Timcast IRL - Trump Official Who Resigned, Joe Kent, Under FBI Investigation For LEAKING

Episode Date: March 19, 2026

Tim and Iran are joined by Kyla Turner and Matthew Marsden to discuss the FBI investigating a former Trump official for leaking classified info, progressive leftists get wiped out in democrat primaries, Tim Pool debates a Democrat on MAGA fracturing, the SAVE ACT will destroy democrat voter drives, and NY Governor begs wealthy people to return.  Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guests: Matthew Marsden @matthewdmarsden (X) Kyla Turner @notsoErudite (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Trump Official Who Resigned, Joe Kent, Under FBI Investigation For LEAKING | Timcast IRL  For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. I'm Will and I created IQ bar plant protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low-sugar brain and body fuel.

IQ bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lions mane, and zero weird stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all. All IQ bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ bar sampler pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes, and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ bar.

Go to eat IQbar.com and enter code bar 20 to get 20% off all IQ bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to eat IQ bar.com and enter code bar 20. Joe Kent, the Trump official who resigned, is now, it is now being revealed he has been under FBI investigation, predating his resignation for leaking classified information. Of course, this is particularly interesting, considering the narrative that we heard just after his resignation was that he had been removed from intelligence briefings and was uninvolved in the goings on with this war. There were rumors that his resignation was largely due to a professional dispute, notably that he had been slighted by the administration. He was ousted, and thus he's going to resign and say this is

the reason. However, the anti-interventionists are saying it's a principled response to a war of aggression. Well, based on this new information that he's been under investigation predating his resignation, assuming that's true, I think it says a lot more to what is currently going on. And there are questions about whether or not he was the one who was leaking these group texts, so we're going to get into all of this. And you know, we originally were going to lead with, I think, something a bit more interesting in the domestic area, and that is the progressive Democrats, in Illinois got blown out completely. And the corporate press is celebrating Washington Post saying

that the people of Illinois are not prepared to walk off the cliff just yet. So it looks like perhaps woke is broke or at least the online version of it. So we'll talk about that. Plus, there's a lot more information. We got a story about Afro-Man. It's apparently very, very funny.

We're going to know all that. But before we do, my friends, we've got a great sponsor. It is true gold republic. My friends, having sound money and financial independence is important. Hard assets are extremely important. That's why you check out True Gold Republic.

Look at the world right now. Active wars, NATO under pressure, the dollar being weaponized, $36 trillion in debt. We printed so much money since 2020-year savings are worth less every single year by design. Gold can't be printed. It can't be sanctioned. It can't be devalued by a press release. Central banks are buying it at record levels right now. The people who run the system are hoarding the one thing they cannot print.

That tells you everything. Insert true gold Republic. Real physical gold and silver, not paper, not ETFs. metal you can hold. Check out there, Independence Bundle, a physical gold starter kit, a one-on-one with experts, and a bonus precious metals on top. The chaos isn't coming. It is here. Go to true goldrepublic.com slash Tim and claim your independence a bundle or call 1-800-628 gold. True goldrepublic.com slash Tim. Do it. Don't forget to also go to Timcast.com and join the Discord where tens of thousands People are hanging out. They're building something. Community is our strength.

The most, you know what they say? They say it's not what you know. It's who you know. If you don't have a powerful network, you're going to have a harder time getting things done. So if you want to start a project or help someone else with the project or find a group of people where you can build things together, the Timcast, Discord, is the place to do it. And as a member, you're supporting the work we do here. So go to Timcast.com, sign up. You can also call into the members-only uncensored show coming up at 10 p.m. on Rumble, exclusive Monday through Thursdays. Don't forget to also give a little tap to that like button, subscribe to the channel and share the show with everyone. We've got a couple of great guests joining us tonight. Sir, Matthew, why don't we start with you?

Who are you? What do you do? I'm Matthew Marsden, and I'm a recovering actor. Oh. Used to be in Hollywood for a number of years until they didn't like me anymore because of my views. And then just out doing some other things, doing a little bit of YouTube in coming on this great show. All right. I like that.

I'm referred to you as Sir Matthew. I like that. Good Sir, Matthew. Yeah, I like that. Well, you're British, so we just assume you're a night. Yeah, yeah, I'll take it. Yeah, well, thanks for hang out. It should be fun.

Kyle's here. Hi. Who are you? What do you do? My name's Kyla. I'm a YouTuber, political debater on everywhere, basically. Right on. It should be an interesting conversation.

Of course, Ian's here, but he doesn't need an introduction. The chaos is here. I liked how you said that in the ad read earlier. The chaos is not coming. It's here. I am the chaos. Yeah, it's here. Let's get into the news.

We've got this. This is breaking news. Just dropping in the past few minutes. Joe Kent, who resigned from the Trump administration over the war with Iran, is under FBI investigation. So this news is currently breaking. We have this clip from Laura Ingram's show on Fox News. Saying that Joe Kent, the former director of the United States National Counterterror Center, this is from Semaphore, he just resigned.

He's now under FBI investigation for allegedly leaking classified information. and the investigation predates his departure. So we've seen this report going around a little, not that the FBI is investigating. We have this from AZ Intel, former national counterterrorism, counterterrorism, Senator Joe Kent is under FBI investigation for allegedly leaking classified information.

Sources tell semaphore, adding the probe began before his departure. So let me just start by saying, I've got my ear to the ground. As many of you know, we have friends who, I've been in the show and are now in the administration, so friends in the administration, as well as members of Congress and their staff. And I've been hearing some rumblins in the Beltway.

The rumors that I heard from people that are much more loyal to Trump is that Joe Kent was leaking classified information, at least that's the allegation, and was ousted from these meetings. So they basically booted him out and said, this guy's no good. They think he's the leaker. He felt, at least this, again, the perception slighted personally and professionally, and that from the view, again, this is all just rumors they don't think that joe kent is truly motivated by israel the the issue of israel or iran and that it's more personal and that he's using this as a means to slight professionally an administration that that he felt had wronged him considering we've got past comments and tweets from joe kent about the severity of the threat from iran i think this

is why many people believe this may be the case that being said he appeared not to Tucker Carlson recently and talked about what he thought was the real issue, and that was that Israel had pressured us into this war, and that he was not in favor of that. It's what he wrote in his resignation letter. He's being hailed as a principled man who stood up for what is right, pushing back on the Israel lobby. So I'm not entirely sure what is going on, but what I can say is, this reporting is that he's been under investigation before he actually resigned. So that lends itself to the, he was, he's presumed to be the leaker. Again, we don't know that he is. But I think you were mentioning, you looked it up.

He was involved in those leaked group group taxes. That would happen? Yeah, in 2015. You remember the telegram stuff? 2015? I'm sorry, 2025. Yeah, I was a long time. I've been around for a while.

Yeah, apparently, let me, I haven't been able to confirm it, but I just searched for it on the internet. And therefore, it must be true. But that he was involved with it and said that there was not an imminent threat back then before they attacked Yemen. This is in regards to the bombing in Yemen. And I think he was saying after the fact that there hadn't been that he saw an imminent threat. I really don't want to misquote him. I've got Seattle. Times confirming what you're saying.

Which one, that he was in the group chat? He was involved. I don't know. It's just a headline right now, so I don't know to what extent. These were like the Heggseth group chats where they were like being called out or whatever. What they were talking about, like, they were planning like national security stuff. Right, right, right, right. And then the argument they made was that it was like national security stuff after the fact, like, well, we had already decided to release this so the text don't really matter, which,

I mean, if it's true this guy was leaking the stuff, He was in the chat. Right, right. So, I mean, the presumption would be that's what was getting leaked. I mean, what else got leaked that he would have been involved in? Well, it's just if he was involved in a leak before, why are you only investigating after he steps away? No, no, the investigation predates this. That's what they reported.

They're reporting, but they're only publicizing this investigation now. I suppose if there's an FBI investigation, you don't know they're doing it until they decide to make it public. And perhaps because he came out and resigned, they said, okay, then publish it. I mean, if he was being investigated at the FBI, I doubt they're going to fabricate, fabricate documents, you know, with fake dates predating his resignation. Sure, but a lot of people were upset when these, like, signal leaks happened because of the, like, incompetence of the group, right? If he was one of the principal actors involved, why not mention, like, you know, certain members are under investigation to see, like, how this... They'd have to fire him. Well, they could even, maybe, but, like, it just...

The timing is, is... I guess when it comes to breaking news, the timing comes to, the timing, suggest two separate things and it I think your bias would make you want to go in one direction or the other but the reality is he was kicked out of what meetings the intel briefings on terrorism pertaining to Iran okay who does he leaking to that's an interesting question that journal who was the journalist who published those texts yep i got it his name is geoffrey goldberg that's right that's right editor the atlantic editor-in-chief right so goldberg got added into it but again oh right right right Is that leaking it to him? Is that something, nothing in any of this?

We don't know if that's what was leaked. Even Goldberg said it was an assistant. Are you under the belief that the Trump administration is creating a, and an FAA investigation right now that they're going to create documents with past dated? Like, what is your argument? It's more of a question. It's so breaking news that I probably would be cautious to make any argument. My question here is.

though, we have an administration that regularly punishes people who step out of line and are no longer sycophantic, right? And so he makes this major public declaration, basically signaling a Maga schism. It led to you making that post, right, about how the Malaga coalition is falling apart. And then suddenly a day later, well, now the FBI is public about the fact that they're investigating him, but actually it was from before, right? I'm like, if I wanted to besmirch somebody who stepped out of line in a big public way and punish them, this might be one of the ways that I do it. Or maybe he is stepping out, right? This is the problem is it actually could, with the evidence we have, be either of these options.

That's one of the problems I have. If the argument is that he was under FBI investigation, resigned, so then someone in the FBI contacted a journalist and semaphore and said, look, he's been under investigation, it could be a couple, it could be very simple. No one asked because he was otherwise unremarkable. So a journalist from Semaphore makes a call to the context that she has in the FBI and the DOJ and says, I mean, honestly, here's what I think happened. The dude resigns and says, so for Israel, immediately heard from the Trump administration like Carolyn Levitt.

People were putting out like, well, he was, he was, you know, presumed to be a leaker anyway, he was being investigated. Then this journalist contacts people she knows in the DOJ and says, is there an act of investigation into Joe Kent? They then say, yeah, it's, you know, from a year ago. And then she goes, wow, then she reports it. That's how the information gets out. No one thought to look or ask because, again, he was otherwise unremarkable. I don't mean that as an insult. I'm saying he was not high profile on the press.

He wasn't going to big meetings and blasting out information. He was quietly doing his job, or I guess according to the Trump administration, not doing his job. So this, in my opinion, based on the rumors that I've heard from D.C. lends itself to, let me do this. Let me show you this tweet that Jamie Mitchell says, fascinating stuff, Joe, and it's a post from Joe Kent in January of 2020. The war with Iran talk is very black and white in a gray world. Iran has been at war with us in 79. The killing of Qasemia, QS, is the first decisive act we have taken against the Iranian terror since the 80s. And that's not

the only post he has, which indicates that there was perceived to be a threat or a conflict from Iran. He also made a post about how Iran was trying to kill Donald Trump and it's intolerable. So many people are viewing this as a flipping of his opinions on the issue. The first thing I'll say is, perhaps. The next thing I'll say is, well, you know, people are allowed to change their opinions. But I'll say it again. Considering there was an FBI investigation into him predating his resignation, and the rumors that I'm hearing from the Beltway is he was doing his job. He was excited to be a port of the administration.

They booted him out. They started like basically he was not getting the ex he wanted. So he felt personally slighted. Either whatever the issue is started leaking or something, got iced out from these meetings. and they decided to resign because he was basically in golden handcuffs. You know, I think a lot of people who have worked in offices, either in a managerial level or in a non-managerial level, have talked with somebody who is upset with their place of work and then wants to lash out either justified or not.

Again, I'm not saying it's true because I don't know. I'm just saying what I hear from those that are loyal to Trump, and of course you can argue they're biased, is that this guy, for whatever reason was no good, so they weren't including him. He got pissed off because he thought that he should be in these meetings. And so he was having a tantrum and then resigned and said, yeah, well, you know, Israel made you do it, despite the fact he's been talking about Iran being in conflict with us for a long time. I suppose the other argument is he came to his senses, was granted access to information where he realized Iran is not a threat to the United States,

that Israel is forcing our hand. And then in a truly dignified and righteous stance stood up and said, I will not be parted to this administration. I'm just going to add the reason why I don't think that's likely is because they already booted him. So for him to be like, I'm resigning, it's like, yeah, they already kicked you out of the meetings. According to your sources, right? Like, for example. No, no, no, no.

Like, well, according to the administration, not my sources, but publicly stated, he was no longer involved in these meetings. And now we're learning that he was under FBI investigation the whole time. That's indicative of there was a problem with his work before he decided to quit. Sure. So the questions I would have is, okay, well, Well, when the Jeffrey Goldberg stuff happens, I would hope that almost everyone in that signal chat is under investigation

because they should look at all the people involved and go, who here is responsible for this leak? Right. So one of the questions I would have is, if he's involved in this investigation, how many other people are also listed as people in the investigation? And did they experience the same icing that he did? Right.

I don't know. Right. What could have happened is that he sees Maga as a sinking ship. He wants to detach himself from it publicly. and politically and saw the Iran war, which is very unpopular, right? As an opportunity to jump ship, he understands that the midterms are looking rough. He knows that Trump is, his legacy is going to end eventually, and this was the easiest route out. And he took it.

And then when the FBI saw that, they're now just dropping information that bespurches him, right? And this is what I'm saying. When it comes to breaking news, it could be both of these things. I would agree with you largely. I think that there is a sect of right-wing personalities that think, the uh they think trump is cooked and so they're shifting away from him i think a lot of this has to do with what i would refer to as a mass format here we go again um mass formation psychosis around israel and i know i just i'm so sick of talking about it but jo kent's resignation has to do with

israel an over emphasis on israel in foreign policy overlooking like that joe biden was involved in the barisma scandal all of a sudden it's israel and the people just ignore this or uh the cutter turkey pipeline which i talk about ad nauseum and all of the past 20s you guys years of foreign policy we've discussed on the show, you have prominent personalities. They're building a massive base by creating a singular enemy by demagoguing and saying Israel's done everything. So it could be as simple as, and I don't want to say this is exactly what you're saying, but you can clarify after I finish my point, if this is correct. But my view is that it is a strong possibility. Joe Kent getting booted from his meetings. He's looking, he's reading the room and

he's like, look, Candace Owens is getting gangbusters views. Megan Kelly Tucker Carlson, Maga is not. Ben Shapiro is not. Ben Shapiro's views, they're not bad, but they're way down. And Candace Owens is through the roof. So he's going, which side am I going to go on? I'm going to go on the side that hates Israel. That's where the people are at. I think that there's a decent probability there because of what we have seen with the likes of Megan Kelly, Candace, Tucker Carlson, Jimmy Dorr, and many. Well, to be fair, Jimmy is not a conservative, but many people on the right have just dramatically shifted from being anti-woke. to anti-Israel. And I have no idea why. I mean, just people started doing it.

