Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #450 - Calls For Biden REMOVAL Over Mental Failing After INSANE Presser w/Jason Miller

Episode Date: January 20, 2022

Tim, Ian, Luke, and Lydia join Jason Miller, the CEO of alternative social media platform GETTR, to discuss Joe Biden's insane press conference, the question of whether Biden should be in office, the disaster of trains trying to get through LA and being robbed, and the free speech bona fides of GETTR as a platform. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joe Biden held a press conference for the first time in what, almost two and a half months. And he said some pretty outrageous things, I guess. One that really caught my attention was when he effectively said that we will stop Russia if they invade Ukraine, unless it's like a minor incursion, then we'll talk about it. And many people were like, yo, did he just green light Russia to invade Ukraine saying we don't know if we'll respond. And I'm torn because I'm like, well, I don't want to get involved in a war with Ukraine. But perhaps the way we do avoid the war is by being like Russia, don't do it. Neither of us want a war. But if you're outright going to be like, yeah, go ahead and do it, then you're going to get a war. Then Biden will use that invasion

as pretext for escalated action. And then, in my opinion, they want war. They'll start a war because they want to boost Joe Biden's approval ratings because war tends to do that for presidents. But we'll see. Considering how Joe Biden completely screwed up Afghanistan, I think ultimately the dude is just kind of out of it. So here's what happens. On Twitter, we get a viral trend, 25th Amendment. This means people are saying Joe Biden should be removed from the presidency. And the funny thing is, even though everyone should agree with that, even on the left, the left just comes out and starts arguing about Trump. And I'm just like, I don't think they understand that a lot of the people who are saying Joe Biden

ain't with it would probably agree Trump said stupid things too. And we're not talking about that. But we'll get into that. We got a bunch of other stories, a lot having to do with Joe Biden. But we also have the story about NPR lying about Neil neil gorsuch gorsuch not wearing a mask and soda mayor not wanting to be you know in the chambers with them because of it we at timcast actually wrote that story up npr got it wrong both justices have denied saying it's fake news so here we here we go a major lesson in fake news we'll talk about all this stuff plus the 5G rollout disrupting airlines. This is getting weird. I thought the 5G stuff was a conspiracy theory, but sure.

Joining us to talk about all of this and social media censorship is the CEO of Getter, Jason Miller. Thanks for coming, man. Thanks for having me. Do you want to introduce yourself? Yeah, absolutely. Jason Miller, the CEO of Getter, fastest growing social media platform in world history. We're up to just under four and a half million users. We got to a million users after three days, about a million and a half after 10 days.

So we're fastest to one, two, three, four. By comparison, Facebook took about 10 months to get to their first million. So this thing has taken off like a rocket ship. And really the principles on free speech and that's the the big differential between us and the big tech platforms which i know we're going to go into a whole bunch of the show so yeah so if you're uh if you're logged on here and you're watching or catching on the podcast i know you got a lot of questions we'll be diving into it but yes uh so super chat us because we're we're gonna you know we're not gonna hold back we're gonna ask everything and anything and

everything uh but where did you work before you were doing uh getter you were so so i worked for president trump in both his 2016 and 2020 campaigns and then after the 2020 campaign i stayed and worked for him for about about six months or so so i led the effort on his second impeachment defense which we went through which is another circus we can dive into the details on that i have a couple of fun stories on that one uh and then worked for President Trump up until June. But during that process, while I was working for President Trump and all the social media platforms and people who were starting platforms were coming to the president saying, we want to get you on board, want to show you the technology. I got connected with the getter folks. And right away when I saw it, I said, this one's the ticket.

This is of everything that I saw. And I probably only saw about a half dozen. Dan Scavino probably saw 30 or 40 different ones. I said, this has to be it. And so actually Steve Bannon made the connection. That's how I ended up getting connected with him. And then the rest is history. Yeah. I've already got 212,000 followers on Getter. And that's separate because a lot of people brought up that you had a combined follower of other socials but you've separated out specifically on getter i've only been using it for a couple weeks and i've barely posted hundreds of thousands and the engagement is through the roof i tell you the cool thing is on the engagement it's a passionate community

because you have a lot of people who want a statistic a lot of people don't realize when president trump was deplatformed about 20 to 25 percent of all of his supporters quit social media. Now, they didn't necessarily cancel all their accounts, but they said, okay, I'm tired of big tech. The system is rigged. The game is rigged. I'm not going to be on this anymore. With President Trump making the noise that he's going to get back into the social media

arena, a lot of people are coming off the sidelines and getting back active. So it's a passionate community. People are glad that it's not Twitter, that it's not Facebook, it's not Zuckerberg coming in or YouTube putting up their warnings about climate change and all this stuff. So it's a passionate group. We're going to talk about your policies, people have been banned, your plans for the future, and we'll get into all that. So thanks for coming. We got Luke as well. Thank you. Hey, guys. I got a very simple message. Regulate your government, not your neighbors. And I think if a lot of people did that, the world would be a better place.

If you agree and want the T-shirt, you can get it on thebestpoliticalshirts.com because you do. I'm here. This should be an interesting conversation. I definitely have a lot of questions I want to ask. And, Ian, that's a pretty cool EMF-free little hoodie headgear thing you're wearing there now. This is from Radius Smart. You think I don't know about this stuff, Ian? This is a gift I received from Tim and it is an electromagnetic

frequency radiation shielding mechanism. Apparently it shields 99.9% of the radiation. This is good for me because I usually sleep days and am up at night because the psychic energy is just it's fluxing through my brain. I don't know, but I can feel people's pain and love, and it's very intense.

So this has helped quiet it down. I don't know if it's psychosomatic or if it's working. I can't tell. It's psychosomatic, Ian. I assure you. Thank you, Tim. But it is legit. It's a high-end tinfoil hat.

He disappeared. Now that we're on the subject, I got a gift for Tim. Oh, my gosh. I've mentioned this before. I've delivered. What is it I got a gift for Tim. Oh, my gosh. I've mentioned this before. Yes. I've delivered. What is it? Tell people what it is. This is an Anthony Fauci bobblehead, and it is the Fauci-est of all Fauci bobbles that

I've ever seen. I love it. Where'd you get that? That's amazing. It looks creepy. I don't remember where. It's actually got some weight to it. It was on eBay.

Yes. Fauci bobblehead. His glasses come off, too. This is like the modern-day equivalent of Chucky. Look at that face. It's that same smile. He's got the Fauci smile. Does it come with a dog to do tests on?

Oh, yes. Seriously. Or orphans. That's a good idea. So thank you, Tim. And I'm happy to have gotten you that gift as well. Thank you very much. I hope you appreciate it.

Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. I got a question. Was it made in China? Oh, that's a good question. No, I didn't do my due diligence. Yes. Yes.

Oh, no. Makes sense. Made in China. Right there on the bottom. It is diligence. Yes. Yes. Oh, no. Makes sense. Made in China. Right there on the bottom. It is authentic. Take a guess where this helmet was, where

it was made. Indonesia. Okay. Australia. Oh, cool. Another slave camp. Another slave camp, yeah.

I just need to say this one more time to make it very clear for the camera. This Anthony Fauci bobblehead was made in China. It says right on the

bottom. Perfect. Authentic. I love it. Well, dun, dun. It says right on the bottom. Perfect. I love it. Well, I don't have anything as cool to show as an EMF hoodie or a Fauci bobblehead, but I am also here pushing buttons in the corner. Happy to be here. It's going to be a great conversation. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.

Become a member to help support all of our journalists, the work we do here on the show. As a member, you will get access to exclusive members only segments of the Tim cast arrow podcast. We're going to have our special members only uncensored show going live about 11 or so PM. You're not going to want to miss it. And you will also get an ad free experience on the website. So if you like the work we do and you want to help sign up at Tim cast.com, but don't forget also to smash the like button right now, subscribe to this channel and share the URL wherever you can, because that grassroots word of mouth is the most powerful thing. CNN dumps all this money in advertising. YouTube puts them on the front page. All we have is your willpower. If you like the show, you share it. Otherwise you don't. And maybe for today, everyone should share it on Getter and then make it, make everybody see it because we're going to be hearing from the CEO. And that being said, let's get into that first story we got it from npr now i used npr on purpose as the source of this because we're going to rag on them later biden acknowledges his team should have done more covid testing earlier now that's the headline but the point of this

story is marking the end of his first year in office with a long wide-ranging formal press conference biden said it had been a year of challenges, but also a year of enormous progress, citing stats on vaccinations, job creation, and cuts to child poverty. The real story here is that Joe Biden had a press conference. Of course, NPR likes to soften the blow for the man, because right now on Twitter, 25th Amendment is trending. Now, here's where it gets funny. Initially, it started trending because people critical of Joe Biden taken over by the left,

who starts calling people maggots, screaming the 25th Amendment. And then they just start showing, you know, Donald Trump speaking and other stuff. I think the reality is there's one clip in particular that really exemplifies this. Someone asked Joe Biden directly why it is that so many people think he's in cognitive decline. And his response was, I have no idea. And it's funny because that's actually the correct answer. Joe Biden has no idea. Right.

Well, so I find this I find this fascinating that we're finally getting this press conference from Joe Biden and that people are using it as an opportunity to basically be like, this man should not be president. I mean, I think people came to that realization as soon as he came into office. I think people came to that realization when he wasn't even running a campaign and the media was running it for him. But there's a lot of major bombshells in this kind of press conference that he released. Well, real quick, I like that you called it a kind of press conference. I mean, yeah. I mean, he was there for two hours, took 24 questions. Let's admit, that's sort of impressive for Biden, especially at his age.

But he talked about a lot of nonsense. He was congratulating himself on his Afghanistan pullout. He said that America is making enormous progress. Meanwhile, we have record covid cases. The United States government right now under his administration is getting 400 million N95 masks, over 400 million COVID tests when the United Kingdom is literally getting rid of their vax passport system and mask mandates. What he's doing is the complete opposite of what should be doing. And let's not also forget, he pretty much invited Putin to invade Ukraine, which is an absolutely huge bombshell with a lot of significant ramifications. And the other thing, too, I mean, look, Biden should fire every single person in that White House immediately,

and I'll tell you why. The reason why they went and did this press conference is because tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of his inauguration. So what they're doing from a strategic thing, in their minds, not very smart, is they want to get ahead of it. I can just see him in the briefing room now with Peppermint Patty there and saying, hey, we're going to have this one-year anniversary. We got to frame the headlines. Let's go out there and talk about everything great that we're doing. So Joe Biden gets out there and literally assumes responsibility for every malady that is affecting the United States right now. So basically, he gets up there and he lists everything going wrong. Here's what we're doing about it. We're

making great doing progress. So, oh, they're going to have some headlines for their one-year anniversary tomorrow. I don't think it's the headlines they were looking for i don't know though you think the media is actually gonna be fair and criticize joe biden so i gotta tell you this it's here's the thing you gotta keep out keep in mind about reporters is they're basically uh vultures well they're they're alligators right they got to eat and so they are it's a matter of time for how how quickly they turn on someone but they're alligators, right? They got to eat. And so they are – it's a matter of time for how quickly they turn on someone. But they're going to turn on you. I mean the easiest way to not get eaten is to not look like food.

Well, Joe Biden right now looks like a big juicy cheeseburger. People are angry. I can't remember who was saying it, but they were like when people go to the grocery store, they're angry. When they see their products are skyrocketing in cost, they're angry. When they see the gas prices, they're angry. I see these memes, man. There's a meme of somebody, all it is is someone pumping gas. And it was like in 2019 or something, and it was like $1.70. And I was just like, wow, gas was under two bucks. I remember at that point, I was driving and I saw the gas prices and I was shocked because when I was 18 and working in Chicago, the gas prices were hitting $2 and it was a big

deal. And now here we are, wonder Trump, and it's back under two bucks. And I was like, is that crazy? How is that? And now the gas prices are skyrocketing. California, what was that? Like nine bucks in one once. Was it like a while ago?

Was it seven? I thought it was. I thought it was more like six, but you might be right. There was like one particular town where it got like really, really high. Maybe nine was – I thought everyone drove Priuses out there. Do people still get gas out there? And Teslas.

And Teslas, yeah. Guilty. And out here in the middle of nowhere, it's been in like the $3 to like mid-$3 range. People go to the gas station. They're angry. I'll tell you this. From a PR standpoint, Joe Biden coming out and reminding everybody of that is probably not a good idea. But to your point, you're right. I think journalists are

going to be like, hey, a lot of people are really pissed off. Why? Everything happening around them. Hey, Joe Biden talked about it. There's our angle. The other thing to keep in mind too, is that ratings and subscriptions are down for everywhere in the mainstream media with no Trump. Trump basically, I mean, he created one of the industries he helped the most was the mainstream media with no Trump. Trump basically, I mean, he created, one of the industries he helped the most was the mainstream media. He gave everybody ratings boost. Right now, all the subscriptions, ratings are down. You saw it was at CNN's down 90%, whatever it is.

So they have to turn because if it's just softball city, they're not going to get any ratings. Even, look, on the drive out here, I was even listening to fake news CNN, and even they were turning on him. And it was amazing to hear, you know, the Jake Tappers and the Wolf Blitzers and all these folks being critical of Biden.

You know, they're saying, you know, clean up on, what was the one line I think Dana Bass used was clean up on the State Department aisle or something like that with the Ukraine thing. I mean, they have, they see those ratings down 90%. You better believe they're going to turn on Joe Biden. What are we at?

29 Democrats announcing their retirement? Was that it? Or was it 27? I don't know. I don't know those exact numbers. But my point is, just real quick, even the Democratic politicians in Congress are starting to jump ship. Yeah. It's only so long for those two dudes to hold up Bernie, right?

Until the weight gets too strong for them. The Weekend at Bernie's. Oh, I'm making a reference. Are you talking about Bernie Sanders? No, no, no. I'm making a reference to The Weekend at Bernie's. Great movie. Classic movie about a dead guy The Weekend at Bernie's. Great movie. Classic movie about a dead guy that two guys were carrying around to be alive.

I'm not going to spoil the plot for you. Yeah, definitely check it out. Spoil a 30-year-old movie. He gets elected in 2020. Exactly, by the corporate media. The two people holding him up is the bureaucratic corrupt system and, of course, the corporate media journalists. That weight of Bernie is getting very heavy, and they're starting to let go because it's too absurd not to call out Biden on his failures. For him to stand and talk to the American people and say what he did in Afghanistan was a success

is absolutely crazy. He blamed everything because he wasn't able to pass the Build Back Better bill. He blamed, by the way, the New Hampshire governor for that. He said the New Hampshire governor is one of the biggest roadblocks to Build Back Better, which would have solved everything. No, no, no, no, no. Build Back Better would have created more government, which he has been implementing and using,

which has been absolutely eviscerating our current way of life, destroying any kind of wealth, destroying any kind of future young people have in this country. Because when you look at his policies, these are the policies of the corporatists, the most corrupt special interests and lobbyists in Washington, D.C., that are absolutely getting away with murder and able to get away with whatever they want under his administration, which he's acting like a larger puppet for, as he's really a representative of them.

