Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #401 - Alec Baldwin Facing CRIMINAL Charges Says DA, Manslaughter Possible w/Charles Lehman

Episode Date: October 26, 2021

Tim, Ian, Luke, and Lydia sit down with Charles Fain Lehman of the Manhattan Institute to discuss the possible criminal charges that may be brought against Alec Baldwin, the new rules for what the prosecutors can and cannot call the men who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse as his trial ramps up, John Oliver's steaming-hot take on police quitting over vaccine mandates, how a disavowal of Trump's politics led to the release of a January 6th prisoner, the possibility of a 'Red Wave' in 2022 for Republicans, and how Rumble acquired Dave Rubin's Locals social platform. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We have some major updates in the Alec Baldwin case, the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Man, two big stories. We just couldn't figure out which one was more important, but we opted for the Alec Baldwin one because, well, the case with Kyle Rittenhouse is going to be coming up the next week or so, so we're going to have a lot of time to talk about that, but we will talk about both. In the case of Alec Baldwin, the district attorney says that charges are possible for Alec Baldwin, and two separate high profile legal analysts, lawyers have laid out the case as to why Alec Baldwin may be facing at least involuntary

manslaughter charges. Now, in order to get anything higher than that, they'd have to find some kind of intent and that's all they would need. Seriously, a prosecutor could find out that she, you know, she once stole 20 bucks from his wallet and then he could try and make the argument. It's not a good argument, but right now they've this, this analysis from Andrew Branca is actually really poignant that Alec Baldwin pointed a gun, pulled the trigger and at every opportunity to inspect the weapon and did not do it when, and then, you know, I'll add he's been trained over multiple decades, working in films, knowing firearm safety. There were already negligent discharges on set that

crew had protested over. So you're really close to getting like more than manslaughter, but at the very least that's what we could, we could be seeing now as for Kyle Rittenhouse, this is the kid in Kenosha. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with this. Things are looking pretty good. At least so far in a pretrial hearing, the judge ruled that the men who lost their lives cannot be called victims. I guess the argument is the whole case is whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse was justified in doing what he did. Was it self-defense?

To refer to these men as victims basically paints the picture that the answer is no. We know Kyle killed these people. The question is, was it warranted? So the judge has outright said you can't call them victims, but you can call them looters, rioters, and arsonists. And there was even a point where the prosecution tried arguing that this man who was shot, there's no evidence that he attacked anyone else. It's just arson.

And the judge snaps and goes, just arson? Come on. I can't believe what you're trying to tell me. It was crazy to see the judge snap at the prosecutor because, well, let's be real. The prosecutors don't have much to go on. You had riots going on for several days and for weeks across the country. The police had said thank you to Kyle Rittenhouse as he was showing up and gave him water. That's going to be a tough case, but we'll see. The jury could be absolutely biased. So we've got a bunch of other news to talk about.

Joining us is Charles Lehman. Do you want to introduce yourself? Yeah, Tim. Thanks for having me on. My name's Charles Van Lehman. I'm a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Tribute Editor at City Journal. I work on all things urban policy, especially crime, which obviously is very relevant to really both of these stories.

Yeah, this will be great. And then we're also going to talk about impeaching Biden because before the show he said the Republicans are going to win and they are going to impeach Biden, and I really want to talk about that. So we'll do that. We got Luke as well. Yep.

So the shirt I'm wearing right now first appeared on the vlog, and I saw it, and I'm like, I love it. I have to copy it. And it says, I tested positive for freedom. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. That was Kent's idea for that. Yes, absolutely. Kent, I got to copy it. And it says I tested positive for freedom. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on. That was Kent's idea for that. Yes, absolutely. Kent, I got to send you a shirt

and maybe some royalties. We'll talk. But I saw that. We had a similar version. It said something almost exactly the same, but just a little bit different. And I was like, this is too perfect. I need to copy it. And we got to make one because in the vlog the other day, Kent has you wearing a shirt that says step on snack and find out.

I like that one too. I'm like, we got to do that one as well. So Kent, we got to talk. And you can get your shirt exclusively on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. And you could also support me here at the same time by doing so. And we also opened up mail yesterday, which was really fun. I got a bunch of cool stuff like this Polish solidarity sign and a garbage pale kids Luke puke card,

which is really freaking awesome. I got a bunch of stuff. I got a lot of stuff to hang up on the wall. How do you say solidarity in Polish? Solidarność. Like the guys going through the Soviet government. Yeah. That was great. He patted me on the head

when I was a little baby. Wow. Yeah. That was the name of the big movement in Poland. Yes. The kind of union of people coming together

saying we really don't like communism. We like to eat and we prefer food over stamps. But they said we don't like communists or Nazis.

Exactly. Like it's all bad. Exactly. So the Polish have a long history of resisting left wing and right wingwing tyranny, and I'm very proud of my heritage and my people,

and my great-grandparents paid the ultimate price fighting all of those crazy ideologies, and I want to make sure we don't have to fight them here. Right on. You know, I also received, that was actually really beautiful, this amazing coin from 600 A.D. They're about Emperor Phocas from the Byzantine Emperor. So cool. Byzantine Empire. This person understands my obsession with

ancient artifacts, so thank you. And I really want to give a shout out to B&B Forge and Leather Company who forged this by hand. It's a knife. Look at this thing. This is a cutting knife that I'm going to be using in my cooking shows in the future and probably for years to come. It is incredible. You guys, this guy forged it by hand

and sent me the document of the process. So thank you so much. That's so neat. And check out the Cast Castle vlog if you want to see us opening this stuff. I think it'll be live tomorrow, this episode. That was actually super fun. We went downstairs last night after the show

and we opened a bunch of those things. That was a lot of fun. It was very much like Christmas. I really appreciate all of you guys for sending us stuff. I'm excited for this evening, too. Let's get going. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and you'll get access to all those fancy TimCast members-only segments.

We actually have a couple. Let me just pop over here to the members area. We got TimCast Live Hangout with Ryan Long and Danny Polishchuk. Oh, yeah. So if you want to see an extended version of the vlog that's got all of this stuff from us partying at the event and having a good time. And we got some of the jokes from Ryan Long and they're particularly offensive. You'll enjoy that. Go to TimCast.com.

Become a member. And we're going to have a member segment coming up. We release it around 11 p.m. every night. But don't forget to like this video right now. Smash that like button. Don't just hit it. Smash it. Subscribe to this channel.

Share the show with your friends. Just take the URL right now and paste it everywhere you can. It really helps out. And let's get into this first big story. We got this from the New York Times. Criminal charges possible in shooting on Alec Baldwin set, DA says. An inquiry into how a cinematographer was killed with a gun the actor was rehearsing with, which was not supposed to have live rounds in it, could take weeks.

They said the Santa Fe County District Attorney said on Tuesday that she was not ruling out criminal charges in last week's fatal shooting on a film set. Alec Baldwin was rehearsing with a gun that he had been told did not contain live ammo when it went off, killing the film's cinematographer. So we know this. Now, I've got I've got a few questions. First, let me just read this quote. D.A.

Mary Carmack Altwee says we haven't ruled out anything. Everything at this point, including criminal charges, is on the table. I just want to point out the entire time the story has been in the news cycle, Alec Baldwin has been given every benefit of the doubt, and it's been wrong every time. The first thing they said was it was a blank and it was a misfire. Now, then we learned from the union it wasn't a blank, but it was a misfire. Now we then we learned from the union, it wasn't a blank, but it was a misfire. Now we're learning Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger. It wasn't a misfire.

Negligent discharge. You know, I think that's even interesting too. Was it negligent discharge or was it Alec Baldwin intentionally discharging the weapon? That's why this starts to get into criminal territory. And there's also a lot of people complaining about the production cutting corners, a lot

of staff saying that they were terrified because the guns were going off beforehand incorrectly. And hearing, you know, misfire by the mainstream media, it doesn't tell the story here at all. So we're seeing a concerted effort to try to murky the waters already. So at least, at least there should be an investigation here to find out what really happened misfire specifically means the gun didn't go off so that's incredible negligence by the media saying that twice yeah they were obsessing about it's like fully semi-automatic yeah they don't know what they're talking about whether he intended to or not it was a negligent discharge and i think it i mean there were three people that i can tell are involved hannah gutierrez reed is the armor

who handed the weapon to dave halls who was the armorer who handed the weapon to Dave Halls, who was the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec and told him it was cold. We don't know that. Well, this is according to this story from latimes.com. What I'm saying, you know, I hear you. What I'm saying is we've been told every step of the way one thing and that only to find out later

that wasn't true. So one of the details that I read was that there were three different guns and someone walked over and grabbed one. So I kind of feel like him claiming he told Alec it was cold is just them covering their asses. I think this is from the director's testimony. They got a hold of the director and they're like, what happened? He's like, dude, I mean, it's gruesome.

You really want to hear about what happened? The girl was paralyzed by the bullet first, couldn't feel her legs, and then she died. It's absolutely horrible. Negligent. I mean, you want to – this is – For someone who lectures about how dangerous firearms are, he sure didn't take this matter seriously. Well, so I kind of feel like manslaughter is possible. But when I was bringing this up earlier, Charles, you were just like, never going to happen.

No, I – well, I mean, look, the calculus is ultimately political. It's like does the Santa Fe prosecutor – what are her aspirations and does she want a media trial? Does she want to navigate a media trial? I suspect the answer is no. A, I don't think the trial happened that he would be convicted. I don't think the jury is going to would uh be convicted i think the jury's gonna convict i think he's too sympathetic and b i don't think there's any interest in actually going out and prosecuting the case yeah yeah just from a political perspective you know i don't know what happened i don't think you know what happened i think we can guess but

but i think it is it is unlikely nobody wants that heat nobody wants the attention of a celebrity murder case i think i think less people hate hate him, and people like Alec Baldwin. He's kind of a jerk. People like Alec Baldwin. Half the country does, and that's the big issue. When it comes to issues like Kyle Rittenhouse, Derek Chauvin, we know Antifa will go around and smash up windows and burn

down buildings, and the right won't do anything like that. So there's already an obvious, you know, it flows in one direction. The prosecutor's going to look at this and be like, okay, let's say we do go after Alec Baldwin. We're going to get a bunch of crazed, you know, lefty types screaming in our faces, yelling at us. And let's say we don't prosecute him. Nothing happens. Yep.

Okay. So which do we choose? I think Lady Justice is blind. And if an actor negligently discharges a weapon that he should have inspected and kills someone that a manslaughter charge is warranted well let me read this from legal insurrection this is where it gets interesting because the da is saying they could have criminal charges and andrew bronco we've had on the show before yes he's got excellent analysis on the written house case which we you know and we'll talk about that case in a second they say alec baldwin situation beginning to look a lot like manslaughter. The more we learn about

the fact of the case within the context of New Mexico criminal law, the more this shooting looks increasingly like a crime, specifically felony involuntary manslaughter. He goes on to say the relevant facts assumed to be established one, that it was Alec Baldwin who was manipulating the gun that fired the projectile that killed Ms. Hutchins. Two, that the gun discharged because the trigger was depressed by Baldwin and not because of some defect in the weapon. Three, the muzzle of the weapon was directed towards Miss Hutchins by Baldwin when it was fired, e.g. she was not killed by an unpredictable ricochet. Four, the gun contained a live round, the bullet of which struck and killed Miss Hutchins. Five, that gun contained a live round, the bullet of which struck and killed Ms. Hutchins.

Five, that Baldwin had the opportunity to inspect the weapon for live ammo before he directed it at Ms. Hutchins and pressed the trigger, killing her. And lastly, there was no justification for the shooting of Ms. Hutchins. Now, interestingly, some of these recently are new developments, such as that he pulled the trigger, that he pointed it at the woman, and then he pulled the trigger. Initially, people were saying misfire as if to claim that, like, I heard one report, they were like, oh, someone pulled the hammer back and handed it to him. And then when he was holding it, it just went off. Like, as if that's what misfire meant. No, misfire means it didn't shoot.

This was negligent discharge. The other relevant factors, which I've stated, but for the context right now, I'll say again. There is a witness who, not a witness, but I guess you could say a character witness, someone who's worked with Baldwin, who says that they worked with him in the past, and he was always very careful. That was back in, I think, the 80s or something. That means Alec Baldwin has decades of firearms training on set. He's a producer of the film.

There were already negligent discharges on the set that crew had complained about so you can't say he didn't know then he was handed a weapon aimed at the woman and pulled the trigger that sounds like i mean from a from a legal perspective you know i'm strong parents legality but but from a from a firearm safety perspective the number one rule of even a prop gun is that you don't point it at somebody unless you're willing to pull the trigger. And as you were saying, somebody who's so aware of how dangerous firearms can be, it's like there is no reason to put a prop gun at somebody who you're not actively using. I don't know if he was aware. If he was aware, I think this would have been prevented.

He sure preaches a lot, a lot of this political ideology against people who want to have the right to defend themselves. The first rule of firearm handling, you know, every time one of my former colleagues, a guy named Steven Katowski, who now runs a gun news site called The Reload. But he's one of the best firearm reporters in America right now. And Steven took a bunch of his shooting at the NRA range. It was a good time. And the first thing that they tell you, everybody in that room is viscerally aware of the importance of trigger discipline, of being aware when your safety's on, when your safety's off, of where you're pointing your gun.

Only ever point the gun down range. If it's loaded, only ever point it down. Like these are, you know, if you genuinely believe it's a deadly weapon or believe it a facsimile of a deadly weapon you have to treat it as such because always be loaded let's let's think about the absurdity of the argument i keep hearing from people defending alec baldwin just it's it's the most insane thing ever i'm getting all these tweets that they're like clearly tim has never been on set before and they're saying things like tell me you've never been on a movie set without actually telling me you've been a movie set i just want you to imagine that you're on a movie set and i've been on sets before uh i've been on a movie set, I just want you to imagine that you're on a movie set, and I've been on sets before.

