Timcast IRL - Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Michael Malice to discuss SCOTUS appearing ready to uphold birthright citizenship, a Democrat AG vows lawfare against Trump over mail-in ballots, and Trump addresses the nation on Iran War.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ Join -    / @timcastirl   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Michael Malice @michaelmalice (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! LIVE: Trump Address Iran War In Historic Speech | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

In one hour, Donald Trump will address the nation on what is currently going on with the Iran war, and speculation is running rampant. Many people believe that he is going to announce he is winding things down. The Iranian government has suffered a regime change, and there's new leadership, and he already announced that they are begging for a ceasefire. At the same time, troop movements still indicate that we may be planning an invasion of Carg Island, so we shall see, and in one hour we will be here live to hear what the president has to say. In the meantime, oh boy, we got on to talk about. Matt Gates claims that there's a

secret government program kidnapping illegal immigrants and making them breed with space aliens. That's not a joke. It's not a, it was yesterday. So everybody was like, was this April fools? And I was like, it was yesterday, actually. So maybe he preempted April fools. Or sure, I guess, whatever. I mean, Artemis II just left. They're on their way to the moon, and it was awesome. And all of the moon landing deniers are sweating and gripping their seats. Shaking. Shaking. Shaking. Shane most affected.

I love you, Shane. I love you. The big news, of course, is the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on birthright citizenship. And it sounds like they are inclined to deny Donald Trump. We're not sure exactly, but it looks like their attitude is, nah, if you're born here, you're a citizen. So we'll talk about that and more. Before we do, we've got a great sponsor, my friends, it is BeamDream. Go to shop, B-E-A-M dot com slash Tim Poole and pick up. your nighttime blend to support better sleep.

I drink this every single night. It's got alfhenin, magnesium, rashi, all the good stuff to help you sleep. Melatonin if you want it, non-melatonin version if you don't. And I am not kidding. My sleep score of a sleep tracker has dramatically improved since I started taking Bean Dream before bed. It's low calorie, no added sugar, and I am a massive fan. It is not a joke. It is not scripted when I say I drink it every night after the show.

and I feel like it's on wonders for me. Especially after having a new child, many people were asking, how's your sleep? And I'm like, actually, it's been okay. I drink Beam dream and I'm doing all right. Now, how's that for an endorsement, Beam? Shout out.

Thanks for sponsor the show, guys. I really do love the stuff. You can get it at shop, B-E-A-M.com slash Tim Pool, up to 35% off right now. And don't forget to go to timcast.com. Join now. Click that button to support the show.

As a member, you make this possible. But more importantly, you join a network of tens of thousands of people that are hanging out, and it's not what you know, it's who you know. If there's something you're trying to accomplish, a project, a business, whatever it might be, the more people you have in a network, the more successful you will be. So join our community because there are a lot of people that want to help you get started, and perhaps you can help others get started. And more importantly, you can help us do the work that we do. So smash that like button right now. Share the show with everyone you know.

If everybody watching shared right now, we'd be the biggest podcast in the world. world. And considering we're not, it must mean y'all don't share the show. Maybe just as once. You might consider doing it. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Michael Malice. Happy April Fool's, Tim. Oh, it's your favorite day. It gets up there. We had a fun thing planned, which fell through, which we're going to have to do next to April Fool's. But I'm excited to be here and talk about this birthright citizenship. Oh, yeah. I'm excited too. It's going to be great. Of course, Ian is hanging out. Hi. We've got Carter Banks producing. What up? And you know him, you love him, Phil Labonte.

he's tomorrow's my birthday for people who are only listening he was just doing devil horns I don't normally I don't normally tell people but tomorrow is my birthday so let's make a big deal out of it tomorrow was your birthday April 2nd 4 a.m. I was almost I thought your birthday was April 20th

no it was the two you probably got it oh 420 oh god I dated a girl on 419 it was actually not a weed joke it was a Hitler joke my dad's 1418 let's talk about birthday's only matter for children and weed man

speaking of Hitler we have this story from NPR Supreme Court Majority seems inclined to rule against Trump on birthright citizenship. I'm just going to come out right away and say it. Based on what the Supreme Court was saying, it sounds like we's cooked like this country cannot stand. And we actually have one of the arguments, we have a video here, which is fascinating. I'm going to play this for you.

This is John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General, arguing that the framers of the 14th could never have predicted airplanes and 8 billion people coming to this country, or 500, 500 birth tourism companies. Here's how John Roberts responds. Apparently, there's no audio coming through. Quietly at first and then all at one. Yeah, why aren't we getting any audio? Is it off?

Birth tourism. It was my fault. Twitter was was muted. Based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China, who's what business is to bring people here to give birth and return. to that nation. Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?

I think it's, I quote what Justice Scalia said in his Hamdan descent, where they had, where, like, their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment. I think that shows that they made a mess. Their interpretation has made a mess in the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where 8 billion people are one plane right away from having a child as a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution.

It is. And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils, and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here, and I think we quote that in our brief. I would argue he is correct. John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General is correct in his assessment that the Fourth Amendment does not address the birth tourism companies and illegal immigrants. Real quick. The principal argument made by John Sauer was that Wong Kim Arc stated a domiciled immigrant in this country who has a child, that child will be a U.S. citizen. And the argument from John Sauer is that illegal immigrants are not domiciled here. And Alito points out correctly, If they are subject to removal at any point, it would be impossible for them to be domiciled here. He then brings up the issue of birth tourism, where they enter here either illegally or under false pretenses.

They fly to Guam, give birth, and go back. Or California. Not even Guam. But Guam is a big issue because it's so easy for them to get to it. They go to lots of places, not just Guam. So the issue that I see here is, I believe John Sauer's argument in this regard is correct that the Fortin Amendment does not address. birthright citizenship in these contexts, and the Supreme Court does need to answer. And if they want to answer, you're wrong, that's fine. But to simply say, but, you know, the Constitution stays the same, so we're not going to do anything, does not answer these questions. So it is correct of John Sauer to say, you must address this. I am against birth, right, citizenship, period. I want that to be clear. But I also think if you agree with a legal conclusion, you might disagree with the legal reasoning that,

get to that conclusion. So if someone is pro-choice, it's still fair to say that Roe v. Wade was bad law. A lot of people can't wrap their heads around this, right? Yes, yes, 100%. His argument about this is the same argument. Every crappy leftist says with the Second Amendment is going to make exactly on. Yes, absolutely. We had no internet when the Bill of Rights was passed. The First Amendment applies to the Internet. They didn't have AR-15s when the Second Amendment was passed. The second Amendment applies to, and to your point about this is going to be deleterious to America, correct. I don't dispute that. The mechanism for remedying this is Congress, the legislative branch. That is what their point is. Actually, I have to interrupt. The Supreme Court Justice said, in fact, not correct,

that the Fourth Amendment was crafted specifically to that Congress could not intervene. No, no, no. I'm not talking about the 14th. I'm saying if there is a problem legislatively, it has to be solved. Not legislation. This is the 14th Amendment. It's being challenged, right? If there, this has been decades of law, which I don't agree with. And it's judicial precedent. not codified law. But there's also something called stare decisis, which is what John Roberts was voted in on, which is his point is,

if something has been around for a long time, it should take a lot for the Supreme Court to over the time. But my point is simply that Congress cannot remedy this, as per the argument from the Supreme Court, that the four of them was crafted specifically that Congress would not intervene in what determines... They can undo an amendment. They can do all sorts of things.

Yeah, Congress... They can repeal it. Congress through state ratification, or what do you mean? Like two thirds of the prohibition amendment. If something is not working out, you go through the legislative process. Right, right. And I'm not, I don't believe in law.

If your argument is the amendment should be repealed, agreed, or clarify. Congress can't pass a law, pass a law clarifying this was a Supreme Court's argument. Right. But they can. They would have to repeal the 14th. Right. Or read it. You know what I mean?

Repeal and replace. I would argue this. I would argue exigent circumstances. The idea that we would say, the internet wasn't covered by the first amendment because the founding fathers didn't understand that. My response is, well, the internet is an issue of increase in speed of speech. Not an issue of foreign adversaries can take control of our country. The foreign adversaries use the First Amendment all the time. They run ops on social media every fun of a day. And there's a big difference between a foreigner coming here and speaking or flooding us,

which are threats, which we can address, and a Chinese national becoming the president and dismantling our country. First of all, our country hasn't been dismantled. And I would much rather, in a sense. But we're not arguing that it is. I'd have much rather have 10,000 illegal immigrants become citizens than half the stuff that all these other countries

run in American citizenry. All these other countries, what? All these ops that they run on social media American citizenry. So again, including one that's on you that you saw before you started. If your argument is that China

is attacking us, we can repel these attacks through sound government. We can repel these attacks through focus, knowledge, and the collective defense, whatever that may be. Sure.

On the issue of guns, the founding father actually did know that private individuals had weapons of mass destruction. I'm just saying this is an argument that lefties use all the time. I disagree. It's not. They don't use that argument? It's not the same argument. It's not the same argument. I'm literally addressing when they say the founding fathers didn't own machine guns. Yes, they did. They had repeaters. Like they knew about these weapons. They knew about weapons of mass destruction. I'm agreeing with the lefties. I'm saying,

this argument is not an argument on technology. This argument is the foundation of the country of our governance cannot function because of these new exploits that are attacking it. And all we need now is the Supreme Court to say narrowly if someone, the Supreme Court can say if a Honduran, for example, enters the country illegally and seeks to live here and gives birth to a child, they can say, that child is a citizen. However, if an individual comes here through birth tourism, they are not. They could do that. More importantly, I think the end result of this, and that's what's so shocking about John Roberts's argument is, the Supreme Court went leaps and bounds to say, even Katanji Brown Jaxon, allegiance can be temporary. And she is correct.

Many people are making fun of her for saying this. She goes, if I go to Japan and I steal someone's wallet, I am subject to their laws. They can arrest me. That is temporary allegiance to their system. In fact, if someone steals my wallet, they will remedy that for me, which is temporary allegiance. She is correct. However, she actually just argued why they should end birthright citizenship, because the people who intentionally break our laws have shown they have no allegiance to our system. I'm not arguing at all that birthright citizens should be ended. I agree with you. That was literally the first thing I said. So in this context, when he says we have these birth tourism things, the argument is, if a person intentionally violates our laws for the purpose of exploiting this,

it should not be allowed. And Robert's response is, I don't care. This is the way it is. Because first of all, it's the child who's being in the legal. This is not my point of view. By the way, I just want to be clear because people, I'm trying to steal man Robert's point of view. His point of view is it's the kid who's not the criminal

because the child cannot be guilty of a crime. They still should be given the rewards of citizenship. I don't agree with that. What I'm saying is it's very... That's not his argument. Let me finish. It's just very dangerous when you have a president, unilaterally deciding the law because in four years, first of all, there's another point at this.

They were pointing out, well, if this is true and you vote, you judge the way Sauer wants, you're going to desitizenize or whatever the term is many people who have been regarded as citizens for years. And he said, no, no, he's saying, no, it's just going to go forward and retroactive. That's not what they argued. Yeah, just from now, they're not going to denaturalize it. Correct. But legally speaking, if you're going to overturn birthright citizenship, it would make much more

sense to remove the citizenship of people who are birthright citizens than to just say going forward. Do you not agree? Why? I don't personally. Well, no, what I'm explaining? Because if you're saying birthright citizenship is illegitimate and the analysis of the 14th Amendment that's been going on for like whatever 80 years, however, is wrong, then all those people who had currently been regarded as citizenship through birthright citizenship should retroactively not be regarded as citizens. Why? Because it was never correct law to begin with. I suppose the argument is to, uh, The Supreme Court asking the Solitaire General said, that would create a massive bureaucracy, which would be impossible.

And so if you can't provide the remedy, you can at least provide injunction. Are you opposed to people who are the citizens as a result of birthright tourism to have their citizenship stripped? Within a certain time frame. What's that? What do you mean? So if someone's 30 years old and their parents were illegal immigrants, but they've been living here for 30, like they were born here and they lived here for 30 years, it makes no sense. But legally, in a legal sense, how do you mean? make that distinction. If something's wrong, it's wrong. Because we're not robots. And the law is not

drawn by mathematical absolutes. One of the biggest mistakes, I love this point that people tend to make is that they think that if the words are written a piece of paper, it's law and it must be. And then like one of the jokes you'll see is there's an old trope where a guy is doing surveys out the street or he's doing petitions and he's like, we want to save the forests. Can you fill out my petition saying you want to help save the forest? And they're signing a power of attorney form. And then there are people go like, oh man, Netflix did a show where a woman's life was being turned into a TV show and they said, when you signed up for Netflix, the terms of service is, that is not real. That's not real. If you go, if I asked Ian, would you like to buy this gavel from me?