Let me read this. We got Charlie Spearing says, quote, I didn't overpromise, says Joe Biden, says he outperformed in his first year. Josh Hawley responds. Store shelves are empty. Prices are soaring. Real wages are declining. American cities are engulfed in violence. The border is controlled by the cartels and parents are treated as terrorists while actual terrorists go free.

When do the Dems seriously consider the 25th amendment and then what kamala harris i guess that's that's a scary notion you know one of the things to tell you a sure sign uh in politics when uh someone who's in office or candidate when they're losing when their idea to turn something around is all tactics as opposed to strategy now Now this is getting a little bit nuanced, but I'm putting my politics hat back on for a moment here. So Joe Biden, in addition to listing out everything going on in the country, his grand strategy was to get out of the White House. I have to get out of the White House. I have to tour the country. I got to go talk to people. Between COVID and between things going on here in Washington, I'm not getting face-to-face. If I do this, things are going to turn around. That's a tactic. That's a small thing like,

hey, we're going to hold press conferences on Wednesdays or I'm going to go out and we're going to, he blamed it on the communications effort and said, we have to talk to people better. Okay, when you're talking about stuff as a president like that, president of the United States, you know the whole thing's a disaster.

That's why I said, claim, pepper and patty, circle back. They all need to be fired because so disastrous. The headlines tomorrow are just a nightmare. And just to be clear, Peppermint Patty is Jen Psaki, right?

Yes, yes. Who's actually, she's somewhat decently nice, but I know it's all fair. It's funny you called her that. All's fair in politics. And like, if you're discussing changing strategy

instead of changing tactics, you're talking about more of a global, a general behaviors. Like, how are we going to deal with climate change as opposed to? So is climate change what you know, how big of a deal is climate change? Like that would be more of a strategy conversation. So here's here's the reality for Biden is that Biden has one speed today. He talked about he tried to literally said what this was a buried line.

I think I posted this on getter. He said that we have to contrast against the other side more. He has a one speed and that's to go and say, I'm not Trump. And so usually what happens in election is Joe Biden says, I'm not Trump. He ends up winning. And then the first year, second year, you don't have someone to say, I'm not Trump. Your, your ratings go down. And then you get closer to the next election. Then you have a chance to contrast against someone else. That's the only way that Biden has a chance of succeeding is saying, I'm not Trump. We saw him pivot to that. He couldn't even say anything negative about Mitch McConnell. All of you guys saw that. He was like, oh, I'm friends with Mitch McConnell. He's great. But the strategy thing is Joe Biden has to go and

take it. Right now, he's playing the whack-a-mole with all these little things. A strategic change would be to go and say, rather than getting mired in all the Hill legislation, I'm going to go out there and launch a new initiative and get behind it and say, this administration is about the chicken in every pot, or this is about helping this group of voters or something. So strategically, or he says, look, right now we're all in a fight against the CCP or a fight against Putin and Russia. Some kind of strategic shift from domestic to international. That's a strategic shift, but just saying, I'm going to get out and go talk to people around the country. That's, do you think anyone who's pumping up and paying five or $6 a gallon for gas is going to give a, you know what, he's going to get out of the White House more? No, no, not at all.

It's just without Trump, they really don't have anything. And that was even during the election. Now we're getting into 2022. And it looks like with Democrats retiring, they see the writing on the wall. The media, you mentioned some of them now turning on Joe Biden. They see the writing on the wall. Let me tell you something that's substantive, though. I want to talk about this story right here. The first thing I want to do is show you this clip where I said, holy ish, they want war. They profit from war. Listen to this from Joe Biden. So I think what you're going to say- Wait, wait, hold on. Let me make sure I get the audio right, because it may be playing properly, but I'm just going to double check our sources real quick, and now I'm going to play it. Okay,

here we go. So I think what you're going to see is that russia will be held accountable if it invades and it depends on what it does it's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do etc it depends on what it does if it's a minor incursion and a lot of people immediately went like why would you downplay the u.s. response to Russia invading another country in Europe? Because limited war, baby. Henry Kissinger's let's do proxy wars and take little pieces of this and that. They've segmented it into China, Russia, and the U.S.

Three superpowers get to split the earth amongst the three. You're absolutely correct, Ian. Well, the British are also on that list. You're absolutely correct. They're like limited war. We've accepted it. Final answer. That's not good enough.

Elaborate now. Well, the proxy wars that are happening are very profitable, especially when you have these big major kind of states fighting each other, the West versus the East. And they already happen in Syria. They already happen in Yemen. And if they could advance it towards another place like Ukraine, this only, of course, benefits the military industrial complex. Now, this could be a two pronged response here. Understanding Biden's statement. One is that he's old.

He's senile. He doesn't know what he's talking about. The second one is that he's inviting Russia in because at the long term, this is going to work in favor of the neoconservative of the deep state of the military industrial complex that, of course, is going to be striving for this. But there's two other important pieces of information to consider here. A couple of weeks ago, the Biden administration, according to some sources, even went to Ukraine and said, would it be OK if you just give up some of your sovereign land to Russia? So this is something that has already been an underlining policy that has happened before. So that's why I'm also calling bunk on the white house's latest statement because they just issued a clarification on biden's statement saying that if russia invades of course there's going to be a swift and severe

response and obviously they're just trying to cover the bad press and the bad reaction they're getting from this but geopolitically the situation is complex. Russia has been moving their troops towards Ukraine. The United States and NATO have been moving their troops towards Russia as well. So the situation is getting tense. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was another proxy war that, of course, is going to be perpetual warfare, as Ian said, the Henry Kissinger doctrine,

never-ending war for profit. I just want to show this CNN headline real quick. Biden predicts Russia will move into Ukraine, but says minor incursion may prompt discussion over consequences. Wow, even CNN couldn't sugarcoat that one. They tried, though. That was a this is CNN moment. You know, look, I want to agree with something you said a moment ago about the expansion on the military side. If you went back and listen to biden's answer he said in fact we're already going to increase the number of troops that we have he said poland and then he also uh the other country for the other country mentioned but he lists two countries and then he

goes if they go and move into ukraine and do some different things but he was already to i mean that's the thing that no one's talking about he already announced u.s troop expansions uh into two different countries as part of his answer. Like, he's already thought through this. I mean, he definitely has a direction he wants to go. But, you know, one of the points I'd make a little bit of the buried lead on this when we see whether it's Putin or Xi, which I spent a lot of time talking about the CCP and what they're doing around the world.

As soon as Biden was declared the winner, that's when these guys started going to offense. And the real reason why we know that I think both Biden and Xi and Putin take action is if biden's the one-term president they're going to go and make their moves now while he's in as opposed to waiting till whoever comes next do you remember when biden was i think he said a un meeting or was a g7 and he kept saying libya over and over again instead of syria i i assure you she and and putin see that and they look at each other. And, you know, Putin's like, hey, she, if we invade Ukraine, he might accidentally invade Libya instead. So but you think it's, you know, I'm half joking. Imagine if Joe Biden is in the situation room and he says directly to to his generals, we got it. We got to get more more troops on the ground in Libya.

You get get to it. And they're like, sir, do you mean you heard me? And they're like, okay, he got a lot wrong. Why? But, but here's the important thing people didn't understand. If the generals hear Joe Biden say Libya and they leave saying, well, we know he really meant Syria. So we'll go with Syria instead. What if he really did mean Libya? If he did mean Syria, when he said Libya and the generals say your orders, sir. And then they start sending troops to Libya. What he did mean Syria when he said Libya and the generals say, your order is, sir, and then they start sending troops to Libya. What? I'm sorry, man. I understand that Joe Biden misspoke, but he said true to not a shot, but a pressure and Batikaf care as well.

You've got to be very precise when you're talking about missile strikes and nukes and war. And I'm pretty sure Putin, she and even, you know, Kim Jong-un and any one of our adversaries in Iran and Venezuela are like, there's a good chance that if we invade, Joe Biden will order a missile strike in the wrong country. Let's go for it. I disagree there because Putin realizes that the president isn't really the president of the United States. He made very important comments a couple of years ago, specifically talking about how even presidents change, there's always men in dark suits that implement the same kind of foreign policy that has been, in some ways, always the same for a very long time, for decades now. And it's important to understand, I think he's just a puppet. I think the military industrial

complex knows exactly what they're doing. The language from the Biden administration and intelligence agencies has been concise here. And they said russia will stage a false flag attack and will launch an invasion of russia it's only a matter of time until russia invades ukraine russia will invade ukraine those are the talking points of the intelligence agency of the biden administration right after the cia head just had a secret mission in Kiev where he came back from. And this information came out that they're going to do a false flag. And many people are speculating that Kiev gave the head of the CIA this information. The CIA gave it to CNN.

And that's why the American public has now regurgitated this information. False flags have always started a lot of world wars and important wars throughout recorded human history. So the rhetoric is hot here, and it's pretty crazy. I don't know if it'll be World War III, but I think I would be willing to bet within this year, Russia invades Ukraine. Joe Biden says something like, but it's because there's a plan in action. We don't know what he's muttering about, but we do respond.

And this is, I think, because the Democrats are losing. Many are retiring. Joe Biden's approval rating is in the absolute is just destroyed and they need a distraction and they need something to try and boost their approval ratings and offer up something. Not just really cook. I'm not saying there's going to be a world war, but I'm saying the only thing, as you were saying, I was going to make that point. The only thing that could stop the negative viewpoint of the Biden administration, the poll numbers, is a conflict, is a war.

And I don't see it as – because there's mutual assured destruction if Russia and the United States fight each other. It's going to be just like Syria. The United States is going to be sending more arms, sending in more military hardware. More U.S. taxpaying dollars will be sent to Ukraine. Russia will, of course, influence that region. They already have been fighting for years now. So it only makes sense that the conflict is escalating and is going to escalate from here. This is one of the things to remember, the contrast between Biden and Trump, for example, is Biden tonight very much sounded like a U.S. senator.

He didn't sound like a president very much sounded like a U.S. senator. He didn't sound like a president, sounded like a senator. So when he was talking about even their domestic agenda, he's going through, I like this part of legislation, not that I'm going to try to save this part, not the other. He went through and gave this very kind of methodical. That's how he walked himself into the trap was he tried to try to nuance and give his answer about we'll see on the minor incursion, all of that. I mean, obviously, we know the last time that Putin went rolling into Ukraine, I mean, he took Crimea back. I mean, so they already have the precedent that Biden's not going to do anything.

So I think what happens is Putin definitely goes, I don't think it's a full takeover of Ukraine, but it's enough to rattle the saber, make himself look good at home. Biden says, well, I'm going to give you double, triple secret sanctions. And effectively, then Putin wins the day and Biden looks weak. But I think they know that Biden is where, as opposed to Trump, who basically told, well,, obviously with Putin, he took one strategy of kind of doing the buddy routine. With Kim Jong-un, he said fire and fury will drop the bombs and wipe you off the face of the earth. Guess what? Detered Kim Jong-un quite a bit. Absolutely. Ian, you had something to say?

Yeah. This is why I think limited war and not total war. This is the Kissinger limited war doctrine where they want conflict not in the homeland because you don't want to destroy your own infrastructure and they don't want to go to nukes with Russia. So they'd like to just military industrial complex the hell out of Ukraine, buy and sell a lot of weapons, destroy a lot of bombs over cities and just level. I mean, that's what they did in Vietnam. That was a limited war. They didn't want to go to war with Russia or China. And this has been building for a very long time, especially with the United States trying to build their sphere of influence, trying to get Ukraine from Russian influence towards a European NATO influence.

We saw John McCain in Kiev literally lead the marches down there trying to overthrow their government. There was a very violent revolution that hurt a lot of people. It was all against corruption. The Ukrainian people were dealing with a corrupt government, but they got another corrupt government in response to it with Biden's fingerprints all over it, with his son's business involvements in it, and of course also the president of the United States,

Donald Trump at the time, who sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, which was an absolute huge escalation according to Russia. And this is why Russia is pissed off because they're seeing NATO, they're seeing the US weapons going closer and closer to their border. And they're saying we need to strike back in order to push back against this nonsense. The Secretary of State even a couple weeks ago

said NATO never agreed not to build up on Russia's border, which is absolutely untrue. There's a lot of documents, there's a lot of agreements between Russia and NATO and the United States saying that the United States won't be building up a lot of their military hardware on there. So this is a very escalating, hot situation that could turn very drastic for the people of Ukraine, which is absolutely sad as these politicians just rule lives, which is insane. I think Trump's strategy with sending weapons to Ukraine was, hey, we're not going to get involved in this conflict. We'll sell you some weapons. It's all on you. Whereas Biden and the neolibs and neocons were setting up, you know, getting Hunter Biden and Burisma trying to work, you know, energy companies. There's a reason why they want to get Ukraine into, you know, aligned with the Western forces. Trump's attitude was America first. We don't want

to be at war with these countries. Here are some weapons. It's your issue. Yeah. I mean, take a look at me. Do you think Germany or France or anyone else in NATO was watching Biden tonight? A, were they not laughing or shaking their head and be like, what the blank is this? Or shaking in their boots. Or saying, exactly the same, this thing, they don't have our back. Bring Trump back. Can we get Trump back in the White House? I mean, that's where, I mean, you know that, you know, the McCrory, you know, when you have McCrone and Johnson, and even though Angela has left, Olaf Schultz, who's I'm sure

they're like, let's get Trump back. At least we knew where that guy stood. Well, well, Biden continued Trump's policies of providing lethal weapons to Ukraine. So that also is escalating the situation. It's a very complex situation, because we should actually see it from both perspectives. We should see it from the Russian side, from the Ukrainian side, and from the American side, because each side has their own particular version of events. I'm trying to just tell people the version of events, how I see it. But again, there's different PR, there's different propaganda from each different side. And it's truly a very dangerous situation that I believe will be a limited war, just like Ian is saying with

the Henry Kissinger doctrine, that makes most sense. But even with that, there still is a probability of it escalating and becoming extremely dangerous for everyone else. And that's why war should never be the answer. Diplomacy should be the way to move forward here. And Biden is just standing there and saying, yeah, just invade. Yeah, I think that the U.S. president, no U.S. president is probably responsible for getting us into war these days. I think it's more deep state and, like, administrative officials that are pulling the strings. But a president seems to be able to stop it from happening or at least put the brakes on. Keep my look.

