on. Maybe Occam's razor. There's no grand cabal or conspiracy. There's powerful special interests working behind the scenes that I get. But no big conspiracy, just they're screwing up royally.

Someone didn't file the paperwork. Maybe the administration and the uniparty has become Swiss cheese infrastructure where people have quit. Nobody cares to support them. I don't know what the reason is that they screwed something up so massively, but it's polarized. It's either they're a bunch of incompetent morons who have lost their support base, are fumbling the ball and filing incorrectly, or they're doing something else to where they don't care that Biden's not on the ballot. I think Occam's razor.

I think you're dealing with a lot of stupid people. I mean, just look at how they govern. Look at their foreign policy disaster. Look at just their media relations. You have that account, the Biden-Harris war room, posting clips of President Trump from rallies where he's funny, relatable, entertaining, and they think it's an own. I mean, these are the type of people you're dealing with. They're deluded, and they're in a bubble. Or they don't think it's an own, and they've given up.

I mean, Ohio's going Republican no matter what. This would definitely hurt the popular vote. It would give a win probably to President Trump in the popular vote if Biden wasn't on the ballot. But look, they're scrambling now. Look, I think they've dealt with years of not really being brought to task, mostly from other weak Republicans who just didn't, you know, bring the fight that President Trump has been bringing. And because of that, they're used to dealing with, you know, a different caliber of opposition. Now, you know, they're actually in a real race. I mean, he's an incumbent and he's in a real race where he's down on the aggregate in every major poll, whether battleground polling, national polling, everything. And they're getting caught clubfooted because they're really not this, you know, sophisticated political machine that they thought they were.

They were just, you know, watching too many episodes of, you know, the West Wing or whatever it was. And they're just they're smoking their own supply. It does make me wonder if there's a certain level of just incompetence. Maybe you're saying like Swiss cheese, especially the DNC. Like with the Ohio issue, the Ohio law, from what I understand, has been on the books for a long time, which means that anyone two years out who was scheduling the DNC's national convention could have like there was no one whose job it was to like look at state laws and say, when do we need to have a candidate nominated by? That's ridiculous.

How long have they been a political party? A long time, right? DEI, DEI affects everyone. Right, or like you're saying, it's just a bunch of people who are like, politics are glamorous. Politics is social. I watch the West Wing.

You know, I want to be a part of this. They don't actually think about anything. They just thought, oh, sometime in August, right? Is this a symptom of like all the changes that they've done? Because they moved their because they moved their they moved their they moved their primary schedule around to make South Carolina first primary. Yeah to make South Carolina first

and they changed the date of their convention as well I believe It's always sort of flexible because the party that's not in power from what I know goes first so like RNC would be in July this year which it is. And this is state rules it's state by state but you know there's still a Democrat party in Ohio there's ohio there's still a dnc like you're making the right point and there's no one whose job it's not like a department of five interns who could say

like hey you each have to look at you know whatever 10 states and figure out when you they need to have a candidate by and then we'll pick the date from there like did was it someone's like vacation schedule he picked the dnc i just don't understand because it's a level of incompetence which if you were a democrat in ohio you're right ohio will probably go red it'll probably stay that way but if they want to win any down ticket races like if they want to win state seats in in the state senate or assembly or whatever this impacts everything it kills how how would you feel as a democrat being like this national party couldn't even figure out what our laws were they obviously don don't care about us. They have written us off. Well, here's the story from the Postmillennial.

DNC to hold virtual nomination to make sure Joe Biden can qualify for Ohio ballot. So this, look, the Democrats are in shambles. They're freaking out. They're like chickens with their heads cut off. They scheduled their convention where they nominate their candidate after Ohio's deadline. Could not get Biden on the ballot in Ohio. So they're going to have a loose virtual nomination because they're cheaters who break the rules because they're incompetent and don't know what they're doing. And so so there you go.

Then they're going to have their Potemkin Convention in Chicago, I guess. But they're even saying that will be partially virtual. And I think the unofficial reason is because there's going to be mass riots in Chicago. People don't like Democrats. In 2016, I went to the RNC. It was hilarious. That's where Jimmy Dore spit on Alex Jones when he crashed the Young Turks event or whatever. And a little protest, not really. I think a little march around the city.

No one really cared. The DNC that year, thousands of people protested. Stormed the barricades, tried jumping over these like 10-foot tall fences they had set up. Massive protests. The far left does not care about Republicans, perhaps because the Republicans don't look like a viable attack vector for them. But the left does think they can garner influence and take over the DNC and gain power. So the DNC is in fear that their own far left extremists will show up and destroy them. And they've been out of control the last few months.

I mean, they have no control over, for example, again, the Palestinian protests that we've been seeing, you know, on the streets of New York and elsewhere. I mean, that's a group that the DNC has very little control over. There's a ton of animosity. And I fully agree with you. This is turning into an internal party struggle more than anything. They see their bigger enemy not as Trump, they see it as Biden and the establishment of the Democrat Party, which is very different

from 2016 when there was just this animosity, this fear, you know, this hysteria over President Trump that just doesn't exist anymore on the radical left and their foot soldiers. They're far more concerned with their internal party dynamic and power structure than they are vis-a-vis President Trump and the RNC. How much do you get the sense that there are people that are actually, say, aides in D.C. that share the opinions of the foot soldier, the Antifa foot soldier? Because it's my sense that the people that are elected officials have no idea how infiltrated the Democrat party is by far leftists who don't believe in the fundamental principles that this,

that, that even the elected Democrats do like your mansion Democrats and, and, and people like that, like they still, they believe in the United States, right? Like generally they're,

they're a different kind of Democrat than your squad Democrats. The squad isn't even Democrats, clearly. They're progressives. They've left liberalism behind. They've left the fundamental principles of the United States. So what's your sense behind that? I mean, a lot of the staffers I meet, right or left, Republican or Democrat, obviously they're younger.

They're usually more politically radical. A lot of the staffers I meet, they may work for a more moderate member of the House, and they're far to the right of their principle. I think the same thing applies on the Democrat side. You see a lot of these younger staffers, far more radical than the elected officials they work for, most of whom are basically just answering to the whim of donors. That applies to both sides. It's a party by the donors for the donors. You have these elected officials, their staff, they could have their ideals, they could have their vision, whatever it is, a left-wing vision, a right-wing vision.

Most of these members, if a donor says something, that's what they do. That's really what drives DC. It's the rent-seeking, it's the special interest. And the staffers, they become jaded. And if they're jaded enough and they're smart enough, they will rise the ranks. It's the idealists, the ones that have their vision for the future, you know, their utopia, those are the ones that fall behind. And I think also to the incompetence question we were talking about earlier, you know, I think a lot of this, it's Occam's razor because you have these staffers, you have these people with lofty titles, whether at the DNC, the RNC, you know, whatever member they work for, if

Congress or another elected official, and everyone just sort of thinks, oh, they have that title because they must be very competent. They must be very serious, smart people who are on top of the game. And then the closer, at least personally speaking, the closer you get to these levers of power, and I'm talking about the individuals that are manning those levers, you become more and more just sort of, you know, unimpressed by them. And you're just like, really, these are the people that you thought were really like behind the machine, working things that were actually smart and interesting. They're not. Well, you know, we talk about the knowledge transfer problem.

It's like a Boeing suffering. We've got DEI initiatives which are causing industries to fail, get what go broke. Right now, the concern with these boat crashes, these barges that are slamming into bridges and, in one instance, destroying it, as well as Boeing planes failing, is that the people they're hiring don't have the skills or capabilities. It's not just, in my opinion, that they're doing these diversity initiatives and they're getting lower, the lowest common denominator. I think the issue is, if you look at the millennial generation, they don't want to be laborers. They want to be rock stars. They want to be YouTubers.

And Gen Z is probably not too different. So no one is pursuing this knowledge. But more importantly, it used to be that you learned from your elders. Your dad was a blacksmith and then you were a kid and you watched your dad blacksmith and you learned how to be a blacksmith. And then eventually you were. Now, dad goes to work and kid goes to school. And what does kid go to school for? I don't know, like feminist dance class. And so who's learning how to be a blacksmith, and then eventually you were. Now, dad goes to work and kid goes to school, and what does kid go to school for? I don't know, like feminist dance class?

And so who's learning how to drive these boats? Then when the kid graduates with his degree in gender studies and feminist interpretive dance, he goes and looks for a job, and the DNC says, well, we're hiring. And so this decay of capability has spread not just to Boeing, not just to Bridges, but to the inner workings of the DNC. You're describing the whole decline of the West, our society writ large. And I think it goes back 100 years.

I mean, there are buildings that we built 100, 200 years ago that we could barely build today. We don't even have the stonemasons or the artisans who could build things. So we've seen that lack of that institutional knowledge, you know, wither away. I think it's applying across, you know, institutions, whether it's corporations, whether it's governments, whether it's political parties. I mean, it's a sad state of affairs. And again, and it's only being, you know, hastened because we've abandoned meritocracy and we're, you know, elevating things like DEI and all these other types of programs that are pushing aside,

you know, standards and again, the merit-based systems in favor of, you know, race-based quotas and other nonsense. So, you know, we were already on a decline before this became so mainstream. Now it's only become, you know, on steroids. Do you think it can be changed? Like, is this decline inevitable? Do we have to accept fate or is there a way to steer it? I mean, history repeats itself. I mean, this isn't the first time, you know, you could go back, you know, the Bronze Age collapse. You could look at the Roman Empire collapsing. I mean, history repeats itself. I mean, this isn't the first time, you know, you could go back, you know, the Bronze Age collapse, you can look at the Roman Empire collapsing. I mean, tons of societies, empires, you know, nation states have gone through these types of declines, cultural declines, economic declines, spiritual declines. I mean, I think we're checking all those boxes. Can it be fixed? I mean, you know, I don't think without radical change, I think it certainly could be slowed down to a point where society becomes more conscious of it. But it's difficult. I mean, you know, when you're in the midst of a decline, you know, how do you stop it? How do you stop all these forces that are already in motion?