Make up any reason you want. Maybe it's just that it's a very compelling argument, I suppose. I think it is wrong. But they've all started doing it. And I will say this, there's a lot of money in it. So hey, look, if we wanted money, if we wanted to get 120,000 current viewers,

just like old Candace Owens did, we can sit here in Rag on Israel, but I don't think that's correct information, unfortunately. I think it's very interesting looking at what's happening to the right, because I think the left experience this type of same kind of populist wave takeover and then the problems that fall out as a ramification of kind of that unholy union right so on the right we've got this populist alt-right which joe kent was somewhat attached to before because when he was getting confirmed right that was

the democrats's biggest issue with him is claiming this guy's alt-right he's got groyper connections he's a flintas type right and so him now continuing in that trajectory as we see this right populist America First isolationist kind of zeitgeist getting more popular isn't overly surprising to me. And I think part of the problem is that MAGA really shook hands with these populace further right people. And we're like, we're the same guys. Even though I was like, neocons are not the same as Nick Flintas. They never were. That's true. But the current trend that we're seeing with like Candace, Megan Kelly and what I refer to as like the Israel posters, like Jimmy Doors, a good example of this. He's not a nationalist America First guy, but he's posting all about Erica Kirk and

Israel quite a bit. There are many leftists who are on the same page. Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks talks about how she watches Candace Snotons and she loves her show. This is a progressive and it's like they've unified around the issue of Israel specifically. So certainly the neocons, MAGA was very different two or three years ago. It was very different. And so there is a distinction between the America First and the anti-Israel America first.

there are people who I would argue as a like predominantly dispected liberal or libertarian that don't want to fund Israel but Israel isn't their boogeyman for every single issue. They're more concerned with border security and U.S. economy and not spending money on Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, whatever country may be. But then there's a group of people that are just like, nothing matters but Israel. And we've had them on this show and like you could ask them about like there is a raw bar that sells oysters and then they'll immediately somehow turn it into Israel. From the Mediterranean?

No. Eastern Mediterranean? Are you sure? Yes. And then they'll say, have you ever been to the Mediterranean? And I'm like, why did you bring this up? We're talking about oysters. I'm like, well, because when I was in Israel, and then you're just flipping the table over,

like, what does that have to do with anything? So I have a lot of conspiracy theories, I suppose, or theories on this. One I would say is that it's potentially just an emergent phenomenon without the constraints of well i would say not with not with constraints because the progressives don't like israel either but you are seeing on x people will get thousands of retweets when they just blame the jews for something and i think this has to do with the foreigners that are operating body accounts that we know they are there are a lot of anti-israel countries in this world there's a lot of uh muslim nations that's the world that don't like israel and they can click retweet and then

if you're an american influencer and you make a post and you get 10,000 retweets you're going to do it again because these people are just like wow this must be what people like well i'll tell you what i think i think uh i'm going to tell you what i think is true based on the facts and not based on what is going to get the most views and uh sometimes that means we won't get that many views but at least we'll be more more likely to be correct uh i'm curious though you know i know you may just be a former actor guy but yeah following all of this stuff and seeing this shift and uh what people have heard to as a mega civil war whatever like what is your take on all this. Well, I think that, well, firstly, you talk about Joe Kent, right? I think what is

disappointing for me about that is that he was held in such high regard by so many people and so many people that I know that served with him. And that's been very disappointing to me that when you resign, you have to burn the bridges. Like, can't you just resign like the way it used to be and just go off and say, thank you very much. I'm done. I'm moving on. I think exactly what you said as well that it would make sense that if the FBI was investigating him earlier on, that maybe it got to a point where it was a problem for national security, so he couldn't be in those meetings just by necessity if he's been investigated. So it makes sense to me that he was being investigated before.

As far as the groups are concerned, I feel that, and we spoke about this earlier on, that the left has been trying to balkanize us for a long time. And we've kind of resisted it to a degree. And over the past few months, I'd say, it really has been moving into those directions, like people feel like they have to have a take. You know, they have to, you either you hate Israel or you love Israel. You can't like say, well, as you just said, well, listen, I don't want to fund them.

But I see, I can look here and see that America's, Israel's have similar goals in this, so they join for this. Nobody makes the argument about Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf, all these other Arab countries coming together. You never see someone saying, while you're doing Saudi Arabia's bidding, ever. Right. And that's peculiar to me. And especially with the expiration of the petro dollar contract, Trump is particularly deferential to Saudi Arabia. But again, that never comes up. So I wonder if, You know, people say that Cutter is funding a lot of this stuff. And I'm like, I don't know.

I don't know who's funding it, but Google certainly knows what's going on. They know that their algorithm props up people who break the rules, so the only assumption one could make is that they want it to happen, for whatever reason. Whatever conspiracy theory you may think of. I think it's always, this is like one of the worst things about, like, evil or wrongdoing, is that so often it's banal in its purposes, like why does Google maybe allow certain algorithms

to be overtaken, probably by Russian and Chinese bots that are trying to sow like dissidents amongst a democracy because it makes the money they can sell it to advertisers as long as they have sufficient plausible deniability, they can get away with it because there isn't really great rules about the internet because it's kind of the Wild West, right? It's like it doesn't always have to be this like string puppeteer at the top.

Oftentimes it's really simple machinations, of like wanting money and having enough plausible deniability to get away with it right like every every con man's line is if i wasn't conning people somebody else would be right yeah i i the crazy thing about it is when i ask people you know if you know why is uh why is kansas owens on the front page of youtube right when you open a new account why is she a recommended personality certainly right she she she has broken many of the rules and she's being sued for a lot of these things there's specific rules against brigading and targeting personalities or making accusations and things like that that people have gotten strikes for. Other people have gotten their channels outright deleted without warning for doing less than she's done.

And when I bring this up to people, they say it's because the Jews want it to happen. Now, I'm not kidding. They say they want to be hated to bring on the messianic era, which I suppose the argument then is the Jews are propping up Candace Owens for the purpose of fulfilling their whims, which means Candice Owens' anti-Israel content and Candice Owens herself. are a function of Israel's desires. Like, none of it makes sense. But you know what? Maybe the real point is just to make sure none of it makes sense. And my view of what's currently going on based on the conversations I've had, and I know I've said this 800,000 times for the sake of the guests here,

the big networks, you know, CBS, HBO, whatever, NBC, they are looking to buy up prominent shows. And the path, like where we're going is YouTube is being dominated by AI-generated slop content. there's more and more videos popping up explaining how to make slop content interviews and prominent news outlets with people who do it saying in two hours you can make 500 videos per day and make 100,000 per month and so what that's going to do is just massively flood the zone independent channels without the ability to be on top of the mountain of the broadcast tower will get drowned out they will not be able to make a living doing these things and they will be

relegated to small back corners of the internet then the networks are going to buy out the shows they view to be compelling, put them on their apps, and then you're going to have 10 big shows in politics, and it's going to go back to the way things used to be, where you had CNN with 10 million views per night, and no one watched anything but Anderson Cooper, or, you know, at the time you still had Hannity and Rachel Maddow, centralizing all views within a small handful of people, where they may disagree on certain issues, but they all agree on, you know, basically the most important things, which is largely, You think we'll go back? Like the genies out of the bottle with the internet video. I don't, I mean,

maybe humans could be, could be lulled back to sleep, but I don't know. Maybe part of us, some of us will, and there'll be a resistance that's a free network. Now, I think what we've seen with many of these YouTubers that are willing to talk about Candace Owens, I think they've, they've proven it to anyone with eyes. These people never had a genuine opinion. They were just making videos about what they thought would make them money. And so take a look at the individuals who make video after video about Erica Kirk's pants or whatever, you know, or like the look on her face because she did an interview and they're just like, look at her face. Like, why is her face looking like that? And I'm like, literally nothing's happening in the video, but they know they're going to get a ton of views.

Or that guy who went to a shopping center and said, why is, why is a turning point paying fees to an LLC in a parking lot when he knew full well he was in front of a UPS store with mailboxes, where it is presumed the LLCs were registered to. These people just say whatever they have to say to make money. And that's been the argument for a long time. So that's what we're looking at now. We'll see how they manifest in the midterms. But you want you to have a moment.

Well, yeah, when Google bought YouTube, I was making videos on YouTube 2007. And I was like, well, here we go. Get ready for the corporatization of communication. And then a bunch of my friends started getting really rich doing Maker Studios. And like, they was sit and watch the analytics. And they're like, they started calling it content. I'm like, dude, it's not con. It's me communicating to you.

you. I'm talking to you. This is me. It's a product. And they'd be like, yes, our product is doing well in the market of analytics. And I'm like, oh my God. And like, it just became about getting the money. It became about the views, not just the money, but it became heavily about the money and being the, I mean, relevancy is one thing, but the money, when Google got that money in there, it's not that, I mean, I don't think you started doing this, Tim, for money. I didn't start doing this, for money. I still don't. It's like that you can get paid for. It's still fucking insane. job I'd like to be able to make a living doing something but the reason we get here is because I was making videos and they weren't making money and then one day they were I was like

oh wow look at that I don't got to do anything else I watched like maybe 80 or 85% of my friends fall into the obsessed with the money part of it when that happened to them too when they're like oh shit you can make money off this it's not so much the money though I think for a lot of these people it's the viewership it's looking at that number it's like putting out a video and seeing 300,000 and you're like wow I filled three stadiums and they get addicted to that social acceptance. It's the same thing we see with like teenage girls on Instagram. They they post a picture of themselves and if they don't get enough likes, they delete it and then post a new one. And they get depressed when their, when their metrics go down.

One thing I've pointed out quite a bit is that you will get YouTubers and you can look throughout history of YouTube that will have like breakdown videos where they're crying saying, I just can't do this anymore. And all you got to do is look at their past several videos and you'll almost always see, like 1 million views, 900,000 views, 700,000 views, 400,000 views, mental breakdown video, guys, I can't do this anymore. And it's because they, it's a normal human thing where they feel like I am fighting as hard as I can, but no matter what I do, I'm failing. Instead of just making videos because they have something to talk about and they want to talk about something,

they're actually feeling more and more depressed because they're not getting views anymore. That's a sad cycle because the more miserable you get, the less. interesting you are to watch so the people that get sad about being sad and then their views go down and they're sad about that which makes the views even worse no I think it's it's a it's a it's different from that when they make the I'm dying and I can't do any more video they get 10 million views and then YouTube boosts him in the algorithm again they make another video and they're like you know what I'm feeling good now it's a it's a it's a psychotic machine you're right about the relevancy obsession yeah PewDiePy just put a video talking about algorithm brain and how everyone's being made to be retarded by these social media algorithms. And he actually made a few good points. He said, get a separate device for browsing social media and don't make an account. Just always use like a private browser or use a device not yours so that none of your apps, and leave your emails, nothing is connected to it.

Otherwise, they're going to start manipulating you to see things they want you to see, which is creepy, but that's the way it works. So stop chasing the algorithm and that growth for the sake of growth is cancer, or can become cancers. corporations the ethos of we must expand for the i think that's going to change too because a corporation that just grows for the sake of growth ends up overtaking itself in strangling out its own system like well it becomes a machine yeah sustainable corporations man that their whole sole purpose is to sustain the environment and if you can live like that as a creator too it's not about you mean like

a generic environment like just the system that they've built is to sustain itself yeah to sustain the the the luxury and the beauty that's provided for you to create what you're you know this is why nonprofits don't work because the function of a nonprofit should be to put itself on a business, but have a 20-year-old nonprofit with an executive director who signed on three years ago who makes 200,000 a year, and he's going to be like, I don't want to lose my job. But let's jump to this story. We got more news. It's from Axios. The squad left suffers complete wipeout in Illinois. Heaven's me, all the progressives got just wiped out. And here we go, ladies and gentlemen,

I got a question for you guys. What do you think Axios focuses on in this article about the progressives losing in Illinois, what do you think is the true subject and focal point of this article? Racism. APEC. No. You are correct because you probably read it, right? I just, I've seen APEC posting all day. It's Israel.

Like running laps. So I pull up an article talking about progressives losing, and these are people who are protesting ICE operations in DHS. But again, welcome to the psychobabble reality, because the whole article is just a about A-PAC. That's it. Now, to be fair, APEC did back a bunch of their opponents and then celebrate. But there's certainly a lot more to talk about than just APEC. If you want to talk about APEC, that's fine. But literally every point in this, like, how many times is, let's just do this. Twelve times in this article, the world, look at this. It's so, it's so frustrating to

because I'm very critical of A-PAC, but I'm critical of A-PAC for the same reason I'm critical of almost every single Super PAC in Carry Committee, which is that I don't, like unreported money and I don't like high power special interest lobby groups having so much capacity and weight in our elections regardless of like what they're for right I don't want oil lobbyists just like funding and driving I don't like that like I don't like carry committees I think that they're bad generally I think they've been bad for a democracy so so so what do you think it says about Illinois that the progressives lost is this an is this an argument of a PAC just spent enough money to crush them or is it that most people don't like these progressive Democrats?