Everything's interconnected. So Xi, watching this, is looking and saying, hey, Taiwan, you look pretty juicy. That's the one where I do think. I think that she i don't know how long after the olympics he goes and makes his move that's the one where i think putin goes and takes a little part of ukraine chalks up a victory he gets his win he stops the nato expansion uh into uh or the eu expansion pardon me into ukraine some of the other things but i do think she goes all the way and goes for Taiwan. What gets me, this invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan,

the United States pulled off. I can't in good conscience say, hey, China, don't invade Taiwan. Because it's like, dude, I just supported a country for 20 years that invaded a country and it's still in Iraq. But at the same time, I can't condone the CCP invading Taiwan. I can't condone the CCP invading Taiwan. I can't condone that. I think the people in Ukraine got a very tough lesson in American foreign policy when they saw what happened in Afghanistan.

So I feel bad for the people of Ukraine. They're in an extremely tough situation. On one side, you have Russia. On another side, you have NATO and Joe Biden, who pulled off one of the worst withdrawals, literally arming our enemies. Literally, you couldn't pull off a worse move than you could even try to when it came to what Biden did with Afghanistan. And that's still fresh in a lot of people's minds, especially internationally, especially in Ukraine, who are sitting there like, man, we're screwed. Let me ask this, though.

Some people have pointed out in the chat, if Russia moves on Ukraine, China goes for Taiwan instantly. What do you think? Possibility. Yeah, I think it's – and look, the order could be the other way around, but there's always safety in numbers. They'll make it two-front war because then you have NATO, you have AIPAC, you have everyone who's looking at it. So I think that's probably pretty accurate. Although I do think that both happen regardless, but it speeds up and expedites the action of such if they both do it, or if one does it, yeah.

Let's say this year Russia invades Ukraine. It seems like it's likely. Or at the very least, the U.S. is saying that there will be a false flag or something happens. Let's say that China does move on Taiwan. What do you think the Biden administration's response is going to be? You think they'll be able to handle this or do you think it just falls apart? I think it falls apart.

And I tell you, and the other thing too, just especially as I'm traveling around and pushing the platform in a lot of different countries, Japan is freaked the heck out. Japan is looking at it and saying, hey, if they take Taiwan, we're next. And they are, the entire region is absolutely in panic saying, at least again, you know, we knew where things were with Trump. But Biden, we saw his response tonight. He talked like a U.S. senator. He said, I'm going to give them the toughest sanctions. They are going to be, they are on restriction. They do not get to ride their bike for two weeks. And it's, that's about how tough it was. This is why American

foreign policy is so mind boggling because it's self-defeating. It's shooting itself in the foot. You have a situation where Russia and China don't like each other. There's an opportunity to work with one another, have peaceful cooperation, have economic incentives to work with Europe. And the more that the United States puts up these neoconservatives, the more we push away Russia, the more Russia becomes closer to China, and they could act in unison. And strategically, that would be the move that they would pull off that would put the United States in a very particularly difficult position on the world stage that wouldn't only just question its hegemony, but outright change the

whole understanding of how the world kind of operates. So this could also be a deliberate effort to bring down the United States with this kind of viewpoint of what the world sees America as. Especially under Biden, there's no way the U.S. can maintain its empire. There's no way it can maintain the military bases everywhere. Russia moves on Ukraine. We're split on two fronts. The U.S. does not have the organizational power, does not have the cohesion. We've got viral videos of women in the army doing TikTok dances. We've got wokeness and critical race theory. I got to be honest, if Xi Jinping

is looking at Taiwan, he's probably laughing about what he sees in the U.S. media having to do with our military. Vladimir Putin, the same thing. There was that viral campaign where the Russian military ad of it's all black and it's all gray and green. And there's this guy and he's all sweating. He's ripped and he's doing pushups and he jumps out of a plane and he lands. He got the mask on his arms. He's like, oh, and he's fighting. And then you have the U.S. Army ad of little girl saying, I have two moms. And I'm like, that's cool's cool i guess i don't know how that's going to instill fear in our adversaries and the people who want to do wrong by us and our friends but i guess this is what we end up with yeah something tells me that she and putin do not

sit around debating whether or not they're going to fund transgender surgeries that's that's probably not something that they spend much time on i want to make sure i'm being fair too at the same time as this ad comes out and everyone criticized the army ad for having this like woke diversity thing we still have the marine corps which is putting out ads of like there's one where a guy he sees like weird futuristic sci-fi hologram selling sneakers and then he like swings at one and then falls and slams and all of a sudden he's in a swamp and he gets up and he's armed and it's the Marine Corps and it's much, much more hardcore, much more similar to the Russian ad. So that's a fair point.

I want to make sure we're giving the reasonableness, the rationality here. But I don't think Russia is putting together ads to convince their military service member in any branch to be woke, diverse, comfy, cuddly, pastel, beanbags, safety spaces and all that stuff. So unfortunately for us, or maybe even, you know, there's still a light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe we shouldn't be the world police. Maybe we never wanted to be. Donald Trump was very critical of this aspect of America. And maybe this will, you know, get us back to America first policies, make us focus on our own borders. Maybe Biden's failures will cost us our

empirical status in a sense, but we'll end up with a stronger economy at home with the working class being better supported with secure borders. But we know that's not going to happen. We know that, especially not under Biden, at least not till we get another different president in the White House. The fact of the matter is Trump had this very much the position that the America first. And look, a lot of criticism, a lot of heat from people saying you should be doing things to help out. Obviously, he sent the military, the missiles to Ukraine, but said, you got to go and handle it on your own. But people knew where Trump stood. And so with North Korea, that was when he put through the big economic sanctions on China. So he had that approach. He was aggressive and he was out in front on a number of these things. The thing with Biden is I don't even think Biden knows what his strategy is. He said,

oh, we're going to go and we'll talk. We'll have some different things. And he's not making friends with anything. He's basically just sending the signal to everyone that we're weak. Americans were weak. And that's one of the things, especially as I've been traveling around, even like I said, we're talking about this before we started, even the countries where people, Trump was way upside down. He's like 10 percent favorable. They're saying at least with Trump, people wouldn't steamroll the U.S. or the U.S.'s allies. Biden is inviting all of the aggression from Xi and Putin because he's so weak. I mean that was a disgrace to the country, what we saw in that two-hour press conference that he had tonight.

It's embarrassing. But that's just who Joe Biden is. I tweeted out, that's our Joe. It's embarrassing. But that's just who Joe Biden is. I tweeted out, that's our Joe, because we know it. You know, I was watching, I can't remember what we were watching earlier, but I saw a commercial for Jimmy Kimmel. And I just looked up and I said to everybody, you know, it's crazy that there are people who still live in that world, that fake media, handcrafted narrative world. People still live in there. It's the matrix. You know, I guess I can envy those poor ignorant

fools but ignorance is bliss so that bliss i mean sounds great turn on the tv joe biden's great he's charismatic and confident everything's better than ever and for those of us that have taken that red pill and popped out of the matrix we're like wow this is really bad but i'll tell you what at least we can buy our emergency food and build our bunkers so that when it does hit the fan, we'll be okay for at least a few months, right? I'm kidding. Calm down, everybody.

I don't think it's a bombastic statement to say that the American empire is going down and that there are special interests in this country that are making sure that it gets destroyed from the inside. And I think one way they will do that is by, of course, creating more Afghanistan situations, creating more foreign policy failures, creating more foreign policy that absolutely lets the entire world down.

It's absolutely crazy to act and play like this tough guy when, again, diplomacy is the biggest strength that you could show. If you could resolve problems without needing to saber-rattle or start a war or kill people. That's one of the biggest strengths that you could have on this world. And, you know, more than ever, we need diplomats. But now we have a situation that is very, very dangerous and only going to be expanding from here. And I think the United States is being destroyed deliberately. And I think foreign policy is a major ingredient to that destruction. And I just add on that, is that the only way that diplomacy works is if they think that you have the fortitude to back it up, or if they think that you're tough enough, because I agree with you.

Look, I don't want us to go sending war troops over to Europe or to Asia or to anywhere else. I mean, I thought it was good what Trump did with drawing troops from a number of the countries from around the world. But if people don't think that you actually act or back up any of your allies on this, then they're going to go and they're going to be aggressive. And then guess what's going to happen? Then you get to real war. I think we're headed towards real war. I mean, at least with what China has been doing, you know, we have them going near our waters in Hawaii, going near our waters in Alaska. We've had that meeting with

Antony Blinken where China basically just said the United States is not coming from a position of power. So when we're at that, you know, we can call it Thucydides' trap. Maybe the simple way to put it is not any special kind of, you know, named idea. It's just that China is growing in power. And as their power grows and their military might grows, they become more confident. And they start looking at America saying, you know what? We're not shorter than you anymore. We've grown up. We've matured and we're powerful.

Screw you. And the U.S., being the old dog, going to be like, no way, but we got Joe Biden? So we can't. Keep in mind that Russia and China both have similar issues that they're facing where Putin and Xi have to watch their flank internally as well. Part of the reason why Putin does the whole saber rattling is because that's a strategy of saying, you know what, I want to shore up my domestic base by going to get everyone focused on the fact that Ukraine is, we own Ukraine. These terrible, horrible people from the West are trying to impose on us. So let's pay attention to that as opposed to the fact that Russia's

economy is the size of the state of New York. Xi, one of the things, China's economy is in a real tough stretch right now. They have this massive water crisis in China that is the real deal. I mean, they have some real problems, and the other thing, too, all the cheap labor force that they have, everyone's moving up to the middle class in China, so they can't pay people like two pennies an hour. They're having to go and try to essentially pillage Vietnam and other countries to do this.

So Xi has the same issue. That's part of the reason why're having to go and try to essentially pillage Vietnam and other countries to do this. So Xi has the same issue. That's probably the reason why he has to go and move on Taiwan to go shore up his base, get everyone rallied, say it's us against the West again. Yeah. And they have also very little natural resources, very limited ability to farm and produce food. This is why China's trying to turn a desert into farmland right now. This is the lengths that they're turning to. They also turned to weather modification, trying to alter climates in order to provide better farming situations, because this is why it's so important for them to move out of that landlocked position strategically. This is why they've been building islands. This is why even Taiwan is so tempting for them, because they know they need to expand their empire.

If they don't, they're going to be doomed, especially with the population that they have right now filled with a lot of men and very little women. And the situation in China is like a perfect storm, a perfect recipe of disaster. Tim, to your point about their aggression even doing things all the way to Hawaii, I mean, since when did the Nine Dashdash line extend to Maui, right? But that's basically where they are now. They're like, hey, this is the decoupling is happening.

What's the worst case scenario for us, though? I mean, if China starts expanding and taking over, I know there's economic consequences. So from a really crass perspective, there are a couple of things. Number one, it basically says if they go and take – because you don't take part of Taiwan, right? I mean, it's an Island. So either go and take the whole thing. It's a sovereign country. It's not like Ukraine where you can carve out a few miles and say, we declare victory. And, uh, you know, we, we, we stopped the expansion of, uh, of the EU and all this kind of stuff. Taiwan is different from a couple of things. One, it's a country where we have drawn a line is the U S and said, this is an ally. We're immediately signaling. We'll do

nothing for Japan or anyone else in the region. The other thing too, and again, this is very crass, but it's the real world. The fact that if China were to take Taiwan, the world's semiconductor market is we are beyond screwed. We have sent everything to Taiwan. The U.S., I don't think people realize if China will then own effectively everything. And I know that's, I'm just being very crass about it, but it's saying that the West will never defend an ally just as much. Right, right, right, right. Cars, already hard to come by. Computers. And it's not just that. We put computer chips in everything. And that's Taiwan. Steve Bannon was talking about it. He said Silicon Valley West. And that's why you've got U.S. interests desperately trying to pump government money into American factories to produce chips, silicon chips, semiconductors, etc.,

because we know what's coming. And I appreciate the effort, but it also kind of feels like their quick and desperate moves into funding American manufacturing in this space, while a good thing, just signals we expect Taiwan to fall to China. It's a matter of when, not if. Yeah. That's what China says. China officially It's a matter of when, not if. Yeah, that's what China says. China officially stated on the record, it's not when we invade Taiwan, it's... No, no, it's not if we... Sorry, sorry. Yeah, yeah. It's not if we invade Taiwan, it's when. Let's talk about how our unfortunate Democrat leadership is impacting us domestically. You know, thanks, Joe Biden, for your press conference talking about how you're doing really, really well. Meanwhile, in this story from Yahoo Finance, L.A. freight train looting out of control as thieves worsen supply chain bottlenecks.

Have you guys seen these photographs out of L.A. or these videos? Dude, the train stops to unload and like 50 guys jump on with bolt cutters, snap it open, start throwing TVs out. People are just loading up. There's boxes everywhere. I was, I saw one report where they were like, are you wondering where your Amazon delivery went? Perhaps it was lost in an LA freight yard. And I'm just like watching a video. There's people filming them do it. This is what's happening on the ground in this country. And you see this stuff. I got to tell you with the trucker shortage, with the labor shortage, with the airlines freaking out, canceling flights every single month for some new problem, Ukraine, war with Russia might be the least of our worries when you don't have truckers to bring you food, when your goods being shipped by train are being looted and your supplies being destroyed.

We're going to go local, I got to say. I just want to make a point. China has bullet trains. We have this. This is true. I take the Amtrak up to New York every week, forget her. And I get on that. I'm like, man, it's basically like the Joe Biden of trains getting on Amtrak.

Joe Biden of trains. But one of the things, if you go to the press conference, just going back to Brandon for a moment here, it was so bad when he's trying to explain inflation. He was trying to say the reason for inflation is because of the supply chain crisis. So he's blaming one crisis that essentially he's allowing to happen based on another crisis that he's allowing to happen. And it's just the swirl. But I tell you this story. They were showing some images of essentially the yards where it's just all the empty packages where they've gone through and ripped everything.

There's this entire field full of... Look at these photos. Yeah. Look at this. Pull this stuff up. Wow. This is absolutely insane. I can't believe.

It's just... Looks like L.A. The train's going to derail by hitting cardboard. Yeah, that's concerning. You either need armed guards at this point, whether they're human or robot or turrets or whatever, or you need... Jeez, Ian!

...bullet trains, like you're saying. Super fast turrets or whatever, or you need bullet trains, like you're saying, super fast trains that are enclosed so you can't get inside. Ian calling for auto defense turrets at train stations. This is how Skynet started. You laugh and the next thing you know, we get jumped on. They used to have armed, like a guy would sit

on the stagecoach with his shotgun, making sure they didn't get jumped as they were riding in the 1800s, but now we've become so complacent that we was like hey i can walk around without looking both ways the world's really not that safe have you ever read or seen judge dread yeah yeah i don't know if i want to live in that world where it's like the trains are late like you know there's just layers of auto defense turrets with gun sights pointing at you as you walk past yeah me neither so let's build magnet mag rail uh trains maglev yeah maglev trains that are enclosed that will also solve the problem without turrets turretless or we just have elon musk build a bunch of his tunnels

yeah but basically a traffic jam it's a synergistic uh company model because not only do you build the tunnels underground then you can build the high speed rail in the tunnels and then we do it on mars for instance where he's colonizing. I think we're going local. One thing that we've been focusing on is we've got our own garden. We've got chickens. We love our chickens. They're silly little things.

