Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1112 Tim Pool Sues Kamala Harris For President, Defamation Lawsuit Filed w/Andrew Wilson

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, & Libby are joined by Andrew Wilson to discuss Tim Pool suing the Kamala Harris campaign for defamation, David Muir viewership plummeting after his anti-Trump bias was exposed during the ABC debate, Israel detonating thousands of explosives planted in the pagers of Hezbollah fighters, and Diddy being arrested for trafficking and racketeering. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Libby @LibbyEmmons (X) Guest: Andrew Wilson @The_Crucible   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight, I can announce that I have formally filed lawsuit against Kamala Harris for president, Harris for president as the defendant, for defamation, defamation per se, over a clip that they posted where they accused me of calling for extrajudicial execution of Donald Trump's political opponents, which is an egregious and psychotic lie. We have the filing available right now, which we will be going through. It is officially filed, and we're going to break it down for you and then provide some commentary as to the arguments. I know there are many big stories breaking right now, but considering many of you have requested that we cover this as soon as possible and give you the updates as soon as we can, because I announced it over a week ago, We do have this update. And I and as it involves me, it involves the presidential campaign, as well as my views regarding their

lies, not just about me, but others will be covering this. But there is also very big news. Israel is accused of planting explosives in thousands of pagers, which all detonated at the same time, injuring thousands of Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. This is unprecedented. The story is beyond belief. When I first heard it this morning, I was live. I got a super chat.

I did not believe it because that is a degree of military sophistication I did not expect. So we'll talk about that. We've got funnier news. David Muir, the ABC host's ratings are down massively, double digits following the ABC News debate debacle. The indictment for Diddy is apparently very revealing and he was denied bail. So a lot of people are suggesting he might get Epstein. So we're going to talk about all of this, my friends. Before we get started, head over to castbrew.com and buy castbrew coffee.

It tastes great. So I do have a, I will mention for you guys, Mr. Bocas pumpkin spice experience is officially unavailable as we have sold out the last of the original stock. However, I have been informed that if you have a subscription, we still have a subscription stock separate from the original order. So the people who have subscribed to it, you will still get it. Additionally, it is also in supply, unavailable, unavailable for purchase with the cast brew coffee club. So if you join our club where you get a rotating blend. So I found this out earlier because I said, hey, we're all out of the out of the Mr. Bocas pumpkin spice.

And I was informed, actually, we have a bunch. You just can't buy them. They're in the coffee club rotation, which means if you sign up today, you may actually get one because they're still there. But support our work, buy our coffee, Appalachian Nights. Of course, everybody loves Appalachian Nights and Alex Stein's Primetime Grind, Ian's Graphene Dream. I implore you, my friends, to head over to TimCast.com and click join us to become a member and support our work. I'm going to be showing you our formal filing for our lawsuit against Harris for president. Her campaign has been posting lies. They are shockingly egregious. There's a lot to bring up about, you know, what they know. I believe that they know they are lying. And so I want to leave it mostly to the filing, which is it has been filed as an official. We have done this. It has happened, but it is expensive and we can use your support. So head over to timcast.com, sign up, or click join us to become a member. If you believe in the work that we're doing and you would like to assist us in this and so much more, of course, we're producing many shows. We have

the morning show. We have timcast.irl, but as a member, you'll get access to our additional show, the uncensored member call-in on the front page. You can see it right there, where you as members get to call in and talk to us and our guest. So I strongly recommend that you guys sign up to join that. You'll get access to our Discord server where you can hang out with like-minded individuals. You can debate, you can argue, but you can also, more importantly, join our show Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m. So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Andrew Wilson. Hey, Tim, how you doing? Thanks for having me on tonight. I appreciate it. Appreciate you coming. Who are you? Yeah, my name is Andrew Wilson. I'm the host of The Crucible.

I'm a political analyst, political satirist. I'm also a blood sport debater. You also probably see me a lot on the Whatever podcast. I argue with feminists on that platform quite a bit, sex workers, OnlyFans crazies, and lunatics of all stripes and degenerates from all abound. You will usually see me in opposition to them on some show somewhere on any given day. And I do appreciate it. Before the show started, we had a great conversation about how Palpatine did nothing wrong. Palpatine did nothing wrong. He did. He did nothing.

Yes, my younger pretty. He did nothing wrong he did he did nothing yes my younger britain he did nothing wrong nothing in the movies they don't actually show him abusing anybody he's just a savvy politician but but we won't there's a great it's a fun conversation but uh i'm just saying that alderaan okay when i'm so sick of hearing about how alderaan you know was just you know just filled with people who were you know holding hands and this and that. It was clearly a planet which was harboring fugitives of justice, let's say. Rebels. Rebels.

All right, all right. Well, maybe that'll come up at some point. We got Libby hanging out. I'm here. I'm hanging out. I'm Libby Emmons with the Postmillennial. Glad to be here. I'm glad you're both here.

And I don't know what you're talking about, but I feel like I'm going to learn so much tonight. Palpatine's the emperor in Star Wars. Ah, okay. Do it. I think I grew up Amish. I don't really know you're talking about, but I feel like I'm going to learn so much tonight. Palpatine's the emperor in Star Wars. Ah, okay. Do it. I think I grew up Amish. I don't really know anything about Star Wars. But again, it's the best part of the show. I learn things every day.

You didn't bring up, though, that he was so benevolent that he didn't even want to kill Luke Skywalker. He just wanted to turn him to the good side. Didn't even bring that up. The good side. The good side. So't even bring that up. The good side. The good side. So much to learn tonight. It's rebel propaganda. It's rebel propaganda.

I'm Hannah Clive Rebel. I'm a writer for SCNR.com and I co-host this show. Thanks guys for tuning in. Let's get started. Here's the big story, ladies and gentlemen. This is the formal filing in the complaint. Tim Poole as plaintiff versus Harris for president. Jury trial demanded.

You can see we have the official filing here. I need not read the introduction. I'll give you the brief summary as it pertains to this lawsuit we have filed. For those that are just tuning in, I will give you the quick update once again, as this will also be a standalone segment. I am suing the Harris campaign for defaming me for claiming that I had called for the extrajudicial execution of Donald Trump's political opponents and all of his voters who refused to support him. They literally said that I was a Trump operative with a Project 2025 plan calling for legal authorities beyond the

scope of legal authorities that would allow Trump to jail and execute anyone who refuses to support him if he wins. It is so antithetical to my views. It is the exact opposite of what was actually being said in the video. And so I will show you guys this filing and we'll provide some commentary and understanding on what is going on. Tim, I got to ask you a quick question on this. Yeah. With what's been going on with the attempted assassinations on Donald Trump,

now multiple assassinations we're moving into, I have a feeling that there's going to be multiple more. It seems like once this kind of happens, you just can't quite put it back in. How does things like this, like the Harris campaign saying this about Tim Kast and you, not actually put your life in danger? I suppose I should probably read for you from here, which which outlines some of these incidents. I will I will mention an individual showed up at one of our properties and the report that I was given because I'm not there because we're not there was that an employee was physically attacked. So the the insanity that emerges when a presidential campaign claims that you as a podcast host want them to be executed. I think people really understand how shockingly insane that is and the damage that come with it. So I do think it's important to point out as well.

For me, I'm personally impacted by this. My business is impacted by this. My friends, my family, my security and many, many other things. We have been sitting here watching a corporate media apparatus as well as prominent politicians lie over and over about everything. I think they've they've crossed the line many, many times. This is just one example. Here's the filing, which I'll try to make it quick so we can talk more about the issues. But you get an understanding of where we're coming from. They mentioned that I'm a social media, a creator, independent journalist interviewing many people such as Marianne

Williamson, former Democratic presidential candidates. I cast my ballot for Barack Obama in 2008. I'd endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016, though I was not nearly as prominent, mind you. My views defy easy categorization of the left-right spectrum. I'm fairly moderate. It goes on to mention that I was skeptical of the global war on terror, joining protesters in New York City during Occupy. I was critical of George W. Bush. It goes on. They mention I'm a critic of bailouts, financial interests, corporate power. I'm a civil libertarian. But let me go on to get to the meat and potatoes here. The filing says in a post to the social media platform X, which has now been viewed more than 12 million times, the Harris campaign stated Mr. Poole is promoting a, quote, plan to give former President Trump total unchecked legal power so they can jail and execute those who don't support Trump.

If he wins, the Harris campaign did not that Mr. Poole wants to suspend the Constitution, make Trump a dictator, and use state power to imprison and kill Mr. Poole and President Trump's political opponents. According to the Harris campaign, then Mr. Poole's plan is to imitate one of the hallmarks of the most abhorrent murderous regimes of past and present. What the Harris campaign published was and is a lie. Mr. Poole has never advocated for the lawless extrajudicial killing of his or anyone else's political opponents. To include in the video clip, the Harris campaign incorporated to its ex-post. Both the clip and its context demonstrate Mr. Poole's commitment to civil liberties, which is consistent with his past criticism of drone strikes involving American

citizens in the war on terrorism. Shocked by the Harris campaign's malicious disregard for the truth, Mr. Poole almost immediately threatened legal action, but the post and the deception it creates remains to this day. Mr. Poole welcomes debate and discussion from all sides of the political spectrum,

including from Vice President Harris, Governor Walz, the Harris campaign. As part of his commitment to open discussion, Mr. Poole has even taken out advertisements above the very New York City streets he once walked to engage

people who disagree with him, putting millions of dollars where his mouth is on the issue. But with the Harris campaign's lie still hovering over our democracy, Mr. Poole finds it more difficult to book guests with contrary views, including Democratic politicians and members of Congress. The reputational harm the Harris campaign inflicted on Mr. Poole will take millions of dollars to undo. At the same time, Mr. Poole is ramping up his security efforts as a shield against those who bought the Harris campaign's lie and might seek to do him and those he cares about harm. A recent incident suggests one man might have already been set off by the Harris

campaign's false statement. As I mentioned, some crazy guy showed up to one of our properties. I was not there. The report I was given is that police were called, an employee was attacked physically and left injured. I mean, this stuff is absolutely insane. And they'll attack people adjacent. What if it's Tim Fool's family? What if it's Tim Fool's? They'll attack people adjacent to you.

There are neighbors next to this property. And I've gotten reports that these individuals are going on their properties, trying to sneak around. I mean, this stuff is nuts. I can't stress. I think people need to realize this. Kamala Harris is the Democratic candidate for the presidency who posted on her official campaign website, a social media platform that I have advocated for this. They are pushing this lie. One, I am not a Trump operative. I am not part of Project 2025. I have never, never advocated for the death penalty. I strongly

oppose it and passionately argue against it, even in our members-only show, debating with people. Now, they go on to mention parties, jurisdiction, venue, etc. They go on to explain that the Kamala Harris campaign actually posts what they call fact checks on their ex-account. They actually state that they're correcting the record and things of this nature. They're going to mention several posts from me writing in thousands of hours and video and audio content. Mr. Poole detailed his views on the issues. I am anti-violence, anti-censorship, anti-corporatist against mass centralization of power, any form against illegal spying in the security state against racism, fascism, war. Consistent with these views, Mr. Poole criticized Obama for his administration's

use of drone strikes, such as those that led to the death of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki. And don't get me going. I rant on that one a lot. They go on to mention the Harris campaign operates an X account under the handle Kamala HQ. They mentioned that it displays fact checks, telling people that they're presenting them with the truth. They're going to mention the post in question, which includes they have since scrubbed this video from YouTube. In the body of the post, which has been viewed more than 12 million times, the Harris campaign asserted that Poole is a Trump operative with a Project 2025 plan, with a plan to give Trump total unchecked legal power so they can jail and execute those who don't support Trump if he wins. Nothing short of lawless extrajudicial killings. The Harris campaign further asserted that Mr. Poole and his guests

since scrubbed this video from YouTube, falsely suggesting that Mr. Poole was or is trying to hide the video the Harris campaign incorporated while also revealing the in-depth research it did into Mr. Poole and his views. I want to go on to mention that in the filing we we present from the actual show where it says, quote, at the one hour, 26 minute mark, quote, Tim Poole, I oppose the death penalty. Quote, you're saying that when they are arrested or when they are indicted, arrested, tried and convicted, should they have been found guilty of treason by a jury of their peers, you say death penalty, which is the legal codification in this country. Media reporting immediately after the May 31st broadcast did not make such salacious false accusations against Mr. Poole. The website Mediaite ran a story on the

clip, but focused on Miss Loomer, who reported called for Democrats to be executed. They go on to mention, I believe that there's other timestamps that I want to make sure I can highlight. Maybe I passed them out already. You were just clarifying her take? Like, that's all that was going on? Was you were just clarifying her take? The core of this is that I believe it was Sean Davis of the Federalist who said, I want

to see a list of the Democrats that are going to be arrested when Trump wins. Yeah. My point was, I'm going to say it in the most correct and easy to understand context possible because, you know, they're trying to spin what I'm saying. If you want to arrest anyone, be it Democrat or otherwise, there has to be real evidence. There has to be an actual indictment. There must be jury trials. There must be an opportunity years, in fact, for them to go through the evidence and fight this legal legal case. And should they be found guilty and there should be trials, we will show the whole world what they did. They have clipped this out of context to make it to remove everything I was saying,

as if I'm advocating for people to be arrested, to which I even say in the show, I do not think anyone's committed treason, sedition at worst. People have like, you know, that the lawyer who fabricated an email to try and, you know, get a Trump aide arrested or whatever. Seditious conspiracy at worst. In it, I said, are there Democrats who should be arrested? Of course. No question.

My point is not we should go around arresting Democrat voters. My point is, are some of some of the people who align as Democrats in government, people who have committed crimes? Yes. Look at Jamal Bowman. He walks up and he pulls the emergency signs off the doors and then pulls the fire alarm. He got charged for that.