I mean, unless you, you know, you downsize, you know, a nation, you downsize a society and you start from scratch. That's how, you know, history has evolved. It's like a penny stock chart. It just goes up, it goes down, it goes up, it goes down. I think those that are listening to shows like this and who are probably on the Trump train are more resilient to this decay. And, you know, we believe in meritocracy. So what may happen is the system may be burning

down all around us. The systems of power that exist have become unstable. And like a nuclear reactor, which produces beautiful, clean energy, when it becomes unstable, could melt down and destroy everything around it. That's what we're seeing with the Uniparty and the Democrats. That's why they're going after Donald Trump. However, that can only last so long. And so that's why I'm fairly optimistic that even if the worst case scenario happens in the end, it is the strong individuals who believe in hard work and meritocracy who are going to win.

I'd put any amount of money on it any single, any day that if you take someone who believes in equity and someone who believes in meritocracy and you run the simulation a million times, it's going to be 99 to 1. It's going to be almost every 99%, almost every single simulation, the meritocratic individual is going to win out in the grand scheme of things. But that road is a rocky one, you know, returning to equilibrium, you know, returning to, you know, where things should be, ought to be, you know, obviously by our subjective, you know, view of it. I mean, getting back to that place, it's not going to be easy. I do agree with you, you know, if your time horizon's long enough, it eventually will correct itself. But there's going to be a lot of, you know, decline, bloodshed, a whole lot of human suffering before

we get to that point. I mean, you saw the same thing, you know, with the rise of the Soviets and other things. Yeah, if it turns into complete economic destabilization to the point where like the U.S. dollar becomes toilet paper or something like that, the whole world is going to ripple in a massive shockwave. Our system is beyond its carrying capacity. I mean, we're running on fumes, we're running on fiat, we're running on a whole lot of stuff that's pushing us forward. It's kind of a zombie system in many ways. And look, you could do very well for yourself. You can make a lot of money. You could have a good life while this whole decline is happening around you. Not everyone will be in that boat. Some people are going to be worse off than others worse off than others. Some people will be able to survive, you know, the ups and

downs of whatever happens economically, et cetera. But there's no easy answers. Why did you get interested in politics? I just always was, you know, interested in history, you know, learning about the world. And obviously, politics is like a natural derivative of that. You know, you learn about history. Most of it's political. I mean, kings, generals, who's conquering who, what nation is building and growing or being destroyed. Politics and economics are just the natural springboard from that. But not everyone who's interested in history takes over the New York Young Republicans. Yeah. I mean, look, I think I got more politically active. I had some things that happened to me know, I just sort of got thrusted into politics, eventually took over

the club and I ran with it. You know, you put your name to something, you want to, you know, build it, you want to grow it, you want to expand that. And that happened. But listen, I think there are a lot of people that, you know, I have friends of mine who have similar interests, similar views, you know, we played the same video games growing up and things like that. And they're all interested in politics. They may not do it as actively as I do, but they're following. They're watching. They're seeing a lot of the stories we're seeing, and they're seeing the decline around them. They're feeling that decline.

We talk about younger people, younger staffers, why they have their visions of the future is because the status quo is untenable. It's not what it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. There's a visceral decline in the air. You can feel it, and people are reacting to it. We've become more politicized as a society. I think 20, 30 years ago, we weren't nearly as politicized as we are now. Well, ladies and gentlemen, as I describe the failings of Boeing and other institutions in these United States, I have a sad story about the decline in our military. U.S. will remove Biden's $320 million dollar Gaza pier because it's sinking disaster for presidents floating a dock as it's taken from beach for repairs after just two weeks. So it ripped apart, became unmoored, as they described it in the press and started floating away.

This is the pier that the Biden administration wanted to build in Gaza, which is the invasion. And it failed. So what we're talking about in the previous segment is basically you have these big jets, and people build them, engineers build them. There is a decay in capability and meritocracy at a fundamental level in this country that is affecting everything. It's why the Democrats are probably losing their minds and their system is falling apart. It's why everything seems to be getting crazier. And I don't know if it's a causation or correlation with DEI.

It may be the causation of DEI or could be inverted. I don't know. But now you got the Biden administration sending out the army to build this big pier and they screwed the whole thing up and now it's sinking. So they're just taking it apart. Trillion dollar military industrial complex can't build a pier or dock in Gaza.

I mean, it's absolutely pathetic. I mean, all the money, in Gaza. I mean, it's absolutely pathetic. I mean, all the money, the resources, I mean, it just goes to show that, you know, we're a laughing stock. We've become a laughing stock. You know, we're this declining empire. And, you know, you can't get a better visual than that, this dock just drifting away into the Mediterranean to illustrate it. It's absolutely pathetic. I mean, I'm so glad we spent $320 million on this instead of, you know, a bridge in America. Right. You know, something to fund a state, an educational effort. You know, maybe something to, I don't know, encourage people to take up trade skills and potentially build better docks.

Like, it's so ridiculous to me. And it's literally American money being washed away. And it doesn't benefit the American people. It's absolutely. Look at this. Look at this photograph. It's just absolutely insane what they were building in Gaza. It's a beachhead

to drop military gear and equipment. And Lloyd Austin's like, no, we're not putting boots on the ground. There's literally, I mean, look at the piers connected to the beach of Gaza. There's American boots on the ground. And now the whole thing broke. And oh man. And who will be held accountable? I mean,

who's the guy? No one. Yeah, exactly. No one at all. There is no accountability at all. Well, I'm wondering, like, why is it that the U.S. military, because the U.S. military usually achieves the goals that they set out, right? The political side of things is bad. But, like, when you set the military to do stuff they usually get things done historically they've done some pretty damn incredible things like the

berlin airlift you're like they look into that it's it's it's pretty amazing what like the military is capable of i'm not sure who planned this how this how they blew it. Because, I mean, they literally have to build a whole city when they invade a country. Like, they build a whole city with, like, you know, all the stuff that you need to live. And this pier shouldn't be beyond the capability. So how this got blown, I don't know. It was a terrible idea in the first place, clearly.

But a lot of graft. I mean, look, even places like Iraq, all these, you know, conflict zones we've been part of, you know, tons of it was a black hole money goes in no results come out you know they build a school it gets blown up they build it again it gets blown up it's you know we always hear stories about this you know with the contractors and all the people that's not how the military like when it's when it's u.s military usually like i said they historically they're good at achieving goals. Kinetically. Kinetically, you know, they bomb X, kill Y.

Absolutely. This kind of stuff, I could see, you know, that the graft and the grifting and the corruption has started to seep in. And again, these are signs of a declining society. Lower trust. This is when you start to get this third world style corruption and grifting and graft off the system. Everyone's pocketing and no one's actually doing their job. It's the end stage of a country. Agreed.

It is. Grimcast tonight. Yeah. Grafcast. It is the failure to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. And maybe it was intentional. Maybe it was an attack. Maybe.

Maybe. Demoralization. Yuri Bezmenov. Yeah. He was completely correct Maybe it was an attack. Maybe, maybe... Demoralization. Yuri Bezmenov. Yeah. He was completely correct when they targeted a generation, cut them off from the previous, and now we are unable to operate these machines. And he said in, I think it was the 80s when that famous interview was done, he said, you guys are already past these stages. We didn't realize it then.

It took a while for us to see the the ramifications but you know you know what's really wild is uh i saw that commercial for the new ipad have you guys seen it where everyone got offended because it the big gigantic machine destroys everything and there was this great meme it was like the uh the original uh apple macintosh commercial is the the woman running in in bright colors in the night in 1984 and throwing the sledgehammer. And the theme was bright humanity destroying the monotonous, you know, controlled regime. And then— 1984, right? It was styled like that. She's got, like, orange shorts, and she throws the sledgehammer.

And then it was like, now 2024, it's totally inverted, and the industrial cold monotonous machine destroys all of the vibrant life to create this tablet. But anyway, my point was, when they show the tablet, and it's like the woman's hand holding it up, and it's super thin, I thought, you know what's really crazy about that? If you gave that tablet to some, like, queen in the year 1350, yeah, she'd call it a magic mirror and it would be like the it's got like the face detection activation so you walk up to it and it just turns on it's got voice control activation so you can say tell me this tell me that and then if you were to crack it open and look what was inside what would you find runes and glyphs you would find stones inside with

strange carvings and strange lines. And I'm just like, isn't that isn't that amazing that if today we fail to transfer knowledge of how these things operate within a certain amount of time, someone who comes upon a helicopter will just see a giant rock and not even understand what it's supposed to do. That's what's happened throughout history. We don't even understand ancient civilizations fully. We think we do. We call this a tomb. We call this a palace. But we have no idea what they were doing, what they actually were innovating. But I think you're bringing on a point about the institutional knowledge.