They lay eggs all the time. And so we had a homesteader on the show a while back talking about how if you even get one or two percent of your food source from your own production, you're doing really, really well. And when you look at this stuff, it's not an issue of prepping. It's an issue of, let me just say, if you're someone who has watched Joe Biden speak, you probably have already started prepping. If you're someone who isn't and you're only watching CNN, I need not warn you about why you should have some emergency food or you should learn to farm or garden or get some animals. You need only watch Joe Biden speak. If you watch that man speak, just like literally

don't watch a clip, watch like a full thing of him talking and you still think he is doing a good job and we're going to be fine, then by all means, you do as you please. But I think the average person who has not listened to the man, who doesn't know that he said once trunin on a shop at a pressure once they see that they're going to be like how many beans can i buy in one trip to walmart because that man is terrifying me not only that if you watch joe biden tonight you don't already own a firearm i bet tomorrow's going to be i bet loudon guns it's going to be you know record lines out the door. Be like back during COVID. I wonder if we can track that, actually, because I agree. I think people are going to go buy guns right now. If this were like a militant despotism and we had a leader like that, I was going to ask what would happen to them?

Because right now we kind of have a decentralized system. The United States is pretty self-sufficient. We don't really need a president to get the job done. Of course, the military needs a leader. But in a country where it's like Libya with Gaddafi, if someone like that got into power that was like not there, what would happen? They just have him completely murdered instantly and the new president would take over. But we live in a place where it's not so drastic that that guy as the president doesn't have to be like a power monster. It can be kind of almost not there. It's good when we have civilian leadership of our armed forces and the idea is we have our generals but

then we elect a civilian leader who can then check them and bring some accountability the problem is when you have an old man in a wheelchair with a blanket on his lap pushed into a sunroom and then he falls asleep and goes there's no one keeping any of these forces in check or organizing them or even having a plan for what we're doing. Because when you guys are like 25th Amendment and Kamala Harris, LOL, I'm also like, no, no. So what would happen?

A general would take control of our country? Let me ask you something. Honest question. What would you prefer? All of this in LA or Kamala Harris locking all of these people up, you know, and many innocent people along with it, right? This is the challenge. Some people might say, you know, Kamala Harris is a brutal dictator type person who kept

people in prison to use a slave labor to fight wildfires. Actually, they actually, for a dollar an hour, because these people were, my understanding is that they were eligible for parole. And she was like, no, we need the cheap labor to fight wildfires, which is basically, in my opinion, slavery. And you could have that, and it will mean your train tracks are clean. But I do not like the idea of empowering someone as evil as that woman. And so it's like then what do we get, Sleepy Joe asleep on the job and everything starts falling apart? It's like we're between a rock and a hard place.

So one thing, going back to the Bernie reference we brought up earlier, which during the campaign, I'd always kind of make that joke. And I put out a meme a few times. So here's like Nancy and Kamala propping them up. And here's an Antifa flag in the background and White House burning and all that. I assumed when Biden came in to be weakening at Bernie's, but it would be essentially the hardcore libs that were propping them up. Here's the thing. I don't think anybody's holding them up. I don't even think Ron Klain or Jennifer Saki or Susan Spine, Susan, who's hiding out there in Kellyanne's old office. I don't think any, to me, I would rather go against the hardcore lefty who at least we knew, look, we hate their policies, but we know what direction they're going. We know how to, how to fight them. We can challenge them on certain points. Not saying that I want to seed

any of these things to these people. I'd rather have someone who's a lefty where at least we can go and combat them as opposed to someone who's, quite frankly, incompetent. I would rather have no government so we could actually live our lives free and prosperously in a way where we don't have centralization and control of our basic human activities that are absolutely destroyed by these plutocrats and fat cats. But, you know, I'll push back a little bit. There's got to be some cooperation. There's got to be some governance. I don't mean a boss or a cop was going to tell you you can't do things. I just mean the more you increase freedom, you also increase risks.

Of course. And I'm actually cool with a substantial amount of risk. But I think people should consider that it would be more like the Wild West. Yeah. Not all bad. You know, more freedom. No one's going to bug you when you want to be on your property minding your own business. But you might get bugged by some bad people who will be more likely to be unchecked.

I would argue that there would be less harm when people get to figure it out themselves. But that's just my perspective. But just going on topic here again, I would be sweating bullets if I was living in a major city. The situation financially is getting worse. It's only going to get worse. This is a slow and deliberate destruction of this country. And what we're seeing on the railroads is just one symptom of it.

This symptom is just a byproduct of this system crashing financially. It's only going to get worse here. The larger financial ramifications of the lockdowns, the restrictions, the mandates, we're still going to feel them, and they haven't been fully even transitioned into our current state that we're in right now. Financial markets take a while to actually react to certain moves by governments, and I think it's fair to say, especially with how much we have been indebted, with how much we've been printing, that financially the situation will only get worse here in the United States. And we're going to have more situations like we're seeing at the railroads unfold in many different ways all throughout this country. I just want to point out that those images I showed, I went on Google and I typed in L.A. trains and that was it.

Wow. When you Google search L.A. and trains, this is what you see. No subways, no substations, no smiling people waving with their kids, boarding a train and seeing their – there's no husband seeing his wife off as he boards. No, it's this. All of the images except for – oh, here's a pretty one. Look at that. Beautiful.

Oh, the coaster. The coaster on the Amtrak. And then everything around it is just decay and ruin. I took that trip once. It was very nice. It was beautiful. It's right on the beach. You go from LA to San Diego.

Oh, okay. The scary thing is that my prediction is that Gavin Newsom is the Dem nominee in 2024. And that is – so folks – Or Whitmer. Whitmer? Well, there was an article once. And it's not just one article, but they say that California is what the United States will be five years later. So that what happens in California affects the rest of the country five years on.

I hope not. I think with the pushback we're seeing, thanks to the internet, that's going to play a big role in people waking up and paying attention. We're seeing, hey, Getter, for instance, an opportunity for people to bypass the censorship and maintain these values and ideas and share them. If we didn't have that, and people were only able to see this mainstream narrative, then yeah, the US would become California and we would all live in squalor and destruction. So long as we keep resisting and fighting for free speech and our ability to share ideas, we're going to hold that off. Which brings me to, let's talk about Getter. And I'll start with this one. We got Joe Rogan six days ago. The reason I

think this story is a great way to kick off the Getter conversation conversation is that joe rogan with his in his conversation with dr malone helped boost a lot a lot of the user numbers on on getter or i could say convince a lot of people to sign up but then we ended up with this joe rogan mocks getter less than a month after joining i don't know how to get off mr rogan complained the site artificially bloats follower counts by including a person's twitter following on their profile i think you guys are working on this and my immediate response is you know not to make it a softball to begin with but i mean you're relatively new social media platform you're growing really quickly and you've got to deal with you know the bumps in the road along the way to for joe to be like i don't know how to get off as if he wants to quit already it's like yo man

give the platform a chance right well a Well, a couple of things here. Look at number one, you know, Joe, if you're watching, thank you very much. Uh, very appreciative for your joining.

We've had to, uh, as you correctly pointed out, uh, Tim, the, the Dr. Malone surge,

uh, that's really helped. And we've grown by almost 1.5 million people over the last two and a half weeks. Uh, sort of about four and a half million people. Now that's a 50% increase literally in a little over two weeks which is massive good news is too is that nothing crashed everything we're always ready in case

president trump came on board but but look go to the rogan point for a minute just in case anyone's not on getter obviously g-e-t-t-r and the apple store and google play just shameless plug but uh what we had is we've in about two weeks maybe about three weeks one of the features we'll have on getters when you post on getter you can have the option to then have that uh post populate on twitter as well some of the folks the front end of the house essentially on the engineering side got ahead of the back end of the house and they put that out there so here are the combined follows or how how many people would have and look so just to clarify make sure i get this right you said you post on twitter that'll appear on getter post on Twitter and it'll appear on Getter. Is that what you said? Post on Getter. It'll appear on

Twitter. So one thing just, I'm sorry. Sometimes I know. I think that was my mistake. And so when you start your account with Getter, you have the option of importing in all of your tweets, which is a very cool feature because what people don't realize that's your intellectual property. You own that because otherwise if the platforms own it, then they would be liable for everything that you're writing and posting on there. So we allow people, it's kind of a cool feature. Like, wait, all my tweets are now showing up in my getter timeline. Then your history, whether it be your posts, your memes, your recordings, whatever come

with. We went and again, what we'll have shortly then for going forward, you post on getter, it'll appear on Twitter. And then someone never really needs to go to Twitter again. The only reason I ever hear back from people is why they don't quit Twitter is, well, I have followers there. I have a message. I want to go and get this out. So people don't want to lose that. So the spirit of that, but here's where we screwed up as a platform. I'll be on the level when we screw up on something or don't get something right.

The front end, the user experience side posted here are the total followers. We've now fixed it. So it says, here are the people you're following, here are your Getter followers, here are your total, which is both Twitter and Getter. But the fact that we allowed that to go and happen first, as opposed to waiting to the back end when we did it, it was an unforced error. It's a small thing, but you just got to own it and say, hey, here's what we're trying to do, get it corrected, and then move ahead. I want to talk to you about some specific individuals, notably Nick Fuentes, who a lot of people are concerned about for being banned. But before we get into that, I think there's some important context. And so we will

talk about that in about five or so minutes. But I want to ask you about your terms of service, your community guidelines and all that. And I've pulled up the getter terms and we've looked at some of it. There's a lot of them, but I'll ask you outright and you can answer as I read through this. Do you have the same or similar policies as these other big tech platforms like Twitter? Do you ban hate speech? Do you ban wrong think, like if someone has a political opinion that doesn't fly? So let me go and take them in order because I think it's important for people who wonder and say, what's the difference here? So again, our vision with Getter and what we do, this is the free speech platform. This is where we make sure the people

who can go and actually express their political opinion without getting censored or shadow banned or algorithm out of existence simply because of what they're saying politically. So you take a look at some of the guests who've been on this show. Take a look at Steve Bannon. Take a look at Alex Jones. Take a look at, I know Dr. Malone. Dr. Malone hasn't been on, has he? Not yet. Okay. We'll talk about that over the show. Uh, but you look at some of the people who even have, uh, look at James O'Keefe, who's just here a couple of days ago, look at project Veritas, people who now have voices, a getter that were kicked off by Twitter terms of service for most of most, all the platforms. It doesn't matter if you're in the challenger platforms like us or, um, some of the other challengers, or if you're in big tech, the reason why terms of service for many folks look

so similar is because it's effectively your contract. And there's a difference though, between the terms of service and your community guidelines. One of the things where we've come under some, and so our terms of service very clearly spell out, and it's on the, both on the website and through here, but it says, for example, that without limitation, we may but do not commit to our attention to offensive, obscene, lewd, filthy, pornographic, violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, otherwise objectionable, inappropriate content. That's within obviously things like child abuse or beheading or different things like that. The terms of service, because since it's legal terms of someone,

this is your contract with someone for signing up, that's why terms of service are going to be written in that manner. Where we are working to improve is a platform. It's a post, and we're working on this right now. We hope to have it soon. I don't have the exact timeline. More specific community guidelines so it's even clearer for people. Okay, you guys say that you're the free speech platform.

We realize, okay, that somebody who's been kicked off these other platforms, they can come express themselves politically and no one's going to go and vote them off the island for talking about COVID or voting issues or climate change. There's not going to be any warning labels, but give us a little more granularity. And that's one of the things that we've heard from people and we're working to put that together to publish. So we asked this similarly of Rumble. It says right here, Getter holds freedom of speech as its core value and does not wish to censor your opinions. Nonetheless, you may not post on

or transmit through the service any unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, indecent, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, pornographic, profane, hateful, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable material of any kind, including any material that encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any law, rule, or regulation of the

laws applicable to you or applicable in the country in which the material is posted. So I'm curious because the idea of banning hateful content, I mean, that's editorially defined. And I do want to make sure we say, as we go into this, Getter clearly is going to allow more speech than these other platforms. But I'm wondering why it is that Getter has the same language.

We outright say you cannot be hateful racially or ethnically or obscene. And we see that same language on all the other big tech Silicon Valley platforms. So a couple of things here, because, again, keep in mind that for most countries, especially in the U.S., your free speech rights, for the most part, extend up until the point where they infringe on someone else's rights. If we're going to have a platform where we allow people to come on and keep it very real politically, to keep it very politically incorrect, if that's where they want to be, there have to be some standards in place to make sure that people don't think that it's a threatening or potentially illegal environment. Hateful?

Hold on. But you notice we do not use hate speech, which is a phrase that the left has taken over. And then it's like, who defines it is hate speech, for example. But here's one of the things we're not going to allow to happen on Getter. And this is something where I get a lot of pushback from people, but they've said, or we've said, excuse me, that we're not going to allow racial or religious epithets on the platform. I have not had one person who's come to me yet and said, you know what? If only I could use the blank word, then it would be an okay platform. The fact that I like getter, except I can't use the blank word. It's just you have to go and have.

You're not going to make every single person happy. But we have to have a platform, especially being global. The U.S. is about 57% right now of our overall base. It's a global platform. We have to make sure that people, regardless of your religious or your racial background, that you feel welcome on the platform. I got a question I really want to ask. Who gets to decide what is obscene?

Because some people would say Ian's obscene. Or I'm obscene. I'm not denying that, but come on. Who decides what is obscene? Is there any oversight or transparency when it comes to banning people or shadow banning people? Do you guys shadow ban as well? That's another question that people are asking. So taking it in reverse order, no shadow banning, or shadow banning people? Do you guys shadow ban as well? That's another question that people are asking. So taking it in reverse order, no shadow banning, no algorithming.

One of the things people realize with Getter is everything's in the linear timeframe. So you do not have, remember that was kind of the old Twitter before they changed up and got the algorithm advanced to where they went. And I'll give you an example of an algorithm, Dinesh D'Souza, who's on Getter.

And he brings the heat on social media, in my opinion. I think the guy's great. I didn't even know that he, effectively didn't know that he was on Twitter because I'd never seen any of his content. He gets on getter and you know, man, the guy's like every other post. He's pretty prolific because there was the shadow banning prior to being CEO of getter. Now I could literally do the proverbial covfefe and I'd get 2000 retweets. Now I can have an actual legit, you know, I'll take one of my getter posts and put them over on Twitter. I'll get like 30 people retweeting just, Hey, guess i'm ceo no shadow banning or anything in

fact one of the things i've made very clear as a ceo everybody gets treated the same it doesn't matter if you're on the left on the right something look people tell me i'm number one in a not very positive way all the time that's that's part of the part of the drill you come on there you want to go and speak your opinion great you can go have that. So there's no shadow banning or algorithming of, of any sense. Yeah. But, but so to, to your next point then, but who decides this? So we work with two parts is how our moderation platform works. First of all, we have, so it's two parts, both an AI component, artificial intelligence,

as well as human moderators. There are a number of key features. It's like 44 or so different categories of things, say for like a full-on pornography or something that's a beheading, things that are just certain words, for example, that will get stopped immediately from getting posted. That's what they call the API. So it's not like it goes somewhere and it gets screened.