I'll drop a sales contract. And in it, it said, he's now indentured to me or I own his home. He'd go to court and say, I wasn't giving my home to him. I'll say, I have a contract right here saying he was. That just also say, shut your, get on my court. case the contract is dissolved end of story that's why judges exist no that's not okay there is actually yes it's interpretation you didn't even know what I was going to say you're telling him you said that's not and then I responded it is I didn't finish the sentence I was going to say that's not a hypothetical these are real cases there's a there's a guy named john hasness his essay uh the myth of objective laws in the anarchist handbook and these are real legal cases there was a woman old woman she signed up for

like salsa lessons and it was like a thousand dollars a lesson and and he sued her and she went to the judge the judge said exactly you said with the age, it's like, this is ridiculous. It's out. However, there's the other worldview, a legal view of what's written is the law. The judge should not interpret it, and they should just basically go exactly by what it says. Let's just one point. This happened with when Roe v. Wade was overturned in Arizona.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned nationwide, there had been this law from Arizona, like 1879 or something. It said abortion is illegal. And they're like, what do we do? Because now that law is on the books. Roe v. Wade is no longer overturning it. And they just pretended not, they just pretend it wasn't there. It is, in New York City, it is law that you can wear any clothing you want to work and go by any name you want.

Okay. And as any individual subject to any public accommodation, you must be accommodated equally as to any other person. Okay. Which means, and I called a human rights attorney and asked them this, if I went to Harlem, dressed like a southern plantation owner. Right. And when they asked me my name, I said it was Massa, are they legally required to save that name as they say everyone's name when their drink is ready. And he said, no. And I said, well, hold on.

New York City's human rights law specifically states they must be equal. And Massa is an Iberian name. It's Spain and Mediterranean. It's a common name. If they're offended by my culture, why could they deny that? And he said, because it will be viewed as culturally insensitive and they don't have to do it. And then I said, and if I sued, he said the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. That's how real life works. But Tim, you're talking to two anarchists, and I'm agreeing with you. There's a There's no such thing as objective law. And my point is what you are describing is that the left lies and cheats for power and we are just subject to it. Yes, that's what government is.

Which is why John Roberts should say no birthright citizenship. Have a nice day. Fine. But my point is it's a slippery, and I'm not saying it's wrong, I don't want birthright citizenship. But when you have this idea that the president is, whoever he is, is going to yield and notary decide things which affect millions of people through executive order, wait until the next Democratic president. You mean when they did and already did that with DACA? And then we sat back and did nothing. So every time a Republican gets in. Who's we? Who is we?

The American people. The American people. So the Democrat gets in and bangs a gavel by decree. And we go, okay. And then, but when the Republican gets in, we'll do nothing. You yourself just said that you're in favor of DACA. You said if they're here for 30 years, you shouldn't get rid of them. That's not DACA.

DACA is if you're, what's the stand for? There were six-year-olds who have been here for 13 years, they should go. Fine. You're just numbering. You're just arguing with the number. You're exceeding their point. And I don't think that point is that point is that's really wrong. The issue is as human beings, we try to find how to navigate for when we change this system.

DACA is not born here. I said if someone was born here by illegal immigrants, anchor babies, and they've been here for 30 years, it makes no sense. If you were brought here as a child and you've been here for 20 years knowing full well that it would be 13 years or whatever that Obama signed an executive order granting you some kind of temporary status, I'm sorry. It's time for you to go home. I think it's a very odd line to draw between you were born here and you came here when you were four. No, it's not. It's pretty simple. Okay. I'm not saying it's not simple. And more to the point, the issue is navigating a solution means you will have imperfect outcomes.

But we're trying to find which makes the most sense. It's not a zero-sum game. We will not be, it's not physically possible to round up everybody who was born here as an anger baby. So we say, that's going to be impossible. What is possible is denaturalizing some people who are probably under the age of one. And DACA is rescinded. That's easy. We can just say that. I don't think it's as easy as you think it is. Specifically for the reason is there's an enormous infrastructure in this country through NGOs and other agencies.

Well, that's a different argument. But you're saying it's just because something is conceptually easy. If the Supreme Court says this is how we're interpreting this, then we start to navigate NGOs. It's not all at the same time. But the point is, just because something might be conceptually simple does not at all mean it's going to be simple to put into practice. Agreed. Okay. And so the simplest solution would not be, you were born as an anchor baby 30 years ago.

We're going to find everybody who was. That would be extremely, that's bureaucratically impossible to do. We can say all of the Chinese birth tourism kids void. And we can do that fairly easily. I don't think we can do that fairly easily. Well, fairly easily, it's a relative statement. I'm saying it would be substantially easier than finding a 30-year-old guy born here and being like we're taking your citizenship. Sure.

And we have to. We can't allow Chinese nationals, allegiance to the Communist Party, to hold office in the United States. I agree with you. I agree that there should be no birth rate citizenship. My point is the firmer the path there, the more it's going to stick. And I think this is a very tenuous path to abolishing it. And I don't think the justices at all seem inclined to go for this.

Yeah, because, again, the argument from, it does look like Kavanaugh is sympathetic to Trump. Thomas and Alito, of course, Roberts is on the fence and Amy Coney-Barrant seems to be leaning away. So it looks like it might be... I think it's going to be six-three or seven-two. Blackley 6-3. And I think the important thing is, I think people on the right often are like, if we don't get it this way,

like it's a rap, throw the hands in the air. If you look at Democrats, whatever issue they had, including the ERA, they fight for it for decades. They never give up. They're like, let's try this route.

Let's try this route. So I would tell people who are opposed to birthright citizenship, as I am, if this goes down, as it almost certainly will, don't say like, well, America's done.

It's a wrap. There are other mechanisms, there are things you can do to restrict the capacity of people to become citizens and what citizens do. There's two large problems. One. Women. Well, don't we know it? As they vote and they vote for these things, but all joking aside, as we've already stated,

Barack Obama gets in and by decree says these people have permanent status. By decree, no, no, let's clarify that. By decree, he says, I'm not going to force the law. He literally, and all the lefty newspapers said, well, it's something called prosecutorial discretion. Indeed. And then when Trump said we'll rescind it, this court said you can't. Right. So the issue we have is Democrats rule by decree every time they get in and Republicans are constrained and must sit back.

It's not just Democrats. It's that our judicial system is heavily in favor of the Democratic perspective. Right. So however you want to frame this problem, this problem exists. Yes. The second problem is that now that the Supreme Court is offered up this, conservatives are the people who say, I know that this is. destroying my home, my way of life and the gifts that I will leave my children, but it's the right thing to do. And Democrats are like, thank you for bending the knee and dying for me.

Well, like, if I had a bunch of like cattle walk onto my property, I'd want to be like, I need to get these cattle off my property. That doesn't mean that any means necessarily. Like, if I just, when you want free cattle? What's that? When you want free cattle? What if I just slaughtered, if I just slaughtered all the cattle, that would be like, bro, that's probably illegal firstly because they're not yours, even though they're on your property. Yeah. So this is old law, bro. You can't kill just cows on your property? There's, there's, this is one of the most common problems. I thought this is America. One of the most common problems that Americans have faced is cattle going on someone else's

property. So there's ways. Oh, yeah, it belongs to somebody. Okay, I think they're wild. There's ways to remove the wild cattle you can kill. Like the problem on your property being like non-citizens. There's ways to get rid of them that don't imply like, you can't just slaughter everything all at once. Yeah, or like you can't necessarily evict every seven-month-old that was so I got to tell you as someone who wasn't born this country sorry I don't do you wait wait wait what really go ahead I out look who's talking I think legal immigration is probably a bigger problem than illegal immigration why yeah because for myriad reasons because first of all there's a universe and I'm saying this is a legal immigrant there's a universal

belief that like legal immigration is sacrosanct that this is something we need more of that if someone's a immigrant they're like beyond the pale in terms of criticism it's crazy No, immigration is a hose valve that you open and close depending on the situation. America's overloaded with immigrants at the moment. We don't need more. And I don't vote. We got robots coming up too. So there's going to be another underclass of workers that are robots.

They're not going to be an underclass. They're just going to be machines. Yeah, yeah. They won't even be a class. It'll just be augmented our workforce. Well, I mean, that's like cars underclass, right? Like, I mean, you get cars replaced animals as transportation. They're not an underclass.

They're just machines. As an anarchist, I just need to stress, we must assert our authority. our power over the world that we want and not let other people do so. Okay, that's true. But I'm saying I think I have much less power than the Supreme Court does. Do you think that Congress has to address this? I think that is what the founding fathers would have. Okay, but hold on.

Again, to clarify, what you're saying is Congress should repeal the 14th Amendment. Repeal and change, however that works. They can amend it. They don't have to repeal. Or clarify it. Here's how you do it. I'm no seriousness. They can clarify it and have the Supreme Court validate that clarification.

That's how I would like it. I think that this argument is the structure of our government is conducive to its own destruction. Yes, yes. That's the problem with the First Amendment, too, is it should apply to source code. Like, you want to talk about free speech on the internet? These machines are talking to each other with code. Okay. It's a whole other rabbit hole.

Can I say one more thing? I also, I think you'd agree. Is it about source code? No. Okay, thank God. I'm not a boomer that I don't know that. It's like, Ian, no. I think it's easy.

Illiguing immigration is a huge problem, especially the numbers we saw during the Biden administration. But there's plenty of American citizens who are also a huge problem. We've got to go. Yeah. That point is, even if you've vanished every legal immigrant tomorrow,

the idea that America is somehow going to be saved, I think is inaccurate. No, but actually, if you did, if the children of immigrants did not vote Republicans would win every election.

So what if... It's true. In order to be... President McCain, we got it. What if it would be a citizen? One of your parents has to be a citizen. citizen. Yeah.

End of story. So the lie that we see in the corporate press, they said, uh, Trump put a statement saying, we're the only country is stupid enough to do this. And then CNN in the New York Times, they're like, not true. 30 countries do, which is a lie. There, we are the only country. There are a lot of countries that claim a birthright citizenship, but it all has a prerequisite to some form of allegiance like, they have these stipulations.

You legally live here or one of your parents is a citizen. I don't just like, I don't like that argument either because there are two types of countries, America are assholes. And just because we're the only ones who do it doesn't mean it's wrong. Like, if we're the only ones to do, it could be that we're right. So if you're saying it's good. No, I'm just saying that's not a good argument against my argument is this. We are beset on all sides by power structures that are intent on destroying us.

That's true. And they exploit every opportunity. And while they're setting fires, we're reviewing the contract. Yeah, it does feel like it's an emergency. But it shouldn't always be treated like. That's what you're saying about executive orders because they'll say, hey, we have to do this now. It's been building up for 25 years. More than 25.

But we don't have to act now. We just have to act. And it has to be done right. This is not something that's going to be solved overnight. There has to be a long-term systemic approach to this. Why are they not? Like, maybe if there was some kid is you have to, one of your parents has to be a citizen. Like how complicated.

That's so simple. It's not simple because you have a whole organization in this country for decades designed to keep that from happening. Maybe, hold on. Here's what you're up against. That's what you have to realize. Maybe Trump can form like a specific law enforcement with focus. on people who are improperly naturalized that could go seek these people out and we could call it something like the supplemental squadron like nice we'd call it nice we'd call them the supplemental

squadron that we they know SS and then you'd put SS on their lapels I think people on the right I think people on the right underestimate how cultural left-wing America often is oh yes completely and I was on Fox saying this that people are in favor of deporting illegal immigrants but not through force. They can have these contradictory ideas in their head at the same time with a straight face. No, no, no, but this was my argument two years ago during the election cycle. I said, if Donald Trump is to have his mass deportations, it must be done by men wearing polo shirts and khakis. I'm not even joking. You're right. You're speaking to my point. Exactly. The American people do, I said, we cannot have soldiers and men invest with guns, loading people into vans

and dragging them off. No one will tolerate that. And guess what? This is what happened. That's exactly Trump's approval dropped on this. The Republicans said we have to back off mass deportation. We're hurting in the Hispanic voter block. And also, I don't know. And also whites. Yeah. Because white women do not like seeing these images.

No, no way. That's carrying the swing voter. What did we say every night this came up? We said they are going to make videos of Donald Trump. They are going to say he's Hitler. They're going to say he's the SS and they're loading people into trains. And it's exactly what they've been doing. Everyone saw coming from space.

From space. You could see from space. We were talking about it during the Iowa caucus. If you wanted to check it, it was the first time it came up in public discourse. like with us you see I'm the first one to fucking bring that up in the world oh whoa sorry but like it's first I'm this and neo neo come down see that didn't understand the optic thing and they did it anyway like well I think their point is they wanted people to be scared so they self-deport I think that's the argument for the suits the the military vision

yeah okay because you're gonna have to you're gonna a lot more are gonna have be self-deported than physically removed yeah yeah so their argument is if we make it scary people are gonna be like deuce as I'm out of here. Okay. You can understand that. That's a good, I mean, that's a relative. Let's jump to this story from ABC 7. Illinois Attorney General vows to fight President Trump Executive Order on mail-in voting. They say that the president signed an executive order.