It was an accident. Sure. It was an accident, Tim. He was in the wrong place. He thought of that over and over again. That was the exit. And then there's the video of him taking the sign off. Take off your tinfoil hat, okay?

It was an accident. He didn't mean to. He'd never seen one before. He was only a school principal. How could he know? He didn't know what was an accident. He didn't mean to. Never seen one before. He was only a school principal. He didn't know. How could he know? He didn't know what was going on. So let me see if there's anything more I can add to this.

You know, I think the document may be up and visible. Can you elaborate a little bit more on this thing, this altercation which happened? So they showed up at this property. Yep. They're going on the neighbor's property. They're doing all these things. Is it it seems like it's safe to assume that, again, if you're experiencing harassment like that, that it will likely continue. We were swatted. I think this was starting in 2022 into 23 over a dozen times. And, you know, a lot of people think that means that police kick the door down, there's guns everywhere.

No, no, no, no, no. The first time we get shut down, the police say we're coming in, what do they call it, exigent circumstance or something. And I said, I do not want the police coming on my property. This is a false, you know, the swatting, blah, blah, blah. And they refuse to listen. So I'm, let's just say, perturbed over this.

It persisted. At this point, I'm not going to explain our security apparatus, but we get swatted. They don't come and kick the door in. There's a different way it's handled that doesn't disrupt the show. There was an instance where one of the bomb hoaxes was deemed credible, and we had to evacuate the studio for three hours with the live stream running. We had 40,000 people watching an empty room for three hours as the police kept us off our own property because of these things. So when someone shows up and the reports that I've gotten, I want to be very clear because I'm not there. We aren't at this property anymore. People don't know where we are. They don't know what's going on. They're crazy. They show up.

What I've gotten reports from security and other individuals is that a crazy person was on the neighbor's property lurking around, spying on our old property, which is now effectively a private residence, unaffiliated with anything we're doing here. We're not there anymore. And then one day came with a camera and there's a big sign saying no trespassing, walking right past it, walking up onto the property, no trespassing, walking right past it, walking up onto the property, filming things. And then the next day something happened that resulted in all I can say is, I don't know, I wasn't there, but I was told a police report was filed after this man assaulted one of our employees, leaving him injured, very lightly, but injured like black eyes is what I was told. And the, uh, the police came and removed the men and told them he can't come back. And this is the kind of stuff that we deal with.

And I don't think people understand. But that's already too much. Absolutely. That's already too much. I mean, the stuff that we see because the Harris campaign, I mean, look, I don't understand

how they could just publish this. This statement, it's insane. Well, you know what's interesting is... Because they get away publish this, this, this statement. It's insane. Well, you know, because they can, because they get away with it. Right. And we have to stand up for ourselves. We have to say enough of the insane lies. I have friends and family who are Democrats who live in other parts of the country. And I already had, I immediately after this happened, had people calling me being like,

my, my brother's asking me like, what is going on? What did you say? And I'm like, holy crap. Anyway, sorry. So yeah, Daniel Dale with CNN finally did some fact checking of Kamala HQ and only found eight errors. And he did not even include this one. No, it was actually sort of ridiculous. So I think you're right, though. I think they don't expect anyone to do anything. And also, who has the resources? And with the pace with social media moves, they think they'll do the damage they need

but kind of be able to escape into the wilderness before anyone catches them. Yeah, well, that's the thing, right? It's like how many of the 12 million people who saw that are going to follow up on it, right? Once it's in your mind, Tim Pool bad guy, Tim Pool bad guy, or whoever bad guy, the damage is done.

And then you just move on to the next thing. Right. Meanwhile, you have to go in and sometimes maybe take years to salvage whatever the reputational damage was based on the slander. So, yes, do the shit out of them. Well, we have filed. It's there. I don't know if it's it is filed. I think should any outlets begin to pick this up, the filing. Well, what are you asking for exactly in the filing? Well, let me let me just read because I think it's better that I read from the official statement. So count one defamation libel per se under West Virginia law. Mr. Poole realleges the foregoing paragraphs.

The Harris campaign published a false statement that Mr. Poole is a Trump operative, that he has a Project 2025 plan, that he wants to give Trump total unchecked legal power to jail and execute those who don't support Trump if he wins. Those statements were and are false because Mr. Poole never said such a thing in the incorporated video and has never said such a thing previously. The content the Harris campaign clipped cannot be reasonably construed to support the claims made in the post at issue or from Mr. Poole's prior statements and conduct. The Harris campaign cast its statement as fact, not opinion. Accusations that Mr. Poole endorses lawlessness, executions, and extrajudicial killings harms his reputation and standing in his chosen career and profession. The Harris campaign published its statement on X to tens of thousands of third parties. The Harris campaign statement damaged Mr. Poole. The Harris campaign exhibited actual malice by claiming that Mr. Poole supported lawlessness and extrajudicial killings when he made no such claim. And despite the campaign's

apparent research into Mr. Poole and his views, count to his bad faith misconduct, re-alleging the Harris campaign misconduct described previously herein was at all times carried out in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, and for oppressive reasons. Mr. Poole was damaged by the Harris campaign's bad faith misconduct as previously described herein in addition to his expenditures for the prosecution of this cause of action, which is necessary to clear Mr. Poole's name and restore his reputation. The Harris campaign's bad faith misconduct triggers the state's exception to the American rule for payment of attorney's fees as described in, I'm not going to read the case law. The Harris campaign's pre-litigation misconduct likewise triggers the exception to the American rule for payment of attorney's fees described in, and once again, case law. Wherefore, Mr. Poole

respectively prays this court awards Mr. Poole all cognizable damages, awards Mr. Poole his attorney's fees and costs, orders the Harris campaign to retract the original defamatory publication in the same forums and broadcast media and in the same prominence originally published and any other relief against the Harris campaign the court deems proper. Mr. Poole requests a jury trial on all issues so tribal, respectfully submitted this 17th day, September 2024.

And shout out to James Lawrence, who is representing me in this matter. Well, what does that mean, though, the damages? Like how much do you think you're going to ask for here? I don't know if I'm allowed to talk about that. Okay. Yeah, I don't know. All that's in the filing is what I can say is it mentions in the filing. I want to make sure I get this right. So I'm going to search it because I don't want it to be for me. It says, um, let's see, uh, uh, millions of dollars were spent in ads. Uh, it will take millions of dollars to undo. Gotcha. Uh, I want to clarify too, as much, as much as I can. You know, for, for anybody who's listening, we, there, there are a lot of people who file

lawsuits where they're like, I want a million, a hundred million dollars or whatever. No, no, no, no, no. I we went over this and I said, here's what we are currently doing because of what they did. And that is the case. And we are going to be completely reasonable and approach this in every legitimate and reasonable way possible as to what our costs are for a business with 40 employees. And, you know, with what happened at external locations, security costs, et cetera, as well as as as I forgot what's called. But there's a specific term for marketing you have to undertake to try and counter certain messages. So that's the gist of it.

There's obviously a lot more. If you were to go through the whole thing, I didn't read everything. But I assume those who cover the story later on, assuming they do, I don't know. We'll probably be able to pull up. What's the principle behind jury the jury trial that just what your lawyers recommended that you do or it's in the it's in the filing okay yeah uh anything pertaining to my lawyers and all this stuff is is just i can't talk about i understand yeah yeah so but i mean everyone's gonna be curious right yep and we're gonna have to wait to see what ends up with this and and all that stuff

but i want to make sure that um for the sake respect for the courts and the process, obviously, I will talk about this as I have an absolute need to defend my reputation. Many prominent leftist personalities are using these clips, the Harris campaign posted out of context to defame me and lie about my views. We we every day are reaching out to personalities across the board and it becomes increasingly difficult to bring people on when they receive. When you look, we try to book a liberal to come on the show and they're getting threats and intimidation from other liberals. I'll give you an example. There's there was a YouTuber who reviewed Am I Racist by Matt Walsh. What's his name? Something Johns. I don't know. And he's getting he's getting attacks on the internet from the left for daring to talk about a movie. They want

to make sure he cannot do that. That's what happened to Winston Marshall. He was canceled from Mumford & Sons for reading and liking Andy Ngo's book. He read the book. That's right. He said it was good, and he lost his band. They can't risk his thoughts straying into uncharted

terrible territory. Do you know how long does the Kamala campaign have a certain amount of time in which to respond? Do we have an expected response time? No idea. It's interesting. I like going after the Kamala campaign because the Democrats have been going after RFK mercilessly in every state. They launch lawsuits against states for erecting border walls because the Kamala campaign refused to do it. They claim they're opposed

to sex changes for minors while they sue the state of Tennessee for banning sex changes for minors. I mean, this is the most litigious administration. In this regard, I will just say this filing is about an egregious lie

that has damaged me, My business has put us at security risk as we've already experienced. It was only a couple of days after this post came out that this guy shows up and is lurking around, you know, one of my properties, putting my staff at risk. I will say I have long told people you have to stand up and fight back. And it's very, very difficult. I have long been a huge fan of James up and fight back. And it's very, very difficult. I have long been a huge fan of James O'Keefe, who says, be brave. And so when I am personally faced with something so shockingly damning, insane and damaging, I absolutely will do whatever it takes to defend my name, my honor, my reputation and

and seek every legal remedy to resolve this. Well, strategically, are you worried about backlash from the Kamala and Democrat campaigns? So, for instance, there is a chance, and it's a very good chance, in fact, that Kamala Harris is the next president. And, you know, the Democrats have not been known throughout the Trump years and then the Biden years of not taking revenge on basically anybody who's around, Tim. I just wanted to point this out, right? Anybody who has been a thorn in their side in any degree, they kind of, you know, throw them in prison and lock away the key in many cases, crawl up their ass with a microscope. I'm just asking, like, I'm just saying, any worried about any kind of backlash from this. I will. I don't think about that in this regard. I was defamed. We are seeking legal remedy with respect to the courts. We have made our arguments.

And in this matter, we you know, I can comment on other extraneous political matters as we wrap up this segment, which we will wrap up now and move on to the next story. And perhaps there will be some other and move on to the next story. And perhaps there will be some other issue that is perhaps involving similar questions. But I don't want to comment in any way that construes the purpose of this lawsuit is simply to seek remedy for the defamation. And that's very important to me. I think it's important to the people of this country to know that our courts are willing to, you know, look, we've got Times v. Sullivan. We've got, you know, these anti-slap laws and things like this. There are remedies. There are rules. We abide by them because we respect the courts and we try to navigate a system to the best of our abilities. And when someone acts in such a way that is bad faith

and defamatory, then we seek the appropriate legal remedies. So I'm going to wrap this segment up there. I'm glad you're doing it. But just my opinion, right? It is going to put a target on your back the size of the Death Star, right? I mean, it really is. Do you think that that's one of the ways Democratic lawmakers and Democratic activists

try to keep conservative voices compliant, though? Like this fear that there's retaliation? Well, not just that. They mobilize tech industry against you. They'll mobilize law enforcement against you. They'll mobilize the Department of Justice against you. They don't give a shit anymore. They don't care anymore.

The idea that people will use restraint against their political opponents, that's a thing of the past. Well, if there is any concern or if you'd like to support our work and you think we should be standing up for ourselves and pushing back against lies and manipulations, become a member at TimCast.com. This one's going to be difficult. It is very obvious to everybody. Many people don't have the resources to defend themselves. And even those who do, it is draining and puts a great risk in terms of the great cost to stand up for yourself when

something as powerful as a billion dollar political machine says something so shockingly egregious. So I hope that there is a quick and speedy resolution and I I'll leave it there. Let's jump to the next story, ladies and gentlemen. From the Post Millennial, David Muir's World News Tonight viewership drops 12% following ABC presidential debate bias scandal. The show averaged 6.7 million viewers

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, which were the three episodes immediately following the debate. Before the debate, his show was averaging 7.6 million viewers. He dropped over 900,000 average viewers following the scandal. According to Fox News, those are the numbers that that was the decline we saw. Muir and co-moderator Lindsay Davis were criticized for fact checking Trump on stage numerous times while not issuing any for Harris.

Namely, I think the most offensive is that she said there's no U.S. troops in any active combat zone. And they didn't fact check her. Yeah, did you see Jim Banks today fact checked that? And he put out a video that he got from U.S. servicemen in active combat. And I thought that was pretty wild because that was an insane lie.

And she should know that. And if she wants to be the commander in chief of the military, she should know where our guys are. Right, and if she doesn't know it, then she shouldn't commander in chief of the military, she should know where our guys are. Right. And if she doesn't know it, then she shouldn't be in charge of the military because she's clueless. Yes. Well, that whole thing was biased.

But, I mean, I just read, I think this was on the Drudge Report earlier, that there was a document which came out that said that ABC behind the scenes was talking about this. They were discussing ways that they were going to be fact-checking. Yeah, that was in an LA Times interview with Lindsay Davis. And she said specifically that after the June 27th debate with Biden, they decided specifically to fact-check Trump as much as they could

because they didn't appreciate what he'd said, you know, pushing Biden out of the race, apparently. I'd like to welcome this 12% of viewers to come watch TimCast IRL, where we break down the news. Or the crucible and the crucible both crucible both you can watch them both what time do you show on uh usually i run about nine o'clock at night oh well there you go so overlap they can watch us for the first hour and then afterwards they can move over to the crucible but uh i'm really optimistic with this story for one doesn't it

feel good a little little payback it just mean, I wouldn't call it payback. It's just you reap what you sow. But that's what it is, right? It's viewers saying no. I think it's an undeniable litmus test for mainstream media, right? They put up this guy thinking, you know, he's going to represent our network well and he's going to do whatever he needs to do. And the reaction to him was dislike.