I think I saw an article that came out that said like 30% of the web or like a lot of websites over the last 5, 10 years, they're gone completely, completely deleted. We didn't even preserve them. It's like the Library of the web or like a lot of websites over the last five, 10 years. They're gone completely, completely deleted. We didn't even preserve them. You know, it's like the Library of Alexandria in real time. We're just losing knowledge. Maybe it's not the most valuable knowledge, but it's still knowledge nonetheless. It's gone.

And then in addition to the knowledge, you were highlighting the difference between these two commercials. Look at, you can look up the Home Alone house, you know, the difference after the renovation. And I think someone made a joke online. It was like the antidepressant version of the house. You know, you go back to the 90s. It was this warm, cozy house on the inside full of like, you know, children, family. And it really just sort of spoke to the times. And now it's this white, sterile, just, you know.

Brutalist. Brutalist, minimalist, you know, just soulless interior. And it just really shows the transition of our country from where it was in the 90s oh wow i think they used to have like the red wallpaper i mean i find it really interesting that our as we have become a more online situation online uh culture and we have the rise of sort of the lifestyle influencer that also we take out any kind of characteristics. The rise of minimalism, meaning just like white, beige, not a lot of decorations. It's almost like taking away any kind of personality.

Death of detail, ornamentation, everything's utilitarian. You know, why would we put a flourish here? Why would we put a piece of paneling here? It doesn't serve any purpose. Everything should just be white slab. And you don't want anyone to think anything of it. It's like it won't offend anyone. That's what it ultimately came as part of our interior design. And it's hard to quantify these things, you know, because it's like, you know, kind of everything's run by technocrats. So, you know, what's the

value of that wallpaper? How do you quantify it? How it makes you feel? We got to zoom in. It's low resolution, but you can see the chairs the red the wallpaper the carpet and then uh today it's uh it's that it's gray and like minimal and nothing i mean it's still a beautiful home but it does lack all personality right and i think that is sort of true for so many parts of american culture right now they're trying so hard not to be offensive or to to blend in and be be palatable to everyone that there's sort of true for so many parts of American culture right now. They're trying so hard not to be offensive or to blend in and be palatable to everyone that there's sort of no defining characteristic. We got to go back.

We got to turn the clock back to the 90s when we used to put colors on the walls and they were families. I've actually seen a huge rise in wallpaper. Wallpapering is becoming extremely popular and I almost think it's a response to this very impersonal minimalist beige culture. We're going to redo the whole IRL studio with that wallpaper. Wallpapering is becoming extremely popular and I almost think it's a response to this very impersonal, minimalist, beige culture that was created. We're going to redo the whole

IRL studio with that wallpaper. I've got ideas. There's a lot of really fun wallpaper out there. Wayne scoting and some wallpaper. Okay, listen. I know that I'm going to be the dissenting voice here. The white looks way better than the wallpaper.

I'm sorry. It's not that I disagree with you. It's just that like this house could be anywhere in the country, right? The wallpaper is in some ways more personal. No, I disagree with you, Phil. It is the communist block housing application of American society. There is nothing communist looking about that. Are you kidding, dude?

Yeah, I'm 100% serious. Have you driven down the street in like post-soviet countries yeah i mean yes i've been to russia a couple times i'm not i'm not saying i'm not comparing the level of luxury i'm comparing the sterilization of it the brutalist you don't get anything pretty you don't get any design you get a gray cube go live in your cube yeah okay so the only thing that has personality with the house are the historic elements right

the banister the woodworking the wainscottings that they left in one more homeowner they will take that out and replace it that's a very good point

isn't the wainscotting isn't that the half thing called wainscotting I mean that's that alone right there is something that adds flourish just like you're saying

you're talking about the banister the wainscotting but one more owner will take that out they'll be like, this is too dated. I don't like it.

And if this wasn't a famous house, it probably already would have been gutted. They kept some of these elements because that's the resale value. And I think the other thing, I saw this video. I'm sure none of the men

in this room saw this, but I saw it on my social media because my algorithm is more feminine than yours. Of this girl, you know, she's in her late 20s, early 30s.

She's like, we bought a house, so exciting. It was probably built in the early 2000s. It looks beautiful. And she's like, yeah late 20s early 30s she's like we bought a house so exciting uh you know it's probably built in the early 2000s it looks beautiful and she's like yeah we're gonna put in uh luxury lvp flooring luxury plank vinyl all over the floor they have beautiful hardwood floors and everyone comes it's like why would you do this she's like yeah it's just i don't know the other stuff is easier to maintain i don't like it and it's very weird to me right but it is becoming more industrial and basic and everything's the same. All the home

renovation shows, they go into these places. It's like a beautiful 1920s, 1930s home. They got this hardwood floor. It's covered by the 1970s carpet or the vinyl from the early 2000s. They just kill all the character and now all these shows are pulling back the layers of the onion to bring back the beauty. And it makes all houses end

up looking kind of the same. Correct. It's time to do that idea I had a while ago. It's time the beauty. And it makes all houses end up looking kind of the same. Correct. It's time to do that idea I had a while ago. It's time to execute. And the idea was to get like a small hotel, probably not a hotel, but probably like a four-unit

apartment building. And we take each of like the two, maybe like four two-bedroom apartments, and you convert them into eras. So there's a 90s apartment, an 80s, a 70s, a 60s. Maybe we do five and do a 50s. And when you go into the 90s one,

it looks like a house from the 90s. When you turn the TV on, it's got the UHF and the VHF, and it can play only from a specific period. Like we choose a week in the 90s, we get the actual television archives. And we play them in real time. And then you can go back. At least temporarily. And you can go to the 80s and the 70s and the 60s.

You turn the TV on and it's the news in the 60s. And you're watching. And you can change the channel. And it's real time. Real time. I love it. Over the weekend. My only concern.

And I mean this seriously. Because we talked about this a couple years ago. Is how you deal with the suicides oh for people going to this place dude there's going to be a guy right now who's a Gen Xer who got married in 1998 or whatever to his high school sweetheart who divorced him 10 years later

and he's going to be crying and he's going to find this place he's going to go back and he's going to open the fridge and see the 1990s Pizza Hut box and the advertisements he's going to turn the TV on he's going to start crying and then we're going to open the fridge and see the 1990s Pizza Hut box and the advertisements. He's going to turn the TV on. He's going to start crying, and then we're going to have a problem.

Cost of doing business. But I got the idea because there was a Blockbuster video that converted a part of their lobby into a one-night-only Airbnb that was the 90s. Well, you're bringing up nostalgia porn. I mean, that's when you know, I hate to be so like a Debbie Downer, but we have so much nostalgia, particularly on like the our generation, millennials, even zoomers for a time past. And there's an entire industry, a cottage industry being developed to serve the needs of that nostalgia because people are trying to yearn to go back. You didn't really see this, you know, in in these decades you're describing. It's very much a modern phenomenon. But you drive around, you go to France, you go to Spain, and you look at this old architecture and how amazing it was. I think it was Seamus who was saying the reason for it is because that was media.

How you conveyed a great work and a symbol was in the structures you were building that people would see. Now it's something else. It's videos, it's paintings, it's tweets or whatever. So people don't really care anymore. But you look at modern developments. Look, I gotta be honest. I rode my bike down the street.

I skated today. I got all sweaty. I said, I'm gonna go on my bike and just, you know, 30 back and forth and just cool down. And they've got this housing development and all of the houses are identical. And that's, of course, if you go to the south side of Chicago, the exact same thing. And I'm sure it's the same in most urban developments. All these identical houses.

At the very least, when I was a kid, all the houses were different colors. It's like, you know, my house was like reddish or whatever. And the house was white next to me. And the house to the other side, mine was more like beige orange. And the house to the left was red and the house to the right was white. And then there was wallpaper and everyone kind of made it their own space. Now you go and look at the new developments and they're like, we're putting in a new library. It's a white cube with just aluminum and white.

It's awful. And beyond the developments, it's the cities in general. I mean, the architecture, these giant steel, you know, glass structures, they could be anywhere in the world. I mean, the United States, we had beautiful cities not that long ago. You go back 100 years, you look at our cities, it looked like we lost a war. You go to all these major cities, places now you would think of as kind of dumpy, not exactly a great place to live. We had amazing cities, and we collectively destroyed them after World War II

with the highway system and building car-centric— Wait, you think the highway system destroyed them? I'm getting dark oils. They, tons of American cities, they put the highway right through some of the hearts of these cities. You look at places like Cincinnati, other places, they had entire thriving communities and they just, the entire highway system, eminent domain, right through the heart of it. They tore down everything else to build parking. They changed the laws, the setback laws. They required, you know, certain regulations in terms of mixed use and all these other things. All of a sudden, all these great cities that we had across the country with their own unique architecture, unique, you know, culture development, all got destroyed. At the same time, we start to lose

our regional accents. A lot of these things that made different parts of the country unique and different, architecture, et cetera. So are you anti-highway system? No, but, you know, they did it in a poor way. They were this post-war energy end of history. You remarked about the loss of different regional cultures and stuff like that, and that would imply that the highway system is a bad thing because the reason that they would lose the regional flavor

would be because people can move around too easily. We're putting gargoyles in the building. You should. So we got gutters put in, and they're big black plastic tubes that just ride down and spray the water out. No. We will put up gargoyles, and then what happens is the rainwater runs into the gargoyles,

and then it comes out the gargoyles' mouth and sprays it away from the building to stop the erosion. I think that's – I mean these are the things that people do when they love a place. They believe they're going to be a long time. They give it personality. And that was true of the cities, right? Like if you're walking in the West Village in New York, you know you're not in the middle of Dallas, Texas. Correct.