Now, for those that missed this, we talked about yesterday, it requires DHS to create a list of all U.S. citizens eligible to vote and then instructs the post office not to send out any mail in ballots to individuals who are not eligible. And that is within his authority. Now they're vowing to fight this and sue him over it, which is where things get really interesting. If this works, this is Trump Salvo number one, Republicans win everything. I don't think this is going to work. Why not?

Because historically, it's the states that decide the criteria for who gets to vote. That's going to be their argument. And that's the argument. I'm not against him. No, no, hold on. Hold on. Yes. But he's not telling the states they can't.

He's saying the post office cannot deliver them. Now, that is within federal jurisdiction. But the result, they're going to argue. and I think they're easily going to win that there was the consequence of the same. They're not going to win legitimately, but if your argument is the judges in the local judge will be corrupt. Well, I mean, if that's the argument, the argument is simply corrupt Democrats will do whatever they want.

But here's the argument. Trump is making. He will have members of the post office prosecuted if they do. He won't. Well, I agree that he won't actually do anything. And it goes back to the problem we presented in the previous segment that Republicans just complain, Democrats are lighting things on fire while Republicans review the contract. Even if they try to do any kind of, you know, prosecuting and whatever, like there's going to be a judge somewhere that's going to put an injunction on it immediately.

Immediately. There's the, what is it, Curtis Yarven quote that Republicans treat power the way an alcoholic, I'm sorry. Republicans treat power the way a wine snob treats alcohol and Democrats treat power the way an alcoholic treats alcohol. Yeah. And this is why the Democrats are often going to win. Yep. But I don't think, I think also to your point, I don't think there's the, the MAGA vision, even though Trump got 51%. Not 100% of those voters are MAG-49.8.

Not all those voters are MAGA voters. Right. What does it mean to be MAGA? Trump's support. I'm sorry. They prefer, they might have preferred Trump to Officer Harris, but they didn't sign on for all this stuff. They're not ideological. D-E-I Officer Harris.

Look at Joe Rogan. So the point is he's got a lot less wiggle room than people expect him to, to enact things. And that's a problem. And this is the problem with the right in general. The left is a cult and the right is a fragmented network of various. Someone should write a book about that called the new right. If this were to, his executive order, were to go through and the post office could no longer deliver, would the states there be able to sign up a contract with UPS? No, there's no way.

There's no way. There's no way that's handling ballots and there's no way that's going to be allowed. A private company? Yeah. You're not going to be able to have that. But our voting machines are private tally. But they're under their jurisdiction of the voting officials. Like they don't, those voting, they don't have, they don't have, they don't touching it.

I also, but I also think like Trump isn't that these ideas are, make common sense, but they're not popular. No. That's the problem. Because they, because they're mean. Right. Like, if we, if we could just get people to be a little mean politically, only politically, mean for like five years. For two presidential terms, mean, and that would win. It's actually simple.

The Republicans are not willing to be evil enough. Well, the media makes it. You can't get, go ahead. Because the world economic order is trying to. If the Republicans were evil. Use our media to. Can Ian talk? Well, I said something, then you addressed me.

Then Ian started talking. And then I tried countering what you were saying. Okay. I said they're not evil enough. And you made a comment. You were going to make a comment something that that wouldn't accomplish it. What was the point? I was going to wait for Ian.

I'll talk up to you in. Well, I said this, then you responded, but Ian started talking over you. That's what I made in this. Let's go. I will defer to Ian. Okay, so I will say it again. The Republicans are not evil enough to solve these problems. And I was saying that the media, the people that are overseeing the transition to the new world order, they're trying to destroy the United States as, you know, constitution are making it look evil.

They're trying to make it look as evil as possible. Right. And we knew that that would happen. And the Republicans aren't doing anything evil. And that's why they're losing. But the war is basically in the, what did Noam Chomsky say in the arena? of violence, the most brutal guy wins. That's right. And that's the fact of reality. When you look at the international conflict, I look at the Iran war functionally. I look at the interventions

functionally. Is it going to benefit the American people? Will there be massive moral damage and collateral damage? Will the end result be net positive? And we tend to see with these interventions and net negative. That being said, if Trump wins in Iran, the United States will see a massive economic net positive from control of international energy. If we don't, China does. That's not a moral argument. That is an economic argument. Right now in the United States, Donald Trump has many options to win the culture war outright and has not done any of them. He is doing everything above board and procedurally. And by evil, I mean false flags. That's the easiest example, right? If Trump got some intel guys to stage a false flag like Lemitzer wanted to do with the Cubans, then it wouldn't matter

if you're mean. Because the American people would beg for the hammer. I think there's, is a big asymmetry, and I'm confident you all will agree, between the acceptability in our culture of leftist violence and use of power and right-wing violence and use of power. Do you think that that is- I don't completely agree. Do you think that that's a phenomenon because of the fact that the left views violence as a knob and the right views violence as a switch? I think the right, correctly, is more scared of the pervasiveness of violence in a culture because they know it gets out of control. This is why they're very much for law and order. And I think the left is like this is one of the tools in our toolbox, and we could always blame it on the right.

The right does not use violence at all. There's no switch. This is a left framing. The left framing is that when a whack-a-loon guy claims he's a Christian and murders people, he represents all Republicans and all conservatives. Historically, there has been right-wing violence. I disagree with that. My point is when we say the left is violent, we're referring to a general acceptance of the diversity of tactics among all liberals. And when you say the right has violence, you're referring only to the fringe crazies that no one agrees with. That's right.

So again, a guy who claims to be a Christian who goes and murders a bunch of people does not represent anyone on the right and the right rejects it. On the left, Antifah throws a maltov at a cop and the left goes, well, we respect their tactics. It's a legit literal quote. Respect the diversity of tactics. And this is a problem. It's asymmetrical warfare. The underdog, they're viewed as the underdog because they're fighting against the system. No, no, no, no.

I think why I disagree with you when you said we tolerate left and not the right? The tolerance is not due to a perception of the violence. It's due to a fear of the violence. People don't speak up against the left because they'll lose their jobs. During the censorship era, if you were at work, like the guy at Netflix who said, here's a list of racial slurs not to say they fired him. This censorship period, which we see now at the NBA with this crazy story, if you at work said F Donald Trump, you're fine.

If you said F-L-G-TQIA, you're fired. The tolerance for these threats is not because people accept their causes, it's because they're terrified of the violence. Also, if you speak out against the far left, they will beat you to death. If you speak out again, I called, I referred to this as, um, uh, there's Pascal's Wager, and then I may joke about it calling it, um, Pesobics Wager or something like that, where I said it, so are you familiar with, you're familiar with Pascal's Wors? Yes, that Scott Adams did it.

Uh, Pascal's Wager? Scott Adams did it before he died, yeah. Oh, right, right, right, which doesn't work. But anyway, we spoke to Christians on the show and they're like, No, he's going to go to hell. He's going to be without God's love. But anyway, the point is, I think our friend of this is Posob's wager. We can call it Adams's wager. It goes like this.

If you are left wing and the right wins, you are fine. If you are left wing and the left wins, you are fine. If you are right wing and the right wins, you are fine. If you are right wing and the left wing wins, you will die. Which means in this quadrant, Normies will always avoid being right. because the safest bet will always be just left. The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe, as Megan said.

I disagree slightly because I do think a lot of people were in favor of the BLM riots and not simply because of fear. They thought it was coming from a good place. Yes. Yeah, the leftism in this country, I think it comes from our revolution against the king because that was the rightist was the monarchy. And so we had kind of a leftist revolution. And then Thomas Jefferson saying like, you know, the tree of liberty must be water.

So you regret it's saying. And he wrote, I should not have said that. It was sort of a leftist thing to say, like, we need to be willing to revolution. And then he wrote saying that was wrong. And there's a lot of sentiment now in the United States. Like, yeah, overthrow tyranny. We want to. Again, I got to stress this.

The left did not support the BLM riots. They did not know they happened. Michael Tracy did a great report on this. That's fair. Highlighting all the small towns where there was massive violence and let us don't know what happened. It's going to have Ferguson, these other places. There's a lot of belief, I think, in independent and left wing circles that, that there must be mitigating factors.

No, no, no, no, no. You don't think that's their view? If you go to the average left liberal, they couldn't tell you what happened in Ferguson. There was an article wrote in defense of looting. Okay. And the perception among liberals was that black people in Ferguson rose up against the oppressive police,

busted up all the stores, and took back property owned by foreigners. The real story, as I was on the ground, is that the local black people were begging the police for help to stop outsiders from looting their business. businesses. The left did not know what actually happened. They did not defend what happened. They supported this idea that didn't exist. Sure, but my point is, that's my point. They are supporting this idea of left, of broadly speaking, but lepping violence. So the clarification is when you say there's

tolerance for helping violence, my disagreement is the left is wholly ignorant of the violence that is done in their names. Sure. Okay. And the people who are aware fear retribution by those who wield the violence. I think there's people who are aware who don't fear the retribution or in favor of it. So if the argument is there are leftist ideologues that support the violence, of course there are. Sure. But I think there's more left-wing ideologues who support left-wing violence than there are right-wing ideologues who would support right-wing violence. That is correct. But I would argue this. Go to any liberal and ask them about M-29 and they'll say, what's that? Ask them about the 150 law enforcement officers that were beaten and attacked during the

insurrection at the White House, and they'll say that never happened. Yeah. They just don't know. And so they'll say the BLM riots may have been violent, but it was for a good cause. You'd be like when they mercilessly beat 100 plus cops and set fire to St. John's Church. They'll go, that never happened. Or they'd hand wave it away. That's not what I'm called.

I don't mean that part. There's like great examples of this with Billboard Chris. There's a viral video where he asks a guy like, the guy comes up complaining, saying, you're bigots. And he says, we just don't think underage girls, pre-bubescent girls should get their breast tissue removed. And the kid goes, that's not happening. And then Billboard Chris takes his phone, plays a video from a children's hospital saying, we do it. And he goes, yeah, well, the parents are allowed to decide.

And he goes, but now you've changed your position. Well, it's Rob Henderson. Which is? It's not happening. Right. Yeah. Yeah, it's not a big deal. It's a good thing, actually, the people complaining about the problem.

Those are four steps. First, it's, you're lying. It didn't happen. Right. No, it's not a big deal. If it was happening, who cares is not a big deal, then sure, but it's very few people anyway. And then why do you care so much? And actually, it's a good thing.

And then also you're the problem. Yep. You're only bringing this up to promote transphobia or racism. You don't really care. Which is why, you know what's really funny is there's this, we've mentioned it a little bit because you brought it up this campaign where there's clearly AI bots that are attacking me and a handful of other people. So it's like me, Jack Bosobic, Tucker, there is a coordinated effort to sow discontent

on the right so that factions can't come together. Right. And the left is just a cult, which is the issue that we have. have, I suppose, so long as the left is good at this and they are fomenting hatred among right-wing factions with each other, they're going to. They've also had a lot more practice. Yep, they've been reading a lot more books. And also 40 years of using the media. And also 40 years of holding Congress in a row. We do. People forget about that. To not hate each other, we know, I try not to use double

negatives, but to love each other. It's such a vague thing. But it really is like Tim and Candace sitting down and hanging out and getting over it is the antidote. I disagree. Yeah, I disagree. I agree. I think I like hating people to Haiti. No, I think I think I think the issue is, Ian, you need to understand that evil is real. It doesn't mean that you can't ally with it.

I agree with you that sometimes people can be horrible people, but you still need to ally with them for an outgoing purpose. You, of course. No. What do you mean? Just because you say, of course, doesn't mean that it's true. Soviet Union in the United States defeating the Nazis together. No. I knew you were going to do that.

I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. is signing your own death warrant. You could have had such a better example. It's the main one. The main one is hiring mercenaries that are just bloodthirsty killers for your army. Supporting a politician who's a sociopath because he's going to put policies you like.

That's an example. That's another one we could all agree with. Or working with Israel. Ran for office, but she was like, we're going to end up birthright citizenship day one. You'd be like, oh. Or if the Israeli government killed 30,000 children and we ally with them to destroy and take over the Middle East, that's a reasonable alliance. Even though what they did is pretty horrific if that's what they did. Who were you referencing?

If the Israeli government slaughtered Ghazans, like children in Gaza, and we allied with them anyway, for our goal, that would be like an example of aligning with potentially evil, if you want to call that evil. I feel like that's another bad example. Friendship and alliances are not the same. Ally, how about this? How about even the Taliban? Allying with the Taliban. Because they were trying to end child rape.

So the U.S. fought the Taliban and allied with the child rapist because they wanted to remove the Taliban. Or like, I would call that a very bad thing. Like didn't Obama allied with ISIS? He helped even create ISIS. Technically, but not directly. Obama created ISIS, yes. I agree. It's just that Obama did not sign a document saying we're going to create ISIS.