And it doesn't bode well for ABC, which I think is kind of an untrustworthy source, especially with the current administration. Well, it's very untrustworthy in that they're like the only people that Kamala Harris will talk to, ABC and CNN. And Biden. Biden gave them a ton of exclusive say. Do you think like from the practical perspective, though, that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that this is something which is going to stay steady, that this could just be some immediate backlash. And, you know, these numbers could rebound fairly easily. This is pretty like this is pretty close after this debacle. So there's a good chance, you know, people have very limited memories, this type of thing. I would I would argue that if it does rebound, that what we're seeing is just political fatigue. People are like, I am so tired of this. Put on something else.

However, if this is because that debate was very poorly run. Yes, it was. These 12% are probably turning on some other channel. And the habit's not going to just change back. They're not going to go, I don't know. I kind of watch Muir again. I think once you're in the downward spiral, it's much harder to climb out. Totally agree.

But I mean, well, first of all, 12% is insane. It's very close together. It's such a sudden drop. Maybe it's just like, oh, I hate that guy and they'll forget in two months.

But on the other hand, it's actually on Muir to rebuild the reputation. Otherwise, you'll be in, like, you will be in the habit of not going to him. And that's, again, it's a much more difficult

prop for him than it is for the viewer. I agree. And the other thing is, is 12% huge that's that's a massive viewership drop uh like you know career ending that would be oh i have a network i just lost 12 of the viewers because of something you yeah because something you did get out right i mean that's that's the kind of drop that that is so however however uh the people who run abc were like david we're sorry you lost these viewers get out. Right. I mean, that's that's the kind of drop that that is. So however, however, the people who run ABC were like, David, we're sorry you lost these viewers because of what we told you to do. They're not going to do that. They're probably not going to fire. I don't see

a scenario where the executives at ABC told him to fact check Trump saw negative repercussion and said, it's your fault. They're going to say, this is what we have to deal with because we did the right thing. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe. I don't see these guys taking much personal responsibility. They usually look for scapegoats. And oftentimes personalities will become the scapegoat. I mean, we saw this with Tucker Carlson, for instance, at Fox News. I think that he became a scapegoat for Dominion and for all of that. I think he was totally a scapegoat. Didn't Dominion request his termination? Was that a part of it?

I think that that's what was understood was that that was part of the lawsuit. But it wasn't official or something. Part of the settlement. Yeah, but that wasn't exactly exposed. So I'm not, you know, like they will, if there's a scapegoat, they'll get rid of him. If they're going to scapegoat him, they're not, they're going to say that his viewership decline was due to something else. Oh yeah.

I'm sure that. Because the, like you guys were already saying, they had this meeting where they were talking about how they were going to fact-check Trump. So this is official capacity ABC deciding to take an action, which was heavy bias. Yeah. And when—you know what they might say? You know what it was? It was when you told Trump that you didn't take his statement that way. When he said, we lost by a whisker, and you argued with him and then gave your opinion,

you beclowned yourself. Well, you moved out of the the position you were supposed to be in for the debate. Right. Yep. And so once once you do that, once you move out of kind of that moderator hat, it's it's over. Right. The bias, the bias is out. There's not much you can do about it. By the way, in the original debates with Clinton and Trump, there was a lot of bias that came out of the moderators there as well. Well, didn't Donna Brazile feed Clinton the question? Yes. I think Sanders was the one. Yeah. They were trying to get rid of Sanders. They were trying to push him out. Trying to get him to get rid of him.

I've seen, I mean, some of the bias has been absolutely insane. I don't know if you caught this interview over the weekend with CNN's Dana Bash and J.D. Vance on Sunday morning. It absolutely is completely worth watching. It's 16 minutes. And the difference between the way Bash treats Vance and the way Bash kowtowed to Kamala Harris and Tim Walz is actually pretty shocking to the point where J.D. Vance points it out and says, you know, when you were interviewing Kamala Harris, you gave her multiple choice policy questions and I'd appreciate it if you let me answer a question. And it was a terrific interview. I watched it twice.

That was just like Don Lemon saying, hey, the media, the media needs to stop Trump. I mean, that's what he's saying, right? The media has to stop him. The media is going out of their way to, you know, spread his fascist messaging. That's what Lemon was just saying. It's our professional obligation. Yeah.

You remember Don Lemon from like 2012? Yeah. When he was like, we need to talk about fatherlessness in the black community, something that I think is deeply personal to me. And, you know, I think people have, I was, it's just like, there's this famous video where he talks about how he wants to help the black community. But it's these very practical way things that like talking about, you know, helping homes, helping education. And now he's this guy who's like, it's all about racism and white supremacy, like his worldview inverted overnight. You know, it's sad to see. But I also have a question in this. How does an individual's worldview change on a dime like that?

Fear. Well, it's really, the answer is fear. So the thousands of Democrats that I've talked to and progressives, they are legitimately terrified of Donald Trump. I mean, they're actually terrified of him and his supporters. They honestly do believe that you're a fascist. They honestly do believe that you're a criminal if you support Trump, that you support a criminal, that Trump tried to coup against the United States. They honestly believe this. Now, take yourself and put yourself in their shoes, right? As insane as that is, you try to put yourself in their position. If you thought the president of the United States had tried to coup and was trying to bring in a government which was against every value that you had, and if he was elected again, that was it for you. You were going to, you know, off to the gulags with you. You're talking about Harris? Yeah. Well, yeah, yeah, sure. Right. But here's what I'm saying from their perspective, right? No, I am them changing their worldview

from that kind of fear actually makes sense to me. It's like, OK, what else would you do? I agree. I agree. And it's fascinating because I would just describe it as them living in the upside down. Totally. They they they they look in the mirror and they see a funhouse image of reality. Take, for instance, I'm I'm absolutely loving the cat in Ohio story because Chris Rufo found a video from one year ago before there was a controversy or scandal of cats on a grill and a man saying, holy crap, they barbecue and cats. And you hear a woman go, they got a cat on the grill. And then it's an amazing video because there's a cat walking around. He gets like, man, there's that cat. You better get missing. Your home is a grill. He went and interviewed these people. He interviewed the neighbors.

They all corroborated the story. They found the grill. Now, I will say this. I've not seen any extra pictures of the grill. I'm just saying I trust Chris Rouveau. He reported on this saying he did these things. But I tell you, maybe it's not correct, but I did see a video that showed cats on a grill. They come out and they say, nope, still not true.

Those are chickens. Chickens' feet don't go down like that. These look like cats on a grill. They come out and they say, nope, still not true. Those are chickens. Chickens' feet don't go down like that. These look like cats on a grill. Either way, we've got multiple videos from people from the town saying this is happening. One guy's like, I've seen a guy with a whole truck full of cats. And they're like, nope, he's lying.

That's a lie. That's a lie. They're all lying. The city manager said there's no credible reports. So they're all lying. Every single one. Everyone is lying. The government is right.

Yeah, but they also... The institution above all else. I mean, that's really what they're saying. Chris R single one. Everyone is lying. The government is right. Yeah, but they also above all else. I mean, that's really what they're saying. Chris Ruffo is not from our institution and therefore there's no way he's credible. We say what the well, they're also they're also trying to actually I think it was credible. I just think mainstream media doesn't believe in that. And that was interesting, too, because you had Dana Bash bringing up Chris Ruffo to J.D. Vance saying that he's a conservative political activist,

basically with an ax to grind. And Vance is like, you know what, you guys weren't even talking about any of this before we brought it up. And now actually these problems are getting some attention. And one thing that he said that I thought was particularly compelling, you know, which is probably sort of obvious, but was actually compelling, is he said, I'm listening to my constituents. People are calling me. They're telling me what's going on. I represent Ohio. These are my people. I wanted to bring their concerns to light. It's important to them. So it's important to me. And she's all, have you been to Springfield? And he's like, not in the past four days, but about at least a hundred times in my life. And he starts listing off places. He takes his kids in Springfield. There's also,

I believe the oversight committee or someone shared police reports of alleged cats being taken and things like this. And so I don't know. Those aren't the only animals, though. For sure. And so this is why this is what cracks me up with this type of gaslighting. So I've heard this before. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Maybe they're killing the local geese in the pond. Right. Maybe they're killing the local geese. But you know what? Rednecks out in the country do that all the time, right? They go out and they hunt geese, which is true, they do. When you're allowed to. But this is not common inside of major metropolitan areas

or inside of towns and inside of cities for people to go to the local pond, kill the geese and grill them up. And the fact that you would try to kind of convince me that that's normal because guys out in the country, sometimes they'll poach is insane. And that's insane. Andrew, not eating cats is white supremacy. That's totally for sure.

The other thing, too, about it is that when they everyone who's tried to discredit it from Dana Bash to what's his name? David Muir. Muir. Muir. Muir. Muir. Muir. De Muir. De Muir, right.

He's mindful, that's right. He's very mindful. So one thing that they keep doing is they keep talking to city officials, right? And so one thing that the city officials did was they said, we tracked back through 911 calls and then we tried to contact some of the people who made these calls

and we couldn't get in touch with them again. And so we couldn't verify it. And it's like, if you're some, you know, if you're some broke person in your town and you're like seeing, I mean, if you're in a position where you're seeing people like eat cats and geese,

like you don't want to talk to the cops anyway. So making a 911 call already is kind of a big deal. You're not going to answer the phone. I don't answer the phone when, like, I don't want to, I'm not going to say anything about myself, but you know what I mean? Like, you don't want to answer the phone when authorities are calling. They might not be there anymore.

And so that is not a good enough debunking of the claim. There are a lot of domestic political stories that I want to get into too, especially as this Ohio cat story is crazy, but we got to jump to this one from the New York Times. Israel planted explosives in pagers sold to Hezbollah. Officials say, I am so far beyond, like, this is so far beyond belief. The first thing I want to say is when I was live this morning when the first reports came in, someone super chatted my morning show saying,

Israel just hacked and detonated pages of thousands of Hezbollah soldiers. And I mean, it was like, no way, dude, that's that's a that's a movie plot. I immediately Googled it. Jerusalem Post, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. And I went, holy crap. Now, at the time, we did not know if it was Israel. They'd remain silent. But the speculation was the New York Times has a headline now that officials say Israel did in fact do this. They say small amounts of explosive were implanted in beepers that Hezbollah had ordered from a Taiwanese company, according to American and other officials briefed on the operation. I can only just say, holy crap, the videos are insane.

This is let me just stress thousands what are they saying like two is around 2 000 now or what's the number i think it was like 2 700 and at least eight people were killed they went off and and there's photos wounded right then he wounded there's there's a photo of a guy who was riding his motorcycle with the pager on his hip it blow it blew up knocking him to the side and he's got this smoldering gash on his side, and he's just slumped over. There's one of the most prominent videos of a guy wearing a bag in a market with oranges or whatever. His bag explodes and he falls down. Think about what this means. How did Israel intercept this order before it was shipped to Hezbollah. Why was Hezbollah ordering pagers from Taiwan, a U.S. ally?

I mean, this whole story is absolutely crazy. I mean, what I think is crazy, and we're talking about this a little bit before the show, it's almost like Israel is trolling them because they specifically use pagers. Now, I can't say why they chose Taiwan, but they use pagers because it's lo-fi, because they know that Israel will hack their cell phones. And it's a way of trying to avoid detection. But obviously, Israel is clearly saying you can't escape us. We are in control here. And I just don't I don't think it's going to de-escalate from this. Not sure. I mean, trolling, I guess, to a degree, to me, it just looks like good psychological warfare, right? So the idea is to create panic in the enemy.

You're never safe anywhere under any circumstances. Even your own pager we can make kill you. Now, I have to tell you from a strategic viewpoint, if I was taking a bird's eye view to this, that's a really good play. Making a person's pager blow up their friend is a really, really good way to instill in the enemy, you are never safe from us. It's an ultimate troll. I mean, Hezbollah attacked Israel the other day. I don't think anyone was killed, but blowing up somebody's pager is a crazy troll.

I want to say a few things because I think let's remove emotion from the matter and talk mathematically as it pertains to war. You are correct. This was a tremendously brilliant strategy on Israel's part for how to have effectively a mass simultaneous decentralized attack grid on Hezbollah soldiers. I am not a big fan of the tactic, however. The idea, I would say this. I don't, I'm not a big fan of the tactic, however. The idea, I would say this, I don't, I'm not a big fan of collateral damage. And so I can respect the brilliance of the strategy, the operation. I get that. I mean, there's a guy in a marketplace with oranges. They're innocent people who are getting caught in this. And I'm not a fan of collateral damage,

but I want to stress this too. I want to make sure people understand that there's no rules in war. There's not. It's a silly argument. We talk about war crimes. I always thought that was silly. I'm like, weird. Yeah, I understand the idea. It's like we're going to if we win and you did these things, you are going to regret it.

And then I understand. But understand that our enemies, the enemies of Israel, whatever. I'm not saying they're the same enemies. I'm saying Israel's enemies. We have enemies. They don't care about what we think the rules are. And so the only thing I can say is I don't want to be involved in Israel's war and conflicts, Lebanon, Iran, or otherwise. I don't know that we have an exit because our establishment leaders have already entangled us in this for generations. In which case, man.

And the Israeli lobby is extremely powerful. Agreed. And so the challenge for me is, yeah, I don't know enough about what has been going on, why they did this, how it impacted the strategy. Will it end the war? Will it escalate things? I don't know.