But there are historic parks of Dallas that have their own development. Dallas comes to mind for me because I had spent time there when it was growing a lot. And there were lots of, like you're talking about, apartment complexes that could be anywhere. They all kind of look the same. I think what you're talking about reminds me of Cumberland, Maryland. I don't know if anyone else has driven through it. But there's a highway that goes through it. And you're literally looking at these old sort of Victorian-style row houses.

But you are basically eye-to-eye with probably someone bedroom window, because it really looks like they just put the highway down the middle of it. And, you know, I think regionalism in America, I think regional culture is incredibly important. I think it's one of the things that we see it and that began to take away the overarching American culture. And I think, you know, I'm not anti highway, but I do think ultimately highway was about people who benefited from making money off of it and the governments that were like, it's just easier for us to put it there than about preserving the communities that they ran through. Look at Robert Moses. I mean, the left is good on this topic. This is one of the few topics where

the left or some voices on the left rather are a little bit more nuanced and have a better sense of things about preserving the architecture, preserving the history, preserving beautiful cities, making these more communities rather than just areas for, you know, the yuppie transient to live for a few years and then move on to the development with no soul. So these are things that, you know, I think people on the right should talk about, talk about, you know, beautifying these cities, making these cities work for people rather than, you know, working for, you know, cars or corporations or whatever they are. And, you know.

And be centered around community. I mean, I think about this with subdivision developments. A lot of them, some of them in some cities will make requirements that are like every couple of miles you have to have a park. It destroyed these working class, white ethnic communities. There was a lot of articles written about this, that these neighborhoods in Boston or New York, et cetera, they had really tight familial cultural bonds. They all got dispersed.

They all got suburbanized, sent to the suburbs. And then what was left became, you know, basically a ghetto. And these areas just basically fell apart. Let's let's jump to the next story. I want to take the opportunity to actually talk about the Trump interview and take your questions in the super chats if you have any questions in this segment before we go into full super chats. But addressing some of the things that he told us and then here, which you guys have

to say, of course, we'll start with the most important story. Trump calls starstruck podcaster a beauty. When he reminds Trump, you complimented my face. In all seriousness, I can't believe they actually wrote this. It's the silliest thing ever. It was the first three seconds and it lasted a second. It's also incorrect.

Like this article has mistakes in it, which I think is kind of funny. Yeah, this is really funny. They say, what is it like the white what where does it mention saying like the wide-ranging interview will last oh yeah but it kicked off with trump no causing a noticeable shift in the show's atmosphere as co-host hannah clare caught thank you for getting my name right that's nice uh caught a glimpse of him entering and offered a stunned greeting that's not true at all we recorded in the morning, several hours apart. I sign off the show pretty regularly, you guys know,

by saying, bye, Serge, or hi, Serge. And when Serge is not in camera view, I had switched it the night before I said, bye, Tim. And as a joke, because I knew you were going to cut the interview in, I was like, hi, President Trump. But I just have to clarify for media, if any of the reporters are listening, you got this totally wrong.

They're different rooms. Or it's the same room, a totally different lighting. Hours apart. Yeah. So Trump was supposed to come in. We were told seven o'clock. We'd sit down for half an hour. He was running late. Totally get it.

And we were able to get about 17 minutes. But some of the big news that actually came out. We have this. Trump suggests he'll give immunity to police to carry out mass deportations of illegal immigrants. We have no choice. He didn't necessarily tie immunity to mass deportations. He said we have to restore immunity for police. And he said we will use local police to carry out the mass deportations.

I thought this was one of the most important because Trump has said he's going to engage in the largest mass deportation effort in history. He mentioned, I think it was, was it Eisenhower? Yeah, Operation Wetback. Yeah, yeah. What a crazy name for an operation back in the day. And well, the issue is how do you engage in a large deportation without expansion of the federal government, without either putting a lot of money into federal authorities to carry out these deportations or spending tons of money on vehicles, trains, cars. He said local police will do it. Now, I don't know if that gives us enough information as to how it really goes down. But the idea of local police, that's that's going to mean the federal government will have to provide funding to all of these local police

departments, a mass refunding of the police. Now, of course, a lot of people are saying most people are saying, you know, great interview. We're glad these questions got asked, you know, talking about the mass deportations, ending the wars, pardoning Assange, things like that. But of course, there are some people saying, why didn't you ask this? Why didn't you push back on that? Because I was told I had 15 minutes to ask my questions. So I'm not going to spend 20 minutes arguing with the with the president

over what he means when he says something. When I asked him how he would carry this out and he said, oh, we're going to, you know, the police, they got to protect our police officers. And then I said, but how I asked again, how do you do it? He said, police officers, when I asked about the prosecution of Fauci, he and he and he explained, you know, Fauci wasn't that big of a deal. And he shut down gain of function research, I said, but will there be accountability to which he said yes. So I don't know that. And he said that he would give very serious consideration to pardoning Julian Assange. I got to be honest, when he answered that, I thought it was kind of a wishy-washy, you know, we'll see kind of answer that didn't really matter, but it made the headlines anyway. Yeah.

I mean, I think it's challenging to do an interview with limited time and you have to kind of hit the most important topics. Like you're saying, if you had spent the whole time being like, well, let's go into extreme detail

on this one issue, you wouldn't have gotten the broad range. I liked watching this interview, because again, just to clarify, I was not there, I did not meet Trump. But in the background, you can hear that the convention is going on.

Like you can hear the cheering and booing. And that was, you know. I do think it's funny that they thought you were sitting there and Trump walked in. You went, hi, Trump. They think that Trump just wandered into our podcast. Like that's the most bizarre take I've ever heard. You think Secret Service was just like, like okay podcasters stay calm we're

gonna bring like no uh i'm sorry for confusing you guys i guess but you know i i think that um there are a lot of questions that trump is going to face you know going through november i'm sure i'm sure you've had to uh clarify some of these things too gavin you know where we have people who want something really badly and it is difficult for him to take a firm stance on it. Like I think about his response again during his first town hall with that CNN hosted when he said, you know, I'm going to look into what happened with all of the January 6th political prisoners. That's my editorial take. And we're going to review their cases and as many of them as we can pardon or let go, you know,

we are going to do it. But I think it's fair for him to say, I have to look into this thing. If he just told you what you wanted to hear all the time, he'd be, you know, probably not the politician that we need. Yeah, I've heard from a decent amount of people that his answers are a lot of what we already knew, but a little bit further in some areas. I feel like the whole the whole entire campaign both sides it's there i don't feel like there's going to be any kind of ground broken so i feel like the any interviews and stuff that you get with whether it be with with trump or biden i i think the most news that you're going to get out of them is if biden says has a gaffe or bad biden has you know does something ridiculous

otherwise everyone kind of knows that trump is going to be able to get through whatever kind of interviews you have he's going to be trumpy he's going to be himself he's going to do the same things that he did for the four years that he was the president and biden if if he does any interviews which i would like to see more clearly because i think that that only raises the chances of him making a mistake um but i think that that's that's that would be the only news that's really kind of in the cards, or at least that's what I think that people kind of have have resided themselves to. I'm just happy that we've normalized mass deportations. I mean, you know, 10, 15 years ago, having a major presidential candidate saying he wants to initiate mass

deportations utilizing, you know, local police officers, you know, that would be a radical position. The Overton window has shifted so far in such a short period of time that now we're here talking about like, well, is he really going to just use local police to deport them all? Or is he going to build out a federal bureaucracy? Okay. I mean, I like that. That's the discussion. I like that. That's the point of contention is how he's going to do the mass deportation or rather than are we going to have it or not? So, you know, silver linings taking these things with a grain of salt. What are we getting Biden on the podcast?

Yeah, right. We had RFK Jr. and Donald Trump. Tremendous respect to RFK Jr. Chase, what's his name? The libertarian guy. Chase Oliver. I think that'd be a fantastic episode, actually. But it really depends because, you know, I was thinking about this. You get this guy who is basically like an antifa leftist and the Libertarian Party is in like it's been in civil war with itself for years.

And a lot of the most prominent high profile individuals are rejecting Chase Oliver outright. So I don't know if I view him as a legitimate voice of the Libertarian Party. And so the question is, would I have him on in any other circumstance? Well, he's not a particularly prominent individual. I don't know what he necessarily adds. Now that he is the nominee, there is the reasonable, well, sure, why wouldn't we have him on the show? What we try to do with guests on this show is not, it's not about having the biggest follower count in the world. It's about being an active political commentator.