Literally, you can't even do it from the API from the platform. So those things get blocked. Certain things are in the category of, and again, it's got to be pretty darn strong So those things get blocked. Certain things are in the category of, and again, it's, it's gotta be pretty darn strong for it to get, uh, for it to get blocked. But then things that are say between a, you know, five on the scale to nine on the scale, then go to human moderators to go and review. And what we have with, so the, all the human moderators who are part of getter number one, we, they go through a pretty extensive background check. So it usually before someone gets onboarded, uh, I want to say it's upwards of at least two or three weeks of going through to do a background check to make sure they're not going to be bringing some aspect of political bias to it.

Are these Americans or foreign workers? All of the above. So there are people, because keep in mind, I mean, we have people who are monitoring 14 languages right now. So I'll tell you that you're only going to find so many people in the U.S. who are monitoring Japanese, for example. So we have people, but there will be a lot of people in South Australia and New Zealand who might be monitoring Japanese or even monitoring Mandarin or Arabic.

I think it's 14. It might be 15 languages now. But the other thing, too, is going through and then certain things the moderators might not know. They might not. So in addition to the background check, obviously then we do the spot checks and making sure where things are.

Certain things where there are going to be questions. And I've had things that are frivolous. They get elevated up to our executive board. Then we have a six-person team that they go both combination of kind of the user interface folks, as well as the legal people who kind of look through it

where something has to get, we decide, okay, what's our posture going to be? Certain things then get brought to my attention. I'll tell you some of the things have been frivolous. Like on the first day, one of the moderation people came running up and, you know, Jason, Jason, someone just posted the picture of Hunter Biden with the feather boa and the tidy whities. You know, what do we say? And of course my answer on that is, look, I'm never going to tell the son of the president of the United States what he can and can't wear in his pictures. And I'm going to defend his freedom to wear that feather boa. That's frivolous.

I'll tell you something that's not frivolous is after the Afghanistan airport bombing Kabul, where there were images that were posted of actual people blowing up like pretty newsworthiness to that as much as it's bad. So here is, so going through that, because this is like, this is the type of decision that we have to sit down and make, is that we are such an anti-terrorism, anti-authoritarian regime.

You can't go and sweep stuff under the rug. And look, a lot of our people are on board, say, in France and Germany, have dealt with the terrorist bombings firsthand. So we made the decision you cannot show the act of killing someone. So you couldn't actually show, and I'm just being very direct, you can't show the act of killing someone. So you couldn't actually show, and I'm not trying to, I'm just being very direct. You can't show the act of somebody blowing to pieces, but you can show what the carnage is afterwards. I literally went through this last night with our director of moderation, where one of our verified users showed somebody driving who was being shot in somewhere in the Middle East. So it's actually the act of shooting

the person and while in the single take they went up and opened the door and pulled out essentially a dead family with the kids so in that context said look because it's showing the act of killing them we can't show that but if it's showing afterwards hey here's what happens on attack that the people are dead that's that's where we decided to draw the draw the line it's tough because i totally understand why people would be like we don't want that on our platform but there's a very important newsworthiness wouldn't a filter be better

you don't see it unless you opt in or unless you decide to follow those people shouldn't people have the choice to say I want to follow those people for this coverage I don't want to derail from the point I'm making the point I'm making is in this world if a serious moment happens let's say we saw what happened with Aaron Danielson, a Trump supporter, was walking down the street and Antifa guy put two in his chest.

As much as it's a gruesome act, I think people need to see the newsworthiness of this. This happened in this country. And if you restrict that, people won't believe it. You could go to someone and say, did you know that a far left Antifa guy killed a dude? And they'll be like, show me the video. I can't get her banned it. Would you ban the George Floyd video? Would not ban the George Floyd video.

But that's a video of someone dying. But it's the, with the George, that's a good question. On the George Floyd video, it's the, the George Floyd video was different for the fact that it was a much longer process. When he's on the ground, he's choking.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't die until shortly thereafter. No, he died on the ground. Did he die down there in the ground? Yeah, on the ground. Okay. So you guys would ban it or keep it? So that's a thing. I would need to watch that video again to go and

see it but if it's my when i was thinking through i thought that he died shortly thereafter but if it's the actual act of him dying then the moment i think it's a little bit different when someone's exploding you know that's the moment when they're dying as opposed to here's the process of him slowly having the oxygen what about the aaron danielson thing there's a video you can't really see it perfectly but you can see him walk up and he yells, we got him here. And then you hear bang, bang. And then the guy, you see the gas go off. The explosion happens when the tank ruptures.

And a Trump supporter, he's dead. When I talk to people about what's going on in the United States with rioting and violence, it's really easy to explain to them the fringe right elements or ultra-traditionalists or whatever. They do crazy things. Ramming cars or shooting people. But trying to find evidence of Antifa when it's covered up by the media and they say it's lying is very difficult. So if we're trying to go on social media, if someone like Andy Ngo is on the ground and he films this, you guys would ban it. Again, it's tough to do the 100 percent and again we're gonna we'll get some things wrong and we're not always going to get it right every time we're continually reviewing it uh and that's where when you see it you'll know but again if it's when you take like you

know what happened to andy for example and obviously he was beaten and uh he wasn't killed was right yeah thankfully yeah exactly uh obviously but they're you know what happened with andy that's or if andy, exactly. Obviously, but what happened with Andy, or if Andy was in a position of filming what happened to Andy, for example, obviously that'd be... But if they took his life in the street, you'd ban people from being able to see them doing it? Our posture is that we would show the aftermath with the moment of where someone's life is being taken.

The Floyd one becomes a little bit more difficult where a lot of, even a lot of the, and again, we're not the big news outlets, but where news outlets would show is, here's part of the struggle that was happening that might show that actual moment. So that's maybe to clarify. And again, that's why it's tough to even say,

here's the broad generalization, because it's right now what our kind of our our our north star so to speak in dealing with this is at that moment where someone's life is being taken that should not be shown but obviously here is the the carnage in the aftermath of what happened uh and again here's the thing these are um the tough decisions you have to make when you're running a platform because at a certain point you have to decide that's why i said not everyone's going to agree with you on every single time you in order to defend our mission of having the political free speech and allowing people to go way further than or let and not be and not have the political discrimination exercise against them

there has to be that certain point where you're looking saying here's the line and that's tough well i personally i disagree with that policy but I respect you standing firm and saying that's your policy, and people who are listening can decide for themselves if that's a deal-breaker or not. I certainly think there's value in the fact that you're allowed to talk about news outside of that context that Twitter doesn't allow, that Joe Rogan would be able to talk with Dr. Robert Malone on Getter. So I suppose people should have to navigate that stuff. But let's talk about – This is the problem.

No, no, no. I got to ask you about a specific individual as it pertains to all these policies. You say that people will not be treated differently. But a lot of people are asking why Nick Fuentes was banned from Getter. And what we're hearing is everybody's saying he did not break any of your rules. I would disagree on that. There was a post that he brought or put on Getter that was interpreted from our position

as recruiting people who are in the white nationalist space. And that's not something when it comes to one of the white nationalist groups that we're going to allow to happen on Getter. And look, I'm not going to allow what was the statement he said uh he was effectively reaching out and are there other gropers that are on here what's a how would you define a gripper uh is a white nationalist but you so you don't allow white nationalists on getter well anyone can come on and join the play except for terrorists we ban terrorists we

don't do not allow terrorists and we've've gone through and found the Twitter handles and other things for the Ayatollah or Hamas or Hezbollah or some of these other folks and blocked those accounts on Getter so they can't go and create it. Obviously, someone could try to work around and find it. But if we find that, we're is to go and try to cause harm to other people, that's going to make this an environment that's going to go and scare people and make them not feel safe. I just want to know what specific term of service was that a violation of? That would go into, or I would say that many people would be concerned that if you're turning Getter effectively into the OKCupid. What's the specific term of service that he violated with that post? So that would go into, as we talk about a white nationalist group, you talk about what that impact is going to be for, say, people of different races or religions. So that because the presence of a white nationalist would be negative to another group, you've

banned him? I would describe it differently. I would say from the fact that you're trying to then recruit for one of these organizations. So Black Lives Matter is banned? I would say if you went on there and said that, say, any group that's viewed as existing only to go and hate on people who are uh of a different race or religion and you try to turn uh get her into a recruitment zone then we kick you off as well it seems a bit of a stretch look uh for obvious reasons i'm no fan

of any of these white nationalists you know especially the stuff my family has dealt with and then i got to deal with the racist woke people who accuse me of just all the stupidest trash. It's laughable. But the issue here is posting on Getter saying, you know, are there any other Gropers doesn't seem like he was targeting, offending, attacking, or recruiting. It just was like, hey, who's in the house? And it seems to me that you guys probably banned him for a pr issue you don't want to i i and this is my opinion correct me if i'm wrong but if it seems to me that you're worried that you'll get kicked out of the play store that you'll get negative ramifications

from uh from big tech in silicon valley and the only real reason to get rid of them was the threat from the establishment media you know no i'd push back on that i mean if that was the case that'd be hiding under the the covers with the flashlight saying what are people saying about covet what are people saying but but so what you just described to us would mean that you have to anyone who's woke is banned because they they routinely their their ideology specifically calls out the idea of whiteness they're calling out white as as like a negative thing and so if someone goes on getter and says,

who here is a Black Lives Matter supporter, you would ban them? I would say if anyone is going out there, obviously a little bit of a difference on some of the BLM. I think there are people who have participated, say in some of the march, but if people are going out there,

look, if you're saying that you're part of a group and the only reason for being a part of the group is to hate on someone who is of a different race or religion, we're not going to allow it to become a recruiting zone. There are a lot of left-wing groups that specifically do that. Diversity, equity, inclusion, wokeness, critical race theory. So are you saying- But there's a difference. When you talk about some of the, look, and we have libs and lefties and different people on the platform but it's

different between going on there and saying i support some liberal ideology but they're saying i'm gonna go if you had somebody's on there saying uh look they want to be a part of a group that their only mission was to go and try to take down white people or take down people of some other race or religion then we kick them off as well they So, I mean, these writers, so like Robin DiAngelo's banned from Getter. I don't know Robin, so. So she writes about whiteness and criticizes whiteness, and so Ibram X. Kendi, he's banned from Getter.

I would have to see what they're writing. I have to know the people. Those two names, I don't know. But again, if- So Ibram Kendi has specifically called for racial discrimination. You'd ban him for that? Like in his book, he actually says

the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination. The solution to present discrimination is future discrimination. So if he signed up, you'd be like, you're gone. If it was someone – and again, I'd want to see the specific example to see how that's written. But the way that you described it on that, then we would not allow someone like that on the platform. It sounds like you're actually way more strict than Twitter. No, I would disagree and say that what Twitter is trying to... So here's the difference. There's a massive difference here. When we set out with the platform and we have our vision of what we're

trying to do here, make sure people go and express their opinions and not get kicked off and say that one ideology is accepted, but another ideology, for example, is not accepted. Twitter looks and says, we want to form the world in a certain viewpoint we want to have people go in this certain direction that is not what we're trying to do but but the one thing to make sure is that we have to make sure that people feel safe to be able to come on the platform and if they feel that that and again this isn't a say you disagree on something that's twitter's viewpoint i verbatim what jack dorsey told me we have to make sure it's safe for people and he said the reason they have the misgendering

policy is because trans people feel unsafe by people questioning trans uh transgender ideology or or transgender dysphoria if you're saying the same thing no because i think it's i think it's totally different because what they're saying is they're going into places say like in the public policy space and they're saying that our viewpoint is allowed but another viewpoint is not but when you're going into a place and again whether you're going in there and is effectively attacking another group uh or if you're representing a group that is about attacking people we're not going to allow that so if someone would say white people are inferior or white people are crackers, would you ban them for that speech? I said white people are...

Inferior or white people are crackers. Oh, no, evil, evil. White people are evil. Oh, yeah. Would you ban them? Yeah, no, if you went and said, yes, if you went and said something like, yes, like to a particular group, then we would take that post down depending on the severity of the post that was there,

depending if the user has her account suspended. So what about someone like Abigail Schreier? Is that her name? She wrote the book on transgender children. Would she be allowed to be on the So, for example, someone going on there saying, hey, here's my idiotic left-of-center woke teaching, for example. Okay, but if they're going out and saying that, essentially suggesting harm, physical harm or physical threat on another community, then you can't allow that. So if you have someone like YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, they have these policies on protecting the trans community. said something like children should not be allowed to undergo gender reassignment, that doctors who are giving them these chemicals are wrong, and all of these medical treatments

should be taken away from these children and their parents should be arrested. Would that be allowed on the platform? I have short answers the way that you've described it, yes. That would be allowed on the platform? Correct. So the difficult thing for me is, you know, I had that conversation with Jack Dorsey. I referenced Correct. think is going to be safe or not safe. So you probably as a more conservative leading individual, when I bring up that stuff about trans kids, you're like, oh, we'd allow that. Well, Jack Dorsey would ban that. But then when it comes to someone like Nick Fuentes, you're like, oh, we're going to ban that. I mean, Twitter also banned. Twitter also banned. But again, I'm going to push back on this. And I'm going to say that, look, and I think the questions we guys are bringing up are very fair. And look, I get, trust me, I get the questions all day long, but here is, I think there's a complete different because our philosophy is we want to have a place

where people can come and bring their, their hottest takes and whether they want to take, whether it be politically incorrect, whether it be again, come from the left or the right, where they don't have to worry about someone coming in editorializing and saying, well, this is my position. This is how I view the world, regard to, you know, this is whether it be, you know, again, you know, as you like COVID or voting or whatever the case, or look, if you want to come and talk about, you know, kind of pro-wokeism type stuff or left to center, we do not look at it and say, we want this opinions, but we don't want that opinion. That's, that's the difference between us and big tech. Big tech is coming in, whether it be Twitter, Facebook, everyone else.

They're putting up the warnings. They're then editorializing. It is not our place to go and editorialize and say that this person's political viewpoint is right and this person's is wrong. Unless it goes against diversity, inclusivity, and equity. But there's – hold on. I don't think that's a fair description because when – so let's take the immigration debate, for example, there are, and there are countless people have been kicked off.