So the only thing I can say on the surface is, while I obviously condemn war and violence, the strategy was of such an intelligent and extremely capable caliber, I am shocked and impressed by, I can't believe they pulled this off. I wish war wasn't happening, but I got to stress, like, Israel, man, they are not to be trifled with. Well, not only that, but I mean, my pushback will be kind of the same. I know we were discussing this earlier, but my pushback here is kind of the same, that I do legitimately think inside of warfare that the civilian population is the population which feeds the soldiers. It is the population which makes the bullets. It is the population which makes the bombs, et cetera, et cetera.

I have never been of mind from a strategic standpoint that civilian population centers would be off the table inside of warfare. Well, that was sort of Castro's idea is that his revolution could not succeed without the help of the civilian population. That was like a big... Well, I mean, that's just all warfare. Right, sure. But that's, I mean, that was sort of his theory, like that he would never be taken down so

long as he had the support of the people. Right. But the idea here inside of warfare is everything. Well, that was warfare too, yeah. It's like everything that is supporting your army and your military force is given to you from the civilian population, all of it. So when people... That's the argument for the attack on Dresden. Well, I mean, what was it? Easter Sunday.

Yeah. Or the attack for Nagasaki or Hiroshima or any of these things. But, but the point is, is like, we did it and we did it because these population meccas, if they're gone, you can't support the army. So I'm not sure that I would take the idea of like collateral damage or things like this. If you're an open warfare, legitimately civilian targets are going to be on the table. They just legitimately are. Yeah, I think that is something that the Western community is sort of tiptoeing around here. We hear reports about civilian casualties on both sides pretty repeatedly. And at the same time,

no one is willing to say, like, OK, we must now stop this. And I think in some ways it's an acknowledgement. Well, it's because both sides cry foul, too. Right. And you also realize that, like, you can't. You can't hold either side accountable to stopping being this outside influence, not being directly involved in the conflict. Well, the first thing the Israelis do if there's civilian casualties is they run out in front of the cameras and say, hey, look, OK, you know, Hezbollah came in and look at all these civilians that they killed, okay? That is the first thing that they're going to look to. That's off the table. But this is done the other

way, too. Oh, look at all the civilians that the Israelis killed if you're Hezbollah. They both use the same tactic because in the public's mind, that is an off-the-table target. But in reality, from a strategic bird's-eye view, of course that's not off the table. You ever see War of the Worlds? Yeah. The original and the remake. And I remember reading a very funny opinion piece, movie review, and it's like, aha, how funny, the aliens come and attack Earth, and then they succumb to illness, they end up dying or whatever. And it said, the reality is that if any alien force had the capability to come to Earth, they would immediately target our oil fields,

and the entire world would shut down within two or three days. End of story. Our energy sources are ripped from us, power plants shut down, and then the planet's over. So when we're talking about war, what people need to understand is, for the most part, we are trying to be gentlemen. When you hear these stories and it's like, well, we only engage military targets, this is gentlemanly, but it's not real war.

Real war is going to be like what we see in the Middle East with ISIS when a suicide bomber runs into a daycare or something and just knows they're going to hit them where they're going to hit us. They're going to hit our allies where it hurts. Barack Obama. Here we go. You ready for this one? Killed Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American citizen in a drone strike in Yemen. We are not at war with Yemen. The drone targeted a civilian restaurant. It killed more. My understanding is more than just Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, who was a 16 year old from I believe he was born in Boulder, Colorado, lived in San Diego. The official response was they had been targeting an Al Qaeda leader and they had bad intel. It was an accident. I don't believe that for, I don't believe that for a second. Anwar Al-Awlaki, his dad was also killed in a drone strike. And this man was an American citizen. The argument that was made by the Uniparty establishment was that Anwar was an enemy of this country. It was a jihadi rallying people to fight against us and therefore he was an enemy combatant there's an

argument there i say that's a tough one that's tough there's an argument there the constitution still protects that someone who's an american citizen will get charged will get a trial and not just be blown up in war if if however someone is actively in a combat zone and they're attacking you i i don't think such a premise is reasonable. That being said, I don't believe for a second the killing of a son was an accident. I believe, in my opinion, purely my opinion, the Obama administration said, we're going to send a message to al-Qaeda. We're going to send a message to Iran, kill his kid. I believe that the Obama administration intentionally targeted a civilian restaurant in a country we're not at war with to kill the child of a jihadi,

so that all of these people would know the United States is not above killing your children if you fight against us, sending terror to all of them. There's another famous story that we were listening to recently where Donald Trump sent some guy a picture of his house. Have you familiar with this one? Do you guys remember this? I don't know what it was, but... So, you know, I think it was the Taliban. And Trump's negotiating. And Trump says, send a picture of his house. And the guy says, why do you send a picture of my house? And he's like, you'll have to figure that one out.

But there's a point that we know where you are, we know who you are, and we have the power to get you. There's a lot of questions about the killing of Abdul Rahman, al-Awlaki. Why did we bomb a country we're not at war with? Why were we targeting civilians? And how did we accidentally kill this guy? I think it's unreasonable to assume those are all accidents. I think it's actually simple. Barack Obama said, make sure they all know the price you will pay if you raise arms against the United States. But here, but let's,

I mean, let's look at this objectively to This idea of rights as a United States citizen, these are really just constructions of the mind. There's no such thing as an actual right. It doesn't exist outside of some axiomatic kind of philosophical principled belief, right? I have the axiom that I have inalienable rights, and so therefore I have them. Disagree. Okay, and we can get into that in a second. But to finish my point, okay, based on this, we kind of suspend

them all the time and then kind of pretend like we don't. We let cops be judged during an execution or in many moments and kind of excuse them from it. If there's something which is going on that's in such a state of emergency, we'll suspend the constitutional rights of people. In a moment's notice, we'll send the Japanese to internment camps. We will do all of those things because we've done it. We'll suspend your constitutional rights in a second if we think we need to, which by the way, that would be my argument for how I know rights aren't real anyway, but we will and we just kind of excuse it. But there's a correction here. Government enshrined protections are not real. Rights that we, as we know them are just things that we recognize as things of value to us so for example for instance i usually define it as simply uh you have a right to speak freely if

you're in the middle of the woods and you're buck naked you can say whatever you want you have a right to keep in bare arms pick up a stick sharpen it pointy stick you can defend yourself i know i'm going to stop you the question is when you get into conflict with someone else where is that line drawn so the reality is rights are recognized as things that we can and must do to survive and maximize. I think rights are force. And I think that government protection. What do you mean rights are force? You're talking about government protection. I'm talking about period. I'll explain what I mean. A right to me is an entitlement absent duty. That's a right. Okay. You're entitled to it, but you have no duty.

What does that mean? It means that you have it. So like, okay. Entitlement to speak. Yeah. So if you have a right to own a gun. To speak. No.

Hang on. Let me finish. If you have a right to own a gun, do you have a duty to own a gun? What is it? But do you have a duty to speak? No, you don't have a duty to speak. If you have a right to vote, do you have a duty to vote? So right.

So it would be an entitlement. That's your argument. Yeah. It's an entitlement. Absent a duty. But you can speak. If you have a right to vote, do you have a duty to vote? That's your argument. Yeah, it's an entitlement absent a duty. But you can speak. Yeah, you can until you can't. Until somebody stops you with force. So you're talking about government restrictions are

made up by us as a people. Just people can adhere to your rights without any form of government. If you're walking down the street and you speak and a guy turns around and smacks you in the mouth and breaks your jaw, right? He has now used force against whatever this right you think you have to speak.

You have no right to do shit except whatever you can enforce. Your mechanism is force and the mechanism against you is force. All rights are as force. You're talking about government protections, not rights. No, I'm talking about rights. What is a right? So it is an intrinsic moral function intrinsic

meaning what it means if again i'll try to explain if you're born and you live in the middle of the woods there are things you can do you can hunt for food you can defend yourself you can speak freely now what we've done in the united states unless you're born blind and you can't talk right then you then where does your right to speak come from? You lack the ability to speak, but you still have the means by which you are allowed to do it. Yeah, but what makes it an intrinsic right to be able to do it?

Like, where does this idea come from other than you axiomatically kind of just say, you say, because I can do something, I have the right to do something? It's part of an evolutionary biological structure that resulted in the survival of humanity. So if I like grab a spear and I can stab somebody with it,

I have a right to? No, that's attacking somebody. That's violating. But other than an axiom of you shouldn't do that because I just don't feel like you should, what makes it intrinsic that I don't do that? That you don't go and kill another person? Yeah.

So the way I view rights would be things that, and again, there's a debate over what rights are. Yeah, let's start with that. What are they? No, no, no. So it's honestly difficult to define, but it is certain moral structures or... I would say axioms. Would you agree with that? Just an axiom. So like, you have inalienable rights from God according to the Constitution. This is an axioms would you agree with that just an axiom so like you have inalienable rights from god according to the constitution this is an axiomatic principle it means this is our like philosophical starting point is that we have these i i would put it as things that were required or or greatly beneficial to the survival of an individual that we we greatly benefit i agree i agree we benefit I just don't know

what makes them intrinsic or like you're born with them or something like this other than we just kind of agree to it. So I think the restrictions we kind of agree to and some people might view

some things as rights and other things not as rights. Like the left thinks healthcare is a human right which makes literally no sense. No sense. But in terms of your ability to speak, you can walk around,

you can speak to defend yourself, you can pick up a stick, you can defend yourself. This goes back to the same argument you can you can i can grab a spear and murder somebody i can do that why don't i have a right to do that because you are now causing harm to another person which is a detriment but why is that valuable human is other so valuable yeah well why why would that be an intrinsic value so like one one would result in the end of humanity and one results in the expansion of humanity.

Well, no, both can result in the expansion of humanity. Right, but absolutely not. You're completely wrong. No, I'm completely right. You are wrong. Self-defense can result in expansion of humanity if you're using destruction

for the purpose of ending something that is destructive. But if you are wantonly going around murdering people, you're actively reducing and harming humanity. Well, okay, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't expand humanity by harming people.

There's nations that do this all the time. So the argument of self-defense is there are things that we believe we must be able to do for the betterment and survival of humanity. Yeah, but when I'm asking you this question, right, I'm asking the foundation from which you say, I have the right to speak or write. We need to be able to in order to survive. Because you need to do something. I'm not sure how that means you have a right to it, though.

Okay, so speech is not just saying words. Do you have a right to eat? Yes, 100%. Really? You have a right to do that? Why would you not have a right to eat? But you have a right to eat, otherwise you'll die. I don't understand. Do you have a right to do that? Why would you not have a right to own food? But you have a right to eat, otherwise you'll die. Yeah. I don't understand.

Do you have a right to breathe? What about breathing? These are good questions. Again, again, I don't think you understand. We're talking about intrinsic behaviors that are required for survival versus the government and humans deciding what we shouldn't have or not. I don't think we're speaking past each other. I'm asking what makes them intrinsic. When you say, I have a right to eat, okay?

If you don't, you'll die. If that guy has all the food over there, you no longer have a right to eat. You're not talking about your right to steal from others. So you no longer have a right to eat? If you're standing in the woods by yourself, eat that mushroom. Okay, got it. You can eat the mushroom. But what makes it a right to eat that mushroom?

And what makes it not a right for a guy standing next to the mushroom to say, I have a gun and I don't want you to eat that mushroom. And what makes it not a right for guys standing next to the mushroom to say, I have a gun and I don't want you to eat that mushroom. You're now once again talking about laws and restrictions. Yeah. Okay. But my whole, my whole theory is that rights themselves are force and that's all they ever are.

It's just your ability to use force to do thing you want to do. I think you're just making, you call that a right. I call rights, things that are essential to the survival of humanity. Do you have a right to your heart beating and your blood flowing and to blink and to? Yes. Okay. So if you just now you misunderstand, because once again, you're talking about government

again. How is this government? It doesn't need to be government. If you are standing in the middle of the woods and your heart is beating, your heart has a right to beat. If your heart fails and you die, you died. But if you're making an argument that someone should or should not be allowed to do something

is an entirely human social construct. I agree. Right. I'm saying that the reason we have protections of rights is because we've determined certain things are required for the reasonable survival and expansion of humanity. I agree. We agree to those things. And we act as though they're rights. And and expansion of humanity. I agree. We agree to those things.

And we act as though they're rights. And the Bill of Rights... But I don't think rights themselves exist. The Bill of Rights is a recognition of certain things that we do for the betterment of survival that must be protected from government. Now, if you want to argue the amendments in the Bill of Rights are nonsensical, fine.

If you want to have a moral argument or philosophical argument about what is required or intrinsic to the survival of humanity, by all means have that argument. But rights do exist. classical fine if you have a moral argument or philosophical argument about what is required or intrinsic to the survival of humanity by all means have that argument but rights do exist it just means some you might not agree with and some you might think aren't those are those are philosophical debates yeah but when you say exist right when do you mean outside of your brain they exist or do they only exist as a construction of your mind where you say i have a right to do x if we observe creatures in the wild we will see them right to do X. If we observe creatures

in the wild, we will see them required to do things to survive. Yeah. Okay. So if you inhibit those things, they will die. So if just, if just right to protect those things, rights to you just mean things which are a requirement for your existence. And, and typically we define them as such because they, they transcend the basic obvious things like breathing and drinking water. Owning a gun isn't a requirement to your existence. No, defending yourself is. Yeah, but if a bear comes near the middle of the woods and you don't have the ability to defend yourself, you cease to exist and humans cease to exist. So humans do defend themselves. Then as human society, we've decided this should be protected. Otherwise, humans will cease to exist. Yeah,

but why? Okay, but this makes no sense, right? So if, if, if all right is to you, Tim is thing, thing X, which is necessary for the survival of a man in this case, blinking and breathing and eating and, you know, pooping and whatever you have the right to poop shall not be on, you know, because you have a right to do that because it's like something you need to do to be alive. Right. But you can't poop on someone's floor. Why couldn't you extend that to literally everything? You need healthcare to survive.