I've been on sets of TV shows and films, and I just want you to imagine you're working, you're a PA or whatever, you look at the Warner Brothers water tower, and then all of a sudden you see Alec Baldwin pull out a gun and point it at you. And you're going to be like, this is totally fine. It's Hollywood. People point guns at everybody all the time.

There's nothing weird about this at all. No, if that actually happened, people would be screaming and running. Yet for some reason here, Alec Baldwin drew a gun, pointed it, shot, killed somebody. And they're acting like it's normal. It's not normal. It looks like they were in the middle of a shot the crazy word shot uh they're in the middle of this this take and they got bad light so they had to move the camera and it's like momentary lapse of thought i think that all three of these people hannah gutierrez reReed, Dave Halls, and Alec Baldwin are all culpable for this killing.

Ultimately, Alec's responsibility. All three of them deserve to be investigated and charged for this. The woman who was the armorer, she made a mistake, but she didn't point a weapon at somebody.

She handed someone a loaded gun. So what? So that's illegal. She didn't. Well, she handed a... Actually, I don't think she even handed the weapon to somebody.

It was the assistant director who picked the gun up and handed it to Baldwin. Okay. So she's got guns, and someone comes up and grabs one. I don't think necessarily that that's criminal. It's her job to have the weapons on set. According to the story, they went to lunch, and then they came back, and they just gave. So someone, while they were away at lunch, the guns were unattended.

Yep. That's the armorer's fault. Yeah, but I don't know if that's, like, are you implying that while they were away, someone snuck in and put a live bullet in the gun? It's possible, yeah. But in that case, the person who put the bullet in there is at fault. Definitely. Well, there's reports that some of the staff were using the gun for just target practice,

even before that, with live ammunition. So, I mean, this goes along with the kind of narrative that we've been hearing that they've been cutting corners, that they were just trying to make sure that they produced this movie as cheap as possible. The staff were protesting. They were mad. They walked off set for safety concerns before this incident. They walked off set because of conditions that they said weren't right on this movie set.

But Alec Baldwin and the production staff still continued. And, I mean, this is where we are right now. We have a story from Fox News. They say Mark, how do you pronounce that, Garagos? Famed lawyer says he'd be shocked if involuntary manslaughter not brought in Baldwin rust shooting. I've got to be honest. I agree with you. I'd be shocked if there are charges brought.

This is a guy who is an establishment activist. She was really well-loved, though. And he has a lot of money. In the legal system here in the United States, it doesn't matter if you're right and wrong. It matters how much money you have. It matters what kind of lawyers you could hire. And he's going to hire – if there is charges, he's going to hire the best lawyers that they are that will give him the best justice that he could afford. And he could afford a lot of it.

So let's just be honest how the legal system works here because a lot of times it doesn't matter what happened. A lot of times it matters who you got on your side and how much money you got. Do you think he'll throw the blame on Dave Halls who handed him the gun and said it was unloaded? I think there's many avenues here. I don't know. But there's many different avenues that I see them running with potentially here.

I think no one's going to get in trouble for anything. They're going to say it was an accident. Oh, we're so sorry. He's going to make a donation. It'll all just go away. I'm not obsessed with punishment. I definitely think that throwing someone in jail isn't necessarily the best way to make sure they don't commit a crime again,

but I definitely think this looks like a manslaughter. I agree. What would jailing Alecwin do to prevent him from doing this again i kind of feel like he won't do this again you know but people want some kind of emotional satisfaction well it's i mean such emotional satisfaction right the the justice system shows a variety of functions but retribution is not just about emotional satisfaction with the public. It's about the fact that there was a real harm done regardless of intent, and there has to be some response to that. The absence of the response is harmful. I'm trying to figure out over here what the deal is with the district attorney who's going to be – district attorney's office is highly politicized today in 2021 the way they were five, ten years ago. She seems like a career professional,

but she has an enormous amount of power in making these decisions. It turns on her essentially unlimited discretion whether or not to bring charges. You know, actually, you bring that up, it's actually really simple. Is she a Democrat or a Republican? I didn't look it up, but she's Santa Fe District Attorney. She's a Democrat. She's Democrat. She's elected.

Then he's not going anywhere. Yeah. But it sounds like maybe you're implying that if nothing happens, if no charges come, that actors in the future won't really care if they happen to also issue a negligent discharge. Oh, no. I think they will. I mean, I think deterrence matters as well for punishment. Right. But, like, in this case, it's not about deterring Alec this case it's not about deterring alec bald it's not about deterring other people like alec bald's probably not gonna like go out

and shoot a bunch of people but it is about like the primary function justice system in this case is adjudicating to what extent the person was harmed was harmed uh in a way that violated the law and then if that's true how they can uh get reciprocity for that harm yeah well civil suits coming and alex is going to be paying out millions to the family regardless of criminal culpability alec baldwin is responsible and it's remarkable how many stands for baldwin can't accept that i'm a big fan of his work in 30 rock you know jack donaghy is one of the funniest characters in a tv show 30 rocks amazing you know and You know, and he's in Beetlejuice. Great. Good for him. He's kind of a bad person, but I can separate the art

from the person. But, you know, let's talk about the inverted story now. We got this with Kyle Rittenhouse. This one actually really surprises me. This is from NPR. Prosecutors cannot call those shot by Kyle Rittenhouse victims a judge has

ruled. And he also ruled, they can call them arsonists, rioters, and looters. I didn't see this coming. There's been a few rulings in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse in these pretrial hearings. The trial, I believe, is what, six days?

November 1st, it's supposed to start. November 1st. Yep, any day now. Oh, man. Jury selection is coming up. I was saying before that I thought Kyle Rittenhouse was going to get life in prison. Right. Because the jury is going to be unwilling to go up against the riots.

When those riots happened in Kenosha, the only people who came out and did anything was, for the most part, Rittenhouse and the people with him, the militia guys. The cops said, thank you for being here and gave them water. But do you think the jurors are happy about that? I'm sure they're just like, I wish there was no conflict. Now, if they side with Rittenhouse and those individuals, maybe they can cross their fingers that those people will come out and defend their neighborhood after the riots happen. Or they can say, he's guilty and he can go to jail and then we don't got to worry about riots at all.

This is going to be a very important case because a lot of people are betting on this case. A lot of people, you know, there's a lot of implications here. Betting like in Vegas? A lot of people are doubling down and investing in this, and a lot of people are threatening to riot. A lot of people are threatening a lot of civil disobedience. A lot of people are threatening to do violence to others if this court decision doesn't go the way that they want it to go. So you see this politicized in so many different ways. And that's why it's going to be so difficult to actually get true justice here, I believe, because of how many people from the outside are

involved in this, how many people are investing into this. And what I mean by betting, I mean, putting political capital into this, because a lot of this hangs in the balance of where this country is going to go. That's how a lot of people see it. And if they see if Kyle wins, this is going to be a plus for the right-wingers. If Kyle loses, this is going to be good for the left-wingers. And these are big sides that are mounting a lot of power behind this major court decision. I think that it's right. He's a totem.

I mean, I don't have a strong opinion on the case. I mean, that's why we have an adversarial criminal justice system. The jury should know more about it than I do. But I do think, you know, the context of the case, this sort of like temporary collapse of civil society that happened last summer is the context in which this all became possible, is the context in which like a teenager, justifiably or not, was out patrolling the street with a weapon.

Like, something deeper has gone wrong that you get to that point, regardless of whether or not he was justified in the individual shot. Wait, you said temporary collapse. Well, they aren't currently, they're not they're not doing great in minneapolis but they aren't currently having exactly in condition they're having exactly the same level of writing that they were having i i think this is a symptom of the greater problem which is the collapse of civil society if you take a look at the federal level politics if you take a look at even state state politics it just right now. It just feels like the law is if you are in line with the party in power, you're good. If you're not, you're out.

Democrats control most of the cultural institutions, basically all of them. Right now they have Congress and the executive branch. And as much as conservatives might, you know, people might claim the conservatives have the Supreme Court, it's still kind of an establishment conservative based on the Supreme Court, not a populist Trump supporting one. So what happens? Well, Alec Baldwin likely will, you know, face no charges. Kyle Rittenhouse is facing very serious homicide charges. And the crazy thing is there's a lot of people that want to say Rittenhouse is a hero. And I don't think we need to say that. I think the situation was bad all around and people shouldn't have been there, but it's, it's,

it's, it's hard to, to, to discern exactly, you know, how it need to say that. I think the situation was bad all around and people shouldn't have been there. But it's hard to discern exactly how it should have went down. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. But when you have someone like Destiny, who is the leftist streamer, he got banned from Twitch's partner program for saying definitively this was the clearest case of self-defense he'd ever seen or something to that effect. Like the fact that they charged him with homicide and these very serious charges says to me they're expecting to fail so my my favorite example is did you follow the case of the uh of the two new york uh highly educated lawyers who got picked up uh colin for mattis the comfort mattis and the two people who went out and like threw molotov cocktails at cop cars um and what i what i love about that story is the rallying to their defense like if you go The two people who went out and threw Molotov cocktails at cop cars. What I love about that story is the rallying to their defense.

If you go look at federal records, there were lots of people who got picked up for arson charges, like guys who threw Molotov cocktails at the courthouse in Seattle, people who burned out cop cars. And yet, peculiarly, these are the ones like got a full court press in the media these these two highly educated well-connected activists lawyers who decided they would go out joyriding with you know explosives and attack a cop car um handing them out weren't they giving them out to people yeah uh and well they and they and they received and they received like adulatory attention in all of the – and the reason is because they know the people who know the people who write the coverage. They are in the position of power. And so they eventually – they pled guilty. They're going to go to sentencing.

I think they're not – the statute of immaturity is 10 years. It's not going to get 10 years. They're not getting – Nobody's statute of immaturity. There's major media organizations running defense for them. Yeah. I mean, this goes along with what was happening last summer. I mean, dozens of people were murdered.

People were burned alive. And then we had people like Kamala Harris raising money for them to get them bailed out of jail. Right. So that tells you. They found in the Minneapolis riots, it was like a month after a building had burnt to the ground. They found a corpse. Yep. They didn't even know. It was the missing person. They're like, like a month after a building had burnt to the ground, they found a corpse. Yep. They didn't even know

it was the missing person. They're like, oh, the rioters. Yeah, the rioters killed him. The murderers killed him. And, you know, it's, what's important about this

is not just the, like, the rioting, the rioting happens, it's the normalization, the cultural normalization of rioting and simultaneously

the approbation for law enforcement. Because, you know, those were simultaneous phenomena is like there was a collective the real problem we're being told as our cities were burning was that the cops are too tough

would that be considered murder if you burned a building down and there's a person inside that you didn't know was in there but at the same time a lot of people were unhappy with the cops even on the even on the right because of the lockdowns cops are coming along shutting down small were unhappy with the cops, even on the right, because of the lockdowns. Cops are coming along, shutting down small mom and pop businesses. People on the right were like, wait, wait, wait.

What is this back to blue flag that I have here that absolutely is hypocritical for me to have if I actually believe in personal freedom and liberty? I was told coming in that I was going to have to be the one defending the cops. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. I mean, you know, I think, look, the responsibility, maybe you don't want to live with that particular topic now, but in general, the responsibility of the police is to preserve civil order and enforce the laws written.

Yeah. And, you know, allow Walmart and Costco to be open while they shut down the small mom and pop businesses. Yeah. Would you say that's ethical and right and moral? No, I would not say that's ethical or right and moral no i would not say that's ethical and right and moral i would also say that the real problem is not with is not with policing as an institution well i think i think policing just in general obeying orders from bureaucrats

when they're immoral illegal and decrees is is a huge moral problem in this country and why a lot of people on the right didn't support them when Black Lives Matter stepped onto the streets and were saying, hey, we don't like these cops. A lot of right-wingers secretly were like, yeah, yeah, they got a point. I don't like them either because of what they just did to me. It's the same attitude of concern or opposition to civil society. It's like, look, at the end of the day, we live in a society where there's rules. You don't have to like the rules.

There are processes for changing these rules. I think there's a problem that there process has become increasingly abstracted from uh democratic accountability that's bad but like at the end of the day if you don't like the rules you still have to follow them if you don't we don't have a side anymore if you we can't we can't live in a society where no we can't live in a society where uh you can be free to throw a molotov cocktail at people and get free defense in the press. And while I agree that unequal enforcement is bad and bad rules are bad, like the ground trust in that law and order, I think, is critical for running a stable, functioning polity. And you're right, except when it comes to Luke's examples, the police were shutting

down businesses by decree without legislative process. So these were cops who were saying, look, it's not a law. It's not democratic. It's not legal. But the guy who signs my checks told me to do it, so I'm going to do it anyway. And they did it selectively. So the politician's friends got to do whatever they wanted to, the billionaire class. Well, take a look at de Blasio painting Black Lives Matter on the street and then sending

27 cops to defend that. That was an illegal seizure of taxpayer dollars to do. Or, sure, I think hypocrisy on the part of executives is a major problem throughout the pandemic. If it's Gavin Newsom dining at – The French restaurant. The laundry restaurant. The French laundry. If it's all the big city mayors who have been caught not wearing masks while they continue to impose mask mandates in their cities, it's a major problem.