Obama armed rebel factions, which were radical Islamists. Right. Yes. And those powers coalesced into ISIS. If he did not provide the weapons, they would then arguably, ISIS would never have gained strength to become as large as they did. ISIS preceded Obama. No, it didn't. Islam. I mean, Wahhabi, Sunni Wahby or whatever. Isis? Am I misunderstanding? Am I being able to fooled?

No, you know, this only started after, um, oh my God, I'm thinking about Al Qaeda. Sorry, Biden moaned. Biden, Mone it. Biden moment. Biden moment. Holy crap. It was confusing. Holy crap. So I thought you meant Al Qaeda. No, no, no. Yep. This is all on me. So what happens is, you're right. You're right. You're right. No, but I'll just explain for people. Syria, Syria falls into chaos and protest. Am. Assad is accused of having his security forces shoot armed, armed, protesters. He calls them terrorists. This creates a bunch of splinter factions. There were around 12, the Free Syrian Army being one of the most prominent. Obama, his policy was, it was, what was it, timber wood or whatever? Sycamore? Timber Sycamore? Yeah, yeah, Timber Sycamore, I think it was, to provide weapons to rebel factions in Syria because they will remove Assad. And Assad was in the way of our gas

pipeline. Well, the problem is these factions were secular and fairly weak. And the Islamic fundamentalists started to take control of these factions and coalesce them into a single group that wanted just the caliphate. That isn't what Obama was trying to do arguably. Someone would argue he was. And he didn't make ISIS happen. He provided the means by which ISIS became strong and dominant. So people will hyperbolicly say he created us. This is also us supporting the Taliban to fight the Soviets.

And this is how we know if we armed the Kurds we're going to be fighting them in 20 years. Or how about the Azov battalion? Yeah, right. It's a risk you take allying with evil. It's not a risk. It's a certainty that whoever we arm, we're going to be fighting in 20 years. It's a certainty. But allying with evil, there's a risk.

Because the Soviet Union was super powerful after World War II because we allied with them in one. But arguably, would any of us even won without? But Ian, I will stress this. Were they super powerful after World War II? Ian, how many Russians died in World War II? Indeed. But there are degrees of evil, and there is a line.

So if you know that there is a person who is like, the moment I get a chance, I will commit atrocities, then you say, then it's not worth it. Well, if a situation was like your country was being destroyed literally in your last city, and it's like, well, we're all going to die, or we can ally with that crazy guy you just mentioned. They ally with the crazy guy. And you might, that might be better because you might survive. There are certainly circumstances. And anyway, the reason I bring it up is because on the right, I feel like there's a fractured alliance that if we can come back together in reality. Let us try this. The reason why I would say, there are certainly circumstances

as the U.S. has its interest in arming various rebel groups which turn on it. However, there also is a line you would never cross even facing existential crisis or death. That's very Jesus Christ of you. No, but it's truth. If the United States

was like, there's the last bastion, one small town left surrounded by pedophiles, literally. And then a communist who is holding a child by the head and saying, say Marx is my king. And he goes, never. And he slits his throat. And then the kid dies. And he looks at it and says, join me and we'll fight the pedophiles. You'd be like, no. Okay. My point is, what are you fighting for? Sure. If you would stand alongside

someone that literally destroys what you're fighting for. Yeah, sure. A good example is, Chinese communists come to take over America. And American communists say, when I take over, I'll do the exact same thing as them, but at least I'm American, you wouldn't, you'd be like, but you're, no, there's no difference to me. These are two evils,

and I'm not going to accept either of them. It's circumstantial, because if it's like, if we don't ally with the American communists, we're going to die, then you're like, no, no, no, no, the American communist is going to kill you too.

Is there like less of a chance of them? Join me and we'll stop the Chinese communists. I'll kill you afterwards. You'd be like, no, I'm not teaming you're evil. You're going to kill my people no matter what. Like, there's a line where there's a tremendous evil. If you are fighting, it's like, if you are fighting evil to preserve your way of life and a

secondary evil equally as a threat says, join me and we'll kill them and then I'll kill you. You'd be like, no. No, you say yes, and then you turn on the other people after the battle. The point is you're not powerful enough and you need assistance. Like, my point is simply this. You would not fight alongside a pedophile to stop a communist. Like, if a guy was actively like, once we win this war, I'm going to go rape a bunch of

bunch of people. You'd be like, I'm not fighting with you. You're nuts. The thing is, if somebody was slaughtering civilians, I'd ally with pretty much anybody to stop them. Petophiles. A bunch of short, chubby, moustachioed pedophiles who are begging for children are like, Ian, if you and I win this battle right now, we stop the communist threat and we get 100 children and we'll leave. You'd be like, okay. I'd be like, yeah. That's what America and we would win the battle. That's what America did the Taliban. I think it was even wrong. During the 2000s, the longest serving U.S. Speaker of Republican Speaker of the House in history,

Dennis Hastert was, in fact, a pedophile. And I'm sure there's lots of people listening to this who knew that, who would have preferred him as Speaker of the House over Pelosi, even given that. Sure, I'm not arguing that. My point is, as I said, certainly there are circumstances. I don't agree that's a good wager to make. But I'm saying the U.S. chose to fight alongside pedophiles

in Afghanistan to stop the Taliban. And it was a big cover up, the soldiers were told they could not report it. In New York Times from page, yeah. Yeah, huge news. In this situation, it's like the liberal economic, the global technocratic machine wants to, you know, absorb everything.

And if we have to fight against that, if we have to preserve American freedoms, I'm willing to ally with evil Americans to make that happen because there's still Americans. And I don't, I don't know that the liberal technocratic machine is inherently evil. What?

The way that he's talking about it, like if he's talking, like if he's talking, What do you consider the liberal technocratic machine? Like get in the potty, the bugs, be happy. Everybody's a rental class. If you say fuck online, you get your account, demonitize your. So you're talking about some kind of a word of point. No, no, you're not.

The reason we don't swear is not because we get censored. It's because there are families who have their kids in the living and watching the show. No, but we're also talking about like horror. So like, you can, okay. Yeah, I won't say. But that is the truth is if you say the wrong words, this machine can turn you off and take your bank away. Like, that's what we're fighting against. Not if you have the.

Rumble wallet at wallet.rundrumbel.com. I think the reason I'm having a hard time wrap my head around your hypotheses is because I don't think the pedophiles are localized to one group. So I think no matter who you work with, you're working with the pedophiles. Sure, but my point was take the most extreme evil you can think of, and you'll back, I would never work with those people. I also think evil tends to be not efficacious. Elaborate.

Meaning that the more evil you are, the hardest to implement your plans, because evil is that is which I disagree. I think the more evil you are, the easier it is to implement your plans. Okay. Well, I guess is so. Cheating is the... Cheating is not. Absolutely. Good is hard. Oh, good is God. That's why it's all so easy. Bro, no. Being good is God, and that's the challenge he bestows upon you. The challenge is, do you take the easy path towards comfort and success, or do you push the boulder up the hill and suffer for what is right? Bro, being evil is the easiest way to go about that. I don't think it's easy Let's talk, as I was talking about with Trump, Trump wants to deal with Antifa, right?

Okay, you get a U.S. Intel asset, drug him up, dress him old like Antifa, and blow him up in a town square. Then you say, then you put on a manifesto and say, Antifa is threatening more tax. We won't allow it. And then you start rounding up Antifa, problem solved. I don't know that the sacrifice of one soldier in the face of a bigger war is something as evil as you're making it out to be. Oh, you don't think that would be evil. I would consider that evil.

For example, let's suppose one country is about to go to war with another country, which would guarantee thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention military, but you're going to die. And you have the opportunity to kill their leader and preempt it. I don't think that's evil. Well, you're just, but that's totally different. It's not totally different. It's one murder. We're talking about deceiving the people into rounding up a political ideology you don't like because a faction of them are overtly violent.

I don't think deceit is necessarily evil. Well, agreed. My point. But do you think false flags are not evil? I think you have to compare things to the alternative. I'd rather have melanoma than pancreatic, right? Well, right, but right, but is that true? So I think I would rather have a false flag that preempts a war than a war.

So your point is some, you'd rather have less evil than more evil, but evil on the less. Sure. Because cancer is cancer, but some cancers are worse. Correct. Right. My argument is being evil is easier. I don't think being less evil is evil. I think being less evil is good.

So, go to choose the less over the worse. So if Donald Trump wanted to deal with, if you wanted to secure voting, for instance, for the midterms, sure. The easiest thing he could do is have some like Antifa guy blow himself up at a ballot box. I don't think that's easy at all. What do you mean? Because I don't think the reaction would play out necessarily like you do because I think a lot of times whatever happens, it's going to blow up in his face. I mean, that's a may be except the history of false flags or they tend to work.

Sure, but how often do you have a Donald Trump figure tried to run a false flag? During 2020, hold on, we remember this. During 2020, when Antifa was going to burn down that federal building, was that Seattle or Portland, which was it? They brought the attorney general in front of Congress to explain how dare you defend federal property for being burnt down. Yeah. So the point is, whatever Trump tries to pull, it's going to be looked at eight ways from Sunday. Oh. If on May 29th.

Is that a specific date for some reason? That's when the left ransacked the, tore the barriers out at the White House, firemen. bomb St. John's Church. But you never hear about. Memory Hold. Because Trump isn't evil. Because what an evil person would do is say, tell me, so the president is evil and they brief him and they say, sir, you have to go to the bunker, emergency bunker downstairs. He goes, why? What's happening? Say there's thousands of protesters outside. They're starting fires. And then he says, brief me. What have they done? Well, they've just set fire to the historic St. John's Church. It's where the president's pray.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, well, Trump says, we got to stop it. Right. Bill Barr says, we got to stop it. They do. That's the right thing to do. Correct. I agree with you. However, an evil man would say, no, let it burn. Let the American icon burn to the ground. You know why? Because then in the morning, I will issue a statement that the far left extremists have destroyed a monument to America and we will announce a crackdown. And then Donald Trump could have come out. After the far leftist tore the barricades down in front of the White House, he could have ordered the police to stand down and back off. The leftists would have broken into the White House, started rampaging and ransacking everything. and he could have said everyone stand down. And then in the morning, you know what he does? He goes on TV and says, America, I owe you an apology. When the peaceful protesters came out. What? You don't have a Trump voice?

Come on. I do. Do it. America. There you go. See? Oh, you an apology. There you go.

Last night we saw terror, the worst this country has ever seen. Some say. And what he would say is, when thousands of peaceful protesters came out, We respected the First Amendment and the grief these people felt over the loss of life in Minnesota. But when the extremists joined their ranks, unfortunately, our media reports did not convey the degree of violence that had been undertaken. And for this, I made a grave error. I instructed our law enforcement to stand down as we feared innocent, peaceful protesters could be hurt. Well, it turns out that these individuals were in fact violent extremists.

They have destroyed the historic St. John's Church, and they have laid waste to the White House. And for that, I know you may never forgive me. And for that, I will apologize at every opportunity. But mark my words, I will have justice. And the American people will know justice as we seek these violent terrorists down across the country and lock them up. And then he creates a task force and a committee, the M29 committee, And then they start holding hearings, bringing in leftists and saying, did you have something to do with this? They put these people in prison and they all get arrested.

I don't know why you say this is evil. This sounds awesome. Because the point is Trump would intentionally foment the destruction of American icons and monuments for the purpose of installing a political agenda. I don't know that he would, at least in this scenario, he wouldn't foment. He would have allowed it. And also, I would argue that's a light degree of evil to say we would be gaslit into blaming Trump. and or simultaneously saying that nothing ever happened. Well, the White House would be ransacked,

and St. John Church would be a pile of rubble. And they'll say it was Trump's fault, and they'd impeach him and remove him off. Nope, nope. You're right, they would. And Trump would say, well, you know, I apologize for this. I do. We saw the CNN was saying that it was peaceful, and we believed it, and that was my fault.

I should not have believed CNN when they lied. Let me ask you a question, because I remember 2020 very vividly, and I'm sure the people in the room as well. Do you disagree with my contention that if Trump didn't go as far as he did on COVID with many of the restrictions, either through his decisions and things he said,

that he would have been impeached or moved from office? If he didn't go as far as he did? Correct. If he was softer. I feel like we need a little bit more specifics. Meaning like I remembered those times, right? And how scared everyone was, especially those first few days. And Trump wanted...

You're saying if he was like, no lockdowns, we're going to let everything roll. And Trump wanted things to open up as fast as possible to talk about all the time. My point was, hold on just finish my point. I think people don't appreciate to what extent Congress is against the sky, including Republicans, and would love an excuse to remove him from office. And I think people don't appreciate the severe impact Andy knows near death experience had on the American psyche.

People don't know who Andy is. CNN was forced to come out and say the left has gone too far. That was a massive moment when photos of Andy know. Indeed, because the right never engages in false flags. Right. So when the left crossed the line and left Andy, no bleeding from the ears and drenched with blood and broken teeth. All of the media was like, this is too much.