And so we get a lot of people who are like, hey, I know somebody who is like a research scientist in, you know, metals or whatever. And it's like, can they comment on the news? Because we are a topical news commentary show. And it's like, no, it's like, well, then maybe the culture war is better because that's why we set that show up in the first place. So Culture War Friday mornings. and it's like no it's like well then maybe the culture war is better because that's why we set that show up in the first place so culture war friday mornings if we were going to have him on it probably would make more sense on the culture war um now that he is a libertarian nominee but i also i i feel man with the libertarian party they really just took a dump on the floor i don't know how else to put it i would like to see i would like to see us get jeremy kaufman much more than

i would like to see well he's been on the show before. Jeremy Kaufman? Yeah. Okay. And how about we have him and Chase on The Culture War? That would be hilarious. That would be hilarious. I'll reach out to Lisa and try and set that up myself.

That would be great. The other big thing that came out of the Trump interview, of course, is the prosecuting Fauci and many other people. I want to clarify something, too, because being strapped for time in this interview, you don't really get a lot of time to to to break things down. When I said one of the presidential nominees said he wants to see Fauci, the heads of Moderna, Pfizer, Biden and you locked up for what happened during covid. I don't agree with them, but there is a big sentiment. Elon Musk tweeted, prosecute Fauci. Fauci lied to Congress about gain of function research that was going on. You know, Trump then jumps in. I'll clarify. I don't agree that Donald Trump himself should be prosecuted. And for this

case in particular, I'm not so sure Biden either. But Fauci lied to Congress. He lied to Rand Paul. It was the most ridiculous testimony I've ever heard, he's like, did you you know, was were you funding gain of function research? No, we were just funding research into viruses that made them more virulent and enhanced their their abilities. And then Rand's like, which is the little definition of gain of function research. No. And so this guy needs to be prosecuted. Trump's response was so, you know, he jumps in. He says, you know, oh, I stopped Fauci or Fauci didn't really have it wasn't a big player in my administration. And I'm the one who shut down gain of function. I said, will there be accountability, accountability for the lying to Congress when you get to appoint your new AG? And Trump said, yeah, we'll take a look at a statute at statute of limitations because, you know, the statute of limitations are quite long.

I feel like the challenge with this is if someone were to ask me, like if I was running for office and someone said, actually, I'll put it this way. If you're going to engage in a legal battle, you never publicly announce it before you do. This is a challenge that Trump faces because a lot of people are saying, I want Trump to outright say we will prosecute these people, giving them advance warning to start destroying documents and getting their lawyers. And you can't do it. So everybody wants to know that he will. But how does he answer that without sending a signal? You know what I mean? And it can't seem political,

obviously. But listen, I mean, I think the sentiment is the right place. We need to bring some reciprocity back to the system. We're talking about this case in New York. We're talking about all these federal cases, this political lawfare. I mean, this is not going to stop until the left recognizes that it could happen to them. And up until now, they've operated with impunity and they've thought, you know, we don't have to deal with these types of things. The right are too weak. They're too, you know, cowardly to dare, you know, hold us accountable for our many, you know, transgressions and crimes, or at least be, you know, reciprocal in how we, you know, dole out the lawfare. I think, you know, I agree with you. Don't talk specifics. Don't give them an ability to, you know,

wipe out their computers and all the rest. But I think we're never going to advance as a country until we return to that reciprocity. Because right now it's open political warfare, but it's only coming from one side to the other rather than back and forth. It'll stop overnight the second they realize that they can be held to account. Well, it's no secret that I believe we are in some kind of civil conflict. Low intensity. Or no intensity. Just political manipulation, information, power struggles, and things like that. Maybe it'll never reach the point of heat. Maybe it'll always be a

cold civil war. But I mean, look, they're trying to put the frontrunner for the presidency in prison. This is not a normal circumstance. We are not having elections. You know, look, with the Libertarian Party, something fascinating happened where Michael Rechtenwald, who's been on the show several times, was the front runner. He actually won the first several rounds of voting for the nomination. And then a guy who was in third place pledged to run as the vice presidential candidate for Chase Oliver, who was in second place, if they voted for Chase Oliver, which put them above Michael Rechtenwald.

You know, the guy's a former police officer? Yeah. Former cop, bureaucrat, all that stuff. I don't understand. And so he told the Libertarian Party, I will be his VP. Everyone back Chase instead of Michael. Michael walks away from the, you know, there's a video of him saying, he's like, I can't believe it.

I didn't do any backroom deals. I didn't do any politicking. I just said, here's who I am. Here's what I'm running for. Pick me. And then they cut a deal with each other to to shut him out. The second and third place winning against the guy in first place. Now, imagine that at the national level, the Democrats are not having elections.

Donald Trump in 2020 said, I'm the best vote for me. Here's why. Thinking that wins you elections. And the Democrats went manipulate the system in any way so that we have more pieces of paper with names on it. That's where we're currently at. It is not a functioning, legitimate system. Or I should say, I don't even know how you describe that. We are no longer a system where we have a conversation about the issues and decide how to run things. It is one faction, the Democrats, smashing everything with sledgehammers, refusing to let go of any power that they have. And then you have Donald Trump and the right being like, well, while you're smashing things, can I please argue why we are

right and you should not smash them? The Democrats stopped making our arguments at least 10 years ago. Right. It was they had they had basically given up probably when Mitt Romney ran against against Obama. But then when Donald Trump came, then they were just like, OK, there's no more arguments. It's all just racist bigot. That's all. racist, bigot. That's all whatever it is. Yeah, there's no arguments being made from the left anymore at all.

It's post-persuasion. It's tribal. You have these elections. You know, it doesn't matter what your views are, who you are. You know, you have a certain segment of the population is always going to vote for you. And you want to continue to grow that segment. And look, I respect them. They are ruthless political operators.

They understand that power is an art. It's a science. You know, they're trying to master it in many ways, and they're trying to perfect it. And they're doing that. They're being ruthless and cunning, Machiavellian. And, you know, they're bringing guns to a gunfight. We're bringing, you know, I don't know, nothing to these fights, frankly. So we're bringing, you know, sometimes lawyers, even that, I think that's, we rarely bring that. So look, they're going to continue to win if they're operating like this. And that's just the calculus. I mean, they get it. They're playing for keeps and we're not. I don't know that they're going to win, to be honest, because the breaking point is different. The Democrats have no breaking point. Democrats don't care. The Democrat voters are default liberals who aren't really paying attention, who have no

idea what's going on. Those that are starting to wake up because of, say, I don't know, the border invasion. You've got these people in New York and in Chicago who are like, why is my community center overrun with illegal immigrants? What's happening? They're being shocked into the system. Now they're going to vote for Trump. The Democrats don't have a breaking point.

If they keep stealing power, it is the right that has the breaking point where they just say, OK, that's it. Constitution of state. I'm sorry. Convention of states. We're shutting this thing down. It's a good point. I think you're you're touching on, you know, the other element here is that they're overplaying their hand. You know, they could get away with this, but they've accelerated what they've been trying to do a lot faster because of the rise of President Trump. They're responding emotionally. They're responding arrogantly. They're, you know, just overplaying things. They're pushing the envelope too far. They don't have anything else. They have nothing else. So they're doubling down. They're tripling down. And, you know,

had they been able to operate in a world, frankly, without President Trump, I think it would have been a little bit different. Had Hillary won, had they continued to do this more slow march through the institutions, more of their Fabian style takeovers of things, they could have got to a point where we woke up one day and they already had solidified everything. But unfortunately, there's been some, you know, rough currents along the way and they're recalibrating and they're not doing such a good job at it. Indeed, indeed. But I think that ultimately what happens when, you know, we were talking earlier about meritocracy and, you know, we were talking earlier about meritocracy and, uh, and, and, you know, what happens to the system, the right is the more metacritic side.

They're having kids are teaching their kids. The left is not, if the left tries to steal power and, uh, you know, let's say, let's say November. I mean, look, we're, we're what, five, five months in a week away from what is going to be nuts. If the Democrats end up winning, the right may reach its breaking point. Now, I don't know what that means. It just means that maybe there's like, it's a no confidence system where the Democrats just can't keep stealing power and smashing things with sledgehammers. My fear is you end up with people on the right in their small towns

just saying, okay, that's it. We're basically divesting. We hereby secede and we don't need your authority because you have none. You're illegitimate. When Antifa goes Antifa and they go around smashing things, nothing really happens because they're aimless and they're stupid. But when the meritocratic side decides in the same way we have no confidence in the system, they start building systems, they start taking over and they have training, strategy, logistics. So if in the event the Democrats steal power in some way, arresting Trump or otherwise, you may just see the right organize in a way like at their breaking point is, OK, now we organize at the local level

and we sever ourselves from the other government. South Africa, they're doing that there with the Afrikaners in Orania. They're just separating, you know, building their own state, you know, within a state. I mean, that's kind of the sort of the decline we're looking at. It's not going to be this explosive

Spanish civil war style event. It's just going to be this decline to the point that we're all basically going our separate ways the legitimacy of the federal government we we can't do i don't think we can do things the way that other countries can like the united states is unique in the world there's no question about that so and because of the fact that you know the the phrase is when the united states sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold the u.s having significant problems like political problems about about the actual like like cracks in the foundation however you want to phrase it if there's actual uh question about the legitimacy of the the federal government those that's gonna have consequences globally that's going to mean

that china and russia are going to notice and they are going to do things that are going to put their countries into better positions uh globally and that will put them into conflict with the united states so the idea that this is a only in the u.s thing this election that's coming up if the you know if the front runner's in jail and people are still considering you know going to vote for him the the rest of the world like what they do is it's totally up in the air we don't have a real solid knowledge of of how things work in in china or in Russia. And I think that the Ukraine invasion was clear, made that pretty clear.