I'd have to see what the funding differences were because a lot of people know that when you're running elections, funding makes a huge difference of who wins because a lot of election is just getting people to see your name and face, right? Because most voters are not that informed. Most voters aren't on Instagram looking for cat and like liking her stuff. And I think a lot of progressives are trying to take the, so on Mom Donnie, kind of Gavin Newsom's social media strategy and really trying to utilize alt media to campaign themselves. James Tolariko did it really successfully as well. But I think one of the issues that they have to contend with is that if you have massive carry committees funding moderates and moderates will take it because a lot of these

people won't take PAC money or they'll take very limited PAC money, you just can't get your name out there, right? The reality is that a lot of elections are won by who spends the most. Not always, and sometimes there are breakout elections, but the statistical norm is that. Well, I suppose like an article like this, the progressors are going to make the arguments, and they're going to rally a ton of support from conservatives that Israel interfered to stop the far left from losing. Then I imagine with articles like, I mean, this is Axios, right? Axios is supposed to just be like plain old report in the news. They do lean liberal on a lot of issues. But certainly you can criticize APAC for funding candidates, but there are many other issues in this election, notably like Katabuguzela,

for instance, was arrested. She was at these ICE protests. That's going to sour her view to to many individuals who live in Illinois. She's also Palestinian, pro-Palestine, critical of Israel, in the most Jewish district in the state, I believe, in Evanston. So, again, that does play a role, but all they do is talk about APEC. What will be interesting is, I've made the arguments, half-jokingly,

that the future of the left and the right will be anti-and-pro-Israel. That you've got... It's terrifying I think about. I think, I mean, like what unifies the, the, whatever this group is, the anti-Israel right with the left, and it's the issue of Israel, you could take Tucker Carlson and bring them on the young church at this point, and they will get along perfectly. I mean, the fact that like Anna Kasparian says she's a fan of Candace and watches her show, so long as the issue is Israel, these people have come together and aren't really arguing these other issues anymore. And the reason why I say that the potential for the future of the left and right will be Israel, anti-Israel,

is that you can take a look at the previous coalition for MAGA, which was disaffected liberals who were maybe like pro-progressive tax, but were now aligned with the Republican Party who was opposed to this because they were concerned about like gender dysphoria issues or, you know, critical race theory. Well, I think, you know, you mentioned something earlier going back to when you said, you know, you're at a stage where you didn't have views and then you had views. and it's probably around the same time that the entertainment industry was getting more and more emboldened with the way that they wanted to influence culture. So if you look at something like this

where you've got 12 references to APAC in there, that's really obvious. I mean, all you've got to do is look at it and it's like bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. So when you have someone else that's coming out and they're saying, hey, listen, I'm just telling you the way I think and I'm being reasonable

and I'm not being swayed one way or the other by money, or by bias, I'm just telling you the way I have, the way I am. There's an element of authenticity there. And I think that what you, what you, I know, just going back to talk about what you were saying earlier, that the, nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore. Nobody trusts CNN. Nobody trust Fox anymore, right? Like, nobody trusts any of these people.

So I think that what is going to happen with the increasing, because they're not stopping, right? You think that they'd be like, hey, hang on a minute, this is a little bit too, obvious. It's a little bit too obvious, right? Let's just scale it back a little bit. They're not doing that. So there's going to come a point because they do want to make money. They are essentially, certainly on the news shows, they are entertainment, right? They want to get the clicks. So they will go back, I believe. And I do think they'll do what you're saying. Certainly with the way that the YouTube is moving with all the crap that's on there, that it's going to end up, they're going to come in and they're going to say, okay, well, I'm going to bring these people in and try and make

a mainstream and make their own news organizations through it. And hopefully, you know, that might be a good thing in a way because you still have authenticity. Because if you think about it, like the YouTubers that have been a success, have done it themselves. They've bootstrapped it. Whereas if you look back at the, your Anderson Cooper's and what it's the channel. The channel was the platform, right? The channel was already there. It had funding. It had money behind it.

And so they kind of slotted into that. And when they started parroting the BS and everyone was like, hang on a second. Like, how did you come to that? It was rejected for more authentic people. I'm telling you all right now, it's already happening. And the big networks know that like Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, this model is on the way out. People don't trust them anymore and their views are largely pumped up, but it's not organically sustaining itself. So Colbert can do well in terms of his videos, but it's because YouTube puts them up on the front page, default viewership because he is Colbert because it is, you know, NBC, CBS or NBC.

These networks have a mandate right now to purchase authentic feeling podcasts. Fox News launched the Hannity podcast hanging out with Sean Hannity because they know they have to do this. Otherwise, they will cease to exist. 70-year-olds, you know, a big component is the viewership of these channels is in their 70s. And that's it. They're not getting the views in the key demo. So what's going to happen is there's going to be a semi-decentralized

series of podcast picked up by every major network. Everybody else, you are going to be on YouTube and you're going to be fighting against AI content that can be produced 10 times as fast for a tenth of the money, and there's no way you'll make it. Regular, one more point. Regular people are going to say, I don't use YouTube. It's just noise.

YouTube will start to prop up just like the other big networks. Let me put it like this. I have already had conversations with powerful executives that are making these moves. It was explained to me a month ago that a meeting was held in Florida between large television networks to discuss specifically how they purchase podcasts and take the space over. They didn't say it so nefariously. They said we recognize that the industry has shifted. These old shows don't work anymore. And so the mandate of these companies is to start acquiring prominent.

shows and authentic podcasts that we can put on the network and generate money through because that model works better. So what we're going to see is YouTube will be a network just like Paramount Plus, Netflix, or any of these other channels. The way they're going to operate, though, is not going to be the same where it'll be somewhat like a hybrid between Amazon and say Paramount Plus. Paramount Plus owns IP. You pay per month and you get the shows they make. And They got awesome shows, but Landman's fantastic. And they got all the Star Trek stuff, so I like it. YouTube is supposedly the user-generated content of organic producers,

but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to be an organic creator on YouTube. Amazon is the you buy it. They do have their originals, so you can sign it for Prime, but they have certain creators they allow to be on the platform. You register, you get approved, and then you can submit your movies, and Amazon will host them, and you can make money, but not everyone can do it. YouTube is going to be a kind of a hybrid between that where there will be people who start their own channels, but then YouTube behind the scenes is going to decide this channel should be on the front page.

And that's largely what we're seeing right now. We're seeing who they've chosen to be at the top of YouTube. Obviously, Mr. Beast is one of them. Whether or not people actually care to watch Mr. Beast shows, YouTube has decided this is family friendly, generic entertainment. You know, I'm not saying disrespectfully. It's like very basic. That's going to be on the front page. They've decided that a series of other political personalities with certain people.

and views are going to get heavily promoted and others are not. I think a lot of this will come down to liability though, right, as well. Like one of the issues that I think mainstream is always going to have like something like CBS is that they have a lot more liability to the content that they put out there. They can be held accountable if Sean Hannity goes on like a crazy long anti-Semitic rant, right? Whereas Candace Owens, YouTube isn't held liable for it because YouTube's being like, well, we're not producing any of this.

We just make a platform. We try to, you know, mandate some of these things. So I think a lot of this is going to come down to probably different lawsuits. I think that the Cron lawsuit against Candice Owens will be really important to look at of who has liability for what type of content. And this is why I think right now all media can be so successful with a lot of this more conspiratorial stuff is because YouTube is not liable for Candice Owens screaming every day about Erica Kirk being a trans or a Jew or like whatever else she says about Erica Kirk. But CBS might actually be liable for that. And they won't take that risk on. Not for long.

We've got this story from The Verge. Congress considers blowing up internet law. Section 230 is not one of the Ten Commandments. There was a hearing today over Section 230, and this is largely overlooked, and the Verge is not going to let us read the article, so I'll have to log in. But I'll give you a quick bit. Internet Platform's Liability Shield, Section 230, face another round of attack at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday.

This time with two distinct undercurrents compliment in the conversation. One was an unprecedented wave of ongoing legal chance. challenges to the law scope and the second was a heightened bipartisan concern over government censorship I genuinely believe uh well I shouldn't say genuinely believe but I would put it this way there is a strong probability that section 230 goes a bye-bye for those are not familiar with what section 230 is it is blanket immunity in in an in an absolutely ridiculous way for for internet content providers what it's supposed to do well section 230 of the communication Decency Act is supposed to, basically the argument is this. I'm a website. You can post stuff to it.

You made the post, not me. You can't sue me because of what someone posted on my site. However, Section 230 is a protection. It's more than just that. It's specifically to allow a website to remove content they find objectionable lewd and lascivious without facing liability. And that's where things get weird. This blanket immunity has resulted in cyclical. Codic levels of defamation for which many people have consistently challenged it. At the same time, it's basically the only reason user generated content websites can exist. The question then becomes, why is YouTube allowed to have a political and editorial agenda? They do.

When they create rules saying that you can't disparage one group, you can another, that is an editorial guideline. And then allowing that content to exist is propping that content up. Certainly, they bear some responsibility there. The issue is that there is no unified definition of lewd and lascivious. And as our culture has bifurcated, they've come out saying, you're allowed to insult white people because no one cares, but you can't insult black people. Well, then conservatives get mad and say, why, that's racist. So now you have YouTube saying, we're going to remove anything that insults black people, but not white people because we find only one thing objectionable, creating this political conundrum where now there is a question of whether or not any of these sites should actually have liability shields. I have entertained the prospect.

I don't know how probable it is for a while now that we can enter a future where Section 230 is dead and YouTube has a sort of filtration system for new content where the rules become particularly egregious. That means YouTube says if you say anything that results in a lawsuit against YouTube, you will be banned instantly. because YouTube wants to be used generated content, but without immunity protections from Section 230, they can't be. So how you hybridize a scenario where they lose Section 230, honestly, don't know. The only result then is that YouTube will turn into a website where you have to apply for approval and have a meeting with YouTube to determine,

and they would ask you show us examples of content you have made in the past, and if we believe that this is safe content, we will then approve you or worse. anyone can upload a video, but it has to be reviewed by a human at YouTube before it gets confirmed to post. I think this is a strong possibility of where we're going, and it lends into what I was saying about the big networks trying to take back the narrative machine. So I don't know what you guys think, but we're going to make it through this one or what? Yeah, the antidote is for people to upload and maintain their own data with networks, kind of like bit torrent systems, where I'll just be hosting my own videos locally on my device. you'll be able to subscribe and then we'll have networks of networks that are interoperating. So it takes the load off of central systems because you can't have liability on central systems

or they shut down. Yeah, I'm really of two minds here because I think on one hand, I'm a really big proponent of free speech. And obviously a lot of these platforms have become kind of our town square. And so people having high, high, basically stakeholder, because it's fundamentally what they're going to get rid of is stuff that makes them liable and stuff that their stakeholders don't like deciding what free speech is on the platform feels a little bit spooky, even though it's a private entity. And at the same time, I really hate the way that Russia and China have been able to utilize bot farms to cause so much political polarization and rage through intentional

kind of like bot farming and AI slop and all these sort of things that I think is actively dangerous for democracy, let alone for kids, right? think that people increasingly don't even know what's real. It's terrifying talking to my dad and being like, yeah, that crocodile video, like at the person's door is not real. That's AI. That's not a real video. I have a question. With all due respect to the boomers that are watching, some of you probably agree. Is it, is there something wrong with boomers? There's a lot of lead and gasoline for a while. Is, seriously, that's, ironically. Is that what has resulted in like, the people who believe this tend to be boomers. You know that phenomenon where the Native Americans would stand on the beach

and look out at the ocean day after day after day and then all of a sudden one wise native was out there and watching and he's like there's something out there, a ship. None of them had ever seen a ship before. So they didn't understand what it was. Therefore, they didn't see the thing because they weren't able to comprehend the concept. And I think that's what's happening with these people. You're right. I'm a Democrat now. Uh-oh. That wasn't my intention. No, no, I just, I just realized it. I mean, if we can prove the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is the party of Say whatever you have to say to convince stupid people to vote for you. And I've just realized that, you know what?

There's a good 20% of people at the higher end of the bell curve who can understand what's going on. Maybe all of us who understand that should just seize the power by lying to people like Democrats do. Because most people are standing on the beach and they can't see the ship. And I'm sitting here screaming, mother effor, there's a ship right there. And they're like, no, it's a Jew. Trump, famous truth teller Trump. You know, the-I don't say Trump was a famous truth tell. I'm saying, I don't know if it's just Democrats.

The difficulty that, well, the frustrating thing about this, is that they're already censoring us. Right, they're already censoring us. So all they're going to get, all you're going to get, if they pass this, is more censorship towards the people on the right. But don't we?

We have to censor us a little bit, though, right? They say that, yeah, but they're like, oh, it's like we're fair now. But they're not fair. Like you're saying, you know who they're pushing. I got to be honest, I think... Who are they pushing? The reason...

Like Candace and, like you're saying, there are certain people that they're putting in the algorithm. Yes, but at the same. In the meantime, Larry Ellison bought CBS and Free Press, and Barry Weiss is a proud Zionist. So I actually think there's an elite civil war going on. Ah, civil war. I said it.

But not in the context you guys normally are used to. We've talked about this since Trump got elected, that he's a powerful billionaire. Other billionaires don't like them. And that they've tried to remove from power. It seems like there's a political battle between different special interest, elitist groups. And I wonder if it has to do with China versus the U.S. and plans for like what the liberal economic order will look like. What I can say, though, is certainly YouTube is propping up people of a certain political viewpoint,

but now we've got the purchase of TikTok and CBS, which is an inverse political viewpoint. I'm just sitting here being like, you got billionaires on both sides propping it up. Maybe there's no civil war. Maybe they're doing it to make everybody fight each other over a dumb. I won't swear. Dumbish. I mean, like, there's this interesting thing, right? If you go to like the Curtis Jarvin, kind of like the dark right, which I know.

That dark right here. I know. I'm giving you a great segue for your, uh, one of the topics we talked about before. But um, um, Yarvin and a lot of the billionaires that are his proponents are accelerationists, right? They are anti-democratic. They think that democracies don't work. They've been tried and they failed. And they do genuinely want to see like the ending of, uh, the democratic liberal order. And when I say liberal, I don't mean Democrats. I mean just like liberalism of democracy. And I think that there are other oligarchs who fundamentally think that capitalism and democracy has been broadly good and want to continue fighting for this. That's my suspicion. But what do you mean by democracy?

The representation that we had representative democracy, which we have in America right now. So without getting into semantics, we're a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Sure. Which is distinctly different from... Why did the founding fathers not say democracy? Do you know? Why did they not say democracy? Yeah, why do they define it in the way that you just said? They defined it as a republic.

Yeah, why did they not say democracy? Well, the presumption as a direct democracy means that people vote on their laws. Right, they didn't like the Grecian, direct democracy. In fact, the 17th Amendments fundamentally changed the structure of our government because it used to be that the states would appoint senators to the federal government. And now it's the people voting for it, which dramatically all of what the founding father's vision was. Oh, well, sort of. It depends on which founding father you're talking about.

Well, sure, sure. But the system they created, obviously there was, dissent, they were the Federals and the antifederals, but this system they created functioned as you voted for your state reps, your states were effectively their own entities, and then the state would appoint senators to go to the federal government. Right, but they were very open and acknowledging because for them, suffrage was about stakeholdership. All they wanted is to make sure that the people who were voting had stakes in the country. I agree with that. Right. I do too. I actually think that I think that stakeholdership, the issue is they at the time were like, oh, what's the best test of

stakeholdership in our brand new little baby country? Well, at the time, it was actually landowning, right? Because they're like, well, landowners are the most motivations are the most to make sure the Brits don't take the colonies back. So we're going to give it to landowners. But they were always open that it would have to update and that suffrage would have to change based on proper stakeholdership. I think now being a citizen over 18 is sufficient stakeholdership. Which is why every political philosopher will tell you,

we have a democracy. It's a representative democracy. It's not a direct democracy. Well, actually, I would argue we have simultaneously a multicultural democracy and a constitutional republic and they're trying to coexist within the same space. and that's what's causing a lot of these problems. Because I certainly don't agree that being 18 and a citizen is sufficient

because you have people who don't understand and don't care voting simply because the strategy of the Democrats, the reason why they don't want the Save Act, for instance, has nothing to do with the illegal immigrants voting. Like the conservatives will say, the Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, which is not true. The Democrats want to send young activists to rock concerts to register people to vote who don't know and don't care.