You need, you need, you need guns literally everything? You need health care to survive. You need guns to survive. You need a house to survive. You need everything to survive. I think we should move on, but I think the challenge is, I don't know if you're unwilling to understand or what. You have no right to take other things from other people, to take their labor. You have no right to force a doctor to perform surgery on you, but you certainly have a right to ask him for it.

Those are just assertions. You just assert these things as though they have a grounding epistemic foundation from which you can make the assertion. Based on where do you make the assertion that you're not allowed to do X other than because Tim Pool's preference is that you don't? And I'm literally saying you're talking about laws and social order right now, not human behaviors for survival. I think human behaviors are laws and social orders. I think you're talking about laws and social order right now, not human behaviors for survival. I think human behaviors are laws and social orders.

I think that's—you're saying the same thing. No, if a person was in the middle of the woods, they'd be foraging and looking for food. Yeah, what does that have to do with what I just said? You're talking about what the government can and can't do. I'm talking about what humans need to do to survive. Yeah, okay. Well, humans also have to have other humans around to survive. And so this is—communication is essential. The right to defend humans around to survive. And so this is communication is essential.

The right to defend yourself is essential. The right to secure your possessions is essential. These things, without them, humans cease to function properly. And then you get the Soviet bloc. You get starvation. You get genocides. And this is a detriment to— It's also just a function of our belief system in the United States that we have natural rights.

I mean, that's a huge part of it. I agree with that. I agree with that, that in the United States, we agree that we have them. I think you can say, I think you can not sure that we do. I think that you can say that everyone has these rights and it's a function of whether or not their government allows the rights to be recognized. That's the contention. When you say, I think everybody has these rights.

Yeah. That is my belief. Yeah. It's a belief. Yeah. Based on. Based on existence. I mean it's a belief. Yeah. Based on... Based on existence. I mean, based on...

Yeah, based on just your preferences. I don't think it's a preference. I think everyone has a right to breathe. And you do. In the big picture of what are the list of fundamental rights that exist to humans, cultures debate these things wildly, but there are a small handful which are true and correct. If inhibited, a person dies.

Agreed. But what I'm saying, I guess my overarching point, and I can just kind of tie it off with this, is that when I say rights are forced, what I'm saying is the thing that you say is necessary, breathing, eating, these types of things. I think that those things, which you call rights, really are just force.

You're saying I will use force in order to do this thing that I want to do to necessarily exist. And that another person can use force to stop those things from existing. And then you can use force to stop them. Right, and then you can use force, et cetera, et cetera. But all we're really doing is just moving the goalposts of force around, right?

So if this group says, this group does not have the right to breathe, they do not have the right to eat, they do not have the right to do any of this shit, and they go and put a stop to it. What are we appealing to for why it is that you can't do that? That group doesn't have the right to do that. Yeah, but that makes no sense.

Why wouldn't they have the right to do that? You're saying might makes right, which is a perspective. Well, beyond that, I think you're making a post-modernist argument for why you should be allowed to do things that other people don't want you to do. I think you, well, no, I think the opposite is true. I'm making— I would use a justification of God, and I would appeal to something which is unchanging and an unchanging standard for moral justifications for oughts.

But what you're doing, when you say a right, and you're appealing to, like, the Constitution, that's postmodernist subjective standards of nonsense, right? It's just like— No, it's moral foundation. We all of nonsense, right? It's just like, we all decided that we have these rights, so we do. There's no justification for any of them. So you don't believe in any intrinsic moral foundations? No, I do believe in intrinsic moral foundations and epistemic justifications and ontological justifications, which would come from God. I think you're doing deconstructivist reasoning to argue why— It's just basic philosophy. It has nothing to do with deconstruction or postmodernism. Basic philosophy, you have to have a justification for a position. And when I've given you one,

you just reject it every time. Well, because they're axiomatic. So you haven't demonstrated why the axiom or the starting point, we start with rights, Andrew. You haven't demonstrated why we do other than because I observe that if we don't act in this way, you expire. But it's like, okay, but why is that even bad? Like, why is that even a bad thing? Why is it bad that humans cease to exist? Yeah. Why would that even be a bad thing from the worldview of rights? Like, oh, okay. If you don't have this right, you die, but you haven't justified why that's even a bad thing. Because humans exist through a pattern of evolution towards, or creation, whichever you decide for, to be fruitful, to bear fruit, and etc. These things are components of creation and

life. I think this aligns perfectly with, like, a Christian, geno-Christian moral worldview, and I think these things are requirements for the efficient expansion and fruitfulness of humans. So they are natural, either from an evolutionary standpoint, humans developed to inherit certain requirements to function efficiently, and when these things are curtailed, we see inefficiency and collapse, disease and chaos. This is circular. So you go, okay, we need to bear fruit and multiply. Why? Well, because then we can exist. Why do we need to exist? Because then we can bear fruit and multiply. Okay, but why? Because then we can exist. You're just being contrarian for no reason. No, it's not contrarian. I'm giving you a

real principle. Do you believe in God? Yeah, I'm a Christian. I say God gives you a mandate. So when God says he has a mandate to be fruitful and multiply, do you say yes or no? Yeah, of course. Are there certain characteristics and behaviors that result in more efficient, fruitful multiplying? Of course. That's divine. But this is divine command. Justification of divine command has nothing to do with libertarian nonsense of constitutional egalitarianism. I think instead of having a discussion on the merits of what rights might mean, you're instead upset over what libertarians think rights might mean as opposed to what I'm actually trying to say.

Okay, well, do you justify rights as coming from God? Yes. Okay, great. Well, then we're fine there. So I think we actually agree. So then if that is the case, if whatever you think rights are come from God, then whatever else we're appealing to external to God for where a right comes from isn't really a right, right?

It's not really a right comes from isn't really a right, right? It's not really a right. I think that life, goodness, creation, there is deep overlap. I think a simple way to look at it is, you know, yin-yang, within good there is some evil, within evil there is some good. And a way to explain that is sometimes we have to destroy to create. What does that mean? If there's a mass murderer who's murdering children, we unfortunately, we don't want to, but we stop that person to defend ourselves and others' lives. I think that there is divine mandate that we must be fruitful,

multiply. We are here to organize, to create. There's a secular way of looking at it. It's evolution that developed us to this point where we have internalized these things that we must do, or that result in a more efficient way of life. Or more simply, there is a God, there is a divine structure and mandate which results in certain things that are beneficial to mankind that I would describe as good and just, and there are things that are evil and unjust. So as we get to the heart of it then, right here, where we come to this agreement, where I reject this is I think all the things you just stated are duties. They're duties. They're the opposite of rights. You have a duty. I just think we're having a semantic argument. But semantics are

super important so we don't speak past each other. So when I say a duty, it's an obligation to do a thing based on the fact that you're commanded to, in this case by God. A right, I would say, is an entitlement absent duty. So if that's the case, what you're listing out is like God is giving us these duties to do. I'm not sure what rights he's giving you. I'm saying there are certain behaviors that God, that there are certain behaviors, there are certain functions of life that are a component of God's divine plan mandate. And that's a, I could argue it in a secular way for people who don't believe in God or whatever. There's a natural structure of the universe that's, that says to humans, be fruitful and multiply. And these things are important for the efficient structure of such. That being said, we definitely just talk about, we'll talk about

Diddy, but I do appreciate it. I thought that was fun. It was fun. I love the philosophical discussions, but I think the audience is like, I want to hear about Diddy. Okay. Okay. So, uh, here we go from the New York post, Sean Diddy Combs to be held without bail in sex trafficking case, says the judge. Combs, 54, did not visibly react as a Manhattan federal magistrate Judge Robin Tarnofsky remanded him into custody following a nearly two hour long hearing where he sat with without handcuffs at the defense table wearing a black shirt and dark gray sweatpants, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so here's what everyone wants to know.

They found like a thousand bottles of lube or something? It was total craziness, yeah. 99 bottles of lube on the wall. Did you listen to the press conference on this? I caught a clip of it, and it's one of these things that's just, the more he talked, the more ridiculous it got. Like one of the accusations is that he's involved with basically sex trafficking. And there are like professionals for males and females who were forced to like perform in hours long freak offs where he was like them with ketamine and all this stuff. And he flew them across state lines. It's like Eliot Spitzer, which makes it you know trap like uh transportation for the

purpose of prostitution and he had them do all of these crazy things yeah i think it's every time the guy would just be like so these freak offs because it's like these freak offs what i kept thinking too was like um you know all of the songs about like i'm a pimp or whatever and it's like oh like for real it wasn't you like posturing you were like no I've made my bone this is really your jam it's crazy it's also one of these things where it's like I don't you know you see those pages in like tabloids

where they're like celebrities are just like us no they're not no celebrities are not just like us they're hooked on their own ego and fame and they'll do anything for just a little bit more some of them are alright right not all? Not all of them are right. I mean, you can't talk in absolutes. On the other hand, like, look, I feel like nobody is safe right now.

This was a real weird one. Yeah. Well, so in this one, if I remember correctly, there was a run up here, right? Like this was expected. Nobody didn't think. Yeah, I mean, it was like going back to 2003 or something. There were videos. But I mean, it all started, I think, when he settled

with his ex-girlfriend and then a whole bunch of other women were like, me too. And his attorneys will argue that the law in New York changed so that it expanded the time frame which these complaints could be brought against him.

So his ex-girlfriend Cassidy brought a complaint against him. A couple other women did. Cassidy, the video... Cassie? Cassie, sorry. She's been working with the feds for a while against him. A couple other women did. Cassidy, the video... Cassie? Cassie, sorry. She's been working with the feds for a while on this. And there's that video that leaked

online where it's like him beating her up in a gym or something. It was pretty brutal. They're chasing each other. But then afterwards, there was like that raid on his house. His cell phone was seized in Miami at the airport. What he was going to... Was it Bermuda? Yeah, he has like another house or something.

Well, I was in the Fresh and Fit studio when that originally broke with the kind of idea that, okay, now the girlfriend is working with the feds and they're collecting evidence. And it was kind of expected even then, this was months ago, that this was going to happen, right? The prediction was, okay, this guy's likely going to get arrested and tried for this. And it looks like there is actually some there there. That's why he moved back to New York in order to be on hand. In order to be on hand. And he figured, like, if I'm in New York and they arrest me,

they'll let me out on bail and it will be fine. And instead he was remanded without bail. They're saying people are all tweeting that he's going to get Epstein'd. Well, I don't know why they'd want to do that, because then they would lose the guy that they're trying to, you know, yell at and convict. And I assume they'd want to do that, because then they would lose the guy that they're trying to, you know, yell at and convict. And I assume they're going to name other people. Maybe it's because, like, with Epstein, he has a big client list that might involve some powerful people, and they don't want that list to be revealed.

And so Diddy's music, just, you know. Are you suggesting he's Black Epstein? That's hilarious. I didn't say that. That's actually what's been reported in the press. No, I know. I mean, I think what's interesting is that we get this name it draws attention back to story that's to your point been simmering on the back burner for a little bit um but who else i mean none of epstein's clients ever got named as far as i can tell they didn't really face any consequences and so in this case you know he might go down for it on the other hand this seems like somebody who uh doesn't want to and also has a

large ego. And so I assume he'll give people up to save himself. You remember, where was this video? This was like just a week ago. I saw this where Trump was asked if he's going to release more of the names for Epstein and this type of thing. Oh, yeah. He said he would. He did. But he also was like, well, we have to be cautious, though, because there's some names which may be on the list that, you know, it could be a fraud or it could be this. So we have to be cautious. He wasn't on it for sure. He did.

He said he wasn't. But, you know, there might be some people here. So we don't want to release everything, maybe. I remember when we were at the old studio, do you remember this? A huge trove of documents had been released, not like a list, but just documents related. And we're reading through it. And it mentions what we assume is Prince Andrew

and then another unnamed prince. And we were all sort of like, who is this person? So I totally believe that there are people on that list that the U.S. government is like, bringing this person to light will have serious diplomatic consequences. I could understand that level of caution. On the other hand, at what point are you actually just covering up for people?

You're not being cautious for national security. Here's a question for you guys. If let's say you're an investigator, you're a prosecutor and you're looking at Danny staring at you. You got this grim look on his face. And then he pulls up his phone and he slides you a video of seven powerful world leaders from various countries. And they're all engaging in some extremely, let's just say, human rights violations that could remove them from power, shock the country and result in destabilization of regions, potentially cause conflicts and wars. Maybe it's like, I don't know, like a religious leader from one country with a religious leader from another country of opposing religions having a homosexual relationship or something. That would be wild. And you're like, okay, what they're doing is a

crime in the United States. If we bring this evidence to court and it somehow gets released, these countries may start, they go to war. Do you then say, no, we, you know, do you take the moral absolute disposition of we don't compromise, the criminal must be brought to justice, or, you know, it's kind of like the, I would do, so I would look at it, Rorschach or Dr. Manhattan. Sure, sure. Well, I would look at it, I would look at it this way. I absolutely think this happens often, where powerful people, perhaps not in Diddy's case, but people who engage in this type of trafficking, things like this, do end up with powerful people from other nations on video.

Now, if I was in charge of the U.S. government or any government for that matter, and that came across my desk and it was asked, do you want to prosecute? I wouldn't prosecute. I would blackmail. I'm the head of the government. You would blackmail? Of course, I would say, OK, well, wait, if I have seven world leaders, like you said in your scenario, there's seven world leaders over

here and I have sex tapes on all of you. Guess what? We're going to get the oil at this price. We're going to get the food at this price. We're going to get this at this price. Well, well, I mean, the thing is, what else could you do with time until you were then eliminated? A lot of people did point out that this international conflict and destabilization started popping up after Epstein died. It's true. But I think your point is good. There's a lot of people who say that the purpose of what Epstein's operation was was to force world leaders to basically bend beneath. Of course it was.