I mean, take a look what's happening in France right now. I think part of the reason even why Eric Z. Moore, uh, who's a conservative candidate who's running for president in France, his joint getter, because he's,

what he's talking about is already the problems caused by migration, other things that are happening. And he would get suspended or kicked off by saying half of that stuff on Twitter because they don't want you to talk about the reality of, say, immigration, the problems that are caused. And again, whether it's legal or illegal or what's going on. Getter, you're going to be able to go and express yourself and talk about these issues.

Now, if you went to taking the next step about I want to cause harm to somebody, we could then put – But what does that mean, harm? Well, I mean, obviously we have a number of different categories in there. If you went and said that everyone who has this skin color is bad, I think that we would go to remove that post. So that's very much – look, I'll stress it again. Obviously I think very few people in the United States like racism.

There was a really great point – I mean there are racists in this country. Don't get me wrong. And there was a really great point made on Tucker Carlson's show where one of his guests, he brought a leftist – a lefty person who said, Tucker, would you allow someone to come on here and make racist comments? And Tucker was like, I wouldn't. Exactly. And that's your platform and your right to do. So i get because i don't i don't like any of that stuff i just feel like it is getter along with any one of these other platforms has decided this is the only acceptable world view you are not allowed to do these things on our platform

you know period and so that that's the big issue. If you say it's about free speech, then often what we've brought up is, you know, on this show and many anarchists have said this and many conservatives, then the only speech that should be banned is if it crosses a legal threshold, not an opinion threshold, even if we really despise those opinions. So for instance, I despise white nationalists. I think they're stupid. I think, and I really hate the woke people, but there is a real strength to diversity if you're talking about the actual core of diversity of viewpoint, which can come from people around the world and things like this.

But as much as I despise their opinions, I think banning that just leads us down a slippery slope of authoritarianism. And if conservatives who are creating alternatives still uphold Silicon Valley's worldview, even if it's a little bit less, in 10 years, it will just keep getting worse. So I'm going to disagree with you. And the reason on that is what big tech and Silicon Valley are doing, they're trying to push people in a certain direction and say, here is what – in the YouTube, the climate change, we're joking about it um uh before the show but it's actually a very serious point because that is where it's expanded beyond okay here's trump and we're gonna be mad at him for january 6th or something that nature or this is you know causing some kind of you know sedition or some kind of illegal activity they're not going into the public policy space and they're saying if you agree with our position or our worldview it might not even be that granular start going to say whether we know trans or immigration or you know different issues like that i just i i agree with you i understand the

point you're making i'm not trying to be uh rude but i think we're starting to go in a circle you know what i mean so yeah i just i i guess your your point and i and i think it's still a good thing and i and i hate to be you know we have the opportunity to bring rumble ceo on and you on and it becomes this like negative critical thing but we we would never get this opportunity with Zuckerberg or, you know, with Jiski or whoever the CEO of Twitter is. And so that's one thing I think is important to point out. We should be careful about, you know, being overly critical and potentially damaging to opportunities.

If Getter still has the same rules or similar rules to Twitter in this regard, but doesn't editorialize political opinion in regard to policy and stuff, then I'd rather use Getter. And I think it's a good thing. That being said, I think in the bigger picture, we need alternatives and decentralization in social media space that doesn't make ethical decisions for what people are allowed to say. In your view, you think it's unsafe for people if someone comes on and doesn't like their skin color. I don't know if unsafe is the right word. I don't know if I would agree with that. If someone says bad things about someone of a race, I don't like those people.

I think they're awful. I wouldn't want to associate with them, and I would vote against them, and I would encourage my friends to vote against them if they want to bring those policies up. But I fear a society where we have homogenized, you know, we are increasingly homogenizing the moral pathway. So let me take a slightly different take on that. And again, as I mentioned earlier, we have a global platform, about half of the US, a little more than half outside. One of the things were part of the reason why some of the alternative, the challenger platform, so to speak, have never taken off is because they've been viewed as an echo chamber. And in saying that, you know, this is just a white nationalist playground, something of that nature.

If you actually want to go and have debates, you want to have people that are going to participate and be in there. The message has to be sent. You have to have the spirit of the platform that you can come on here and you can have your unfiltered political take and you can go and criticize people, go and do your thing. But people aren't concerned that they're going to become harmed by something that happens from the platform. But you mean harmed like they'll see a mean thing? No, no, if Getter was allowed to become, like I said, the OKCupid of the social media space for white nationalists, then that's going to go and tell people, massive people, that this is not an actual place for free speech. This is just something for one group. But then it's in the algorithm.

You could choose what you want to hear, who you want to be subscribed to. So if you don't want to see that, you just simply subscribe to them. And then my bigger kind of question that's a little bit more pointed is, you know, a lot of people feel let down by big tech, by social media, arbitrarily censoring speech

all in the name of safety. You're talking about, you know, respecting free speech. Other than just words and promises, are there any reinsurances that you could give the people here today that you won't become like the next twitter or facebook yeah no that's a very fair question i'd say a couple things you can look at i would say take a look at right now some of those names that i pointed out earlier i've taken a look whether it's dr malone or alex jones uh or

steve bannon or people that are on the platform and again my goal uh and right now obviously naomi wolf is not you know the extreme on say like on the, uh, on the left side, but we have had actually a number of feminists from the UK who've joined the platform because they, um, even they've gotten fed up with some of the big tech. Our goal as we expand, I want people from the left. I want people from the center. I want people from the right, want people all over. One of the things we're doing, I kind of touched on this earlier is we're going to start public. We're working on it. We should have done by now. We're going to be only been around six months, but that's not an excuse because we're always, I mean, we're going to be judged against platforms. We've been around for a lot longer is start publishing

more of the specific community guidelines of things. So people understand kind of where those, those areas are, but when, when every, the mission that everyone on our team has, whether it's on the team, whether it's a moderator, everybody, there are two litmus tests. If you're going to be a part of getter as far as our team or anyone on board, number one, do you support free speech? Number two, do you oppose cancel culture and wokeism? Those are the two things. Doesn't matter what country you're in. It doesn't matter what your background is. Those are the two principles that you're going to be on board and everybody, either you're on board with that or you're not part of the platform. It's a free country. I'll say up front, I really like competing businesses, especially in the social media

sphere. But some issues I basically right away is like, without limitation, the ability to ban anyone that is deemed offensive or inappropriate. I get it. And as a private company, I feel like you should be able to ban anyone at any time, whatever. When we talk about free speech and social networking, i believe it's not about the terms of service because a new you could quit another guy could come in and be like well now that's offensive no and that has been he's offensive so free speech and social networking is free software code that's the freedom the ability to pick it up and make another one well we're building that i don't think we should take it away from people who built their own

private one we can build our public one. I can't force someone to free their software code, but I can't trust. Like you said, there's no shadow banning. I can't trust that unless I can inspect the code. Well, part of that is, so a couple of things here, is you start moving toward, which, again, we hope to be an IPO within a couple of years here, you know, we're about six months in about two years when you start moving toward, uh, going into, and obviously we want to be a public company. The comments and the positions are taken by the leadership, CEO, other people, their ramifications. If you, if you're not accurate and tell people, so if you were to go out and say that there's no shadow banning,

no algorithming, and they find out that as the CEO, you're saying that, but that is happening. Then there are, I mean, you know, the Sarbanes-Oxley type things on crack that would go and that you'd be in real actual trouble. So there is an actual method where if you're putting out untrue statements, then there are real ramifications. You could see how like Fauci said, I never said we did gain of function. We just added function to the bat. So you could say we're not shadow banning, but be doing something similar to shadow banning and people wouldn't know. No, but also part of that – look. I want to put you on the defensive. It's not about what you say.

It's that I can't trust you. I have to only trust the code base. And real quick, Twitter has claimed over and over again it's an accident, it's an accident, it's an accident. They've said we don't shadow ban and they get caught and they go and testify before Congress. Unfortunately, it's an accident, it's an accident. They've said we don't shadow ban, then they get caught, then they go and testify before Congress. Unfortunately, Ian's right. I don't agree with him on forcing companies to free their software code. You guys built this. It's proprietary. You own it. But the reality is there's no real way for us to know

that these platforms are being fair and honest in their algorithms unless they do release all the code. So you're right from the aspect that the transparency from the aspect of what's going on, that's critical. If you want to go and have the trust and verification, I do think that for some of the bigger users and people we have on the platform, those are pretty good signals about how we're judging, how we're treating things. I also think that myself as a CEO, the fact that I've gone into the proverbial lion's den, whether that's sitting down with Kara Swisher for three hours or sitting down with the Tim Cass folks for a couple hours, that you have to go out there and say, here's what the spirit is and here's what we're doing.

And then you have to make sure that everybody on the team goes in the exact same position. If they're not, then they'll get fired. They'll get bounced in a moment. And that is exactly where we're at. And so one of the things that we're doing, because the terms of service, just to be clear on this, because when we first had the terms of service and we started going through,

and that was kind of to your point, was this looks legally, like this looks very, and again, with the lawyer said, I'm not a lawyer, but obviously I spend a lot of money now on lawyers. What they said is that, well, because you can't go into a court of law on someone, if you have a contract with someone and just say, well, here, here are my feelings, for example, because they'll say that's BS. There's very specific language is because this is your contract with someone where we are going to, this was the point that I made a moment ago, when we start publishing

more of the community guidelines. So people know within the exact things there, as far as certain statements and what's allowed, what's not permitted, they will have a better understanding of that. We should have that out there at the beginning. There's also a lot of questions. I just want to ask one more question here before we wrap here. There's a lot of people asking about the money that came into to build Getter. What's stopping it from obviously influencing the platforms? I think it came from one individual from China. I believe I'm correct. And the second question is, what's your strategy against being influenced by the ESG, environmental social governance score, when your company does go public?

Okay, so a couple of things there. I will take them in reverse order again. I will admit, at least since we're a little ways away from the going public, some of the details on that, I'm not an expert on. I'll just tell you that I don't have that. Where I typically get into more of the battles is what's going on and where we see certain countries that are starting to say, you have to go and allow certain things. Now, obviously, we have to make sure that we are abiding by, say, a country's laws. So for example, what's permitted, if it's a country that we care about, and that's part of it because there might be some countries that might say,

hey, if you allow this on the platform, then we're not going to have you here. Or we might say, well, we're not changing anything just for you guys. So, obviously, you've got to take on kind of the country-by-country basis. But some of that with the ESG part, I admittedly can't speak to quite as well. So let me go – It's big investment firms coming to companies saying, you need to abide by this rule and this rule, and we're going to implement this policy

and give you all this institutional money when you promote this agenda. Yeah, and we tell someone to pound sand. I mean, when you talk about kind of other things or kind of the spirit, even if you go to our logo, the torch with the flame, what that represents, that's about bringing lightness to dark, about bringing freedom and democracy to places where they don't have it. So, for example, one of the things we want to do, I still fundamentally think, look, I'm not like a, you know,

I wouldn't say that I have rose-colored glasses on. I still think that social media can be a force for good for expanding democracy and taking down authoritarian regimes around the world. I would love for people in China to rise up and take down the CCP. I would love for people to have that freedom of expression, that thought, because here's the deal. As soon as you start taking away people's ability to communicate, their ability to speak, you're basically at China.

I mean, that's basically where you are, or you're in Iran or wherever the case may be. Let me go to Ian. I do want to answer his other part, but if you want to jump in. Oh, yeah. But the investment money from China, I think, is an important question. You can go for that. Yeah. But to the point, if someone came in and said, hey, we want to go and buy you guys, but we're going to transition you guys into a bunch of wokesters or something, we tell them to go pound sand.

I mean, let me go to the funding because I want to make sure that I take this head on. There are no questions. So we're backed by multiple international investment firms, one that's based in London, one that's based in New Jersey. We have additional people that we're currently doing rounds of meetings to go and chat with about additional investments that are coming in. There is no China money. There is no CCP money that is involved in this.

And that's one of the things where I think just quite frankly, look, when you surge to number one, you've got a big old target on your back. Everyone's going to take shots at you. The specific name that's frequently brought up as miles glow, who is, uh, here in the U S on political asylum. Uh, he has someone who's a very strong ally, uh, of the company. He's someone who's a, uh, very much a, uh, kindred spirit as far as, I mean, literally he took a song, uh, on iTunes called Take Down the CCP to number one. So, okay, if you hit number one on iTunes with a song called Take Down the CCP, I'm going to guess that you probably don't like the CCP. A great music video, by the way, as well.

It is. It is pretty cool. But one of the firms who's invested in us has a heavy influence from Miles' family foundation. Miles does not have a direct financial or leadership role within the company. I have a board of directors with my company. I have shareholders that I'm accountable to. That is the structure. I get ideas or hear things from Miles, or obviously he's very supportive, and we're very like-minded. I've spent a lot of time with him talking about taking down the CCP and kind of our, our shared worldview on that. Uh, he is not my boss. He has not someone who goes and says,

this is what the policy is going to be or not going to be or that case. Uh, but look, here's the, the thing is when you come in, you become a marketplace disruptor. When you come in, not just taking on the big tech, but you go in, there are other people who are saying that viewed as more in the center, right type space or people who are challenging platforms, everyone starts shooting at you. And so people go and obviously there's a lot of things to put out from other platforms. They're just plain false. And I think that it's sad if they think that all of a sudden people are going to, Oh, I'm not going to go to get her, but I'm going to go to your platform. But look, this is, this is the the nfl yeah you said uh what i was going to say earlier that social media is a great opportunity to solve this authoritarian dictatorship crisis on earth i fully agree with that but the problem i keep

coming up against is that corporations are inherently authoritarian we have their top down like you said you could fire everybody if they stop agreeing with you you could do whatever you want that's true so you own the. So it's like the process is the – the pathway is the goal. So like being authoritarian to solve authoritarian doesn't – that doesn't rub me the right way. I want to get to – I apologize. This is a great show. I want to get to the questions from the audience. Can I just make one point here?

When I was going through the – when I started first chatting with the shareholders and people putting Getter together over this last spring. And we chatted. I probably spent three or four months talking to them before I left President Trump and came on board with Getter. And part of the thing is I really want to kick the tires on some of these questions. Because, look, if I'm going to go and put my reputation on the line and bring people onto this and go out and say, hey, you need to come to Getter. This is the free speech platform. This is the one platform that can actually take down big tech. This is the platform that can be the Twitter killer. You got to kick the tires. You got to make sure that you're pretty solid. And I remember asking a question during the

process, during the interview process, when I kind of turned it around and said, if there's an opportunity here to enter into a new country where we can get 10 million new users, but we're going to have to kowtow in some way to the CCP, or we could say no to entering into this country, but we can go and make progress on taking down the CCP, but we miss out on 10 million new customers. Where would it be? They said 100 times out of the 100, take down the CCP. That is where things are. And so when you're wondering about kind of where we're coming from, but our North Star is, that's exactly where it is. Let me read some of these questions. We got Waffle Sensei. We're going to go to super chats. If you

haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, share this video wherever you can, let people know to come watch. We're going to answer your super chats to the best of our abilities. Go to timcast.com for the uncensored members show, which will be up around 11 or so PM. Let's read. Waffles Sensei says, Jason, can you promise publicly and in the written policy that when you are forced to censor content because your team finds it too egregious to run to the platform that you will that you will offer an easy path to forgiveness and a limit on the amount of time you can ban someone? I think that's a great point.