Like Biden administration officials keep getting picked up not wearing masks in public. On the Amtrak. Lori Lightfoot and Nancy Pelosi getting their hair did. And Whitmer. There was an incident in North Jersey where when they shut down all the businesses,

a woman was doing a Facebook live stream showing off the things she sold. And cops came to her business and said, ma'am, you need to close. And she goes, we talking about we are closed. And they're like, no, turn your phone off. That's the crazy thing. There was no law saying you couldn't post a video online and say, hey, I got stuff you want to buy it. And the cops came and threatened her. Who are these cops? These are the people. So so this is the problem I have. If this is the direction policing is going, where cops are quitting over vaccine mandates,

they're refusing to abide by the edicts, and those who will abide by the edict are staying in place, then we don't have what you described. Police officers keeping civil society functioning and enforcing the rules. What we have are people who are not enforcing the rules, who are just acting as lackeys for despots who are ruling by decree, in which case we need to stop that. Now, if abolishing the police is too extreme, and maybe it is, then we need to fire all the cops that are unwilling to abide by the law and then hire cops who are. And how we do that, maybe it's a review process then. But all of these cops that

are remaining right now need to be questioned. It's like, hey, we have you on video shutting down a small business by decree. We're firing you because of that. Or we have a video of you beating a black man in the street for no reason. Yeah, you're getting fired over that. So I think that's right. You want to fire the guy who beats a black man in the street for no reason. Every cop that I have talked to says, independent of the merits of the case, like Derek chauvin was not the guy that they want to be he's not they were not fans of his every cop that i have spoken to um like he was he was he he was doing something wrong

um but i think i think policing in particular is so subject to this like very particular um uh critical lens where we like pick out the most high salience harms uh do i think that you know you you can go back and forth about like the the validity of public health edicts or they're like the the arbitrary way in which they were enforced all laws can be enforced arbitrarily i think there are lots of abuses but i don't think that what i'm interested in defending is like the institution of policing as such because that's the thing that i think is under attack i kind of disagree with you because you know people throughout history you know always argue we need to do the legal thing well it was legal to segregate people

based on their race it was legal to put people in extermination camps it was legal to do all horrible atrocities that governments have committed throughout human history and it was written decree by the law, by executives, by whatever processes, and I think some of those have to be questioned sometimes. The law – right, absolutely. The law is the least worst governance that we have, right? It's just – it's not good. It's just better than the absence thereof. I would – maybe.

Maybe. Maybe. I would argue that there would be less harm. I think, as we were discussing, to bring the conversation full circle, the thing that gave birth to Kyle Rittenhouse is what anarchy looks like. I think that that is... Absolutely not. That's anarcho-tyranny.

No, no, no, no. If it wasn't for the state incentivizing, putting fuel on that fire, making that fire that much worse, working hand-in-hand with the mainstream media, showing that George Floyd footage over and over again, enraging people, we would have never happened if you didn't have so many state elements participating. The cops were there. For days, these people were burning down buildings. There's a video where a guy in his 70s, his mattress store, I think it was, was being burned down. And when he tried stopping people, someone went behind him and cracked him over the head with a rock,

left him lying on the ground unconscious and bleeding out. And the police stood back and did nothing. So why am I going to support these guys? Why am I going to pay for these guys? When Kyle Rittenhouse and his crew showed up, the cops said thank you for being here and gave them water. Just one last point. When it finally reaches the point where they were pushing a flaming dumpster towards a gas station, and they were. We have video footage, and we've had three different – we had four – no, we've had five witnesses on this show telling us that's what they were doing.

And the police did nothing. What do we do? We can sit back and say there was a good possibility the gas station could have blown up. Or Kyle Rittenhouse took a fire extinguisher and put the fire out so they chased after him. And then someone fired around either into the air or at him, depending on who you ask. The press says in the air, New York Times says that. Some witnesses we've spoken to said it was at him. And then he turned and was attacked by Rosenbaum and fired in self-defense.

If the police were doing their job, none of this would have happened. Yeah, I agree with that. There you go. No, okay, so you guys had Michael Schellenberger on recently, right? Yeah. yeah i agree with that there you go no okay so so you guys had michael schellenberger on recently right yeah um and and schellenberger in his book he got uh what he claims is like the first at length interview with carmen best who was the uh she was to police in seattle yeah um where where the the chaz chop protests happened um and she was the one who got the order to give up the fifth precinct and like retreat after they took over the precinct and like established their little autonomous zone and when she says she's like this is insane

why are you telling me it's just like very basic strategy you don't give up a defended position to like a bunch of like rioters uh but she was ordered to and i think i i think the reason for that is that there was a sense that police activity and harmful police activity in a manner justified was going to be punished in the in the public eye more than rioter activity was so it's like when you go to the ice cream shop and there's a little kid screaming i want two scoops the mom's like i'm sorry i'm sorry i'll give you can you give me two more scoops he's gonna he'll stop yelling if I do. And then he never stops. The police need to come in and say,

what you are doing is illegal. You are hurting people and burning down buildings and we will respond in kind to stop you. But there's no, there's a sense. So you talk about, you're talking about officers leaving over vaccine mandates, but cops have been departing big city departments, either retiring or resigning, or most frequently as far as I can tell, going to other more friendly jurisdictions. And when you talk to them, what they say is basically like, I don't believe that the civilian leadership is going to have my back.

I don't believe that if I make the wrong call, I think they're going to throw me under the bus because my job is not popular. There's an element of that, but there's also a lot of police officers that are brown nosing and are saying you want me to leave you want me to give this police precinct to these crazy people sure have it yeah there's police officers standing by i remember watching police officers twiddle their thumbs as like rioters were just taking new york city by storm it's really simple then it's really simple the system's broken the police aren't policing the system doesn't work the institution as we as we've known it and want to protect is gone. And so now my fear is what remains are cops who are unwilling to enforce against rioters because of bad optics and because they won't get protected. But they're more than happy to arrest

you for bearing arms, your constitutional right. And they're more than happy to fine people and do all of the administrative and bureaucratic, you know, civil violation stuff. So all that's going to happen is people are going to say, I was going like five over and I got pulled over. Dude, give me a break. Some dude burned down my favorite restaurant last night. Y'all did nothing for it. So if we're getting only the worst of policing and it's not just the police's fault because of it it's it's you know also civilian leadership then what are we actually defending well but i think but i think it's a policy choice right it's not the case that you know it's it's not the case that necessarily this needs to be to be the arrangement i think it's the case that uh you know there's when i

was talking to you at cheldenberg's book san francisco you know i think one of the things that come up san francisco one of the things that comes across is really a theme of contemporary progressivism is that socially deviant, harmful behavior should be tolerated. And socially normal behavior, the average person should be highly regulated. That if you want to do drugs and camp out on the sidewalk and poop there, you can do that and we will pay you to do it. But everybody has to be subject to the mask mandate. Everybody has to have their soda banned. Ooh, diaper mandate. Yeah.

But I think that that is a theory of urban governance. That's a progressive theory of urban governance that's a progressive theory of every governance it's like and the thing that happened in the riots is that the judgment call was made that it would be more harmful to the legitimacy of the city to see cops stopping riots than it would just be to like let everything burned and this was propagated through the media right npr published why rioting is good uh everybody everywhere was like in defense of looting everybody was like well the insurance companies will pay out so so it's fine. And they didn't. They're hosing the small business owners in the process.

There's a systematic choice that was made to say this deviant behavior will be tolerated because the legitimacy of the system is in question if it isn't tolerated. So I take your point about the selectiveness. I just think the problem is like several levels, levels up from the cops per se. The problem is like terrible governance decisions. I want to segue into the story we have. This is from Fox News. John Oliver, you know him, you love him, says effing let police officers who resist vaccine mandates quit. Oliver argued resistance to vaccine mandates sums up the core issue with

American police. I'm sure it does. But we're segwaying from the story that ultimately, I think, you know, we were talking about the Kyle Rittenhouse riots. We're talking about how the police were standing down in the George Floyd riots. I shouldn't say Kyle Rittenhouse riots, the George Floyd riots in which, or that was the Jacob Blake riots. Sorry. There's so many, I get confused sometimes. And we will soon have the Kyle Rittenhouse riots because it's trial soon. But the ultimate result, I think, is going to be cops quitting. And so we have this story, which is really interesting because police are quitting. A bunch of cops, I think NYPD is suing over the vaccine mandate. Is that right? Chicago, they're instructing the officers to defy the mandate. In Baltimore, they're doing

the same thing. The end result, I think, is going to be cops quitting. And here's the funny thing. We've we've long been saying now, like long as in the past couple of weeks, the left should be cheering for this. They wanted to defund the police, abolish the police. They should be happy, right? Turns out they are. Fox News reports. Last week, tonight, host John Oliver took aim at police officers who have yet to get the vaccine, encouraging them to effing quit. Quote, the police are supposed to be keeping the public safe. That is the point of their jobs. Yet some don't seem to give much of an ish about that.

The liberal host single liberal host single out Chicago and New York police departments is fall falling into that category. CBD officers, he noted, resisted uploading their vaccination statuses to a portal. Over 20 officers are on no pay status for refusing to comply. He also shared a video of a pair of NYPD officers who were seen removing a commuter from the subway while they themselves were unmasked. That video was actually kind of funny. You see it? A guy in a mask yells at the cops to put a mask on, so they kick him out of the subway.

That's crazy. Now, I think they are going to be happy. I think the left is effectively getting their abolish the police through this or defund them at the very least. Well, abolish the police was never really about abolishing the police. It was about a loyalty test. It's making sure that the police that are going to enforce their edicts and their decrees are going to stay there. And the people who are going to question it are, of course, going to be kicked out. And to me, John Oliver just kind of confirmed how much of a loyalty test these vaX mandates are, because a lot of the people who are compliant, a lot of the

people who are saying, yes, I'll just do whatever you tell me, are the people who have taken the VAX. Some of the people who can't take the VAX or don't want to take the VAX are more people who are not in line with the state, who question the state, who still are waiting for a lot of the data to come in, are people who are usually skeptical of centralized authorities. So this, to me, is going to shift things in a major dramatic way, as, of course, there's estimates that major cities could lose one-third of their police forces because of these mandates. Now, when you have such a huge loss with crime already going up dramatically in cities, this is a recipe for a disaster and, to me, only propagates a situation where, of course, you're going to have politically divided people more and more in certain areas that may or may not go against each other.

But we also have the news that in Florida, the governor there, Ron DeSantis, is offering police officers $5,000 in a signing bonus if they refuse to take the vaccine and relocate to Florida and decide to send these police officers there. Indiana as well? $5,000? I don't know the number, but there's a push. There's an Indiana police department that said that they're going to welcome all the Chicago police officers, whichever police officers do not want to take the vaccine. There's also a Chicago Police Union president that has been

censored. He can't speak about the vaccine and what's going on right now. But before he was censored by a court, he was making some pretty good points about how a lot of these policies are discriminatory, how a lot of his officers can't take the vaccine, don't want to take the vaccine, have natural herd immunity. He was making some really good legitimate arguments. But this is a major issue. And this mandate really will be the true loyalty test that will separate this nation into very, very far away political spectrums that hopefully are able to stay together away from each other peacefully. There's a lot of reasons. There's a lot of reasons why I thought we should get away from the city. We were originally in the Philadelphia area on the Jersey side. And we wanted to we almost bought a from the city. We were originally in the Philadelphia area. We're on the Jersey side.

And we wanted to, we almost bought a building out there, but sale kind of fell through and it was just, you know, COVID hit. And then I thought, you know what? We need space. We need space. We need to cheat. We need cheap space. And we shouldn't be in New Jersey for a variety of reasons. And one of those was that as much as the cops we had were actually really good.

We had a small department with a handful of guys who were, they were quick. They were good people. I talked to them. You know, go into the police station and talk to them. And they were they were great, moderate individuals, not crazy Trumpers, but certainly not authoritarian. And I just kind of thought as things get crazy and they should these lockdown orders. And just north of where we lived was the atlas gym where the cops actually came and arrested arrested a guy i guess ian smith right ian smith yeah he's the guy who runs the gym and the initial

the first cops who came came there were like we're not going to enforce this have a nice day so they pulled cops from out of town and i was like if they can do that staying in this place is a really really bad idea because the cops aren't going to protect you they're going to oppress you they're going to tell you that by decree, you can't leave your home. You can't go to the store. You can't do these things, but they're not going to be there when you need them. And so I thought, you know what? I would rather be somewhere with no cops. So where we are right now, if you call the cops, they might be here in, I don't know, half an hour longer. And where I live, good luck. It's a mountain. And so like my actual house. And as

much as there's still risks there, because then everything's on you. One thing I noticed is that a lot of people have said people are actually reluctant to go up into a mountain full of right-wing nut jobs and commit crimes because everyone there is armed to the teeth. Not that anybody actually ever shoots anybody. They don't. but people knowing that cops aren't going to come they don't climb a mountain and then try to rob mountain full in the cities people got a lot of guns in the cities too though yeah but not usually the criminal class but look look look in new jersey where i was told explicitly by the police by multiple departments that if someone breaks into my house with a gun and fires at me, I have an obligation to flee my own home.

Yep. I'm like, yeah, yeah. We had someone try to break in. And I'm like, what do I do? The one cop goes, I'd answer the door of the shotgun. And so I looked it up and I talked to him. They're like, oh, but if you use it, you'll go to prison. Yeah.

What they said was it's a semi-castle doctrine state. What that means is you have an affirmative defense to shoot someone who enters your home, but you will be arrested and charged first. Then after you spend a night in jail and try and get bailed out, which you might not, you can tell the judge why you were justified in shooting the man who was trying to kill you, your friends, and your family. And so I'm like, I'm going to have to argue in court that I don't want to jump from the – we didn't have a back door.

The first floor went over a balcony because it was on a hill. And I'm like, so I've got to jump off a 20-story – you know, 20 feet up, slide down a beam on my deck, or defend myself with a – I'm getting out of this state. This is insane. West Virginia doesn't have those problems, my friend. Look, so, you know, that's good. West Virginia

and West Virginia has a lot of problems, but it does not have a crime problem. Right. It has a drug problem. It's a remarkable fact, by the way. It's not a drug problem. It's a big pharma problem that made it a drug problem. Huh? It's a drug problem. Yeah, it's a drug problem that was exacerbated by big pharma.

Yes, I agree. We can debate this later It's a drug problem that was exacerbated by Big Pharma. No. Yes, I agree. Okay. We can debate this later on the after show, but we could agree to disagree. Sure. Western does – but look, most crime in America – not all crime. Most crime in America – increasingly most crime in America is concentrated in cities. That's because 80 percent of people live in metropolitan areas. You don't get a lot of crime in rural West Virginia because nobody lives in rural West Virginia.