There's a great book I think we talked about last time I was on, One Nation Under Blackmail. So this is a – it's not only a fantastic book, but the idea is here that politics runs off of blackmail and it runs off of bribes. It runs off of all this. That's true. But blackmail specifically, we found something on you. Nobody else has it but us. Don't worry, though. This all goes away if you do blank.

This happens, I think, daily all over the world in all sorts of politics. And it definitely happens here in the United States as well. And if I was the government and I got a hold of these Epstein files and tapes and things like this, and I could go to the enemies of my nation and say, or even just kind of allies who aren't doing what I want and say, hey, look, you want this released or you want to do this? Of course, as the leader of the nation, you're going to blackmail them, right? I mean, what else are you going to do? I suppose it's a practical reality as we're talking about like war and what is justifiable

in war or not. The idea of war crimes is silly. If you're the leader of a country, there is no good decision. And, you know, I've talked about this for quite a bit. It really isn't, right? Activists all seem to think that, you know, I love this story, by the way, because y'all who watch the show quite frequently for me say, but at Occupy Wall Street, they have the General Assembly. They're all trying to decide what their demands are going to be. What's the big problem? And it was generally big bailouts and revolving door government policies and

administration. And one guy just stands up frustrated and goes, what is wrong with you people? It's fracking. Fracking is everything. And I was just like, fracking is so low down the list. Yeah, it's pretty low. But the reason I bring this up is that if you're a world leader and you're like, we need to reduce energy costs, so we're going to have to frack, then you get a guy screaming at you, you're destroying the world. If you stop fracking, then you get everyone else screaming, our prices are going up. What are you doing to us? There's no simple solution to appeasing the people. Heavy is the crown, right? And the idea here is, I think you hit it on the head, right? Everything's a trade-off. So if everything in politics is a

trade-off, and I think it probably is, then we're just trying to make the best trades that we possibly can, the best day trades, right? We're going to take from this and give to this, or we're going to take away from this to give to that. Or, you know, in this case, like you said, Mother Earth's going to suffer if we frack. But on the other hand, if we don't frack, Grandma might die because she can't get heat. So the question becomes, what is the least bad choice that I can make, which affects the least amount of people? I don't really even know if there's a better way to govern than that. Than utilitarianism? Well, it wouldn't be even utilitarianism. That's pretty much what that is. Well, utilitarianism uses utils as a unit of

measurement for a consequence. You're saying what brings the most good to the most people. There is absolutely no deontological world leadership. It is impossible. Literally, it's impossible. Well, I think Christian ethics and duties do take consequences into account. I think what you're talking about, instead of utilitarianism or consequentialism,

it would be more like threshold deontology. So the idea would just be, okay, we do the dutiful thing until there's some threshold and then we switch over to this thing, right? So we have a duty to uphold your rights. We have a duty to do that. Unless upholding them would cause so much problem

for so many people that we can't, exactly. So the argument is, you know, deontological morals, you cannot take a single immoral action against an individual regardless of the greater consequences versus utilitarianism. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, dramatically oversimplifying. But the, the issue then is at a federal level, if there is a, a single individual and, and, and, and there's, there's difficult, too, involved in would you harm the rights of an individual to protect the greater of society? Most civilizations will do it because—

But that's deontological, too. That's not purely utilitarian. So if you're looking at duty, you could say that you have a duty to protect lives, you know, if it's going to save more lives, right? It depends on perspective and how you're crafting it. It's this question of, you know, there's probably, if you gave me time, I could craft a very nuanced scenario that would boggle the philosophical minds of how to handle.

You just use the trolley problem, right? That's an easy one. Yeah, but I think that's actually an easy solution. If you're at a government level and you're talking about killing one person and saving, like the trolley problem of one person versus five most people are like i don't want to touch anything i'm going to not be involved but if you're looking at one person versus a 300 million most people are going to be like you can't let three million people die of course and so i think you know most people are probably going to be like the end of

the world or one person but this means that you're willing to sacrifice an innocent person for the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. The real question is just how many is too many and how many is too few? I think there are a lot of circumstances in government where there are ethically and morally gray areas that result in harm and good at the same time. And there is no yes or no, right or wrong. It's just what's the best, least damaging thing we can do. But it does result in a mass negative to a person who didn't deserve it. And so that's what I mean. Like at a large scale, a large enough scale, there's no real way to try and protect the

rights of every single person. Here's an example. It's when in Bruce Almighty, when he's getting all the prayers and he's like, yes to everyone. And then everyone wins the lottery and they win 30 bucks. So it's like, it's a damn near impossibility. You're always just trying to do the least amount of damage. Yeah. So I agree. I just think, I think that that could be construed as a duty, not just as like, we're just looking at consequences, right? So I think that that could be construed as a duty, not just as like we're just looking at consequences. Right. So I think it depends on perspective.

So I agree with you 100 percent, though. If you're in government and you said on average, any society or country, regardless of its state, sees an average of 17% dissent, no matter what the state is, because it's impossible for everybody to agree on the form and function of government. Granted, there's a lot of people who just really like to be contrary. Yep. They want to fight the machine or whatever. Let's jump to this next story. I wonder if you have a big family. I bet you a big family would be 17%.

Don't. Oh, yeah. You know what I mean? That's how you end up with black sheeps. Yeah, mom, dad, three kids, and the teenage daughter is angsty. Yeah. And she moves out. She runs away.

On the micro, it's probably just as true as the macro. She's living on the streets of New York. Let's jump to this story. She's friends with Diddy. Yes. Freak off. All right, all right. jump to this story. He's friends with Diddy. Yes. Freak off. All right, all right. We got this story

from the Post Millennial. CBS only finds one Harris supporter in Nevada restaurant. The rest were for Trump. No, no, no. It's restaurants. She says,

in every single restaurant, the people willing to talk to us, we could only find one Harris supporter in every restaurant. So they went to a bunch and they could find only a single person in Nevada. I got to say, I think this sends a good message to Nate Silver. Nate Silver has Trump favored to win the election, winning Nevada.

And you look at all these polls and they're like, no, Kamala Harris is going to win in these states or that state or whatever. I think this shows us that I think Nate Silver may be more likely to be correct. We will see. But I also want to just add, for everybody at home watching this, I want you to get real cozy on your couch with a blanket or whatever and just feel that smug within you

that CBS desperately tried to find Kamala Sports and could not. Couldn't find him. Couldn't find him. Well, it's interesting. I wonder if I can get your take on two things here. So the first one is with Kamala Harris, are

the Democrats once again putting way too much stock in Zoomers and younger... They're doing it again. That only really worked one time. It only worked with Obama and it didn't work ever before and I don't think it's really working. Because all the trends, TikTok, this and that, you know know everything is blowing up for kamala but are you putting too much faith again that the young people are gonna come out and vote that's they're not

gonna come out and vote they're gonna go ballot harvest yeah that's true they're gonna go knock on college college dorm rooms and be like what up did you guys fill out your mail-in ballots and they're gonna go oh yeah sure here you go and then they got them and they wanted to look like there is this wave of youth voters coming because hypothetically, if there were any sort of shenanigans, shenanigans, they would be able to say like,

no, no, you guys don't understand. We just understand them better than you guys do. I mean, I think this is always the myth of like different voter blocks, right? That they're,

they're going to turn out and this is the year. And that's why you see the Harris campaign posturing is like this pop culture icon when it's really not. I think Nevada is funny because I know it often gets kind of written off as a blue state, but I don't think that's fair. There are prominent Republicans in a lot of positions in Nevada. So Nevada, sorry team, I don't know which it is. But I think there is a level of like the media trying to steer the story. If you put out enough polls saying, oh no I don't know which it is. But I think there is a level of like the media trying to steer the story. If you put out enough polls saying, oh, no, don't worry about that, that state, that swing

state's definitely for the Harris walls. There's no don't even go there, Trump. There's no point in spending money. Then it's sort of to undermine any other political analysis there. It's not based on real people because they could have gone to like the Harris harris walls headquarters in nevada and be like we spoke to many democrats but instead to their credit they were like we went to restaurants and couldn't find anybody well the election the election is right around the corner but there's still a long time if that makes any sense right it's right around the corner but there's still a long way to go until we get there especially given our news cycle how many more assassination attempts and so i'm just I'm just wondering, right?

Do you think they'll stop? I don't know. It's just like this whole year since, I mean, before July, but let's say since the debate in May, it's just nonstop. Was Biden 27th? Was Biden, yeah.

It just seems like there's always something coming down the pike. So I agree with you. Like we're 49 days away. On the other hand, there's so much plot left in this crazy sitcom and and to your point you said you asked the question right is this is going to stop with the assassinations right for instance no so once these lunatics understand that the media is going to make demi heroes out of them and they do even though they

pretend that they don't they make demies out of these potential Trump assassins. They're never going to stop because for the same reason some of these— But they do that with all shooters. That's my point, though, right? That's what they did. That's what happens. A lot of them want notoriety when they go into—and I'm not even going to get into it because of YouTube. But when they go into those places and do that thing, oftentimes it's because they want the notoriety.

These assassins, same thing. What do you think happens if Donald Trump does not make it to Election Day? Like J.D. Vance is the nominee? Well, do you think people could still vote? Do you think if people vote for the ticket, are they then voting for Vance? I don't know about the legal precedent. I mean, it was already weird enough when Kamala took over Biden's ticket. Yeah, and is Kamala Harris printed on all the ballots at this point? I think they made exceptions. I think they would just

honestly, I think that they could potentially postpone the election. I don't know what's the mechanism for doing that. There is precedent. What's the mechanism for postponing the election? I think that Congress just sets when. Who would do it? This is true, but I don't think it would happen because Congress is split. Yeah, I don't think Congress would get that through. The Republicans would say contingent election delegations. The Democrats would say, no, Vance is your candidate. And then the next thing you know, any slates of electors that were sent to the Electoral College with Vance on them would be prosecuted and put in jail. So then.

Very grim, Libby. Like they're doing with Michigan and Wisconsin. The Republicans could also go to like the next next runner up nominee whoever that was they can say okay we're gonna we're gonna put up Haley or something like this that's what you have well Vance Vance is the ticket so yeah I mean with Biden he would advance

but if Trump is gone if Trump is gone his tickets gone so the thing is is like I don't know if Biden's gone and his tickets are there they'd make the same argument that Kamala made. They'd say. They'd be like, you can put in whoever we want, which is the same thing that they were doing before. The question is this. It's a private organization, et cetera, et cetera.

We can assume that if anything happens to Trump, the election will be chaos, be it a postponement, be it a contingent election, be it the election goes forward. But then the Democrats challenge Vance, citing he wasn't actually nominated or whatever. He was chosen by Trump. I don't think when he was then i don't know right jd vance is chosen by trump and then selected at the rnc but he wasn't voted in a primary right for sure but neither was harris but harris was selected the dnc so the democrats would argue trump was chosen at the at the rnc uh and uh kamala was chosen by the DNC for president. Vance was not chosen for president. The point is this. All of these scenarios say only one thing.

We literally cannot even fathom what would happen to this country. It would be total chaos. I think you're dead right about that. We have no idea. Literally none. There's no prediction. There's no guessing. It's just it's.

And then it was interesting. Biden called Trump to check in on him and see if he was OK. And they talked about potentially additional Secret Service protection. Although I don't know if that has happened yet. And isn't that under the DHS? Isn't that Mayorkas' call? That's Mayorkas. And he is the biggest awful person.

I mean, he was speaking at the Texas Tribune Festival saying that he didn't even believe deportations were a good policy at all. And he brought up the example of a single person saying that it would be, you know, how would we deport a single person? I mean, the House voted to impeach him because he's derelict in duty. And the Senate wouldn't take it up. I suspect we could do it again because if you can't keep the president safe,

I mean, what are we doing here? That is a really good point. Trump might want to bunker up and just get back on Twitter. I think that's what they want though. They don't want him at any rally. He might just want to bunker up and get back on Twitter for his campaign rallies. I think he wants to go golfing and do some campaign rallies he's

got a rally in long island tomorrow trump famously does not like heavy security so this is a well known thing where trump likes to be accessible and i think this is another big because he loves the people yep it's a big thing about him it's a big also loves mcdonald's yeah well you know it's a big difference between him and Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris does not love the people. She buses people in. She is invite only. No public speaking engagements, really.

Also, when it comes to media, she is very inaccessible to the media. Very inaccessible. Not a lot going on there. Not much of a plan. I think the media gets frustrated. During the debate, I really didn't see a single standout plan from Kamala that made me go, that's a Democrat that stands out. There weren't any standout plans at all. There weren't anything. I mean, we know a lot about how she was a middle class kid. We know a lot about how the people in her neighborhood like

their lawns, but we don't really know anything about, we don't really know anything about what she would like to do for the American people that's worthwhile. We know she wants to tax us on our unrealized capital gains. And build houses. And build three million houses. Well, she has her opportunity economy. And then give them away. And give them away. While we pay for it.