One of the things where we have not done an effective job enough with people is notifying them for exactly for how long a suspension will be or what exactly. And I will say that, look, as a CEO, some of that will come on me of saying it should have that tightened up more by now. So I will say that making it clear to someone, here's how long the suspension will be. It was mainly about the duration? Well, so what they're asking for is a path to forgiveness, right? With Twitter, if you break the rules, you get a life sentence. And so one of the things that Dorsey had talked about in the past that he never implemented was there would always be a time limit, that you could post the most egregious thing and they wouldn't boot you permanently from the platform.

It might just be like a year suspension or two years or three, or there would be some path to redemption so you can come back on the platform. So I think, I think this is a great question. I would say that there, I say that for many cases, there should be a path of forgiveness. Now, some there's not going to be. So for example, if you go put up a, and again, we can say here and do the back and forth on which examples, but So, for example, if you go put up a – and again, we could sit here and do the back and forth on which example. But say, for example, like you post child porn or something like that. Okay, you're never coming back. But I think that there are cases where there should be a path of forgiveness.

I think that's an insightful question. And when we post our community guidelines in greater detail, we will have a pathway back to forgiveness more articulately fleshed out. But I think that's actually a really smart point. I'm a big fan of banning accounts instead of individuals. That way, if they violate with one account and they make a new account that's not violating the terms, then you don't ban it. Otherwise, it feels like a witch hunt. That's how I run it anyway. So let me go and push back on that a little bit sometimes it's not all the way so say for example if you had um the ayatollah for example so the ayatollah says okay we're banning you know at uh i hate israel or whatever the ayatollah's account is but then he pops in as um you know

you know steve from iran and he keeps you know spouting off the same nonsense i that's like a quick example of where it's not always quite that easy. If it's the same nonsense, you keep banning it. But if it comes on with an innocuous channel and is like, hey, I'm back, sorry, I'm not going to make that mistake again. That's kind of like, for me, the on-ramp to redemption. I think that more of what the user question that just posted on the Super Chat I think is more accurate.

As I'm thinking through that here, I think that's a smart point, a smart idea. I'm just looking through the Super Chats trying to make sure I can find good questions. A lot of the Super Chats people are asking about Nick Fuentes, and a lot of them we addressed. I am going to bring him back up in another context, but I want to make sure we get some good questions. Captain says, would you take down the JFK assassination video if it was posted? I would say that if it's the – that's a great question. I would say if it's showing the moment at which JFK, I'd say to be consistent with where we are in the others i would say the moment of the the bullet entering him uh than being consistent with the others and that's not

something that we'd have up matt price says if someone wanted to post the passing of a loved family member maybe at the request of the family member to share their last words would that get banned that's a good question get in the nuance because this one's kind of like, you know, in a hospital bed. Look, I can tell you where a policy is, what the, again, the vision of this is. I'm not convinced entirely, but I want to discuss that with the team. Again, it's not necessarily that I don't make every decision in a vacuum. Again, that's the reason why we have this executive team to kind of go through this one. But again, we want to be as consistent as possible.

We don't want to send people mixed messages and say that – and that's sometimes part of the – doing a hot take reaction. Graphic death and murder are different than just death itself. Well, it's the killing. The killing is, again, where we said the point is, the point of where you take someone's life. That is the focus. I just want to think about this because if I say one thing, then people say, well, has it been already updated or what's going on? Because these are great points. But again, it's the act of taking someone's life at that moment where we have said that this is – that's not what we want to show on the platform. All right, so we've got Bugoff says,

does Getter ban all racial nationalists regardless of color? So if it's, say, for example, if they're... Black nationalists, like the Nation of Islam, like Farrakhan, he's banned. Farrakhan, yes, he is someone who is banned. If you went in and used a – if you go and use a racial slur against white people, for example, yes, you're going to be kicked off and you're going to be banned. Well, he uses racial slurs for Jewish people. He's a particularly egregious actor, Farrakhan.

He's not allowed on the platform. But so if someone joined and said, how many people here support the Nation of Islam, would you ban them? If they went and said Nation of Islam, the answer is yes. They would be. Nation of Islam is very clearly they exist to try to bring harm to people of Jewish and white backgrounds. What about religious nationalism? Because you mentioned that religious groups would be protected.

What if someone came in and said, if you're not a Christian, you're bad, you're a bad, bad person, and all nations should be only Christian? Would that be banned? There is – so we need to look at the exact context. I'm going to tell you why on this. There are – we have plenty of people who are on Getter who say that your path to salvation is through Christ, and anything else you're not going to have unless you have salvation through Christ. That's the pathway to heaven. Everyone else is going to go to hell. And that is, and you were talking about that, that is your religious belief.

There's a difference, I think, between that and, and same, obviously, I don't, I'm not an expert, say, on the. Well, I'm asking about national specifically like so you see those guys who have the big signs that say you're going to burn you're evil you're a sinner it's very different from like you know most people i know who are religious you know they're like i understand you know you have to find your own path salvation i believe it's this and then there are people who are outright like you know what's that thing that the templars would yell they use vault yeah yeah there are people who post things like that would you ban that phrase for instance i i think where god wills it it means where if it comes where you are wishing the harm to somebody else uh but if you're

saying here's my religious teaching and again i can use the example because i uh obviously have much better sense on the christianity part uh that our group say if you're saying that through this relationship with Christ, that's how you're going to have anyone else is going to go to hell. Yeah, you can go and post that. I think that's different if it's a difference. If you're talking about your religious belief, your religious position, but then you're going in effectively wishing harm than on another group. Take that exact statement that your path to salvation is only through Christ. That's okay, right? Like you are going to go to hell if you don't believe in Christ.

He's your only path to salvation. That's acceptable. Yes. What if they said something, basically the exact same thing, but it was a racial connotation, like you are all going to burn unless you support black nationalism and black nationalism as your only pathway to salvation. Would that be allowed the the black nationalism again if it's and i don't mean a single audience i just mean like a racial connotation to any race asian nationalism or whatever so again it's uh look

there is a um where i've not done the deeper divers on the the racial nationalism the way because one of the things we want to make sure, look, again, we're up and operating a number of countries. We have people who are Hindu nationalists, for example, that are on the platform very much. India is one of our big expansion countries. In fact, I'm going there in March. And we have a lot of people who are, in fact, the Hindu ecosystem, for example, is one of the big accounts that has just joined. And they're signing up a lot of folks in India to help out. Obviously, there's a lot of strife and turmoil with both the Hindu and Muslim communities, both in India and around.

And yeah, a lot of people are Hindu nationalists, for example, on the religious side. The racial side, I think, is different. I think through, so say for somebody who came in and had the whole, so BLM is not a religion. That is. Political ideology. That's a political ideology. So I think there's a difference between the religion and a political ideology on that sense. A lot of people are asking you why you think Nick Fuentes is a white nationalist.

So from, well, a couple of things. From the – both from his – the comments and things, I mean, he's self-identified. Well, that's – they're all denying that. He's never – so this is what we're getting in comments. They're saying Nick Fuentes has never stated that there is a race better than other races, that white people are better, nor that he's identified as a white nationalist nor and and this is what i'm not saying it's true because i don't know i'm just telling you what the comments are asking you they're wondering why you are accusing him when they say the accusation is false well i would say look even if someone who i someone off the street who i didn't know uh but they were making an effort to go and recruit well let me just ask you have you ever seen or heard anything from nick Fuentes that was white nationalism? Like, have you directly heard from him specifically? I have a limited volume of things that I've seen from Nick Fuentes. Obviously, I've seen him use some words comment or was trying to organize or pull people together who were in a group that's identified as white. Who identified them as white nationalists?

As far as on the Gripers side? I got to be completely honest. I don't know a whole lot about what Gripers are. And I'll admit it's not a community I've spent a ton of time that I've seen, but I've seen a number of writings and things where that's how that group has been defined. So you're saying because the media has called them white nationalists, you've banned Nick Fuentes? No, I'd say that – say for the fact that if you're out there trying to organize and collect with a group, that I don't even think it's just the media. I mean, look at many people who've self-ID'd as being part of that group or part of that ideology. Bro, I don't think you got an argument here, man.

This sounds like complete bullshit. I don't think you know anything about this group. I got to be honest, I don't either. But this is just talking in circles. I've not listened to Nick Fuentes. I don't know a lot about him. I know that he's been banned across the board. I know that he's had trouble getting on planes.

I can hear what his fans are saying but i don't know uh maybe they're just lying because they want to support him i really don't know so it's really difficult for me to be like you know to understand exactly what he did wrong the issue for me is when i ask you you don't seem to know either no all you said is that he posted who else here is a griper. I'm like, well, what's a griper? You don't know. You just read it in the media and they said something bad about him. Is that justification?

For me, I got no idea. I thought you were going to come on and be like, look, Nick Fuentes said this and he said this. And you got to understand we did research on gripers and found this, but you don't even have that. Look, and I'm going to say on this that you're not going to make everyone happy when you're running a social media platform and people are going to have different opinions. So your opinion might be that, hey, that that's BS. There are other people are going to say, look, these guys are making sure that this is a safe platform and we respect what they're doing. They're giving us that ability to have that political free speech.

And look, we might just disagree on this one. I just feel like, look, I can, you know, I'll stress it again. I do believe that Getter is likely to censor less than Twitter is. But I also kind of feel like if you can't give us a direct quote from Nick Fuentes that got him banned, explain to us in detail what a groper is or how you a groper is or how you know what it is then it just sounds to me that the moment the media you know piles up on me or luke or anybody else you'll ban us too no i understand they pile up on nick when it's more than anybody else but there's hold on hold on but there is there is a difference between taking a very pointed political take uh or saying this is uh and uh going into the other. And so we've made very clear that we are never going to shadow ban or algorithm or go and use different standards for people based on

their political beliefs. We've made that very clear. I get it, man. But I mean, I still don't understand why you banned Nick Fuentes. Like you're saying Gropers are bad. You're saying he's a white national and stuff. And I'm like, oh, I mean, as Wikipedia says that, I guess. But isn't it important that, you know, you guys actually have a definitive this broke the rules? Like when Luke asked you, what did he say that broke the rules? A lot of people are asking the same question. You never answered that question. You didn't say what rule he broke.

What term specifically did he break? And if you're, you know, you to something to the effect of, you know, Groypers are white nationalists and they're a hateful group and he's recruiting, so, you know, Nation of Islam would be banned as well. My response is, oh, okay, what's a Groyper? So this will be, and this is what I told you. I said, look, we should have had the more specific community guidelines go into specific examples.

We should have already had that posted and up. That's one of the things we're working on now, and we'll have that up very shortly. So it's a little more detailed because again, the terms of service are always going to be more general because that's your legal contract. Yeah. This kind of stuff's tough because Dr. Malone gets banned from Twitter for talking about his opinions as a scientist and a researcher. He's an expert. He goes on Joe Rogan and he mentions that he's using Getter and Getter allows him to be on the platform. That's correct? Dr. Malone is on Getter?

Correct. He's been on for, I think, a month, month and a half, something like that. And so, you know, one of the things I said about Rumble is that, for the time being, I think most people should recognize all of these platforms have similar rules to a certain degree, but there's, like, certain political bubbles where you're allowed some more leeway than others. That being said, Getter, I think is a net positive, but I gotta say it's not confidence building that I know how the media is gonna spin this. Tim defends alt-right or whatever.

I don't care. I don't know enough about Nick Fuentes to even criticize the guy other than people have posted things about him and accused him of things. But if I was running a social media company, my response would, people would come to me and be like, you've got to ban this guy. He's recruiting groipers. I'd be like, what's

a groiper? They'd be like, they're white nationalists. Oh, wow. Can you show me a video clip of them saying and doing these things? And that would, sure. You show me that stuff and be like, oh, okay, maybe we have an issue with that. But I've got to be honest. If that's all he posted, really? Look, it's crazy to me. And maybe, look oh, okay, maybe we have an issue with that. But I've got to be honest. If that's all he posted, really? Look, it's crazy to me.

And maybe, look, I mean, maybe this goes in that category from the previous one that you mentioned, that is this a period of time as opposed to being indefinite? That's one of the things we'll have to go and discuss. But again, your point, Tim, I think it seems that you're getting to is how do you know that things won't change? How do you know the rug will get pulled out from, and look, you can make the same point or criticism about any platform. Ultimately, what you have to point to, who are the people that are on the platform? What are the debates that are being allowed to happen that are different from other platforms? And also, I think, what is your mission statement? What are you trying to accomplish?

And I think what we do on that, both the people on the platform and the debates that are being allowed to happen there, I think is different from anywhere else. Yeah, but free speech is free speech, not speech that's going to keep you safe. And I think there's a distinction to make here. And I think just being transparent and open, especially when it comes to major decisions, would be a major step forward for any big tech company that would reassure people exactly what's happening behind the scenes and the decisions why they're made. So I think that's what Tim's trying to get at. And I think the transparency part, I think, is very fair. And I think that where we want to be is better than any of the other companies that are running social media platforms. There's a lot of things to say about this.

There's deep philosophical and moral questions, notably that over time society's moral standards change, and that may be occurring now. You look back 200 years ago and there are things nobody in this country would agree with or say because morally we changed, and we changed a lot so now you have unification in you know a lot of social media any any of the big players that outright say like you know hateful content that causes harm that seems to be like a universal standard but it's a standard typically among powerful elites if it weren't for the internet there would be no smaller voices retaining the views and values they hold.

Over time, the big machine would just churn those away and the moral standard of society would just completely flip. And there would be no say from the peasants. The lower class, the plebs, would have no right to speak as to what the moral standards are. It would only be the elites. Because of social media, people are able to retain views and values that other people don't like. And it's breeding into this fissure, this fracturing. So I guess to kind of get to my point is, personally, I detest and despise racism. I actually am a fan of diversity. I think the woke left has completely bastardized what diversity is supposed to mean. It's supposed to mean that

a dude from India has a completely different worldview and then you approach a problem from a different angle, you'll actually better, you'll be better off finding your solutions. Instead, the woke have turned it into if you're a different color, you're diverse,

which it's just not. And honestly, not even that. They said the Black Panther film was diverse because it was all black people. And I'm like, that's not diverse at all. But let me go and say one thing here.