Then they can do ballot, they can go ballot harvesting, or they can do voter drives and get people who aren't paying attention to vote. That is bad for any democracy, whether it's a constitutional republic with democratic institutions. Maybe. Would you actually argue that uninformed ignorant people being pressured to vote is a good thing for a system? I think it could be. I think, well, here, I think. Wow.

Well, I think that voting in self-interest is the best way to vote. I think that, like, when voters are uninformed and stupid and they just vote for what's best for them, that I think is... But they're not voting for what's best for them. I think they usually are, right? This is why small business owners tend to go right because they want lower taxation. This is why people in the healthcare industry tend to go left and universities because, again, they're in these industries and these.

Agreed, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about those man on the street videos from Times Square where they ask someone to name a country that starts with the letter U and they go Utah. And what I look, I'm not here to defend the American citizens. Foreign policy knowledge. Should, hold on. Should those people be voting? Is it good for a system when an individual who doesn't know their own capital when they've, vote. And let me stress this. I worked for a nonprofit and we did, I told the story a couple

weeks ago, they asked me if I wanted to go register people to vote at a death cap for cutie concert, of which I am a huge fan of that band and said, holy crap, are you kidding? And then I didn't even realize they gave me an all access pass and all I had to do was get people to register to vote. The people at that concert did not know the first thing about what they needed or wanted. They were completely clueless 18 year olds. When voting time comes, comes, people go to them and say, vote Democrat, and they go, okay, I guess, and they don't know why they're voting. I don't know if that's true that they say, tell you as an activist who personally went to these people and asked them to do it. They could not tell me left from right in politics.

I believe that. And they're voting. The thing that I'm saying, so the, well, this is one of the issue, right, do we limit democracy? I'm open. I'm actually open to it. The issue is how do you do it in such a way that every part is inside and every person feels not unfairly done by, right? And again, suffrage isn't about who's most informed. Suffrage is about who has stakes, right? Who has stakes in the country, which every citizen does. Now, my actual, like, perfect limited democracy is there's a magical button that you touch and God knows your heart and knows if you love your country and if it goes green, you get to

vote, right? So, wait. You're a patriot, right? That would mean Republicans win every election from here on. I actually think lots of liberals. I mean, who was holding the signs we love America? We're talking about liberals. We're talking about progressives.

Well, liberals are Democrats, right? I'm liberal. Progressives vote Democrat. They tried running these races. And I think if you pressed a button and when you press this button, God would just be like, if you don't love your country, your vote doesn't count. Republicans would dominate everything. Possibly.

I don't actually know if that's necessarily true. Do you think the Democrats, which side has more? nationalist fervor. I mean, do you really think the Democrats would? Potentially, yeah, I think so. Oh, come on. Yeah, well, I mean, what would Democrats do? They would immediately start rising left fervor for patriotism, right? But that's what would happen. These are people who, like, I'm not talking about Democrat liberals. I'm not talking about like you're run of the mill, regular liberal in the city. They'll, they'll wave an American flag. But when you go to like Portland, for instance,

the act, the protesters during one of these, one of these like BLM marches or whatever, went to a guy's, a random house. There's a marching through a neighbor. He has American flag. and they knocked on his door and told them to take the flag down or else. Those people, they vote and their vote won't count if you press that button. On the right, again, God might say they love Portland. They love the people around them, right? And again, part of the reason why this is funny. Well, I think.

They certainly don't love their country. They think America is a terrorist state. In America and having major criticisms, like, part of being American is having issues, right? Like lots of libertarians, I say would be patriots, even though they're also very, very critical of the American government, right? And so, like, would some people not count on my magical God test? Yes, but it's a magical God. It's why it's kind of a joke is that we can't know these things necessarily.

But I think a good stakeholdership is I care about the outcomes of my country. And I think the reality is that a lot of progressives do care about the outcomes of their countries. They genuinely do. Let's try this. In a system, let's say there's 100 people and it's a standard IQ bell curve. And let's say the top 40% don't vote. So the bottom 60% do. Well, they definitely would, like, statistic.

So let's say you have 100 people and the top 40% of the most intelligent decide we're not going to vote. The bottom 60 does vote. Will that system survive? I think it will. I think it will. Based on my, so I could be wrong. This is one where I'm like, I'm 65% on this. I could be moved either way.

I think it will. You think that the low end of the bell curve on intelligence can sustain a national economy and system? Well, not a national economy and system, we'll vote. We'll be able to have successful voting. No, no, I'm saying, will the system survive if only the stupidest people are the ones who are running it? Wait, okay. These are two different questions. Are we saying the people that are also running in office, like basically intellectual, high IQ people in general, and the country?

There's just 100 people. Yeah. The top, and they're voting on issues of how they run their little micronation. The top 40% of intelligence say, I'm not interested. Well, my question is, who are the politicians? Are they also part of the low IQ? It's that bracket of 60%, the 60% from, from slightly, the politicians themselves are stupid. They're in that same bracket. The top 40% have removed themselves in the system. If now we're getting to like who actually is in office, that's a different conversation.

But I'm talking about voters, right? I don't think voters have to be high IQ. I obviously want politicians to be informed and educated. But again, my question is, if 100 people and the top 40%, let's just say remove themselves from the process entirely and only the bottom, we say bottom 60%, but from the bottom, from the bottom, to the top two slightly above average, they're the only ones engaging in politics. Will that system survive? Only ones engaging in politics? No, because that's assuming that politicians, but that's not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about. I know. I'm just, I'm presenting that that system would not survive. My point largely is that if you, if you argue that you only need to be 18 years old in a citizen in order to vote, you are going to have the ease of opportunity to get more ignorant voters versus smart voters. So if you take a look at, you know,

at the... Well, no, because lower IQ people are also going to come up against different resistances that make them less likely to actually turn out a vote. Like, I suspect they're going to have high attrition rates. Not when you go to urban locations where you have high density of people and you need two activists to go to each apartment building to get 500 votes each. And all you have to convince them to vote is say Trump's a Nazi and they go, okay, and then they vote Democrat. So, so arguably then the Republicans are doing the same thing. They're just going to other areas and being like, Biden's a communist and like, oh, look, blah, blah. Republicans don't have population density. Republicans don't have population density.

and Republicans are disagreeable. I'm sure you've seen that graph that shows the Democrats are a singular cluster that largely agree, and the Republicans are a disparate bunch. I think a great example of this is the current trends of Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candace, etc. That were big Trump supporters and now are not. The right is absolutely fractured. Joe Kent's resignation.

MAGA may be still MAGA. People may still support Trump, but the libertarian, disfected liberal coalition that wrapped around that boosted them are not on board. So that's going to make it increasingly difficult to convince someone on the right. You know what really, really sucks is that I watch some of these liberal YouTubers, and it's just really, I'm going to throw David Pacman out here as a great example of this. So several years ago, this was Trump's first term.

I made a video for my 4 p.m. segment saying Donald Trump sees record high approval rating. And David Packman on the same day made a video saying Donald Trump sees record, low approval rating or record high disapproval and i thought to myself this is crazy how could both of these videos is at the same time am i wrong well i look back at my video and i checked all my sources and i was like you you've you've got 538 you've got r cp you've got uh all of the aggregates showing that trump's approval ratings at a record high especially compared to other presidents how did david packman make a video that's the inverse he chair picked a single poll and made a video about it saying the exact opposite and it wasn't coordinated he just made a video and i said is david i thought to

myself because i've known him for a long time i'm like is he doing this on purpose like any honest person that's assessing Donald trump's approval is going to check the aggregate not a single poll because a single poll can be uh can have errors it can be static and uh well this is his m o him and brian tyler cohen this is what they do all day every day lord help me i wish the right was that fucking stupid. I'd have a million views. See, this is, and this is, so the left will look at the right, and they'll look at Tulsi Gabbard defending Iran, and then they'll pull up her shirts, right, and be like, interesting, right? You'll look at, you've got RFK Jr. And we'll do the exact same. Making, so this is why the smarts line is also dissatisfactory to me,

because nobody's going to agree on it, right? So when we- Everyone's going to feel unfairly, like, punished by this system, which is why I go, probably universal suffrages over 18 and is the best measure we have. We on this show, with a disaffected to right-leaning audience, specifically addressed Tulsi Gabbard's tweet, how she did not make an assessment and just defer to Trump, and that she sold shirts saying no war with Iran and that I support her in 2020 specifically for anti-interventionist regime change policies.

Because the people on the right expect the context and the nuance, and it's very difficult to keep them in the same room together. When I pull up, the only person I ever give credit to on this, despite not really liking the guys, Hassan Piker, that he actually discusses a variety of topics and his thoughts and opinions on him, even when I think he's wrong or contradictory. And then I pull up the most prominent of liberal pundits,

and I'm like, they just make fake videos. Like David Pekman made a video saying Donald Trump poops his pants, which is just like, yeah, that literally didn't happen. And like, if I could get away with that on the right, man, I'd be making 10 times as much money. Your guys' biggest content creator is Candace Owens. She is a liberal. She is on.

Candace. She is on the right. She's not question. She is completely on the right. There isn't a question. I don't know what to tell you. She's for traditional values. She wants conservative fiscal policy. She was pro-Trump. Like, she is on the right. She's on the right. She's not part of the left. And what do you have? We have one receipt where she strings together a whole narrative theory about Erica Kirk. You could fairly say she's neither. I, we couldn't say that. She's either right or far right. But she's definitely right. So she's anti-Trump over Epstein. She's anti-Trump of the Iran war. Yeah. She's jumped off the Trump. now? A long time ago.

Is Nick Flentes left? Two years ago. Nick Flentes has been advocating for voting Democrat for like four years. Actually, he advocated for voting for Trump, but only with the Iran stuff, he swapped to Democrats. Would you actually try to say that Nick Fuentes is left? Nick Flintz said not to vote for

Trump, and he also said, J.D. Don't vote for J.D. Vance. And now he's explicitly saying vote Democrat. Yeah, because he was a Democrat. Well, he's definitely on the right. He's far right, because he's a theeocrat. Well, I will just, the first thing we should clarify as What does far right mean? So that we understand what we're saying.

When I say far right, I basically mean they're, they are probably going to share a lot of cultural values of a lot of conservatives. They're probably going to be pretty critical of trans stuff, might be critical of gay stuff, although obviously conservatives vary a lot more on the gay stuff. Right? So they're going to be right on those culture war stuff by and large, like more traditional values, right?

Nuclear families. And then when you're getting to the far right, they're going to be accelerationist and usually like anti-democratic. Maybe you want to take away rights. So it's fair to say then if that's your view of the right, the right is completely fractured. Yeah. I think the right is schism.

The left is largely not. The left is very fractured. What is the left factions? We have like the communist socialists that want to take away property rights. And there's this huge question of right now on the left. So among the like prominent left YouTubers, Twitch streamers or otherwise, so we know Nick Fuentes. He gets, you know, 50K concurrent viewers get a big show.

I'm talking about right way. Yeah. Sorry. So Nick Fuentes, he is an element of the right as you describe. And I'm not saying I disagree. We've got Hassan who won't vote for Democrats, tells people not. to vote for Democrats and says that like... So he's kind of like...

He's like our... In a certain way. In a certain way, yeah. So when I look at the most prominent left channels, they usually agree. I want to look at the right channels, they're all fighting each other. The liberals agree.

The liberals agree, but we have the issue is like our schism happened a lot earlier, right? And it's somewhat that what disaffected you guys, right? Is that a lot of lib liberals... Couldn't figure out what a woman was. Well, no, we shook hands with the... progressives and we said we're just like you and the progressives like yeah except some of the progressives

just it's an aesthetic but a lot of them were communists who are like yeah we want to take away private property rights and at no point did the liberals go hold on we're actually not like you because we that's a that's a rights that we're not willing to get rid of actually and we don't even want to do it democratically right but we pretended that we were the same which led to this culture war like takeover where we were like canceling and or boasting ourselves and it was it was awful i don't think that it's a thing. And I think we're seeing the same unfortunate dance happening on the right right now. I think, are you saying that like Republicans shook hands with people who are for things that people don't agree with? Yeah, like theocrats. I mean, I mean, uh, Tucker Croson claims he's facing a criminal

referral. The White House has denied it. Trump says Tucker's lost his way. I mean, they're outright saying no to these people. Yeah, which is, which is great. And yet we have Joe Kent that's defecting to their side, right? And so there's this huge question of who, So I'm not saying that the right has to look identical to the left and how the schism falls out, right? In a lot of ways, what we had with the left sweep is a lot of progressive candidates in a blue state aren't being successful, right? And so it seems like there is a resurgence amongst the left for a more moderate, more traditionally liberal. But the reality is like we were a lot more, especially performatively sold out to the further left. I think the, you know, we were asked the other day if, you know, one of our callers,

if the Democrats can start winning back the disaffected liberals because of the rat, some of the, of these people on the right are taking with like the Israel post stuff. And, you know, my first point is largely that I'm Israel ambivalent. What I, what irks me is when every problem in the world is specifically about Israel and they ignore the history of the region, the liberal economic order, the petro dollar, et cetera. But if it came down to policy and they said you can vote for funding Israel or not funding Israel, I'd say we should not be funding Israel. Our money should be going to our people here in this country, helping the working class. I'm for some form of universal basic health care. We should be spending money in that direction.

If you come to me and then say your choices are the war machine or politicians who five years ago advocated for cutting off children's testicles and breasts, I'd say I will never vote for that person no matter what happens. It's never going to happen. And that's just me. I would look at you as the voter and be like, oh my goodness. Like that's your single topic. No, that's what I said. That's just one hyper example. Like when you take a look at all of the stuff that we had seen throughout the censorship era and the COVID era, I'm going to be like, We've got a litany of issues. We can start with the charges against Donald Trump, which were ridiculous, the arrest of his lawyers, which is shockingly terrifying. I'll never support any of these people. By all means, you can claim Trump did something wrong, but they arrested as lawyers in Georgia and Wisconsin. I mean, that's nightmarishly terrifying. Lawyers did something illegal. No, they didn't.