Nobody's come out and tried to shoot you. But I think we have a situation with the conversation in terms of like, we saw the largest single year percentage-wise in absolute terms increase in homicide on record last year. Aggravated results rose 11%. Grand theft auto rose 11% nationwide. It was much worse in individual cities.

There are cities in America, Baltimore, Chicago, where the homicide rate, particularly the homicide rate for young black men exceeds 100 per 100,000. The nationwide figure is like six. That's an enormously high rate. So crime is a real and increasing problem in the United States. By comparison to the rest of the world, crime is an intolerable problem in the United States. 20,000, 15,000, 20,000 people die a year of homicide. Compare that rate to any other developed nation.

It's inconceivable. That's thing one. Thing two is that we know – You've got a culture problem. Well, we have a whole host of problems. But the root causes don't matter. What matters is what solves the problem. And the answer is we've got a lot of really high-quality evidence that police are an effective tool for reducing crime, that if you put cops in an area, crime declines in that area, that if you increase police forces, crime goes down.

We're not talking about just like minor crimes. We're talking about homicide. But let's think about those budgets for a second. I mean I've been to some countries where they have very – they don't have armed cops like South America has the Garda. They've got a lot of crime for sure in a lot of areas. But you know what? Maybe it's – you look at Scandinavia and they're an example of how countries are just very different. The left likes to use them as an example of how proper policing can be done.

But then you're like, but they're small and they're different. In the United States, we do have a lot of cops. We do have massive police budgets. We actually – so first of all, we don't have massive police budgets. We spend about 3 percent of all dollars go to cops. It's 100 – excuse me, of all government spending across local, state, and federal. It's like – What's a comparable country with –

But so the second point is – we don't spend a huge amount of money on cops. The second point is like compared to OECD countries, cops per capita, we're like in the middle like we don't actually we've way more prisoners capacity per capita our prison capacity is enormous uh our cops are like middling um we absolutely there's there's uh there's high quality estimates this guy named aaron chalfin at um uh penn and another fellow whose name is escaping me who do estimates of the returns to policing and their argument is that american cities are systematically under policed uh for the simple reason that like the amount of money that we spend versus the amount that we could save uh in real value if fewer people murdered if there are fewer if there are fewer thefts

if there are fewer assaults uh the the benefit the benefits that we leave on the table dramatically outweigh the amount of money that we're spending now. Well, there's also another aspect to entertain here, and that's a lot of the blue flu going around, a lot of police officers refusing to do their job. There's also the fact that the NYPD has almost the same amount of members as many militaries around the world, almost comparable to some of the top militaries out there. They have a whole NYPD intelligence unit that literally has spies all over the world.

I would say that them spending $5 billion is a lot of money for policing that many times they decide not to do and participate or even enforce. The NYPD, okay, A, militaries and police forces are apples to oranges. The number of things police forces have to do are much larger than the number of things police forces have to do. B, New York City is a dramatic success story in terms of public safety.

If you look at violent crimes decline since the 1990s, it's fallen dramatically across the United States, across major cities, homicide, crimes of violence, et cetera. The decrease in New York City is 50 percent larger than other cities. Frank Zimmering, who's a criminologist at UC Berkeley, looks at all the relevant factors. His book on this is called The City That Became Safe. And his argument is that the root explanation is basically like there was a transition to more policing and more and better policing in New York City in the 90s. Like the NYPD, there are certainly – it is an enormous department. They spend a lot of time and a lot of money on a lot of different things. But it's hard to argue with the results in terms of crime reduction.

New York City in homicide rate terms, for example, looks so much better than comparable cities in the United States. It's insane. How do you compare what happened within the last few months and last year when crime and violence has gone up so dramatically? How do you explain it? I mean, I'm just asking you legitimately, not trying to counter you. Sure. I mean, so the last year's trends are,

I think, alarming and it's unclear. And there's a live debate about what caused the increase. Is it COVID? Is it lockdowns? I think that there's some argument there, but I find it ultimately uncompelling for reasons I can enumerate. I do think ultimately if you look at the timing of when the increases happen, if you look at where they happen, it comes down to a concerted national effort to delegitimize policing and to delegitimize the police. If you agree with the claim that cops produce crime, that cop presence

produces crime, and then you start punishing cops for showing up, you start saying it's not cool to be a cop, it's we hate the cops, we want to defund the police, cops are racist pigs who want to murder us, you're going to lose policing capacity. When you lose policing capacity, crime is going to go up. And this is what we saw happen dramatically last year.

I'm not sure that explains – let me just – I think there's so many variables that we could add on to this. There's also mass decarceration. We are by best estimates at like a tenth of the jail population that we were in February of 2020. And that's going to have an impact at the margins. But like I did some data analysis today. I looked at 911 calls in Seattle because there's a paper arguing looking at 911 calls

as evidence that cops lost legitimacy after George Floyd's death. 911 calls went down. And one of the arguments that I make in response to this paper is data that looks at calls for service by cops usually looks at both calls by civilians, like you pick up the phone and call 911, you're like, hey, there's a crime, but also

calls by cops to the center that manages dispatch. It's hard to disaggregate this data. The people writing this paper didn't disaggregate this data. It's assumed it was all civilians. If you look in Seattle, which is where you're able to get really good numbers, you look at calls from cops and you look at calls from civilians. After the week after George Floyd's death, calls from civilians are flat. They remain the same. Calls from cops collapsed 80%, 70%. Wow.

And have persisted consistently. That's a measure of police activity, police proactivity. You can look at employment in big cities. You can look at the NYPD. You can look at Minneapolis PD, collapsed. You can look at the NYPD. You can look at Minneapolis PD, collapsed. You can look at stops and arrests, collapsed. By – across metrics in large – not across the country, but in large cities, there's good reason to believe that cops are doing less and less practice. And you can argue that that's bad.

I think it's not great. I would prefer that cops, like, selflessly kept going out and doing their jobs no matter the incentives. But you should also be willing to say, like, actually, the incentives are pretty bad right now. To actually be a cop and do the cop's work. And in some elements, I definitely agree with you. And I think you did bring up some important points. What do you think about the George Soros appointed district attorneys, do you think that they play a role in allowing a lot of criminals to be let off for a lot of the violent crimes, for a lot of the, some people say petty crimes, but I think there might be a correlation with a lot of people being sent

off while they're committing hard crimes. Meanwhile, political crime, I would argue, is being prosecuted very heavy-handedly, especially if you believe in the wrong kind of political ideology. Yeah, I mean... Well, let me... I want to jump to a story here, actually this is a really really crazy tweet i saw from mike cernovich yeah cernovich says judge amy jackson released a j6 defendant from pre-trial custody after he disavowed trump in a letter and his lawyer suggested a political conversion i've

never seen anything like this ever so here's a guy who's been in jail now for, what is it, going on nine months. And there's been horrifying conditions. There's a guy whose hand was broken. They didn't give him medical treatment. A judge held the, it was the warden and the director and the director of the Department of Corrections, I guess, got held in contempt. And now they've seen the writing on the wall. Disavow the politics you previously supported and they'll let you go.

You'll call this re-education. Right. This is the state of our current political and law enforcement environment. If that's the case, I think we are – are we already beyond that red line past the rule of thumb? Yeah, yeah. September 11th in the Patriot Act was the red line. When they signed the Patriot Act, they crossed the red line. There's a lot of stuff that happened throughout history, though.

That's true. I think that was a major turning point. But there were other things that you could take across on the Gulf of Tonkin across the line. They can arrest anyone at any time with the Patriot Act. Then there was the NDAA. And detain you indefinitely for no reason. What? That's insane.

Well, there you go. I guess they're doing it. Well, I would just kind of go back to the point. What do you think about the kind of prosecution of political crimes while George Soros' appointed AGs usually let a lot of criminals off? Yeah, I mean, you know, I think the progressive prosecuting movement, you know, it's harder to track what's going on. One of the reasons you're able to criticize – people are able to criticize cops so effectively

is because big city police departments release a lot of information. DA's offices are not actually that transparent. Some of these progressive offices are getting a little more transparent, which is nice because you can see where they're not prosecuting Larry Krasner and not pursuing gun crimes in Philadelphia, for example. It's hard to figure out what the impact has been in the short run, but I suspect in the long run, like, petty crime will flourish. If you look at a city like San Francisco, what has happened with shoplifting there is

clearly in part a byproduct of the state's decision to say that theft under $950 will no longer be treated as felonious theft. It's partially a product of decisions by DAs like Chesa Boudin to say these offenses are not a serious issue, these minor offenses. And this goes back to the point that I was making earlier. It's like if behavior is perceived as socially deviant in certain ways, then it's considered acceptable and not deserving of punishment. If behavior is perceived as – I don't have a strong opinion about this particular case, I don't know all the details, but I think it is certainly true that people can be prosecuted if not by the law, then certainly by public opinion

for opinions which are not deemed acceptable by the mainstream media, by public commentators in a way that they are not for doing things like petty shoplifting across, running a shoplifting ring across San Francisco. I think a lot of cops are also disenfranchised.

I think there's a lot more of the blue flu going around than we even know about. I think that's one of the reasons. But also it's kind of understandable because a lot of these cops are like, okay, I booked this guy. I risked my life to put him in jail, and then he's just let out the next day. What the hell is going on here? Why should I even risk my safety to do this again when everyone also hates me so i think there's an element of this that that should be talked about and considered when you talk about something like bail reform um and you know they're they're better you know i think i think this is strong

argument the cash bail is not a great idea that you you shouldn't be let in or out of jail because of your ability to pay as opposed to your risk to society, which is something you can do. But you look at New York State's original bail law, which rather than assessing risk, just sort of released people, create a strong presumption of release for many classes of offenders. And the effect was you were seeing guys get picked up and arrested 20 times and they were out the very next day. And it's like, what is the, you're right, what is the point of running a criminal justice system? next day and it's like what is the you're right what is the point of running a criminal justice system uh and my my colleague refo mangual at the manhattan institute likes to say criminals don't

specialize the guy who is getting picked up for like uh jumping a turn style or public indecency he's the same guy who thinks it's cool to jack a car, and that's the same – there's a terrible case in San Francisco. A guy was out on bail, thanks to Chester Boudin, stole a car, should have been in prison, should have been in jail, and ran over and killed two pedestrians, an old lady and her daughter – no, her niece. It's a horrible case, and what happens is that criminals don't specialize. The guy who gets stuck in jail for one thing gets let out. He is often the guy who goes on to commit a more serious offense. Either there are powerful elites that know they're burning the country to the ground, and they like the fact that many of these leftists and establishment Democrat types are too stupid to realize what's going on, or they're all really stupid and just marching in lockstep because that's smart enough to realize they're burning

the place to the ground you look at the policies in these cities with these soros da's and they're like i'm gonna release this violent offender and then he kills somebody and it's like well who could have seen that coming i kind of agree with you charles that there are like two types of people one that respects the law and one that doesn't respect the law. But then I see people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who they made specific crimes that you've got to wonder, is that law just that they'd violated? Like, was Hitler's restoration of the professional civil service of April 7, 1933, which excluded Jews from civil service, was that a just law?

I mean, no. No, it wasn't. I like Jews being in the civil service was that a just law i mean no no it wasn't i like i like the criminals that violated that law weren't the kind of criminals that would mug someone yes that is sure and and and even even uh not nazi germany can create we can create unjust laws we live in unjust laws now i think so uh but like part of the principle of living in a republic is that we don't get to flout laws that we don't like, right? Like, we live under, we have some agreement.

I think it is, like, it's not necessarily that everybody's malicious, it's not necessarily that everybody's stupid, it's like, I think about the mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkin, I forget her last name, who looked at the Chaz chop zone and was like, this is the summer of love. Like, these people live...

You know know the people who are getting shot and murdered in new york and chicago and baltimore are not the people who are running the city uh 90 plus percent of homicide victims in new york city every year are black or hispanic they're not the people who are running you know eric adams is a black dude he lives in new jersey but he is a black dude um but generally he he's not coming from the context of people who are getting shot. So I think a lot of it comes down to sort of abstraction into political ideology. It's like I believe that these people are at the center of systems of oppression. So I just need to sort of liberate them.

It's like, nah, these people get shot every day. I don't think it's that loving and caring. These people don't live with them. They're not in the same communities. And I agree with that particular point. But to think that a lot of these people making these policies are not seeing the effects of them, I think is not a realistic point. I think they know exactly what they're doing. I think it's leading to a system that they want, a situation that they want that has people fighting each other, arguing with each other. It has people unhappy, has people

unhealthy, has people being victims of crime more than ever. And I think that benefits a system that thrives off of that. And I think I would argue that rather than, I know what's right. I'm going to help these people. They pretend to say that, but at the end of the day, they know that they're not doing that. I don't like that a small group of representatives are in charge of making the laws anymore. It doesn't seem right with 350 million of us that have access to the internet and doing this together that we've given up the power to like 600 people. It doesn't make any sense because you see these bastardized laws

that they're creating and enforcing. And like the NDAA, they can just grab someone out of their house and stick them in Guantanamo for as long as they want. That's not justice. When they took a – what was it? A Red Ryder little wagon with 5,000 pages for the Omnibus Bill, and they're like carting it into the Congress, and they're like, nobody read it. Nobody's going to read it. Let's make it a law.

That's a functional system right there, huh? No, it's not. Thank you. Good point, Ian. I appreciate that. But I think there's a bigger conversation to be had here because when we look at the statistics, especially within the last few months, the people are getting screwed over here. People are getting hurt more than ever. People are being victims of crime more than ever.