Also devalue the neighborhoods they get put in probably. But the thing is, is like none of it was a popping standout policy right like you would think I have this this great policy for the reinvigoration of America here's the plan and here's this kind of really standout thing you could point it really wasn't there for Kamala Harris. She doesn't have one I mean also because she's obsessed with Trump and everyone in her campaign is obsessed with Trump yeah she could have spent the whole night appealing to voters who say, we don't really know who you are. Tell us what you want to accomplish. Instead, the fixation was getting on an emotional

reaction from Trump, which at times she did. On the other hand, complete missed opportunity for her because undecided voters still don't know who she is or what she's trying to promise them. They know the buzzwords, opportunity, economy, I'm from the middle class, but it doesn't make her any more relatable. Did you see that Billie Eilish came out today and endorsed her? How many pop stars are we going

to bring out to give her a personality? You know what's funny is in the 90s, you had like a lot of pop stars coming out and getting involved in politics, but mostly they were just saying, rock the vote. Like that's it. They went on MTV and said, rock the vote. But it's because they knew that younger voters lean Democrat. And so the game they've employed is, hey, just go vote because they know it's it's their they got their EV plus. I still prefer that right now telling me. But right now, unregistered voters lean towards Trump. So Democrats actually this is a funny story.

A few months ago stopped their voter registration initiatives because it was actually helping Donald Trump. And motor voter in Pennsylvania was was veering Republican as well. I saw on your X the Trump plan. You were like, do it. Oh, no taxes on 401Ks. Let's go. Real quick, Donald Trump,

hear me roar right now. Go on X. Go on a rally and say, new campaign proposal. all withdraws from your 401k after the age of 62 will be tax free and you will win a 49 state landslide.

No taxes on the retirement. That's it. That guy has it back. I agree with that too. Because we can't depend on social security. Or your taxes. We have to invest our own money in order to fund our retirement.

And then you want to tax us on it after you've been taxing us with Social Security this whole time that you're going to keep? Yeah. I mean, come on. Let us keep our money that we've been saving this whole time. I mean, we don't buy stuff.

We save our money. We put it aside. And the rate that it's taxed at, too. The rate is insane. It's ridiculous because it's like bonuses. As soon as you turn 62, you can withdraw from your retirement funds tax-free. You owe no taxes on.

Your retirement's become just tax-free. It's yours. Retire with it. That solves a lot of the Social Security problem. And every senior is going to be like, Trump wins. Well, you know what else it would do? It would help age out the workforce because we would be like, oh, I will retire because now it turns out I do have enough money to retire.

And all those bigger, higher level positions would open up to the lower generations. And then they'll be able to get those jobs and do things like buy houses. And save for their retirement. And retirees will have more to spend. Their budgets won't be as strained. So they'll go out to eat. They can go on road trips they want to do. They can go buy that different condo and give up their house to a younger family.

The mobility of both the corner offices and the house and suburb becomes vital. Becomes huge. That would be amazing. I think it's a brilliant idea. I would be so happy. I would perhaps cry if that were the case. If he said at 62, you're tax-free. I mean, I just...

No, 55. Do it at 55. Say 55 years old. I'm okay with 62. 55 years old. I mean, I'm going to be 55. Do it at 55. Say 55 years old. I'm okay with 62. I mean, I'm going to be working till I'm dead anyway. But why not 55 for the taxes on the 401k and this type of thing? Some of these guys, 55, 56 years old,

got $3 million in their retirement account, and they're going to have to work another eight, nine years so that they can pay for the taxes when they pull it all out. Well, and then they're going to get taxed on the unrealized capital gains in their houses, and then they're going to get taxed on the unrealized capital gains in their houses. And then they're going to get estate taxes.

So they can't even leave anything to their kids. Just let them pull it out right now. Let them retire. You're right. It's going to create a whole lot of jobs, which are far past entry level. When guys were already established in those jobs, it would open up real estate.

This is sort of the joke all the time that it's like, do you know why you're not getting promoted to the corner office? Because the guy who has been sitting there for three decades won't leave but you know to that guy's can't leave he can't leave he can't leave uh and i think that's this is the reality which is like you we are supposed to have an economy that allows you to retire and in fact i think it would boost national morale if we treated it was like something that we wanted you to like in france you remember when they had basically like the the middle-aged workers were practically rioting in France because they wanted to raise their retirement

age. They were like, you would never do that to us. I love how Trump's policies are increasingly just abolish taxes. That's popular. That is kind of great. That is kind of great. Kamala's policies are raise taxes for some and give free money to people who haven't earned it. Kamala's policy is

we're going to forgive your student debt. You got free money and now you don't got to pay it back. Your stupid gender studies degrees, you moron. Trump is saying the money that you earned, you keep. I like that. Yep, I agree. Because I work hard and I have my full life. I also think that's a double-edged sword.

And it's a tax cut for retirees, not the billionaires. Which is a good thing, a tax cut for retirees. It's a double-edged sword too with the college forgiveness because there's tons of people who paid off their loans who that, that pisses them off. Like you can't believe. Or like the, or like the $25,000 down payment assistance. I bought my house a couple of years ago.

I didn't get any down payment assistance. Yeah. Like I just, I just paid for my house. Well, there are programs. There've been programs like that forever for FHAs and things like this. Rural housing loans will, they will assist with that type of thing. Those things already exist. They're not really doing anything major by doing the $25,000.

But student loan forgiveness. You're jacking up real estate prices by putting $25,000 right on top of it. I agree. And so you're taking the money from the taxpayers and you're giving it to the companies selling the houses. Yeah, I'm not sure that that would have a mass impact, but fair enough, right? The thing is, though, is when I'm looking at the college student loan debt forgiveness, some of these people have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt, been going to school for 12 years.

Yeah. Well, also, though, I mean, the other thing, too, with the student debt is it is true that when you have a student loan that compounds on interest once you graduate, like, that's deadly. And the reason that tuition is so high is because student loans are so readily available. And so it's a total scam. We're going to forgive student loans and then also continue to issue them. Well, you can't look at it and say like you've been saddled with debt with no way out. So we're

going to forgive you. But everyone else coming out of the pipe, same problem in a couple of years. And the other thing too is tuition is like $60,000 a year at some of the schools that I went to. And it's like there should absolutely not be loans facilitating a college degree that costs more than a house. And the colleges have no incentive not to continue to raise prices because they know ultimately they can demand students get government-backed loans that they cannot go bankrupt on. All right. We're going to go to Super Chat. So if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with all of your friends.

You gotta tell them, guys, TimCast IRL is the best show. Everyone agrees. At least that's what I've been told. Head over to TimCast.com. Click join us to support our work. The lawsuit against the Harris campaign for the defamation has been filed. We definitely could always use your support. So if you believe in the work that

we do, calling out the fake news and standing up for what we believe in and ourselves, timcast.com, join us, become a member. The Members Only Uncensored show will be coming up at 10 p.m., where you as members get to call in and join the show. It's going to be fun, but for now, we'll grab your super chats. All right, T-Bomb says, please limit the tree farming to 10 trees per person on the Members only seven days to die server. Thank you for your understanding. Ian's very excited about seven days to die members only. So if you're looking for a group of people to play seven days to die with a zombie game, he also says, howdy, Clint and all the other very fine people. Indeed,

Timcast viewers are all very fine people. All right, we'll grab some super chats. What have we here? We'll scroll down. Eric Shaver says, do you think Google should have to disclose all of the information it has collected about us so we can conduct social experiments? No. Yeah, what?

What? No, heavens no. I think Google should be legally required to give you any and all information with your name on it that they have of yours. But like the idea to disclose all of the information in general, I certainly would not like that. They're going to be posting where I go to eat lunch.

Like where was he going with that? Eric, I must tell you, they're giving it to AI and AI is learning freaky things. But like I don't want people to figure out where I go for lunch every day. They're going to be like, hey, look, every day at 3 p.m., Tim's phone is in this area. No way, dude. Not to mention your browser history, Eric. Me, I don't have a computer because this is a studio computer. That's you.

Greg Doovies has random thought. What if the recent assassination attempt was to show the Secret Service is competent and to help gain the trust of the people? Is that the new conspiracy? It was a it was a fake attempt so that they could Secret Service could be like, look, we did our job. We're good at it. We are good at this. Stop saying we're not. But the thing is, again, and maybe they did it like they did do exactly what I think they're supposed to do, which is to keep a shooter from taking a shot.

On the other hand, I still think it's crazy that there's no one patrolling the exterior perimeter. Wait, didn't the shooter take a shot? No, but not from what I understand. They shot at him. Oh, yeah, yeah, they shot at him, sorry. Arrow says, shout out to my new son, Fallon, for his release from the hospital. Can't wait for a...

Pulev? How do you pronounce that? The Canadian guy? Pulev? Pulev. Trump, U.S., How do you pronounce that? The Canadian guy? Poliev? Poliev. Poliev. Trump U.S. so I can more than barely afford to live. Right on. Yeah, like everybody else, man.

Like you're in good company with that. Congrats on your kid. Chad Davis says, Tim, YouTube making me work on finding the live show. Freaking commies. We debuted the new thumbnail today. You may have noticed. The reason was it was apparent that our longstanding thumbnail is not particularly good marketing

in that it's only effective for people who already know what the show is. You see a thumbnail, it says TimCast IRL live now with a guest and you're like, I like TimCast IRL, I'll watch. For anybody who didn't know, they might just be like, don't know what that is next. So I thought, well, we're a news driven show. We need to have the official, the main story be prominent in the thumbnail. So today I am the guest, Andrew

Wilson, as well as Tim Castile live. And then the story, which is that we have filed a lawsuit against Kamala Harris. I think this is more accessible to the average viewer who might be browsing YouTube and then see a show they've never heard of, but a story that's important to them. And then they'll come watch and realize it's the best show. Everyone agrees. At least that's what I've been told. All right. Jacob Polly says Tim and crew urgent. I have pictures of the Trump assassin social media. It shows a big trend and it's disturbing. Who should I tweet or email them to? I took the pics as soon as his name dropped. Can't say a word. Can't say the A word above fully as it gets blocked.

Oh, like at or whatever. Oh, I see what you're saying. Assassination. I think everyone's already archived all of his social media. So if you go to archive that is you can see the full pages are available and they've been saved in full. So I don't know. I don't know. You can tweet it, I suppose, if you have it.

Dragon Lady says, Carl Benjamin did a couple of videos on his channel, The Symposium, four years ago, saying exactly what you are about Palpatine and the Rebels. Search for the title, Star Wars is pro-Jedi propaganda. I want to stress, honest question, where in the movies, at any point, does Palpatine do something wrong honest question

well i think that the the fact that um there's a lot of bias against him because he's not a very good looking guy he was involved in a lightning accident when he was young and he's kind of old when that happened well i mean young for a sith lord you know that's true that's young for a sith lord he was involved in a terrible lightning accident. Some guy was mugging him at the time. Lightning hits him, and from there he's disfigured. And I think it's pure ableism. I think it's ableism. Let's be completely real about this. Mace Windu shows up and says he can't have a trial.

He's too dangerous. Yeah. That's insane. What a psychopath. Even Anakin. So Anakin, being the only good guy, Anakin says, no, you got to take him to trial, you lunatic. So hold on, hold on. Mace Windu says he can't.

Draws a weapon against a sitting elected official. No, the top elected official. He had been voted emergency powers. He was now, for all intents and purposes, the emperor. Mace Windu draws his weapon. We all know in American jurisprudence, you have a right to defend yourself when your life is in danger. If someone points a weapon at you, you have a right to defend yourself.

So what happens? Palpatine uses force lightning as the guy's drawn his weapon against him and he reflects it back. And Palpatine is trying to hold him back. But in no way did Palpatine ever aggress against Mace Windu. Mace Windu went to his office intent on killing an elected official and Anakin pleads for him not to do it.

Anakin strikes Mace Windu down in defense of others and with his weapon now dismantled it is completely reasonable for Palpatine to say this is a Jedi master who just tried to kill me and so he defends himself. They came in and threatened him and they had no

they had absolutely no treason they said it's treason then and so he takes two of them out quickly he ends up in this battle with the other one um and anakin saves his life like the do-gooder that he is okay he's he was i mean he was a do-gooder to his own kid he did he literally would have given his own kid a pardon if he would have just reformed that's all he was asking for just reform to the side that doesn't do this lunatic stuff these people so i can tell you all the things that vader did that was evil vader does a lot of bad things what he has a bunch of kids no that no no no no no on whose orders you're saying emperor palpatine's at fault for that okay well if if you're to blame Vader, then the hole in your argument here is that Palpatine said,

do what must be done. Oh, but we know, but no, no, no, no. I take issue with that. Did Palpatine say, Anakin, go to the school and go murder a bunch of children? He wasn't exactly punishing him afterwards. I'm saying that, like police, they often do bad things and then they're like, oh man, what do we do?

My point is that Palpatine, I'm not saying he's, like, look, I get it. You watch the movies. He's an evil guy. Like, he orders Anakin, Anakin goes to kill kids. But my point is this. If you watch the movies, there's no scene where Palpatine's like, now I want you to go murder children. That's true. There's no scene where Palpatine's like, oppress them and arrest them for their speech.