You can't charge a lawyer with Rico for drafting a letter on behalf of their client. And that's what they did in Georgia. And in fact, if Jeddah Ellis did not play. guilty, the charges would have been dropped because they eventually dropped all charges because they're unfounded. That's nightmarishly insane. So you've got Democrats in office now who supported that. And if they came out and said, we are not for transing the kids, we are not for appropriating property, we want to help the working class, we want to secure our borders. We're not for illegal immigrants. I'll be like, bro, four years ago, you were for all of those things. So get rid of all of those people

and bring in a new Democrat who's got a little bit of charisma behind them. We're talking about Jenna Ellis, who tried to overturn the presidential elections, right? Tell me what she actually was charged with, and why? I'm not sure what she was charged with. She drafted a letter for Trump to the election officials in Georgia requesting information to challenge the election. They argued that was in furtherance of a conspiracy, so she got two counts of RICO. She was literally hired as a lawyer to draft a legal letter. Now, by all means...

Well, was it illegal? Because, like, for example, in the case of... I don't want to get into all, because I don't know all of the details of 2020. unfortunately, right? But there are absolutely illegal things that happened from multiple lawyers, right? And they were intentionally some lawyers. So my understanding is some lawyers were under the presumption that genuinely they needed to call into question the elector slates. And some, that is that might be allowed, right? And others were under the presumption that they knew that they were submitting. Here's what you're not allowed to do. Hold on. Here's what you're not

allowed to do. You can't submit false elector slates. You can't do that. Ellis submitted a letter requesting information to challenge an election. She wrote, I think, like, one letter, and they gave her two counts of RICO. They dropped all of the charges in Georgia. All of the people who refused to plead out had their charges dropped. This was insane. You take a look at the charges against Trump in New York over fraud. They said that he falsified the records to secure beneficial, more beneficial terms from Deutsche Bank. What were the terms? Apparently in one of the filings, they argued that Trump's penthouse, which was 10,000 square feet, roughly, was actually 30,000 square feet. However, It was testified in court that the Trump administration, first and foremost, Trump didn't draft the documents.

Why would he? He's the CEO. And the documents always came with a disclaimer that they may have gotten things wrong and required the banks to do their own due diligence to verify to which Deutsche Bank did, came back and said your information is incorrect and reduced the terms of the deal to which the Trump organization accepted. They called that fraud even when Deutsche Bank testified, we were not defrauded. We clarified this. We made money and we would love to do business. with Trump in the future. Yet you go to Democrats and they say Trump was convicted and found guilty so he was unsuble for civil fraud. And I'm sitting here being like, man, I followed that case. It's insane. You take a look at the falsification of business records, which for the first time in New York state history, there was a claim of falsification of business records without an underlying crime found unanimously by a jury. So Ellis drafted not just a memo, but a memo very explicitly and specifically outlining how she planned to overturn election results, right? Not just

question the results, but to overturn them directly with knowledge of falsified elected states. No, that's an argument that was never proven in court and the charges are all dropped for everyone else. Now, she pleaded guilty to that because she was terrified that the machine had come to put the boot on her neck. So tell me why the charges were dropped for everybody else. And I'm sure the Democrats will just say because Trump put pressure and won the election. Look, all I'll say is this. Donald Trump was accused of falsifying business records. He got, how many, how many felony, how many, 30, 31? In New York.

34. Yeah. This was a misdemeanor charge that was upgraded. And the case is Trump's lawyer Cohen decided to pay Stormy Daniels, but Trump never told him what to do, but he knew what Trump wanted. And there was no unanimously agreed upon by the jury underlying crime that was being covered up for the first time in New York State history. So they decided to upgrade a misdemeanor to a felony 30-some.

I thought it was 31, but 30-some out of times. And then claim that Trump is a felon. And that case for some reason is still pending. It's been like a year and a half. And that case still pending. But also put it like this. Make any argument you want. If we are dealing with...

It was 34, by the. So the main ones, so in Georgia, where Ellis was relevant, a lot of the people who did not get charged were not charged because they were given immunity deals to give details on what Ellis had coordinated. The people who had charges had their charges dropped. Some of them, but a lot of them didn't actually have a drop. A lot of them actually went to jail.

the ones who were a little bit, I can ask specific names. I'm looking at the information right now. Who went to jail or was fined? And there's Wisconsin as well. We're going to get AI on the show one day that you can just ask and it'll tell you. It's going to be awesome. It'll be like, I'll tell you the answer. While I'm letting it search, I'm just going to run to the law.

I'll just say it like this. For this reason, I will never vote for a Democrat. What we got to do is fix the parties, like less communism, less bureaucracy, more balanced, nuanced. Because what's kind of is a machine state is, wrapping its tentacles around our genitals as we speak we need to resist it and untwist this shit like big time we talk about like like no even give in to the machine i don't think i can tim let it give it give it a testicles let it do it i'll let them do what they need to do to me um but what we talk about like stakeholder capitalism stakeholder you know we're like what's your

stake in the system when you vote it used to be land ownership that's how people had stake in the system, the corporations want to go from like, um, shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism because they're trying to create corporate governance. I want to tell Kyle this when she's here. She might already know this stuff. So now that she's gone, she's wrong. I'm right about everything, but she can't rebut. Like what makes you a stakeholder in the corporation?

And that's kind of, kind of measmic. You know, it's up to the corporation to decide if you actually have a stake in this or not. And then do you have a right to protest our system or not? Boy, without her, that was kind of meant for you. You know, I wonder about everything. It's hard to track all these patterns to see what's really going on. There's a million and one different conspiracies as to what the political machine is actually doing. The one that there's several, one of which is that Trump's been in at the whole time and the machine state just keeps shifting the narratives that nobody can get a footing.

And that we had woke versus anti-woke intentionally crafted by the machine so that the left and right would fight. And now we're getting the like the right is being broken apart through the, you know, like the, the top. and like the Joe Kent versus the, the neo-conservative. And then we're going to see an evolution on the Democrat side where they start to try and come back to the moderate point. And in this new decade of 2030, I would not be surprised if we're sitting here being like, I can't believe the Republicans are saying these things. They've gone nuts. And the Democrats are the only one speaking clearly now. I wouldn't be surprised. I predicted that before because it happened during Occupy Wall Street. And I am predicting it again. During Occupy Wall Street, I was, the left loved

me. They were like Tim Poole is the greatest. He's for free speech. Occupy Wall Street gave me private security. I'm telling you, they were volunteer security guards at Occupy Wall Street. And when the far leftist black block types we call them, we didn't call them Antifa, physically attacked me. The organizer said, Tim, we're going to have these guys watch your back while you're streaming because the coverage you do is so important. Even when I had filmed far leftist vandalizing police vehicles, the organizers of Occupy said, you were. We're right to do it. This is not what we're all about. Thank you for filming. Now these very same people are like Tim Poole's far right. You know, he's crazy or whatever. Now we're going to see a shift on the right. And what I was saying before you got back is that the Democratic Party is going to shift in the next several years and start to look sane and the Republican Party is going to increasingly become insane and moderates are going to shift the other direction again. And my thought was I wonder if the machine does this intentionally. Many have speculated constantly shift. what left and right is to keep everybody spending so they can never actually form a real populist uprising yeah

what i said while you were out is about uh share stakeholder like you were saying what kind of stake in the system to vote to control the system and it used to be land ownership in the united states now it's just you know you sign the paper give a social security number but the corporations want to do stakeholder capitalism where they're going away from shareholder capitalism who owns the corporation to decide the future the corporation but do you have a stake in in the benefit of the system that the corporation's a part of so So they're really like, and then they get to decide what that means in any given moment if you have a right to participate. That, that's the, that's like, I don't have a point to tie it to, but that when you guys were talking about voting, I think that is very much the future of what the corporations are trying to do right now. I don't think it's a left and a right thing.

Probably never has been. There are obviously sects of people that spin up, but this global technocratic oligarchy really wants to control our speech. shut us down. That's all I got right now. All right. Kenneth Chesabro pled guilty, five years probation. So basically nobody went to jail for this, which, to be fair. And if they waited, it would got dropped.

I would have been happy for people to do more time. One of the issues is probably a lot of these charges that ended up sticking aren't like necessarily jailable fines. A lot of people got community service. A lot of people lost their licenses. A lot of people were fired, right? There was a lot of misdemeanors. There was also a lot of immunity deals that happened, right?

Ellis entered in cooperation agreements. and had all the charges dropped. Yep, but like entering into cooperation doesn't mean she didn't do anything wrong. So when people plead guilty that proves they did something wrong? That's not what I'm saying either. Have any of these cases been proven or are they just plead outs? You don't take a, hold on, you don't take a plead out if you don't think that the court has a sufficient case against you. You take a plea out because it's a better deal than what you're otherwise facing.

That's why you typically- I know you don't actually believe that. This is- Come on, come on. We can't really do this, can we? You know about the trial tax, right? Sorry? You know about the trial tax, right? Um, I'm, unfortunately, I wish I had prepped for J 20.

The overwhelming majority of people plead guilty regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty because of what's called the trial tax. Oh, the trial tax is a known. Trial tax. Yes, it's a known facet in, in U.S. law that the judges will intentionally give you harsher penalties if you try and fight. So if they come to you and say you're getting 40 years, but you can take a year of probation, everybody just says, give me the year of probation. Yes. This is the majority of, of court cases in the year. United States. So one of the problems our justice system has is the overwhelming amount of innocent people being punished by the system. Sure. Tremendously. I wouldn't look at Ellis's work and go,

that's an innocent woman, though. I mean, you're talking about at bare minimum, like a process crime? No, somebody who knowingly was submitting false electors and directing, not just doing it, directing other people explicitly and knowingly to submit false electors. So you know she know she knowingly did? Yes, in the case of Ellis. How do you know that she knowingly did it was proven in court? In court, she writes this out. So you're saying because she put, Chesterbrough was like a little bit more like, because she pleaded guilty to it.

We think legitimately these electors might need to be submitted. But she did know. Yes. You're saying that it was proven in court. She definitively knew that what she was doing was wrong. Defined proven in court. I would say. Yeah, I would say.

Like pleading guilty to me isn't proof of anything because we know tons of innocent people plead guilty to avoid harsh penalties. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. in the case of alice you might not be right i would say her her emails specifically are sufficient evidence of saying i think that she knows what's going on she knows the president set in uh the nixon v kennedy uh election where they submitted alternate electors despite the fact that uh you know nixon could have one hawai the argument was that it didn't matter anyway so they weren't going to count these electors they submitted electors for kennedy which

were not certified by by the government and that was the precedent by which trump's legal team said we can submit the alternate slate, then once the court cases are, once they are officially adjudicated, they will update just like with Kennedy v. Nixon. So the argument that I have is, regardless of what you think about, Jen Alice, let's go to the procedure of 2020. The only process by which you could challenge an election that you did believe was stolen is to file the paperwork of an alternate alternate slate of electors and then wait for the court case to be resolved by a judge. Otherwise, according to our electoral system, the deadline is like December 17th, there would be no paperwork filed at all. And even if you want in court, you'd be past the deadline. Why not? Like, you could just do, you could. This is the precedent set in, I think it was 1959. Sure, but like, we've done recounts multiple times, right? There was, like, the famous Al Gore case in, like, Florida where the vote was decided by, like, 500 votes. And yet all precedent to just, like, ask that we, like, read to the slates and then verify and audit all of the votes, right? And, like, there is a process by which if you legitimately think something has been falsified or tampered with, like, there is a process for that. And I'm for that process.

I have no problem with auditing votes necessarily, right? And the issue is in the case of Ellis and Chesabro, they explicitly were not doing these things. What did they do? What should they have done? Gone through the proper processes, which is what? I don't know it off the top of my head, but this is exactly why Pence was opposed to this and basically said,

I'm not touching any of this shit. I would imagine it's the Republican elector slates, fill out the paperwork as if they did win. They are submitted as this is pending adjudication. That's, I'd imagine what you do, right? Yeah. How do you challenge, uh, election results presidential election which is specifically electoral college right my my view would be

just like in i think it was 1960 with with uh kennedy v nixon when hawaii challenged the election results even though it was uh nixon who won they sent an alternate slate of electors after the fact of certification and even though it wasn't even adjudicated they said look it doesn't matter anyway so we're going to we're going to let it slide so if you did have a disputed election and the difficult with our with our legal system is how long it takes, I'd imagine the process would be, file the paperwork as though you won while it's pending adjudication. And then if a judge approves, it's yes, if not, it's no. No, so you ask for a recount, you file an election contest in state court in whichever state you're concerned about,

litigate before certification and during canvassing. So you get a court recount. And after the state results, the result, after the state resolves the result, the state sends its lawful electors to the electoral college. Except that's not ever what's happened. And again, the precedent from Nixon v. Kennedy is that because adjudication was taking too long, they submitted an alternate slate of electors before there was official adjudication. And that was deemed acceptable. And that was the precedent by which the Trump legal team said, we'll do the same thing. And then to be fair.

So one of them, one of my understanding is one of one of the main lawyers involved, I believe it was Chesabro. I could be wrong about which one did this. Look, that's arguing 20. He genuinely believed that there was faulty votes. There was faulty issues. And he looked it up. up and he was trying to legitimately have the election audit. There was like a genuine belief that it was stolen. Well, one of the lawyers in the emails explicitly knows that this is false and is trying to follow through with Trump's. Sorry? There was a, there was a report a few months ago that they found something like 300,000,

ballots that were illegitimate in Georgia or something like this. I've looked into that. I remember being very questionable. I don't be completely honest. I'm not super concerned with with what happened in 2020. become you know i'm i'm i'm i'm so big enough that you won't vote for democrats i won for democrats for a variety of reasons one that they have consistently defended uh child sex changes and uh like even gavin newsome is wishy-wash on this and struggles with it and it's like if you can't just say no to

that like if bill like i like bill mar right he's got trump the arrangement syndrome but that's okay you're always allowed to criticize the president not like the guy and bill mar made a really great point i love it he said the democrats lost a crazy contest to a crazy person and that that that really hits it on hits it's the hammer for me. Trump for all of his faults that he can be criticized for is the less crazy of the people running, which is just Trump. Yes. I'm going to say it again. Bill Marr lifelong liberal guy. He, in my view, represents what Democrats need to be, saying the Democrats lost a crazy contest to a crazy person. He does not like Trump. He views Trump as crazy. And I will say it again, for all of Trump's false, he is the less, he is the least crazy.

of the people who ran for president. To be fair, I'd vote for Dave Smith over either of them, but he didn't run. I'm not going to vote for Chase and the gay Congress party. The Democrats lost the crazy contest to the crazy person. That was the point. The point he was making is... They couldn't be crazy enough, you know, this guy... No.