People are becoming more unhealthy, more unhappy. They're getting robbed economically every step of the way here. And a lot of this comes from a lot of these politicians saying i'm gonna help you they're not helping you they know they're not helping you because look who's benefiting off of this a lot of multinational corporate elites a lot of billionaires who are making raking in record profits while everyone else is having a harder time making it by to be be fair, I mean, you can just follow Nancy Pelosi and buy what she – buy the stocks that she buys. Yes. Right?

And come on. When all this went down, it should have been obvious to everybody that you could just buy the stock for Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Amazon. Walmart's private though. Walmart's not publicly traded. I think it's private. You could have bought Amazon stock. That went through the roof. So, of course, it was benefiting the billionaires, but it was also benefiting the millionaires.

Yes. See? So if you were a millionaire, you were doing all right. Oh, you guys are talking about working class people. Oh, yeah. The working class people were screwed completely. You know, I think sort of my response to that point is – so, like, this is not the worst violent crime has been in the United States right there's a for viewers under the

age of 30 who do not remember I'm under the age of 30 but like for viewers who don't remember the 80s and 90s violent homicide rates were substantially higher violent crime rates you couldn't walk through Times Square in New York City because it was like a den of prostitution sin and iniquity

well hold on. Do you know why homicide rates were substantially higher before 2007? Why? Cell phones. Lack of cell phones. So one thing that needs to be considered when it comes to tracking the homicide rate is that once cell phones became ubiquitous, violent crime that resulted in death became violent crime that didn't result in death because people could call 9-1-1 immediately whereas before this they would rush

to find a phone and so what ends up happening is there's an illusion that there's a major drop-off in violent crime when there isn't there's it's the same there's a similar level of crime it is going down yeah so the violent crime rate decl declined substantially by 1994 the homicide rate falls from at 1989 um and actually there's a leveling off around the great recession in the in the violent crime rate although not in the house but that that actually meant that that violent crime was skyrocketing right or so i'll put it this way homicides changed because of cell phones into attempted murders and so you had less people dying that substantially changed the nature of how crimes were being reported so when you look at the great recession it's like oh it's flat actually people are surviving the violent attacks i mean you would

you would you would expect an increase in the aggregate in the aggravated assault of violent crime rate then which doesn't happen i mean i i i believe that improvements in trauma medicine and uh so so there's a great um you look at uh what's his name uh steven pinker that it could be that people weren't reporting the crimes yeah well there's a corpse on the ground it gets reported yeah so so i mean i homicide is sort of the historically most reliable indicator right because it's a corpse on the ground um but like we can plausibly compare the 1990s to the early 2000s you say the violent crime is substantially lower. You can quibble about, like, what the direction of that is with the magnitude of the change, but it's, like, it's definitely down.

The point that I wanted to make is that, like, violent crime rose in the 60s and should convert that the criminal justice system to be primarily rehabilitative that cops were violent and dangerous and racist and that they needed to be like him frankly they were more violent dangerous and racist than they are now like cops were way worse 50 years ago than they are today 60 years ago than they are today um that uh that what we really needed was like a more therapeutic state that like looked after everybody. And these ideas like had enormous currency in the 60s and 70s. And there was a retraction of criminal justice capacity. There was a retraction of policing and incarceration capacity.

And the result was predictable. Like these ideas go in and out of fashion. They come in and out of style. And I think that they're coming back now. Well, so I want to ask you, before the show, were saying that you think the republicans are going to win they're going to they're going to do you think the republicans are going to win in 2022 yeah i mean i think all i think all the fundamentals are there right like uh joe biden's joe biden's approval is underwater uh uh democratic president takes office the gop usually wins in the usually gains seats in the following election.

GOP could totally blow it. But I think if they play their cards right, then Kevin McCarthy is speaker. I think that's likely. It's a narrow margin in the House as is. And what do you think the first thing they'll do is? Oh, this is what I said. I'm not sure it's the first thing they'll do. No, no, no. That's why I'm asking specifically.

Do you think – OK, I'll just get into it. You said they're going to impeach Biden. Oh, yeah. I want that to happen. But do you think it'll be the first thing they do like you think they'll be like we're doing it we're impeaching this guy uh no it'll be something like it it'll be a messaging bill right it's like when the democrats retook the house the first thing they did was pass hr1 the voting rights act which is part of the broader messaging schema of republicans hate democracy we're the pro-democracy party. Vote for us.

I don't know what the GOP's day one bill is, like probably something on inflation or controlling inflation or the economy. I do think that the precedent has been set that impeachment is a political tool, especially when you are in control of the House but not the Senate. So it doesn't matter. I think they're totally going to impeach Joe Biden because that's what you're just going to do now. But do you think they have a good case for impeaching him or do you think it's just going to be like, eh, we'll figure it out?

I think they'll figure it out. I think it's going to be Ukraine. I think it's going to be the laptop, the emails, the photos of Joe Biden, the emails where he's sharing his bank account with his son and collecting money and then they're spending money on each other's behalf? There's no specificity in the Constitution of what high crimes and misdemeanors actually means. It's whatever Congress says and it's underviewable by the Supreme Court or any other court. It's purely a political decision. So they'll find something because it'll be a great way to put Joe Biden on trial in the public eye, and that will line up 2024.

Do you think he should be impeached? No. No? No. Really? You don't think, like, all the stuff he did with Ukraine and Rosemont Seneca and all that stuff that's now basically confirmed?

His Hunter Biden-connected bank account that they were doing absolutely illicit and illegal things with? I don't have strong opinions about the details there. I do. Okay. And I think there's a big argument to make here about pure criminal inaction. Well, I'm sure the House Public Caucus will be happy to call you in as an expert witness on the impeachment hearings.

No, no, no, no. I don't trust the Republicans as far as I could see them or throw them. And I don't think they're even going to go with impeachment. I think they're going to be talking about this, but I don't think they have that much of a backbone and spine to even do that or even to match the Democrats on many of their aggressive motions, to be honest with you. You think the base doesn't want it?

I think the base wants a lot of things and I think Republicans are there to placate them, pat them on the back saying, yes, in just a little bit, just a little bit more. We'll just give you anything you want. Just vote for us. And they're bad. But I think that's the game that they're playing here.

That's my own personal opinion. And I might be wrong. The great thing about controlling the House of Representatives is that you're totally powerless, right? As I was saying before, every time the democrats who take the house they're like oh we're gonna pass medicare for all we're gonna we're gonna do it in the house like this is and if you vote for us you're gonna get better and then you know they they win and they go uh maybe not on the medicare for all thing maybe we're not gonna do that because they know it's politically popular and they can make an empty promise and the same thing is true uh the

here's my bet day one bill there's there's going to be a federal law banning CRT in schools. It's not going to be clear what that means, but they sure are going to ban it. And that's going to be – they're going to prohibit federal funding for local schools. If they get the Senate, then it will move to the Senate, but then Biden will veto it. Well, it won't clear the filibuster, so it won't matter. Right. Yeah. Like you can do these messaging bills.

You can do these – and impeachment – and this goes back to the point. Like impeachment is just part of the political process now. It's just like a thing that you do to show that the other team is bad. I'm not even convinced Republicans are going to win, right? So we were talking about this before we started the show. 538 and a bunch of other outlets say that historically the opposing party should win. And there's data to suggest it may happen. But there have been so many rule changes with like universal mail-in voting, which massively advantages Democrats for one simple reason.

Most of you probably heard me say it, but it's this simple. When it comes to ground activism, knocking on doors, Democrats can hit a thousand families in one apartment complex, whereas Republicans got to drive. That means that Democrats can clear way more ground doing advocacy than a Republican ever could. That's going to be massive for them. Oh, that's your ballot right there. Fill it out, put in your mailbox, you're done. Republicans knock on doors, they can hit a tenth of the houses. Republicans have completely ignored this. Those that have been paying attention to the election

have mostly been concerned about the audits, which have been long drawn out. And some interesting information comes out that ultimately no one moves on and nothing happens. Meanwhile, we can actively see the rules they're trying to change. H.R. one, like you mentioned, and that like the Time magazine article, the shadow campaign to save the election. They we know exactly what they're doing to advantage themselves, and Republicans don't care. So maybe they should win, but maybe they won't. Here's the dirty little secret about most voting, about most changes to the electoral structure. They don't have a huge impact. My favorite example of this is voter ID, right? Like, voter ID is this, like, great racist plot to destroy the democratic electorate and if if the republicans

get to pass voter id uh then then it will be the end of democracy as we know it except that actual studies of voter id laws that have been implemented it has no impact on turnout like the the results are exactly the same and this is true avr has an automatic voter registration motor voter has an impact um i don't nobody knows what mail-in is going to do because it's just like so weird um compared to like sasquatch like people voting from home is just so different after covid um but i think in general if you're too lazy to vote you don't vote if you're not if you're motivated to vote you like go stand in the line and except people universe and mail-in voting universal mail-in voting someone can knock knock on your door and you get up and your eyes are half closed and they go hi i'm with such

and such campaign did you vote yet and they go no like well there's your ballot right there why don't you fill it out and they're gonna go i guess or how about the mom walks in and goes kids did you vote yet and they're like no mom i don't care just fill out your vote so we're not getting ice cream and they go fine whatever what am i voting for just vote democrat okay they fill it. It's the ground game I think is most important because I've seen these organizations. I actually did. I volunteered to register people to vote at a concert for Death Cab for Cutie back in, this was like the Obama period. And so guess what?

Every person there was voting Democrat. So you've got people like Scott Pressler. He's registering Republicans. He's very effective. And boy, do they go after him. But the Democrats can easily do voter registration. And when you've got your mail-in ballots sitting right there on your table and you knock on the door, look, it may not be the lazy people who they're going to get, but there could be negligent people who go, you know, I was gonna, well, why don't you just fill it out right now? Okay, sure, I guess. And then just put in your mailbox, mailman will come take it.'s gonna massively increase turnout i mean the

interesting question to me is is a well so a we didn't see a huge increase in turnout in 2020 so i it could change in 2022 although like like who votes in the who votes in the off-site election the interesting question to me is like the historical norm is that if if turnout is high democrats win turnout's low republicans win for the simple reason that like the historical norm is that if turnout is high, Democrats win. Turnout is low, Republicans win for the simple reason that the Republican base is smaller, but it has a higher propensity to vote. It's like old people have nothing better to do than vote. The Democratic base is larger, but they're lower propensity to vote. It's like young people who are out partying in a Death Cab for Cutie concert rather than voting. But I think that that is shifting as the electorate polarizes along educated lines.

We at the Manhattan Institute just put out a paper that I think is really interesting talking about on-cycling or off-cycling elections, which is like, so like Virginia, the big race that's coming up next week, Virginia holds its elections off-cycle, which is like in 2021 20 in odd numbered years and that massively depresses turnout or like school board elections are usually held in 18

states they're mandatorily off cycle local elections happen in the opposite years and you get these turnouts um larry krasner who's the progressive prosecutor who just won the democratic primary in philadelphia he was like this was like seen as a major victory for the progressive prosecutor 18 percent of eligible democrats voted in the philadelphia da primary uh in i think march uh 10 of them voted 10 points voted for krasner eight percent voted for carlos vegas a krasner one it's like that's not a referendum um so you know we're talking about when you when you answer when you bring elections on cycle you you dramatically change the electorate. And I'm interested in if you boost voter turnout, does that now with the changing party composition actually start to, if not benefit Republicans, then shift the balance in interesting ways? I think that's a real possibility with the Republican Party capturing lower education voters, the Republican Party capturing otherwise disenfranchised

voters. If you make it easier for those people to vote, how does that shake things up? I think it's unclear. Virginia is going to be a huge sign of things to come. We'll see. Neck and neck in Virginia. But Virginia's gone full blue. It's really funny. The area we're in, it's a tri-state. It's Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia.

And boy, do people talk very poorly about Virginia around here. Maryland is already bad, but these counties up here are very red. Where we are right now, we're in one of the counties that just filed that letter saying we want to join West Virginia. You go over the river to Virginia and you're in Loudoun County, where you know all about Loudoun. Oh, yeah. And then, so it's a very conflicted area. You cross the river into West Virginia and it's red. I don't know if Loudoun is red or blue, but it's conflicted.

And considering the state itself is super majority now, or it's not, I don't know if it's super majority, but majority Democrat, it's very, very interesting to see the sentiment of these people in these areas. One of the interesting things about West Virginia is that CRT is getting to those schools as well. It's because these activists are going and infiltrating rural areas on purpose.

I guess it'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the next few years when it comes to elections. But I think Virginia's election is going to be, I don't know, kind of a – what's the right word? It's a bellwether, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and it's really interesting how the two candidates are playing it, right? Like, McAuliffe is betting on Virginia as a blue state, and it's the kind of blue state that's motivated to turn out because they hate Donald Trump, right?

His agenda is Glenn Youngkin is Donald Trump in the flesh. He's just the local, like, you think, you know, I'm Terry McAuliffe, he's a career politician. He's been governor of Virginia before. He can't keep straight any of a number of things, including how many people in the state of COVID at any given time. But that's his bet. I think Glenn Youngkin's bet is he's light on the policy details. He thinks people are mad about these red meat issues.

He thinks people are mad about CRT and that that will get enough turnout in the non-NOVA counties to push it over. And is it going to happen for him? I don't know. I think you're right that everyone wants it to be a bellwether. I'm not sure. I think if Glenn Youngkin loses, I still think Republicans are going to take the House. It doesn't cause me to revise

that. I think if Glenn Youngkin wins, Republicans are totally going to retake the House by a big march. It's going to be interesting. I mean, this is a big election, and I think you're right, Tim. I mean, there's a reason Barack Obama is getting involved here, even making comments about what happened in Loudoun County, which we can't even talk about here on YouTube because of the adult nature of what happened in that school. But Barack Obama said, you know, it's just parents overreacting. And clearly a court ruled and saw things a totally different way.