So I don't think that, I just think that the possibilities for things to go bad are numerous, especially when you don't see the stuff that they're talking about, putting Trump in jail today and stuff. Yeah, I think the fact that the rest of the world watches our news and is kind of waiting to see what happens, because a lot of countries had elections. Russia has elections. India has elections this year. But because America

has such, you know, military and economic influence over the world, you know, I do think that certain countries are kind of waiting till, you know, the day after our election to decide what they're going to do next. I don't know that you'll see necessarily an escalation of China and Taiwan until China knows who it's going to have to deal with from America. I don't know that you could broker any kind of deal right now with Russia

to stop the Ukraine war until you see the results of the election because there's no incentive, right? They know they just have to wait out the next couple of months and then decide how they're going to proceed and deal with the U.S. for the next four years after that. Yeah, nothing's in isolate. Everything is acting, you know, globally across the world. And listen, we've squandered our Pax Americana. We squandered our unipolarity. You know, we emerged out of the Cold War in the 90s, you know, with this

very strong, unified country. You know, we had these national bonds, a national consensus, you know, we were still strong industrial power, we had a semblance of, you know, of patriotism, and we squandered it, we de industrialized, we opened the borders, we got involved in forever wars. And now we're dealing with a multipolar world order that we don't want to accept or recognize. And we're dealing with situations where they're completely out of our control. You know, we talk about the incompetence at home, we talk about the incompetence in DC, that talk about the incompetence in D.C. That was all manifested first and foremost, not domestically, but actually internationally. You saw our incompetence just, you know, laid bare with everyone just being able to, you know, take advantage of us globally.

That's the sort of stuff that President Trump was talking about. But just look what's happening with Russia, Ukraine. Look what's happening between China and Taiwan and all these other different conflicts across the world. I mean, no one takes us seriously anymore. They see, you know, that Biden is the emperor with no clothes. They see that we're a declining power. And while they're still going to take, you know, our elections and domestic affairs into consideration, that becomes waned with every passing day.

Every day that goes by, we're less of a factor and they're operating on their own. They're elevating their own currencies. They're doing their own thing. And we're just falling further and further behind. I do think it's funny that we are saying it's, it's a world, a multipolar world now, as if to imply a unipolar world where we're on top is,

is the norm where we should be. It's kind of crazy. If you think about it. Yeah, no, I mean, historically it's not, I mean,

you know, there have been tons of unique, most of human history is multipolar. We've had periods of time, particularly in the modern era, where we've seen some unipolarity. We inherited, you know, there have been tons of unique, most of human history is multipolar. We've had periods of time, particularly in the modern era, where we've seen some unipolarity. We inherited, you know, I guess de facto from the British. And it was a very short period of time that we actually had a unipolar world order. It was bipolar between, you know, the communist countries and the West for a while, the third world.

Now it's developed into a new multipolar world order again. Before this, it was always multipolar correct i mean even with the roman empire that's just central on the roman empire and then you have to look at the the east asia and well they emerged you know they solely consolidated across the mediterranean they became sort of in their area but my point is that wasn't even a world power correct it was always just regional and there were various powers throughout the world to varying degrees not so much in conflict. And then now we have solidification essentially.

And multipolarity is a check on these sort of excesses of a single unipolar global elite. I mean because we talk about unipolarity. It's generally the collective West. It's not just the United States. It's Western Europe, et cetera. And that sort of collective elite are really out of touch. You have multipolarity. There's competition, competition between states. This is a good thing.

It forces them to rein in their excesses, their excesses of some of these ideological in nature, excesses otherwise. So I think it's a good thing. It's beneficial to the world. All right. We're going to go to Super Chat. So if you haven't already, smash that like button because one like equals one Let's Go Brandon. That works better than just telling people to smash the like button because now we're saying Let's Go Brandon.

And head over to TimCast.com. Click Join Us to become a member and watch the members-only call-in show, which is coming up in about half an hour at 10 p.m. That's where you as members call in to talk to us and our guests. It's a lot of fun. And I recommend you become a member to support the show. That is how we fund the show. This show is only possible because of you as members. If at any point we no longer had members, there'd be no show.

We would have some weird, something would exist, but it wouldn't be this. And so if you want to see the show continuing, just become a member at timcast.com by clicking join us. And now we will read your super chats. Clint Torres, first in line with howdy people. Howdy, Clint. Talking to black guy says, howdy people. Howdy, Clint.

Tim, congrats on the Trump interview. If Phil's in the house, can I get a let's go? Let's go! C Cowboy says, Tim, your Gadsden flag idea would be ironic with a bunch of tire tread marks on it from leftist protesters i said what we should do because the rainbow flag murals is just like i'll pay for a gadsden flag mural in the street somewhere and then you know they will tread all over it i think that uh i think it's good when people leave tire marks on uh on the road on the road yeah i mean it's the road it's kind of now you saw the video right this guy was doing donuts and spinning around in the middle of the road. Good for him.

They're going to challenge while they're charging him with a felony for it. So, no, he shouldn't be doing that. And spinning around and doing donuts in the middle of the street could get people killed. So probably not a good idea. And I also take the more libertarian approach that if a community wants to pay for paint in the street, they're allowed to. But the idea that they're going to charge someone with a felony for driving on the road is absolutely insane it's it's a it's a thought crime is what they're accusing him of the doing the doing the donuts is reckless endangerment that that that i can agree with felony mischief or whatever it's

like dude is a guy doing donuts at two in the morning calm down you see like takeovers where where people have taken over entire intersections and there are multiple cars spinning. The police are not pulling anyone over. Like that stuff is just happening. People getting smacked by cars while they're doing those donuts. They don't care. This isn't. They do.

And they go and they actually arrested some of these guys. The police. Well, the takedowns. Yeah, there was a video where a guy got smacked by a car. Then like a week later, they found three dudes and arrested them all. Well, that's good. You don't see the results very frequently. And they're definitely not. They're definitely not. My thing is, look, if if if a community wants to paint something in the street, don't destroy it.

If they if they vote to do it, it's done to the proper channels and everything like that. In New York, the governor stole money to print Black Lives Matter in front of Trump's hotel. And that was criminal and illegal and then had police on it. But if we're going to be any kind of functioning government that believes in the founding principles, then we solve all of these problems through what the founding fathers hoped we would solve them with. And it's sending strongly worded letters. And people don't understand this. The founding fathers did. They think the founding fathers like just got up and I hear this meme where they're like the founding fathers be stacking bodies by now. No, they wouldn't.

They literally would not. It was a year into the war before they actually wrote the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers were brilliant, reasonable people who said we do not want war. Stop. Stop attacking us. And they kept sending petition after petition to the crown. And the crown said, screw off until finally a year and a month into it. They were like, guys, I think they mean to bring war to us. So they were far more conservative than the French revolutionaries. People forget. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And the French revolutionaries were nuts. Yeah, completely. The founding fathers. It was it was a Lexington conquered was a year and a month before the declaration of independence.

It was skirmishes popping up of rebellion against the regulars and the crown and the crown continuing to say, screw you have no rights until finally a year later, the founding fathers were like, all right, well, we're independent. Then I guess you won't negotiate. You keep attacking us. And so people seem to think that the founding fathers were like, you know, the king's kind of a dick. Let's go to war with him. No, no, no. They were very reasonable, very smart. And that's why they made the best nation ever. And we got to function that way. That means if St. Petersburg wants to have a rainbow,

they can have a rainbow. And you shouldn't intentionally try and destroy people's stuff. Don't don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. You know what I'm saying? Well, it's blasphemy laws. I mean, that's really what this is. That's why they're treating it differently. I agree with you, you know, obviously, if there's reckless endangerment on the road and things like that. But, you know, these things are being elevated beyond what they should be at a statutory

level because it's, you know, it's a secret blasphemy law. That's not on the books, but that's how they're going to treat it. Well, the escalation of these crimes, like in New York when the dude burned the pride flag and they charged him with a hate crime over it. Well, there were these drunk frat guys that were walking, you know, in the West Village and they just threw a few of these little plastic, you know, pride flags on the floor and they try to charge them with felonies. I mean, it's insane. It's insane. All right. What do we got? Lexington Daniels says, I've been registered LP since 92. The decline over the past handful of nominees has been a joke. Chase is the punchline and I'm done.

I reregistered Republican last night. Wow. Tons of tweets from tons of people, whether they're admitting it or not, switching to the Republican Party and voting for Donald Trump. Some people have been explicit and just said outright than Trump. It is like Jeremy Kaufman said that he's going to be voting for Trump after just making outright then Trump it is like Jeremy Kaufman said he's gonna be voting for Trump after just making fun of Trump supporters it's funny how a lot of people are like well okay Trump it is I guess like with Ron DeSantis's supporters say I will never do it and then

they see Biden they're like I will vote Trump if you at all care about things like family values then you have to vote hilariously for donald trump because the other two were the trans the kids candidates you know it's like lgbt education in fifth grade and etc etc like so if you have any interest in in seeing seeing any kind of attention being paid for to family values you have to vote for donald trump the idea that that we have so much or the fact that we have so much focus on lgbt issues when we have so many actual family problems lgbt issues are a small small minority that don't have don't actually have an effect on most people's lives. Actually, things like single-parent homes,

those things have a lot of effect on society. Yeah, marriage rates, single-family homes, participation of fathers in raising their children. It is kind of something that I think everyone needs to look in the mirror and realize, which is the more we allowed the LGBTQ issues to dominate our social political sphere, the more we allowed the LGBTQ issues to dominate our social political sphere, the more we did a disservice to ourselves and our neighbors. And I think you're right. When you, you know, for me, I would go back to the open borders thing, right? Like,

I will never vote for an open borders candidate. There's no way you convince me there's no compromise there. Whereas, so for the libertarians, there's no way to say, like, we'll fall in line now, because they are so divided on some of these key issues. And I understand being dedicated to the philosophy. And I think it's important to have conversations about sort of what you were talking about this weekend, like what small L libertarianism means and how it can influence how you set policy. But if you have, if you want to see less illegal immigration, you cannot pick an open board candidate.