Sorry, Kayla, we're kind of, what are you saying? I don't know that that makes sense in the way you're interpreting it. Yeah. Because that would not be a point of contention. It would be, I'm glad they lost. Yeah. Like Trump beat them, and he should. should have. The point he was making, insert myself into this policy. It was the podcast to do with

Jerry O'Connell where he was saying that the Democrats have continually embraced people who are out of touch and don't know how to speak to regular Americans. So they embrace insane issues. And I mean, as you know, like Bill Maher's been very anti-Islam. And so he's sitting here looking at everything the Democratic Party has been doing. And he's like, these people have gone crazy. But I don't want to harp on us. We should, we should segue because we can keep the conversation going with this story. We've got this from Fox News. Gup governors AG's back the Trump Save Act push, warn the system gives undue influence to states with illegal aliens. The coalition argues current registration systems give states with large illegal populations undue influence over the federal elections.

I am here to tell you all that everything everyone is telling you is fake and a lie. The Save Act requires proof of citizenship at the point of registration and would require an ID when you vote. However, the Republican argument is incorrect. And they're doing this because they're oversimplifying to make people want to support it. Republicans are arguing that there's voter fraud and Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, which, no, that's not really the issue either. Democrats are saying this will disenfranchise 20 million plus voters. There will be women who will struggle to register to vote, which is also not true because

you don't get booted off registration from the Save Act. The real issue is that by allowing anybody to register to vote without documentation, you can do rock the vote. voter registration drives voter in the park. And this means you can go to people who normally don't care and wouldn't take the time and register them to vote. You combine that with universal mail and voting and or ballot harvesting, and you have a massive voter base of people who will passively vote.

The Republicans can't do this because they're predominantly rural. So if an individual goes to an urban center, like in New York City, you can go to one apartment building with 1,000 people in it. And in one day, two activists can get hundreds of ballots from people who normally don't care. Republicans can't drive door to door in rural areas because some of these houses are, you know, what, half a mile from the next one? So overwhelmingly, that benefits Democrats who are trying to convince as many people as possible to vote. But by that logic, doesn't that just assume then that the people in apartments are already Democrat? They're just facilitating these people to vote.

I would refer to them as we call that default liberal, meaning they don't really pay attention to politics, but they lean a little bit left. And you knock on their door and say, you're registered and they'll say, no, sign this and you are. And they go, sure. And so it's very easy. for Democrats to get the numbers, which is very difficult for Republicans. But I will just, my final point on this, Republicans don't want to publicly admit. They are intentionally trying to create barriers to stop low interest voters. And the Democrats don't want to admit that they win elections through low interest voters. So both are creating their own version of why this shooter should not pass.

The issue is, so say you get like the issue is this one, this could affect the popular vote, but that this type of logic actually wouldn't necessarily change like the electoral college because the way that the electric college splits up and all these lines and stuff is to try to balance out the, sorry? It'll change Congress in the swing states, in the swing districts. And it will greatly affect swing states as well. Maybe, but in swing states specifically, we can probably presume that in these apartment buildings,

Republicans could reasonably go and collect ballots from all the same people. But they're going to vote Democrat. Why would we assume that in a swing state city? Major cities are, even in West Virginia, they're all liberal. Yeah, but I imagine if they're passive enough, a Republican can probably have a sophisticated. sufficiently like compelling argument to like move them up i would i would just you know we just again revert to the previous argument of why it is that republicans don't invest money in like d plus 20 districts

and why democrats don't do the same it's largely it's a cost benefit analysis republicans are going to say look if we go in ballot harvest in these areas it's going to take 10 times the effort to get half as many ballots from democrats so we're better off passing the save act and just slicing off Democrats' low-interest voter base. And Democrats are saying, you will disenfranchise voters because women will have to get their marriage certificates and like this convoluted arguments.

Look, Republicans are going to claim it's about illegal immigrants voting, which is not the issue. The issue largely is that illegal immigrants count towards congressional apportionment, but Democrats can easily ballot harvest. They do. I have done voter initiatives for Democrat nonprofits.

Republicans can't, so they're trying to make it difficult for low-interest voters to vote. I don't think that there's sufficient evidence that Republicans can't. though like they like of course they can't of course they can it's like difficult well go to go to like more like working class areas that have like a lot of construction and union guys and you're probably going to be able to hold a gradient right we're talking about how in densely urban areas it's overwhelmingly

liberal and when you go to the suburbs you will you will have to go door to door in the like let's do chicago is an example the city of chicago is democrat everywhere and only in the past election did we actually see the edges start to turn red so my neighborhood on the south side near midway airport has been slowly shifting Republican for some time, which is very interesting. If you go to my neighborhood in the city, it's still 60, 70% Democrat. Well, actually, no, my neighborhood actually is red. But the bulk of like the midway area, which includes like two or three neighborhoods, it's actually shifts more blue as you get closer to the city. You are going to be going door to door house to house. Okay, going to a building on like Michigan

Avenue with like 50 apartment units, you will be able to get two or three times as many. ballots harvested and votes registered than you would in the suburban areas where you're going go to door or driving. That's my point. Dense population areas tend to be liberal and then it's it harder for Republicans to ballot harvest as effectively as Democrats. Again, I don't even know if I'd grant that because I have a suspicion that a lot of Republican voters that often probably don't come through in voting would be like, for example, like working class construction workers or truck divers and stuff that often probably have a lot of the same limits to voting that like low income left. They often do live in the city. But you come like, are you actually are

arguing that cities are like Republican? No, no, no, I think that cities tend to fall left, but I think that's because like of, like Chicago's been run by Democrats for 120 years. I think that Democrats tend to fall, I think that cities tend to fall left because I think that Democrats have good policies that are better for cities and better for running them. Like, I think that that's why. I think if Republicans wanted to be able to farm cities, they should probably have policies that city people like, right? But they don't. I don't think you really believe that. Which is where you from?

That Democrats have policies that make cities run better than Republicans. A lot of it's based on Orlando. Sorry, I just thought... What are the biggest... California, number four in GDP in the world. Like... Yeah, I lived there for 20 years. It's a shithole. There's a lot.

There's a lot. But let me ask you a question. Sure, it's also, what are all the red states? They're poor, their half-nots. They can't get on top of their employment. Crime is lower in West Virginia, despite being poor, too. It's below the national average. Sure, but...

I'll ask you a question. Where are you from? What city? Where am I living? I live in Tampa. No, no. What city are you from? What? Originally?

I'm Canadian. You're from Canada? You're from Canada? Yeah. i'm gonna canadians oh so uh let me ask you um i democrat policy in chicago uh with a hundred hundred hundred years of of super majority so there is numerous uh territories uh neighborhoods in chicago that were overridden by black gangs do you know the democrat policy was i know i have no i have no idea it was to tell the people who lived that they wanted to

renovate the project housing so they would be temporarily relocated and then they bulldo their homes and poured dirt over it and never did anything again that has consistently been what the democrats of chicago have done to deal with the problem of impoverished black neighborhoods how about the policies of redlining and blockbusting in chicago redlining literally comes from chicago's red line where the the cultural practice at the time under the democrats was to force black people to live in impoverished areas and they wouldn't sell them property outside the democrats do not create policies that benefit these cities in my experience growing up in a city that was run by Democrats for 100 years, you couldn't do anything because

the processes by which they collected the votes made it impossible to actually change this system. Then why must— Like Los Angeles is a great example as well, where they have the worst homeless problem in the developed world. Yet for the life of them, they just keep dumping money into what we call the homeless industrial complex, a series of NGOs and government programs that dump money to corrupt individuals. What percentage of homeless people in California are even from California? California. Do you know? It is actually a minority, but a good chunk. The issue with homelessness in Los Angeles is that the weather is nice and it attracts homelessness. And they have so they have so it's not just that. I actually from Eminton, where I'm from, we have the one of the largest homeless populations in Canada, despite it being one of the most northern major city in almost in the liberal city. It's a liberal city. That's a red city. But we have huge, huge, we just have an incredible nonprofit sector. It's actually where my husband and I met is working for the same homeless shelter. But We have such great resources that people will get bus rides to Eminton as a homeless person to take advantage of the system that they have.

Right. So what's often happening is red states aren't educating people. They're getting them hooked on jobs, giving them construction jobs. Well, the red states aren't doing that. Like the government is not getting people hooked on drugs. People are getting them. You're not educating them. They're not building successful economies that scale up to allow people out of just construction jobs,

which is why you're right. Republicans don't have reds very big red cities because Republicans don't build good cities it seems to be the case. It seems like like if cities have to be ontologically left, we have to ask ourselves why. Like being collectivism. Talk to any city person. They're not just this like collectious. Well, I think the nature of cities as you collect in an area. Well, I think the issue is the the process of lowest common denominator population bases. So cities are multi multicultural.

multi-demographic whereas like rural areas tend to be less so that they tend to be more homogenous so it's really easy to win a red district that is overwhelmingly white and like traditional American values Chicago is much more difficult if you look at the the election of Brandon Johnson remarkably every every neighborhood voted based on race 100% what I find truly remarkable is that in the black neighborhoods you had the top three candidates you had I forgot the guy's name there was the white dude there was Brandon Johnson who's a black guy you know, Hispanic guy. When you go to like the Pilsen areas, top candidate was the Hispanic guy,

followed by the white guy. You go to the white areas, top candidates, the white guy. Go to the black areas. This is where it got interesting. The top three candidates were three black people. And the reason Brandon Johnson is because only one neighborhood defected and it was the Loyal University area like near Evanston, where you have a predominantly young leftist base that voted for the more socialist black candidate. And so you combine that with the racial demographics and they voted for a candidate just because he was black for the most part like the progressus probably did too he was like a socialist and he was black and then he didn't want white supremacy or whatever but that's a small portion of the chicago base chicago votes based on race right this is not a function of being a republican or being

a democrat it was literally just the black neighborhood saying we're only going to vote for black people and the white neighborhood saying we're going to vote for the white guy and the Latino neighbors neighborhood saying we're going to vote for Latino guy and it's not necessarily that it's overtly about race although i do think that's a component of it i think it's who's speaking to who if you're a white working class suburban that kind of guy and you meet like a firefighter family and you say like I used to bring my kid to go play baseball you go hey me too I like this guy and then if the latino guy goes to that same dude and says we used to bring to malizat and we'd sell him on a porch the guy's going to be like I don't know what that means so they're not going to feel that that that rapport you know what I mean

I know that this isn't what you're saying but what it sounds like you're arguing and so clarify where the nuances here it sounds like you're arguing when I said why are cities just ontologically left leaning like I don't think that they have to be right as I mean, I don't think that they have to be. And it seems like your answer is black people are in cities who vote for black people. Well, let me. Because there's definitely more white people in cities. It's called lowest common denominator politics.

If you have three distinct cultures that do not agree with each other in order to win, you need to find the point at which they do come together. And so it's actually quite simple. I'll give you free stuff. So we'll give you free welfare benefits. We'll increase EBT. and this will get you the largest share. If you go to like the, if you go to Chicago and you take a look at like the Midway Neighbor,

which is voting for Trump, you're going to say no free stuff. You got to work hard. You got to roll up your sleeves and live a good life. They're going to be like, I'm voting for that guy. But if you go and say that in, you know, Loyola, for instance, they're going to say, you are completely discounting the experience of marginalized people. And I will not vote for this. You go to the upper class area and they're and you say, we need to create social programs.

And they're going to be like, well, this is an affront. the lowest common denominator for maximizing voting, this is macro level politics, is to say, I am going to give you your benefits. If you go to, like, if you go to a rural Republican area, you are going to find generally cultural homogeneity, for the most part.

You're going to find over a large swath of land of a district, most people are culturally and ethnically homogenous, to a great degree. When you go to cities, you're going to find it's going to be multicultural. So let's say you go to Chicago. But they're also less educated. less innovative. They're not typically on the bleeding front. So that's not that's not material to

advocating for a vote, right? Well, it's this question again of why is the left on to logically? Why are cities? Are you arguing that the impoverished black neighborhoods are more educated than the white areas of the same city? I'm saying that cities generally are an agri- I'm actually saying, I think that the reason why cities tend to be left-dominated is because they have policy that appeals to city voters the most. It appeals to most people. Except, apparently rural voters. Right. Just like too smart to to do it? No, because you do you understand macro level politics? I understand you're saying I, they try to make generalized policy. I slightly disagree because they don't say we want to give you your benefits. They try to go which policies are

popular right now that it will capture common denominator. So how which will which policy connects every group of people as much as possible. Yes. So again, in a rural area, they need only go apple pie. And they go woo. And they need to go like America. And they're like yeah. And then you go to a city and If you say America, people are going to be like, America's white supremacist. And the other guy's going to be like, I've been American my whole life. You can't. So they say, um, tax the rich because that's not you. So they say, we want to do programs.

And then people go, how are you going to pay for it? We're going to tax the rich. And then look what's going on in New York. Actually, we should, we should pull up what's going on in New York. Where are the richest people in the world? Cities. Dubai. Cities.

Yeah, cities actually. That we know of. Right. Let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, challenge this. We have the story from. the New York Post, desperate Hockel begs wealthy New Yorkers to come back as Mammani pressures her to hike their taxes. They say Kathy Hokel is begging wealthy New Yorkers who fled the city to encourage their rich pals to come back and continue patting the Empire State's lavish public

handouts. Hockel made the case against caving to mayor, made the case against Caving to Mayor's Armandani's demands that she hike income taxes by saying she not only wants fat cats to stay in the city, but also by clawing at those who have moved to states with better business climates like Florida. Hey, I'm one of those people. Wait. I, uh, I left New York for a variety of reasons, not entirely because of high tax, but those components. Move further south largely because of riots and violence, went to New Jersey, and then New Jersey had crazy taxes. So we got out now we're in West Virginia, although we're currently enjoying the beautiful weather here in Austin. I was recently asked as, uh, as I've explained quite a bit, there are, um, big investors in media

companies looking to buy out podcasts and get in the space. And so, of course, as many of know we've been having negotiations with companies for years and in various ways. That doesn't mean we'll take any deals. But I was recently asked by a company if we'd be willing to relocate to New York City where there's a lot of infrastructure, high profile guests, celebrities, great opportunity, all of the big podcasting network companies. And I said, never going to happen. And they said, what is prohibitive about New York?