The facts speak of a totally different story. And I think that story that we can't even talk about, I think there's another reason why we can't talk about it. I think it might be even politically motivated, is shocking a lot of people in Virginia and is motivating them to vote against the current establishment, against people like Barack Obama that are just conflating it with, oh, it's just parents being crazy.

Well, we'll talk about that in the member segment, because this is a particularly graphic story. And if you want to get the full details out, it's not something you want your kids to hear. And it's also something that YouTube probably wouldn't be happy with, because it involves a lot of sensitive, it involves a lot of really disgusting issues. I'll put it that way. But I do want to talk about something while we're still live on this show. And it's a hard segue, but this is really important.

From TimCast.com, Rumble acquires Locals in a bid to expand creator economy. The company wants to foster high-quality content by giving creators control of their content and data. Very interesting move. For those that don't know. Rumble is a very popular video player. It's alternative to YouTube, essentially. It's got a lot of independent and conservative voices on it. And it's considered kind of like an alternative to YouTube. There've been many. Rumble seems to be doing really well and seems to have large coffers, as it were. And Locals is basically Dave Rubin's answer to Patreon. So now Rumble has

acquired locals. I don't know what this will mean for the people of locals who have their accounts there, but wow, this is a fast move. We have a quote, actually. Quote, we felt there was an opportunity to fairly serve everyone by providing the same tools large creators have without preferencing, Rumble told Timcast via email, based on the premise that small creators like friends and family were no longer being prioritized on platforms like YouTube. Privately owned Rumble launched in 2013. The company's creators felt large platforms focus on multi-channel networks, large corporations, and brands. Unlike other platforms, creators using localsals own not only their own content

but also the community data. The data can be analyzed to better understand and engage the creator audience with more insight into who they are reaching. Creators can expand their work and continue to generate revenue

without outside influence. Instead, they'll use a subscription model Locals has built. This is particularly interesting. Ian, what do you think about this? I think the consolidation of corporate power is often done with good intentions. Dave Rubin sold you out. He got a bunch of big, big popular people in there by using his personal

brand and his trust, and then he sold you out. I don't know. They haven't released how much money he got paid to sell you out, but he is a... What do you mean by sell them? I mean that he just got paid a lot of money and got an offer he couldn't refuse to give now control of... All these people trusted Dave. They trusted you. Right.

And now they have no choice but to be owned. Their data is now owned by Rumble. This is what... Google bought YouTube. I remember that happening in 2008. Well, so they say specifically that you own your community data. That's what they say. I don't know anything about this deal to be honest.

I think the bigger issue I have with – look, I tweeted out congrats to them for pulling it off. I think it's fantastic. I think there's some critiques we can have. I think it's good that the independent tech environment is growing larger and more powerful. And ultimately, this will be good because there needs to be market competition against YouTube and Patreon and Silicon Valley. This is what we're seeing. However, that being said, I don't like any of how the system is operating. And it's not anything personal with Rumble. We use Rumble. I think Locals is fantastic. But the whole time the Patreon fiasco happened, this is basically, you know, Patreon bans Carl Benjamin. They banned Lauren Southern first and they banned Carl Benjamin. They basically nuked people's income

without warning or notice. Overnight, one day, you know, Carl wakes up, his account's deleted. All his money is gone so what ends up happening is we see alternatives emerge saying we're going to create centralized subscription models just like patreon but with our own unique version of it and it's the exact same problem that's why i'm not a fan of it michael malice dave sold you out dude i hope that you got paid for this too, Mike. I hope that all the people on Locals got a percentage of this buyout because it's your data that was sold. Oh, Ian, you're getting pissed.

This is why we're building decentralized technology where you can own your own data and host your own stuff. I agree. I mean, I've always been skeptical even of the alternatives because there have been alternative social media platforms that came and went, sold their viewers, deleted their content, and then just rebranded and started new again. I'm like, wait, wait, hold on. What about my old content that I uploaded there? Like, oh, it's gone.

I'm like, you know, there's a lot of, you know, pump and dump cryptocurrencies also out there. There's a lot of bad things. That's why I always prioritized building my own platform, my own email list. That's why I have lukeuncensored.com. You have timcast.com. And I think this is the way that it's going to go, decentralized. And I think if you ever put your hope in a centralized system or

somebody else to take care of something for you, I think there's a bigger chance you're always going to be let down. I want to put Substack out of business. I want to put Locals out of business. I want to put Patreon out of business. I want to put all of these subscription services out of business. Now, that is just me being kind of hyperbolic, but the point I'm making is, you know, for one, Ian's spearheading with many other people the OnFoundations work, which is creating decentralized open source versions of these

tools, which means it's not just that you'll own your data. You'll own the domain. You'll own the server space. It'll be yours and you can set it up or you can join like a node where someone's got centralized server space and then you can piggyback on it. The issue I have here is that the solution to the problems we faced, even by someone like Dave Rubin, has been to recreate the same system, which creates the same vulnerabilities and the same problems. Now, I don't know if I would go as far as you to say that they were sold out, because I don't know how this negatively impacts someone like Michael Malice. Yeah, me too. I am open to following this. I'm really going to in the next coming weeks,

because I want to know all the terms of the contract that are going to be as much as possibly publicly available, because maybe the people are going to make out like bandits on this as well as Dave. But Dave, I had a lot of faith in you, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were going to hold on to locals for the next 20 or 30 years and really do this, at least try and do it right. This is devastating to me. So one thing I think you can consider is – and look, look, I know Dave.

I know the guys at Rumble. One thing you should consider is that when you sign up for a service like Patreon, Subscribestar, or Locals, you're locked in, whether intentionally or not. It's not so much that they own the data and they can claim you own the data. It's that if you build up, say, 3,000 paying subscribers on someone else's platform, and they're getting a cut of that, you can't leave. They own you forever. Now you can beg your subscribers and your followers, guys, I'm going to be moving to a new platform. Please subscribe there. But I saw this. I saw what happened with Patreon. When Patreon nuked Carl Benjamin

and a bunch of his fans started quitting and canceling subscriptions, it hit everybody. So I went from having, I think we had a few thousand people donating. And then when everyone's like, sorry, Tim, I can't support Patreon. I said, I set up subscribe star, an alternate platform. You can, you can support me there. And the attrition was massive. People did not move over. So when I saw that, I said, centralizing people's subscriber base onto someone else's platform will always be negative towards these individuals. And what we need is a decentralized, easy to install package that someone can make their own version. At TimCast.com, the first thing we did was we hired a guy to make a very simple website, cost us a decent amount of money.

And then we started posting members only content as if it was any other, you know, private subscription service, the amount of money that we would have spent if we went with any of these platforms, be it Patreon, locals, subscribes or otherwise, it was 70% higher. I'll put it that way. When I, when I saw how much they charge people to use their platforms i was just like they are extracting value from people like locals they're taking what like eight to twenty percent of your monthly income they take some percent of your monthly income and now that's going to rumble and if the value of that them taking a large percent of the income is that

the network effect of locals so if you leave locals you lose that network effect one of the income is that the network effect of locals. So if you leave locals, you lose that network effect. One of the things I think could be considered as well is that Rumble recently hired a bunch of video creators and personalities to make content for them. I wonder who they're going to sell their company to. With the acquisition of locals, theoretically, the integration would undercut any of their creators for making similar deals. Now Google can buy Rumble. And now you're going to make out like a bandit, Chris Pavlovsky.

Good job. I know, Chris. I don't think this is ultimately a bad thing. I just don't like the idea of centralizing people's incomes or anything like that. Corporate consolidation is not inherently bad. It's just super dangerous for liberty. We use Rumble. I think Rumble's great.

It's fast. It's cheap. It's effective. There's no censorship. My bigger concern is people's income being centralized and then sold around. Right? So here's what you got to understand. And again, with all due respect to today, I think I said congratulations because I think

he did great work and alternative media growing bigger and more powerful is a good thing. My answer is more like my view of this is you don't want to work for somebody and it's already bad enough. There's YouTube rules, there's Twitter rules, whatever, making your own space where you can control it is good. But if the idea of locals was that you would control your own community, but that, but that Dave could then sell your community to somebody else completely undercuts what I guess the, the, the, the story was supposed to be. I don't want someone to be like, Hey, I'm running a service. If you use it, I guarantee you X. And then I'll say, Oh, okay, great. Like you said, Oh, Dave's going to own

this forever. I trust him. And then he sells it. And now you don't know who you're answering to. Now you don't know what terms will change and they could. I don't like the idea that your income, your subscribers, your fans can be sold to someone else. That to me is crazy. I'm still waiting for all the details to come out of this, and they should be coming out. If they don't, that's when people should be worried. But let's see exactly what the deal was. Let's see what the contracts are going to be. Let's see how they're going to change.

Let's see the terms. It's going to be interesting to see how this went down. I think it's a good thing. Look, I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I think being critical is fair because I've been critical of the centralized subscription services

from the beginning regardless of who owns it. In a lot of ways, Google buying YouTube was fantastic for creators because they were able to subsidize and create the partner program and start paying people.

YouTube wasn't able to do that when it was Chad Hurley, but the downside then is Google's corporate censorship model took over. The fear would be if Rumble sold, which I don't think it will, though. Well, no one ever thinks it's going to happen. That's true. But it's totally legally allowed to. I did not think locals would sell.

I did not. Yeah, to anybody. And then they do. But I'm not too worried about this. I think ultimately look, rumble, I think is fantastic. And I think them gaining more, uh, more power in this space to help push back against the censorship and the big tech oligarchy. It's a good thing. It's a good thing. Um, I'll just put it this way. I don't, I I've talked to people about locals and I'm like, I think it's fantastic that Dave was like Patreon sensor and sorry, it's in a bad.

So we need our own space and he made it and then other people used it. I just wish people like Michael Mouse, for instance, decided to write a check for a grand to just make his own version of it, not give away 10% of his revenue. I just don't understand this. This is what this is what drives me insane is that Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Malice, you know, who, uh, other people who are using locals and, and again, no disrespect to locals, but just in terms of these people, you go online, you say web dev, they'll say, we can make you this exact thing for a thousand bucks. We'll have it done in overnight finger snap. Now I just don't get it, but I guess people have said they want the network that it's like, you're on this platform, other people are on it.

I just wish people were more freedom-oriented, I guess, and took the responsibility upon their shoulders and protected their assets and had more control. Maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm too arrogant and I refuse to give up anything that I'm doing to anybody else for any reason. Hey, I had my subscription service for seven years you know so i believe in that idea as well decentralization is the idea that i think we should be promoting but we could promote it by giving by being examples of it rather than just following the herd and the flock i just i i just don't understand it guys i'm just gonna say one more time if most of these services have a 10% fee.

That means if you have 100 patrons and they're each giving you $10, you're getting $1,000 a month. You're giving $100 per month to that company. Now, that can make sense if you're not expecting to have a large following. But let's say you have 1,000 people giving you money. Now you have, you know, 10 bucks per person. You're getting $10,000. You're giving a thousand dollars per month to these platforms for what? For a one-time fee of a thousand bucks, a web dev can make you a simplified version of this. That's why I'm like, we need to make free and open source software that we can just give to people and they can get their domain

12 bucks they can get some server space 50 bucks spend a one-time rate if they've got you know i guess the problem is people are like how do i even get to the point where i have a thousand bucks unless i use someone else's infrastructure and i'm like save up uh save up money do what you can because then you hire a guy for $1,000. And maybe you can even get it cheaper if you've got a friend or you can learn how to do it yourself. It is plugins. It is WordPress. It is plugins.

It is simplified. You can make it. Server space is extremely expensive. There's no perfect solution, which is why one hasn't been created yet. But know that if someone else has your data, they're going to sell it. And they may not, but think like that. The amount of money that we would have given away, TimCast.com, if we went with any one of these platforms, it is substantial. We could have started six companies with the money we've saved. Easily.

That's what's crazy to me. I know the cost of bandwidth. I know the cost of bandwidth. I know the cost of development. And I look and I'm just like, how come we don't have someone going to these individuals like Michael Malice, for instance, who are a huge fan of being like, hey, Michael, here's a guy, pay him one time, he'll make the site for you and you don't have to give anyone money ever again. It's all yours. Don't give it away. I just don't understand that. I just don't get it. But you know what? Look, look, that's just me. I see something and I don't give it away. I just don't understand that. I just don't get it. But you know what? Look, look, that's just me. You know, I see something and I don't understand why people are just giving things away instead of trying to build up something that is secure and unbannable.

But hopefully, I'll put it this way before we go to Super Chats. What we're working on should put these companies out of business, all of them. I don't care their political ideology. I'm not necessarily because some people won't want to buy a server space and install a package, but we're going to make it so that instead of having to worry about the thousand bucks to hire the web dev, all that work's going to be done. And you're going to just click a link and it's going to say, drag and drop this into your, onto your, into your server file. Here's how you do it. And then boom, you have a subscription service website done. And here's all the other people using the service. And then you can you have a subscription service website done. And here's all the other

people using the service. And then you can pick who you want to see. You can whitelist and black list corporations. It's going to be great. Yeah, it's all free, free a hundred percent. And that means the only costs you will have is the credit card exchange rate, which is server costs, which can be insane. So that's, that's a big part of this is server costs. If I figured out how to mesh network servers, but it will use library or have it local. It'll always be cheaper than what you'd give to a private company that's a big part of this is server costs. Figuring out how to mesh network servers or use library or have it local. It'll always be cheaper than what you'd give to a private company that's seeking to profit off of your subscriber base. Yes. And especially as it scales up.