Look, I am proud of the work that we've done with Getter. We've launched what we built this to with four and a half million people. And I will tell you that Getter is by far the best free speech platform. What about Zab? You look at the fact our platform is so much smoother and so much better than anything out there that strives to provide free speech. And what we've been able to put together, I think is, is top notch. And the fact that this is something where people are going to make sure that we're going to make sure that people do not have their political voices censored as we go into, whether it be the midterms, whether we're going to 2024, that this platform that we're doing, and here's our

thing, Tim, it's not just here in the U.S. Getter is what we're going to make sure how we protect free speech in places like, whether it be France, whether it be places like Brazil, places like India or anywhere else. This is the rocket ship. This is the one that's going to protect free speech. And it's the best thing that people are going to have because here's the thing. Here's again, I know I said before not trying to go in circles but i got to go and make this point we are the one company that has uh the technology is as good or better of anything that big tech is doing that wakes up every day you say how do we make sure we protect free speech and oppose cancel culture we're the only one that can go do that and go toe-to-toe with big tech i think uh you know you know a lot

of people have mentioned gab uses the first amendment as their standard for uh you know moderation uh i think you know we've talked quite a bit about this if it's the speech is legal the speech should be allowed if um and if it's illegal then it's illegal and then you the moderator should take it down and forward it to law enforcement there's also some leewayway I think we can make, like doxing, for instance. Doxing is another thing that's listed specifically in the terms of service. And I'll tell you, there's – That's universally despised. Yeah.

I mean, look, there's – again, it's something that's serious. Obviously, we took the post down, but there's a certain reporter that always makes very personal comments about me that I really don't like. And someone posted the fact that he lives with his parents and here's the address. Obviously, the second we saw that, that thing came down and that person was suspended. We can't, you know, never do that. So, no, the doxing stuff is there.

But, you know, the one other thing to keep in mind, too, is that also we're playing globally here. So we also have, so, for example, we're... That's what Jack Dorsey said to me. It's a reality. I mean, it doesn't just – I mean, look, Jack's not wrong at every single thing they said. I mean, for example, if you – a woman wearing a skirt that goes above the knee in the U.S. that no one even glances twice, you do that in Saudi Arabia, then okay.

Oh, yeah. But let's get to the root of this problem. What's stopping you guys from implementing a platform that prioritizes free speech in the United States and does it the way that Tim was describing? What's standing in the way? Well, a couple of things. Well, number one, what we're trying to grow is we're trying to grow a global company where people can have free speech and can have that right defended regardless of where they are because it's not just a – everything – Hold on. It's not free speech though it is free speech if someone has a negative opinion about a person of another religion or race they're not allowed to say that so i can you can a guy can

walk outside you know in in the middle of a city and hold up the most awful sign because free speech is a guaranteed right but on your, that's not the case. Hold on. If you wanted to give me the criticism that what we have is political free speech, but you say that it's not 100%, I'll be the first one to say it's not 100%. No platform out there. Because there are people even who say that if you have... Hold on. Let me just finish this one thought.

There are some people who say that any restriction, even if it's legal or illegal is not free speech some people go out there i've had people in arguments and debates who brought that up but what i'm going to say is so but if you were to say that hey what i'm i'm hearing here is that you have political free speech um that's that's a fair criticism uh but you know what this is the best place for free speech you have anywhere on the planet and i will fight tooth and nail to make that point over and over derrick bell are you familiar with him i'm not one of the uh proponents and original authors in critical race theory he his political opinion is that

the united states should have never uh passed the civil rights act he advocates for a policy of separate but equals a black man who believes that white people and black people should be segregated. Would you allow him on the platform to ask his followers to come and follow and all that stuff? That's a direct political policy position. I would need to get a little bit of a more granular understanding of what he's saying. So I could be mixing this up. I would need to get a little bit of a more granular understanding of what he's saying. So I could be mixing this up.

His stance was that the ruling from the Supreme Court of separate but equal, according to Derrick Bell, was correct. And this is one of the big views among Black Lives Matter and critical race theory proponents. They feel that there was a separate economy for the black community that was thriving, that was growing, and that the civil rights era effectively merged the two economies, but because white people had historical power, were able to oppress with the greater power, the black community. So he's advocated for a return or I should say never allowing the desegregation as a policy position. If someone went on your platform and said, I believe we should, here's a good question. California recently had a proposition that would have stricken the civil rights language from their constitution. Would you allow the Democrats

on Getter to advocate for the repealing of California's civil rights provision? I would need to go take a look at that a little bit more. And that's a tough thing with some of the hypotheticals. Overtly allowing for the discrimination based on race. Obviously, if you were out there advocating for the blatant discrimination purely based on race, then that's not something...

So Harvard is banned from Getter. Harvard overtly has policies discriminating on the basis of race. Like SAT scores for admittance for Asians have to be higher than white people – have to be way higher than white people. Admittance scores for white people have to be higher than black people. But hold on. Again, I would need to go and see that just because I haven't seen Harvard's writing or what exactly that – I didn't get into Harvard. Sorry, guys.

I would need to go and see that exactly. But you know, to the point, if you're advocating racial discrimination, not something saying like a court, because one of the things that can't speak to not being a lawyer is this, this policy was this court case was ruled incorrectly. I'm not a lawyer.

I'm not going to go to the Supreme court, but if you're someone who's going and saying, advocating for racial discrimination against whites or against blacks or against anybody, that's not something we would allow. So we got to go to the members podcast. And I want to make a couple quick points. I wish this conversation was being had with Twitter's people, which is a massive international platform. And so I greatly respect your willingness to come on and have us just like throw these hard questions at you that are probably difficult. There's a lot of people who are angry. I feel like we're all spraying you with hoses right now.

All at the same time. But look, look, look. You're at least willing to have the conversation. And I've been sprayed plenty of times. So don't worry. And I do think that Getter is less likely to censor than Twitter, case in point Malone. But I think the challenge is, it's impossible to navigate this space unless you just say legal speech is allowed. Because,

you know, when you say, I'm not going to allow Fuentes because, you know, these positions discriminating, all of a sudden it opens the door to the principle. Critical race theorists, the woke, are overtly racist. You know, based based on what you've said you should never allow any of them on your platform at not even not even one of them sean king banned outright i mean uh tariq nishid banned outright hassan banned outright hassan has has actually he got suspended from twitch for saying racial slurs so if he signed up for getter you'd ban the biggest left-wing live streamer from your platform? If it's someone coming in who's advocating racial discrimination. The whole left does.

Again, there are people who are – there's a difference between a jerk and being an idiot and somebody who's outright advocating for racial discrimination. They literally do. The corporate media does that. But here's, Tim, look, I'm not trying to go in circles. Yeah, I know. But hold on. But here's one thing. I kind of do want to pick this

a little bit of a fight with you. Even though it's your house, you've invited me in. Oh, by all means. Let's have a conversation. Here's the thing I want to pick the fight on is that what I'm trying to offer people is a product where they're going to be safe from the oppression of big tech.

It started small. Okay. They kick off President Trump. Half the country who hated him for it, half the country who liked him for it. Then it's kind of the frog in the water that's getting hotter and hotter. They start chipping away this. They start saying you can't say where COVID came from. They said that you can't criticize his Lord and savior, Dr. Anthony

Fauci. They said, you can't go and post the Hunter Biden story. Then they go and kick off Trump. Then they go and say, you can't even talk about COVID or lockdowns or any of these things. If I, again, not trying to be rude while I'm in your house, if I took the opinion that, or the belief that you can't go and change this, that you can't give people a place where they can fight for their political values, then I'd never get anywhere. We'd be, we'd be at zero users, not four and a half. I might be at four and a half million people. Now I'm going to take this thing to 10 by the middle of the year to 20 or 20 million by the end of the year. And you know what? These are people who, when they go into their respective elections, they know no one's going to come in and say, your ideology is fine

and different. The points that you're bringing up are, many of them, they're important because they're the foundation of our first amendment. What counts as free speech? What counts? What are you using for your basis, your guideline? How do we know that this isn't going to be turned around on us? But I do think that it can be successful. And I think for what most people want to do, but they view their free speech to talk about again, no one's ever come to me and said, if I could just use this one particular slur,

then I would count you as being okay. If I could just say this one thing, threatening harm, then your platform would be okay. I do push back on the notion that, that it can't be successful. I think it very much can't be successful, I think it very much can. I think

Getter is going to be greatly successful. I think it's a net positive. Define success. Fiscal success or sociological success. What's the goal? We've definitely got to wind things down because we're going long, which is not a bad thing. I can define success.

We'll take it to the members only and we'll get more in detail on stuff is that enough of a teaser? it's going to be an excellent members only podcast I just want to make sure everyone knows as we wind down that I think Getter is a massive net positive

and we don't have the opportunity to challenge big tech the way we have you sitting here answering these questions and so instead of directing anger towards you to a greater degree than we would Jack Dorsey, I think anybody who's upset about Nick Fuentes especially should probably roll their eyes, get frustrated, and be like, here are my complaints. Here are my issues with this. We recognize big tech is substantially worse. Look, take the win. I know a lot of people are upset about Fuentes particularly. we recognize big tech is substantially worse look take the win if uh i know it's you know i know it's it's it's you know a lot of people are upset about about fuentes particularly but if we can make sure

that dr malone has a voice and we can gain some ground back in free speech i'll take it i'm not going to be completely happy with you know some of the rules i'm concerned about but i get i think get getter is better than twitter in that capacity and i the one thing I'd add on that, it's not some ground. It's making sure that people have that right. Because if you don't think that Twitter and Facebook and big tech, that their goal isn't to, for example, not just all Trump, because it's not just all Trump people, largely Trump people, that they wouldn't be fine completely with having every Trump voter or conservative or populist kicked off of their platform. Because you know what they say? Hey, let's go to other countries.

We'll just go and sign people up. We can get to, I mean, look, India is Facebook's biggest market. They've already made that calculation that they are fine to lose anyone right of center, not just in the U S when Facebook said they're expanding their global anti misinformation board, which is again,

that's one thing I wish. I do think the conversation got tilted a little bit too much into some of the Fuente stuff, whereas when we talk about the editing and censoring, for example, we don't put up warning labels because then that's going into the editorializing. We're never going to get to the point where it's like, well, we think it's okay. We're going to have the post up there, or it's not okay, but we're going to allow the post up because then you're editorializing. Facebook is intentionally ramping up their efforts in the Philippines, in Colombia, in Brazil, in France, and even in Hungary has their elections coming up in the US in the midterms.

We're going to make sure, want to define success, that people, whether you're on the right or if you're on the left in any country around the world, you're going to have access to free speech and making your political voice heard and nobody is going to shut you down. That's how I define success. We've got to go to the members podcast. If you have not already, smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends. Go to TimCast.com, sign up, because we're going to have that members-only episode,

hopefully, up around 11. It might go long, because we're having a really good conversation. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL, basically everywhere. You can follow me at TimCast basically everywhere. Instagram and Getter. Jason, do you want to shout out

your social media? Your literal social media. My literal social media. So, at Jason Miller in DC. You can get me on Getter. I usually spend a lot of time responding to folks at night

going through the user comments. I think it's important that anyone who's going to go put their name on a platform is very in touch with the different comments and things that are going on. I appreciate the feedback. Look, people threw some tough questions. I think some good ideas, particularly on the pathway to forgiveness, I think was in better articulating some of the points on transparency. I think were important. I think that's good. And I think you're number one,

you're not going to get anyone else who's going to come in and like I said, whether to go sit down with the Kara Swisher, Tim Poole and go through this. Look, we might not going to get anyone else who's going to come in and, like I said, whether they're going to sit down with the Kara Swisher or Tim Poole and go through this. Look, we might not get it right 100% of the time. That's always the goal. I don't think I'll be able to get someone like Jack Dorsey or the CEO of Twitter to come on here because I'm not going to... You could always

just meet him in person like I used to do, but that's a whole other story. Anyway, I got a gajillion questions, but thank you for answering the ones that you did. We'll continue it, the members only. So, yeah, we'll continue that. I have my own independent media organization. Lots of crazy news coming out of the Czech Republic and England. I talked about that on YouTube.com forward slash WeAreChange.

And then, of course, I talked about my strategy moving forward, specifically on LukeUncensored.com. Hope to see some of you guys there. This was a great conversation. We need more of these. And there's always solutions to these problems that we're bringing up. Maybe we could come to a consensus and bring more transparency, accountability, and even a process where a lot of this could be solved. So I'm hopeful. I'm optimistic the conversation has started. We're going to take it to some good places, I think.

Oh, yeah. I got a lot of respect for you, man, and what you guys are doing. That's a big ass. Thank you. And I want to help. So this is the reason I bring up free software, because I would love to integrate a bunch of networks like Rumble and Mines and Getter and Gap into like a mega union. Can I give one extra tease for the members-only part? One thing I want to go to, because we didn't get much in the functionality. We kept it a little more on the philosophical and theoretical side. One of the things that's going to set us apart from other platforms,

in addition to the longer posts, longer videos, the live streaming we have right now, a million people watched President Trump's rally last Saturday on Getter, which is, that's nuts. Four and a half million people on the platform, a million were watching that. We'll be launching in February what we call Vision, which will be our short video competitor

to TikTok and Instagram Reels. So right now, people look and say, oh, Getter, their competitor to Twitter. Month and a half, two months from now, smaller competitor initially. I'll grant you that. But we will look at ourselves as a competitor to TikTok and Instagram Reels. When we go into the summer, that's what we're going to go into in the members session. We're going to launch Getter Pay, which will be a payment platform similar to Apple pay alley pay those, but hold on. Here's the thing.

This is why you got to come to the member section. It's going to be a, it's going to be a two coin ecosystem, two coin crypto ecosystem with a stable coin and a fluctuating coin. That's coming this summer. We're giving people the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of their financial destiny.

No one else has done this. Anyone knows what Libra, what Facebook was trying to do for years? The reason why I couldn't do it is because Zuckerberg just, for lack of a better term, sucks. I can say that on YouTube. I don't think they'll block that out. But for the fact that nobody believed in it, they didn't believe that they had a vision or a place where they wanted to go, are making sure that people have political free speech. I think that's credibility. And you look to this summer when we launched this, we're going to expose people and bring the digital economy to them in a crypto way that no social media platform has ever done. Come to the member section. We're going to get granular on

it. Oh, thanks. IanCrossland.net. Check it out. See you later. Thank you so much for coming on, Jason. I did tell you you were going to get grilled and I was not lying. But I do want to say that I'm really glad that we have some of these other options and I hope that people will continue to give positive feedback and kind of help develop and make this into something great and hopefully we can really offer some good competition for Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you so much for coming again. You guys may follow me on Twitter at Sour Patch Lids. We will see you all over at TimCast.com at about 11pm with the members only segment where we get into a lot more questions. Some people are wondering, what about furries? You'll find out at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out.

Bye, guys.