If you want to see family values become the main focus of our political conversation, you cannot pick someone who is focusing their attention on LGBTQ issues. If someone came out and said, I'm going to lower your tax rate by 10, but it's still going to be 15, are you going to be against that because you're philosophically opposed to the income tax? No, you want to move things in the right direction on the margin. So if you're going to engage- Not libertarians. Yeah, not libertarians. Well, some. Big L. Big, big, big L libertarians in the party. There's a lot of- Big L, big loser, you mean? Big L, big loser.

It's funny how that works out. Yeah. There's a lot of libertarians who are sensible, who understand that they're going to engage in the political process, not because they're expecting some stateless society overnight, but because they recognize that they can move things in the right direction. They could get their taxes lowered. They can move things, you know, in regards to regulations, whatever it may be. They're willing to engage in that process. The LP, I don't know exactly what they're trying to do.

Probably none of that. But if they want to be engaged, if they do care, they should certainly vote for Trump because that's the only thing they're going to get. Well, they're there. The Mises caucus people might they'll defect. But Democrats have meetings where they say. The left leaning progressive urban voter, how do we get as many of them as possible? How do we get the undecided middle of the road people? Well, we're going to have to advocate for these policies done. The Republicans say the undecided middle of the road. We got that. We got

the rural conservatives. How do we get the middle of the road undecided middle of the road. We got that. We got the rural conservatives. How do we get the middle of the road undecided? Well, you're going to have to advocate for these issues. The libertarians go, I don't care about anyone in this country. I demand that this government do the things that I want them to do. And then they go, guys, those policies are foreign to many of these people. They don't quite understand what you're saying. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care what Americans want. That's the Libertarian Party. The American people right

now are freaking out about about the border. And the Libertarian Party is like, we literally don't care that 28 percent of people were asked. And they said immigration is a crisis. We don't care. We just want the border to be open. So we will push that and get our point eight percent this time around. One adjustment to what you just said, which I be open. So we will push that and get our 0.8% this time around. One adjustment to what you just said, which I fully agree with. Democrats will look at the cohorts of people that vote for them and say, how do we make more of them? So childless, multiple degrees in basket weaving, migrants, whatever it may be, cat ladies.

Let's incentivize the formation of these groups. Make sure those groups continue to grow. Republicans look at our own groups. Oh, we have homeowners. We have small business owners. We have families. Let's do things that don't support them. Let's just do our support our donors. And then, of course, you have the libertarians who are just screaming at the wall. These these endless wars that are built that have been built over 80 plus years. You cannot just stop with a snap of a finger. Donald Trump sets a timeline for Afghanistan withdrawal, tries to get our troops out of

Syria, negotiates the Abraham Accords, tries to make peace with North Korea and Venezuela imperfectly and many other places. And the libertarians are like, I don't care. He inherited wars and he didn't shut them down. It's like, well, hold on. He was shutting them down. Well, he didn't do it in a week. He he was shutting down the wars in the Middle East. Yeah. Well, he increased drone strikes. Right. Because as you're withdrawing our forces, you need to have

cover. So there's more drone strikes. I admit drone strikes are a bad thing. We don't want any of them. But the goal was to get our troops out. When Joe Biden pulls our troops out without any air cover or logistics, the whole thing implodes and becomes a massive disaster. But I swear, I talked to these libertarians and they're like, Trump didn't start any wars, but he was sure engaging in them. And I'm like, yes, because they exist and he has to work to stop them. It is shocking to me that there are libertarians that are so stupid that when you offered a president who literally the first president my lifetime to be like, I'm ending

these wars, they go, no, not good enough. Joe Biden should be president. And I'm like, OK, whatever, dude, I would respect them if they didn't vote. And there are some of them that are so puritanical that they refuse to vote. But the ones that actually do vote and actually do this party politicking, they're the ones that make no sense because like it falls exactly into your argument. Why are they even bothering if they're not willing to move the needle forward? Why are they willing to spite, you know, what's the expression, spite your nose, save your face, whatever the expression is. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Yes, exactly. That's exactly what they're doing on a larger political scale. I view libertarians as like, you know, we're all standing here

at the bottom of this mountain going, guys, we want to figure out how to get to the top of this mountain. It's a big mountain. How do we get to the top? And the libertarians go, we should be at the top of the mountain. I'll only vote for someone

who gets me to the top of a mountain by next week. It's like, okay, well, it's going to take 10 years to climb our way up. A couple of administrations, a lot of hard work, but we can maybe make it 20% of the

way. But no, no, unless you promise me that within one week, we're at the top of that mountain, I will not vote for you. And then they go around complaining to everybody about how, you know, when we asked Tim to lead us up Everest, he only got us 20% of the way. You know, why didn't he get us to the summit? Almost sounded Trumpian there for a second. Yeah, I just, it's just these some people are just too stupid they're too stupid i i i just it it irks me so much that we're sitting here being like we literally want to get there

but they built this empire over nearly a century yeah the left you can't have one guy come in and just think it'll happen the left play the the long game. They play generationally. They're not thinking just election cycle. What's the uniparty establishment? Republicans were involved too. Correct. Agreed. Even better.

The uniparty establishment, however you want to describe them, they play at the generational game. They're not playing it just cycle by cycle. They're not demanding things change overnight. They understand this is a game on the margins, moving the needle, and they're going to push it, push it, push it till they're in the place they want to. The libertarians are just acting like spoiled children. SA Federali says Tim's assessment of corporatist monopolistic forces being the primary factor in libertarian party platforms is correct.

I've been wrong all along to defend libertarians from comparisons to libertines. Trump was the guy for this all along. The libertarians like to say the only reason for monopolies is because of government's collusion. And that's that's not true. There is a tendency for massive corporate power and government to merge, but it's not because of one or the other. But the idea that, you know, we have these we have these big tech companies censoring. Yes, it turned out that the governments effectively merged with them. Why? Because they were monopolistic power centers.

Bill Gates was running Microsoft and the government brought antitrust against him. It was like the 90s over. I think it was like an Internet Explorer on the desktop or whatever. So this idea that monopolies don't form is just it's a it's a non argument. It's like made up. It's like they have no real argument as to how you combat monopolies. So they say, well, monopolies don't exist. And it's like, OK, that's like saying there's no real communism. Well, that wasn't real communism. Sure. Well, that wasn't a real monopoly. The government was

involved. The government got involved because it was a monopoly and they wanted to exercise power over their system. Twitter got so big and exerted so much influence that the feds were like, hey, we can inject ourselves into this. Sometimes it is true that monopolies form because governments cut deals with them. But man, you know, look, they talk about private policing. We want to privatize the police force and they never actually explain how it would be. To be fair, Michael Malice probably had the best argument when he said, well, the mafia is to negotiate with each other and they're like private police forces, essentially. But they become states. That's the thing. All this human society originally started as these small little protective units.

Your little clan, your little fiefdom. I'll protect you. You start giving me your grain. Start giving me your resources. They eventually develop into states. So I'm trying to figure out how they argue that from the state of nature, you don't develop the states. They're trying to argue that having no state is natural. If the argument is let's reverse course and restart with a market

system, then build back up into a monopolistic force system. Fine, I guess. Figure out a plan for that. But you know what happens if you get private police? Within 20 years, you have a single monopolistic police department. One police station becomes bigger, gets into conflict with a neighboring small town police station and says, guys, we need to set up an agreement so that we don't so we figure this out. And then they basically just have a treaty in place. And then eventually the bigger one goes to the boss and says, come work for us. We'll buy you out. Look at look, look at the look at the expansion of England. It's exactly as you describe.

They're small protectorates. They're not necessarily governmental. They're just forces. And then they take over other villages. Private is no different. Eventually, you have one unaccountable authoritarian police system. And the argument is, yes, but people can choose not to pay. And then the market will decide.

And then what happens with the mafia? The mafia comes and smashes up your convenience store with baseball bats because you didn't pay. Well, that's not what we're talking about. Oh, come on, dude. I'm not saying the government is good. I'm not saying what we have is good. I'm saying this idea that you can privatize everything makes no sense. And these are the anarcho-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists. I think they're called the minarchists, which are just, you know, kind of like what the United States was for most of our history, a very limited government, which at least makes more sense. But then you still get into the issue with you have these corporate entities, you have this concentration of wealth. They start to just

buy the government. They start to buy politicians. They start to influence it. So it's like a never ending story. As soon as you start to solve one thing, it becomes a problem in another area. All right. Quantum Strange Cork says libertarians might have chosen a radical like Oliver, knowing that a good portion of their base would vote for Trump instead. Secret support to save face. Now, I mean, the only explanation there would be that would be that Mike Termott intentionally sabotage Rectonwald to get the leftist in. So that would happen. He would be the only one because he was he was the guy who was in third place and said, pick Oliver and I'll be his VP. And that undercut Clint Russell, who has actually won the straw poll to be the vice presidential pick. So the whole thing just blew up in the Mises caucus face. What do you think will happen to the Mises caucus going forward? I don't know.