They do a lot of the work for you. That's what makes those companies look nice. But that's what we're doing. We're doing the work for you. But we also do have torrent-based video hosting. And there are other platforms that can do extremely low cost. I mean, interestingly, Rumble is one of them to do very low cost hosting. And so at a certain point, you don't need these services to function like this. It's like WordPress plugins, man. I'm not

even kidding how ridiculously easy it is to set up. You get a WordPress, you download subscriber plugin, double click it and you're done. We're just simplifying it, making it as easy as possible, like one click and the thing's all set to go, but it already is easy. That's just me, man. I don't know. Look, I look at the culture war. I look at some of, I look at so many of these, these personalities who are making tons of money and I'm like, why don't they have 10 more shows? The Young Turks have a network where they've got a dozen shows. They make money and they dish it out to all these people. Then they get investors and they dish it out to all these people. They build more shows. They do more. And I'm like, why aren't we doing that? Well, we're doing that quite literally with the Tales from the Inverted World, with the vlog,

with several other shows that work on a pop culture show we're working on. And then I just look at the right and the moderates and the independents, and I'm like, they don't do this. They don't. Even Peter Thiel, right? He goes after Gawker. He complains about fake news. He funds Rumble. That's fantastic. But where's his effort? Joe Rogan complains about CNN lying. Joe's massively wealthy. He could take a million bucks and be like, have at it. They just don't do it. But you know what? Whatever. Joe's massively wealthy. He could take a million bucks and be like, have at it. They just don't do it. But you know what? Whatever. We'll do it. And then we'll see where everyone else ends up. And now we'll go to super chats because, you know, rant over. But I do want to stress again, any alternative competition to Silicon Valley and their censorship

is a good thing. If at the end of the day, the battle we have is locals is not going to ban you and Rumble won't ban you. Hopefully that's enough to attract more people and displace the censorious nature. It's not because Rumble can ban you at any time. I'm sure it says that in their terms of service. They do. They have community guidelines. Trust no centralized service to maintain your life for you. That is your job. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think people saw Facebook going where Facebook went. In the early days, people probably were just like, oh, this is cool. It's just like a simple service.

And now it's like they track everything about you. They know when you poop. They're building a metaverse. They're going to lock you in. They bought Instagram. My God. All right, all right. Well, go to Superchats. If you haven't already, smash that like button, subscribe to the channel, and go to TimCast.com.

Become a member because we're going to have a members-only segment coming up at around 11 or so p.m. You don't want to miss it. And we'll talk a bit about Loudoun County and how awful all that stuff is. All right. We got Hairball. I'm not religious, but I'm praying Kyle gets a fair trial. Yes. I agree.

A fair trial. It doesn't have to be one-sided. I don't think it's what I want. I just want want to be fair, right? Sounds good. All right. Scove says, Minnesota National Guard here. Phase one of mandatory vacs has begun. Phase two will be the UCMJ portion, but it's not finalized yet. Currently, 15% have refused in my unit and will be flagged, barring them from reenlisting. They've already begun UCMJ paperwork. Wow. Wow, crazy.

All right, let's see. Fearless Soldier says, it was awesome meeting all of you at the event. Keep fighting the good fight and keep up the momentum. You guys have a lot of people that care about you. Thank you very much. All right. Evil Zombie Hamster says, Tim, you saying you've been on sets last night

reminded me of a question I've had for a while now. Did you do a small cameo in Detective Pikachu just after 30 minutes into the movie pushing Bill Nighy off screen? It really looks like you. The answer is no, I didn't. That's a weird question. That's funny.

I am, however, in two episodes of A Thousand Ways to Die. Oh. That's right. You didn't die. No, question that's funny i am however in two episodes of a thousand ways to die oh that's right you didn't die no i was a skater guy my friend was a production assistant and their skater guy quit like didn't show up so she called me and she was like dude we need skater guy for these this this episode can you come and i was like i guess and she was like we'll pay you 50 bucks and i was like oh and it cost me like we'll pay you 50 bucks and i was like oh and it cost me 50 bucks to get there because i'd take a cab because it was a last minute thing so i break even basically and i got to be on this show it was so on your imdb skater guy i don't think so i hope someone puts it i don't know i was accused because the show premiered after occupy

wall street i was accused of trying to use occupy wall street fame to get to become an actor or something and then i had someone wrote an article accusing me, saying that I moved to Los Angeles to become an actor, which is like the most absurd lie ever because I'm a skateboarder and I moved to L.A. because the skateboarding is good. And mostly just because it's California. You know you made it when there's people accusing you of being a crisis actor. Yeah, that's right. All right. Let's see what we got.

What do we got? What does it say? Sinosexual says, tell Ian to do research into chemical ice nucleation for weather modification. Whoa. Wow. All right. Cal Miller says, anyone want to bet that the media is going to cover the Rittenhouse case and Alec Baldwin longer than the fall of Afghanistan?

Oh, you bet. I mean, but let's be real. The Rittenhouse trial is going to be for, I think, two weeks. I think so, yeah. Wow. Okay. I'm going to have two weeks every day of some video, just like with the Chauvin trial. I think that they got the catharsis out with the Chauvin trial.

I'm not feeling that fervence and bloodlust that was there. I don't know, man. They'll ratchet up when it needs to be ratcheted up. It is getting cold, though, and people don't like riding in the winter.

It's inconvenient. It's really funny that riders are deeply influenced by the weather. If it rains, it won't ride. Crime is influenced by the weather. Right.

But crime I get, right? Someone's like, I'm not going to go outside and rob somebody because I'll get wet. Whereas someone's like, a black man was murdered by the police. I could protest injustice, but it is pretty cold out. No, it's when crime rises in the summer systematically every single year.

And nobody has a good explanation why. There's interesting research that looks at fluctuations in prison violence in relation to when the AC is working and not that I got data on. And when the AC goes out, there's more prison violence. So like a lot of it just comes down to people are not happy when it's hot out. And yeah, I think, you know, I mean, I do think like a lot of last year's writing just came down to people have been stuck inside for three months. And this was a socially approved way to go outside and you know act out all of their pent-up

aggression and there's like i'm sure there's less of that now but it's they've had the catharsis once yeah that's not paul thonkam says a prop gun is a fake gun with no firing pin and the trigger is just spring-loaded to act like a real gun they keep saying a prop gun because they don't want you to realize that alec baldwin pointed a real gun with a real bullet at a woman and killed her that he doesn't believe people should have to defend themselves that's right no the jaded kriegsman says on this day in 2001 the patriot act was signed eroding our freedoms and emboldening federal authoritarianism. Restore the 10th. Restore our rights.

Interesting. 10th Amendment? Heck yes. Simone 9937 says, I just began listening to a book on a Kentucky county during the first Civil War. I wish I could say I had never heard the term insurrection used that much. So we had Shane Cashman, who's writing for Tales from the Inverted World, and I am so excited.

So the first arc, I guess we're not really doing seasons or whatever, but the first season is basically a collection of stories, essays, from him. Like, you know, he met a guy and there's a cold case and his experience as a kid. Because we kind of wanted to, like, introduce him and, like, what his angle is. Because we're skeptical, right? The next season, Ghosts of the Confederacy. He went down to georgia he's got the story of sherman's march to the sea and like the story of the people who were there and how it affected their families ghost stories ufos murder mysteries conspiracies it's gonna be so rad yeah just introducing like

when you read history books about sherman's march to sea, I think, you know, based on what I was hearing, the people down there have a very, very gruesome telling of what it was like compared to the watered-down version of scorched earth. He burned the south to the ground. Yeah. It was effective. Yeah. But, like, man. Yeah, he was telling me that people did not like hearing the word Sherman down there. Because it was like he burned to the ground, but, you know, destroying people's homes, civilians, noncombatants.

There's a lot of really dark stuff there, man. That wasn't the first iteration of Scorched Earth, was it? No, it was not. I think Scorched Earth goes way back to the ancient times. Yeah, yeah. It's a tactic to retreat. You can burn behind you and if you think you can't defeat the incoming enemy, you can burn

your frontier and all the cities and lands and retreat into your inner country. Starve them just like Russia did. Germany, USSR, excuse me. I don't know what this says, but I'm CIA says, hello, Luke, I'm not Polish, but Warjawa Walsh.

Warjawa. Warzawa walch. What does that mean? I have no idea what you just said. I just tried to scramble words together just like you did. Warsawa walch. You should learn Polish. You make strong assumptions about what those consonants, how those consonants map to French.

What's W-A-L-C-Z? W-A-U-C-Z. I don't know. Luke can't do it this way, remember? Well, so Luke doesn't speak Polish. Oh, no, he can't, like, do the... Luke can't do the letters that way. You have to see them.

I'm coming the same way. Yeah, I gotta see them. Yeah. I'm the same way. All right, let's see. Bill Hughes says, if Rittenhouse loses, there will be riots. If he wins, there will be riots. Uh-huh. That's right. And Matthew DeOliviera just says, if Rittenhouse loses, there will be riots. If he wins, there will be riots. That's right.

And Matthew DeOliviera just says, why not? But I don't know what that's a reference to. I don't know, but thank you. Timie says, you can tell that it's people who know nothing about guns defending Alec. The first thing told in our LTC class is that you're responsible for everything that comes out of the end of a firearm you're holding. Of course. Yep. Yeah. It's amazing, though, that the people who

want crazy gun control don't believe in responsibility. But they're related, right? It's that you can't imagine owning... A firearm's a scary thing. It's like, you know, you hold a gun for the first time, you're like, wow, I could kill somebody with this. And if you're the sort of person who sees that

and is like, well, nobody, I understand the impulse to say nobody should have that. I think it's wrong. I think it's, you know, ultimately a futile impulse in America. But I understand that impulse in terms of just, like, that sort of passivity. I never thought when I got into a car, man, I could kill somebody with this.

Really? I think that all the time, getting into a car. The gun is like very easy to create a lot of damage and like a six-year-old can do it, which is why it's different than most weapons, pretty much every other weapon. I feel like cars can do more damage

than a lot of guns. But you need to be big and have gas in the tank and have a key. There are about as many vehicular deaths in the United States per year as gun homicides and gun suicides. Cars are dangerous. Cars are really dangerous. Yeah, they're big.

Lydia just sent me it. It means Warsaw Walczy, which means Warsaw's fight. There you go. You're welcome. Probably you're throwing the Warsaw uprising fighting against, of course, the Nazis. Right on. William Gabriel says, what sword is on the wall behind Tim? I got this from a mall.

It's a mall sword. Oh, cool. And it says something like seven souls sword or something like that. I don't know what it is. It's just, it's like a prop. It's just a sword from a mall. The mythical mall sword. And we also have, you can't see us off camera, but we have the master sword hung up as well. Also not just a sword from a mall. The mythical mall sword. And we also have,

you can't see us off camera, but we have the Master Sword hung up as well. Also not a real sword. It's from The Legend of Zelda. And we were thinking about getting a whetstone and actually making... We'd have to redo the hill. It's plastic. And make like a real... I'm pretty sure someone's probably already done that. I'm old-fashioned. I just have machetes.

There you go. Luke's I've got that cooking knife. Luke's got to go bushwhacking. Yes. Clearing the brush to go down the path into the forest. All right, let's see what we got. Let's see. Jaggartree says, misfire like a hang fire is what a bullet does, not a gun,

which means it didn't burn the powder properly. Guns can malfunction. AB's gun worked fine, Alec Baldwin's. That's right. He pulled the trigger and a bullet came out. Oh, that. So he's saying that a gun cannot misfire. The bullet misfires. People were saying that the crew was shooting at beer

cans with the guns. Yeah. And they had live bullets just mixed in with all the blanks. Yikes. Bad plan. Well, Alec Baldwin's running the show, isn't he? He was one of the executive producers, I think. All right. Poor Randall says,

Blaming policing as an institution is like blaming guns for violence. Police are but a tool. It can be wielded for good or bad. And in most cases, the police are used for good. The problem lies in the culture. I agree with that. Yes. Andrew Sutton says,

Someone should buy a racehorse and call it Brandon. I get the feeling that people would cheer for it. You've got to call it Let's Go Brandon. Lee Fagan says, We need not worry when Kamala becomes president. When she does, if she follows down the same route of unconstitutional edict, we will impeach her too. Well, there you go.

Normies Get Out says, Please don't forget that Black Rifle Coffee bent the knee and refused to stand with Kyle Rittenhouse when he was photographed wearing their T-shirt. I don't know the full details about it, but what I was told was don't believe the New York Times when they smear Black Rifle Coffee because the New York Times is fake news. I don't know the full details, though, so I don't really know what to say. All right.

Caleb South says my eight-year-old daughter was listening to the news with me, and when she heard about the Fauci puppy torture, she said so he's corona deville that's good if you haven't seen freedom tunes is newest short it's only 18 seconds long but uh i once again provided the voice of dr fauci and you should check it out on freedom tunes on youtube because it's really funny it's very short but it's funny all right let's see j, but it's funny. All right. Let's see. JesusTrisp says, a bit of topic, but is it possible Biden was trying to go Super Saiyan during the town hall? Someone please make this meme if it hasn't been done yet.

When Biden was doing the Cornholio thing? I'm sure he was. Because Goku, he goes, ah, and then his hair spikes and turns gold, and someone should make the Super Saiyan meme of Joe Biden. I'm sure it's been done. I would like to see it, but I'm pretty sure he just has dementia and that's what the fist clenching was because, you know, he has

dementia. I think Alec Baldwin was not an executive producer. He's just a regular producer, but it's kind of vague what that means. So it is vague. Executive producer usually is just like you're a financier or you're spearheading the project in terms of like you have a bunch of money and you're like, hey, I want to do this.

Hey, guys, make a movie. And then they'll be like, cool, and then I'll come and check it later. Producers are substantially more active. So when I was working on documentaries and stuff like that in shorts, the executive producers were like the executives at the company who would screen it after it was done and say, yeah, it's pretty good. Okay, we'll roll with it. And the producers were the ones who were on set all the time instructing the staff.

The producers were in charge of the entire production when I was working, when I was producing like the documentary. So like when there was a producer and I was just hosting, they would be telling me what to do.