They do have the rule of two, right? So, like, this is the word. My only point is not that we can't infer he's evil whatever my point is literally they never show you him doing anything oppressive or tyrannical i literally don't think it was evil i think even vader going and doing that act was completely justified so the idea here was that look this is terrible that you have to do this right it's awful it haunted vader his entire life he thought about it non-stop he was never thrilled about the fact that you have to do this, right? It's awful. It haunted Vader his entire life. He thought about it nonstop. He was never thrilled about the fact that he had to do it. But he knew that even one of these lunatic Jedi could come back, right, and start this entire vicious cycle again where they were going to take over the galaxy,

begin kidnapping children, the whole nine yards. He had to put an end to it there. He had to put an end to it there. Let's grab some more. Here we go. We got Bradley McAloes says, Tim, you've quite literally used Kamala as the prime example to demonstrate why you'll never

support capital punishment. Andrew, I've followed you since the PWF days. Everyone needs to donate to the vacation fund. Oh, appreciate that. Well, my point was when people say like,

you don't, like a guy who committed a crime and like, you know, abused kids or murdered kids, you don't think he should get the death penalty. And my response is always, no, I don't think that if Kamala Harris came up to me and said, give me the authority to kill that man, that I would agree with that. So we had a debate on the members only show with one of our members that I thought was actually very, very good. And we talked about there's a guy who admitted to committing these crimes. He says he did it. There's evidence he did it. Shouldn't he get the death penalty for like serious abuse and

harm to children and things like this? And my response is I don't believe that knowing a single person is bad justifies a institutionalized apparatus that just kills that kills people. Because while we as individuals who are discerning and moral, and we know we all are because we trust ourselves. And I mean that like we, we think, you know, we do our best. The machine doesn't. So if I was in a circumstance where I had to defend a child from great bodily harm or death, I know that I would make the right decision watching that happen with my own eyes and making the judgment. It's something we hope never happens, but we have to we have to defend ourselves in the lives of others. But if well after the fact, there is a state that then comes and says, just trust me, I saw it happen. I'm going to be like,

I can't just trust you. You're gonna kill a guy. Right? I that that's an action that I will not be involved in. So the problem is ultimately the creation of an institution that kills people has a margin of error. It is not so simple as you, the arbiter of morality, and I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm saying quite literally, you as an individual watching an egregious immoral action and a violation of every human atrocity before your eyes, you can make the determination. We respect that in law. You will defend your life or someone else's. But I can't trust a guy in a suit, namely Kamala Harris, coming to me and being like, just trust me. We should do it.

Well, there's also the idea baked in there of Christian ethics and reform. The idea that we're not trying to actually punish people. We're trying to reform people so that they're not doing these bad actions again. The idea of forgiveness and reformation and a person turning their lives around. How many people have come out of prison after serving 20, 25 years, come out Christians, lived the rest of their lives as model citizens? We're not, the goal of the criminal justice system is supposed to be just. Right.

And what is just, part of what is just is trying your hardest to reform people, even at your own personal expense. It's part of Christian ethics. In this case, it's one of the kind of few, you could say, middle-of-the-road or somewhat libertarian views that I have, but I tend to agree with you that Christians should err on the side of caution when it comes to taking anybody's life, especially if we have the means not to, because our goal is supposed to be to reform them, right? I would much rather see a murderer, 25 years on the taxpayer's dime, reform and have his soul saved than, wow, we're going to put him out of his misery. I got a solution for you, though. A halfway point. It's called the island. you send them all to an island like australia

we get an island that's like you know 20 20 miles around uh waterfront area and we say you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers of egregious crimes that warrant the death penalty however i feel like i've seen this movie i don't know i'm saying and because we don't want to be the executioners because there is a margin of error. Instead, you are now excised from society. We will not take your life, but you will no longer be a threat to anybody else. You are free to go to the island. What about the penal colony, like in Kafka, where they basically put you on a spit and tattoo your crime on your body? No, I don't agree with that. I say my view is if if you've committed crimes against society and the people we say we don't want to kill innocent people. But there's a great greater than probabilities chance. You know, we've determined that beyond a reasonable doubt you committed this crime.

So to remove any act to remove any possibility, kill innocent people island. And if you're innocent, you go to the island. Hey, man, you have no right to what we build and share within the society. OK, so but isn't that kind of still giving people the death sentence at a turn? Nope. Like you're because you're you're like, OK, we're going to outcast you from a place you don't want to be outcast from and where you potentially have family that will assist you. Yep. Right. It's a the compromise. Yeah. And I know, but it's, it's, it just seems like you're kind of doing the exact same thing, which is taking the idea of, well, we could be wrong about this. There is a big difference between strapping someone down and injecting them, electrocuting them or shooting them and saying, here is an Island where you can farm and live your life for the rest of your days away from the rest of us. Yeah. But the difference,

wait, but the Island's going to have other prisoners on it, right? Absolutely. That's just like a Lord of the Flies island. Actually, research finds that when they took violent criminals and put them on islands, because I think the Nordic countries did this. This was in the Norwegian countries, but listen. Crime reduced. These were very controlled

and there's already very few violent criminals. Don't care. Literally don't care. If the option is kill the person who's been convicted of the crime, or they can sort it out themselves, I think it's fair to say sort it out yourself. You know what? How about we give them the option? You can go in the electric chair right now, or the lethal injection, or the island. Pick one.

I mean, they're all going to go to the island, right? Exactly. And so that way we know for—and they can say, I'm innocent, I'm innocent. Well, then you get a choice. We're not going to kill you, but you go to the island. And they'll say, I'll go to the island, right? Exactly. And so that way we know for... And they can say, I'm innocent, I'm innocent. Well, then you get a choice. We're not going to kill you, but you go to the island. And they'll say, I'll go to the island, I guess. And it's like, you're going to have to fend for yourself. You don't have a right to anyone else's labor. And that's just the way it's

going to be. I think it's a good compromise. But let's... We'll grab some more superchats. Daniel Bennett says, have you tried to donate that antique elevator to a local museum and maybe you can use it as a tax write-off? That's actually a really great idea. I don't really care for the tax write-off. I mean, maybe we'd get one, but donating the elevator to a

museum actually sounds like a really great way a really great idea. And a nice way to get it out of there. We have a historic building with an antique elevator, one of the first elevators ever in the country. Really? Yeah. And so to repair it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to customize 130-year-old machine parts that they don't manufacture anymore. And until we do,

we can't have anyone in the building on the second week. We actually, this is insane. There's a wall dividing the first floor to the stairs that go up to the second stairs. But the law is that because of the way it's shaped, I guess the door makes it one single unit. And that means the stairs have to be accessible for people with disabilities. And so the elevator has to be repaired and up to code, but it's a historic elevator. So I'm just like, this is ridiculous.

The front part of the building is not even connected. It's like, well, you can seal off the door and then make another door or something. You can't just give it vanity gear? Meaning you just cosmetically make it look exactly the same, but behind the scenes... It's elevator code. No, but behind the scenes, it's all modern machinery.

That would basically destroy an antique elevator. So the antique elevator can't operate on new parts. It's basically a wooden platform in a box, and when you're riding in it, you can see the brick walls all around you. It is not... There's no door. you gotta have a custom machinist come in and do there's a barn door you open and walk into a wooden platform that gets pulled up by a cable yeah it's fun and

i got no problem using it they say it's fine but it's not up to code for for the public okay so they're like here's what you got to build to repair to make it work there's a guy who can do it and it's like the guy who does it is just like a hobbyist who knows how to do it because it's so old and so we just the the real issue is not so much the elevator to be honest it's permitting yeah the the the city just does not want this to happen i don't want to get sued no i don't know it's just a historic building have fun so what we're doing is we actually found a ready toto-go location. And I said, I don't care. Just open the coffee shop because we've been waiting two years. This is ridiculous.

And if they're jamming us up, they're jamming us up. How about we just find a place that's already got everything set up and we can open it in a month? And so we're going to do that. So that way there will be a separate location while we're still trying to get them to sort through the main location. That makes sense. Yep. All right. We'll grab some more.

What have we here? Lurch says, I saw a comment online where someone went to the same gym as David Muir and he loved to check himself out in the mirror and flex and pose. What a loser.

To be fair. He does look like the type who would do that though, Tim. I agree, but I don't believe it. Like, I mean, it's a maybe, but that seems, that's like a really clever insult to someone who bothered you.

I think a lot of gym guys are like that. You know, I don't know if it's mirror specific. I don't know. He looks like the type. I'm just saying. He does. Chris says, the Kamala Harris campaign touts Tim as a dangerous radical that needs to be stopped, but has no issue running targeted ads on his YouTube channels.

The Harris hypocrisy is out of this world. That's actually a really good point. Wow. That's actually a really good point. Wow. It's actually a really good point. How can you be this lunatic terrorist when the person who called you that is advertising on your YouTube channel? Well, when you're doing YouTube ads, you can go in and say, do not show my ads on these channels.

You can actually, there's an exclusion list. I've seen it. They could have chosen that. That's interesting. Very interesting. Well, maybe she's here to save the audience, you know? If she just appears and gives them another option, they'll turn the cheek and head the right way.

Well, I mean, it seems like that's just kind of more evidence that they didn't actually believe what they were saying, right? Yeah, I think it is. I think that's true in a lot of cases with the campaign. I mean, it sort of goes to show that they probably think there's free thinkers who watch the show and are able to make up their own minds about things once they have all the information.

There's like 200 haters who love Kamala Harris and hate Tim Pool, who I'm sure are always in the chat. But I've seen the Tim Pool chat. I've seen you guys. And none of these guys are going to vote for Kamala Harris. None of these guys are going to vote for Kamala Harris. I just like none of these guys. I like that there is always someone from the Harris-Walls campaign watching. I mean, that's the reality. That's why they have the clips.

All right. Mitchell Pate says, Andrew, are you still part of the Whatever podcast? I've wondered if those OF ladies you debated were really as simple as the clips make them out to be. If they are, is there hope for them breaking out of that mindset? Well, I was never part of the whatever podcast, standalone podcast. I am the most recurring guest to the podcast. I go on usually twice a week. Is that in L.A.?

It's in Santa Barbara. And so that's not going to change anytime soon because, you know, we have a lot of fun. You could maybe perhaps call me like a co-host pro tem or something like this. But anyway, no, many of the various girls that I debate with are quite intelligent and we have good discussions and good debates back and forth. Now, and some of them are really, really stupid. So, I mean, it just depends, right? But some of them are pretty smart. So, yeah, I'm not throwing shade at some of them are really, really stupid. So, I mean, it just depends, right? But some of them are pretty smart.

So, yeah, I'm not throwing shade at all of them. But if you're asking, the last part of his question, Tim, was, is there hope, right? Is there, yeah, there's tons of hope. There's always hope. Don't be blackpilled, dude. Don't take the black pill. All right. Clever username says, I think the foundation of Tim's argument about rights can be summed up this way.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That's an axiom. That's axiomatic. I believe that, I personally believe it is true that we are endowed with rights by God. And the purpose of those are to better allow us to be fruitful and multiply. I believe that we're imbued with duties, which God commands us to do, and then gives us the free will to ignore them. But I have not ever seen right. I've only ever seen what I can ascertain as being force. You do exist, but people can use force to take away your existence. You can use force. Rights can be violated. My view is, call it duty, call it whatever you want. God says,

here are pathways for you to fulfill my desires for you. You have free will, and other people will try to violate that. And you are faced with difficult challenges and evil. And then you've got demons or whatever people want to call it, whispering in the ears of people to corrupt them. And then they seek to violate the divine path. Well, I agree that morality comes from God 100% and that you have to use God as the basis for morality. That's where I would move is towards some form of, it wouldn't exactly be divine command, but a simplified easy version is divine command. I think we would just kind of agree to that. it wouldn't exactly be divine command, but a simplified, easy version is divine command. I think we would just kind of agree to that.

The idea, though, is that it's a command. The Ten Commandments were just that, commandments. You must do this. Your job is to obey, right? There's nothing I've ever seen which is a command from God which infers a right, and it's the same thing with Jesus Christ. I've never seen a right inferred, only here's your duty and what you should do. Here's a good one. Son of Chad says, would you banish the Hulk like the Illuminati did? It led to World War Hulk, plus it didn't work

with Napoleon. What I would say is... It did work with Napoleon. What I would say is banishing Hulk not working is the construct of someone's imagination. So claiming it didn't work with Hulk is not a historical reference. Banishing the Hulk is actually a very interesting question. I know it's maybe silly, but the Hulk is a guy who when he gets angry, he becomes an uncontrollable rage monster that kills

and destroys. How do you deal with that? He's not intentionally doing these things, but it's still dangerous. Alright everybody, but I'm still dangerous. Yeah. All right, everybody, if you haven't already smashed that like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends. Yeah. Like the show with all your buddies. Tell them it's the best show ever. Everyone agrees. Just end it there and say it's true. Everyone loves it. It's the best. Become a member by going to Tim cast dot com to support our work and all of our endeavors.

That members only show is coming up in a couple of minutes. You don't want to miss it. It's going to be fun, not so family-friendly, but always fun and funny. You can follow me on X at Timcast. Andrew, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, you can come over, subscribe to The Crucible. It's on YouTube. You can also become a member to thecrucible.video if you want to see my huge back catalog of debates and all sorts of great content. You can also find me twice a week on whatever podcast, usually airing Sunday and Tuesday. So we do an awful lot.

Hope to see all of you guys over there. That's it, Tim. Libby's working. She doesn't even want to sign off. I was actually just checking in with my kid. Responsible, responsible. i'll let it slide um i'm libby emmons and uh i'm with the postmillennial.com and humanevents.com you can see what we're doing there um we had a lot of great stories today uh what else what else libby emmons at. And you can check out my newsletter if you want to hear from me every day.

Thepostmillennial.com slash Libby. I tend to write it from my porch in the morning. It's been fun having you both here. I'm glad you could join us in the new studio. I don't know if you've been here yet. Yeah, I did one on the culture war. Okay. Bait with Spencer.

First one with IRL. Remember that? Yeah. Thank you guys for watching. First one with IRL. Remember that? Yeah. Thank you guys for watching. Thanks for all the support. You really are the backbone of basically everything we do here. I'm Hannah Claire Brimlow.

I write for scnr.com at Scanner News. So does Chris Burtman. So does Chris Carr. So does Adrian Norman. So you want to see all of their work, go to scnr.com or follow them at TimCastNews on the internet. If you want to follow me,

I'm hannahclaire.b on Instagram. I'm hannahclaireB on Twitter. Again, thanks so much for watching and have a good night. We'll see you all over at TimCast.com in about one minute. Thanks for hanging out. you