And I said the taxes are too high. Even with those benefits, when we do the cost benefit analysis, we lose money by going to New York. It is not worth it. Now, Florida and Texas may be. but New York no. And now New York's facing a massive deficit where Zohan Mandani explicitly stated

if they cannot tax the wealthy, they will have to tax the middle class. That's somewhat true. Are you opposed to progressive taxation? Literally what I said. I'm in favor of a degree of progressive taxation. However, you can't, you have to recognize freedom of movement.

And I think there's, are you familiar with the laffer curve? I, I'm not. actually tell me so this is a economic it's it's an understanding in tax policy that there is a point at which you increase the tax rate and you decrease tax revenue because you'll either stagnate activity or you'll pressure people to leave i'm familiar so there is a happy medium where people will be satisfied paying a certain percentage of their income at a certain level if they feel like the benefit is worth it however new york is experiencing a lot of problems recently notably they've

had a massive dog feces problem which is new i think this is a component of low trust society. You've also had high profile cases of subway people being pushed on a subway tracks. Whether this is more than normal, it is certainly popping up in media and it's causing people to freak out. So you've had since COVID lockdowns a mass exodus. Now you have with increased taxes, a continued exodus where we're not just seeing the upper class, the wealthy leave. You're actually seeing middle class people leave the city because they don't feel that they're getting their value from from the city. I would also throw it back to when AOC joined in these protests against Amazon, which is projected to bring in somewhere around like

$30 billion in tax revenue. And she came to these financial district protests, ultimately, whether intentionally otherwise created a hubbub that pressured Amazon not to create, not to put their warehouses in New York, in Queens, and that cost the city billions, which they were hoping to get to fix their crumbling train infrastructure. So for a lot of people who live in New York, it feels like the taxes are just not worth it. Whatever may be in terms of... I just can't find, so here's the issue. Okay, Governor Hockel is literally begging them to come back because they did leave. The New York posts is the word.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm sorry. You're not going to argue, source. The governor literally did this. The governor literally said, please come back. That's not for a dispute. What's her quote specifically? And does she have evidence for this?

I mean, we did play the video earlier. We played the video for you. Give you to me, Kathy. I'm looking forward to hearing her voice. Hokel made the case who came against her and I'm Donnie. quote, maybe the first step should be to go down to Palm Beach and see who we can bring back home because our tax base here has eroded. I have to look at the fact that we are in competition with other states who have less of a tax burden on their corporations and their individuals.

The comments are a far cry from her much-directed remarks in a 2020 election campaign where she ripped her GOP opponent, rep Lee Zeldon as the then-Duchess, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Trump and Zeldin and Molinaro, just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong, okay? Get out of town because you don't represent our values, she said. Blah, blah, blah, blah. We have to be smart about this, but we can find what we want to fund with what we are already taking in. The state has been facing its own multi-billion dollar budget gap that was largely patched after a great year on Wall Street caused bonuses to shoot up 25% over 2025, blah, blah,

blah, I am focused on a hundred percent of affordability issues. It appears actually there's two quotes because I played this video earlier where she's sitting at a conference meeting saying like we need to get the wealthy to come back. This is how Trump revitalized New York. He created luxury these luxury towers and then told wealthy people, people this is where the high classes they came back in combined with juliani juliani's broken window policing which really just means heavy law enforcement crackdown and it became more appealing to wealthy individuals and corporations which then boosted its tax base all like the controversy as

as thus far which is not a for dispute zohran mondani gave a speech to the city saying we must tax the rich to fund these programs if we do not we are going to have to tax the middle class i so i understand and I understand why he's saying that and I agree with them that we do need to tax the rich right so when I'm looking into like this laugh or stuff my understanding is that like you're not going to tax me I left so most wealthy individuals do not leave from taxes only 2% so millionaire tax light is only about 2% of top owners are moving in response to higher taxes and and you're talking about generally yeah okay so I'll look up New York specifically over the past several months well every time I've looked up New York it said there is no mass exodus happening at all there is like

general trend of like some rich people going to Florida because of no state income tax. I just Google it, so we'll just pull up whatever Google says. How about that? New York City is experiencing a significant ongoing exodus of high net worth individuals driven by high taxes, steep living costs and remote work flexibility, with many relocating to low tax states like Florida. Despite this, this, this remains a global wealth hub with over 33,000 residents worth 30 million or more. It's of July 2025. That's interesting. I wonder what is motivating the governor to be like, please come back. I'm going to have to go down to Palm Beach and see who we can bring back. Like, clearly she's saying this because she's experiencing a problem, right?

She, well, possibly, like, taking politicians at their word, it's like one of the worst things, especially when we have a quote in the exact same article of her saying literally the opposite, like two years before, and saying, fuck them. She was saying, why don't you leave? Yes, that's what I'm saying. She wasn't governor at the time. Right. So now the sudden. Actually, I'm sorry, sorry.

She was lieutenant governor who assumed it from Cuomo and was in the campaign saying she wanted to run. Right, and she was saying, screw those people. If they want to leave, they can leave and saying basically the opposite of everything. Escape from New York, 2025 millionaire edition. What other articles say this? Rich New Yorkers threaten to leave, then they find out how hard that is. That's a funny one. Brokers discuss Mamdani feud wealth, Exodus fears, Yahoo Finance.

The Center Square, Mom Dani's tax plans could exacerbate, could. So one of the issues you have to think with why people move. Some people do just move purely for wealth. But a lot of rich people have families. They have kids. They have plugged in. they have all of the local restaurants, they have all the digs, right? They have this entire life and community connected to the city, which is why I agree. There is some little bit of pressure

of if you tax the rich, yeah, they might like move elsewhere, which would just make a better argument for greater federal taxes, but the Canadians speaking and me, right? But at the end of Is Hockel wrong? Is who? Is Hockel wrong? Are like they not leaving? Are all these articles wrong? Are they not leaving? I suspect it's to be disputed, right? Like, all these articles are wrong. Well, the issue is. The news is wrong. Well, the articles here are saying 2%. That's not, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, a general, a general comment on cities, right, where people may or may not leave.

It's not the same as literally me pulling up a series of articles where they're like, the wealthy are leaving. Exodus, Exodus. That's a really sexy. We're talking about news articles versus a data-driven thing that's saying here. Which is not material to just New York City. Sure, it's actually looking at the taxing principle broadly. Right?

Would you, would you say that it, would you say that this policy of taxing the rich would make them leave would hold true regardless of whether it's New York or if it was like Palm Springs. We're just talking about New York. So are you denying that the data that I'm showing you, that is not from... I'm saying it's not material to a conversation about New York's current experiences. How is generalized data about this principle not going to be applicable to a city in which we're talking about the same principle? New York City is experiencing a wealth exodus, yes or no? It seems like no. It seems like calling it an exodus. So these articles are just not correct? Yeah. Shocker, people are fearmongering. It sounds like some people are leaving. Uh-huh. But it looks. So the

So the governor is just, the governor fell for fake news. I don't know what she's doing. Maybe she felt for fake news. Why is she saying we need to bring these people back? It could be a multitude of reasons. This is, well, never vote Democrat. Why? Because I'm going by data instead of headlines.

I'm just reading the news. Yeah, you're reading headlines, and I'm reading a peer-reviewed. And the governor's own statements. And the only conclusion I can come to when the governor says, please come back. And the news reports say, they're experiencing a wealth exodus is that they are. So if the governor says trans kids actually need to transition, we just believe the governor now because the governor said it when the governor says we have a budget shortfall we need wealthy people back i go wow that's interesting that's not what she said she just said we

got to go down to palm springs and bring them back palm beach i got a question i'll specify is it 2% of the top earners left or 2% of the wealth is gone no 2% of top earners leave so what percent of the new york economy was commanded by that 2% of people well i'm i'm not sure i probably i wouldn't be surprised of a significant probably like the top like say say we got 100 people right and 10 of them are are the top earners and two of those people leave. I wouldn't even be surprised if the top top earners are the ones that leave necessarily, right? But the issue is that calling that an exodus is over-inflating the issue.

It makes it sounds like millionaires are packing up. They're rich, blonde, beautiful kids into their beautiful land rovers and they're driving down to Florida en masse. And that's not happening. What's happening is probably a select few of the top-top performers. 6%. Sure. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of New Yorkers earning between one-frey,

50 and 750 fell by 6% while the number of true high earners dropped by 10% according to city's independent budget office this erosion matters because the city's tops 1% about 41,000 filers pay more than 40% of all income taxes the top 10% pay about 2 thirds which means the remaining 90% of taxpayers contribute only about one third of the city's income tax revenue when even a small share of these high earners disappears the impact is seismic so recent migration trends confirm the damage more than 125 000 new yorkers have fled to florida in just the past few years carrying nearly 14 billion billion dollars worth of income with them according to the citizens budget commission about a third of

these movies movers more than 41,000 people went to miami dade palm beach and broward counties between 2018 and 2022 the the those escapes alone stripped new york city of an estimated 10 billion dollars in adjusted gross income when money and mobility align no amount of political rhetoric can stop people from voting with their feet into this fragile situation steps baron mandani and et cetera so the top you did you say it was the top two percent of earners left or how did you phrase that the top two percent of the earners in New York left? Of the top earners, two percent of them leave. Of the, according to the city budget from New York. Is that like 95 to 100? The top earners, do you have that data?

I'll have to look for it. I'll have to dig through. The data points kind of defunct until we can figure that stuff out, because if 2% of the people left and took 40% of New York's GDP, that's an exodus. That's a legit, like, catastrophic change. It's an exodus to the budget, but it's not an exodus of people. Correct. Right. But the issue is that when we're talking about this, what we're making it sound like is that people and mass are moving. What we're really saying is the richest of the absolute rich won't share the pie. And if anything gets hiked up on them, those people, those select individuals leave. Since April 2020, New York City's experience a significant population

decline losing nearly 500,000 residents or 5.3% of its population in the initial years following the pandemic. While the population outflows slowed in 2022, 2020, the city saw net loss of 216,778 residents in the end of 2023, largely driven by domestic migration. They did recover a little bit in the past year or so. But that's not only from taxes, right? No, that's everything. Yeah, because that would be like housing prices. We are seeing mass migration.

So I'll say two things. Sure, for like housing and stuff. So I'm not surprised that people might be leaving New York. We're going to try and grab. Sorry, I don't interrupt you, but I'm going to try. I want to say a couple things. And then we've got to get some of these, these rebel rants and chats. We'll go a little bit long because I've been having, I enjoy the conversation.

So I work 16 hours a day. Today, I will have recorded five and a half hours. content i record more podcast talk radio i want to call it than any other person on the planet uh now that's just being hyperbolic because there's probably some dude in his room we talk for eight hours i was going to say except clivik through right but uh and people say hasan streams for eight hours but he doesn't actually talk for eight hours i actually have hard straight talk for five and f hours which is about eight or nine hour well it's it's about eight or nine hours of like research plus talking so i work for about 16 hours a day with business stuff in between

I lose money by doing it because of progressive taxes, which has driven me to the point where, like, my wife and I had the conversation about, like, we probably shouldn't anymore, but, you know, like, what would make this work? So here's how it works. The first eight hours I work, I make the bulk of my money. After this, we decided to do Timcast, IRL, in which I'm working for 16 hours, but I'm a salary-based individual, and then, of course, we have a profit margins. Because I pay more taxes after a certain amount, it means the more hours I work, the less amount of money I make. If I stop working these hours, 30 to 40 people will lose their jobs.

However, I'm looking at a diminishing return on working these extra hours. I would be rich if I didn't. This is the problem with progressive taxes. Should these producers and personalities who work in this industry lose their jobs because the progressive taxism is punishing me for working extra hours? The assumption with the taxing the wealthy is that these are people who are just, they're working 40 hours like everybody else. therefore they're earning a salary they should pay more when the reality is at least for me

i'm only making more money because i'm choosing to work 80 hours a week or more and getting punished for doing so that that's great that creates a perverse incentive which would tell people not to run their businesses not to work and for that reason i largely disagree with uh i would call like higher end progressive taxes that does agree a challenge because there are some people who barely work at all make a ton of money but the problem with a blanket tax system is that not everybody makes money in the exact same way, but they will all be taxed in the same way. That creates a problem. Problem for productivity, and it creates a detriment to working class people who rely on CEOs who are going to work 80 hours a week. Right. And so when I talk about progressive

taxes. So why should I get taxed for working more? Sure. The main thing that I would say is we need a distribution system that allows for, right now what we seem to have as a distribution system where there's like a K going on. This is what a lot of economists are calling it, right? You're either getting poorer or you're getting richer and there's a diminishing middle class. What I want is actually a taxation system that is most incentivized for the common man. I want the middle class to have the tax system built around them, actually. I think that that would be the best. I think that there should be way more tax credits for middle class earners, small business owners, these types of individuals. And there should be a lot more scrutiny looked at corporate businesses, right? For example, if you've got a corporate like Walmart

or these like major, major companies and their corporate profits have gone incredibly high over the last few years, but their wages have stagnated for the past five years. We need to look at that and figure out a way to redistribute it. Maybe we find that company and we just force. Maybe we don't need to do all more taxations. Maybe we need to force companies to pay workers more. I completely agree that like Facebook making $160 billion, they should be taxed on it because we just need money to blow up brown people. More importantly, pay their work. No, no, no, pay their workers. She agrees. No, not at all. Not at all. See, the problem I have, the progressive taxes, after the fact is that the money is going to go to the war machine for the most part.

You get corporations, how about this? How about we reallocate the existing tax infrastructure and figure out after that if we do need to raise taxes? Sure, I mean. Unless you're saying taxes should be punitive. No, I want them incentive-based. Like, for example, I want families to be able to claim things like gyms, public... No, no, I agree. I agree.

Forgive me for interrupting. Real quick question. Got to show it on. We should stop funding, like, massive military budgets and stuff like that. I think we need some military budget, but I don't know. Sure, sure. But, like, it's kind of a lot, right? A trillion dollars.

Probably the issue is I have no, I don't have a good idea of, like, what military budget was necessary in an age of, like, China and Russia. Because we need to be stronger than them. Are you, are you in favor or opposition to the Iran war? I'm opposed to the Iran war in how it's handled. Do you think that... I'm not opposed to the killing of the Ayatollah. We should reallocate. we should basically look at where the tax money is going,

and then assess whether or not we are wasting money. Waste fraud and abuse tends to be the term. But I don't like that as a single issue because, you know, maybe we don't need such a big military budget. We do need, we want a good one. Don't get me wrong. But would you agree that we could probably reallocate the existing tax base, like tax revenue, two better things?

I'm sure there's many areas I would happily part out. I think the solution is we do that first. Then we go through the budget and figure out where we need to tax more. if we need to fund other things. Because I feel like we can probably find a bunch of missing money from waste fraud and abuse, but also programs we don't like and then be like, hey, we could put that money towards things we do like. Sure. That after that, we might not need as much taxes as you think.