Steve Scalese got shot. No Democrat defended it to my knowledge. Indeed. And a week after that, everyone forgot about it. People need to see it. But the thing is... You can't force them to see it because they don't want you show it to you. If Trump were to engage in a sustained campaign, he would win.

I don't think you're wrong. I think not because the media, it's only if it aligns with what the, military industrial complex wants. If they false flagged us into Iran, I can understand it. But there's nothing to do with domestic conquest. They don't want, they want Antifa to run Rothschad to so disstable ability. So I think that they would expose him and throw them away. We have seen numerous instances where the left went too far and we got the, the reaction from the corporate press in a shocking way. It's just that it only happened two or three times. Right. But my point is people have been primed for a decade to be told that in any minute now, Trump is going to put trans people in concentration

camps. Agreed. So the second there's a hint of that, aha, told you so, and he's going to get removed. Except if you shock the American people into a position where the media cannot guess light. I don't see. That is where you and I disagree. I don't think there's a possibility that people get so shocked that media can't get. If Andy Noah's beaten a death, the reaction would have been tenfold. Ten times one is still going to be a small number. Indeed, it needs to be a consistent plan from Trump to continually lie and engage in false flags and manipulate the public, like the left. does. Sure. But if Trump was evil, he'd be doing it. The point is, the left doesn't do it through one person. Trump is just one man. This has been systemic for decades from them. I got it. Trump's only there for four years.

That's not addressing what my argument is. But the point is Trump does not have the space to do what the left does. Perhaps that may be. Okay. If Trump were to do what the left was doing, he'd win. Win what? You mean the culture war? Culture war. Okay. Like, it- I don't think the culture war could be one in four years. I believe that January 6th was allowed to happen, that we saw videos of police standing down and walking people in the building. Sure. Nancy Pelosi didn't bring a National Guard and neither did Bowser. And I think the point was they said, no, no, let it happen.

Sure. Because then they got their committees and their insurrection. Trump could have done the same thing with the White House. I just, I don't think there's a symmetry. Yeah, the liberal. That's my point. That establishment like does false flags, you know, mechanically and industrially. It's not, not one guy telling a lie.

There are people who would tell you right now that dozens of cops were killed on January 6 by that mob. Because New York Times lie. I'm just saying that's, but you're not, it's, we don't live in a truth base. Humans aren't truth-seeking animals. They're narrative-seeking animals. And their narrative for 10 years has been, Trump is a Hitler-Rane and happen. That's been primed in people's heads.

And the second something like that happens, they're activated. More people need to understand exactly what you just said. And I don't even, I don't even, and I think because of the way that people are, I don't think that they can actually wrap their heads around it. So it might be, it might be a moot point to even bring it up. But the fact that, like, the idea that people have that, you know, if you can, you can just actually have a discussion with people and you'll change their opinion. Show them video.

No. There are people who, Tim, we all agree with this. There are many leftists that if you play them the clip of Trump speaking up to Charlottesville will tell you, yes, I heard him praising white supremacist. They can play that tape from here until they die. They will not hear it correctly. So I would argue that that video actually is the greatest red pill for the average person. And I hear so many of these stories where they say,

I was a lib until I saw that video. But if that video was as red pillings, you say would be 100% effective? No, 100%. If people were as valuable. Because it's pretty objective, that video. So for the default libs, as Andrew Breipart called them,

it almost is completely effective. I, is it your opinion that if you played that video in its entirety to everyone in America, they would all become MAGA? Everyone? No, of course not. So what percent you think would change their minds? default libs?

Yes. 60%. I think it's 10. We go. That's our disagreement. We got Trump. Here he comes. Here we go.

Hey, you think it's 10 full impression. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. T. My fellow Americans, good evening. Let me begin by congratulating the team at NASA and our brave astronauts on the successful launch of Artemis 2. It was quite something.

It will be traveling further than any manned rocket has ever flown and will, very substantially past the moon, go around it and come back home from a distance that has never been done before. It's amazing. They are on the way and God bless them. These are brave people who want to God bless those four unbelievable astronauts. As we speak this evening, it's been just one month since the United States military began operation. Epic Fury. targeting the world's number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. In these past four weeks, our armed forces have delivered swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield. Victories like few people have ever seen before.

Tonight, Iran's Navy is gone. Their air forces in ruins. Their leaders, most of them, terrorist, regime, they led. are now dead. Their command and control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is being decimated as we speak. It's like he's doing a Trump impression. Their ability to launch missiles and drones is dramatically curtailed, and their weapons, factories, and rocket launchers are being blown to pieces. Very few of them left. Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large-scale losses in a matter of weeks.

I don't think that's true. Our enemies are losing in America, as it has been for five years under my presidency, is winning and now winning bigger than ever before. Before discussing this current situation, I also want to thank our troops for the masterful job they did in taking the country of Venezuela in a matter of minutes, that it was quick, lethal, violent,

and respected by everyone all over the world. After rebuilding our military during my first term, we have by far the strongest military anywhere in the world, and now we're working along with Venezuela and are in a true sense joint venture partners. We're getting along incredibly well in the production and sale of massive amounts of oil and gas, the second largest reserves on Earth

after the United States of America. We're now totally independent of the Middle East, and yet we are there to help. We don't have to be there. We don't need their oil. We don't need anything they have, but we're there to help our allies. Tonight, I want to provide an update on the tremendous progress our warriors have made in Iran and discuss why Operation Epic Fury is necessary for the safety of America and the security of the free world From the very first day I announced my campaign for president in 2015, I have vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

This fanatical regime has been chanting death to America, death to Israel for 47 years. Their proxies were behind the murder of 241 Americans in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the slaughter of hundreds of our service members with roadside bombs. They were involved in the attack on the USS Cole, and they carried out the countless other heinous acts, including the blood, just horrible, bloody atrocities of October 7th in Israel, something that most people have never seen anything like it. This murder's regime also recently killed 45,000 of their own people

who were protesting in Iran, 45,000 dead. For these terrorists who have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat. The most violent and thuggish regime on Earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest, and mass murder from behind, a nuclear shield. I will never let that happen, and neither should any of our past presidents. This situation has been going on for 47 years and should have been handled long before I arrived in office. I did many things during my two terms in office to stop the quest for nuclear weapons by Iran first. And perhaps most importantly, I killed General Qasem Soleimani with my first term.

He was an evil genius, brilliant person, a horrible human being. however, the father of the roadside bomb, and he lived just horrible what he did. Iran would have been perhaps in far better, stronger position. He lived, we would have had

probably a different conversation tonight, but you know what? We'd still be winning and winning big. And then very importantly, I terminated Barack Hussein Obama's Iran nuclear deal, a disaster. He throws it in there every time. I love it. I love it. I love it.

cash, green, green cash, took it out of banks from Virginia, D.C. and Maryland. All the cash they had. He flew it by airplanes in an attempt to buy their respect and loyalty, but it didn't work. They laughed at our president and went on with their mission to have a nuclear bomb.

His Iran deal would have led to a colossal arsenal of massive nuclear weapons for Iran. They would have had them years ago, and they would have used. would have been a different world. There would have been no Middle East and no Israel right now, in my opinion, the opinion of a lot of great experts. Had I not terminated that terrible deal, I was so honored to do it. I was so proud to do it.

It was so bad right from the beginning. Essentially, I did what no other president was willing to do. They made mistakes, and I am correcting them. My first preference was always the path of diplomacy, yet the regime. The regime continued their relentless quest for nuclear weapons and rejected every attempt at an agreement. For this reason, in June, I ordered a strike on Iran's key nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. Those beautiful B-2 bombers performed magnificently.

We totally obliterated those nuclear sites. The regime then sought to rebuild their nuclear program. at a totally different location, making clear they had no intention of abandoning their pursuit of nuclear weapons. They were also rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles and would soon have had missiles that could reach the American homeland, Europe, and virtually any other place on Earth. Iran's strategy was so obvious. They wanted to produce as many missiles as possible, and they did. With the long, longest range possible. And they had some weapons that nobody believed they had. We just learned

that out. We took them out. We took them all out so that no one would really dare stop them. And they're raised for a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapon like nobody's ever seen before. They were right at the doorstep. For years, everyone has said that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. But in the end, those are just words if you're not willing to take action when the time comes. As I stated in my announcement of Operation Epic Fury, our objectives are very simple and clear. We are systematically dismantling the regime's ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders. That means eliminating Iran's Navy, which is now absolutely destroyed, hurting their air force and their missile program at levels never seen before and annihilating their

defense industrial base. We've done all of it. Their Navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Their missiles are just about used up or beaten. Taken together, these actions will cripple Iran military, crush their ability to support terrorist proxies and deny them the ability to build a nuclear bomb. Our armed forces have been extraordinary.

There's never been anything like it militarily. Everyone is talking about it, and tonight I'm pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion. As we celebrate this progress, we think especially of the 13 American warriors who have laid down their lives in this fight to prevent our children from ever having to face a nuclear Iran. Twice this past month, I have traveled to Dover Air Force. force base, and it's been something. I wanted to be with those heroes as the return to American soil, and I was with them and their families, their parents, their wives, the husbands. We salute them, and now we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives at every single

one of the people. Their loved one said, please, sir, please finish the job, every one of them. And we are going to finish the job, and we're going to finish it very fast. We're getting very close. I want to thank our allies in the Middle East, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain. They've been great, and we will not let them get hurt or fail in any way, shape, or form. Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home. So this short-term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. This is yet more proof that Iran can never be trusted with nuclear weapons.

They will use them and they will use them quickly. It would lead to decades of extortion, economic pain and instability worse than we can ever imagine. The United States has never been better prepared economically to confront this threat. You all know that we built the strongest economy in history. We're going through it right now, the strongest in history. And one year we've taken a dead and crippled country. I hate to say that, but we were a dead and crippled country after the last administration and made it the hottest country anywhere in the world by far with no inflation.

record-setting investments coming into the United States, over $18 trillion, and the highest stock market ever, with 53 all-time record highs in just one year. It all positioned us to get rid of a cancer that has long simmered. It's known as the nuclear Iran, and they didn't know what was coming. They've never imagined it. Remember, because of our drill-a-baby drill program, America has plenty of gas. we have so much gas. Under my leadership, we are number one producer of oil and gas on the planet without even discussing the millions of barrels that we're getting from Venezuela.

Because of the Trump administration's policies, we produce more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined. Think of that. Saudi Arabia and Russia combined. And that number will soon be substantially higher than that. There's no country like us anywhere in. in the world and we're in great shape for the future. The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormos Strait

and won't be taking any in the future. We don't need it. We haven't needed it and we don't need it. We've beaten and completely decimated Iran. They are decimated, both militarily and economically and every other way. And the countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormone Strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it.

They must grab it and cherish it. They can do it easily. We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on. So to those countries that can't get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran. We had to do it ourselves. I have a suggestion. Number one, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty.

We have so much. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Should have done it before. Should have done it with us, as we asked. Go to the straight and just take it, protect it. Use it for yourselves. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done, so it should be easy.

And in any event, when this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally. It'll just open up naturally. They're going to want to be able to sell oil because that's all they have. to try and rebuild. It will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down. Stock prices will rapidly go back up. They haven't come down very much. Frankly, they came down a little bit, but they've had some very good days over the last couple of days. We've done actually much better than I thought. But we had to take that little journey to Iran to get rid of this horrible threat with our historic tax cuts where people are just now talking

about receiving larger refunds than they ever thought possible. They are getting so much more money than they thought. That's from the great, big, beautiful bill. Our economy is strong and improving by the day, and it will soon be roaring back like never before. It will top the levels that it was a month ago. I've made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved.

Thanks to the progress we've made, I can say tonight that we are on track. to complete all of America's military objectives shortly, very shortly. We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' death.

They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable. Yet if during this period of time no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest

target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone, and there's not a thing they could do about it. They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100 percent annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force. The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B-2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust, and we have it under intense satellite surveillance and conditions.

control. If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we'll hit them with missiles very hard again. We have all the cards. They have none. It's very important that we keep this conflict in perspective. American involvement in World War I lasted one year, seven months, and five days. World War II lasted for three years, eight months, and 25 days. The Korean War lasted for three years, for three years, one month, and two days. The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years, five months, and 29 days. Iraq went on for eight years, eight months, and 28 days. We are in this military operation, so powerful, so brilliant,

against one of the most powerful countries for 32 days. And the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat. They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer. This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren's future. The whole world is watching, and they can't leave the power, strength, and brilliance. They just can't believe what they're seeing. They leave it to your imagination, but they can't believe what they're seeing the brilliance of the United States military. Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression

and the specter of nuclear black bill. Because of the actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran's sinister threat to America and the world, and I'll tell you, the world is watching. And when we do, when it's all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous, and greater than it has ever been before. May God bless the men and women of the United States.

United States Armed Forces and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much and good night. Oh, wow. I'm a little, I've got one quick question. Like, I'm not, this is even sarcastic. I'm not even sarcastic. He said we're close to achieving all of America's like military goals. What are those? I literally don't know what those are. Rubio posted them. Oh, you did. Yeah. It was, it was basically annihilate their ability to wage ground war. Okay. Anti-air and naval. and they were like, I don't know, it might have been like seven points or something. Can we pull that up?