If I was producing and hosting, I'd be telling the camera person what to do, where to go, what to film. And so that's why I think Alec Baldwinwin was responsible executive producers typically aren't involved that much if at all so it's just you know people get executive producer credits all the time doesn't mean much yeah there were six producers underneath the four executive

producers on that film baldwin was one of the six producers boris 89 says i'm an experienced hollywood armorer so i can confidently tell you that the lion's share of the blame goes to the armor of that uh the lion's share of the blame goes to the armor of that said way too much to explain in a super chat message me and i'll explain why love the show it goes to the armor where you're saying of the set that's wrong wrong wrong wrong hollywood is full of a bunch of psychotic individuals who are saying the responsibility is of the person who's wielding a gun and pulling the trigger. It's all three.

When I hand someone an airsoft rifle, I do the exact same things. I don't care if it's got an orange tip on it. I'll pull out the magazine. I'll pull the hammer back and say, this is airsoft. Look, and I'll show them that it's not a real gun. I'll show them the cartridge and I'll say, here's the airsoft. There is airsoft. There are pellets in this. We only use biodegradable stuff, by the way. We want the plastic garbage. Good. I'm happy. And that's just airsoft because people, I don't care if we have replicas. It treated the exact

same way. This is what people need to understand. If you're holding something that looks like a gun and you treat it like it's no, it's no big deal. It's not loaded. And you raise it up and point it at someone. Guess what? They will shoot you. So maybe in Hollywood, they're like, I, I, I gotta tell you, I cannot imagine being on

a Hollywood set where someone thinks they can draw a replica gun on someone else with no consequences. That is insane. Two people. He shot her and the director. The bullet went through her. Yeah. Have you seen the video of the guy in the shooting range? And he's with his friends, and then he has the gun, and he loads it, and then he points it at his friend,

and the instructor just grabs his arm, puts him in a lock, and pins him down. Good. Yep, I saw that. Yeah. Or when Will Smith smacks the gun down. Yes. That's what should be done. Yep. This idea that you can wield a live firearm with no responsibility is fake news. And if you work in Hollywood and you believe that, don't be surprised when Alec Baldwin kills another person.

Because if this guy goes on to work in Hollywood where he's like, no, no, no, everybody, it's fine. It was the armorer's fault. Let's get a new armorer in the policy stands. No, I tell you this, they're going to be like, oh, maybe we shouldn't do this. Maybe we shouldn't point weapons at each other. And maybe we should manually check the armorer's fault. Dude, tell that to a judge. Your honor, the weapon was handed to me. I was told that it was not an active weapon. And then I was told to point it at the camera and pull the trigger because I was supposed to. Yeah, okay.

All right. Tony Gillard says, Yu-Gi-Oh! tournaments after a year or so of being canceled are finally coming back, and of course there's vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Well, you can always not play Yu-Gi-Oh! Find a different hobby. Play Magic the Gathering,

which is still not better. Probably not better. As a brief aside, I noticed Walmart did go public in 1970. That came up earlier. Do people still play Yu-Gi-Oh? Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's big.

Okay. Yeah. I never played it. Did you play it? When I was like 10. Did you play Magic? No. Well, Magic's way better anyway.

Yu-Gi-Oh is a manga about Magic the Gathering, basically. Because Magic the Gathering was the first card game and so they're basically playing some version of it and then they made it my favorite thing about Yu-Gi-Oh! is that the show makes no sense like there's no rules to the card game it's just like Yu-Gi-Oh! is like I'll play Blue Eyes White Dragon

and you're like there's like you can literally just do whatever you want the game makes no sense sounds interesting but they eventually made rules and changed them and then like made a real game. All right. Wrath of Paul says,

Project Veritas is a video of New Jersey's, New Jersey governor consultant saying he will implement vaccine mandates after he wins the election. Of course. He knows it's wildly unpopular and is planning on doing it anyway.

New Jersey friends vote him out. Yeah, I would say vote him out. But if I actually thought it was possible, I think they'll blindly just vote him in and be like, yay. And then what happens? They'll go, oh, no. Why is my life getting worse? Yep.

Leave. All right. Ignis, hi, Joseph. Hey, Tim. Any new shirts coming to the shop, or is there too much competition in the room? You know, we do need to get on some shirts. We need to make some. I don't think so.

I know. You guys are good. You guys, we do need to get on some shirts. We need to make some. I don't think so. Nah, you guys are good. You guys, I think your store's pretty great. We'll make competing t-shirts and then, you know, Ian can wear

the Timcast version. Yeah. I want, I want, I want this to be dealt with within a physical fight fashion. I think that's the diplomatic way to deal with this problem.

I think we'll start making like cheap knockoff versions of Luke's shirts. Yes. Like, I tested positive for freedom. We'll be like, I took a test and it said I liked freedom. I think we'll start making cheap knockoff versions of Luke's shirts. Yes. I tested positive for freedom. We'll be like, I took a test and it said I liked freedom. It doesn't make sense, but you let me know we're ripping them off. You could have the domain, the second best

political website, since of course my website is thebestpoliticalshirts.com. I actually think we'll buy that one. The second best political shirts. Thebestpoliticalshirts.com. Someone's buying it right now. I've given you too many good ideas. Damn it. I want a commission on that one.

We'll make the even better political shirts. Or how about we make like better than Luke's? Yes. Better than Luke's t-shirts.com. Yeah. All right. Let's see. Andrew Biko says the term film shot comes from chronophotographic gun invented by James

Mary in 1882. Please look it up. Interesting. Andre McGruder. If the Republicans win the House in the midterms, a Republican replaces Nancy. Get rid of the VP, we get a Republican president. Hmm, interesting.

Impeach them, you mean? All right. Dozerman says, I'd like to see this guy try his BS with Michael Malice. I love Luke, but I feel Michael would light this guy up. I think he's talking about you. Okay. Okay.

I'm not trying to light anyone up. I think it's important to have different voices and different opinions, and I think it's important to have these conversations. I'm happy to talk to Michael Malice. But it's good to have these conversations, and I'm not seeing this as a combative thing. I'm seeing this more of an exchange of ideas and I've been dying to talk about the deindustrialization with the rise of globalization and the rigged war on drugs being

responsible for the rise of crime in the 1970s but that's another issue I'd like to talk about pharma being involved in the drug epidemic on the after show maybe if that comes up dude our guest is just shaking his head. The chronophotographic gun's awesome. This was 1882.

It looks like a rifle and it was the predecessor of the camera, the movie camera. We got a super chat from a Viva Frey. Viva Frey? Do we know that person? I don't know.

That doesn't come to mind. Is he French? Viva. He says, I'm obviously partial to Rumble and Locals, but building your own dev, are you still dependent on AWS and the like? Peace. And again, nice meeting you. We'll do it again.

Woohoo, yes. You can use whatever hosting service you want. You can make your own server if you want. That might be too complicated for people. And we certainly can set up some hosting services. It can be expensive, but I'll put it this way. There is a reason why these platforms charge a percentage. They're making money off you. That's fine. They've done the work and they're cutting a profit. I just think that if we can create a simple program for free and then you take on the personal responsibility of maintaining

your subscriber data. It can never be sold to outside corporations. People's privacy will always be protected from Google or any other company that might want to buy or infiltrate or whatever. And you'll save a lot of money. I will say this. The percentage you give up to these companies is insane compared to the actual cost it's like an order of magnitude more but i i think it would probably only cost for us like one to two percent you know to like maintain the system if that right now we're using rumble for members stuff yeah what's the what would the cost of that be if we were hosting it locally? If we hosted our own videos,

way more. That's the challenge is someone can pay $10 a month and then watch one video a thousand times and cause a thousand times the cost to your server. So you could build something in where like you get to watch it once. No, I'm not worried about that. It's like an equation. The more content we're producing on members only, server. So you could build something in where like you get to watch it once for a subscription.

I'm not worried about that. It's like an equation. The more content we're producing on members only, the more money we lose, right? So we have some tales from the inverted world, members only conversations. You were hanging out with Shane, right? Yeah, we did a show on Monday. So if someone pays 10 bucks and they get one video per Monday through Thursday, and then we add Friday, which we did, And now we're going to add Sunday nights. That means we're spending more money, but we're getting the same amount from the individual because we're increasing the value percentage for the user. That's good. But it's also why you'll see Netflix or Hulu be like, we're raising the cost because we

have too much content and people are watching way more. And so now we can't afford to cover the cost of bandwidth. But either way, I think that's less relevant to the fact that 10% of the amount of money you make as a creator is way too much. Way too much. It's an insane profit. Let's put it this way. Go to Graftrion. Look at like – you want to go to Graftrion right now?

Graftrion.com. And look up the top creators. And tell me, who's the top creator? How do go to Graftrion right now? Yeah. Graftrion.com. Go and look up the top creators. And tell me, who's the top creator? How do you spell Graftrion? With an F? Graph and then T-R-E-O-N. P-H? Yeah.

Graph. Graph. Graftrion. I'm going to tell a story while I'm doing this. It's coming up a little. You can't type in a word, Ian. So once upon a time, Ian couldn't type in a word. True crime obsessed is number one.

Then we have Chapo Trap House. How many? 46,705. How much money do they make? If it's $10 a month minimum, that's $467,000 a month. Oh, it doesn't have one. Okay, so what's Chapo? Number two, Chapo Trap House.

36,734 patrons, $162,000 a month. It does not cost $16,000. Is it $162,000 a month. It does not cost $16,000. Is it $162,000 you said? Yeah. It doesn't cost $16,000 per month to run a member service. They are giving away $16,000 per month for no reason. For a one-time cost of a grand, you can have someone build out exactly what they get from Patreon. Yeah, especially if you're hosting your stuff on Rumble.

You don't have to host your own data. That's the point. It costs money to have private bandwidth. So when we have Rumble, we got to pay a lot of money for that. It is expensive. It is very expensive. It is substantially less expensive than giving away 10%. That's mind-blowing that Chapo is giving away $16,000 per

month. You could hire a web dev on a six figure salary to work for you year round to develop and maintain the site for you. And it's WordPress and plugins. And you could pay less. You could, you could hire a dev at eight grand a month and cut your cost in half. I just don't understand it. But I guess people, if they don't know, they don't know. So hopefully we can change all that, right? Oh, yeah. All right.

Let's see. Brian Knoll says, Ian, watch Dave Rubin's episode that aired today. He publicly explains all of the terms and conditions of the acquisition. He didn't get a payout. Interesting. So you got to relax, see? I do have to relax. So he sold the company, but he didn't get a payout?

Is that what I was just told? Well, that's what they're saying, yeah. Okay, I'll find out. I'll look for it. Eric Thibodeau says, Yo, Ian, bro, chill out. Dave is still invested in Locals, and the co-founder is still the CEO of Locals.

You don't know what you're talking about, bro. Look into it. So what does that mean? Does that mean that Rumble bought a portion of Dave's equity? I mean, an acquisition requires some exchange. Maybe Dave got stock in Rumble or something, like private equity in Rumble or something like that in exchange for it. Yeah, I've got to look into this more. Yeah, my approach to the whole thing the whole time was create decentralized tech so you can never be banned again. I don't see Rumble and Patreon

as solving that problem ultimately. I still think it's good what they're doing, but I don't see it solving the problem. Not in the long run. In the long run, it's going to be this. You want to follow me? I say, follow me at, you know, Tim at Tim server.com. And then I own the server. No one can ban me. When you open your website and look at your feed, you'll see tweets from me kind of like RSS and no one can ban me ever. Someone can say, I don't want to see him and block me from their website, but can never ban me, can never take away my revenue, my subscribers.

You are invincible. All right, we'll do one more Super Chat here. We got Chad Michael Taylor. He says, Tim, I am the manager of a comic and game store, MTG, Warhammer, etc. We are fighting the culture war here. Just started vlogging from the shop.

Cool, glad to hear it. I think we're going to be opening a game shop on Freedomistan. Yes. We got to build a big building. And the problem is steel costs are through the roof. So it is very expensive. And we're having a hard time because these companies are just, I call a company, I'm like, hey, I need a steel building. And they're like, okay, we'll call you back. And I'm like, and then they call me back and they waste my time and they ask me a bunch of questions. I'm like, guy, I need, you know, we're looking at like 75 by like 100 or something. And I'm like, we got a lot of work to do before winter.

Can you do it? And they're like, well, let me call you back. And I'm like, heck, click. Dude, it's frustrating. Probably just need to hire a project manager to run the whole thing. Matt Lucas says Dave got stock, is a salaried employee. His bro-in-law is CEO. Interesting.

Well, we'll see how it plays out. I think it's a good thing. But we'll wrap it up there. If you haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends. Go to timcast.com, become a member. A member is only segment coming up soon. You can follow the show at timcast IRL.

You can follow me personally everywhere at timcast. Charles, you want to shout anything out? Yeah, sure. Thanks for having me on the show. You can follow me personally everywhere at Timcast. Charles, you want to shout anything out? Yeah, sure. Thanks for having me on the show. You can follow me on Twitter. I'm at Charles F. Lehman, L-E-H-M-A-N. Yeah, it was a good time. Cool.

Right on, man. And thanks for having me. And seriously, thank you for sending me this important reminder of my people's history. This was first used as a symbol for Polish resistance and the underground movement during World War II. The communists, when they took over Poland after World War II, they made this illegal. So it was a sign of resistance under the Solidarity Movement. So sincerely appreciate it. And if you guys want to send us stuff, make sure to address it to us.

And the address is on timcast.com and this also reminds me that not all hope is lost no matter what the odds you could always fight for what is right and that was also the theme of the video that i made on lukeuncensored.com today as well hope to see some of you guys there yeah one of your one of your commenters uh is saying that i am trash or a trash can emoji but on the other hand another of your commenters said that I look like a 60s G.I. Joe action figure and that was awesome

so I'm considering this net. I'm going to walk away with a ladder. Yeah, yeah. I love it. Thanks for coming guys. This was fantastic. You can follow me

at iancrossland.net. Happy to be here. See you later. And you guys may follow me on Twitter at Sour Patch Lits. We will see all of you over at timcast.com for that member segment.

Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys. you you