This is why I hate a doge so much is that it was this opportunity to properly audit government spending and ask the questions of where they went. And they didn't reduce the deficit. They chainsaw hacked. They destroyed U.S. aid, which was, especially if you're, well, if you're dovish, if you're duffish, which I believe you are. Dubbish? Dovish? Dovish?

Yeah, like not Warhawk. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. If you're Dock, you're saying, I wouldn't call myself Dovish. It probably means you probably prefer diplomacy. If there's any foreign intervention that you have to do, you probably prefer diplomacy first, you probably prefer soft power and negotiation. I'm assuming. I could be wrong.

I would argue that I'm like, if, if, I don't want to say left or right. Let's say up or down. If up is dovish and down is hawkish, I'm just slightly above the center towards Dover. Yeah, yeah, that's kind of what I presumed. I don't, I don't think you're an extreme on my Yeah, I understand world war two happened and you know Hitler and the antithal was not a good guy and I don't cry I don't shit at Exactly. There was Bashar al-Assad. I'm brainfired. I don't know where I was going let's we're gonna get some of your rumble rants These debates are always fun. Rumble rant we're gonna have the uncensored portion of the show coming up But we'll try and get as many this as we can because we're you know I'm sorry I was enjoying the conversation too much

Gonzo says, we'll come back to watch but wanted to follow Timcast tradition my wife is currently being induced welcome to the world Cody Gonzalez

all prayers are welcomed and appreciated Yay! Thank you Cody Congratulations Good job Baby Do you want me to read

the mean ones? Sure Dan Vicious says Kyla is face quarking from all the amphetamines I don't do amphetamines

I don't know what you mean by face quaking I post I post this on X earlier because people comment that I'm on meth or like

Adderall and I'm like I take it as a compliment because I've never done any hard drug. The worst thing I've ever done is smoked pot once when I was 16. I didn't enjoy it. I don't drink. Don't smoke. I have no tattoos.

No adderol. I have a cup of coffee every morning around 8 a.m. That's it, a single cup. And then I don't drink coffee after 10 a.m. It's just that I get him so high when I'm sitting next to him. He gets all stimulated. Actually, the secret is Ian's got a cattle prod. And when I start getting tired, he just walks in the room and shut the fuck.

No, no. He says, talk more. Go. So it's like, I'll record my first segment. And I'll be like, Ian, I'm just retired. I'll go. 16 hours today, Tim. Let's go.

Sleep says to keep the tradition going. I'm in the hospital with the, with the, and the wife is pushing baby girl number three. Help, I am now massively outnumbered. Too many. There's a lot of babies in the superchats. It's a tradition. People, for some reason, people have decided to make a meme trend where when their wife is giving birth, they go on and chat like, it's now. We're doing it.

But we love it. because it's a counter. That's very cute. Well, congrats on the baby again. J. Dev says, so according to her, to be right wing, you are just against the alphabet people. She's literally half an inch deep puddle on politics. I'm sure if you debated me any time, I'm happily sloppy lap. Let's see.

What is this? Jay Dev says it's funny watching Tim debate against not so erudite. I mean chat GPT. Good one. Were you using chat GPT during the debate? No, for the most part is. If I use it at all, it's usually to just like search for resources. I'm mostly on Google looking for, like, articles and stuff.

I like chat GPT during. I mean, I have no problems with it. Just transparent, yeah. Frankly, if anyone's actually, like, looked at chatchee, I once tried to use it for debate prep to be like, debate me on my ideas to see what my opponent would say. It's trash. It's like garbage at debate.

Bad mouth Banda says, did you see James O'Keefe put a video out undercover as a homeless man on Skid Row, catching petitioners paying homeless people for signatures and paying them to register to vote? Indeed, I did. And, uh, guys like I worked for uh do you know what the per groups are the group it's redundant it's the public interest research groups it's a series of nonprofits and they had me go out and do voter

registration and like literally i walked into people who are like i don't know and it's like well just sign up anyone like okay i guess like these people don't pay attention they don't care what's going on in the world i think that in order to vote you have to sign up for the selective service men and women alike then you get a voter ID card after you do and then you can vote as you see fit all right let's see Lechev says there's no mess exodus just a steady stream of the richest people leaving that means you're wrong because

I'm arguing a term you didn't say semantic BS and avoiding context on purpose uh oh YouTube Super Jets crashed YouTube always crashes I swear like YouTube's

YouTube's been shadow banning the show like everybody's complaining about it weird that there's a super chat bug with YouTube and it hasn't been fixed in three years. Is it because most shows don't get 50,500 super chats in a night? Is that why? Andrew, you're nodding. YouTube controls who is seen and who is not. A year ago, YouTube had us on the front page. This is crazy. Like, if you went to YouTube live, we were the default live show.

Someone clicked the button and then someone else got pissed and then drop the hammer on us. You guys got to understand. If you don't fix that bug, you're not going to eclipse the level that we're at. You need to, I don't know what the problem is. Fix it. It's been three years. Okay, I'm cool. All right. Let's grab, uh, let's grab some, uh, what we got here? Pariah says, press, I am here, as is Timcast tradition at 4.43 a.m. Pacific time on this day. Our son Kai was born. Congratulations. Good job, man. That's cute. Congratulations.

Way to push yourself out of that. This is a cute tradition. I like this. All right. I know it's just all over the place. Uh, as I said, federalist, says, listen, I never heard of this Ky La Hadi and left to watch the last YouTube I could find, Jesse Lee Peterson questioning her as the funniest thing you'll ever watch. I'm still laughing and choking. Cheers, fam. That was a very fun interview.

He's a funny guy, but he's unassumingly funny. We can't have him on. Does he travel? I think he said he wasn't traveling, but we should. Only the truth says the rich are leaving California because of a new proposed tax. Indeed, we saw the Starbucks guy leave, and Starbucks is relocating to Nashville. They're moving a good portion of their headquarters. And right around the time that they announced they're going to be putting an income tax on high income individuals.

I was going to tell you, I had in my just anecdotal, nine families from my area in Los Angeles moved to Texas, to the same area in Texas. So there is an exodus. I mean, you could say it's anecdotal or not, but that's nine families. I mean, like I said earlier, we were asked by a production company

if we'd consider being in New York, and we're like, no, 13.7% or whatever it is, because you've got city, state, and federal combined. I'd be paying like 60%. It's nuts. And for what? What would you get out of it? I don't know.

dude pushing someone onto the subway tracks and like dog crap on the sidewalks like i don't know if this would be our approach so i there there's a sweet spot here there has to be right taxes shouldn't your question to tax it should not what do i go out get out of it because part of the point of taxes is we all get something right the reality's like i'm willing to pay a certain amount of taxes so that if my employees have some sort of nightmare in the future they can claim unemployment and like have a life raft right There are like, there are good things that come out of taxation. But I disagree. I think this country would be way better if people were just voting based on self-interest.

Wait, that was my argument. I know. I'm glad you caught that. Yeah. Bugs Bunny. Sure. So the wealthy people should say, I am going to vote based on what benefits my life. They do.

The issue is that they're- And then they leave. Well, they do. It's just that they're always going to be outvoted by like common man interest, right? And so this is why I said there has to be a sweet spot, right? Tax the rich doesn't mean, I'm not for, I would never be for like a 90% tax on rich people. I think that that's silly.

I think it's a bad progressive talking point. But like land value tax, for example, is so much better than property tax. It's genius. How's it work? Okay. So property taxes basically disincentivize you from developing property, right? Because if your property gets better, they charge you more despite you contributing to society. Land value says you can develop up as much as you want.

But if that piece of land, say you have 40 acres and it's in downtown L.A., you're going to pay out your ass because it's, high prime land and you have a lot of it. Whereas if you have 40 acres in bum fuck nowhere, you're going to get taxed almost nothing. So you're saying like the government should appropriate people's property? No, it's very much the opposite. It's saying we decide how much value a piece of land is worth based on its location, based on the size of plot and you get taxed on that instead of property. The problem is inflation because if you double, let me let me finish the person. So are you familiar with like how property breaks apart and how value taxes are

our government appropriation. So I'll just, I'll just explain it. So you have 50 acres in 1800 and you're in an empty area that no one really cares about. Yeah. You do a little bit of farming there, but 50 acres isn't really enough to do any kind of substantial farming.

And it's a relatively small plot for back in the day. You build a house, you die, your kids get it. 1900s come around, and there's some development around your 50 acre plot of land. And so the value has more worth now because of the existing businesses. So what used to be just kind of wilderness trash, no actually is reasonably valuable for anybody who wants to develop but for the most part they don't think

about it however property taxes uh for your property so let's do it all based on uh just modern property values so you have a property that's worth a hundred thousand dollars and you got to pay a property tax about two grand per year and you make that money from your job or whatever it is you do and then you pay those taxes you give the property to your children they inherit it but now because there's some development around which you can't control the property is worth 300,000 you got to pay 6,000 thousand dollars this year well you're the people your kids who inherited are just working the same farm they always did they're not making six thousand dollars the farm generates just enough to get by so what do they do they parcel a piece of of that land they they carve it off and they sell it off after 75 years

the land is now 50 different single acre parcels owned by a random spattering of people or the worst part is they can't afford the taxes so the government seizes the property and then appropriates it sure but in the case of property tax now we have a different incentive structure where they sit on their land and they let it get increasingly dilapidated over time because if they improve it, if they put a new warehouse, I'll get reassessed. But your argument of a land value tax functions the exact same way, slightly differently. Slightly different way in a way that essentially I'm saying, I have preference for it. Like you can be opposed to land value tax, but I think it's a better tax. If you have 50 acres and we say we're not taxing the development, so we're not going to consider

the structures as per the value of that land, right? Right. It's, yeah, it's going to be like spaces and Then I build a like aluminum plant, which brings 500 jobs and people start developing around my acreage. They set up a coffee shop. They set up a bank. Neither that makes of a small town from this refinery. That refinery in development did increase the value of the land it sits on. It won't be the same because the refinery is going to be worth tens of millions of dollars, but that land will go from 400,000 to 4 million overnight.

Yeah. And then it'll be more likely to be built into like a city later on. I think that this. So again, your argument has to against this. has to be all taxes are bad, right? And I'm not for that argument. No, it's that value taxes are bad. Like a wealth tax or a property tax or a land value tax or like paying taxes on the on the value of your car. How do you tax land then? How do you tax property? You don't. So just no taxes? You can pay sales tax. You can pay income tax. But the point is so just never move.

What does that mean never move? Well, your incentive in that place if all we tax is like sales, for example, then everyone is going to be incentivized to just keep property in the land. We're going to have extremely low mobility. Is your argument that we should create a system by which people can lose their land of the government to incentivize them to do something? Well, it's not losing. They're choosing to sell it off. Oh, right. The government put a gun to your head and said, do it or go to jail so they sell their property. No, they're not forcing it.

You don't pay your taxes? I think eventually, but like very rarely. It's very rarely that like in cases where people refuse to take. Will they seize your property if you don't pay taxes? up to a certain point. They won't take like your first home or your house. So when you tax someone's property and they've inherited the land, I can't tell you, I bought a piece of land that was for pennies in the dollar.

It was inherited by the family that owned it. And they were like, we don't make money that can afford the taxes on this place. Sure, but I'm in favor of some taxes, right? I'm obviously in favor of taxes. I know, but when you tax someone's land, you're basically saying there will be no generational wealth. Well, arguably, what you're saying is that while generational wealth will be maintained, but there will be no housing development ever at any time, Because if you sell things off, you lose money.

Yeah, because if you are the person. You were arguing that. No, I'm not saying that. If housing development emerges around dead acreage, that acreage becomes worth more money. So if you only get taxed on what you sell, which is your model, then you're never incentivized to ever sell, right? You are. Why would you ever sell if that's the time you're going to get taxed on it?

Well, if someone inherits a piece of property and says, I don't want to live in West Virginia, so they sell it. Why don't you just rent it? And they retain the, you certainly could. But that's what most people would probably do is we would end up in major land. I'm going to say this. I don't think you have any experience with rental markets or how that system works because most people don't want to do it. I have a decent amount and I understand that a lot of people. You run rental properties? No, one of my close family friends does. It's miserable. And everyone's

advocating against it. You've got Mikey Taylor. Shout out to Mikey Taylor, who's a real estate developer saying you don't want to own, you don't want to rent. You want to be a renter. Sort of. Real estate is also like one of the largest contributors to American GDP. So we are definitely renting and there is definitely incentive to own congregations. What I'm saying is that we have two different tax systems. I'm taxing either way. I think my system works and I'm fine with people selling off their property

because suddenly grandpa's property from 300 years ago is worth $17 million and then they can go buy a farm and probably buy six times the land. Yes, I think that that's a better system although yeah, not everyone's going to be in favor for it. The government forcing them to force. It's not force. It is forced.

How is it not force? It's not forcing because you could choose to default on your loans right and then they'll seize your land because if there's inflation you're saying the government's forcing you to never move what do you mean they're forcing never you choose it to move if you want to move if you don't you choose to sell if you don't want to sell if the government tells you pay this bill or we will take your land from you if the government says if you sell this thing we will take a bunch of your money that's force that's sales tax mine's property tax and you can still sell a property and retain the majority of the value have on it without ever having to parcel it away so yes

you can literally say i don't want to sell my land and keep it and if you decide to sell it to move on then you pay a tax. Fine. So nobody will ever sell. No, some people will. Very rarely. But most people won't. They'll retain the value. You're right. Most people won't become rentals. Won't turn into rentals. And most people who inherit property from their, from their parents, sell it because they don't want to live in those areas. So here's the issue. I'm not a libertarian. Yes, I think the government is allowed to do some level of coercion. And I think, while you might not like this, I think my idea of land value tax is a better tax system than property taxes. But yes, I do want taxation on land to some degree. I think it's a valuable. thing for municipalities and state.

We're going to go to the Rumble uncenship portion of the show over at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL. Matthew, do want to shout anything out? Just Matthew D. Marsden on YouTube and on all the socials, yeah. Right on. Not so erudite everywhere. You could do like, oh, I'm eating

Crossland if you need it. If you didn't know, you tax their property, but if they rent out their property, you stop taxing them while they're renting. As long as they're a renter. But anyway, I was going to shove that in during the show. I didn't have a chance because it was so good. catch us on Rumble. See you there. Carter.

Carter Banks. Damn, looking forward to the after show. Let's get into it. I guess we're technically still on the show. We'll see you guys at Rumble.com slash Timcast, IR. And it'll be the same conversation, but with swear words.

Thanks for hanging out.