Because I think people can see that. Yeah. Because that's the big question, I think people have it. Blowing up their arms and legs doesn't stop the brain's desire. So I don't understand. Well, the argument that's being that Marco Rubio made is that there's, they want to degrade their ability

to have missiles. Do you have it, Tim, I found it. Okay, grab it. Just, you want to put it in the slack. Or, yeah, yeah, yeah. It was Rubio, right? Yeah. Yeah, people like, was like a bullet point thing or something?

Two minute thing. right there. Yeah, he won, they won't. Our objectives. Americans are asking, why did the United States have to attack Iran now? Well, let me explain. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. Of that, there is zero doubt. If what they truly wanted, which is what they claim is nuclear energy, well, they could have nuclear energy, like all the other countries in the world have it, and that is you import the fuel and you build reactors above ground. That's not what Iran has done. They build their reactors and their facilities deep in mountains away from the public glare, and they want to enrich that material. The same equipment that they could use to enrich material for energy, they

could use to quickly enrich it to weapons grade. So it is clear that they've been offered every opportunity to have a nuclear program that allows them to have energy, not weapons, and every single time they have turned it down. But why the attack now? Well, what was Iran trying to do? Iran was trying to build a conventional shield, in essence, have so many missiles, have so many drones that no one could attack them, and they were well on their way. We were on the verge of an Iran that had so many missiles and so many drones that no one could do anything about their nuclear weapons program in the future. That was an intolerable risk.

Under no circumstances can a country run by radical Shia clerics with an apocalyptic vision of the future ever possessed nuclear weapons, and under no circumstances can they be allowed to hide and protect that program and their ambitions behind a shield of missiles and drones that no one can do anything about. This was our last best chance to eliminate that conventional threat, that conventional shield that they were trying to build, and the president made the right decision to wipe it out now. That is the goal of this operation, to destroy their conventional missiles and their drone program so they can't hide behind it and finally have to deal with the world seriously about never ever having nuclear weapons.

That's so much more coherent than what Trump said. Well, of course it is. You're saying, of course, I didn't know. I'm sorry. It implies that they're going to have to get the Iranian regime to allow inspectors into the country, basically capitulate and become a subservance of that. One of the points that I've heard a lot of people making is that the reason that we couldn't do anything about North Korea getting a nuclear weapon is because of the location of Pyongyang, right? They're within artillery range of North Korea.

So if they tried to prevent, what? China's backing North Korea. We can't go in. No, no, but the point that I'm making is... They were going in. The IA. They kicked them out. Yeah, but the reason they could...

The main reason they couldn't, because they couldn't even gamble on trying to is because if they tried to strike North Korea, North Korea can just use artillery and wipe out, what, 10 million people in Seoul? In Seoul? They'd kill tens of thousands with just artillery. And so what the goal is here is to prevent Iran from achieving that kind of weapons capacity with conventional weapons for making it, making it too costly for the U.S. or someone else to go and actually attack them because so much ability.

Is this April fools? Why didn't Trump say what you just said? Because he's Trump. Are you kidding? Come on. People are writing this speech. I've seen many things. I think Rubio should have added the, Ruby should have said this.

Everything he said, and I want the people of this country to understand that while the safety of the region, our allies, our troops. troops are paramount, understand that the threat from Iran would also destabilize the economy here in the United States and abroad, as we are seeing now with the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz and gas prices going up. If we waited and they aimed nuclear weapons at us or our allies, gas prices would have gone up $4 a gallon. This is just a small factor, but understand it's a big picture and the safety of the people in the lives is the, the, you know, most important. That would be a very coherent. And then go, not just gas prices would go up,

but the cost of literally everything, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. And none of us talking about this is an endorsement of the, of the attacking. I know they, they don't understand, but, it's only, he still, Ruby only gave us half or part of an equation because you blow up all their conventional weapons, their missiles and drones, and then wait four years, they're going to have another round of conventional weapons. It's called Mowing-a-Lone. Yeah, exactly. So is that the plan? Is every three years we're going to liberate? That's why they want regime change. Well, he didn't say that, but I agree. He did. He did. He did. He didn't. Trump, you know, Ruby.

Trump. Yeah, Rubio didn't mention regime change as part of the attack. I want to say this, too. Strategy. Because my concerns, as I mentioned earlier, with intervention, are functional and not moral. I have moral concerns. Like, there's a report that the U.S. may have launched Tomahawk, which hit a school, killing a bunch of children.

Horrifying. And moral concerns matter. However, in war, we try to avoid these. And I believe the United States, as a force for war and a global power has been the most moral that we have seen in the past. I don't know, in our history, in the history of the planet. Certainly you can look at the Nazis and everyone goes, oh, certainly you can look at Napoleon and go, really?

You can look at Russia and China and go, good God. And you're going to America and you go, well, they did do a lot of bad things, but all things considered, my argument is I sit online. I see these activists from left to write or otherwise, and they say the U.S. is the worst terrorist on the planet, the U.S. is evil, all of these things, and that is just not true. It may not be correct, functional, or moral what they're doing. Those arguments are always allowed. But my point is, China was threatening to destroy one of the largest aquifers in Central America

so they could compete with the Panama Canal. They have no regard for human life and what is moral or good. Certainly one could argue the U.S. does bad things. And I would argue welcome to war and global conflict. So by all means, criticize the war. I'm not saying not to. I'm just saying, don't come to me and claim that Iran is morally. just. Don't come to me and say China is morally just are good or that Russia is, because I will tell you,

the United States is infinitely, infinitely better and more moral than all of those countries. Very good at not turning on its own people because of our decentralized legal systems where local police basically trump essentially the exterior forces. So the U.S., it's moral in that way that it hasn't genocide at its own people, but like we're not at war in Iran. So you're saying, like, in times of war, you might blow up a school of children, but we're not at war. A guy just said, let's go blow up that school of children. We're doing war-y kind of things, though. The point is this.

The point is the American military is the most constrained military in terms of global powers. Hearing the things that our men and women in uniform go through when they're like, we're getting shot at we're not allowed to return fire because of the risks. Like the U.S. military goes to pain staking lengths to avoid what communist China does intentionally. I think that the point people make, and I'm not saying you disagree with this, isn't that the Iran or Chinese are good people, but that they're acting in certain ways that make rational sense. And you could understand other countries look what to happen with Iran being like, you know what? If I get nukes, this isn't going to happen to me. Look at Pakistan. Pakistan,

Harvard bin Laden. No one brings them up. That is, that is, I would argue, functionally correct. And then we can take a look at what the U.S. response was with Iran right now. Iran, Trump, I would argue, embarrassed, humiliated even, because the 12-day war was a failure. He said we got their nuclear capabilities. What did we? we see from satellite photos, it looked like they got all of the enriched uranium out before it was blown up. And guess what? That's true. Trump failed in that regard. I bet Trump was pissed and now it's like, okay, well, if we're going to shut them down, we're going to do it. Yeah, yeah. I believe it has more to do with just the, with uranium, protest or whatever, but I will stress.

The U.S. says, we will target your military. There may be accidental collateral damage. I do not believe the U.S. intentionally targeted school children. That's a waste of a billion dollar missile or a $50 million missile. You're not accomplishing any goals with doing that. Look what Iran did. They targeted hotels and civilians. Iran threatened to target critical infrastructure of our allies, uninvolved, like Trump mentioned, as well as civilians because the threat of terror

makes an honest person scared. The criminal at the bank points the gun at the innocent woman, knowing the police don't want her to die, and would rather the criminal escape with all of the money than the innocent person die. That's evil. And that's what Iran is doing. So I'm not justifying that we go into this because, again, moral arguments are allowed and we can have them.

Functional arguments are mostly where I stand. But moral matters to me. But you take a look at what Iran's been doing in the region, arming rebels who blow up civilian cargo ships, which they've been doing for years. And we're supposed to just sit back and be like, well, you know, we can't do anything about it. I reject that. Now, again, my principal concerns are the moral expense, like, the school that was blown up,

We should have investigation. My concerns are the function. If we do this, will we actually succeed? And even Eric Prince said it's a roll the dice. But I will stress on Venezuela, while skeptical because my fear is the function, morally, we are 100% justified. And I am glad that Trump succeeded in Venezuela. The Venezuelans stole our assets and we had a treaty with them. We shook hands.

We built oil infrastructure and smiled and said, thank you. We'll get rich together. And then the communists in that country stole it all from us and gave us the middle finger. And Trump, what did he do? He took one guy and got our stuff back and there's no war and I respect it. I think that's fair to the extent that Maduro and a few of his henchmen got taken out. So the damage was so minimal, people didn't even know how to freak out about it. Agreed.

But if he's sitting there talking about, who knows if it's bluster, about targeting electricity, which is going to affect a lot of civilians, at a certain point, like you can't just say it's just war. I think the principal issue is, you know, the scenario I like to give, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this thought experiment. I may have asked you this already, but I'm going to ask you again. Is this the naked slave being whipped? No, no, no, that was fun, though, right? This one is, you're in the middle of the woods, far from civilization. Okay, how would that ever happen?

It's called a hypothetical. But even if you didn't have breakfast, Michael, how would you have felt? I wake up at 11, I never have breakfast. Let me ask you a question, and it's not necessarily just for you, but a thought experiment. I like to ask people when it pertains to war is, you're in the middle of the woods, you're lost, you have a small satchel of food and a canteen and it lasts you about a day and you have a rifle. Okay. You're trying to find your way to civilization.

And let's just say that you're in a unknown country. Sure, sure. And as you're walking, you see a man in the distance, looks just like you, rifle, small satchel, looks like food, canteen of water. What do you do? Wait, does it matter that he looks like me? Like he looks like he's wearing the same gear as you. Oh, okay.

I think he's like my clone. Okay, I would approach him and say, hey, I'm lost. Can you help? Bang! Now he's got two days worth of food and you're dead. You don't know that? Indeed, you don't. And you don't know that he'll greet you either. And this is the thought experiment. Andrew Branca said I'd shoot him on the spot. I'd aim my rifle and take him out. I think it would depend on what country you're in. You're in an unknown country.

I'd say it would depend because if you're like in Canada, like it's not getting well for you. Well, I said you're in an unknown country, lost from civilization with limited food and you see a man. I'm very loathe, even hypothetical. Let me give you another thought experiment. This actually happened. Let me just finish this one point. Sure, sure. On the thought experiment, there is no right answer and no answer you give will ever be adequate.

That's the point. If you say, I would call out to him, he responds in a foreign language. If you say, I approach him, he shoots you. If you say, I shoot him first, okay, then he's dead. The point is, when we're in situations of war, especially as citizens watching a government, we don't know everything. That's exactly right. And there's only one question that matters.

Do you trust this administration? Right. But throw yours out. This is one of the things I learned when I was riding the white pill. Before he was president, Reagan was taken, or maybe during, I don't remember, was taken down to a bunker and giving a simulation of nuclear reciprocity. And they're like, okay, press this button. And he goes, wait, wait.

If I press this button, millions of Russians are going to die. And they're like, yes. And he's like, uh-huh. And his age were like, he knew he wasn't going to press that button, that he was knocking out. And what's amazing is Gorbachev had, was had the USAR, was taken to an actual mock room. And they walked him through it. He goes, I'm not pressing this button even in his simulation.

Neither of them knew it. Wow. So both of them during the Cold War were like, I'm not doing anything. But they both thought, that other guy is going to kill millions of us in a second. That's kind of what ended the Cold War. There's the famous story of the guy. But I'm just going to say my point. even in hypothetical, I'm loathed to say I'm going to shoot someone because my brain doesn't work like that.

I suppose the ease... Depends on the context. In this context, like a somebody just walking around. The thought experiment we've elaborated on. You are alone in the middle of the woods walking. You have a rifle in a satchel of food and water. And you see a man in the distance who looks just like you. And you're only alone because you just left your two children and wife to go find food.

Okay. What do you do? Shoot the wife and kids. Three days of food. Are you stupid? That's three days of food. And you can eat the people. And you can make more kids.

So the point is, it was funny because the point of the thought experiment is just for you to envision being in a scenario where you're approaching an unknown. And Andrew Branko was like, I'd shoot him. And I was like, I'd pull my rifle and shoot him. I was like, and he's like, now I got food. And I'm like, okay. It's like Andrew's been stuck in an elevator for an hour. And I was like, that's an answer. But there's no wrong answer. There's no right answer. It's just imagine being in the scenario.

I also think it's easy to have hypotheticals, but we don't know what we'd be like in that situation. Right. A lot of people say, as soon as some come to house, I put a bullet in him. We don't know that. There's a story that happened in Texas where a guy gets rearended and he gets out of his car angry. He just got rearended. And so he gets out of the car, he gets out of his car. And he sees the guy screaming and ranting walking towards him. So he puts his hand up and puts his hand on his hip. The guy walking towards him sees him reaching for his gun. So he grabs his gun and draws it. Then the other guy sees him drunk as gun and points his gun and then they both shoot each other. And it was simply an escalation that neither understood. The presumption was the guy who got rearended was just pissed off. He got rearrended. It wasn't going to shoot anybody.