Angela McArdle got reelected as the chair of the LP. So, I mean, that's huge. She has with her, Dave Smith and, you know, Clint as well. But I think most, I don't know how involved Clint was, but like Angela setting up the LP National Convention with RFK, Vivek Ramaswamy and Trump, it's the most relevant the LP has ever been. If they had, if Dave Smith ran, they might have got more than Gary Johnson. Oh, absolutely. Because let's break it down. Dave Smith is tall with a deep voice.

We got the hard ones out of the way because modern presidents tend to have to be around that. But he's funny, knows the issues. He's quick-witted. And he's friends with Joe Rogan. He goes on the Joe Rogan podcast, what, like three times in the past couple of months. And so that's big. He's got a massive platform to speak to a bunch of undecided, independent, moderate people. He's relatable. He's not far right. He's not a Trump supporter. He actually would have pulled a ton of people from the left and the right.

And he couldn't do it. And that's that, you know, he posted on X saying, you know, it's my fault, I let the caucus down or whatever. Reckton Wald, I don't think would have done that well. I think he would have done better than Joe Jorgensen, but I don't think he would have done that well at all. So it is what it is. That's what the Libertarians get. I don't know what their backup plan was.

They should have had one, they didn't. They needed someone, I mean, I guess if you can't get Dave, what do you have? There's no other personality that was running for the Libertarians that had any kind of chance. Well, they got to recruit someone. Maybe, yeah. So who could they recruit? Who was the guy that stripped?

They should just wait for Dave. That was like eight years ago or something. No, didn't he do it again? Wasn't there another strip session? Oh, no, no, no. Alex Stein took his pants off during a comedy routine. I guess I was just looking at an old clip. I thought they just do it at every convention.

No, no. You think it's just a libertarian tradition? I thought it was a tradition, like a cultural tradition, yeah. Polly Puree says, where the hell is Ian? I think he's in Miami. We just launched Ian's Graphene Dream, Polly. You should buy it. Casper.com.

I actually haven't had a chance to try Ian ian's graphene dream it's ian's it was it was ian's idea so it's his coffee i don't know how they came up with it he wanted low acidity i don't know is that a good thing i don't know no idea apparently that's a good thing all right we are change luke says i made fun of of Clint today on my show. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I don't know how Clint could have even run as VP to chase Oliver. It would have been weird. I don't know.

Very weird ticket. Yeah. Yep. That one probably wouldn't have worked out. I have no idea. That's what I find so fascinating about the Libertarian Party as opposed to sort of the political philosophy. That every time they have a convention convention they must have to rehash these fundamental issues like if the republicans have a convention there might be some that are like this is how we think we should handle abortion or immigration you know maybe we're pro-amnesty

and whatever and like these are the other ones might be like no amnesty deport everybody i think that's a good move but ultimately they can probably reconcile more than some people who are like we we don't want any government but i want no government and no border and you want no government and a border like those are those are very hard in some ways it's a bigger tent than the republican party because there's such a bigger spectrum i mean when you look at the political you know whatever they call a graph right libertarians at the bottom but it ranges from left to right they do have more to sort of you know negotiate on you know, whatever they call it. Compass. Right. Libertarians at the bottom, but it ranges from left to right. They do have more to sort of negotiate on.

You know what I think it is? I think the only reason the Libertarian Party actually exists functionally, there's like the Green Party, right? But they're not relevant. They've got members. There's a bunch of other parties in this country that you've probably never heard of. The Libertarians attract people who are degenerates, who want to be able to do things society normally doesn't allow them to do it's a hedonistic party that you've got people who want to do drugs uh

chase oliver wants to give kids trans drugs he does and so you and and so what happens is you get someone who's going well why can't i you know uh flip my car upside down in the middle of the road and then dump gasoline all over the place. Like, who cares? I'm not hurting anybody. And then they say the Libertarian Party is the closest thing I have to a party that will give me what I want. So the most successful libertarians focused on economics or foreign policy.

You look at Ron Paul, Rand Paul. You even look at some of the thinkers like Milton Friedman or Rothbard or von Mises, et cetera. It was focused on the economic side of the equation. They weren't delving into all this cultural. The social side is just the Democrats, but without the freebies. Right. So if you're a libertarian, if you're a left libertarian, you're essentially doing, you're

essentially the same thing as, you know, you want the same things as Democrats. Maybe you're, you have a different opinion on guns. Right. That's about it. Yeah. All right. maybe you're you have a different opinion on guns right that's basically it yeah all right sticks says it was it an axe colossi tim i personally got a hard to ignore bad omen feeling when he wouldn't confirm that he would seek prosecutions against those traitors what do you think i think the issue with uh me saying people want to see the prosecutions is you can't expect Donald Trump to publicly

declare war on the heads of massive multinational corporations before he's got any power. Like if I were to right now announce that I was suing somebody, no lawyer would probably take the case. They'd be like, no way. You just destroyed your chance of winning a lawsuit. Are you nuts? I mean, someone would be like, yeah, pay me up front and I'll bill you for it and I'll file whatever you want me to file. But if you actually want to win a lawsuit, you prepare everything, keep your mouth shut, then you file and then let them run their mouths. So Donald Trump's between a rock and a hard place on this one where, of course, the voter base wants to hear him say it. But his lawyers are probably like, don't say anything like that because it'll be turned political.

It will negatively impact the pursuit. If Trump gets elected and then an AG does file an indictment against Fauci or bring it to a grand jury, they'll say Trump did it as a political stunt. He's just he's doing it for politicking, just like the Republicans are saying of Democrats. So I think one of the best things he said in the interview is when he alluded to the fact that he trusted some people, he trusted the wrong people. I mean, he admitted that he said, I trusted the wrong people in the first term. I've learned a lot since then. I'm not going to do that again. I thought that was one of the bigger takeaways. I agree with you on the prosecution front. You can't just come out there and start leveling all these crazy over the top threats and not think there's going to be consequences in the in the

run up to the election. But I thought that was a massive takeaway from the personnel standpoint. The Elder Millennial says, Tim, this question came up in my college philosophy class back in 2005. What is the difference between ethics and morals? Keep up the fight. Cheers. I don't know if there is a deeper philosophical answer that I don't know based on the definition. My understanding is that ethics is like the professional boundaries of what is deemed

acceptable and morals is what you think is good and right in life. So there's an overlap, but a general distinction, unless there's something else. I always heard that morals are often are religiously rooted, whereas ethics don't have to be. Yeah, you have business ethics, things like that, your accounting practices. Yeah, ethics is basically just like, we do, these are the things that we consider to be the appropriate and professional way to do things. Ethics aren't always necessarily like, a violation of ethics could be just improper, right? You know, it's like you, you spent $50 over the limit.

We don't want people doing that, not because it's inherently. So I'll put it this way. If a member of Congress receives a gift of over like $200, it could be an ethics violation. Is it morally wrong? Of course not. Right. It's just in this circumstance, we are concerned of untoward influence. Giving someone $200 is not a violation

of anyone's morals if it was if it was meaningful and in fact the ethics violate the ethics rule actually doesn't even apply if you have a prior relationship to the individual so if you know somebody for 20 years your friends actually if you know someone for a week and your friends and then a week later he goes hey i'm running for office you go huh and then he runs for office you can give him gifts all day and night it's like is my friend before he was running for office that's apparently the lad. So the ethics is just like how we try to have boundaries and professionalism

to avoid the perception of you know, or to prevent the oncoming of impropriety. And morals are like, don't do bad things, I guess. It's a higher standard. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. But if you haven't already, smash that like button.

One like equals one. Let's go, Brandon. Or one FJB. You can follow the show at Timcast on X and Instagram. You can follow us on Rumble, Timcast IRL. Subscribe to the channel. Share the show with your friends. Head over to Timcast.com.

Click join us. Become a member at Timcast.com. We're gonna have that uncensored call-in show coming up in a few minutes. You don't want to miss it. And what am I missing here? Did I get everything? Yeah. Share the show with your friends.

Gavin, do you want to shout anything out? Get a copy of my book, The Emerging Populist Majority, on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, wherever books are sold. And if you're in the New York metropolitan area, join the club, nyyrc.com. I am Phil that Remains on Twix. I'm Phil that Remains Official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. You can catch us this summer on the Destroy All Enemies tour with Megadeth and Mudvayne. You can catch our new single Divine on Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon Music, and

Doozer. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. Hannah Clare. I'm Hannah Clare Brummel. I'm a writer for scnr.com. That's Scanner News. It was so fun to have you here, Gavin. Follow all of Scanner's work at TimCastNews on Twitter and Instagram.

You can follow me on Instagram at HannahClaire.b. You can follow me on Twitter at HannahClaireB. Thank you guys so much for everything you do. Bye, Serge. See you, Hannah Claire. See you guys. We will see you all over at TimCast.com in about a minute. Thanks for hanging out. you