But the guy who rendered him sees an angry guy screaming and walking towards him. And he just meant to ready himself. The guy sees an hand going to a gun. But in that snowballed. In that hypothetical in the woods, why wouldn't it make sense to me to point the gun of, let's say, say, Phil and be like, hey, who before you shoot him. So right. There's an escalation process. That's why I'm going to shoot him. Because the point of the experiment is that there's no right or wrong answer.

You say, I draw my rifle and say freeze. As you're grabbing your rifle, he aims his rifle and shoots. He sees you reaching for your gun, so he shoots you. Or the other example is people will say, I yell hello and he yells flabo. And you go, I have no idea what he just said. So with foreign... You know what flobo means? Well, I do.

But the point of the experiment is, Imagine you're in these scenarios where there's no writer, like you don't know what's going to happen. You have no idea how to address a stranger who's armed. Is this person, you're lost in the woods and you're starving. You're hungry. You have one day left of food. And this guy might be thinking, I don't want to, he might knife me in the back. I feel like human beings are much more neighborly and friendly having traveled to different places.

It's true. There was a couple that went biking around the world because they wanted to show everybody how peaceful it is. And then a car pulled over, jumped out and shot their heads off. But how many places did they go before they went to that car? A couple dozen. Right. So that means the odds are a couple dozen. Or the two women who went hiking in Morocco and then the Islamists dragged them up onto a mountain, raped them.

You know about these stories because they're the outliers, not the norm. I didn't say it was the norm. I'm making a point like, it's a half joke. You're like people are not crazy. My argument is I've traveled to the world. You would shoot the person? No. Oh, okay.

No, two people working together substantially more effective. Okay, thank you. Yeah. I've traveled the world and many people have asked me, aren't you scared going to favelas or going to riots? And I said, no, because people are all the same. Some people are crazy. In America as it's crazies. Most people want the same thing. They want food, shelter, and their families. The ideologues who wage war are rare. And so I've been, like when I walked around Nasda City in Egypt, I wasn't scared. Any one of these guys is going to attack me because that doesn't

serve their interests in any way. They were praying. They were Muslim brotherhood guys. No, in all likelihood, when they find out an American journalist is there, they're going to say, please tell my story. Yeah, exactly. So I'm like, there are crazy people, and we've been threatened and freaked out by it, but they're gangbangers in Chicago, freak me out all the same. A lot of that metaphor of being in the woods with a dude looking at them is like communication levels.

If communication is in total breakdown, anyone that doesn't speak your language that's out there is probably an enemy combatant. At least that's the way you've got to think. But if you have communication lines open and you can either speak to him or radio him ahead of time, you'll know what the threat levels are. See, let me tell you about this simulation. One thing that I think high net worth people understand that low net worth people do not, and it's not meant to be derisive or humble bragging, but it's true.

The amount of knives that get placed in your back when you have money are orders of magnitude greater than when you don't. When you are working class, you have betrayers and you have backstabber because everybody does. But when you have money, there are people who will kill you for no reason. There are people you thought your friends who will leak private message. from you. There are people that you would claim to be your friend and when you die will leak private messages to exploit to make money on the internet. I was saying like turning like, yeah, friendships are cool, people are great, but if you have a stockpile of food and they don't,

you're kind of sl like you guys. Do you guys know who Big Frida is? No. I didn't think I was going to bring this up in the show. Can you pull a Big Frida, F-R-E-D-I-A? Big F-F-R-E-D-I-A. Big Frida is the biggest singer of bounce music from New Orleans. Total gender fluid. Yeah, pull up an image. Big Frida, that's Big Frida. Big Frida got stabbed in St. Louis because someone wanted to say, I'm the guy who stabbed Big Frida.

Oh my God. To your point. When you become a certain level of status, people want to take you down just so they could say, I'm the one who stabbed. But it's not about strangers. I was thinking about more about story. I know. Let me tell you.

I probably have three former best friends who have tried to destroy me and threaten my family's life. And there's four and five. And you have no idea. Every day of the show, Phil tackles me. And then you're going to be the other. You got to keep my toes, man. I swear Phil's trying to just kill me, but he always wants to, he calls it Rasslin. She's got to keep my toes.

So there's a guy that I knew. We were probably best friends for a few years. He calls him Deadpool. He does. There was a dude I knew and we were probably best friends. for a couple years. And a few years ago, he started posting on X, fake stories about me, using pictures that we had and like proof that he knew me to try and try and build clout. He would go on X. There was a guy that I knew that I considered a pretty good friend who hacked

into one of my servers and then started leaking like inane messages between Discord, you know, members. This is a long time ago. For no reason other than to attack me and profit off of knowing me, the amount of people who will betray you when you have things, regular people just have not experienced this. Tim Ferriss had this great essay about 10 things that happened to when you're famous. And Tim Ferriss is obviously a huge name. And one of them was you're going to have, he's like,

imagine you have a village of a million people, right? Out of that million people, a hundred of them are going to be crazy. And I don't mean crazy, like weird, like crazy, like they think they're married to you. And he goes, when your audience reaches, I have,

I just got named someone just, a stocker mine, just filled out their living will in Canada. and made me the beneficiary over their parents and brother. What's their net worth? I've access to the bank accounts and their gametes, which is currently the Oasis fertility clinic in Calgary. I've met this person once 10 years ago.

Point being, to Tim Ferriss's point, when you have a million people in your audience, 100 of them are going to have these relationships with you. They aren't just like, oh, I like Phil. I like Phil and I went to high school together, and now he's not returning my calls. No, I do hear that, and I've experienced it, obviously, the distinction I'm drawing,

however, from the phenomenon of crazies who know you. Like I always talk about, I'm not scared of Antifa. I'm scared of the guy who thinks I stole his spoons. Yeah, yeah. And it's like hunting me down. There was a woman on X who said I broke into her house at two in the morning and turned her TV on waking up her family. And there are people on the left who are responding like it was true. But real quick, my point is there are people that I would consider, would have considered to be very good friends who I'm still friends with on social media who found that they could exploit their connection to me to profit and promptly knifed me in the best.

back. And I was shocked the first couple of times it happened. The lengths people were willing to go to do it. And so I, I, I, I, we talk about the guy in the woods. Let me put it like this. You are in the woods and you have a stack of food that is going to last you for three months and a man is approaching you with a rifle. It changes things. Oh, yeah, for sure. That guy's not going to stop to ask questions. He's going to be like, I'm going to live or die and I'm taking that guy's food. Yeah, that guy's called a cop. Yes. Yeah, I mean, look, to your point about crazy people doing things like the guy that killed Darrell Abbott, guitar player from Pantera, he was in a band called Damage Plant at the time, he got on stage and shot him because he believed that it was Darrell and his brother, Vince, that caused Pantera to break up. Now, this is not true at all.

Even if it's not what happened. Yeah, sure. Someone going after Yoko? It was totally fabricated in his head. Yeah. What about Selena? She was the head of her fan club. Yep.

I've got a couple of women who claim they're married to me. Including Allison. She claims it, yeah. But there are people that have threatened my whole family because people I've never met who claim that they married me and then I ran away or something. And it's just like, no idea what this person is.

They're from a place I've never been to. Man, parasycial since internet. It's the worst. It's really since video and radio. you start to fall in love with the vibe of this other, like before radio, yeah, yeah, yeah. You didn't really have the parasycial love like we do now.

And if you disagree with this, if your opinion is disagree with some person on something, they act like you're a boyfriend, girlfriend, who cheat on them. Yeah. The rage and you betrayed me and it's just like, I have no idea who you are. Yeah.

I'm entitled to my opinions. Those are the best conversations. They're not. Those people on the phone and talk to them for an hour. Oh, yeah. You're like, yeah. You're like, all right. We're going to go to your rumble rants and super chat.

So smash the like button. Share the show with. everyone you know, and of course the uncensored portion will be coming up at 10 o'clock. Yeah, Ian, save the cursor. Rumble.com slash Timcast.Ir. Before we do, guys, go to Timcast.com. Join now. Get in our Discord server. It's not what you know. It's who you know. If you want to start a business, start a band, make a movie, whatever it is you want to do, the more people that you know, the more likely you are to succeed. We've got tens of thousands of people on our Discord community. You'll pop in and say,

guys, I'm trying to make a comic book and someone's going to be like, I can help, and you'll get that project started. Or maybe you can help someone else get their project started. But more importantly, as a member, you support this show and make it possible. Without you as members, the show would not exist. That's a fact. But let's get to your Rumble Rans and Super Chats. Let's grab it. We got cabbage rules. He says, when a child is born in the U.S., the child should get the same status as the parents. Agreed. Temporary visa for three months or permanent resident or citizen, right? A lot of these things that we solved if there was a legal residency program that's permanent.

Like your kids can't become citizens, you can't become a citizen, but it would solve a lot of the stuff in the bud. Omega Resetsu says, until Michael Malice can answer and prove how anarchism can work without collapse or being subjugated by outside powers, I cannot take anything this clown says.

Seriously, total joke. But he called you a clown. I'm perfectly fine. I have no idea who you are. I imagine anarchy is a gradient. It's not like an on or off switch. It is an honor off switch with personal love, but it's just, this is what we're talking with pariscial relationships? It's like, okay, someone out there doesn't take me seriously. Fine. There's lots of them. There's lots of them. Is an on or off switch. It's not more of a

gradient where you can be like mostly anarchistic. I don't think it's, I think it's an honor off switch. What do you think, Phil? I do think that it's probably an honor off switch, but it's worth noting the way that, the way that Michael, Michael, if I understand correctly, not to speak for you, but the way that Michael understands it, it's very much a personal thing. That's right. It's about the way that he interacts with not just government, but with the world. But, but I, but I, that's right. My point is, most people don't know what anarchism is. Correct. And most conservatives think anarchy means violence and chaos.

Antifa. Yeah. And then when you try to explain the root origin of the words anarchy, would you like to explain the Latin root? No, but I would like them to read the anarchist handbook and learn more because just even though they still are not going to hear it. The Latin root doesn't really matter to them. Arki coming from.

I can explain in 30 seconds. But you can explain in two words. It's not. That's not explaining anything without rulers. Yeah. People don't understand how that's possible. But I suppose the issue is philosophical anarchism, it doesn't matter if there's rulers or not. Right.

It's a personal worldview. Exactly. In the same way that people say, the joke is everyone's an atheist with one exception. You don't believe in Zeus. You don't believe in Thori, but if you believe in your one God. If all of us went to another country where alcohol was illegal and someone was passed around a beer at a party, we would ask ourselves, do we want to drink? What are the risks? But at no point in our head are we like, well, the government says it's wrong, so we're not going

to do it. So anarchism is that approach to every government, including your own. That's it. Yep. And I think a component is kind of the discussion we were having earlier about how the law is never the letter of the law. It's what is willing to enforce. There's an essay in the anarchist handbook says the myth of objective law, which addresses the exact point. So a perfect example of this is how Pokemon cards are gambling. Oh, you mean because you're investing in the, is that legally educated? No, no, because I've been basically making this point that one of the big stories I think is happening right now with Gen Z is the expansion of gambling and casinos across the country.

Right, that's true. Miriam Adelson is a huge donor of Donald Trump and has been trying to get the Sands Corporation into Texas for opening casinos. Right. And what the point out, but I've been making with this is, here's a better example. We don't got to talk about Pokemon is that in West Virginia, by the letter of the law, cohabitation is illegal. A man and a woman cannot be roommates. They cannot share a domicile if they are not married.

That's a crime. No cop is going to arrest you for it, even though the law says it. And even if they arrested you, no prosecutor is going to take it off. They throw it out. So when they were doing the child drag shows, I pointed out it's already illegal. It says lewd behavior in public is a crime. It is aggravated if children are present. And I said, these drag shows are lewd behavior by any stretches.

If we're looking at the letter of the law when it was written. Even the spirit of the law. Right. If you go back to the, you know, 1890s. That's the whole point of drag is to be offensive and provocative. But why won't they enforce the law in West Virginia? Well, apparently they have stopped doing the child drag shows because I made these threats. So when I came on the show and said Berkeley County is having child drag shows and they were doing it next door, like literally on the street at my property, they apparently canceled it and stopped doing it saying they were scared that I was going to get.

the governor or someone because I actually complained to the AG. Morrissey, when he was attorney general, I went to him and said, you're the attorney general of the state. Why are their child drag shows in Berkeley County? Jefferson County banned it outright by county decree, like ordinance or whatever. And he said, that's the prosecutors. He's like, I'm the AG. I don't do that.

He's like, I'm the lawyer for the state. And so we look at the DOJ and the AG and we assume she's going to direct these things. We assume the states do it too. But apparently just by saying I did, they stopped having them. Okay, good. And then they complained locally and went on forums online saying Tim Pool ruined our fun. And I'm like, I'm happy. Yes.

Why are there never drag shows for like senior citizens? Right? They're bored. They're okay. Teach them to not be so bigoted is the argument. Snazbury says first I get locked in California. Now I get my citizenship removed by Michael Malice. What a week.

Yesterday. No regrets. Yesterday we said we should build a wall around California and just sorry if you're there. You're trapped. I had said during 2020 that if Trump threatened to New California, California, he'd win all 50 states. All the including California. They'd be like, finally.

He's tough but fair. Same old man says, Tim and Crew, do you think we need a tyrant to voted in and control of our government for eight to ten years to get things done? I don't think we need anything. I think the point is might makes. Might doesn't make right, but might makes. I think that the president, this is one of the big issues I think in America. The president has a lot less power than people think he does.

in our system. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. People, because they campaign and I'm going to change everything,

you're really handcuffed to many people. I half agree. Functionally, it's true. But if it was more like a Machiavellian thing, they certainly have a lot of power. But not as much as people think. That's what I'm saying.

Like Trump could go to powerful billionaire interests and say, we're going to waive that fee for you. You're going to put money into my packs. Yeah. You know what I mean? That's true. That's true.

There's things like that that are not real, like authority, but the president can speak by. It's kind of to me, it's kind of, insane people act like he has this huge majority in the house and it has no functional

majority so his he's really hands are tied in many ways one of the things that people give me the most crap about when it comes to like talking on on this show is I'll be like you know look nobody likes the way the sausage is made the federal government is supposed to act slow is supposed to work slowly it's actually not supposed to do most of the stuff that

it does and people get so upset like shut up liberal yeah exactly you're a communist you know you're a cuck or whatever you know and it's like just because I'm not not even saying that I like it I'm just articulating this is what the, this is the reality we live in. But if you articulate that, that means you're endorsing it in their minds. They cannot process the decision.

Which is exactly why I have such an affinity for your worldview when it comes to the way people. You are welcome. We got this from. Dowie says, if Iran's Navy and Air Force is destroyed, how is Strait of Hormuz closed to us? I had the same question. How does it open up naturally? Hate to say it, but he seems delusional or in denial. Because missile launchers are different from an Air Force or Navy.

Yeah. That land, that land, what city is that? So they have missile launchers, which is another component of the objectives to remove their anti, their missile launcher sites, which are Sam sites, surface to air missiles, as well as surface to surface. They've been shooting missiles at Israel, which is like a thousand miles away or whatever. And homies like, how are they going to shoot missiles at the straight of horro moves? And they've laid mines.

The other question I have is whoever Iran puts in charge, they're going to have an enormous incentive to not cut a deal, because you just kill. our top guys. Like if someone killed Trump and Vance, God forbid, because I don't want to wish harm on anybody, and someone's like, all right, let's cut a deal. We're not going to be like, yeah, you know what? Like, we're friends now. That's not a thing. No, but sometimes you surrender. But, okay, but I don't think they're anywhere close to the point with any of the surrender. But I do think that there is a point where you flatten a country and then, like, look at Iraq. Not like we're good friends with Iraq now, but we certainly install the government.

But I don't think we're in a position to install a strongman in Iraq. Look at Maduro. No, we look at Venezuela. I think Maduro has the, yeah, Venezuela's bent the knee. I think that Iranian, we don't know if Maduro was in on that deal. No, he's not. They captured him and the rest were like, no, no, no. I think Maduro could have easily been like, look, here's your choice. We're going to take you out or we give you a nice vacation and he took the vacation. I disagree. I think so you're familiar with tales from the economic, from an economic hitman? No. I think we talked about this though. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

we did when we were in Austin. There's a book where a guy says basically the U.S. plan is like first we bribe you. If you don't do it, we try to rob power. If that won't work, we kill you. And if we can't kill you by, you know, through assassins, then invasion is the way we do it. I would believe, just from a business perspective, you call it Maduro and say, listen, you're going to be fat and rich. Your people are going to be fat and rich. We're going to let you do your thing, okay? We're just going to give you a bunch of money from oil. So you use the oil. And he went, no. And they went, if you don't, we're going to take you you by force. And he went, try me. We got a discombobulator, bro. And they took him. The rest of

the Venezuelans like, we're just like, we just want to be rich. That's right. We'll just take the money. The Iranians, they're so new, the new government. I think, I think their internet's out. I think it's been out for 30 plus days. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So when they get internet and they see that the civilian or he actually wants a new government, that's when they'll capitulate. I don't believe that's true. No way. There's no internal pressure right now. I do not believe the majority of Iran wants a revolution. So the way I've explained it is, imagine what Iran is doing to the people in Iran. They're showing videos of BLM protests and

ICE protests saying the people of America are desperately fighting an evil regime and they're calling for Trump to be removed. And Trump killed two innocent people because he won't give up power. And Soleimani, you don't bring out of him. Exactly. But we know it's a fringe element that is protesting and it was two people, which was bad, but there were circumstances involved in it. So we see these big stories of mass protests and we're told by our government to the people of Iran want a revolution. And I say, sure, play the propaganda game. I do believe there's probably a decent percentage, double digits that want a revolution. No question. The overwhelming majority are probably alike.

We're being attacked by America. F them. Right. What I've heard is like 25% of the people are actually pro-Iranian regime. 25% are very, very anti-Iranian regime. And 50% of the people are like, man, I just want to go to war. And a lot of these Persians fled. That's the ones who would be the most likely to be in favor of this revolution. They're not in Iran anymore. This is a good one. Quantum Strange Quarks, as I asked Michael this question and his answer

saved my sanity. Oh. What is the most important political lesson you have learned? Answer, political discourse is virtually always pointless, disingenuous, and frankly impossible. Oh, well, you're welcome. But it's just like, what utility does it have for you to convert someone to your political point of view? Are they going to be there when your mom passes away and you could call her? What's more important to you?

The most important political lesson that I learned is that no one, not a single person anywhere, at any point, is smarter than Michael Mills. I don't think that's true. You're pretty smart. Yeah, but there's way people who are way smarter than me. I think it's called the president. Yeah, it's called everybody in Congress. Political discourses. Everybody in Congress.

I mean, including Nancy Mace. Political discourse can get a little like self-serving, but educating the young people so that when you're retiring, you're able to guide you. I don't regard that as discourse. I want to say this. We had Kyla, not so erudite on. Kyle Turner.

For a couple days, for three days when we were Austin. Oh, she's a lefty. She's a super lefty. But she's nice to us and she's willing to have conversations. conversations, and I respect that, so we invited to come out and come on the show. However, probably the biggest point of contention was when we brought up the story about Kathy Hokel saying we have to go to Palm Beach to get the wealthy back, she said that didn't happen. And I said, here's the video for saying it. And she goes, it's a New York Post. It's wrong. And I said,

here are 13 different stories explaining that wealthy people are leaving New York because of taxes. And she goes, it's fake news. Tim, we earlier brought up, I get it. I'm just going for the audience, that's Charlottesville tape. And I said, if you played it to lefties, and she seems to be an honest lefty broadly speaking way you describe her. Okay, let's put the specific argument. What percent of them would be converted? You said 65, I said 10. No, that's incorrect.

I said default liberals as described by Andrew Breitbart. Okay. I, what are you categorizing default liberals? A default liberal is a guy or woman. They don't watch the news all that much. Okay, that's very different. Okay. But they believe Trump.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, that's very different. Right. Lefties are going to be like, I'll say what I have to say for power. And just we saw that with the guy with the children getting the trans surgeries. It's like, nope, nope, nope, nope. There's nothing you can show them that's going to change. But my favorite. My favorite example is one of the greatest poker players of all time.

I'm sorry, I don't want to move up. So she just said it's not true, even after she saw the video. And then she asked, I believe it was ChachyPT that said less than, I said around 2% of people flee to high taxes. And I said that's fantastic for a general nationwide study. In New York, the public budget is showing they are, they lost, was it like $10 billion in revenue. How much? Holy crap. Maybe it was like.

California's seen this. No, no, 10 billion in income, which would have transitioned. I mean, yeah, that's still a... But I want to give this. It's a really great example. It's a really great example. It's a reaction, though. She just keep denying it.

She said, first of all, she said the New York Post is a bad source. Fine. And then I said, here's a bunch of other sources. She goes, this is not true. And I said, do you think you're all fake news? And she said, yes. And I said, do you think that Kathy Hokel believes fake news?

She goes, yes. And I said, okay, if we can't agree on what is simply being reported from a, from a stage where we're going to go. Where are we going to go? But I want to make this example because one of the greatest poker plays of all time, Daniel Negrano. He's a liberal dude, a Canadian vegan guy. Oh, God.

And he's a raging, who's a raging lib, right? And there's another of the greatest poker players ever, Mike Matassoe. Okay. Who was friends with Daniel and who's a Trump guy. And he would try to explain to Daniel when he's wrong and they would argue until one fateful day when Mike Matasso said, I took my phone, pulled up the video of Trump speaking, And I said, you are wrong. Watch.

And he pressed play and slid it across the table. And Daniel went, fine. And looked. And then after watching the video, he went, wow. I didn't know that. And instantly said, tell me more. He is very liberal in many ways. Sure.

He's a vegan Canadian guy. But he said, wow, I was wrong about that. But that's what a smart, normal person does. The default libs might be very excitable because they don't pay attention to the news. That's a low, low propensity, what's the low something voter? Low propensity, low frequency, yeah. See about high information, low wisdom is you think you know the truth and it's hard to see how you could be wrong. But hold on.

Michael makes the best point ever, why would the weatherman lie to you? Right. And so for someone like Daniel Nograno, he's not a news guy's a poker guy. So he passively hears news, he sees the TV and he's thinking himself, I just saw that report, they're not lying. Someone's trying to convince him, that's all fake. it's just like, bro, I'm not going to trust you over the news. And then you show him the video. And then he went, wow.

Michael, that point that you made like trying to explain this to someone is trying, like trying to explain to a person that not only is the, not the weatherman is not wrong, he's lying to you. That's what it sounds like. It's such a great way to articulate it because that seems like such an absurd thing. You're a lunatic. Yeah, yeah. You're literally lunatic.

Why I'm even talking to you? What do you mean? Right. You know, like the weatherman is lying. All of them? Yeah. Are you stupid? How would they even have a job?

Yeah. Truth be told, most of them are not giving you adequate, like they're not lying. Right. They think they're telling you the truth. They just don't have the information. But here's the, here's where you and I, but they're speculating. Here's where you and I disagree.

Like the number of people, I think that ceiling for the people who can become like, oh, crap, is much lower than you do. I'm not talking about leftists. No, I'm talking about, even a default liberals. I still think it's a minority. There's liberals. there's conservatives, and there's default liberals. I'm talking about default liberal.

Default liberal doesn't mean someone who waves a Ukrainian flag. I understand. It means a regular, uninitiated person. I agree. And they vote liberal because they don't know better. I agree. And I'm saying that number is lower. My guess as to what number that is is lower than yours.

I don't think so. I think the default libs are the people who watch Joe Rogan. I hear you, but I still think it's a low. Because a lot of it also is who you surround yourself with. That's true. Because if you're going to be like Trump's not that bad for many people, that F's up their whole life. The point Breitbart was making is that there are people who don't pay attention to politics in the least, but when they go to the voting booth, they check Democrat. Correct.

These people can be convinced by arguments. Correct. My point is the percent of them that can be convinced, if I had to guess the number, is lower than the percent you would guess. Perhaps we're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show right now. So smash that like button. Share the show and head over to rumble.com slash timcast.I.R.L. Where we're going to say naughty words and make jokes that are not so family friendly. Yeah, Ian. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.

Michael, you want to shout anything out? Yes, please follow me on Twitter, Michael Malice. And thanks for all the support for my graphic novel. You're talking about helping with comic books. Unwanted Book.com. We've got sample pages up now. I've been working on it for 20 years. I'm very excited.

It's coming out. I want to hear about it. Michael Malice, you've been taunting me all evening. I'm looking forward to unleashing on you in the after show. Bring it. I love you, Michael Malice. I love you again. Phil Labonte.

Carter, Bank. Talk me out. I'm Ian Crossland. You probably already know. Carter. What's up? I'm Carter Banks. Michael, thanks for coming back. I'm excited also to talk naughty with you in the after show. You can find me at Carter Banks everywhere and everywhere else at Carter Banks official, Phil.

I am Phil that Remains on Twix. The band is All The Remains. We're going on tour come this end of April, starting April 29th. We're starting in Albany. We're going to be out for about a month. You can get tickets at all that remains online.com. If you want to read some of the stuff that I've been writing on Patreon, it's philet remit. It's patreon.com. slash fill the remains. You can check out the band on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and D-ZER. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Right on, everybody. We'll see you all over at rumble.com slash timcast. IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.